Shall beauty transcend?

Below is an abbreviated version of a Washington post newspaper story. I picked out the parts that seemed most powerful to me. None of the facts are altered. If you want to read the full story, follow this link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040401721.html

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

It is 7:51 a.m. on Friday, January 12, the middle of the morning rush hour. The location is El’Efant Plaza. A mall that is connected to a subway, located in downtown Washington D.C. A violinist enters the building. He picks a wall to stand by, pulls out his violin, throws a few dollars into his case, pivots the case around to his audience, and begins playing. 1,097 people will pass by in the next 43 minuets.

No one knows this, but the fiddler standing against a bare wall outside the Metro in an indoor arcade at the top of the escalators is one of the finest classical musicians in the world. His performance was arranged by The Washington Post as an experiment in context, perception and priorities -- as well as an unblinking assessment of public taste: In a banal setting at an inconvenient time, would beauty transcend?

The fiddler’s name is Joshua Bell. To some of you this name may mean nothing, to others your eyes might gleam with a twinge of excitement and awe. For those of you who don’t know let me give you a brief summary…

Bell had his first music lessons when he was 4 years old. His parents discovered him stringing rubber bands across his dresser drawers, and picking out classical pieces by moving the drawers in and out to vary the pitch. His parents thought formal training might be a good idea. He is considered a child prodigy.

Now, at age39 Joshua Bell has arrived as an internationally acclaimed virtuoso. Bell has filled the house at Boston's stately Symphony Hall, where merely pretty good seats went for $100. At the Music Center at Strathmore, in North Bethesda, he played to a standing-room-only audience so respectful of his artistry that they stifled their coughs until the silence between movements. When he performs, he walks out to a standing O. Interview magazine once said his playing "does nothing less than tell human beings why they bother to live." He is undisputedly the greatest violinists alive today, and in the top ten of all time.

The violin he plays has a history of its own, and is considered to be one of the finest violins ever crafted. It’s price tag is about $3.5 million.

The piece the he opens with is Bach's "Chaconne". It is considered one of the most difficult violin pieces to master. Many try; few succeed. 19th-century composer Johannes Brahms, in a letter to Clara Schumann said this about the piece: "On one stave, for a small instrument, the man writes a whole world of the deepest thoughts and most powerful feelings. If I imagined that I could have created, even conceived the piece, I am quite certain that the excess of excitement and earth-shattering experience would have driven me out of my mind." This piece and others that Bell later played are masterpieces that have endured for centuries on their brilliance alone, soaring music befitting the grandeur of cathedrals and concert halls.

Now that you have been properly introduced, let me remind you of the setting; a bare wall outside the Metro in an indoor arcade at the top of the escalators.

And so the master begins playing, throwing his pearls away, whether it is to swine or appreciative listeners is yet to be decided. Three minutes role by, sixty-three people have passed the musician before someone takes notice. A man gives Joshua Bell a glance, acknowledges his existence, and continues to walk. It may not have been much, but it was more than any of the other sixty-three people gave.

A half-minute later, Bell got his first donation. A woman threw in a buck and scooted off. It was not until six minutes into the performance that someone actually stood against a wall, and listened. In the three-quarters of an hour that Joshua Bell played, seven people stopped what they were doing to hang around and take in the performance, at least for a minute. Twenty-seven gave money, most of them on the run -- for a total of $32 and change. That leaves the 1,070 people who hurried by, oblivious, many only three feet away, few even turning to look.

Even at his accelerated pace, even at the height of emotion, with the most beautiful and joyous melodies ever to be laid upon human ears, the most fluid and graceful movements of the fiddler; only seven stopped to take notice. So apart from his audience -- unseen, unheard, otherworldly…you find yourself thinking that he's not really there. A ghost. Only then do you see it: He is the one who is real. They are the ghosts.

There was no ethnic or demographic pattern to distinguish the people who stayed to watch Bell. The behavior of one demographic remained absolutely consistent, however. Every single time a child walked past, he or she tried to stop and watch. And every single time, a parent scooted the kid away.

