Hurrah! More Photoshop Tennis. It wasn't the very next day, but the Kat came back. I'm too tired to really talk much about it right now, but that's what I wrote the intro for (the intro you'll see when you click the below buttons). So have at, yo!

The Dane vs. Kat 3.16-3o.2oo5

p.s., if you enjoy these, check out the rest of the matches on the Photoshop Tennies Page.

So because someone asked, despite contrarian rumours, I actually do think of Doug Wilson and the Credenda group as Christian brothers. Just like I think of Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, Baptist, and the Orthodox as Christian brothers. Just because I disagree with him a lot and poke fun at the goofy things he says doesn't mean I think he's a heretic. He's not. Just goofy.

See? Look at that. I said a nice thing about a Doug! "He's no heretic." Let the bells of a thousand hills sing out in majesty at this moment of occasion!

Just in Case You Haven't Had Enough Shiavo Yet
I'm sure someone's mentioned this at some point, but I don't think I get where the controversy in the whole Shiavo thing is. It should be a case where both parties are hip and groovin' with a simple solution.

It's my understanding that those who are in favour of removal of the feeding tube keep pointing out that she is vegetative, without cognition. Her family, on the other hand, believe that she's in there, acting and reacting (though not so much physically) and wish to preserve the life she has. My simple solution should be amenable to both parties if I at all represented the sides there accurately.

My solution is to let her live and fall into the care of her parents.

Now why is this a happy, pragmatic solution for both parties? Well, obviously, that's what the parents want, but even more, if she is perfectly vegetative, nonconscious, etc. then the argument that she wouldn't want to live that way is kinda moot. Really, if she's essentially non-cognitive, then she's not experiencing anything bad during this time of vegetation. If she's basically already dead and nothing more than reflexes, then so what if her life gets prolonged. Living fifty, a hundred, two hundred more years in such a state certainly wouldn't bother her at all - since not much bothers the nonconscious now, does it?

This is why those who believe her to be persistently vegetative should mind her parents request and their belief that she can be rehabilitated. 'Cuz I mean, who's gonna suffer if she lives - certainly not her.

I don't get it.

About Steamboy below, I thought about saying it would be nice to see Otomo's animation paired with Miyazaki's so-very-human storytelling. But then I blanched. I am already ecstatic about Miyazaki's animation and I think I would be loathe to see one of his stories animated in a style other than his own. Maybe if he wrote a story that he never planned on bringing to life under a Ghibli imprint.... I guess, really, I wish Otomo would add soul to his crazy-go-nuts-incredible visual ideas.

dogtowns and steamboys
Geeking out a little bit here. Saw Otomo's Steamboy last night with J the T and for me the most exciting this was that I recognized halfway through that the female protagonist's English voice was rendered by Lavie Head! Woot. And woot.

Overall, Steamboy was totally-cool-yet-lacking. Visually, I'm not certain I've seen a better animated film ever. This was also the first time I'd seen animation in which traditional animation was blended so seamlessly with computerized animation (animators are certainly getting better at this and its rare that you'll see anything so glaringly out of place as the computer animation that found its way into Disney's Aladin so many moons ago). Still, as glorious as the visuals were, the filmed lacked any emotional attachment to its characters. Steamboy functions as a big-bang, summer blockbuster, but because of this lack, it doesn't even meet with the upper echelon of blockbusters. At least in Die Hard, you really just wanted John McClane to reunite with his wife and children. The point is: there's something at stake and you care. Really, my only involvement in Steamboy was in the interest the film generated as to what crazy machine would be introduced next. I guess I just want more relationship-building and character development in my action films.

Interestingly, I just noticed that the American release "streamlined" the film by 20 minutes to aid Americans in their short attention spans. I don't know if what was cut actually did develop these characters, but I wouldn't doubt if it did. I guess I'll have to wait for dvd to grant my final verdict, but for now I'm wavering between 2 1/2 and 3 stars (out of four, of course!).

