Luke A. Holzmann

Free Film School

2011-10-28T12:47:00.000-07:00

Learn how to make movies.

I haven't been on this blog much because I've been working on my Filmmaking 101 course. It's a 36 week introduction to movie making. The first ten weeks are up and running, and I'm working on getting the rest done.

But I have a problem: I don't know who wants to learn how to make movies. So, I'm passing this on to you to pass on to anyone you know who wants to learn how to shoot videos. If you have an aspiring filmmaking--or are one yourself--please check out my free film school and tell others as well.

Thanks!

~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Empty Nester

Love and Reconciliation

2011-05-08T06:21:00.000-07:00

"I had just gone through a really bad breakup." Her smile--which always lights up a room--carried a heart-wrenching pain. "He started making snide comments and I told him I just couldn't handle that right then. He blew up and said, 'No man is ever going to put up with your BS!'"

A moment.

She lifted her eyes. "So, yeah. It's hard to pretend that everything's okay right now."

This is a story of forgiveness. This is a story that hasn't ended yet. For now, this girl can forgive the man. Indeed, she must. Carrying bitterness destroys the soul. Thankfully, we--by God's grace--have been given the ability to forgive those who wrong us. Not because it restores the relationship between us and them, but because it allows us to be free of the bondage of being wronged.

"Has he ever admitted he was wrong? Has he apologized?"

"No. Never."

But forgiveness is not reconciliation. If a company purposefully cheats you, you can decide it's not worth suing them. You can decide to let that go. You can move on with your life. But you wouldn't use that company again. The cheating company would need to apologize, admit their mistake, make a policy change and work to make restitution. Forgiveness is one thing. Repairing a relationship is another.

Today the world is abuzz with talk of Universalism and the idea that a loving God wouldn't send people to Hell. Christ's shed Blood covers the sin of all mankind. God is love and God ultimately wins.

But like the scene in Bruce Almighty where Jim Carrey tries to command his girlfriend to love him, I'm not sure even God has the ability to make us love Him. He can absolutely forgive us; indeed, He has. He can even pay for the wrong we've done. He's done that too. But relationships are two-way. Reconciliation requires repentance at some level.

This is why, no matter how much she longs to be reconnected with her father, my friend is separated from him until he asks for forgiveness. And this is why salvation through the grace of God is such a beautifully simple, yet brutally severe transformation: It requires us to admit we were wrong. It requires us to drop our pride. It requires us to accept the forgiveness already offered us.

When a man can't allow himself to make right the relationship with his daughter, it's little wonder we can't bring ourselves to the grace of God. We can bide our time and try to sweep things under the rug of our relationship. But all the forgiveness in the world won't make us friends again. That requires us to accept the forgiveness given.

"But I do accept her forgiveness," this man may say. "That's why I'm trying to move on."

You can't do that. You can't skip the important step of repentance, of apologizing with an aim to be better. Until you do that, you've merely accepted civility and tolerance. Grace and forgiveness say, "You have wronged me, but I will still accept you as a friend." To respond and say, "I'm glad we can still be around one another," ignores the first part. We must bring ourselves to say, "Thank you so much for being my friend. I am so sorry I have wronged you."

That is accepting love in a way that brings reconciliation.

The difference between the two responses to love is painfully clear. A girl, who loves her father, quietly mourns that divide.

~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Empty Nester

Ken Ham's Math Problems Solved!

2010-08-19T20:01:00.000-07:00

It appears that my confusion in Part I has to do with Mr. Ham's poor wording--and/or my inability to read properly--and not his math:

5% of those who are now 20-29 and at one point in life attended church regularly, stopped doing so before elementary/middle school. (Hence Ham's stated 95%)

40% of those who are now 20-29 and at one point in life attended church regularly, stopped doing so before high school. (Hence Ham's 55%... 100% - [5% + 40%])

Since 11% of those who are now 20-29 and at one point in life attended church regularly but now longer do so, were still attending church regularly during college. This complete shift in focus totally threw me for a loop. But, 55% - 11% = 44%, so 44% of those who are 20-29 and no longer attend church regularly, stopped before college.

Thus, based on Ham's wording, we must assume that this last 11% left during or sometime after college.

So, despite being incredibly unclear in my mind, his math does check out.

In Part 2, it turns out that I was the one who made the serious error. I rightly assumed that they should have been percentages, but my mistake was to assume that these two percentages from mutually-exclusive groups necessitated that adding them together should come to 100%. This was not the case. Rather, 34.3% of Group A agreed, 69.7% of Group B also agreed, 28.9% of Group C... and so on.

Thank you all for helping me figure this out! As frustrating as it is for me to learn that my math skillz truly are completely dull, I am happy to know that the numbers--when untangled from what I perceive as poor wording--do come out correctly.

As for Ham's conclusions, assumptions and ideas... well... I'll get to that at some point.

I am happy to report that the last chapter contained no math which confused me. ...mostly, I'm sure, because the last chapter had no math whatsoever. Had I been confused then, well, more than just my math skillz would be missing...

<smile>

Thank you, again, to those who set me straight. I appreciate you taking the time to correct my thinking.

~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father

Confused by Ken Ham Math 2

2010-08-17T21:33:00.000-07:00

Let's say I have a sample size of 1,000 individuals. These individuals can easily be sorted into various groups. So, I ask them a question, say, "Do you understand how to label your values?"

This is how many people answered yes:

Those who passed Algebra with an A - 34.3
Those who failed - 69.7

Those who plan to retake Algebra - 28.9
Those who will never touch a math text again - 78.3

...I decided to do a little simple addition:
34.3 + 69.7 = 104.0
28.9 + 78.3 = 107.2

So, I ask you--since Ken Ham and his number crunching buddy and his editor couldn't be bothered to check his numbers or give me a label of what kind of number I'm looking at--what does it mean that 107.2 of my 1,000 said yes?

~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father

Confused by Ken Ham Math

2010-08-16T20:06:00.000-07:00

Help me out, friends! I used to be good at math, but I've since lost all of my skillz. Let's say I give you this:

Of all the 20 to 29-year-old people who were virgins but no longer are so:

95% were virgins during elementary and middle school years
55% were virgins during high school
11% were still virgins during college

I would be horribly mistaken to say that "11 percent of those who lost their virginity did so during their college years." I would also be completely misreading my data to say, "Almost 90 percent of them lost their virginity in middle school and high school. By the time they got to college their virginity was already gone!" Further, I'd be remiss to state that "about 40 percent are losing their virginity during their elementary and middle school years!"

Why?

Reasoning (equations I'm using in my head):

100% of all virgins
-95% virgins during elementary and middle school
----
5% lost during that time period

95% virgin prior to high school
-55% virgin during high school
----
40% lost during that time period

55% virgin prior to college
-11% virgin during college
----
44% lost during that time period

Right?

So... can someone please explain what Ken Ham is doing on page 31 of "Already Gone"?

~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father

Brown Paper Bag Floor

2010-07-08T16:34:00.000-07:00

I recently mentioned on my SonlightBlog that we have a brown paper bag floor. Curious, some of you asked for more information. For those of you not interested in learning more about how to create a brown paper bag floor for your home, move along. There is plenty of more interesting stuff on the internet.

So, what is a brown paper bag floor?

A. An inexpensive and yet good looking floor covering alternative you can do on your own.

Good looking? See for yourself:

Brown Paper Bag Floor in Our Home Office

Close Up on the Paper Floor

What you need:

A floor (preferably ugly wood or concrete)
Paper (preferably brown, like contractor's or kraft paper, though you can use packing paper or grocery bags without printing on them)
Glue (cheap white glue, purchasable by the gallon)
Polyurethane (water-based, low odor worked best for me)
Brushes
Rags
...assorted other stuff

What you do:
Tear the paper into irregular medium sized pieces (approximately 8"). Crumple and then flatten to create a texture. I suggest you do this before hand as it makes gluing faster.

Clean the floor you're going to cover. Spread some glue and stick your paper pieces down. Slightly overlap your pieces, but try to avoid glue on the top of the paper as this stains darker.

Let dry.

Apply a coat of polyurethane and let dry. Ventilation is preferable during this step. Hanging a sheet to close off the room can work if you were to, hypothetically, attempt to do this in the middle of winter. Repeat this step 5-6 times.

Admire your work. Allow time to set.

Easily repaired with a little glue, a piece of paper and more poly.

~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Empty Nester

The Cost of Christianity: Forgiveness

2010-01-05T19:33:00.000-08:00

In church you hear one message: Turn to Jesus as your savior because He makes everything better. Sure, life still has it's ups and downs. But wouldn't you rather have God on your side through that?

Faith in Jesus saves. No more need for thought. You want saving, don't you?

If you answer, "Not yet," then we adjourn until next week. If you answer, "Yes," then we say the prayer. You can come back next week where you'll again hear the wonders of walking with Christ.

At the moment, I'm sick of it. I'm done. Count me out of such pathetic religious babble. I've had enough.

Becoming Christ-like is nothing like that.

So what is the cost of following Christ? I've heard of things like giving up porn, abandoning alcohol, reducing your rage, and surrendering your ambitions. And I'm sure there is a part of this that includes all of that. But that's not where I am at the moment. No, tonight I'm a lot more basic than that. I'm near square one: Forgiveness.

"Will you forgive me?" she asks, not daring to come closer.

"I don't know," I spit. "That's asking a lot of me."

"I know," she breathes.

I stew. The pain, the anger, the frustration. It's all there, very real. I want to hate her. I want to be furious. I want to feel this way forever because... because I have the right to. It may be petty, but it's real. Very real. "I have to eat this if I forgive you."

"It sounds very bitter."

"It is."

"I don't want it to choke you. Is there a way that it doesn't have to choke you or be bitter?" She really wants to know. It would hurt her too much if it choked me. And she can't bear more bitterness.

Bible truths start nudging my brain. These aren't lessons you learn in Sunday School. These aren't messages you hear from the pulpit. You've heard about your need for forgiveness. You've been told over and over again that you forgive because of how much you have been forgiven. You can even remember a time when someone told you that your ability to forgive rests on God's ability to take care of you and take that burden from you.

But I want to hold this burden. I want to choke on the bitterness of forgiveness. I want to be crushed under the weight of the wrong done to me. I don't want it to go away. I certainly don't want it replaced with something like intimacy and fondness. Even the thought of those words makes me want to spit.

And this, I realize as I stew silently, is why there is no transforming power of Christ in my life. This--and other things like it--are what make Christianity so impotent in my life. This is why I see no power, no heart change, no awesomeness in following Christ. This is why Christianity is simply so hard for me to share: Because it costs so stinkin' much! And if I'm not willing to make the payments, I'm certainly not going to ask someone else to do the same.

"I forgive you," I grumble. I'm a man of my word, and if I'm going to follow, I'm going to follow... even if it's terrible. Even if it costs too much. Even if it isn't worth it.

I cling to the burden a moment more, feeling Christ gently prying it from my hands. I scream, 'I don't want to let You have this!' I curse at my Savior. I swear at the One who forgave me. I scream profanity in the face of Him who promises to repay whatever I'm going to lose in this exchange of forgiving.

I'm feeling the cost.

It hurts. This is faith in action, and it hurts.

I let go.

The world, sadly, doesn't crumble. My wife slides closer and puts her arms around me. Life can go on. I've exchanged my pain, anger and frustration for forgiveness. Christ's blood has covered the difference. I paid the price of following Christ and He paid me back with more. Much more.

But it wasn't fun. It wasn't nice. It was worse than paying a needless bank fine. It was awful. Horrible. Terrible.

But here I am, a couple hours later, writing about it. And not in a vehement, vengeful, violent way. I'm okay. I'm okay in way that I wouldn't have been years ago before God started working this forgiveness thing with me.

...

A few months ago I almost wrote a piece about the ineffective nature of Christianity. I was going to argue, and argue well, that if we could just grasp one simple concept, we would be perfect. It was this easy:

Realize that, no matter what, you'll be okay. Even if you're not okay, you'll be dead and, therefore, okay. So just let everything roll off you.

If we could do that, I'm convinced, we'd be fine. Wars would end. Hatred and rage would cease. Generosity would flow. The world would experience harmony and love the likes of which has not been seen since the Fall.

...but I realized something tonight: That can't happen. When we let things "roll off" we forgive. We take that burden. We eat that cost. And it is heavy. It is bitter. And if we have no place to put it, nothing to pay us back, then we just carry it ourselves and become overwhelmed.

This is why Christianity is so powerful: We have a God who offers to carry those burdens, to replace the bitter drink with a cup full of good things... like intimacy and fondness.

The cost of following Christ is great. But the payoff is worth so much more.

And I think I may just be beginning to understand these things...

~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father

A Man Can Do Nothing Better

2009-11-21T18:18:00.000-08:00

...than to eat and drink and find satisfaction in his work. ~Ecclesiasties 2:24

People have asked me recently how it's going with the two girls. My response has been fairly consistent.

"I'm not having fun."

Don't get me wrong: We're doing quite well. The girls seem to have adjusted marvelously. We've got a solid routine. They eat well. They sleep well (well, naps are different, but bedtime is fine). They've got their "please" and "thank yous" down. They love the park. The love playing with blocks. They get along. They're both coming along with potty training. All good things.

But me... I've rediscovered just how much I don't find joy in children. Not that I don't like kids. I do. But my mom said it best: "Luke likes it when kids come to him on his terms." And once you're watching kids, you have to meet them where they are. As Brittany's mom said: "You have to play with them at their level."

So, again: "I'm not enjoying it."

Brittany asks me, "Weren't you having fun?" after we've been roughhousing or building with blocks while giggles filled the house.

"It wasn't torture," I tell her.

But then I recall a conversation I had with my older sister a few years ago. I'm not sure how the topic came up, but she put the question to me, "So, Luke, what do you do for fun?"

"Fun? Umm... I write. ...I like movies. ...I... I guess I don't have fun." Never before had that thought crossed my mind. My natural exuberance about life masks this general apathy when it comes to my personal experience.

Those ideas collided today.

Kids is one of the few areas of life that people ask about our enjoyment. Granted, we ask about other elements here and there--did you like dinner? did you have fun on that ride? how was the movie? But those are events, not phases. College and work are probably the two closest proximities. But our enjoyment of these has much more to do with the environment and tasks we preform. Kids seems to question your humanity by your connection with the munchkins.

Perhaps my answer is biased by the simple fact that I just don't have fun much.

If that is the case, I take comfort in "the teacher" who suggested that I can do no better than enjoy ice cream, bed time, and what I do.

And I do.

~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Surrogate Father

Evolution vs. Creationism - Part9

2009-09-12T16:25:00.000-07:00

[Long posts scare me. Read time: 5.25min]

I have to return this book tomorrow, so I'm going to whip through the rest of it very quickly.

In Chapter 4, Scott presents a very interesting overview of the scientific community prior to the 20th century. Covering a wide range of people from Plato to Pope Pius XII, Scott points out some of the difficulties that Darwin's ideas faced. For instance, the idea that the world was stable and mostly unchanging [74]. She points out that many discoveries, however, challenged this view. For instance, discovery of the Americas lead to major rethinking of theological as well as scientific assumptions [76]. The scientific community of the mid-nineteenth century considered science to lead to "positive finality. Anything less than certitude was deficient." [80] Darwin's ideas were thus sometimes rejected as not rigorous enough and mere speculation... even though his methodology has since become the standard of science [81]. Scott also claims that Christians reject evolution because of a belief in Special Creation [81] or a need for a Design and Purpose [82].

Scott then discusses some of the political/religious reasons why Americans tended to reject Darwin's ideas despite the fact that, "[by the] mid-twentieth century in Great Britain, Europe, and North America, the scientific community no longer questioned whether evolution occurred." [86]

Scott appears to all but bemoan the lack of centralized education as the reason Americans still don't teach evolution in class [87-88] but then agree with the ACLU that teachers should be given free speech when it comes to teaching evolution [94]. Thus, as long as the educators teach what she likes, she seems willing to flip sides. This is not uncommon for us humans, but an editor should have pointed this out to her.

Chapter 5 covers the "invention" of Creation Science. Scott cites the uneasiness of Fundamentalist parents as more and more students attended high school in early 1900s. [91] My Alma Mater is credited as laying the foundation for Fundamentalism [92] and evolution is rejected for it's incorrect association with German ideals and the robber barons [93]. Scott then talks about the "three-ring circus" of the Scopes trial [93-96] which did little for either side of the controversy [97].

It was Sputnik, Scott claims, that pushed our government to promote science in the classroom... and science was evolution. This lead to a major resurgence of evolution in high schools which had all but disappeared in the years after Scopes [98]. The rest of the chapter is a brief look at the legal history of Creation Science in the courts with a culmination of the Lemon test and other rejections of religion in the classroom.

Most of chapter 6 is dedicated to taking down Intelligent Design. Scott criticizes irreducible complexity by pointing to Behe's mouse trap and the scientists who have made less complex versions [117-118]. Of course, she never cites any of these or gives an example, so these "less complex" options may not actually detract from Behe at all.

Scott next points out that Behe misrepresents the process of evolution. Rather than building piece by piece "like stringing beads", natural selection can build useful, less complex pieces that could form together to make an ultimately irreducibly complex feature [118]. Again, she offers no hint as to how these could, via mutation, combine. She also mentions the "scaffolding" idea: Masons build irreducibly complex arches by supporting the arch with scaffolding before placing the capstone. "The now superfluous components can be removed by natural selection," Scott points out [119]. And while she goes on to criticize Behe's "God of the gaps" argument [119], I don't feel that it is fair to say that her view of evolution is scientifically backed with the gaping holes in her own thinking.

It's true: Science may "come up with an additional mechanism" that fills in these gaps [119], but to put such faith in a current idea that has no cited basis in reality feels far-fetched to me. This is especially poignant when Scott later strips away the "dichotomy between 'natural' and 'intelligent' ...because some of the agents on the 'intelligent' side are actually 'natural'" including "extraterrestrials (if such beings exist)" [122]. Which reminds me of a lesson at Biola: If God exists, then we add nothing outside of reality to support our beliefs. Thus, arguably, the most natural force in the universe is God.

Scott makes an excellent observation, however:

Enamored of an ideological, political, or social goal, it is all too easy to misrepresent or ignore empirical data when they do not support the goal; certainly Creation Science is infamous for doing so. [126]

As is, it seems, the education community as well.

Scott next complains that "Intelligent Design proponents ... exploit public confusion about 'Darwinism' to promote doubt about evolution." [127] I'm convinced that if people like Scott actually defined "evolution" and stuck with the definition, IDers wouldn't be able to so easily sway people. Unfortunately for her, Scott seems unable to keep her own theories straight in her writing and has all but confused me more than once. It is little wonder there is confusion in the general public.

In the last few pages of her own writing in this book, Scott finally mentions the reasons I've always been less than convinced of evolution: The evidence against it. Yet Scott seems unwilling to accept that "evidence against evolution exists" [129]. Why? She doesn't say. But she does say, "Presenting evidence against evolution per se is only bad science" [130]. Ironic, since she's spent the rest of her work promoting the wonders of science's corrective measures when faced with evidence.

She concludes her words with a reminder that while evolution is a theory, it is not "just" a theory because theories are "the best [explanations in science]" [130].

I stopped reading on page 135 when Scott mentioned, "I do not present evidence for evolution" because it is the consensus of the scientific community and you'd need to read scientists or take college classes. This, after the opening when she criticizes IDers for not letting her reproduce their writings because their articles would not do their theory justice. [xviii]

So, now again, half way through a book on evolution, I learn that there is none to be found here. Despite my clear request for a book with the evidence.

Final thoughts on this challenge to come...

~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father

Evolution vs. Creationism - Part8

2009-09-08T18:34:00.000-07:00

[Long posts scare me. Read time: 3.5min]

Scott spends pages 54-56 talking through the symbolism found in Genesis. My dad has blogged about this before, and there are interesting things to consider in all that.

But then Scott presents us with two huge straw men which she burns in passing. In describing a continuum of Biblical literalists to philosophical naturalists she also tacks on creationists to evolutionists. But wait, there's more! Her first two examples of "creationists" are... flat earthers and geocentrists.

Got that?

She's got two beliefs that are utterly separate from creation as examples of the foolishness of creationism. Granted, they are both part of a literalist continuum of Scripture, but it is completely wrong to include them in a creation/evolution scale.

Somehow she also wants us to equate Young Earthism with Flat Earthism as well. [57]

Now she begins an overview of the various segments of her supposed continuum. A few points worth mentioning:

"The basic body plans of major phyla that appear in the 'Cambrian Explosion' are seen by most [Young Earth Creationists] as evidence of Special Creation." [60] No footnote for further study. No mention of how she got to this idea. No hint as to where we can go to find out why the "Cambrian Explosion" is (or is not) evidence for creation. Nothing. In typical fashion for this work. I'm appalled that the "Internet Bookwatch" would say, on the back of this book, that Scott adheres "to the highest standards of academic research"... when she references nothing of importance. Ever.