The poet Billy Collins once laughingly observed that all babies are born with a knowledge of poetry, because the lub-dub of the mother's heart is in iambic meter. Then, Collins said, life slowly starts to choke the poetry out of us. It may be true with music, too.

Calvin Myint. Happened to be one of the people who passed by the musician that day. He got to the top of the escalator, turned right and headed out a door to the street. When interview by a reporter a few hours later, he had no memory that there had been a musician anywhere in sight.

"Where was he, in relation to me?"
"About four feet away."
"Oh."

There's nothing wrong with Myint's hearing. He had buds in his ear. He was listening to his iPod.

For many of us, the explosion in technology has perversely limited, not expanded, our exposure to new experiences. Increasingly, we get our news from sources that think as we already do. And with iPods, we hear what we already know; we program our own playlists.

The song that Calvin Myint was listening to was "Just Like Heaven," by the British rock band The Cure. It's a terrific song, actually. The meaning is a little opaque, and the Web is filled with earnest efforts to deconstruct it. Many are far-fetched, but some are right on point: It's about a tragic emotional disconnect. A man has found the woman of his dreams but can't express the depth of his feeling for her until she's gone. It's about failing to see the beauty of what's plainly in front of your eyes.

Edna Souza is from Brazil. She's been shining shoes at L'Enfant Plaza for six years. Souza nods sourly toward a spot near the top of the escalator: "Couple of years ago, a homeless guy died right there. He just lay down there and died. The police came, an ambulance came, and no one even stopped to see or slowed down to look. People walk up the escalator, they look straight ahead. Mind your own business, eyes forward. Everyone is stressed. Do you know what I mean?"

British author John Lane comments: "This is about having the wrong priorities. If we can't take the time out of our lives to stay a moment and listen to one of the best musicians on Earth play some of the best music ever written; if the surge of modern life so overpowers us that we are deaf and blind to something like that -- then what else are we missing?”

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

Then what else are we missing? My pastor posed this question today.

“If the Kingdom of God was all around us, how would we recognize it? Or would we even recognize it at all?”

Do we ache in vain?

As a boy I grew up going to church every Sunday. This usually consisted of two different segments: Sunday school, and big church (as we called it). It was in such a Sunday school class that I became very familiar with the story of Adam and Eve and the fall of man. You know, the snake comes, tempts Eve, she miss quotes God, Adam does nothing, Adam and Eve eat the fruit (if you had pictures you know it’s an apple), realize they’re stark naked, hide from God, and are banished from the garden. This takes place in Genesis 3. I knew the story inside out.

Let me submit to you that no human, save one, has ever fully comprehended the depth, the change, the corruption, and the sorrow of Genesis 3. There have been times in my life where it has been confirmed in my heart that this is indeed the case. Not because I have reached the great heights of Eden’s joy and splendor, but because I have taken part in the great ache in the depths of pain that has existed since Genesis 3. It is from this low point that I have looked up and can see we have fallen too far to comprehend the distance. It seems that every human, no matter how distant of close to civilization, no matter the nationality, no matter the upbringing, no matter the religion, will all find within him/herself a problem that needs to be fixed. It is from this ache that we must logically conclude that there once was, if even only for a moment, a time where things were right, for how can we learn to ache for something that has never existed?

“Each evening, from December to December,
Before you drift to sleep upon your cot,
Think back on all the tales that you remember
Of Camelot.

Ask every person if he's heard the story,
And tell it strong and clear if he has not,
That once there was a fleeting wisp of glory
Called Camelot.

Where once it never rained till after sundown,
By eight a.m. the morning fog had flown...
Don't let it be forgot
That once there was a spot
For one brief shining moment that was known
As Camelot.”

Let me take a step back from Christianity for a moment and ask a few questions:

Do you ever feel like the world is really messed up?
Do you ever think there was a time when it was right?
Do you think things could ever be right again?
And lastly…do you ever long for a time when thing will be right?

Almost all of us will answer “yes” to question one. The cynic, or the coward might disagree with two and three, but without exception we all identify with four. It is this great ache that haunts all of us, Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, Atheist, and alike. It is this ache that fuels some and curses others. How is that? Because some do not ache in vain…

I’ve heard it said that a human soul can go through just about any tragedy, or suffer most any loss, and continue on as long as they have a reason for it…the part about tragedy that gets most of us is that we don’t understand why it happened, and thus are crippled.