One of my difficulties with those who strictly sing from the Psalms in their worship is that the Psalms paint without completion the picture of our faith. As good as they are, they merely foreshadow the things that would come, rejoicing in the future mystery without understanding that mystery. But for us, the mystery has been revealed. The cross has come and gone and glory has already ascended on high. Why should we artificially make our sung worship to be remedial?

Take for example Psalm 24. David sings of the future king of glory, the one who would ascend the true mount of Zion, the heavenly city. He sings of Christ and that, though shadowed, is evident in the Psalm. Yet still, this is only half the story. As true as it is that Christ, without blemish, was worthy to enter the holy city and be established its ruler, to leave it at that is to ignore the testimony of Scripture. To leave it at that is to forget the book of Hebrews, to forget that in Christ, we too shall ascend the mountain of the Lord. And have already! Just as Christ, spotless, was lifted up and made to dwell in the richness of the heavenly Jerusalem, so too have we, spotless, been lifted up for the same. We, with Christ, are greeted by the innumerable company of angels in festal garb. We, as Christ, have ascended to the hand of the father.

And to miss that is to miss too much.

p.s. I like eyes.

Because I'm sick to death of talking to myself about culture (as I'm sure you probably are as well too), I now present four horrible old women and a monkey:

p.s. there is indeed a Photoshop Tennis match in the works - hopefully it'll get posted by the end of next week.

Christianity vs. Culture Interview: Part II
THE DANE: Welcome back everyone. It's been another of those looooong weekends filled with spider monkeys and kitchen fires. In studio today we have the return of Michael Cossarwal - welcome back Michael!

MICHAEL COSSARWAL: Spider monkeys?

TD: Yep. In spades.

MC: ...

TD: Right! So in any case, the reason for Michael's return is that we both feel a few thing need to be cleared up. Prompted by one of our listeners, I realized that many of Michael's critics are just flat-out misunderstanding what was said in his interviewe last week. Today is our chance to rectify the situation - and perhaps further anger the Detractors.

MC: That is our hope, The Dane.

TD: So first things first: why do you think it was that people so easily misconstrued what you had said last week?

MC: I think, really, two things were going on. In the first place - and especially, I think, with Christians - when someone adheres to a particular ideological framework, he has a tendancy to believe his belief to be righteous or good while presenting others as harmful or bad. This happens all over the place and indisputible evidence of this is the nationwide success of the talk radio format in which callers dial in to froth at or praise the equally frothing show host. Though I think it a bad thing for discussion, I can certainly understand it. With this in mind, I think that some listeners heard something that sounded like something they didn't like and reacted with understandable righteous indignation. They therefore, blinded by their indignation, believed me to be saying something that I never actually said. And so, a number of critics got confused and thought the interview was about engaging or interacting with the culture of the community in which one finds himself - when in reality, I never even spoke of such things. One listener seemed so distracted that he compared my thoughts to those of the anabaptists - a comparison that was so far afield that he might as well have compared me to cultural redemptionists (since I share at least as much in common with them as with those holding to an anabaptistic view of culture).

TD: And what is this anabaptistic view?

MC: Well... it's a tad longish, but let me briefly quote from their confession: "From this we should learn that everything which is not united with our God and Christ cannot be other than an abomination which we should shun and flee from. By this is meant all Catholic and Protestant works and church services, meetings and church attendance, drinking houses, civic affairs, the oaths sworn in unbelief and other things of that kind, which are highly regarded by the world and yet are carried on in flat contradiction to the command of God, in accordance with all the unrighteousness which is in the world. From all these things we shall be separated and have no part with them for they are nothing but an abomination, and they are the cause of our being hated before our Christ Jesus."

TD: Interesting... and no, that doesn't sound like anything you have ever advocated. I'm surprised you could be compared to something like that. I mean, we all know how much you adore your comics, movies, music, art, sculpting, etc. I've even known you to interact with civic issues on a not irregular basis.