Similarly, she states, "In proportion to the mission activity, little scientific research is performed by [Institute for Creation Research] faculty." [61] That doesn't surprise me much. I have no trouble believing it's true. But if you're going to make such a statement, giving some hint as to where she got that idea is essential to prove she isn't just a windbag.

I do appreciate her inclusion of this quote from Matt Cartmill:

Many scientists are atheists or agnostics who want to believe that the natural world they study is all there is, and being only human, they try to persuade themselves that science gives them grounds for that belief. It's an honorable belief, but it isn't a research finding [67].

Scott concludes the chapter by stating,

both supporters and deniers of evolution argue erroneously that because science utilizes methodological naturalism (and quite successfully), science therefore also incorporates philosophical naturalism. Unfortunately, such a confusion makes communication about science and religion, or creationism and evolution, more difficult. [68]

And I would agree.

Of course, arguing from erroneous couplings and citing no evidence also makes discussion more difficult as well.

~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father

Evolution vs. Creationism - Part7

2009-09-07T07:02:00.000-07:00

[Long posts scare me. Read time: 3.5min]

Eugenie Scott now turns her attention to "Beliefs: Relgion, Creationism, and Naturalism" where she reminds us again that the natural world is not all that people think about; there are parts of reality that science can't examine. [47] This is, perhaps, "the most important reason scientists restrict themselves to materialistic explanations" [50].

She begins by stating that all religions seem to have "a belief in something beyond the material world, an Ultimate or Absolute or transcendent reality" [47]. And the ethical systems of human societies are "usually, though not universally ... strongly influenced by religion" [48].

Two thoughts:

Non- or irreligious people do have a code of ethics. In fact, they are often easily perceived as more ethical than their religiously motivated, intolerant neighbors who are steeped in the blood of religious history. A closer inspection of this perception would, I believe, be very beneficial to everyone; unfortunately, that is far beyond the scope of this post.
While I think it is perfectly fair for Scott to say that ethical systems are "strongly influenced" by religion, I think it is also essential that we recognize that often societal ills are perpetrated by those who are acting outside of their religious code. For example: Pornography use is rampant within the Christian church, but that is outside of the Christian ethic. I think there are fascinating implications to this reality, but--again--that is beyond this post.

Scott next points out that religion often asks the question of motivation: What is the motivation behind a natural disaster? Were the gods angry? These kinds of questions show a "blended" spiritual and natural worldview [49].

But just because we in the Western world accept a natural explanation for a "natural disaster" that does not mean that God was not involved... merely that He can use the natural world. Though, remember, the Bible does seem to show a certain impartiality to the righteous and the unrighteous.

Scott then quotes St. Augustine who makes a good case for not relying on the Bible to inform our views of natural world: If the Christian maintains "foolish opinions about the [natural world based on Scripture], how then are [others] going to believe those Scriptures in matters concerning the resurrection ... and the kingdom of heaven?" And much like Newton, it is wise to take on a natural philosophy and look for laws within nature. [49]

Yet it is entirely possible to stick with a "methodological naturalism" as opposed to a "philosophical naturalism" [50]. Scientists who are Christian often hold to the former, but there are those who go to the latter extreme and thus reject anything beyond the physical world.

Scott then mentions much of what I wrote in Part 2 stating that, "The Catholic Church rejected [geocentrism] partly on scientific grounds" but also because of their interpretation of Scripture [51]. I would also remind us to think of the political motivations as well.

"It is important to define terms and use them consistently," Scott tells us. [51] Too bad she has so infrequently taken her own advice thus far.

She then talks about "Origin Myths" which "are 'true' even if they are fantastic and deal with impossible events [because they] encapsulate important cultural truths" [52]. And I think that is fair; CS Lewis (or, perhaps, Tolkien?) called Christianity the one true myth. Too bad she does not include her own origin myth on page 27 in this mix.

I'll pause here and let you take a break. We'll continue this chapter in the next post.

~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father

Evolution vs. Creationism - Part6

2009-08-27T19:34:00.000-07:00

[Long posts scare me. Read time: 6min]

Scott tells us: Darwinism is natural selection, not evolution. Again: There is a difference between the phenomenon and the mechanism that makes it happen. In short, if we take "repeated iterations of randomly generated solutions, combined with selection of the characteristics that meet the necessary criteria, [we'll get] a series of solutions that more closely approximate a good solution" [34].

In other words: The key difference between natural selection and Perry Marshal's Random Mutation Generator is that Perry's lacks the part that selects only the mutations that make up proper words... or, at least, recognizable approximations like kthxbai.

Conclusion: Natural selection works with already operating systems where at least a part of the population can function in a different situation. Hang onto that idea because it is, I think, the crux of the failure of this chapter--and probably, this book (if not the entire "theory" in question here).

Scott continues: Thus, natural selection is genetic differences within a population that leads to those who are better suited for the environment to naturally reproduce more than the others. [35] Natural selection is not based on chance, but rather luck. Those who are "lucky" enough to have the genes for a situation procreate. Nothing "chance" about it. [36]

I think it's rather lame to replace "chance" with "luck" ...but whatever. It's her book. Though, I was struck by how closely this kind of verbal quibbling resembles the tension between freewill and predestination.

Scott: Natural selection is survival of the fit enough. "The process of natural selection works more like a tinkerer than an engineer" much like building guitars out of toilet seats and strings... using what you have rather than designing it from the ground up. [37]

I think what Scott is secretly referring to is the flawed nature of the world. It's almost as if she is unconsciously saying, "It's far too messy to be designed by anything like that Christian God." But she doesn't say it. She merely makes these rather odd statements and drifts on.

I am very glad Scott includes this definition: Speciation happens when a population becomes reproductively isolated from the others of its kind. [42 emphasis hers]

I've long known of the struggle to define the term species. And Scott's definition does little to clear things up. For this definition could include speciation if a human population was put on one side of a wall and the rest of us kept on the other side. Granted, she is right in that we will likely see a shift in the evolution of these two groups. But a new species of human? The definition is shaky, but I'll go with it (because at least she's defining something).

But in the end, after having said little more than what is paraphrased above, Scott wants us to know one very important thing: Man is not descended from monkeys. Far from it! No, man is merely related to monkeys via a common ancestor.

So, I am not a descendant of my Uncle Earl. That would be preposterous! But Earl and I are both descendants of my Great Grandpappy Joe.

And that makes it all better.

Only those with with *no* understanding of human relations would believe that "I came from my Uncle Earl."

I had a biology teacher who said that his biggest peeve was that people said humans were descended from apes. Somehow this was huge for him (and others) because we are not descended from them, but rather descended like them from a common earlier thing. I'm still not sure why that bugged him so much. If someone learning English misapplied the idea of the word Uncle to mean Predecessor instead of Relative, I wouldn't get bent out of shape. I may politely correct this minor slip, but my foreign friend would still get the gist of what was happening.

Which has lead me to the following observations:

Scott (and many others) get all bent out of shape with a few specific definitions, and yet fail to clearly define most everything else in their discussion.
It seems that "common ancestor" is the "right" answer simply because it's nebulous whereas apes are concrete. I have yet to hear an explanation of any kind from anyone as to why this distinction is so important.
Scott quoted no science--as she defined it in the previous chapter--that indicates any kind of macro evolution. None.
Instead, she gave very nice details about how rabbits have adapted, birds have diversified, and fish have splintered in various species.
Thus, in a chapter dedicated to evolution, Scott presented absolutely no scientific data--which is explained in detail the chapter before--that points to macro evolution.
Therefore, Scott has shown that evolution only works in the horizontal way with organisms already in place that come pre-built with the ability to adjust.

Therefore, what I understand to be the case still holds true: Change does happen within things via natural selection and genetic mutations. But no data has yet to arise that scientifically demonstrates vertical progression between the species.

None.

And this is the book written by the "Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education, the leading advocacy group for the teaching of evolution in the United States." [273] If she can't come up with any data or information, it is little wonder people still seriously question the scientific backing of this idea.

~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father

[Added 8/28/09: Humans are from apes after all. Greg does want us to remember, however, that there's no such thing as "human exceptionalism"...]

Evolution vs. Creationism - Part5

2009-08-26T19:08:00.000-07:00

[Long posts scare me. Read time: 2.5min]

Scott starts out her chapter on evolution proper with a red herring. And a very big and very red one at that. After stating that "most people" define evolution as "man evolved from monkeys" she goes on to point out that "surely no one believes that only males evolved" [23].

Surely.

Her definition of evolution is "a cumulative change through time" [23]. And this change is seen in astronomy, geology as well as biology. But focusing solidly on the evolution that is really in question requires the definition of living things sharing common ancestors leading directly to decent with modification; the leading mechanism of this is natural selection.

Scott then drifts into abiogenesis after mentioning the big bang. She actually quotes the Miller-Urey experiment [24]. This is utterly ridiculous considering I, as a high school student, wrote a paper that exposed the gaping hole of chirality in this experiment. I find it completely dishonest to continue to present this data as anything other than a nifty idea that failed. And as a scientist--as she talked in great length last chapter--she should have moved on.

But she doesn't. Over the next few pages she tries to impress us with her use of vocabulary and ultimately tells us that we just don't know that much about the origin of life. But! "Once life evolved, biological evolution become possible. ...Life had to precede evolution!" [27]

Clear?

Life evolves. Then evolution can start.

<nods emphatically> See!?!

...I would appreciate it if she would actually stick with definitions. I hear that's important when you're building a case.

But for now, Scott wants us to remember that the "distinction between the patterns of evolution and the processes of evolution" is important because of criticisms of evolution we will address later [27].

Clarity.

It's lacking.

Scott now gives us a brief history of time:
Deep time: A long period--so long it's hard to get your mind around it. Thus something magical happened.
...and then cells, invertebrates... wait:

"[D]evelopmental biologists [are astounded to discover] that very small changes in genes affecting early, basic structural development can cause major changes in body plans" [30]. Actually, small changes in genes can really mess all of us up. Though, to be fair, it is interesting that such little changes can massively affect the outcome.

More gibberish about how things may or may not have changed. And then: The four basic principles of biological evolution are "natural selection, adaptation, adaptive radiation, and speciation." [33]

Which we'll delve into more in the near future.

~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father

Evolution vs. Creationism - Part4

2009-08-24T18:41:00.000-07:00

[Long posts scare me. Read time: 4min]

We live in a universe made up of matter and energy, a material universe. [M]ost individuals believe that the universe includes something in addition to matter and energy, but science is limited to the latter two. [pg 3]

I am so thankful that Scott started out her book with this acknowledgment. Science does not address everything, nor can it. But, for the material universe, it is well suited for the task.

Why?

Because, Scott gladly tells us, science relies on the natural world "as the arbiter of truth." [3] Unlike, say, Authority, which could be misinformed or lying; Revelation, which relies on supernatural powers with which at least someone disagrees (e.g. Greek gods, Muhammad, Mormons, Catholics can't agree on what is right); Logic, which requires that we properly understand the "real world" before it is of any practical application. [4]

But Science! Ah, Science; Science goes to the natural world for verification. Even so, Scott notes, this is "not perfect." [5] Scott then rambles on for a few pages about all the ways that Science has found itself wrong over time; constantly correcting wrong ideas, and ultimately getting us every closer to truth... but always open to further illumination. In fact, Facts are the "least important" aspect of scientific inquiry, behind Hypotheses and Laws with Theories at the top. And a Theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." [14]

Theories aren't just hunches. Instead, they rely on "inferential reasoning"... which makes them scientific and therefore... umm... well... er... she doesn't say. But she does want us all to know that "most people" don't use the term properly. [14]

Using the powerful scientific "if/then" model, we can test even evolution scientifically. And here we go:

1. If life came from a common ancestor, then distant past things should be different from what we see today. And, Scott assures us, "this is indeed what we see." [15] But we'll have to take her word as an Authority on that because she cites nothing here (though, she hinted at possibly doing it later in this book).

2. If evolution happened, simple organisms will be in old rock and more complex ones will be in newer rock. Again, we're told this is what scientists have found. No footnotes, references, or data whatsoever. All we get is one nice scientific sounding phrase: Cambrian period.

3. We should see "connecting forms between the major groups." There isn't as much of this, Scott admits, but there are two reference titles she mentions that demonstrate "good evidence" of connecting forms. [15] I don't have access to these titles, but there are enough books published by other scientists--who have read and studied much more than I--that question this interpretation of the fossil record to leave me still skeptical. But, we could all be wrong... so... <shrug>

4. We should not see jumbled sets of fossils. And we don't. Instead, things stay in their proper layers the world over. [16] If this is true--again, no sited evidence, but she's got to be basing this claim on something--I must admit that is intriguing. I don't know what kind Logic Creationists have against this observation. I'm guessing that they'd point to a tree or something. Of course, people disagree.

Scott closes this chapter with this:

Evolution, like other sciences, requires that natural explanations be tested against the natural world. ...The heart of creationism--that an omnipotent being created--is not testable by science, but fact claims about the natural world made by creationists can be. [20]

It's petty, but I didn't realize that evolution was its own science. Does gravitation have its own science? What about electron theory?

I mean, sure, she's writing a book on the topic, but does that mean it should be its own science?

But I do appreciate her comments about science's relationship to creationism. She makes a solid point, and one that is well worth remembering on both sides of discussion.

I may flesh out these ideas more in my next post. But for now, I leave you with just this brief summary of Scott's brief glimpse into the world of science.

~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father

Fail Gov

2009-08-20T20:56:00.000-07:00

...or: How the Government Got a Reality Check

So buried deep within a blog post, the government has given us the closest thing to an apology for bad form as we're going to get.

The upside?

They are now a little clearer as to what they are looking for as far as contacting them about Health Reform is concerned, and you get another cool graphic from me:

Fail Gov

~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father

Evolution vs. Creationism - Part3

2009-08-18T20:21:00.000-07:00

[Long posts scare me. Read time: 2min]

I've been using the books.google.com version of the book, but I'm quickly running out of preview pages.

Inter-Library Loan had better come through for me quickly! <smile>

This evening I got through the "Pillars of Creationism" after briefly glancing at the Preface.

One thing that Scott says that may be noteworthy--though, I'd never thought of it myself, nor saw it mentioned in any of the books I've read on the topic--is that Darwin proposed two major ideas: Common ancestors and natural selection. These are distinct ideas that do not rely on one another. [xxii]

I'll try to keep that in mind as the book gets going. Though I am skeptical that it will ever resurface as an issue.

"Religious objections to evolution are far more important in motivating antievolutionism than are scientific objections to evolution as a weak or unsupported theory." [xxiii] This after a mention of Christians rejecting macro evolution, which is not addressed at all here. Hopefully this critique is answered in the coming chapters. But for now, it feels really awkward to state that there are so few scientific objections to evolution after mentioning in an off-hand way the major definitional one of which I am aware.

It's just odd.

"Educators and scientists argue that a student must understand evolution to be scientifically literate, and insist that the science curriculum would be deficient if evolution were omitted." [xxiv] Sadly, despite four years in a public high school--where I took Advanced Biology among other science courses--I still do not feel like I "understand evolution"... nor do, it seems, most others, as is mentioned earlier in the book as to why Scott is writing this title: "Students [lack] enough basic science .. to understand why creationist critiques of evolution are resisted so strongly by scientists" [xvii]. Again, it's the odd combination of statements that seem to put this book off-kilter.

But I'm still in the introductory comments. I really need to withhold judgment until Scott has started presenting points. Until that time, I'm merely picking at things.

~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father

Blog Love

2009-08-17T17:19:00.000-07:00

Matt from thechurchofnopeople.com was nice enough to send me a sticker!

And that, my friends, is totally blog worthy:

Church of No People Sticker

Thanks, Matt!

Check out Matt's Church of No People blog. His posts are often thought-provoking and funny. Just the kind of thing I like!

~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father

Evolution vs. Creationism - Part2

2009-08-15T06:03:00.000-07:00

[Long posts scare me. Read time: 3min]

Before I get started with this book properly, let me set a little context for this discussion.

First: There truly is nothing new under the sun. I see the current disagreement about evolutionism vs. creationism as potentially much the same as geocentrism vs. heliocentrism: The disagreement is fueled by politics, the religious institutions' fear, the lack of good data from the scientific community, and a general lack ignorance all around.

But, eventually, the geocentric model was overturned, Christians embraced the latest scientific discoveries, the misinterpretation of a few passages of Scripture were corrected, and that debate is but a blip on the map of religious history. And the realignment of religion and science ultimately changed neither.

If evolution proves to be true, I predict a similar outcome: Christians will eventually decide science has it right, they will agree they've been reading passages of their Bibles wrong, and will move on--completely undisturbed by the change. Because, honestly, what theological difference does it make?

Yes, we'd need to admit we've read our Bibles wrong. Not the first time that's happened. We'd also need to admit that some of the people we've supported were errant in their thinking. This is also hardly a new event and this too says nothing about God. There may be a few more "sticky" points in the Bible--perhaps--but we've lived with those for thousands of years as well.

Second: There is a ton of confusion--at least, I'm confused--about the use of the word "evolution" which can refer at least three different things:

The natural process of diversification among species (aka "Micro"/"Horizontal" evolution). This happens and works great with Scripture.
Speciation or "Macro"/"Vertical" evolution: The idea that all species have evolved from a common ancestor (what it appears the book of this series purports).
Abiogenesis: The non-supernatural answer for how life got here.

What I have noticed is that I think most of the "debate" rests on a misunderstanding of the last two. The evolutionists I've spoken with say that abiogenesis is not within the theory of evolution. Speciation is the key; how life started is something else entirely. So, creationists are yelling about one thing (genesis of life) and evolutionists are yelling about another (speciation of organisms):

The Possible Confusion of Creationist/Evolutionist Debate

So when we put both perspectives on their proper side of the timeline, we see that we've been incorrectly mashing the two together. Creationism is one thing. Evolutionism is another. And I'm seeing more and more documentation that points to God designing things to evolve. Which, if true, is a win/win: Scientists were right and God is still the Creator. And, what's more: It cleanly leaves everyone where they should be.

Could it be that even the title Evolution vs. creationism is misleading? Is this book really going to focus squarely on the interpretation of Genesis 1:25: How God made everything according to its kind? Or is it honestly going to show the evidence for abiogensis that renders creation needless?

I hope to find out soon enough!

~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father

Evolution vs. Creationism - Part1

2009-08-14T17:41:00.000-07:00

[Long posts scare me. Read time: 3.5min]

After a rather long discussion, I finally got fed up and proposed a challenge: Give me one book that provides the overwhelming evidence for evolution and I'll read it.

And the first one recommended was this title. So I've started. And I'll be taking notes and sharing my thoughts and observations as we go along.

Right now, I'm reading the Foreword by Niles Eldredge. He states:

It seems common-sensical to [those who have absorbed evolution] to see us as the product of natural evolutionary processes--and ... new facts ... such as the astonishing 98.4 percent genetic similarity between humans and chimps ... fit right in. [pg. x]

Sadly, newer data has shown the "98.4% fact" to be astonishingly no where near as precise, nor as "common-sensical" an evidence for evolution as intoned here.

Science ... cannot deal with the supernatural. Its rules of evidence require any statement about the nature of the world to be testable... [pg. xi]

Which sounds, to me, like a great reason to limit how much "faith" [snicker] we put in science. As philosophers I've heard so often remind us: Science cannot account for scientifically why the scientific method is the best (only?) way to understand reality; those who believe that it is, do so on philosophical grounds.

Also, based on this introduction I hope to see evidence in this book for:

[Evolutionary theory's prediction 1:] more closely related organisms will share more similarities with each other than with more remotely related kin; ...there should be a single nested set of similarities linking up all of life. [Scientists are confident life evolved because we see this "nesting" take place: Rodents are similar to each other, but they also share things like cells and RNA, just as is to be expected if all life came from one common ancestor.] [pg. xi]

That's nice. Closely related things--defined by how close we deem them to be related--are more closely related than those we deem to be a more distant relative. "Capital, simply capital!"

[Prediction 2: paraphrased] Life should, through time, go from less complex to more. And we see this. [xi]

I am very interested to see what data they have on the varying levels of complexity going up the sequence, and if any of it points to good reasons to doubt creationism.

Now for an aside he tosses into the mix: [paraphrased] Biology's splits do not match man-made design advances, which along with other stuff, shows Intelligent Design to be false. [xii]

...I do hope there's more to this line of thought because that's a little too easy to topple. If, for instance, God made the world, I wouldn't have any problems believing he'd go about it differently from how we improve our computers. And, as usual, I actually like to know the "other stuff" that shows ideas to be false. I know, I'm through like that.

Creationists persistently and consistently threaten the integrity of science teaching in America--and this, of course, is of grave concern. [Paraphrased:] Their beliefs are narrow, religious and political, and that is why scientific and intellectual truth is of little concern to them. [pg xii]

Well, I'm interested in the scientific and intellectual truths scientists have come up with... that's why I'm reading this book. Therefore, I must not be a creationist, and there is no need for "grave concern" regarding my existence.

~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father

Clipping Off the Problems

2009-08-11T15:44:00.000-07:00

I tend to pick at my toenails instead of clipping them strait across so as to avoid ingrown toenails as my wife suggests.

Oh well.