So do we ache in vain? Does this ache spur us to grieve for ourselves, or does it make us reach out to our broken brother, and hold fast until the ache is relieved?
\
My friend, if there is one I thing I know, it’s that I ache for you…do I ache in vain? Shall we hold fast?



P.S.
DJ and Erin are married! Such a beautiful wedding! I love you guys!

“Why do things always have to be fake on the internet?”

I’ve heard this complaint over and over and over again. They say that people aren’t “real” on their facebook/myspace/xanga/blogger/you name it. Here are some of my favorite quotes:

“Welcome to hell…err…facebook”
“Welcome back to our wonderful world of friends and facades”
“You looked better on your myspace picture”

It seem like we are overrun by sparkly profiles, and deluded with gaudy applications. Instead of taking time to find commonalities with friends we figure out which Lord of the Rings character we’re most like. Our entourage 35 deep, our friendship shallow, and our interests, music, and movies section have become applications to a popularity contest.

Why do we behave this way? I believe no other person has summed this problem up better than a good friend of mine:

“I’m here because I have an addiction to attention”

Ahh…yes…our drive to be significant, to be valued, and to be wanted. It can be vicious, but shall we say that drive is a petty thing? Yes this drive does cause us to do ridiculous things as I have mentioned above, but I do not think that is the problem. As a galaxy without a star, or a landscape without a single blade of grass, so to are our lives without significance or value from another being. There is nothing but random sound in a conversation if devoid of relationship. I might even go as far to say that relationships are the very essence of life.

Does the mean we have failed at life? Is so…bummer.

(This next this though is rather abstract but bear with me.)

Maybe it’s because we have lost “ourselves”. It’s the paradoxical thought that “If you lose yourself you’ll find it, and if you grasp or seize yourself you’ll be lost”

In the garden of Eden man and woman reached out so seize the object of godhood. “For then you will be like God, knowing good and evil”. Once they laid their hands on the fruit of their desire, the horrible affect took place immediately. The object laid its hands on tehm, and the “self” (which was innocent, like God at the time) was unselfed. Not fulfilled or filled but emptied. The apple grew into a god, and man shrunk into its slave.

“A man is a slave to whatever he cannot part with, that is less than himself.”
-George McDonald

In a very similar way I think we have tried to find our identity in something less than ourselves through internet socializing websites. We devote ourselves to possessing that object (I.E. attention), and so we are possessed by our possession.

“Well, James, if you hate facebook and myspace so much why don’t you just delete your account?” My friend it is not the internet site that I hate, rather it is the force that has taken hold of us through it. I do not believe the internet is an evil that corrupts our ability to be genuine by turning us into facades, rather I think we have lost ourselves completely because we have tried to grasp selfhood by means of profile views/comments.

So what are we to do with this addiction to attention? Perhaps the answer is on the other side of the paradox…We must lose ourselves to truly be found…now…as to what that looks like I don’t know. I speculate it will look different for every person.

-James

p.s.

This is not a note telling everyone to delete their facebook/myspace account.

I'm not letting go.

Go outside tonight, and look at the stars. Then come back and read this post. (I grantee you’ll enjoy it more that way)

Back now? Ok…now think of this:

Some of the stars you saw tonight are dead. Right now, in space and time, those stars have finished their course, yet when you went out under the sky tonight, you saw their light.

So it is with people we love who have passed away. They have run their course, they have finished and are no longer here…but their light shines on. You see, just like love, starlight never dies.

Hmm…I want to burn out bright.
Friday, April 04, 2008

Whatever happened to constance?

I just watched the movie “Enchanted”. It was funny, cute, endearing at parts, but like most chick flicks out there, it had this common denominator that really ticked me off.

Adultery parading as true love. It seems like that is an intrinsic part of the story for every chick flick I’ve ever seen. Let me lay out the formula

Couple one is somewhat sophisticated, typically city slicker, and are “in love”. Within the first few scenes of the movie the guy proposes to the girl, says she the girl of his dreams, squeals of joy ring out, and they kiss.