MC: Right, so I was surprised to see this level of misunderstanding. But I guess I can see where people are coming from - I just wish they were more careful when attributing beliefs to others.

TD: Alright, you said there were two reasons you believe you were misconstrued - what waas number two.

MC: The second was that I made a mistake.

TD: Oh?

MC: Yes. I stated too strongly the direction of influence between culture and ideology. After some discussion with some of your listeners, I realized that I was willing to see the traffic between culture and ideology as something more of a two-way street. The unfortunate thing about this is that though it was a fair-sized distraction, it doesn't affect my conclusion, that the doctrine of cultural redemption is bankrupt so far as Christianity is concerned. Listeners seemed galvanized by that and tended to focus on that issue rather than upon the primary issue (which is, of course, their liberty - this is America after all).

TD: Okay, now that you've had a chance to speak of the reasons for the misunderstanding, what would you say the biggest misunderstanding in all of this is?

MC: Without question, the idea that anything I said prohibits the Christian from engaging society and her culture. Even today, someone represented the discussion as "Conversion of individuals has been discussed as the alternate solution to engaging culture." This is not based on anything I said, but more likely on presuppositions of what I meant.

TD: How so?

MC: Well, essentially, there is a big difference between redeeming culture and engaging it. Let's look at how Paul talks about it: "I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings." That's 1 Corinthians 9. What does Paul say is his way of doing things? Does he redeem the outsider's culture and thereby redeem them? Is he seeking to influence their culture and thereby influence them? Not here, he's not. Rather, he seeks to understand them and their culture. He wants to be able to put himself in their shoes. He is advocating engaging their culture, interacting with it. And why? All that they might give ear to the gospel, which he preaches to convert them.

TD: And so, engaging the culture is different from redeeming the culture?

MC: Oh gosh, they're miles apart. This is why I suspect that listeners were tying the two together presuppositionally - almost subconsciously. I think that any careful observation of the two actions reveals them to be completely different animals. And I think one is the biblical way of dealing with the earthly culture and one is not. Obviously, I'm less a fan of seeking to influence/redeem a culture and more interested in engaging it that I might have audience to my words.

TD: So really, you'd like to pull discussion away from the whole "engaging" culture thing.

MC: Precisely, since that has little to do with the topic of redeeming culture.

TD: Okay, then before we sign off again, is there anything else you'd like to comment on?

MC: Only on the idea that it should be a Christian goal to restore God's fallen creation. I've also run into this from time to time. The fact is, I'm not sure where this comes from, but I think it labours against the obvious: the old creation will not be redeemed.

TD: That strikes as a bit pessimistic.

MC: Only as pessimistic as Peter, who tells the doom of the old world - that it will perish in fervent heat. It doesn't seem to me that God is interested in restoring his old creation. Hence the new heavens and new earth. Why make a new one if restoring the old was part of the master plan?

TD: Hmm, something to chew on. Anyways, thanks for stopping by - and as always: a pleasure.

MC: No no, the pleasure's all yours.

TD: That's what I said.

MC: Quite right.

TD: ....

One of the areas in which contemporary Christians are most confused is in the space betwixt faith and culture. One need not listen to the Christian opinion-makers long before he hears the related terms and phrases lobbed around with nearly anarchic whimsy.We're told that we are in the midst of a culture war. We note that some declare there is a need to redeem culture while others seek to flee to far-flung corners of middle America in order to segregate from a wicked and unbelieving culture. We are told that we are living in a post-modern culture and that our reactions to things should be shifted accordingly.

Most of this is just band-wagoneering. Most of this is the result of people half-hearing something they half-understand and running with it. Most of this is unfounded and reactionary. But some of it comes from well-thought-out yet misguided sources - from people who approach the problem of living in a wicked and deceitful generation from a marred foundation. It's understandable that there should be some errors in this area, but let's see if we can't (at the least) clear out some of the muck.