It turns out that Uncle Sam may be using our flags to make video clips clearing up some misconceptions. You can watch the videos and get a reality check at http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/

~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father

Fishy Government

2009-08-05T18:13:00.001-07:00

So, I was pointed to this fishy post about Obama's Health Insurance Reform.

Which inspired me to make this:

Uncle Sam want YOU to report fishy sites

Feel free to copy the image all you want and pass it around (click it for a larger version). We need to get the word out before more "disinformation about health insurance reform" is spread around the interwebs without the government's knowledge!

Click here to report a site!

~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father

I Called the Police

2009-07-02T20:48:00.000-07:00

I'd never done that before, but yesterday events forced my hand.

Granted, it wasn't 911. I used the local number. But Still. I called the police. Why? Because we've been robbed twice over the past two weeks.

Milk thieves.

We currently get our milk delivered on Wednesday mornings, around 1am, I think. And sometime between then and 6:30 when I go to get it, someone takes a gallon. And since we get the growth hormone free whole milk, that amounts to about $5. Which sounded kinda lame when the officer who came by asked how much the total value of the milk was. "About $10," I told him.

So he's going to have a night patrol car in our area for a while.

Not that that is going to actually catch the thief. It may scare him off though, which means we'd get our milk again.

But to actually catch a thief we need something more. Thus, our plotting. Hiding behind the front door with a fully charged Digital SLR, ready to throw open the front screen to grab a snapshot of the criminal... giving us a shot of their back, or, even if we could get their face there's no way we could ID them. So, we must throw open then door and take them down--which means we'll need to get some police style zip ties...

Seriously. We've spent an hour this evening plotting.

Because, you know, we gotta protect the milk.

And if we can stop someone from further progressing in a life of crime, that's good too.

~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father

Sonlight 2009 Catalog

2009-03-27T14:36:00.000-07:00

We just got our first Sonlight Catalog in the mail today!

Sonlight 2009 Catalog

My wife said, "Oh, I love catalogs! No one else can read it. ...wait, who am I turning into?"

~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father

Happy Birthday, Eduard!

2009-03-21T07:25:00.000-07:00

Our son turned 7 yesterday.

Kyrgyz officials also met yesterday to discuss the future of adoptions from that country.

Today is a holiday in Kyrgyzstan, so we're not sure when we'll hear anything about that meeting, but we are praying that whatever is done is done soon and is best for the children of the 65 families who have already accepted referrals and are waiting for the paperwork to start moving.

To celebrate, we had ice cream:

Birthday Ice Cream

Happy Birthday, Eduard!

~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father

Jesus and Playboy

2009-02-24T20:36:00.000-08:00

If you have a content filter running, this post just may the worst thing it's ever encountered.

While doing research for my last post, I quickly stumbled across some... "interesting" [read: incriminating] information. Not only was Kyla a Hooters waitress ^* at the time--perhaps she still is--but shortly after the incident with Southwest, she was approached by Playboy.

Playboy?

Yep. You know, the magazine that recently sent me an offer of twelve whole issues for only a buck a piece.

Those guys.

Thankfully, I had the presence of mind to get my wife to snap a picture so I could share the occasion with all of you <smile>.

Playboy: 12 Issues for $12

In fact, it turns out that Playboy seems to often approach the "rejected" and "disenfranchised" with open arms and camera lenses. After being rejected as a "rogue brand ambassador" for the Olive Garden, Playboy model Kendra Wilkinson put together an issue of Playboy devoted to The Girls of Olive Garden (the link is an article, not pictures <smile>).

What's interesting to me is that these girls take Playboy up on the offer and gladly pose nude for one of the largest porn--oh, I mean "Adult Entertainment"--magazines in the world.

For whatever reason, girls flock to Playboy when they feel rejected or slighted for being sexy.

All this reminds me of another time, long past, when similar girls would end up near Christ.

And that makes me wonder: What's changed?

~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father

^*If SI One was a bit much, you'll want to avoid this site

South by Southwest

2009-02-12T20:36:00.000-08:00

What do these two women have in common?

Kyla and Bar

They have both been on a Southwest plane.

But Kyla, well, she was deemed to be dressed a little too skimpily to be allowed on Southwest's family friendly airplanes back in 2007.

Jump forward in time with me...

Now it's 2009, and, well, something has changed.

Because Southwest recently had an unveiling for their latest plane: The SI One.

Yes, that stands for Sports Illustrated--presumably the "Swimsuit Edition" because Ms. Refaeli is sprawled across the side of the plane in what would best be describe as "skimpy apparel."

Bar and Her SI One Plane

How does one spell "hypocrisy"?

Perhaps it is S-O-U-T-H-W-E-S-T....

~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father

Glimmer, Shred of Hope

2009-01-13T20:35:00.000-08:00

My wife was reading some Kyrgyzstan adoption forums today that hinted that things were supposed to get moving again yesterday (January 12th).

I haven't heard anything official, so I almost don't dare to hope. But when you hear that a group is supposed to start signing dossiers this week, how can you not have a glimmer of hope?

But then there's the fear, both of it not coming true and of its possibility.

If this is just a rumor: Despair.

If it's not: Life will change forever.

So what to do with this shred of a rumor?

Pray, yes; but how?

Tears stay in my eyes, prayers in my chest, and my hope hangs precariously over my head. Is hearing unconfirmed rumblings worse than hearing nothing at all?

~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father

Economic Crisis and Soliciting

2009-01-08T17:00:00.000-08:00

I came home today to see the surest sign of our economic crises taped to my door:

Solicitation

Obviously things are so hard right now that local businesses have resorted to hiring illiterate children to tape fliers to our doors. This particular paper was taped right over our NO SOLICITING sign.

It always makes me laugh.

~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father

Still Waiting on Kyrgyzstan

2009-01-07T18:51:00.000-08:00

So, it's been over a month and a half since my last adoption update.

We have heard nothing in all that time.

For those of you patient enough to keep offering an occasional prayer for us, our children, and their country of origin, we still greatly appreciate it.

Perpetual prayers tend to bother me because I begin to feel like they are rote and ineffectual.

And waiting has been hard. I know that I'm adopting but it's something that I'm now passively doing. I don't feel like I'm involved in the process. I'm not excited. This whole thing seems more like an historical fact than a present reality.

I'm not feeling so great emotionally at the moment, so I don't really have anything else to say right now. It hasn't been the best day in my life.

Thank you all for your love, support and prayers.

~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father

Toilets and Whatever

2008-12-20T10:19:00.000-08:00

As I reposed in the WC this morning, I got to thinking.

A common occurrence--both the thinking and the reposing.

How often do we think about "doing our business" and should we? I don't mean in a should we spend more time thinking about bowel movements? kind of way. Instead, I realized that it would be possible to argue, from Scripture, that we should not think about sitting on the pot.

How many times have you heard Philippians 4:8 quoted? I mean, the Bible clearly says that we should think about whatever is lovely and pure... and potty stuff isn't that. This mentality has been used to demonize all sorts of "less than holy" topics.

But then I got to thinking about the pot upon which I squat: Someone, who was not Thomas Crapper, had finally been fed up with his chamber pot (or whatever) and thought about how to make a better waste trap.

And I am grateful for that.

Furthermore, as I think back on the majority of Scripture, the Bible contains far more examples of things that are not true, honest, just, pure, lovely, of good report, virtuous, and worthy of praise. There is a ton of rather graphic sex and violence in the Bible.

Why?

Because we live here. We must learn to interact with a world that is far from God's perfect plan. We must learn from the past. We must remember and meditate on what others have been through in the past to make wise and godly choices in the present.

And, yes, it is good to think on whatever is perfect... but that does not mean that we should not/must not think on whatever is not.

I guess this all goes back to the Intent, Content, and Response mechanism: What is your intention behind your thoughts because that means far more than the content of them. And even more than that, what kind of response does what you are thinking about engender in you? Your motivation and the outcome matters far more than the thought itself.

So, yes, be careful what you dwell upon...

...but, please, feel free to think about toilets or whatever.

~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father

I171H

2008-11-14T15:52:00.000-08:00

***ADOPTION UPDATE***

We got our I171H today!

I171H

So, now we get to send 18 documents to Washington, and after that we have the option of going to Kyrgyzstan to meet the kids. Unfortunately, in Washington you pay by the document, so, if my mental math is correct, we need to sign a couple dozen checks for a grand total of $2,164.

Yep, that's for the "processing" and courier fees to send 18 pieces of paper--well, okay, to be fair some of the documents are many more than a single sheet--back to the government that just sent them to us.

It's a streamlined process going on here.

~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father

Fingerprints and Signatures

2008-10-14T15:25:00.000-07:00

We were able to get fingerprinted by the FBI and turn in our i600A on Friday. You can read more about that particular adventure over on my Sonlight Blog.

So, things are moving forward.

Well, sort of.

They've also moved a step or two back. See, we were able to get our medical reports notarized and everything, but then the papers were sent back stating that because the notary had not included her middle initial on the forms they were not acceptable.

Huh?

You've got to be kidding me. The whole point of a notary is so "they" can identify the person who said that, yes, this paper really was signed. ...so how can they be so mucked up by a missing initial?

Oh sure, I realize that it would be more proper to have every T crossed and every i dotted, but... seriously? So, now we have to find a time to go back to the doctor, have her re-fill out the form and get it notarized again... meaning we have to drag someone along for that too. <ugh>

Frustration.

But now that the 10th has passed, there's no longer any pressure. So, stress levels are down. But there's also less hope and direction too, so things feel more apathetic.

I would have posted a sweet picture of my thumbprint, but I couldn't get the scanner to pick it up as well as the FBI's sweet new digital print scanners, and we couldn't find any ink. Sorry team.

~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father

2 Weeks of "Processing"

2008-09-05T15:48:00.000-07:00

I'm frustrated.

No, I'm more than that. But we'll leave it at that.

I realize that adopting costs a lot of money. I'm mentally prepared for $20K a kid (or more). That number is so huge I just let it go over me.

It's the little things that really get to me. Like the $20 check that I just wrote for the California Secretary of State so they will stamp my marriage license... again. Also, since we want to move this process along, we dropped the license, cover letter, and check off with FedEx on Wednesday. We paid over $30 for them to get it there by Thursday morning. We also included a return envelope which will cost another $20-$30.

So, seventy to eighty dollars for someone in the government to stamp our already officially stamped marriage license.

We'd been praying that it would get back into our hands today, or perhaps tomorrow.

I called to check up on it today and see if I could inspire a little nudge.

The girl on the phone was courteous, but assured me there was nothing she could do. And it would take two weeks for "processing."

So, I just shelled out $50-$60 to try to speed along a "process" that takes two weeks, for some reason... it must be hard for them to find a rubber stamp and ink.

I'm irate.

I tend to have less than positive thoughts and feelings toward our government as it is. This isn't helping.

~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father

From the Land Down Under

2008-08-30T14:59:00.000-07:00

"He just smiled and gave me a Vegemite sandwich."

Men at Work: Land Down Under

After commenting on a string of posts by Mrs. C about her family's latest venture down Vegemite Lane, she offered to mail me some.

I, naturally, accepted. And it arrived today.

So, once we get some wheat-free bread made, we'll give this a "go" and see just how much I dislike it (all on video!). Definitely does not sound like something I would enjoy... but someone's gotta do the dirty work around here.

Vegemite

~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father

Splurge

2008-08-21T17:31:00.000-07:00

The new Costco opened by our house today.

So we went over.

They have Wiis.

So we bought one.

Total splurge item.

Splurge

But Brittany is a gamer and has wanted one for a long, long time.

~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father

Medical Papers

2008-08-18T16:16:00.000-07:00

We has them.

Medical Papers

Yep. We have finally submitted all of our papers for the homestudy... of course, over the couple of months it took to get everything together, we may have to resubmit a few papers with new information on them.

We knew we would need our medical papers notarized, but when we asked at Kaiser they informed us that our branch didn't have a notary.

Stuck again.

So while at morning prayer, I mentioned that I needed a notary for some paperwork. It turns out that one of my co-workers is a notary! We worked it out, and decided that Wednesday evening would work for everyone.

While Brittany and I were driving over, I realized that we hadn't discussed a meeting place. I quickly shot a prayer to heaven and said, "Please let us connect quickly and easily."

As we pulled into the parking lot, my co-worker pulled into the empty space one over from mine. The timing couldn't have been better.

We were able to drop off the papers the next day. Praise God!

And now the agency is pushing us to get our dossier done. Which is great. Perhaps by the end of the week we will be mostly done with the paperwork before us.

It would be great if we could do that!

~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father

Antidotal Anecdotes

2008-07-08T19:46:00.000-07:00

One of my friends just got married.

Well, he's not really my friend in the traditional sense (he doesn't even know who I am), but I've been following his blog for a while now and feel like I know him. I respect him quite a bit, and I would hope that if we traveled in the same circles he would be willing to call me a friend as well.

I doubt we'd ever really be buddies, but I digress.

Friends.

Married.

As he himself wrote: "It’s been a very long engagement." But now he's hitched and "just trying to get used to the ring on my finger. And saying husband."

I've never really considered this question before: But will he be a better husband than I? Will he treat his spouse better than I? Will they have better sex than I?

Those aren't normal questions--or maybe they are, I guess I don't really know--but I'm asking them this time. Not because I'm really curious about the intimate affairs of my friend, or how those reflect on me, except for one very important detail:

His husband.

See, I'm not a perfect husband. In fact, I'd be willing to reveal that I'm not even a particularly good one. So what can I say to my homosexual friend and his husband?

If they're a better couple than Brittany and I, what does that say about the transforming power of Christ? Where does that put me in the eternal perspective? And what of other Christians, those myriad of others who, as is stated in the comments to his blog, "use marriage as a crutch to keep their relationship going", or worse, divorce?

What can I say to him?

What can I say to my homosexual uncle?

Thus far I've figured out: "Hi." And then I give him a hug.

Sure, Focus on the Family has some good arguments against same-sex unions (especially the argument of love), but I really don't think that's going to help anything here. I certainly don't think my friend would buy it.

So what would Jesus say to my friend?

I honestly don't know. And that's a tad bit frustrating.

~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father

A Farwell to Arms

2008-06-30T15:15:00.000-07:00

I canceled my WoW subscription today.

''bout time,' some of you may be thinking. ...actually, my guess is that you don't think about that at all. And that's okay. But I do.

Due to our need for Health Insurance, I took a new job. The job is pretty cool, but now I devote twice as much time to it than I was working before. That's a pretty big change in lifestyle. My income has also changed. But I didn't know by how much, so I was little excite/apprehensive when I opened my check today.

I was elated.

'Wow,' I thought, 'I'm making about $200 a week more now! Sweet, I'll be able to pay for the kids to have food when they come.'

And then it hit me like a ton of bricks dropped from the Empire State Building with spikes laden with poison from a brown recluse:

I get paid every two weeks now.

Yep, I just took a $320 a month pay cut.

I cried.

I was so happy for a minute. Life was great.

I'm tearing up again just writing this.

Elation to despair in less than half a second.

My wife is right: This will all work out. We'll find a way to slash our already tight budget. We'll make it.

And we will. As someone recently read: Don't confuse your Provider with your employer. How true. How painfully, horribly true.

I guess it was time to update my certification in trust.

~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father

Firefox 3

2008-06-16T21:08:00.001-07:00

This was too important to pass up:

Firefox 3 is going to be released tomorrow. Download it June 17, 2008 and help set a world record.

Do it!

Download Firefox 3 here.

~Luke Holzmann

Shades of Awesome

2008-06-13T05:06:00.000-07:00

Yesterday was a roller coaster.

And I don't like roller coasters. All of a sudden, seemingly out of nowhere, we potentially had three kids, at least one of them schooling age. The number was perfect, the gender was perfect, the ethnicity was perfect. And yet we feared to hope. It was exciting, no, thrilling, but also terrifying. And sobering. We could be the parents of a four year old in a couple of months. Whoa. Talk about a reality check.

Brittany said to me, "Wouldn't it be awesome if we got the pictures of them tonight instead of tomorrow morning?" It would be unlikely, but pretty cool.

At about 8pm Brittany asked me, as I was about to go watch another episode of Firefly with Jason, "Do you want to see some pictures of the kids?"

I would post pictures here, but I don't think I'm allowed to. Sorry. Wish I could.

We've been praying that our kids will be healthy and beautiful in all ways. The kids look really healthy. The older girl is probably 4-5, and the boy is 5-6ish. Much older than we've been thinking. The younger girl is adorable.

I've often worried, over the course of my life, that I wouldn't think my children were beautiful. I've seen some ugly kids. And what do their parents think of them, especially since everyone tells you, "You'll find your children adorable because they're yours"? I'm not sure how the logic follows. It sounds like a twisted version of "love is blind", but I digress. The point is: They lied to me.

[NB: RvB is not suitable to those who are bothered by language and inappropriate verbal content, and the above link has some language directly following the quote.]

The kids look like Russian Bouncers. It's time for brutal honesty because, as Brittany pointed out, if we don't talk about it now it will come back to "bite us in the butt" later. It's hard to tell what they really look like. The poor photography, pudgy sullen faces, the hideous short haircuts (probably to reduce lice), and ill-fitting clothes don't inspire cries of, "You are so sweet!"

And so I'm torn.

Are these our kids? Some families recognize their children right away. Others don't. And I don't really know.

There are some major pros to adopting slightly older children, but we hadn't really been considering it. And jumping into being the parents of three children, homeschooling, and dealing with kids who will very much remember their life in Kyrgyzstan and have who knows what kinds of feelings about that, having to learn a new language, and dealing with whatever got them to be available to join our family are rather daunting thoughts.

Time for a Confession of an Expecting Father: My fantasy was that my little girls would be gorgeous, adorable, more on the lithe Swedish/Iceland than stocky Russian side. And these girls may be just that, or become that way once they shed their baby fat. With hair and a smile the girls may be adorable, but I can't tell. The boy will certainly grow up to be a heartthrob.

But will I be disappointed if they aren't gorgeous? Will the girls pick up on that and develop a complex? Will I gravitate to one of the kids and so neglect the others? It sounds so shallow to say, but "I wanted pretty girls!" ...but who wants ugly kids?

Brittany has been saying frequently about how it would be "so many shades of awesome" if this or that happened. And "shades of awesome" is how I feel: This could be great, but there are some shadows that have me worried.

Sorry for the rambling thoughts and disjointed ideas. My mind doesn't feel completely sane at the moment, and my thoughts don't seem to be making a lot of sense.

I think I'm feeling a tad overwhelmed.

I wish I was more collected; writing with a point, a purpose and a lesson. But for the following days I'm afraid this blog will be more of a journal to record my thoughts for future reference than for potentially brilliant insights.

Sorry.

~Luke Holzmann

The News

2008-06-12T11:05:00.000-07:00

Brittany called me at about 8:50 this morning at work.

"Guess what."

She got a call from the adoption agency.

"How many were you looking to adopt?"

Brittany replied, "We're looking at up to three."

"You're not going to believe this..."

Turns out that a sibling group of three just became available. They are a little older than we have been thinking, but if these are our kids, then great! What's more: There are two girls and a boy. And they look "very Russian". In a country that is 80% Asian, the 3-5 year-old girl has blue eyes.

We're supposed to get pictures tomorrow.

Thrilled and Terrified

And I was supposed to work after that.

What's crazy is that we are getting a referral, of sorts, and we haven't even completed the paperwork for the US yet. So there are still a ton of things that need to come together. I need to get hired at a company that will give me health insurance (have to have that before we can move forward), we need to complete the Dossier, and then we're really moving.

Over the past two weeks, I've been really stressed out, frustrated, and even a little depressed because I've been stuck at health insurance. We were flying through the process right into a brick wall.

Health Insurance

So yesterday I felt like I couldn't do anything, like I was completely stuck until the health insurance worked out.

Today proved that wrong. I could do something. I could get excited.

~Luke Holzmann

Alfie, Marriage, and Hope

2008-04-21T20:26:00.000-07:00

I watched "Alfie" not that long ago. It's an interesting, off-beat dark comedy that is sort of about the pitfalls of womanizing, but also sort of about how womanizing, while leading to pain, leads to about the same amount of pain that life already dishes out, so what's the big deal? Or, as the movie concludes, "So, what's the answer? That's what I keep asking myself. What's it all about? You know what I mean?"

Fin.

So, far more than a morality play, this is a film that takes a look at morality and concludes: I don't get it, but I think there's something there.

If RottenTomatoes.com is any indication, about 48% have the same query. And I, unfortunately, sort of side with the minority. I do kinda know what he means.

It was the line "whenever you meet a beautiful woman ...just remember, somewhere there's a bloke who's sick of shagging her" that really got me. It's reminiscent of the paragraph from (I think) "Every Young Man's Battle" that goes something like: Satan will do everything he can to get you to sleep with your girlfriend before marriage, and then everything he can to stop you from sleeping with your wife after you're married.

Am I sick of "shagging" my wife? No. But it's certainly not as fun or as common to "mess around" as it was back in college. I've already written about this in the book, so this isn't anything new or surprising. But I'm feeling the implications of this idea play out more forcefully of late.