Couple two, is not as sophisticated as couple one, they have little more spunk, and are usually hopeless optimists. (You know, the kind that want to change the world) They, like couple one, are “in love” and want to get married but are not yet.

Now, through some chance, or freak of nature, whether it be e-mail, newspaper, magic, radio announcement, ex-boyfriend, serendipity etc. The guy from couple one, and the girl from couple to happen to come in contact…and they hate each other. The other is so different from themselves that they can’t stand to be around each other. So they part ways. Through the next twenty minuets of the film you will see “fate” or some bizarre circumstance bringing them together.

Then it happens…that all inevitable scene where they seem to be arguing, and then have this moment of realization where they don’t want to live there lives without each other…which is not bad at all…EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT THEY’RE BETROTHED TO SOMEONE ELSE!

So the man from couple one and the woman from couple two essentially (and sometimes literally) leave their partner at the alter to go pursue this new relationship that has come up. Yet, being the hero and the heroine they can’t straight up walk away, so to cover up their faithlessness, they whine. They whine about why it would be a bad decision for them to marry their first partner, or why they don’t make them happy, but the new person does.

“Oh Richard you don’t want me!”
*after just kissing the new guy* “Oh I wanted it to be you”
“I’m actually not in love with you…I’m in love with your brother”

And it goes on…These rootless characters sway to every whim as long as their happiness is intact. What ever happened to Constance? What ever happened to steadfast? What about unchanging? What about for better or for worse?

“but he completes me”

No, he does NOT complete you, and whoever tells you otherwise is lying. We all have been lied to my friends. We have legitimized treachery in the name of intrigue. We have exchanged love, for temporary thrills. We have been taught that romance comes out of affairs, and that plot twists or synonymous with breakups.

I’m ticked…I’m really ticked.

I realize these are just movies, but the vast majority of their target audience does not. You can tell, by their speech, by their blogs, and by the frivolousness of middle school, high school, and even adult relationships. You can tell by the women’s magazines in the grocery stores. “Ten things to do to feel great in bed”…and not one of them is read your bible. That statement seems amazingly irrelevant, but have you read the bible? There’s a whole book dedicated to just that.

I’m kind of all over the place tonight so I’m going to try and consolidate my thoughts.

I am going to be a one woman man. When I sit my (so far non-existent) child on my knee and tell them about the time I proposed to their (so far elusive) mother…do I want to say “Well, I had to leave a few brides at the alter, but eventually I found one I liked long enough to make it through the ceremony” or “Well, she was the best choice.”…No… “Your Mother was the only choice.”

The only choice…That is true love. Of this I am convinced.

-James

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Hey lil’ bro.

So it hit me today…In many social circles it is common for friends to ignore their friend’s siblings…particularly the younger ones. Not that I’ve never noticed this before, but it was something I was pondering about today.

I’ve heard it said that the opposite of love is not hate, but indifference. So in a friendship, I would think there would be many opportunities for friend A to interact with friend B’s siblings. Yet how often do we pay little or no attention to them? It’s not always because we hate the little fellas, it’s just we’re not interested in them. It is nothing less than laziness.

Yet I think about you…most of you, my friends…and I see you love my little brother. For those of you who don’t know, his name is Christopher Legg, and he’s pretty much the bomb…no…he IS the bomb. He’s right in that lanky phase of his life where his body is growing so fast he’s not sure what to do with all of it. He likes punk rock, rap, and energetic music (as is to be expected from a young man of his age) His foot is now a good inch and a half longer than mine, and he will probably soon out grow me in height. He’s kind, he’s so very affectionate to my mother and sister, and loves on them daily. He’s beginning to learn how to articulate how/what he feels, and is embellishing his own personality. This really is a blossoming time in his life.

Woah…I actually didn’t mean to go on that tangent about Christopher, but it just sort of bubbled out. Can you tell that I take pleasure in bragging about him? Anyways, when I think about you, many of my friends…I just wanted to thank you for loving him. You realize what is precious to me and then in turn make it precious to you.