To this end, I think it might be helpful to post the following transcripted interview conducted between myself and Michael Cossarwal that was recorded last weekend in a small sound studio in Long Beach (represent).

THE DANE: Michael, it's good to speak with you again. This is an interesting topic today: Culture vs Christianity. And for some reason, you fancy yourself something of an expert on the matter. What exactly are your qualifications?

MICHAEL COSSARWAL: Thank you The Dane. It is good to be back. And, well, while I don't think I would label myself an expert, as such, I do believe I have a number of helpful things to say on the subject. As to my qualifications for being any kind of an authority here? Well, I suppose three things come to mind: first, I am a Christian; next, I'm not entirely unfamiliar with the New Testament; and lastly, I have lived in culture for all my life, eating, breathing, sleeping - all in the midst of culture - and so I think I'm pretty familiar with the way it all works and stuff.

TD: Unlike most everyone else?

MC: Indeed. Oh yes, and a fourth qualification: I also have ego enough to tell you what I think.

TD: Again, unlike most everyone else?

MC: Quite.

TD: Alright then, let's get started with the meat of the interview and see if you can't unpack some of your ideas for us. To start, why don't you describe for our listeners what exactly culture is.

MC: Right, well see, culture isn't nearly so mysterious a topic as some would have you believe. It's not anything noble or grand. It's not something that moves and breathes. It's not anything like that. Essentially, culture is nothing greater than the natural byproduct of society, or community. When people gather together, the natural reflection of who they are and what they believe is that pile of stuff we call "culture."

TD: So... essentially what you're saying is that culture is nothing more than the waste of a body of people?

MC: Hm, I think that's stating it a little strong. Really, let's look at it this way: culture is the environment produced when people in a community interact. So in effect, culture isn't anything tangible at all; it's more the gossamer evidence of who the people in a community are.

TD:
Example?

MC: Okay, so say you have a city-state of...

TD: City-state?

MC: [sighs] Just go with it... so you have this city-state of 17,000 people and each of them has believed from childhood the battle and sacrifice are the noblest of activities. They believe that one cannot enter into paradise (or their equivalent of it) unless dying in battle for the good of the city-state. The culture, propelled by these beliefs, will look very violent to the outsider who doesn't not share their ideology. The outsider will see a people who fight and die almost incessantly. A people who skill with the sword is unparalleled. Yet a people who couldn't build a cake to save their lives.

TD: Alright. That makes sense. But so I notice you make a distinction between ideology and culture.

MC: Of course. Because they are different. They are two completely separate things. Okay, so let's lay it out. you've got three separate things that too often get lumped together as one amalgamous blob of pseudo-intellectual stuffs. You've got community, ideology, and culture. Ideology is the bridge between a community and it's culture. It is the ideology that causes a community to exhibit a particular culture - yet the culture is nothing more than the evidence of a community's ideology.

TD: Okay, I'll pretend to understand that.

MC: Well, let's look at that warlike city-state again. The outsider sees this community fighting and dying and glorying in that fighting and dying and what does he deduce? That this here is a community that prizes battle above all else. See? So the culture is evidence of the ideology, but with a different ideology, the culture exhibited would look entirely different.

TD: Alright, I'm getting all this. So let's move on. What about the Christians interaction with culture?

MC: See, this is where it starts getting sticky. I think that when we start talking about interacting with culture, we're already drawing ourselves off track. See? What's the point in interacting with the byproduct when its the source that we are really interested in interacting with? I mean, sure, by dealing with a community's culture, we might better understand that community but beyond the informational aspect, there's not much value in interacting with a culture. One cannot effect change in the culture by interacting with it - since the culture is wholly produced by something else (the community). And then, even if one could somehow affect the culture - the evidence of ideology - it's still being changed after the fact of production and so no real, or visceral, change is being accomplished.