Jason, my co-author, has moved out from Oregon. It's really cool that he's here. We sit and chat, watch movies and TV shows on DVD, and generally hang out. I hope that we can really get moving on the book once he's settled. But his outside perspective allows him to see the... lack... that is in my interactions with Brittany. It's the same lack (or whatever word makes more sense there) that I can see in the relationships of the kids I mentor.

It's easy to look at a situation and say, "You really handled that poorly," or, "You really need to talk with her about that." But I find myself holding back, wary. Why? Because I know what it's like to not feel like talking, to just want to be left alone, to feel that someone is being clingy, stand-offish, whiny, bossy, nosy, annoying, or whatnot. I know how past experience influences current conduct.

But I also know how easy it is to look at another girl (one to whom you are not bound forever by "the Ring", or otherwise) and think, 'Man, he really doesn't see what he's got. If he'd just notice how much she loves him, how cute she is, and how much she just wants to be close to him, he'd want to hold her as much as I do.'

"So, what's the answer? ...What's it all about? You know what I mean?"

This is something that, even though a few people write about it, no one has yet to come to any conclusion or even good solid advice. This is a very clear example of what Jason so aptly points out: We've got this idea that if we could just get them to the altar virgins everything will be okay. But there's so much more....

He's right. He's right and he's not even married.

I know this whole "marriage thing" works, is great, and all that. I know there's hope. It would just be nice to have someone, somewhere, actually point to it in a viable, livable, sensible, reasonable way. Hopefully our book will include such insights by the end of the next draft, but until then, I feel like I'm fighting this ideological battle alone.

It's hard to be hopeful there.

~Luke Holzmann

Taco Bell, V-Day, and Flash

2008-02-26T16:08:00.000-08:00

For those of you who went to some less romantic locale for dinner on V-Day, you probably missed out on their purple sauce packs.

DirectDaniella.com

When we got home, my wife and I decided to check out this website and see what it was all about. Visiting the site gave me flashbacks to Carl's Jr's stunt with SI a while back. (I am not a Paris Hilton fan at all. Though she looked good in an interview I saw in a burger joint in Florence.)

Paris in Shanghai

Where was I?

Oh, right. DirectDaniella.com.

If you haven't linked over to the site already, it is a very cleaver use of Flash. They shot footage of one of the swimsuit models (Daniella), placed that within a website that allowed you to "take pictures" within the cheesy storyline's confined timeline, and then let you save these images (in theory, I haven't gotten it to work, hence none of my "work" posted here).

All in all, it's pretty fun. Nothing to "write home about", but obviously enough to blog about.

But this post is about more than just the fast food industry's latest attempt to use sex to sell their greasy grub (which I love, by the by). This is about the trend to use Flash as the foundation for all sorts of new creative applications online. I've now created an editing tutorial over at Production-Now.com using the power of JumpCut, which is built on Flash. This is not to mention YouTube, Homestarrunner, and many other sites that are built on Adobe's acquired technology.

Cool stuff.

~Luke Holzmann

Honk if You're Perfect

2008-02-20T20:50:00.000-08:00

The following came from the Sonlight Curriculum Forums:

I recently heard this on the local Christian radio station.

They have a "Call-in Confessional" show. One man called in and said that he was driving his wife's car to work. All of the sudden, a car behind him started laying on the horn. He looked back, and the guy just kept honking. The guy kept getting angrier and angrier. He knew it wasn't a Christian thing to do, but as the guy passed him, he gave the other driver the finger.

Still upset, the guy got home and parked his car. As he turned around to make sure he locked it, he saw his wife had a bumper sticker that said, "Honk if you love Jesus!"

That's how I feel right now. Can't really explain it any better than that.

~Luke Holzmann

Nature Abhors

2008-02-02T18:41:00.000-08:00

Guess what Brittany and I spent two hours today doing?

Yep. Wandering Sears looking at vacuums. The sales people push the Dyson, Brittany loved the Halo, and I didn't like any of them. So, we bought a $50 Dirt Devil until the Halo has been proven and we've ended up in a bit more money to warrant a $500 carpet sucker.

But, yes: Two hours. And we spent a couple of hours back in December when we first went to try to purchase a vacuum. So, in all, we spent about four hours in Sears discussing vacuums. It was ridiculous, but it wasn't until we were driving home that the comedic nature of our adventure really hit us.

Ah, the amazingly romantic and exciting life of marriage.

I guess all that to say: If you don't like wandering around Home Depot with your significant other, perhaps it's not time for marriage. As one of the speakers in Chapel so aptly pointed out: You'll spend more time waiting in line in the grocery store than you will having sex.

That, or in Sears discussing vacuums.

~Luke Holzmann

Lego Love (Part 2)

2008-01-28T19:14:00.000-08:00

Just giving a little "shout out" to Lego with a: Happy 50th Birthday!

Even Google thinks that's cool.

~Luke Holzmann

MySpace Blogs (huh?)

2008-01-25T21:40:00.000-08:00

So, browsing through some of my friends' MySpace pages I came across the following while trying to read their interesting titled blog posts:

"This specific blog entry is currently set to be private, and only the blog owner can see it."

I've seen this before. Granted, I can see why people may decide it was better to lock up a blog post titled "Why I'm so mad at my girlfriend" or "I think your granny is hot" or "I wish I were dead"... but, why keep it as a blog post? Are people really incapable of keeping a journal somewhere that isn't plastered all over the internet with nothing more than a "Umm, yeah, the author thought better of posting this to the world"?

Odd.

~Luke Holzmann

Lego Love

2008-01-25T15:52:00.000-08:00

I have loved Legos since I can remember. My very first, to my recollection, Lego set was of a spacecraft. It was awesome.

Well, my wife and I decided on a Christmas tradition where we ask for a Lego set every year (Star Wars themed, naturally).

We got a way cool set, but one of the pieces came defective. I had heard from my sister how great Lego was with Customer Service, so I decided to test it out myself. I filled out a form on Lego.com and requested a replacement.

The package arrived yesterday (but I didn't have my camera, hence the post today).

"Time Sensitive Material"? Hardly, but that's one way to make me feel special.

Not only did we get the piece, but we also got a great cover letter.

In short: I love Lego even more now!

Businesses everywhere should emulate this level of customer service. Stellar!

~Luke Holzmann

Sanctity of Life... or Not

2008-01-21T12:06:00.000-08:00

So, it's officially "Sanctity of Human Life Week" and people are naturally talking, ranting, raving, and trying to get people to become Pro-Choice: Choose Life.

Now, to make sure that everyone reading knows where I come from: I am Pro-Life, against abortion, and am convinced that abortion is murder. However, to argue against abortion from the standpoint of the "sanctity of life" is absurd.

The following is the argumentation for the sanctity of life presented by Charles Swindoll and his book Sanctity of Life: The Inescapable Issue. Since Chuck is a well respected speaker/thinker of modern Christianity (and I respect him and his work a lot), I'm pretty sure he's got it worked out as well as anyone.

First: God sets apart human life as unique and valuable since it bears His image.
Second: Because this is true, God commands that all human life be preserved and protected.
Third: Human life begins within the womb, where God personally and sovereignly superintends the development and maturation of the fetus before birth.
Fourth: Therefore, since it is God's will that every child's life be protected after birth, it is certainly His will that such protection apply to the child in his or her prenatal state.

All of those statements are good and true. This is certainly solid examples of the importance and precious nature of human life. This is also a very solid argument against abortion for anyone who believes the Bible to be at least a good standard for morality.

However, this is not argument enough for me to believe that there is a sanctity to life that makes life to the most important thing. There are far too many examples in Scripture where God tells people to kill (totally annihilate; read: genocide) other peoples, or merely knocks off someone Himself, to hold to a view that "God thinks human life is so sacred that is must not be killed". Does this mean that murder is okay? Clearly not. Does this mean that I think it is good to kill off people? Absolutely not! But there is reason for rejecting murder that is much better than claiming life is too holy to kill because God, the expert on holiness, doesn't even buy that.

So what is the argument that should stand?

Love.

We are called to love people, even our enemies, and killing them would go against that. This is oddly appropriate for the subject of abortion since the stats I see say that roughly 93% of abortions are due to reasons that the baby is "unwanted or inconvenient". Guess what? Even if your baby is an "enemy" to your lifestyle, tough. You're supposed to love this child enough to get over that.

But what's interesting about that statistic site is that 18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as "Born-again/Evangelical". Why is that? My guess: A lack of love.

I can easily see how "Good Christian girls" who get pregnant will not feel the support they need to carry the baby to term. Perhaps they get strong vibes against their pregnancy and their baby. Perhaps they are just too ashamed to show that they sinful. Perhaps they are scared that the Christians around them will judge them, or worse (a very likely scenario).

So, what does this world need now? "Love, sweet love." If Christians were more loving, we would likely see a substantial number of abortions from our community drop off. Our love would also get into the rest of our communities which would inspire expecting mothers to love their yet to be born children as well.

So, let's stop talking non-sense and trying to use some kind of "moral highway" or "principle" to sway people to choose life. Instead, let us love one another, call others to such a way of life as well. Because, without love (or law) it will be impossible to convince people that life is sacred.

~Luke Holzmann

Ps. It may be argued that since "sanctity" could be defined as "set apart for God" that He could do what He wants with life, but we must not touch it. This is a decent etymological argument, but not enough to convince me of the sanctity of life.

Pps. What of those wondering how a loving God could kill people? That is an issue that is too big to deal with at this moment, so I leave it to your study and perhaps a later post.

Fortune Cookies Are Right

2008-01-18T05:28:00.000-08:00

...sort of.

I was in a meeting last night with some very smart people who also happen to make a lot of money. Because I would love to become smarter and make more money so I can do cool things, I was very disappointed when the leader spouted off several statements that were little better, if not worse, than some of the things we had read in our fortune cookies over dinner.

First, allow me to touch on a point that I think very much is true and came to mind during the meeting: "Stewardship" has allowed Christians to tip very poorly. If you, or anyone you know, has ever worked waiting tables, you know that Christians--especially in large "fellowshipping" groups on Sunday--leave terrible tips... if that much. This has long been a misery and mystery to the people serving food on Sundays. I've wondered about it as well, knowing that I too would tend to not tip. "Stewardship" (taking care of what one has) is a likely culprit (and the fact that we are greedy and don't trust God to provide but consider that's okay because at least we aren't sleeping around). Since we are told over and over to be good stewards of our resources, we have justified our stinginess. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if some people didn't tithe because they were trying to be a "better steward" of their money. But now I'm way off topic.

Fortune cookies.

It is quite possible to make a statement or prediction almost universally true if it is generic enough. For instance:

You have a strong need to take your thoughts in your own direction and may find it difficult to compromise. Originality is favored here, but dealing with routine activities can be a bit of a challenge. This is a dynamic period in which nothing seems to be standing still, especially you. Even if you are calm on the outside, it is likely that your insides will be jumping around. This restlessness can lead to hasty actions but may also motivate you to make some changes in your daily life.

I just pulled that off the first horoscope page I found. Wow! That's me... almost. I love all the wishy-washy phrases: "may find" "can be" "it is likely" "can lead" "but may also". Obviously tailored to my exact experience. Most of the time these kinds of statements are true because you make them true.

So, what do you think about the following, given that you have belief structure that assumes God created everything and saved your soul:

Which of the following is the question we should answer:

1. What should I do with my money?
2. What should I do with God's money?
3. What does God want me to do with His money?

Obviously, we were told, it is 3, but "sadly" we all act like it is 2. Sounds good, right? Yes, but it's about as true as my horoscope.

Granted, God is in control of everything and everything is His. However, the reason we ask question 2 instead of 3 is not because we feel like we'd do a better job than God, but because we do not have a "prime directive" of what we are supposed to do with God's money. Thus, we ask: What should I do with it? Let us not become confused.

At the end of the meeting I asked what I should do if I felt like I knew what I was supposed to be doing, but that it didn't make any money. I was told that if I had talent, passion, and God's purpose behind me it would make money. When I challenged this idea, I was told that perhaps it "wasn't time yet" and God was still working on me before He'd pour out the floodgates of Heaven.

Perhaps.

Perhaps not. How would we know? It's a fortune cookie statement. I could make it true, or I could reject it like the half-butted comment that it is. There's not truth in that statement, just what truth I impart to it. Since I'm hardly the standard for what is true, let's not trust me.

How many good things, with talent, passion, and God's purpose behind them struggle? Many. Most? I'm not sure, but it certainly isn't only a handful. Too many ministries are constantly scraping by and calling for more funds for the advice I was given to be true.

Which leads to the last untruth: God has blessed our family with much wealth because He looked into our lives and saw that we could do great things for His Kingdom.

It's true as long as you only look at the self-serving bits. Do my parents do great things for God's Kingdom? Definitely. Did God give them their wealth that has allowed them to do this? Certainly. Does that mean that God gives money (and remember that He owns everything, so has everything to give) to certain individuals because He saw what a great impact that could have on people if He did? No. There are far too many rich jerks in the world for that to be "the reason" God blesses some people with wealth.

The world isn't as simple as we'd like it to be. Does that mean I'm against reading my fortune cookies? No. But it does mean that when I read them I smile because the wisdom therein is imputed from me.

Well, I've got to go shower quickly because I'll be a little late for work.

~Luke Holzmann

A Free Simpleology Course

2007-12-30T20:58:00.000-08:00

In order to check out this new course on blogging, Simpleology requires that I post the following:

-------

I'm evaluating a multi-media course on blogging from the folks at Simpleology. For a while, they're letting you snag it for free if you post about it on your blog.

It covers:

The best blogging techniques.
How to get traffic to your blog.
How to turn your blog into money.

I'll let you know what I think once I've had a chance to check it out. Meanwhile, go grab yours while it's still free.

-------

I've been going through a ton of material about blogging recently (when I have time outside of filming), so this fits right in with that. I will see how cool it is after they send me the stuff now that I've posted this.

But for now, it's bedtime because shooting starts again tomorrow morning.

~Luke Holzmann

The Media and Messages

2007-12-29T07:26:00.000-08:00

Last week I heard a statement of a sentiment that is oft repeated: "The World" "sends you messages" about what will "make you happy" or "this is how you should live". This kind of talk is rampant throughout "religiondom" and is the motivating force for much of Christian media. "We must counteract this affront to our worldview and morals" the concerned religious say. "We have to get our message out there because otherwise people will just believe Hollywood--or whatever media they see as the bad guys".

Michael Medved has built a career on this kind of thinking. I've seen his stuff and it's well done, compelling, and makes you think. He talks about how Hollywood has an anti-Christian "agenda" and then sites many movies where this is the case. He also points out that "Hollywood" produces a majority of R-rated movies every year, even though those are not the ones that turn the biggest profit. He considers this evidence that "Hollywood" is not in the entertainment business but in the business of attacking solid morals.

With that as the foundation, let's start to break this down.

1. The World/Hollywood does not "have an agenda". People in the world and Hollywood have agendas, and certain films have agendas as well. But there is no overarching flood of anti-Christian/religion material out there. In Medved's documentary that I saw, he pulled his "anti-Christian" clip examples from movies I've never seen or heard of people who had. This is an important point to keep in the back your mind for when I come back to it later.

2. I can't, off the top of my head, think of a single film that had an anti-Christian message. In fact, all the great movies have messages that tend to be very positive. "Truman Show", "Citizen Kain", "The Princess Bride" all have very positive messages about life, happiness, and even some aspects of morality. But as for specific messages about what happiness is or how you should live, there is very little. Instead, films at most show a person who is happy or living well, and viewers decide if that makes sense or not. There is not preaching on the subject of living life.

Even movies like "Saved!" that bash religion merely demonstrate the problems with the institution and many of the people who profess faith. I wouldn't consider a single person in that movie to be acting Christ-like. It is unfortunate that they don't have someone who is Christ-like, but it doesn't surprise me. How many people do you know who act like Christ? I know precious few and am all too aware of how little I emulate Him myself.

3. While watching a documentary on "Basic Instinct" (yes, that movie with sex, nudity, and more sex) I was blown away when a "gay rights" activist started to decry Hollywood's "anti-Homosexual agenda". 'What?' I thought. 'Hollywood is anti-homosexual? Where do they get that?' In fact, from what I've heard from the religious around me, Hollywood has a very strong pro-homosexual agenda. What was going on?

Turns out that religious people aren't the only ones who feel attacked by the media. In fact, you can feel attacked by just about anything. A few days ago I heard about a complaint from a guy because someone wanted to include the image of a Confederate Flag in a video. He made it very clear that there is still too much racial discrimination to show such a throwback to slavery. It doesn't matter that the Civil War wasn't about slavery (however, slavery became a huge theme, and has been made even more prominent by us "Northern Folk" since we won) or that the Confederate Flag for the video was poking fun at country singers. Just because people can get themselves offended does not mean that something is offensive. To be fair, if people are getting offended, there is need for tact and courtesy, which all of us (including Hollywood) lack from time to time.

4. But what about the fact that so many movies are rated "R" and films like "Brokeback Mountain"?

I watch a lot of R-rated movies because most of them are about subjects that are actually interesting. Filmmakers want to shoot movies that mean something and comment on life. They allow us to experience life in a way that we normally do not see. We can then ask questions of our views, ideas, and ourselves as to how we would hope to respond to such situations. And for all the talk about "Brokeback Mountain", did you see it? I did, and it wasn't anything to talk about. A bunch of sweeping landscapes, a homosexual sex scene, and then a movie exploring the themes of love (not even homosexual love) with two characters that are terrible at loving... if you draw that much from it.

What does all this mean?

First, Christians make media for the wrong reason. Our films are terrible because we are making movies in response to something Hollywood isn't doing. We want to preach because we believe that Hollywood is preaching. Hollywood is telling stories well. It turns out that stories seem to be the best way to pass on values for a couple of reasons. Stories show life and how it works, what is good and what is not good to do, and what works. Instead of showing how Christianity works better than any other approach to life, we make movies like "Facing the Giants" where we spout out truisms and preach messages instead of telling a story from life. Now, unfortunately, when we actually do try to tell a real story it seems fake because we have lost our credibility and no one believes we're for real. If you want evidence that this is true of all media, when someone in Hollywood tries to preach they make a flop... or get a Nobel Peace Prize. The great movies that stand the test of time tell stories, they don't preach.

Second, we need to stop demonizing the media. We give them far too much power. I've heard over and over again that parents don't let their kids watch something (like, "The Simpsons") because it's "evil". It's not evil. Not even close. Sure, it may not be the best thing in the world, especially if you're not into that style of humor, but most Bible study and Sunday School materials are worse from a literature standpoint and contain less truth. The ideas and criticisms in the world today aimed at Christianity are widespread. The media may make the points more cohesive and pointed, but the critiques are the same as they were a couple thousand years ago. These issues are not hard to overcome, and the ones that are must be considered if we hope to keep the faith of the intellectual.

Third, it's time for some new stories. I've been asked before what Christians can do to turn the tide of the media and make movies that change people for the better (because movies can do that). I reply with the reminder that good movies are good stories told well. What contemporary story demonstrates the validity and power of living a Christ-like life? I don't know of a single one. Christianity must become life changing for us as Christians if we hope to change anyone with a film we make.

There is hope, though. The power of movies like "300" comes from a tale from long ago. We have tales like that as well. We could use someone with the gonads to make an incredibly awesome movie of David's Mighty Men; just, please, if you do, don't title it "30"... I've had enough of Christianity trying to take the creativity of others and just putting a Christian label on that. We're better than that.

At least, we should be.

~Luke Holzmann

God and the "Gay Grene"

2007-12-22T20:52:00.000-08:00

I'm not sure how the conversation got there, but somehow a discussion I had at a Christmas Party tonight turned toward personal responsibility. The questions center around why God would allow sin to enter the world if by allowing such a thing people will be damned. This reminded me of something I read in a very fascinating book recently about the emerging research that points toward the genetic influences on homosexuality.

When I read that there is significant evidence for something like "the gay gene" I was perturbed. From what I hear in the Christian community there simply isn't such a thing. They cling to the fact that there isn't any real scientific proof for such a gene. But what happens when science "proves" this, or, at least, makes a convincing argument for biological links to homosexuality? What will happen?

If I were to hazard a guess, probably a lot of what has happened with the "Young Earth/Old Earth" debate: There would be a split between those who find a way to harmonize their interpretation of Scripture so that it matches the "new evidence" or find other research that keeps their current view of Scripture viable. But for people like me, who don't really care which side is right, another question arises: What difference does it make? First, we already know that we often misinterpret Scripture and need to reconsider our positions on things; keep humble. Second, even with a biological propensity toward evil, that doesn't mean that we have to do it. I think we forget that.

It starts very early, trying to pass off our bad behavior on things: Such as the kid driving the toy truck so that it rips the wrapping off the Christmas present. "I didn't do it. The Truck did it." We quickly learn that this doesn't fly and we are responsible. So we move to the next level: "I hit Tommy because he hit me first." Even here, logical, reasonable, and just, our actions are still our responsibility. This battle between revenge and mercy, justice and forgiveness is a lifelong struggle. It becomes more complicated the older we get, and the more we learn of people's motivation. After this, we figure out that there is sympathy for external/internal forces. People have tried arguing, even flippantly, "the devil made me do it", or claim "insanity", but the most powerful would be to point the finger at God. If He made me do it, then He can't damn me.