So first, let it be known that my little brother is magnificent.Second, to all my friends who invest time and take a genuine interest in my awesome little brother, thank you. Thank you very much.

-James

Thursday, February 21, 2008

Profile of a gentleman.

The following is an excerpt of an e-mail I wrote awhile ago in response to someone talking to me about being a gentleman. I thought I’d post some of my thoughts and ask you for yours.
Thanks.

I do not believe chivalry is dead. It is quite uncommon, and maybe it's even having convulsions of death, but it is still not dead.

You said: "There are nice guys in the world, like you, who are just by nature nice people and because of that, some people could see that as potential interest- not your fault."
I agree with this.

You said: "Bigger issue with that, is that because people like you are so nice, that when you actually are interested, there's not much change because you treat pretty much everyone the same way with the same gentility and all that jazz."
Now this part...not so much...let me try and explain...no, is too much let me sum up:

I do not think that by being a gentlemen, it reduces your range of affection. Rather I think it brings the entire scope of social consideration up a notch. Let me first look at what (I think) SOME of the characteristics of a gentle man are. I emphasize “some” because I believe being a true gentleman is a mark of excellence that overflows into all areas of life, however we are only considering the social interactions with opposite genders. For some reason whenever I think of being a "gentleman" I automatically think of opening doors for ladies. I don't know why that trait is thought of more than others, but it is. This act I believe is a good example of the deeper resolve in a gentleman...Respect for the lady. (When I say "the lady", I mean each and every feminine human that the gentleman comes in contact with.)

I think the courteous act of opening a door, or walking out to the car comes from (or at least I think should) the general conviction that every lady has value. You can even trace this back to a more universal Christian belief that all humans are created in the "Imago Deo" (the image of God) and for that reason alone have worth and value. Yet as a gentleman I want to take that conviction to the next step and not only acknowledge there is value to the individual lady, but if the social dynamics allow it, to find the unique characteristic that gives them that value. Now, obviously you can't do that with every single individual you meet! It would drive you crazy and soon all the individuals become one mass of collected social objects again. Which is why (I think) the act of opening the door was invented. For me it is the quick and simple way of saying "I may or may not have time to give you my attention, but know that this act of chivalry is an attempt to tell you that I recognize, and know that you have value, and deserved to be treated as such." Or something like that...I hope that this is the ordinary act and behavior of a gentleman.

Now to address the problem distinguishing the difference between gentlemanly behavior and actions of affection... See, I think that being a gentleman doesn't level out the amount of affection he gives to a lady in general (significant or not). I think it raises the standard. Obviously I don't think like I woman, but I suppose that if the extent of my significant other's acts of affection toward me were opening doors and letting me go first in line, I would be greatly disheartened. Not to say that there is no room for chivalry in love...No, but it does (I think) take on a completely different form:

"Chivalry in love has nothing to do with appearance. It has everything to do with the tenderness of a heart determined to serve. That is the first hard lesson to learn. You do not act under the impetus of charm but out of a commitment to make someone's life the joy you want it to be. In the early days of marriage, joy precedes the act. But this kind of care does not come easily. Only if it is taken seriously does it become a sheer delight of the heart. The reason we have a crisis in our gender relationships is not that we are culturally indoctrinated but that we would rather be served than serve. We would rather be the head than the feet. The Christian faith stands unique in pointing out that the Son of Man came to seek and to save that which was lost. The Son of Man came to serve. This means that the service He gave to humanity was when we least merited that sacrifice. There is a joy in service that transcends emotional temporariness." -Ravi Zacharias

So, I guess I do believe there is a line between leading on, and chivalry. I just think it's exceedingly hard to find sometimes. I still strive to look for it though. I’ve heard it said, and do agree completely with the statement: "It will always depend on how the other person perceives it" That is definitely true. Their view of the action can be completely distorted, and in their mind, create it to be something it is not. Yet, I don't think that means there is no line. There is the truth of the action, and someone’s perceived truth of the action...I try to find the truth of the righteous and pure action.
-James

Tuesday, January 01, 2008