TD: So then, for the Christian, the problem isn't culture?

MC: Of course it isn't. I like to represent it like this. Culture is a symptom (supposing here we're talking about a culture we don't like). Pretend that the ideology of a community is cancerous. Culture is the first evidence that something is awry. And as tempting as it can be to do so, we all know that merely treating the symptoms - the visible evidence of the cancer - is often more harmful than good because it camouflages the problem.

In the end, this is the problem when Christians seek to redeem culture - they (of the community of God) are trying to take something created by the community of the world and pass it off as something that will resemble the evidence of the community of God. And really, where is the reward in that? As with the temporary relieving of the beginnings of cancer pain with Vicodin or whatever, affecting the product of a community's ideology (i.e., the symptom, the culture) the temporary relief gained is only enough to make life momentarily more comfortable - yet not enough to make any change that will matter in the long run.

TD: So does the fact that people want to say make a big stink about the ten commandments being on a courthouse or that they want to hold God in the Matrix seminars - does that make you angry?

MC: Angry? Well, no. Not angry. I do kinda shake my head though. I mean, what's the point really. I mean, ignoring the fact that there's no way for America to be a democracy AND follow the ten commandments - I mean, have you ever read the first one? Ignoring that, what do they hope to gain by it? A nation that looks on the surface like a Christian nation? One where people talk Godspeak all day long absent actual belief. I mean, pardon me, but been there done that, y'know? I mean, lookit the founding fathers. God this and God that - yet still they showed nothing resembling true faith. I mean, come on, armed rebellion against the government that God had placed over them?

TD: So you see no benefit in the Christian influencing culture?

MC: Influencing culture? Heavens no. Influencing the community for sure. I don't even think influencing the ideology should be big on the to-do list either. But influencing the community, yeah. Change the nature of the community and the rest will fall into place naturally. Take a a worldly community, change it into a heavenly one and WHAMMO! All the sudden you've got a community with a heavenly ideology and the heavenly culture that is a natural result of it.

TD: Okay, so why do you think so many believers have bought into this idea of affecting/influencing/redeeming the culture around them?

MC: Hate to say it, but I think it's all a result of an impoverished reliance upon the gospel as a means to change lives. No longer does the believer actually believe that the preaching of the word is the means to saving grace. So, having given up on the gospel, the believer must look to other means to bring about the kingdom of heaven (or a reasonable facsimile). And of course these other means are inadequate.

TD: This is some pretty strong stuff you're saying. You're basically bagging on the livelihoods of quite a few popular Christian personalities.

MC: Yes. I know. And believe me, I'm not happy to do it. I think it's just about time somebody called their bluff. They're devoting massive amounts of time to an empty cause. Who knows, maybe someone will hear this, see the writing on the wall, and change their path. That's my hope. That this interview will keep at least one person from being fooled by the pretty lure and winding up with a barb the size of Cincinnati in the roof of their mouth. And I'm not saying people can't spend anytime toying with culture, but they need to realize that it only has the value of a simple hobby like, say, model railroads, comics, or World of Warcraft. Actually, seeking to influence culture is probably most like playing World of Warcraft.

TD: Alright, so what's your take on the so-called culture wars?

MC: [chortles] Okay, well first, if you're talking about the disparity between the evidence of the two communities, then you're talking about something that's been in effect for millennia. But really, again, it's not that we have anything like our culture vs. their culture. It's more our community vs. their community - the kingdom of God vs. the kingdom of this world. And yeah, that goes back to Genesis 4, right? The seed of heaven vs. the seed of the serpent. And so yeah, there's a war - just not a culture war. Who should give a rip about culture when souls are on the line? Seriously, that about as extreme a blind eye as one could turn.

TD: And so, how do you think the Christian ought to react to the worldly culture and community around him?