What we forget is that we all have a tendency to sin. The fact that we feel cheated is due to the fact that all our wants are not met, nor are we perfectly content with what we have. The fact that we lie is because we fear for our wellbeing, or the wellbeing of others. We beat up our siblings because we want to protect ourselves or others. Some theologians have wrestled with the question of God's involvement in sin, but overall Christians have come to terms with this issue. So why are we so freaked out about a "Gay Gene"? This isn't new.

~Luke Holzmann

"Brown" and "Candleflame"

2007-12-11T12:25:00.000-08:00

I wrote another short story last night while waiting for my wife to log out of World of Warcraft. After posting it to writing.com, I realized that I hadn't posted here about my first short story I posted there: "Brown".

"Brown" is the result of my wife asking me to tell her a story. I didn't have a good one, so she pressed me to write one. My goals for "Brown", as with most of my creative writing, slowly formed as I wrote. First, I decided I would focus on color, but keep the post-apocalyptic reality very earthy. Second, I started to use common phrases in off-beat ways, as if a child were reasoning out the meanings. And third, I wanted her to have the feeling of an anime character: Seemingly normal yet somehow supernaturally "special". Writing.com is certainly not a perfect site, but I'd love to get some more reviews and ratings if you read "Brown".

Yesterday I woke up in the middle of a dream. It was a very moving dream, but it didn't make much sense. Well, it made sense in a "feeling" sense, and I knew what it "meant", but none of that would have been transfered to a listener if I'd told them about it. So, since I had time last night, I decided to write it up as a story. The short story goes a bit beyond where my dream was interrupted by day, but I think the spirit is still there. The resultant tale is "Candleflame".

"Candleflame" has dark religious overtones and the romance of self-sacrifice. This is not a tale of romantic love, nor is it a tragedy. In fact, the end is meant to be read as hopeful, in a clouded, out-of-control kind of way. There is much more to life than our common experiences tell us, and perhaps it takes an extraordinary event to force us to challenge the leaders around us who have not lead us where we need to be. I guess I'm also exploring the ideas of maturing "youth" when it is pitted against the "wisdom of age". I hope you enjoy "Candleflame". Please rate it.

Thanks!

~Luke Holzmann

"Mischief. Mayhem. Soap."

2007-12-04T19:56:00.000-08:00

Title link here.

I saw "Fight Club" back in college. This was pre-"Sin City" so it was disturbing in places. It was also profound and hinted at a path that men should walk down.

Now, in the past week, I've heard of two books that seem to push a similar line, just without quite as much violence and more contained graphic sex: "The Barbarian Way" and "No More Christian Nice Guy". I haven't read either book yet, but the ideas I've heard from them are powerful and demand that we, as men, shape up and bring the Church back to a proper understanding of our role.

A quote that Jason read to me from "No More Christian Nice Guy" went something along these lines: Since women are frequently considered more spiritual, moral, and godly than men, and since they do not display the same sexual urges that guys do, the natural conclusion is that a sex drive is sinful. This has led Christian couples to talk about becoming "closer" to one another and so avoid any mention of sex. ...One Christian woman even called her husband a "pervert" for his sexual desires. A man's sex drive is such that he will seek satisfaction elsewhere, often in places that truly are perverted.

Sex. God made it, and it should be intense. We may not need the yellow glove (didn't get it when I saw the film and don't feel like I need to understand it now), but sex is good in the proper context of marriage. I certainly feel the tendency to think that girls are not only the "fairer sex" but also the sinless one to boot. As Coughlin points out, if you printed off sections of "Song of Solomon" and showed it to many church-goers, they would decry it as pornography written by a sick mind. That's not good.

A similar message holds true for violence as well. Our Christian culture tells boys that it is wrong to punch another kid. "Violence is not the answer" stuff. Instead we hear that we are supposed to "turn the other cheek", even though Christ did not demonstrate this the way we interpret it at all. When struck at His trial, Jesus demanded that the man be held responsible for his action [John 18:23]. Not very "Christ-like" is that when He clearly told us to just let things slide?

Similar things can be said about parents who demand that boys "respect" them even if they are being tyrannical. Coughlin makes many other fantastic observations which are much better in his book than in a small blog post here.

Suffice it to say: "Fight Club" is closer to the truth than many church going Christians. Not that mischief and mayhem are good, but perhaps we need to lay off the soap a bit.

In a recent conversation with a Christian media producer, he recounted the story of a woman who wrote in berating him for putting such filthy content on his program that allowed a guy to touch a young lady's shoulder during a love song. His response was to tell her to "shut the hell up and go to hell." When he said that I smiled and knew I was in the company of a Christian man.

~Luke Holzmann

Frustration

2007-11-30T14:22:00.000-08:00

I got booted from a film set today. That's frustrating.

I was working on a Tutorial for Production-Now.com and found out that all free NLEs do not support multiple video channels. That's frustrating.

I want to help people make movies but I get kicked off sets and run into software limitations. That's frustrating.

So what should I do with my time? I should edit some past projects that have yet to be completed, but I don't want to. That's frustrating.

I've got a book to write, but it's practically in revision mode right now so there's not much I can do. That's frustrating.

I guess today, this afternoon, is just one of those moments in life where you feel completely incapable of moving forward. It's like I've landed on "Go to Jail" and have to wait until I roll doubles. That's frustrating.

More than frustration, however, is the overwhelming feeling of weariness. I feel spent. Drained. And guess what? That's frustrating.

[laughing]

~Luke Holzmann

Images from Italy

2007-11-26T20:19:00.001-08:00

[NB: The following contains images from art history that depict nudity. I will refrain from further comment at this time if you have a problem with that.]

No, this is not a post of photos I took. That will come later... maybe.

For those of you who don't know (which would be almost all of you if more people read my blog, Jason), I just got back from Italy with my family. It was a good experience. We had great weather, saw tons of amazing art, spent a ton of time walking around with the family, ate gelato (ice cream), took some great pictures, walked a ton, dealt with children, family dynamics, bedbugs, exhaustion, cramped seating, the smell of natural gas leaking from the heating units, virtual starvation, high exchange rates, and customs.

All in all, the Duomo and the David were the most impressive things we saw, but this is not a post about them. They're famous. I'm going to post about the three images that I personally liked to look at. Don't get me wrong, there are much more amazing works of art, but these were ones that stuck with me in a "warm and fuzzy" kind of way.

First, one that I only saw in postcards, bookmarks, and diary covers was Bouguereau's "First Kiss".

Perhaps I'm a sap, or maybe I'm just looking forward to having a cute little girl of my own, but I think the little girl (with moth wings, making her a... "mothgel"?) is simply adorable. This is not done by any of the "old masters", but I like it.

Second, while walking through the private corridor from the Uffizi, we buzzed past this image:

I fell in love with it right away. However, since we weren't allowed to use a flash or a tripod and there was no placard with information, it took me a while to figure out what it was--Reni's "Susanna and the Elders". After poking around a bit, I found this image, also by Reni:

I like the second better because her face is more striking, even if the colors are muted. Although, it is frustrating when an artist does multiple renditions of his own work that are so similar. Even so, in my search I found the following quote amusing as well:

"The story [of Sussana] is a complex narrative of sexual desire and visual temptation, female chastity and masculine law. During the Renaissance the dramatic focus on the moment of the woman's nakedness while bathing exposed to a lecherous conspiracy emphasized the sexual, voyeuristic and visually violating aspects of the theme, while providing a biblical and even theological justification for the painting of an erotic female nude, a genre that was emerging in this period, shifting the connotations of the female nude from its traditional iconographic association with Truth towards its modern signification of (masculine) desire and its privileged visuality" [Griselda Pollock].

Last, I really liked the following scene by Sarto:

My sister told me that she wasn't as impressed because it looked like everyone was "searching for a lost shoe" instead of mourning the death of Christ. I can see that. I'm really not impressed with the overall picture either. However, I really like how Mary Magdalene looks. In fact, I'd prefer just a poster of her, but I had to do that myself.

It is mildly interesting to me to note that the art I like contains pictures I like of girls. I like cute girls. I didn't need to fly half-way 'round the world to realize that, but it was nice to be reminded.

~Luke Holzmann

Funds, Fads, and Fun

2007-11-13T17:33:00.000-08:00

I've long felt that I needed to post something about Tithing. It started way back in the day when I was chatting with a few college buddies about tithing and taking a Sabbath (both of which seemed completely foreign to them). It happened again when one of the snot-nosed kids we were teaching belligerently told me that he wasn't going to give his nickel because he didn't want to "waste it". Okay, time to set things straight.

Even if you're not religious this still holds true: Take a freaking day off every week and give at least 10% of your income to some good cause. For the Christians out there there is no excuse. So why do we take a day off? At the most basic level, life gets all out of whack if you don't take time to relax. A "go-go-go" mentality is one of the biggest causes of people's personal lives falling apart, and I'm not just talking about workaholicism here. I talk with some new kid every couple months who tells me that his or her life is horrible or out of sorts. The solution? Take a day off where you don't do anything to try to get stuff done or get ahead. That's good advice for everyone, and God commanded it first.

For the skeptics, the burned, the mistreated out there: God's commands are good for us. I think this truth is often overlooked in many people's attempts to demonstrate how serious God is about what He wants: Don't sleep around, don't do drugs, don't cuss. Why? Because God says not to. Anyone out there willing to demonstrate clearly how each of those things makes life worse? I will gladly if you come ask me.

So what about "wasting" money giving it away? Isn't that a clear example of how God is just "putting it to us"?

Not at all.

Being willing to gladly give up 10% (or more) of your money to something good other than you is great. From a purely selfish side of things, you get a tax break. But much more than that you get to discover that you are not a slave to your money. That is a message that everyone needs to learn. And that's not to mention the fact that your few dollars will help someone else.

So Sunday, sitting in church, waiting to drop my meager check into the plate as it goes by, I noticed something. In front of me were two couples, nicely dressed, fairly regular attenders who seem like very good Christians who "have their acts together". Not that it bothers me exactly, but one of them dropped in $5 and the other one.

One dollar.

Come now. Why the crap would you put $1 into the plate if you work at all?

If you don't have a job but want to give what you can to a cause you believe in you put in one dollar. If you're 12 and have your soda money you want to give to a missionary you give a dollar. If you're an adult who lives in an expensive house with three cars and throws expensive parties and you give one dollar, something is wrong with you.

Don't get me wrong: God does not need your money. It's not even the amount. It's the statement: Tithing is a fad. I put money in the plate because that's what you do in church.

If you're not at a place where you "get" tithing as an act of faith/self-betterment, then don't give anything. Don't do it because it's expected of you. Get your head on right and start actually giving money. A dollar as an "offering" is like a one cent tip... insulting.

On the other side of this whole deal is the question of purposeful giving. My parents just got back from a seminar where they met with a fantastic organization that is doing wonders in improving the lives of the people of India. After seeing what they do, realizing that 1/12th of the world's entire population for all of time is alive in India right now, they concluded that giving money to change lives in India makes way more sense than giving money to encouraging "rebellious youth" here in the States.

I understand that, but it reminded me of something I learned in Film School: Use the resources given to you wisely for what you are supposed to use them.

The dilemma started at Missions Conference where we were told that for $200,000 we could feed an entire country, give them all Bibles and fund missionaries. Or, I realized, I could try to shoot a low-budget film that people may or may not watch, like, or "get anything" from. Time to drop out of film school, stop eating Taco Bell, and get my butt over to India.

I felt that way for a couple of days, convinced I was wasting resources. Then someone--my mom, I think--reminded me that God doesn't need my money and I need to use what He's given to me for what He's called me to do. If He gives me millions of dollars to make movies, I'd better use those millions well in making a great movie.

I guess it all comes down to a more simple point: This life is about finding joy. Taking a day off, giving your money away, and using the many blessings you have where you should will bring you true happiness. Not doing so, buying into a fad, will make you look okay at best.

May you find your place in this world.

~Luke Holzmann

I Don't Wanna Be Like Mike

2007-11-06T14:15:00.000-08:00

I did it. I finished Michael Pearl's "Sin No More" series. It's been a few days now and I decided I needed to report, review, and respond to the 10 or so hours of material presented. Naturally, this is not going to be exhaustive (thankfully), and merely an overview of my thoughts and reactions. If you are at all interested, I would recommend checking it out. If nothing else, it will allow you an opportunity to think critically and hear some challenges to some of your beliefs.

First, Mike "guarantees" at the end of CD 6 that you will stop sinning after hearing his message... "or you don't have the Spirit of God in you." Since finishing his lectures I have found that I have sinned at least 14 times that were painfully obvious. Conclusion: Either God's spirit resides not with me and am I am damned, or Michael was just saying something to make himself sound better. Since I sin, I think I know what Mike would say, but I'm not sure what Christ has to say about that.

Second, I found most of Mike's points from Scripture to be completely accurate and insightful. I can't think of a single time where he was teaching from Scripture that I disagreed. Very interesting stuff.

Third, his almost cult-like bashing of psychology, science, reason and general-life observation came off as ignorant. Psychology and science are merely labeling processes to observable phenomena in life. Proverbs would be a Bible similarity. To discredit them because they are human is "weak" at best.

Forth, Mike actually used the words "corrupted version of Scripture". What is he, Mormon? Come on. What is even more ridiculous about this is he buys into the KJV version as "the" Scripture for English speaking individuals, which has since been found to have minor translation errors. Ugh.

Fifth, many of the points that Mr. Pearl spends hours of teaching on are, at their root, mostly semantic. They are fine observations, but hardly worth calling people heretics over. For example, I'm willing to give him that the Bible does not teach a duality of spirit so there is not Old Man fighting the New Man. Cool. But then to go on to say that it is one's "Members" wrestling against one's "Spirit" makes the first point lame. I know, there is reason to make the distinction, but to claim that a believer who holds to the first view is "no better than a Buddhist" is ridiculous. It is, at most, an important semantic distinction. I think that Christ is the turning point of our salvation, not our doctrine on the nature of man.

Sixth, the majority of Mike's teaching is not based on Scripture at all. This is where what he says gets disturbing. NB: As I said above, I agree with just about everything he says from Scripture. The problem is that his foundational tenet revolves around Abraham. He claims that when God told Abraham he was going to be the father of a great nation that Abe went around telling everyone, "I'm the father of a great nation! Oh, I know I don't have kids yet, but God said that I am so I am." This is then extrapolated out to Mike's main point of saying that since we are dead to sin we should be saying that we are in the same faith of Abraham. Problem is: There's no Scriptural support for this notion.

All-in-all it was an interesting, if not depressing and frustrating, series. I'm glad I'm done with it and have been able to figure out where Mike is so very wrong. If I had missed his step out of Scripture I would still be depressed and feel damned by a holy man. Instead, I'm just a tad frustrated that he so dogmatically preaches something that isn't Scripture as if it were and am very happy for the love of God which I pray continues to make me more Christ-like.

~Luke Holzmann

Captive or Captivated?

2007-11-02T09:00:00.000-07:00

I like pretty girls. I think everyone does. If you don't, something is wrong with you or you're lying. I don't like people lying to me. We like pretty girls.

But this raises an awareness of a perplexing reality: Since we like them, what do we do about it?

In a past post I wrote:

[Michael] talks about "husbands [who] are secretly following porn queens". Sure, there are certain girls (Camilla Belle is my current obsession) whom I "follow", but "porn queens"? I don't think my issues with porn are that different from other Christian guys. I know that many guys who have abandoned themselves to porn may latch on to certain "porn queens"... but, that doesn't fit with my experience. I don't like porn queens. I'm not interested in porn queens. I never have been. There is one "babe" whom I think is beautiful, but that's about as far as that goes (that being the header of my book's blog).

This spawned an email response:

"I think it's impossible to justify porn usage for the believer. Every Scripture says to flee immorality.
"And even 'innocent' following porn queens--I doubt if your daughter was beautiful and well-endowed, you would want to follow her around the internet. Stop following someone else's daughters. Ugh."

In my reply I said:

"My goal is not to justify porn use (or sin at all, for that matter), but rather to honestly look at what is going on and thereby come up with ways of better dealing with it. The 'Nike' solution to sin of 'Just Don't Do It' hasn't worked. ...
"I hope I get a beautiful (and properly endowed) daughter to dote upon. I plan to spend a lot of time 'following' her around. The proper response to beauty is a concept I've been kicking around a lot. I'm closer to the truth, I think, but I'm not quite there yet."

I am still not quite there yet, but one thing has become more clear to me: I really like "following" pretty girls (on the internet or with my eyes in "RL"). What do we do about that? How do we properly respond to beauty?

In college this became an obsession of mine for a while. I wrote such sappy things as:

Someday, somehow, someway allow for me to gaze on you.
No one is as beautiful as you, the fabled few.
Men write songs and poetry, paint pictures, conquer gods
All for you, your sympathy, your smiles, and your nods.
I know not what to think or do when I see you walk by;
Men as tough as iron break down, they weep and cry.
Pity us, but mortal men, fallen, by the way,
So now we have nothing to do; even less to say.

Oh pass again before us
That we may all concur
That you are truly pretty,
You, and her, and her.
So many charming women,
And girls, oh to be sure,
Soft like new-made velvet;
A scent like rose or myrrh.

The longing that I know so well is deeper than your face,
But the beauty there beheld is a mirror for that grace.
You cannot know the every time that I have sought you out,
And tried with all that I could do to restrain the shout
That would exclaim your many charms, and desired traits.
Oh what a cruel world that leaves us in such states.
A fallen world we live in, and it bequeaths this pain
That sears within our souls when beauty touches stain.
Oh for better words, for flowing songs and melodies,
For something I could say or do to charm these very trees,
For all this you daily do, in that precious, youthful way.
I see you oh so rarely, but how I bless that day!
Again I say it's painful to be with you or no.
Absence makes forgetful, or the longing grow.
Alas, alack! Oh who can say, what I am to do,
For something more than love draws me more to you.
Not that I would have your hand, or even your fond touch,
But if innocence could kiss, I'd like that very much.
Curse lust that burns in passion, for that I would not feel.
Rather, I'm enamored, but more than that, it's real.
There's something in the way you are that shines upon the soul.
Like heaven on this moral coil, you seem to be so whole.
And yet you are so fragile, in need of love and care,
And so you are approachable, and I can meet you there.
Remember you're desired, much more than I can write.
I wish I knew what this is called when one weeps in delight.

I love re-reading those poems because they get at that raw emotion I experience when I see pretty girls I really like. The question remains unanswered to this day. But it is an important one that others have noted as well. I've been slowly reading through "Captivating" by the Eldredges and the entire book is devoted to the point that women were made to be, believe it or not, captivating. I haven't gotten very far yet, but the already it is dripping with the need to be noticed, appreciated, longed for, loved and, yes, even looked at.

I like pretty girls. I like looking at them too.

But am I then captive to lust? Am I merely another "dirty old man" [shoot, I have a great link, but it is far too inappropriate] who likes leering at little ladies? I admit that I am, at times, but more often than not I am just trying to "drink in" beauty. As we argue in our book, this is far more likely to be the case. The problem is that without a proper response to the properly captivating girls around us we often find ourselves captive... either to lust, legalism, or lying.

I like pretty girls. I wish I could figure out a better way to say that both in pen and in life.

~Luke Holzmann

The Myth of Moral Relativism

2007-10-28T13:11:00.000-07:00

This struck me last week and I forgot, but I was reminded of it this morning: I don't know any "moral relativists". I hear it from well-meaning religious folks all over the place: This world is no longer one of absolutes but rather full of moral relativism, the teaching that what is right for you may not be right for me. This is supposedly the problem today. This is at the very least a major contributor to our sinful culture of today.

I have yet to meet someone who is completely relativistic in his or her moral take on things. Sure, people may say that there is no absolute truth, but not because they are against the idea of Truth. Rather, they are correctly observing some apparent contradictions in this world. Because they personally do not have a standard through which to filter these conflicts they logically assume there is no absolute truth. But this isn't the definition of "moral relativism" taught in churches. One accurate definition of Relativism is "the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute" [my computer's built-in dictionary]. This is very different from the more sensational religious definition of "those opposed to truth and who believe that whatever you think is true is."

Defining "relativism" this way has led to some really silly statements that I got even in Bible college. A couple examples are as follows:

Moral Relativist: There is no absolute truth!
Christian "Thinker": Do you know that absolutely?

Moral Relativist: You shouldn't tell someone what is right or wrong because you have to know the context of why they did the action.
Christian "Thinker": So you'd be okay with me hitting you in the nose, right? Since you shouldn't tell people what is right or wrong. And besides "shouldn't" is a morally absolute position, you self contradicting relativist, you.