MC: Well, I kinda like the way that Scripture deals with it. We are in the world yet not of the world. And the reason for this? Not that we might make the world look like us (since where's the sense in that?), but that we might change the world itself - again, not what it looks like, but the world itself. I mean, you don't see the apostles travelling from city to city trying to get the pagans about to start living decent lives, to start agreeing that Platonic thought isn't quite right, that there is too much pedophilia in the Senate. No, what you do see is the apostles going everywhere proclaiming the glory of the gospel of Christ, making citizens of heaven of former citizens of the Roman empire by the only means they know how. A means given them by God. The apostles understand the community in which they live, the ideology to which that community adheres, and the culture that ideology produces - and where do they aim their efforts? The conversion of the soul - and hence, the conversion of the community; everything else will follow naturally.

TD: So back to the redemption of culture idea...?

MC: The short answer is this: culture is incapable of redemption. If culture is merely the evidence of what a community is, people are trying to change the evidence. You can't accomplish this. I don't even suggest people try. They'll only get confused and headaches and probably lots of acne. You can redeem the source and that's it. Well, to correct, Christ can redeem the source. And once the source is redeemed, the culture is naturally a culture that is the exhibition of redemption.

TD: Okay so a few quick questions from one of our listeners that kinda strikes along these lines. Scott, from the Confederates States of America writes in: So what do you think of expressing Christianity as culture? For example, is it awesome or cheezy to incorporate elements of one's faith into a music. Is it sweet or does it suck to analyze any song (lyrics, structure, all of it) in light of the Gospel? Or are the humanities neutral disciplines in which the Gospel would only drive one to produce excellence in whatever form?

MC: Simply put, the culture expressed by Christians is necessarily Christian - whether overtly or otherwise. When I write music, I am writing Christian music. Even if it's only a song about much I love/hate lobsters. It's still evidence (though incomplete) of who I am and where my ideologies lie. As for whether its awesome of cheezy to incorporate faith into one's art? I'd say neither or either depending. It can be awesome or cheezy to incorporate the colour blue into a painting depending on the skill with which it is done. The same holds true for all things. Poorly done equals cheesy while well done equals awesome (except in cases of steak). As far as analyzing lyrics? Not my bag but maybe you can find some pleasure in it - and I'm man enough to allow you to do so. Just don't make it out to be more important than it is.

And what was that last bit? Oh yeah, regarding the gospel driving one to produce excellence? I think that's just not right. I think there is a divorce between the gospel and aesthetics. I don't think they're concerned with each other. I think we see this in the preaching of Paul. No doubt his words were powerful and the Spirit moved with strength through his proclamation of the gospel - yet he himself mentions that he wasn't and excellent speaker. So evidently, the gospel didn't drive him to oratory excellence.

TD: Hm, interesting. Well, we're just about out of time now, so I've just got one final question, Michael.

MC: Shoot, brutha.

TD: How on earth did you become so handsome?

MC: Uh, you wrote me this way?

TD: [laughs] Hah, so I did! Well then, on that note. We'll say goodbye and open it up to listener dialogue! Good day all!

---

[based on conversations with Scott and Jolly]

By the way, Master and Commander Roy Rivenburg of Orf Kilter presents 2005: The Year in Review.

One of the benefits of suffering from a oftimes debilitating condition is that one has a greater tendancy to appreciate some of the subtler pleasures in life. Now a good joke, conversation, or meal is a slice of heaven come down to earth. Any pleasurable thing that distracts me from the pain for more than two seconds is a godsend. This week I've had a good meal that overwhelmed my senses to such a degree that I was able to temporarily forget that anything was wrong in me. This week, I've had conversations that were so joyful and involving that I could not help but revel in them, forgetting for a time that I was bowed over in pain. I always valued these things, but now they've reached a higher level of value for me. These are the things that make or break me everyday now. And for them, I am grateful.

And because of this, I'm grateful for the condition and what it teaches me.

Here's a question that's been mulling for some time and has recently acquired a new spin based upon the recent discussion of homosexuality within the pale of Christendom: how are we, as Christians, to approach sexual desire?

Really, the answers within Christian tradition differ significantly, from those nutty, hyper-puritainical, fundamentalist types who claim sexual desire to be sin in and of themselves to the equally nutty who suppose that it's fine to feed one's sexual desires so long as no illicit act is carried out to all those of us who fit somewhere else in the puzzle. No matter where one stands, there are valid questions that are certain to challenge ones notions: Was Jesus a sexual being - did he have a sexual orientation? Is it a matter of lust to have sexual desire directed toward the person one is scheduled to marry in a week? Can one seperate desire from orientation? Can a believer of a homosexual orientation be sexually driven toward members of the same sex, yet without sin? As Christ describes lust as desire for another man's wife, should we apply the same term to a single person who is sexually aware of another single person (sin or nature or sinful nature?)?

And of course, there are other questions. Lots of other questions. It may be our vaguely Victorian notions regarding sexuality, but discussion on these lines is so rare in Christian circles that when one announces such discussion there is more fanfare than content. And now, I don't promise anything better myself - as I have more questions and half-considered thoughts than anything of substance, but I will, at least distill the questions into a single foundational one.

Nevermind the marital context, is sexual appetite, when considered generally, sinful, good, or neutral?

While I am not quite certain yet, I'm leaning toward the idea that it is indeed good (in the same sense that an appetite for food could be considered "good" or healthy). If this is so, then Jesus indeed may have had a sexual appetite - only one that he did not seek to sate. Especially if such an appetite is intrinsic to human nature as many suspect that it is. Part of the difficulty is that Scripture does not ever really define any of this. Even the terms it uses (immorality, adultery, etc.) are never really defined by Scripture but are assumed by the authors.

One of the reasons I thought to write about this and pose these questions is the result, as I mentioned, of the recent post on homosexuality. Someone mentioned that Dobson (the misunderstood public figure that he is) has under his purview a ministry dedicated to helping Christians overcome their homosexuality. It was left ambiguous, however, what exactly this means. Does he aid these believers in learning to abstain from temptation? Or does he work with them to alter their tastes? The first I am comfortable with; yet, the second doth give me pause. Is taste something we have either biblical means or cause to alter? Maybe prayer, but I can't think of much else. Though I guess it depends on whether a taste/orientation can be considered sinful; if taste can be sinful, then we would have to say the preaching of the word can lend the grace needed to alter that taste. Still though, this would not require a seperate ministry but merely the weekly exhortation of the gospel.

I dunno... thoughts?

Last night, a friend who teaches 3rd graders was asked by a mother if she could recommend any particular comics for her son to read (he loved Archie but was looking for something a bit more literary for him). Sensibly, she turned to me for advice. These are my recommendations:

Bone by Jeff Smith (ISBN:188896314X)
Jeff Smith labour of love garners my highest recommendation among both books suitable for children and books that should be devoured by adults. It is illustrated fantasy-epic on the order of LOTR - but with more humour and heart.

Thematic Concerns for Parents:As any good fantasy-epic, amidst the light and hope, there is death, darkness, and the sense that all is lost. The violence though is not gratuitous and serves well the story of a kingdom's struggle to survive against evil forces that would see it doomed.

---

Tintin by Hergé (ISBN:0316359408 - volume 1)
I first began reading Tintin in 1st or 2nd grade (by 2nd grade I was definitely trying to get it to count for a book report). Tintin, the unaging, boyish protagonist, is equal parts investigator, adventurer, and target for saps to the head. He gets into wonderful scrapes and manages out of them with panache. The cast of recurring characters are suitably colourful and feature a retired (and ornery) sea captain, bumbling twin detectives, a scientist of absent mind and distant ear, and a little white dog that's smarter than everyone but Tintin himself. Each of the newly collected volumes holds three complete Tintin adventures.