I put "Thinker" in quotes not because I think people who say this kind of thing are stupid (because I've said the same things myself), but because they have yet to think this all the way through. First, when a relativist says that there is no absolute truth his statement is not about the inability to make statements of truth. Rather, he is commenting on the inability to make statements that encompass all reality. In fact, if you actually talked with the guy, you could show him that even his statement of "no absolutes" is not true in some contexts. Instead of doing that, however, we just brush him off as foolish, too far gone, and one of those "moral relativists".

Second, a moral relativist does not believe that people can't make judgments about the relative goodness/badness of a situation. Bopping the guy in the nose would of course be wrong. However, if you bopped him on the nose accidentally as you turned around too quickly, he would say that was fine. Moral Relativism?

No.

I think a more helpful term may be "Contextual Morality". Are there things that are right and wrong? Yes. Are they always that way? That's much harder to say.

Oh, but what about killing babies? Who would say that's okay in certain situations?

God.

Check out Isaiah 13 (especially verse 16). That's God's wrath being poured out on an evil nation. Moral relativism? Nope. Contextual morality.

So what am I saying? Is there no Truth? Is nothing absolute? No, I'm not saying that at all. Rather, I suggest that we stop being so quick to judge the statements of others and figure out what they are really asking. Only by listening can we hope to speak to them with truth and love. In all my years of telling the "moral relativists" around me that they were self-refuting, not once did they fall on their knees and beg for salvation and Truth. Why? I wasn't listening to them, so why would they listen to me?

Stop debating and trying to prove your point. Relax a bit and realize that those around us wrestling with these ideas are just as interested in truth as we, they just have a different starting point and no anchor. Let us use our firm foundation as the starting place to build a bridge, rather than the battering ram to break down their "error"... especially when, after actually listening to them, they aren't wrong.

Contextual Morality is not wrong at all, it's "merely" incomplete without a solid context.

~Luke Holzmann

The Good, the Bad, and the Tasty

2007-10-26T16:17:00.000-07:00

Not that anyone cares, per se, but I've been down lately. That's the kind of thing people visit blogs to read, I'm sure, so I'll try not to belabor the point. I'm not depressed, but rather perturbed. I have many things I want to get done, be done with, and otherwise incorporate or expel from my life. But nothing's moving, or so it seems.

The good news is that, if I haven't told you a million times already, Production-Now.com is up and running. It looks pretty good and I'm doing my best to get the wiki exposure by updating it frequently. But I want to make this more than just a website I have sitting around. I want it to become a real entity. My current thinking is to go Non-Profit, and I have a few reasons for it that I won't post right now. So I've been talking with people and trying to figure out what to do, but, again, nothing has changed. I seem to get the same old answers and advice that I got two years ago and haven't been able to act upon. If I didn't do it then, what makes you think I can do it now? So, I feel alone; abandoned. I've said it to my wife many times recently: I have no allies.

At best that is merely how I feel.

Along those same lines is the bad: I'm rather stuck. Again, not to beat this dead dog too frequently, but Michael Pearl is wearing on me. He has been for about three weeks now. I agree with much of what he says, but it has yet to affect me, to bring about change, to help me Sin No More. He still has huge gaps that he hasn't closed. I'm hoping he does in the last few CDs, but until he does I just feel beaten down and oppressed by some guy who claims to never sin... ever. His friends don't either, apparently. ... What do you say to that?

But it's not all doom and gloom. A new Chipotle just opened by our house, so Wednesday we got a free (yes, completely, totally FREE) lunch. Today, their official opening, gave me a free T-Shirt and another burrito just for being one of the first 200 customers after 3pm. That's good stuff. And not just in the belly department, it's also great marketing that I hope to implement one day... which goes back to the beginning of this post.

So full circle we have come.

Out of time for now.

~Luke Holzmann

Waiting, Wanting, Willing to Die

2007-10-16T18:14:00.000-07:00

As we've been reading "Family Wealth Counseling: Getting to the Heart of the Matter" in preparation for figuring out what to do with our lives and as a family, we ran across the passage where "Jay" and his team ask people (mostly elderly) if the best years were before them or not, and why. Many say that the best has already been, that the good-old days were better, and that now it is mostly a waiting game. This didn't surprise me in the least.

Several years ago I was in Michigan visiting my grandparents. My grandfather was still alive and as I came into the sitting room he was there looking off into space. He did this often, and I find myself doing it too from time to time, just stilling still and thinking about who knows what. I asked him how he was doing and he replied, "Just waiting to die, Luke."

That surprised me at the time. Maybe "surprise" isn't the best word. That confused me at the time. What do you say to a statement like that?

He was old and died a few years later. He could no longer work in his coop that was his woodworking shop. I don't think he had any other activities. So he sat and thought. I have no idea what things passed through his mind, and now no one ever will. Those private thoughts have vanished into the past. My grandfather was waiting to die because the future held nothing for him.

It's not as if I've never known the thought of death, or even welcomed it. There have been several points in my life where I have wanted to die; more precisely: be dead, or better yet, never have been born. These were moments when life offered nothing. These were the times when, through whatever juvenile immaturity and perspective, the future was worse than the already terrible present and nothing good could come of it. I wanted to die because the future held nothing for me.

It is often, or perhaps only sometimes, hard to believe that "The best is yet to come" [Whit]. And that is where hopes and dreams are so important. This is the place for Mission Statements as well as practical courses of action. Without either one the future is dismal. We must have purpose and a way to accomplish this.

And this is where the Church, either the institution or the members (or likely both), has failed its congregation. The older generations must be linked with the younger. This will give purpose and pleasure to the "old fogies" and hope and direction to the "young whippersnappers". My grandfather's wisdom and thoughts may still be around if he had been connected with a few youth at his church to mentor. He may also very well be alive today.

There is one last position to death that we should probably all assume: A willingness to die. This is where another question from "Jay's" book could help us: What would you do if you knew you only had 30 days left to live? Here Martin Luther has an interesting perspective: I'd plant a tree [can't find a good reference]. Wanting or waiting to die comes from a lack of hope, but a willingness to die comes from a proper hope. The future will be better, much better. But we don't just want to bop off without making something of ourselves, and so we want to end our lives doing something that will continue beyond us, like planting a tree. And this is where connecting the generations fits so perfectly again.

Years ago while on EuroTrain (now Nexlead) someone said, "By the time you're 35 your life is no longer about you, and the sooner you realize this the better off you will be." I've long thought that, even before EuroTrain. The problem I have is how to implement my desires to help and impact others.

My current "scheme", if you will, is Production-Now.com, an on-line media mentoring program. But I'm having trouble making it "go". Anyone out there with experience want to "come alongside me" and help plant this tree of mine?

~Luke Holzmann

Sin No More Now

2007-10-11T12:52:00.000-07:00

...in 9 lessons.

After the fiasco (well, it probably wasn't exactly a fiasco but I don't know what it was) of a couple of weeks ago, I've been listening to Michael Pearl's "Sin No More" series. It's interesting.

It's also frustrating.

First, his use of Scripture could we way out to lunch and I wouldn't know. I should be listening to this with my Bible, Strong's and IVP's Bible Background Commentary, but I'm not because I'm listening to it while I drive. Mr. Pearl will read Scripture and then interject his own thoughts on the matter without changing his voice inflection. So I find myself saying, "Wait, does the Bible say that, or him?" He also uses the King James Version without any references to commentary, study, or great thinkers. So, is this his interpretation of Scripture (and his own thoughts interjected) or is this based on good study? I can't tell at all.

Second, he keeps saying that we can be free from sin now. Instantly. He just used that word today. I'm on the fourth CD now (so more than four hours in) and he has yet to say how this happens, how I can be free, and what it takes. So, yes, I can be free from sin now... I just need to hang in there for five or six more hours. Granted, I know he's building a case and working up to it, but it's just annoying. Especially since, over the past couple of weeks of listening to this I haven't seen any positive change.

Don't worry, I'm going to keep pushing through, I'm just expressing my frustration as it now stands. I finally got around to writing about this because this morning at prayer someone read about how the Bible will lead us into all truth (or something like that, and, unfortunately I have forgotten what the passage was), but the question that came to my mind was: So what do we say about those who come to completely erroneous ideas based "on Scripture"?

This goes back to a brilliant question my dad once asked me: What good is it to say that the Bible is inerrant if we can not read or interpret it infallibly?

I still don't have a good answer to that.

~Luke Holzmann

Does God Save Sinners?

2007-09-27T20:26:00.000-07:00

I was up late last night.

I was up early this morning.

I didn't need to be, but I was.

Why? Because of some nagging and disturbing thoughts. I mean, I just read an article that had damned me to hell. I was damned by some really holy people. These people have a ministry centered around joy and freedom in their holiness before God (scroll down to "The Christian Walk"). They believe that holiness is the "norm" of the Christian life. Because that is not exactly the case for me, I'm not a "true" believer, and am therefore still in need of salvation.

That all pretty well lines up with Scripture, especially if you're looking for that. But to tell me I'm not really a Christian? That I'm still damned if I don't become one? That I am outside the grace of God until I "turn or burn"? ...Holy crap! (oh, I guess I just showed my damned state there too) That's enough to keep anyone with any sense of moral responsibility and a desire for Christ-likeness up.

Now, I wasn't up because I was questioning my salvation. "I know whom I have believed" [2 Timothy 1:12] and that "he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion" [Philippians 1:6]. I was up because something was very, very wrong with the statements of these very, very holy people.

Besides the nuisance of them disregarding everything I say as null simply because I am not of the mind of God, there is a deeper issue. The issue is with a fundamental question of Salvation: Does God save sinners?

If you followed the link above, you would see that they clearly do believe this. So why do I ask this question? Because they have made their answer beg another question: Does God save sinners so they no longer sin and no longer need saving, or does He "merely" save sinners?

I believe that God "merely" saves sinners. I also believe that the fruit of following Christ will be a more righteous life, but I am fairly confident that I will remain a sinner until the day that I die. If this is not the case, awesome; but, I'm not holding my breath or questioning God's redeeming work in my life.

From what I can tell of others (NGJ, my sister, and, it seems, Mormons) tend to hold to the other idea: You get saved and then you are on your own. Now would anyone actually claim this as true? I doubt it. But the fact remains: They are willing to tell me (in writing) that after being saved, I'd better be holy or I'm obviously still under the damning wrath of God. Hmm... but maybe that's not what they are saying at all. Perhaps I'm getting in the way and twisting what they would actually claim.

It could be that they would merely say that I have not "fully matured" in my walk with God. Perhaps they just think I'm stuck in the basics and haven't moved on to the life God has offered me. Maybe they wouldn't say I'm headed to Hell, exactly, more that I'm not exactly headed to Heaven either. Even so, the question remains: Does God save sinners?

-------

I just read a follow-up e-mail from my sister who assured me that her husband has found that he is dead to sin (porn, in particular, as that was what sparked this whole thing). That's awesome. I encourage everyone to break free from sin. I would welcome the state of "dead to sin", and even mentally ascent to it's reality. How that becomes reality for me, I'm unsure. My sister says that I need to listen to this series by Michael Pearl, so I'll see what I can do about that. Believe me, if it changes my life, I'll let you know.

For now, tonight, as I head off to bed, I must admit that I am still a sinner. I am still in desperate need of God's grace and salvation. And that is why I am so thankful that He saves sinners.

What would a life "dead to sin" be like, look like? I guess I'm not close enough to my sister to know. ...I admit it: That was mean. But I'll leave it there for now for two reasons: 1. I said it in part because I believe that a "true" Christian life would be Christ-like and therefore draw sinners to find what He is all about, and 2. It could be my fault (and so a reflection on my state not hers), in that if I am still too worldly I don't see the things of God... but that doesn't jive well with point 1. ...Bother, I am confused. And so, confused, hurt, and very aware of my own short-comings, I throw myself on the grace of God and bid you all "adieu" (quite literally: into the hands of God).

~Luke Holzmann

No Greater Harm

2007-09-26T15:24:00.000-07:00

Edit: It has come to my attention that Michael (not Debi) wrote this article. The original letter was address to Debi, and I mistakenly assumed. My apologies. Please make note of this error as you read my post. However, since they are "one" there is much difference between the two.

My sister sent me an article. She said that she and her husband "really like" it and thought it would be a good resource for the book I'm writing. I really like it when people send me material to consider. It pushes me to think and re-evaluate my ideas. However, the ideas presented in this article are on par with the statements I felt the need to rebut in my "Flirting with Sexual Jerks" post, and so I feel the need to respond.

This article comes from a "ministry" named "No Greater Joy". My wife has read another of Debi's works and really liked it. So, I guess this goes to show that one must be very careful when representing Christ because, obviously, we all get it wrong from time to time. That being said, I pray that I will share "the mind of Christ" [1 Corinthians 2:16] and not spread more harm.

Please feel free to read the entire article before wading into my tirade.

Good. Moving on.

I will overlook the issues with the original note for now. The biggest problem I have with it is that the husband is not (according to him) looking at porn. So, why does everyone treat him as if he is? Oh sure, his TV use seems high, but the reason he's sleeping in his shop is probably because he isn't "getting any" (her words: "join myself to him") so why in the world would he want to sleep in the same bed? In short, she is not helping the situation; in fact, she is perpetuating the problem and driving her husband to porn.

How?

Well, the basic problem of pornography is not sex, or sex drive, or anything like that. Rather, it is linked to your relationships. If your relationship with your wife is cruddy, then why would you go to her for sex or anything at all for that matter? You wouldn't. And if she is demonizing you as a "porno-freak" and "pervert" then there is no way you'd go near her. I'm reminded of the passage: "God's kindness leads you toward repentance" [Romans 2:4]. Grace and mercy are much more effective at brining people to Christ, probably because that is what He was all about.

Debi talks about "husbands [who] are secretly following porn queens". Sure, there are certain girls (Camilla Belle is my current obsession) whom I "follow", but "porn queens"? I don't think my issues with porn are that different from other Christian guys. I know that many guys who have abandoned themselves to porn may latch on to certain "porn queens"... but, that doesn't fit with my experience. I don't like porn queens. I'm not interested in porn queens. I never have been. There is one "babe" whom I think is beautiful, but that's about as far as that goes (that being the header of my book's blog).

"At one large meeting of several thousand 'Christian' men, over 50% of those present confessed to having 'used pornography' in the previous seven days." The fact that she puts "Christian" in quotes shows her damnation of these men. I am sick of people who claim that because you sin you are not saved. That kind of thinking runs counter to the Good News (and it really is good news) that we are sinners saved by Grace alone. Do we then have license to do whatever we want? Of course not, but that doesn't change that fact that at its heart Christianity is about sinners. Romans 6 talks a lot about no longer being slaves to sin, but by becoming "slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life." When we turn our lives over to God holiness is the result, not the aim. We get there by a proper understanding of God's love for us, and this process is life-long.

"If you isolate yourself in a room and indulge in pornography, you are not sick; you are evil." As I know, and I throw myself on God's grace. ...I'm sure that if you took a moment to consider your life, motives, and thoughts, you'd come to the same conclusion.

"You are part of a disgusting group of perverts, all piled onto the same image together. And somewhere there is a sexually dysfunctional editor enjoying the extent of his erotic powers." Now I like what Jason said once: How is liking girls perverted? Beyond this, from what I know of porn producers (granted, I only know one) they are doing what they can do make a buck, not reveling in their "erotic powers".

"You are not oversexed. You are not even sexed. You are alone." And here Debi gets as close as she is going to in the article to the truth about pornography: It's not about sex. Unfortunately, she disregards the fact she just pointed out and says that pornography is about sex. It's not about sex. It's about a lack in relationships. It's about being/feeling alone.

"Adam fell, but you are falling even further. You are plunging your soul into eternal destruction, moving as far away from God as you can get." This statement is ludicrous. How does she even begin to rationalize depths of "falleness"? It's about as binary as you can get. In fact, we start out damned and then have the option of being saved by God's grace... there isn't any plunging involved at all. Dead in sin, or alive in Christ [Romans 8]. Odd; why does this article make me feel like I have to go back to the "Roman Road to Salvation"? I see that my Blog Title is well chosen: There isn't much greater harm than messing up the Gospel.

"You justify your addiction"... no I don't. Porn is a problem. It's bad, destructive and not good. But how about offering a solution and talking about what's really going on instead of just liberally handing out "Get Into Hell Free" cards?

"You are having communion with the devil – bowing in worship of the flesh. You are a disciple of evil." Ouch. I wouldn't go that far, unless you want to apply that brand to every sin... which you don't, or you would have said something like: "You also are a disciple of evil who desperately needs God's grace too." Hmm... let me say that: Debi (and my sister, and you who are reading this): You also are a disciple of evil who desperately needs God's grace too.

"You have taken the downhill slide into Hell, and there is absolutely nothing to stop you except your willingness to apply the brakes." Again: Lunacy. Sin is always an issue of will, and we need God's grace and power to intervene. My desire to be good does nothing for me. C.S. Lewis in "The Screwtape Letters" demonstrated this well. Do we have a part to play? Absolutely. Repentance is an act we do. But to get off the path to Hell requires God's intervention. As with most things on this subject, Debi resorts to sensationalistic verbiage to try to make her statements more meaningful.

"There comes a point when any attempt at a normal relationship is nothing more than assisted masturbation. Your world grows ever smaller until you are alone with your semen. You stink of self. You do not deserve a woman." This is very true, but why? Because pornography is at heart about relationships, not sex. So, relationships are damaged by porn, and porn is reinforced by bad relationships. As for "deserving" of a companion... who would dare to say they "deserve" a spouse? If you dare, you have serious pride issues and a completely unrealistic view of self. The only way we "deserve" anything is as adopted children of God, which would make Him get the glory, not you.

"Don’t tell me that pornography is a substitute for a good woman." I wouldn't dream of it. Pornography is not about substituting sex, it's about substituting relationships in the "male" way. Read Dr. Sax's "Why Gender Matters". And then consider the actions taken in the letter that spawned the article. Again, telling your husband you won't have sex with him because he looks at porn will just push him toward pornography (thankfully, Debi does not condone this). If you refuse to have a relationship with him, he will gladly find that relationship somewhere else.

"[T]he drive for pornography is a cultivated, perverted passion that has nothing to do with love and marriage." I agree it has nothing to do with love and marriage, but it wasn't something that I cultivated. It is a twisting of perfection via my fallen human state, but "perverted passion"? If by "perverted" you mean "not ideal"... okay, but "perverted" has many negative connotations that I think are merely here for sensationalism (the line "If sodomy is sin, pornography is its 'significant other' " would indicate that I'm right).

"The children of godly parents are protected from unclean spirits by being under their moral umbrella. But when a father gives his mind over to wicked lusts, he removes the hedge of protection around his family and invites impure devils into his home. ...Any prayers you pray for their safety are negated the moment you open the pages of a pornographic book or glare at an electronic image." ...I agree that there are spiritual strongholds and physical locations of demonic activity. I even agree that engaging in certain sins opens the door evil spirits. However, the protection we have is from God, not our "moral umbrella". Where is Christ's Blood in this woman's writing? The lack of Christ indicates to me that she has lost sight of salvation and is now resting on "personal holiness"... may I never get there: Son of David have mercy on me and my family!

"If you think you can indulge in pornography and still be a Christian, you are blindly hoping against the clear statements of Scripture. ...You are dangling your soul and the souls of your children over the fires of eternal damnation." While it is true that sin is what we need saving from through Christ's Blood, I would challenge everyone to read Galatians 5:22-26: "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other." I fear that there is much conceit and a significant lack of "fruit" from the article. And so I would suggest that we all "continue to work out [our] salvation with fear and trembling" [Philippians 2:12].

"I have not been as hard on you as God will be in the day of judgment." That is up to God and my relationship with Christ. It has little to do with my sin, and nothing to do with you. But here, for the first time, Debi begins to talk sense. She starts to mention turning our lives over to Christ. That's good.

"I have done you a service by increasing your guilt... The good news is that Jesus Christ ...died the death you should die. If you repent toward God, God will remove the guilt and free you from sin’s power." I think guilt is entirely Satanic, which is why God removes it. So, I think it is sinful to go about "increasing" the guilt of others. And, while the rest of what Debi says is true, it ultimately lacks the point: "While we were still sinners, Christ died for us" [Romans 5:8. She also does not delve into the much more important detail of how God frees us from sin's power, what it means to be a "new creation", and how we walk blamelessly. She just assumes that you automatically do so. This is not at all the case, and, since I buy into Inaugurated Eschatology, it won't be fully here on earth.

"Your children, your wife, and your God are waiting." If God is waiting, you're toast. God isn't waiting; He's very much active. He didn't just send Christ to die and now is sitting back waiting to see who responds.

"How do you joyfully participate in your nuptial duties when you know that you are simply a receptacle for the eroticism stirred up by his vice? I have to admit that it stretches the limits of my faith to tell you that your duty remains the same." I find that sad. If Debi understood pornography (it's not rooted in sex), then she would tell wives to seek ever closer relationships with their husbands, not merely keep doing their "duty".

"You can wrestle with it for years and never get any relief, but once you learn your lessons in faith and trust, God can work the miracle of deliverance." I believe this is also true for those who struggle with pornography.