Thematic Concerns for Parents: No small amount of (bloodless) gunplay and the occasional death. The sea captain has the mouth of a sailor, but his constant cursing is limited to things of the "Blue blistering barnacles!" variety.

---

Herobear and the Kid by Mike Kunkel (ISBN:0972125914)
Writer/artist cut his teeth working in animation with Disney and this both shows and pays off. His drawings are a taste of classical animation - only without the movemnet. The range of expression in his characters is a beauty and they aid his able portrayal of a dynamic kid admirably. Herobear steals flavours from the tired old superhero genre and breathes fresh life into it. A sentimental look at childhood, fantasy, and the importance of familial love.

Thematic Concerns for Parents: Other than light violence of the POW-BIF-BAM variety, there is nothing that should be objectionable to most parents.

---

Tommysaurus Rex by Doug TenNapel (ISBN:1582403953)
Doug TenNapel is a strange man - yet not one without heart or humour. Tommysaurus Rex tells the story of a boy whose only friend, a golden retriever named Tommy, is killed by an errant driver. In order to remedy his abiding depression over his loss, his parents ship him off to grandfather's farm for sage advice, hard work, and a surprise discovery: a tyrranosaurus that would like to be his pet. A fun, warm, sad, and hopeful story - and maybe TenNapel's best.

Thematic Concerns for Parents: As any story themed around the loss of a loved one, this tale does feature death, yet does so in most cases tenderly. Death is real and must be dealt with, even for children, and TenNapel shows us one positive way. Other worthwhile themes explored are forgiveness, mercy, and love.

---

Clan Apis by Jay Holster (ISBN:096772550X)
Absolutely the most engaging documentary on bees I've ever encountered. Holster, well-qualified for the task, crafts a story that follows the life of a single bee, Nyuki, from birth to maturation to timely death - all the while explaining the nuanced and cultured life of the colourful insect.

Thematic Concerns for Parents: Again, there are elements of danger and in the end, the protagonist dies a lonely-yet-fulfilled life.

---

Usagi Yojimbo by Stan Sakai (ISBN:0930193350)
Translated, Usagi Yojimbo means "Rabbit Bodyguard." UY is a long-running series following the masterless samurai, Usagi, as he traverses the warrior's path seeking enlightenment, adventure, and to engage the wide world around him (that of of feudal Japan under the Tokugawa shogunate, circa A.D 1627). While primarily a story of one rabbit's (yes, all the characters are anthropomorphized animals) adventure through life, UY is also intensely educational of a bygone culture. One of my favourite series of all time.

Thematic Concerns for Parents: It is rare when one of Sakai's stories does not feature death; however these are handled well and death is not treated flippantly. There is also the matter of an illegitimate child - though the implications of this might be lost on less saavy children.

---

Leave It to Chance by James Robinson (ISBN:1582402531 and 1582400415)
The two slim volumes of the Nancy Drew-inspired Leave It to Chance are rollicking, fun adventures in the realm of fantasy and the supernatural. The heroine is a precocious 13-year-old and has a pet dragon. Way cooler than Harry Potter.

Thematic Concerns for Parents: The heroine is dealing with such mature issues as a widowed father and deceased mother. As well, magic and sorcery plays a big part in the proceedings - though in Chance's world ghost and goblins are more part of the everyday than they are in our world.

---

Mister Blank by Christopher J. Hicks (ISBN:0943151252)
Sam Smith's life is ripe for upheaval. A nameless employee at a megacorporation, he stumbles upon a crime and decides to do the right thing. From that moment on, he is continually caught up in larger and larger adventures, culminating at last in the a struggle that has been going on since the dawn of time. The characters are all likable, even the villains - which always makes for better storytelling.

Thematic Concerns for Parents: Besides the violence and prevalent mayhem, one of the chief villains is Lillith, Adam's first wife, who fell on her own and did not take Adam with her. She is a piece of Jewish mythology and parents may wish to explain her place and fantastic existence to their children.