"God can and will work to defend you and the children if you will truly commit it all to him and perform your duties cheerfully." I don't know how Debi feels she can say this. This is clearly not true, and the "hope" she can offer women who are not defended by God is that they were not "truly" committed to Him.

"[Tell your kids that] you are grieved that [your husband] is going to hell for the lack of Christ in his life." Well, she damned me. Impressive. If my salvation is bound to my holiness, I'm damned. If my salvation rests in Christ then I have hope. I prefer to live with hope. I am still curious about what Debi has to say about her own sin....

"Cantankerous wives can provoke their husbands to all kinds of anger and bitterness" and porn use. "But let me be clear, a lousy wife – a lousy sex partner – is not responsible for a husband turning to pornography." Responsible? No, we are responsible for our sin. But that does not change the fact that a bad relationship fuels porn.

"Finally, there is hope. Put it in God’s hands and wait patiently. Others have seen the victory. You can too." Finally. Wish she had painted a picture for how guys can do this with the damning sin--heh, all sin is damning [Romans 6:23]--of pornography.

Do I have the answer to porn? No, but I'm working on it. And a posture toward God, even mired in sin, is something that Debi never considered. Let me assure you: God can make the foulest clean.

May He turn His face toward you.

~Luke Holzmann

What Makes Boys Cry?

2007-09-23T19:39:00.000-07:00

aka: Love, "Love", and Love Acts

I watch a lot of movies. Currently, I get through at least five a week, often more. I also watch just about anything, so I've seen some pretty odd, lame, terrible, disgusting, and disturbing flicks.

But I just watched "Boys Don't Cry" which reminded me a lot of "Monster", both of which I would not recommend. I first heard about "Boys Don't Cry" on the radio way back in 1999 when it came out. It dropped off the radar for me until I heard about it again while I was watching "This Film is Not Yet Rated". So I checked it out.

It's a story about courage, or love, or hate, or something; possibly all three. A girl passing as a guy who loves girls, finds a true love and gets knocked off for it. Similar to "Monster" in that there's true girl-on-girl love that ultimately ends in death. The fact that there is much more going on--theft, murder, jail time, other loves, lots of drinking, drugs, and many other things that scream "white trash"--is really not the point of these movies. These films are about finding yourself, love, and a way to live (or die) for who you are. ...I guess. It's "Brokeback Mountain" with a little more meaning.

Maybe it's the fact that "Monster" and "Boy's Don't Cry" are based on reality. Maybe it's because of the chapter on homosexuality in "Why Gender Matters". Maybe it's because I've known quite a few homosexuals myself. Maybe it's just because I'm odd. But whatever the reason, I feel like I need to respond to these movies and entertain the questions they raise in my mind.

As the song asks, "What is love?" Oh sure, we all know it's far more than a feeling. We may even understand that it is a verb. But what does that mean? How does one love someone who has determined (for whatever horrible reasons) to be unlovable?

"But wait a minute, Luke," someone may counter, "these girls found love with a very special female soul-mate." I guess I have to at least nod in that direction. But the love they found... it doesn't feel like love. Sure, it was love making. It seems like it felt very meaningful. And even Dr. Sax in "Why Gender Matters" points out that intimacy is very different for girls and boys, which further blurs this line and definition of love. But still, it feels like escapism. The only way these girls could function in the world was to (ideally) run off with their lover girl and be happy. Mean ol' Society (or Fate, or whatever) stepped in and decimated their hopes, dreams, and futures. So what should we have done instead?

We know that we should not have murdered "Brandon". We know these girls were just seeking love. We know that the "love acts" they did with girls made them feel like a million bucks. But what acts of love should I have done if I had been there? If we don't want these kinds of terrible events to repeat themselves, then give me a suggest for what I can do to help.

What bothers me most about these stories is that no one, especially the filmmakers, has a suggestion for what we should do. There's a sense of rage, frustration, and a demand for the "truth" of these stories, but absolutely no action, no hope, no redemption.

What makes this boy cry is that I don't have a suggestion either. If people go down these devastating paths, for whatever the reason, there is nothing I can do. That is so not my world, my experience, my reality that I can't fathom what I'd suggest or say to them if they came to me. Worse still, because I am not in their world, there is no way they would come to me.

This isn't about environment, per se, but it is about the life we choose and the hope we have. Again, someone might suggest that these girls did not have a lot of choices in life, and that may be true. But at least 50% of the blame rests on their shoulders: The refused to seek help (or accept help, like in the scene in "Monster" where the guy offers her a ride, money, and anything else she needs; she responds by putting a bullet in his head). The other 50% of the blame clearly rests on our shoulders because we are not visible enough as an obvious place of rest. We have not been helpful enough.

And that's what's so totally mind-blowing about Christ: People knew He was the guy to go to. How did He do it? I pray that one day my pursuit of Christ-likeness will lead me to the answer. Until then, if you have any ideas, let me know.

~Luke Holzmann

Faggots, Thongs, and Britches

2007-09-16T19:23:00.000-07:00

I was reading "Saint Frances of Assisi" by Chesterton and he said something about being the "fag-end of the faggot" and it got me thinking. Nothing concrete, see, but just a whirring in my mind. This man spells the phenomenon of the perception of a specific spectrum of light "colour", so we should take what he writes with a hand on the dictionary. There are other words, like faggot, that have been, well, shifted over the years. "Thong" used to mean "sandal" and now means "a clothless panty". "Gay" used to mean "happy" and now means "lame", which used to mean "crippled" and now means "less than ideal" which is my current working definition of "sucks". "Sucks" used to be a verb for the force used to draw a fluid along a pipe. This shifted to a specific fluid down a pipe-like fixture. Now it's a general word, much like every other four letter word out there, which means just about whatever you want it to mean. And this brings me, in my "free association" mind scramble, to a discussion of Meaning and Language. More specifically: How are Language and Meaning connected?

Those who ascribe to the "Muted Group Theory" of communication--which states that because English was developed by white males it has consistently oppressed the minorities and women, and which is the only theory I remember from my college class on the subject of theories of communication because it was so totally bunk--would likely say that Meaning is defined by Language and it must have taken a radical visionary to give voice to the homosexual community by giving them a less "socially-stigmatized" word by which to define themselves, which has inevitably lead us to today's inane definition of "gay".

Others would say that Language is merely a mode of transmitting Meaning, and Meaning can be had even if the words are garbled, like a scene where a character spouts out "Why that f-ing f-er f-ed my f-ed-up f-ing f-, so now I'm f-ing going to f- him up". Surprisingly, this makes sense.

Perhaps this ultimately goes back to audience. Depending on when and where you are in the world, a faggot is either a stick or on par with a racial slur. And while this is very important to us as communicators, it is equally essential when we are listeners. We must be careful to filter everything we read and hear through the context from which the speaker is speaking. Otherwise the Bible is unclear, the Constitution meaningless, and our laws inert.

So what do we mean by a "cubit"? What are "britches"? And how would we know if we were the very "fag-end of the faggot"?

Often, we must look to the past to understand it. Looking back with "20/20 Hindsight" often gives us the wrong impression because our world is not their world, our words not theirs, and we have a tendency to be rather stuck-up about our perception. Likely, to find more meaning and truth we need more humility.

Humility does not say that we are wrong, but it allows for the possibility. Humility lets us be assertive and certain while at the same time cautious and correctable. We can learn if we are humble, and we have much to learn from the past. It may be a good idea to not only read Chesterton, but also "The Dictionary of Disagreeable English" to lay a fun, albeit "la-di-da" (what?), foundation to our understanding of the world we now experience from the lessons of the past.

So, please, keep your britches on and your eyes open because whether your thongs are worn on your feet or between your butt-cheeks, we could all use more humility so as not to end our lives with an epitaph that states: Here lies the fag end of the faggot, may he burn forever.

~Luke Holzmann

Zeitgeist - Our Era

2007-07-02T21:15:00.000-07:00

While dumping some footage this evening I had time to poke around what videos are big on Google Videos and found a documentary on "Christianity, 9/11, and the Federal Reserve". Curious, I watched it. Granted, it's two hours long and could really use some editing, but the content is certainly provocative if not sensationalistic, biased and wrong.

After watching the whole video, I followed the link to the references. It was clearly stated that "some information... is not obtained by simple keyword searches on the Internet. You have to dig deeper." In other words, Wikipedia did not back a single claim I double checked. Granted, Wikipedia is hardly the end all of information, but many of his(?) claims in the first part about Christianity didn't even make sense. Glancing through his sources you find that his bit on Christianity consists of 19 sources, three of which are written by the same guy. His bias is clear. Even so, it was disconcerting to me that I did not have specific rebuttals to the claims. Worse still, I have no idea where to go get them.

He's clearly out to lunch on some of this stuff, but how much? How would we know?

This is where, again, my Christian education didn't prepare me to respond. We are told what is true and what isn't. We are told that there are people out there with difficult questions. In some of my really good Bible classes we were even exposed to a few of these questions, but then were given the answer right out. So, yes, this guy is wrong... but if I had to discuss this with him face to face, would I be able to at least present the other side so he couldn't leave thinking I was completely clueless? Where do I find the answers, the rebuttal, the solution?

And perhaps that is why were are where we are in this era. This isn't merely a "relativistic culture" like we hear in church. No, there's a reason why everything seems grey. The world is so complex, truth so elusive, and perspectives so easily flawed that it makes it difficult to say, for certain and with clarity, "You're wrong." Not because truth can't be known, but because it is hard to state truth in a way that others can accept.

Like Zeitgeist--interesting, biased and paranoid, but what could I possibly say that would shed light on the other side? He accepts his truth "and disregards the rest". By the same token, how would I know what truth I've disregarded? My perspective is far too limited.

The comfort I take is that I still watch these kinds of things, still inquire, still search, still question. But in my search and openness I still hold to a consistent, orthodox view of things, and that is something sadly missing from the cynics of today. This era is full of questions that demand not answers, but apologies for the confronted. So, perhaps my lack of rebuttals isn't a problem because the counter-argument is not being sought. Rather, we must rethink how we approach these issues and find a viable solution buried behind the pain of the accusers. And therein lies the rub: This isn't logic we must combat, but hurt. And those that are hurt do not fight by the rules of reason. No, they are out for blood so theirs is not shed. Too bad they refuse to accept the fact that Blood enough has been spilled.

So, Mr. Documentary-Guy, I'm not after you or your ideas (as "out to lunch" as they may be). Rather, I want to know what started you down this path. Why did you make this video? Who hurt you? And what links Christianity, 9/11, and the Federal Reserve for you? That isn't clear in your movie and I can't piece it together. I'm curious, and I want to learn.

~Luke Holzmann

The Internet is for...

2007-06-11T21:18:00.000-07:00

So, I happened across this today. If you happed to feel like I just ruined your virgin eyes... I'm not sorry. I am sorry if you are 4 and have not been exposed to pornography as of yet, but I started that when I was six. And, considering I doubt anyone younger than 6 will be reading this blog, I don't think I did anything new to you.

The picture made me laugh. Why did I chuckle at such an obviously... "bad" thing? Because it's true. It's very, very true. It reminds me, once again, of a very famous Google Video. I recently showed the video to my (married) little sister and she was disturbed. She asked me how I could find something like that funny. It's hard to explain why a joke is funny, and often ruins it, so I had to think for a moment. The best I could offer was something to the lines of, "It's funny because that's what's going on. Nobody is really willing to talk about it, so I think it's great people are doing so in a such a light hearted way." Maybe now we can finally talk about this subject... for real.

Granted, this does all stem from our book, but as I write I get more and more frustrated that I don't have it finished yet. People need the truth, and without it they are still locked up. They aren't set free. Please, let this free you. We do know, exactly, what it is you've been Googling. If your wife does not know, it's about time she did.

Last week we had a family reunion. At one point in time my dad started talking with my Uncle about what he does at his church. My Uncle talked about the ministry opportunities he has, and how he mentors people with problems. He was very pleased to announce that he is personally mentoring guys who were addicted to pornography.

My ears perked up. Perhaps my Uncle had some new ideas or information that I could use in my book. He then went on say that he was working with these two guys every week.

Wait... what? Two?

He only knows/mentors two guys with the porn problem? Nevermind. There's no way he has anything new to say. ...He didn't. He did cover some of the same ground we've been fleshing out in the book, but nothing, literally nothing, else.

Of the guys I've known who are around my age, I know for a fact that 90% of them struggle with porn. Of the 10% that I don't know for sure, they are in the "virgin eyes" camp and can't be trusted. I think it is safe to assume that just about every guy I know within 5 years of my age (anyone older or younger isn't going to confide that in me yet) looks at porn on a regular basis.

Let that sink in.

Your husband, boyfriend, buddy, pastor, judge, principal, jailer, father, friend looks at porn to some extent or another. As do you (1 in 3 odds even if you're a girl). Time to come clean.

As I posted recently, I've been involved in a little experiment with that. I downloaded some "accountability" software that will e-mail my wife my web history. She already knows I look at porn, but not to the extent to which I have. Since installing the software I've been much more limited, to things like images of Melissa Theuriau and the humorously captioned bikini girl. So, sure, I haven't gone to obviously bad sites, but I still seek this stuff out in more acceptable ways.

It's been hard.

It's been really hard.

To be honest, it hasn't made sex any better. It hasn't improved my marriage. It hasn't helped with anything. In fact, just yesterday, we got into a huge fight surrounding all this, and I haven't been to a porn site of any kind in almost two weeks... partly because I hadn't been to a porn site in two weeks... but that's a different issue that requires some time before I will be willing to write about it.

The point of all this? I'm not really sure--I saw a picture that made me laugh and I wanted to post it with some thoughts. No clarity, just a chuckle.

~Luke Holzmann

Heroes of Old

2007-06-06T10:20:00.000-07:00

I've recently started watching a TV Show based on a very X-Men-ish storyline. Basically, "Evolution" has begun to shape men into Heroes with super-human abilities (including flight, "cell regeneration" [which is a misnomer because she can actually come back from the dead], and telepathy). The show is quite enjoyable, but would be much better without the horrible "recaps" every few episodes (the voice talent is almost as bad as the blurb writer).

The idea of evolutionary betterment so we can survive as a "species" feels compelling. It makes sense, and draws from the horribly un-idyllic world in which we live. It calls for a Savior, a Superman, Heroes. It feels right. But something has been bothering me. I finally figured out what it was: Heroes are not new.

This show draws on the idea that we are now (whenever the show is supposed to take place) in need of Heroes, and evolution in its blind "wisdom" is here to save us. In the face of coming Nuclear disaster, "Evolution" has stepped in... which is exactly the opposite of Natural Selection, which states that the "fit" survive... meaning that it is only post-apocalypse that we see whom the "fit" were (namely, the cockroaches the show begins with). Evolution, by definition can't be preemptive. But that's an entirely different issue.

The thing that bothers me the most is that these kinds of stories claim that heroes are on the rise now, for the first time, to save humanity. This is simply not the case. History, lore, and legend all point to "heroes of old, men of renown". Even thinking back to movies like "300", we have stories from long ago of Heroes who rose.

Certainly, the creators of the show aren't trying to argue for a complete lack of heroes before now, but their painfully evolutionary bent reeks of lameness. It's lacking, biased, and myopic. Stories are powerful ways of shaping the beliefs and actions of people, and a story that says that in light of evolution's "violent process... morality looses its meaning. The question of 'good' and 'evil' reduced to one simple choice: Survive or perish" is not a story I can support. I can enjoy the ride, but I can't shake the brooding emptiness of such a world. Not only is such a world empty, but it is also naturally self-contradictory. We can only enjoy a story when we believe that the choices, struggles and problems our Heroes face will allow for good to win. Even tragedy only works within a functional "moral" world. Outside of good and evil, tragedy becomes comedy and drama becomes boring. I first noticed this consciously at the end of "Swordfish". The movie begins with the "bad guy" talking about how the "bad guy" should win for once in a Hollywood movie. The film then tries to make this guy into a "bad guy" by giving him guns, girls, and gold. Stuff blows up, boobies get shown, and, low-and-behold the "bad guy" gets away. The problem is that he's not really a bad guy. Sure, he does bad stuff, but the movie only works because people believe that he did the right thing. Was it "moral"? Was it "good"? No, but it was right... for the film and the filmmakers.

We now tread into "situational ethics" and "relativistic morality" which are decried, with good reason, by the religious. However, there is a certain amount of truth to all this: While there is definite right and wrong, motivation, far more than action, determines your moral status. So, sure, it is wrong to murder, but is it really wrong to tear people apart when you enter your "Hulk/Hyde" state? That's hard to say. Why? Because is it wrong to protect yourself? That's hard to say as well.

But back to the point of this post: We have long had heroes and evolution has had nothing to do with it. Evolution is certainly a tool in the "hand of God", so it could very well be that there was some genetic reason that Samson kicked so much butt, but probably not.

So, sure, enjoy the show "Heroes" but remember, 2 Samuel has some wicked-awesome stories as well. Perhaps I should team up with Frank Miller and Zack Snyder and work on "30" or something.

~Luke Holzmann

Rooting Out the Problem

2007-05-30T20:44:00.000-07:00

Believe it or not I am posting about my plumbing again. Yes, yes, it feels like yesterday that I was shelling out $300 for a guy to come to my house and push a metal cord down my pipes, but I had to do it again yesterday. This time the bill was "only" $210. It would have been 50 bucks more if I had not pulled out the toilet myself. I'd never removed a toilet before, though I had seen it in a movie. My experience was almost as awesome. Well, not really.

So, the plumber clears the line (turns out that it took 75 feet of snake from the basement floor, which makes me feel a little better since my snake is only 50 feet and I tend to go in from the roof). Shortly after he leaves, however, the drain backs up again. So I called them this afternoon and they came are re-snaked the line. This time the problem was about 100 feet down and it didn't cost me anything. A 6 month warranty is much better than a one month. In short, don't go with the expensive guys. Sure, they treated me okay, but I still feel ripped off for a couple reasons.

So, we're able to do dishes, wash clothes, and flush the toilet as often as we want instead of only once every hour or so. And, the basement isn't flooding again. All good things.

But just like there's been buildup in the pipes, there's been crap flowing through my life too. One of those things is, of course, porn. I checked out xxxchurch.com yesterday and decided to give their x3watch software a "go". It's free and cake to install, so why not try it?

I've always thought that "accountability software" was a dumb idea. I mean, it's not really going to stop me from masturbating or looking at stuff I shouldn't. It may slow me down and limit my access, but it won't really help anything. Right?

Well, that was my thinking not that long ago, but my opinion has shifted a little.

Limited access may be the point. Sure, it's not going to stop my sexually charged body from desiring porn or stop me from finding images that get me going. But what it will do is stop me from going to explicitly pornographic sites. Now that my wife will be getting a web history of my browsing I won't be visiting obviously bad places on the net. So? Does it stop me from finding "innocent" places to whack off? No. So, what good does it do?

It stops me from getting into the really bad, destructive crap. Does it fix all the issues of the crap flowing through me? No. But it does take out some of the roots growing deep down in the "pipes" of my soul.

But now that I've let my wife in on my web history, she wants in everywhere. That's why I started writing this post in the first place: She's in the basement searching my computer for objectionable content. And that makes me upset. How does she know there is questionable stuff on my computer? Because I told her. What does she want to do with it? Delete it, of course. But I don't want her to, and figuring out why might be a really good thing to do.

1. I have only gathered stuff that intrigues me and I think it beautiful. I don't have any hardcore porn at all. I do have pictures of girls in very little, and even some showing a little more than that, but I kept those images because I liked them more than because I could use them to get off. Most of the images don't show any more than you would see at a beach. Am I just trying to fool myself? Perhaps. But the next point could indicate otherwise.

2. I have been conducting an experiment. Of all the porn I look at, I only really like pictures of a few girls, and only a handful of their pictures. So, for all the girls I've seen on the internet, I like a dozen or so pictures. They are pictures I'd like to return to, not because they are the most effective, but because they are the most appealing images I've seen. It's like the classic nudes of art, in a way. Erotic? Sure. Pornographic? Hard to say. So, I have kept them around to see if they would stop being porn and turn into something closer to art. The results? I look at the images rarely, consistently weed out the ones I don't really like, and rarely use them as "inspiration". So, does it make a difference? Yes, I believe it does. No longer are they the "bad" images online, but the pictures of female beauty on my computer.

Now, to be completely honest, there are times that I open up that folder just to use those images for my own purposes, but it isn't nearly as often as I log onto the internet to look for other stuff.

So what has my wife found on my computer? I'm not sure, but I'll have to go check on her in a minute. Not looking forward to that. For how much I like to be open an honest about stuff, it's hard to do with an irate wife.

What has she done to my prized images? Hard to say since she hasn't returned triumphantly from her quest as of yet. Is she still rooting for the problem? If she is, she's in the wrong place. The issue isn't my hard drive. The issue is me and our relationship.

I've held onto many of these images with a desire, a hope that I could share them with her. Not because I want her to sit down and watch porn with me, but this isn't even porn. I want to share with her what I find beautiful. I want to be able to share with my wife the things about women that excite and move me. But I haven't, and now I won't be able to. Why didn't I just show her the video with nudity the moment I watched it instead of downloading it? Because she'd make me delete it, and the reasons she would have nothing to do with my reasons for keeping it. But how would I go about explaining that one? I can't. It's unjustifiable. And that feels like it has to be wrong.

Odd how messy this all is.

Wait. It's not odd at all. It's just like the drainage main in my house: A few little roots and crap is literally floating in the shower.

~Luke Holzmann

Flirting with Sexual Jerks

2007-05-22T12:57:00.000-07:00

Okay, so I'm writing a book with my best friend. It pretty much rules. Because of this, Jason sends me stuff all the time to consider and reflect upon, and to which respond. It's good because it helps keep us up-to-date with what the Christian culture is saying and how we need to respond to it. Jason just sent me an article and asked for my thoughts. These certainly belong in our book, but that's not coming out for a while so I'm just going to spout out a rant here and now.

First, a disclaimer: This is written in anger, frustration, and is not going to go through several readings to make sure that it says exactly what it should. Thus, there may be a twinge of un-love coming across. For that, I am sorry. However, despite the untold number of editors of the original article, it is equally, if not severely more, un-loving and destructive. ...hence my need to get a response out now... and the flaws of this post. 'nough said.

I do not know John Thomas. I've never met him, nor have I read much of his stuff. This is not coming from years of bitterness and build up. In fact, it is entirely possibly (though extremely unlikely based on the article I'm responding to) that he has some really good, solid stuff to say. Due to the fact that John holds the copyrights to this, I don't think I can post the whole thing here. Please go and read it so my comments will make more sense.

-------

The first question John responds to comes from a woman who is "happily married" and has been for almost a decade. She met a guy who plays on the worship team, and spends quite a bit of time talking and "texting" with him, and even has planned to hang out with him and some friends for coffee and such. She wants to know: Is this inappropriate even though they are both aware of their relationships with others.

The reply? "Of course it's inappropriate."

John starts with a discussion of age. He's not that much younger, so an affair is totally possible. It's wrong to hang out with a guy this close to you in proximity "unless he is your twin brother". For me, this should have been a huge, gigantic red flag for John as he wrote. In fact, it feels like it was because that's where John leaves it. It's as if he said, 'Wait a minute... what if it was her twin brother?'

Since John didn't entertain this thought, I will.

If it was her "twin" brother (must be identical since the age thing is there... a-hem, okay, I admit it, that was mean) then somehow that is okay for John. Why? My guess: Because it's family. What difference does that make? Again, I can only assume: Family members don't screw. This is certainly not true, but may be infrequent enough that John can have the point. And I'll give it to him. But John won't let me give him the point because he goes on to accuse this woman of being in an "emotional affair".

So, back to the brother thing. If I was a woman and had a "twin" brother with whom I talked and "texted" all the time, would John have a problem with it? John probably wouldn't. Why should he? Well, because I would be spending so much emotional time with my brother that I would have to be having an emotion affair with him and my husband should be angry. Which, I guess, begs the question: What in the world is an "emotional affair"? An affair with emotions... which means what? That I have transfered some of my emotions to another person besides my husband? And when has that ever not happened? Even as a guy I share particular emotions with others, some that my wife doesn't experience with me (like the major testosterone boost I got with the guys in my family when we went to see 300).

John here sounds like a man throwing around sensationalistic terms to make the situation sound dire. It's unfair, mean, and completely wrong. I may even agree that affairs often happen when you get emotionally close to someone. But, they also happen because you are pissed off at your spouse. Affairs happen not because you get another person to talk to, but because you no longer are emotionally close to your spouse. An "emotional affair" does not cause an affair; a disconnect between you and your spouse may lead you to find connection with another. But just because you find connection with someone else does not mean you will (or are even likely) to run off with them.

To say so shows just how insecure John is in his own marriage. Again, I don't know him, but he married a girl 6 years younger than he. No idea why, but probably because she was cute, nice, and thought the world of him. Great reasons to marry her. But it would be the same thing John did to this poor woman writing in if I were to, legitimately, claim that John has serious issues with his marriage because if another, younger girl came along he would dump his wife that instant for the newer model. John should tell me I'm wrong. I probably would be. Why? Because John is, I hope, happily married. He does not leave his wife every time he sees a younger, nice girl who thinks the world of him. But John, in his attempt to "affair-proof" his marriage must avoid all younger, nice girls who like him because, oh man, it could lead to an affair. If he does not, then he should never have written to this woman the way he did. Even if he does live what he preaches, his preaching is still wrong.

John, in his second point, accuses this woman of keeping this secret from her husband. The woman said no such thing, but let's say that she is. Let's say that when her husband comes home from work and says, "What'd you do today?" she responds, "Oh, you know, this and that." Her husband, being like me, takes that as a complete answer. And then Sunday rolls around and while at church this woman avoids "worship guy" because she "knows" that she's doing wrong. Her husband is completely clueless. Yes, that would be bad. But why? Because it shows a disconnect, a lack of trust, and a problem between the happily married couple. John should have said, "If your husband doesn't know that you really like talking with this guy, or even that you do, then you should tell him. If you keep the communication doors open then you will not be in danger."

Instead, John said, "I can't imagine that your husband approves". Some help.

Now John turns the tables: Well, what if it was your husband with a younger woman? Huh? Nobody'd be okay with that, so there! To be fair, John actually said, "I doubt you or anyone else would call that appropriate behavior".

First, I'm somebody else. So is my wife. I see no problem with spending time talking and "texting" and even going to coffee, on a walk, or even to the movies with another girl. My wife wouldn't be okay with it if it was "exclusive" or hidden from her. I've been to the movies, since getting married, with a girl without my wife, to dinner with a girl and her friends without my wife, and danced with a girl last night while my wife went off with someone else. In summary: If she knows about the relationship and can observe it, she has no problems with it. Again, openness and communication is the issue, not constantly and exclusively being together. Shoot, if that's the case I couldn't go to work and ever talk to one of my female co-workers. John, do you do that?

John's solution to this woman's problem: You need to tell the guy that you're both being "entirely inappropriate" and you need to limit, if not completely sever, contact with him.

How does this solve the problem? First, it makes it impossible to be so emotionally "affairous". Second, it... it... umm... yep, that's it. In fact, John shows his ignorance (or something) to what is going on by suggesting that this woman find a trusted female friend to keep her accountable to not talking with him ever again (if it comes to that). Why is that wrong? Because why should she get a female involved when this is an "emotional affair" within her marriage? What's the female friend there for? Shouldn't she go confess this to her husband (if she's been keeping it a secret) and make right with him? She should, but John doesn't suggest that at all. Why?

I have no idea. My only guess is that John has no idea what really causes affairs because all he has read was the same stuff that he writes: Sensationalistic crap that sounds really, really holy and completely lacks Biblical backing. John does not include a single Scripture. To be fair, neither have I. But so far, I've had nothing that requires more than a high school class in Psychology to know. There has been no talk of God yet at all. But wait, it's coming.

John ends his response by saying, "It sounds like God has helped you and your husband make it through some difficult times"... it does? Where did he read that? It's certainly not in her "happily married" bit. In fact, it's an assumption that John makes that because this woman shows any interest in another man then she must have had some rough times with her husband. What crap. John is one of those guys who would probably tell me that he never notices when another girl is cute who is not his wife. That's a lie. Yes, I just called John a liar. True, I've never spoken with him, but to say that it "sounds like" this woman and her husband have marriage problems is a lie.

Finally, John suggests that she enter her "prayer closet and fight for your marriage and your love for your husband". He also suggests that she do what God shows her to do. I wonder what John thinks that would be. My prayer is that God will tell this woman that she is okay, that she does not have a sick and lustful heart, and that she should continue to have a good, pleasing, and edifying relationship with this guy and continue to be a good wife to her husband.

In sum: John makes this woman's concern that she might be doing something wrong into a super sexual encounter. That's all this is about: You might have sex with this guy! That's true. She might. But if she is happily married and talks about it with her husband, she won't. There's no reason to.

My wife had a crush on a guy once. Being raised on the same stuff John has read she was nervous about telling me. I smiled and said, "So?" She likes another guy and finds him intriguing. Her vows are still good, and she's not about to go have an affair with him especially since she told me. John has a problem, and I wish he had not passed his problem on to this poor woman. John's problem is this: He wants everyone to appear so holy that he accuses them of being a friend of sinners, if not a sinner out right. Time for some Bible references: Luke 7:34; Isaiah 53:6.

-------

The second answer John gives ticks me off even more.

The question: Isn't it wrong to have an opposite gender roommate?

The situation: A girl living with four guys in a house.

John's response: "It is a very poor witness for Christian singles of the opposite sex — in ministry no less! — to be living in the same house together. They are damaging their credibility as Christians and especially leaders in ministry."

John's support to all this:

1. We wouldn't let a guy and girl move in together, so why would it be okay because there are more of them?

Answer to point 1: Because the reason it's not good a for a guy and a girl to live together is because it's far too easy for sexual problems to develop. Why do we encourage people to go on "dates" en masse? Because more people means good "accountability". Same with many people in a house.

2. Christians who think it's okay agree with Feminists.

Answer to point 2: I looked up a Feminism site and found this:

"Feminism uncovers the ways in which social and cultural assumptions and structures are shaped by gender.
"By focusing on the extent to which traditional questions, theories and analyses [sic] have failed to take gender into account, Women's Studies (as a field) adopts scholarly and critical perspective toward the experiences of women."

John, you're wrong. Feminist's arguments that men and women are the same (which based on what this site says in their mission statement is not the case) are not the reason people of opposite genders move in together. If you can show me research that demonstrates this, I would be happy to consider it, but my guess is that this is your sensationalism again.

3. Christians must build each other up.

Answer to point 3: John said, "In a college setting, where the hook-up culture is doing everything it can to tear down healthy relationships between guys and girls, Christians should be making every effort to live as counter-cultural to that as possible."

There is nothing in this entire paragraph about building each other up. It is about how we need to show the world how evil it is (not Christ's message at all). In short, John's use of Scripture is null because he doesn't even talk about the passage he just cited. Why in the world is that?

John's conclusion is that this person should "keep urging them to change their living arrangements, for their sake, for the sake of those who are watching them, and for the Lord's sake, who commands us to 'do all to the glory of God.'"

Again, John has made this issue instantly about sex (what else could be wrong with living together?) even if sex was not ever an issue. What if it was a 90 year old granny who opened her house to these guys? That would be okay. So, this is about sex. John, I know sex is always on our minds, but we don't have to filter everything through it.

As for those watching them: This is an excellent opportunity to discuss with someone who asks why they should not live/sleep over at their boyfriend's house. This is very good for the "sake of those who are watching them".

And as for "the Lord's sake"... that's just lame. It's a pathetic attempt to make this about God and not about his own misconceptions. God does not ever, anywhere, talk about how you should not have a mixed gender living arrangement. He does tell us that if we sleep with a girl we should marry her [Exodus 22:16] and not to commit adultery [Dueteronomy 5:18].

For the record: My wife and I had a girl our age living with us for almost a year without incident. There are far too many examples of this working for John to be right. Should you be cautious? Sure. Should you live with your lover? No. But this isn't lovers we're talking about.

All in all, this just reminds me how messed up our current Christian culture's mindset is about sex. We need to get this book written.

~Luke Holzmann

The Children and the Arrow

2007-05-12T09:10:00.000-07:00

I recently finished reading "The Tipping Point" and it got me thinking. There were several thought-worthy ideas in the book, but I'm only going to touch on one of the last impressions: The idea of parenting.

Gladwell, and others whom I have read, all point to research that indicates the complete lack of "parental influence" on children. Studies have shown that it doesn't matter who you are as a parent, or what you try to do, or how much time you spend with your kids, they will turn out differently from you. In other words, what I learning in High School Psychology was wrong, at least partially. The Nature via Nurture idea does not apply to parents. Rather, it is one's peers that define who you become*.

This has been bothersome to me. Parenting is extremely important, right? "Well, sure," these researchers say, "just not in any of the ways we typically think." Whatever that means.

Then I took a shower this morning. This is hardly abnormal behavior for me, and perhaps I learned it from my parents, whom, I'm quite confident shower every morning as well. My wife does not. I have not spent enough nights at her family's house to gage whether she got that from her family or not either. But, I digress, slightly.

In the shower I remembered a sermon I heard, oh, years ago. In it my pastor described parenting like being a good archer, taken from the passage that says that children are like arrows. The goal of the archer is not to make the arrows, that's the work of a fletcher; rather, a good archer positions the arrow so it flies in the direction it should go. Thus, parenting is not molding your children into something, but rather recognizing who they are, what they are designed for, and then pointing them in the direction they should go and letting go. Good parenting is recognizing who your kids are and encouraging them in that.

This opens up a whole new response to the current research. Of course you can't make your kids turn out a certain way. That's already set in motion by who they are. The purpose of parenting is to gently, carefully, point the children in the right direction for who they are. Sure, instill values in your kids, teach them, encourage them to do good, but ultimately the job of a parent is to see where the child is designed to go, point them in that direction, and let them fly.

I've got more thoughts on kids bumping around in the back of my head, but I have to go to my nephew's first birthday party. I guess I'll have kids on my mind all day.

*These studies do not mention Homeschooling, so I'm curious to see how a kid whose peers are his family turns out.

~Luke Holzmann

"The Jerk" from Rags to Riches to Rags...

2007-03-05T20:45:00.000-08:00

"My story?" I didn't even like the film but it's appropriate.

I was standing in an inch of greasy, chemical water, a hose stuck in the drain, two plumber's snakes and two empty bottles of drain cleaner as well as a disconected pipe with wretch attched to it. Life was going down the drain, mostly because the water was not.

I'd been told for several weeks now to just hire a plumber. Stubborn as I am I refused. I've unclogged this thing before and have purchased three tools and many odds and ends to fix this problem. Besides, I just paid the bills so it's not like I have cash just sitting around that I can throw at a problem that I know the guy isn't just going to be able to walk in and fix. The clog is more than 25 feet down a curvy pipe under the concrete slab of my basement. As Gary Larson says, "This not be cheap."

So I'm yelling, now at my wife because she came down to tell me to stop. Ten minutes later my best friend calls. He asks me what's up. I let me know... mostly calmly.

What does he do? An hour later he calls back. The bad news: He's subborn and I'm going to accept his generosity. The good news: He wired me money and I have to hire a plumber tomorrow. I don't know, he probably got those two mixed up.

My best friend is a jerk. It makes me want to cry because it's one of those acts of kindness that really shows what it means to be "Christ-like". Maybe it's the whole fish for your taxes thing or something. I don't know. But I also want to go smash things. I want to pick up the hammer I was using on the wrench on the pipe and just smash my laundry room to bits.

It raises an odd question in my mind: If I had handled the problem well (e.g. calmly) what would have happened? Would my friend have stepped in? Am I just such a baby that people feel they have to come in and care for me? Or is this just one more chance for God to smile knowingly at me and say, "See? You should listen to your wife."

But all that is crap. This isn't a cosmic "I told you so" or anything like that. Nope, this is the core of friendship and brotherly love. It's so awesome it brings tears to my eyes. And it's crap. It's total crap. I feel like Steve Martin sitting on the curb dirty and smelly. The movie is just about to end and the family has pulled up to take me home. Even my wife takes me back. And me? I'm still yelling, "I don't need anything. ...except this plunger. You'll see! I don't need anything except this plunger. ...and this hose. I'll show you!"

What a bitterness grace carries. It's the taste of swallowed pride finally flowing out of the clogged heart.

I'll call the plumber in the morning.

~Luke Holzmann

Dropped Frames and Frames of Reference

2007-01-30T17:06:00.000-08:00

Returning from a foreign country, or any trip, is rough for me. Of course, going on a trip is hard as well. I don't like traveling and foreign countries don't impress me. The shrubs may be different, the sky more polluted, the streets more smelly, and the language incomprehensible, but it's still earth and I've been to places at least a little like it before. It's all strangely familiar and so I have yet to experience "culture shock". So being there isn't a problem, but preparation is stressful. I don't like turblence. I'm not fond of immunizations or having to avoid drinking water from the tap. I also don't like having to try to clean the house before leaving.

But coming back is much harder. There's a pile of bills, paperwork, and now tax forms to wade through. Also, I have to get back into "working mode" and get on top of everything that needs to get done for my current and future video projects and sorted out on the business end of things. I have to restock the fridge and dropping $200 for food is just painful. Not only that, but the expansion pack came out right before we left, so that's a "priority" I still haven't shelled out the money for. There are things weighing on me so heavily that I start shaking as if I was dropping into hypothermia. In fact, this afternoon I just curled up on my bed for an hour and slept. I just want to give up. It's all too much and totally not worth it. Like so many times before in life I feel far too young and ignorant to be doing any of this or holding so much responsibility. At the same time, I'm far too old to be this completely clueless about how to live life. And coming back after being away just amplifies the urgency of everything I haven't learned or dealt with yet.

Right now I'm "dumping" footage onto my computer. My new, still in beta, hard drive system (I'll provide a link to it once I would no longer be breaking the non-disclosure agreement I signed) can't seem to keep up with the data transfer, or something. So I'm getting lots of "dropped frames" where video starts "melting", pixelating, or becomes jittery. It's really how I feel: Overloaded, unable to keep up, incapable of getting all the information I need. I feel like screaming one moment, "What the crap am I supposed to do!" and the next huddling under the covers, giving up, and letting it all just crumble around me. I mean, seriously, is life worth this? In ten years my 1099 forms and all my reciepts for business expenses will hopefully be recycled and no longer matter at all. I wish I could just do things that did matter.

But like my computer, I have dropped some frames. I lost some frames of reference, and perhaps coming back from India was the catalyst. Over there I got to see all the really awesome, meaningful things that were going on. Coming home my plumbing is backed up and I have a credit card bill that I can't quite pay because the bank was slow in processing my deposits. It makes life here seems so pointless, inane, and forced. It almost makes me want to ship off to a country where you live in a shack you put together out of bits of plywood and chickenwire and you don't have to worry about filing a W2, or 1040, or whatever. There you could, in theory, focus on human interaction and helping others. Granted, that's not the case because there are other pressures such as malaria and finding enough food or potable water. But the thought lingers.

If I take a moment to realign myself with reality I notice that I've missed the truth. Certainly paperwork is lame and not really benefiting anyone, but it is one of the aspects of being who I am and living where I do. The world in which we live is finite and frustrated. There are consequences that we must over come no matter who we are or where we live. I have lost sight of all the tremendous opportunities for great things I have because of my current state. So, while I don't like it and I may end up falling apart again and again, bring it on. I'm here for a reason (hopefully many of them) and these struggles I must live through are eclipsed by surpassing joy awaiting me if I would but keep going.

Now if only I could this hard drive thing to work....

~Luke Holzmann

Cartman, I'm like the French

2006-11-07T05:35:00.000-08:00

Growing up I had the hardest time being good at things. More specificially, I had trouble being as good as, say, my little brother at, say, computer games. Even with the age advantage, he would soon top my best scores in everything but the text-based games... and those games didn't even keep high scores.

With such a humilating defeat, I decided that computer games just weren't "for me" and went off in pursuit of other things, like writing. In a nutshell, I did what Cartman accuses the French of doing in "Make Love, Not Warcraft" and "quit playing".

This rather immature response started a thought pattern that eventually led me to a freeing truth: I'm a different person and so I should be good at different things. It's not important that I wasn't a good football player. Why? Not because "football sucks" or anything as juvenile as that, but because I'm a swimmer, not a football player.

I'm sick of hearing about how I'm "special" and "unique" so I shouldn't feel bad that others are better than me in certain areas. That is hardly uplifting. The reason nobody should ever feel bad when comparing themselves to others is due to the simple fact that we should not compare ourselves to others because we aren't them.

The truth is that I am "unique" and therefore "special", but the way it is presented normally is more discouraging than freeing. If you are having trouble feeling good about yourself, you need to stop looking at the things you can't do that others can. You need to "quit playing" if that's what it's going to take. That doesn't mean you can sit on your butt now. No, you have to go out and do your thing. What do you like to do? What do you feel you're good at doing? Do that.

I'm currently in the process of trying to get another children's story published that covers this same idea. I think it's important that kids realize this a whole lot earlier than I did so they can stop getting their faces pushed in the mud, and rather shine in their area of skill.

By the way, I do play World of Warcraft now. And since I know that I'm more of a social player, I don't mind that my wife hit 60 before me. Well, I don't mind too much.

~Luke Holzmann

Yet another Blog...

2006-11-06T15:46:00.000-08:00

I seem to be amassing Blogs like... umm... broken appliances (yep, the microwave died last week, that after needing new tires for my car and a toasted Tascam US-122, not to mention the laptop...).

But because I'm trying to get up and write every morning at 6am, I thought having another outlet may help. It will probably just be one more distraction so I don't get anything done, but here's hoping.

This will become the Blog for thoughts, insights, and whatever else. Don't forget that TomySky.blogspot.com is my poetry page.

And if you want the basics of video production, check out Production Now.

That's all for starters.

~Luke Holzmann