Archive | November, 2011

The Disney Relationship: Origins

22 Nov

The Introduction

Firstly, I’m going to paraphrase a story I read in the Steve Jobs biography the other day. Don’t worry, I’m not about to bore you with a whole post on my delight over the death of Mobile Flash Player or anything like that, (although that was a joyous occasion), I just want you to read this short story and consciously consider your first reaction as you read through it.

The Story

“Steve Job’s father (adoptive) was in the Navy in WW2. After the war ended he made a bet with his buddies he could find a wife in two weeks. By the end of that two-week period he had not only met but married Steve’s mom and together they settled down and began a life. In fact they were still together over 40 years later when Steve’s father died.”

The Questions

I’m going to try to do some guesswork and I’m not going to push it as exceptionally insightful, just my best shot. But you probably are thinking how it’s weird that someone could choose to get married based on a seemingly arbitrary decision. And how could they have even considered getting married after only having known the other person for two weeks? I mean it’s crazy right? And yeah it is a little I suppose, but what I’m trying to get at is this, when it comes to happiness in a marriage, what do we believe about why we will be happy? Will it be there because I feel this overwhelming love for this person? Is it going to be there because the person I marry is going to be that perfect person, “the one?” The above story I bet is not the “ideal” situation which you would want to meet your future spouse, me either, at least not in all respects. But I wanted to use this story to get us to begin to examine and bring to light deep-rooted ideals that we hold, whether consciously or otherwise, about marriage and love. We have a highly ingrained picture of love, but is it the correct picture? Is the picture we hold up when thinking about getting married and why we will be happy the right picture? Will we experience authentic happiness with our spouse? How can it be that two people who got married on the pretext of a bet be happy together? Of course these kinds of questions will eventually lead to more questions like, what should be our model for love? Does our ingrained ideas about romance and happiness jive with the type of love and forgiveness we find in Christ, or even should it?

The Abrupt and Open Ended Conclusion

Anyways I’m not actually going to answer any of these questions in this post, that would take longer than I am capable of concentrating and I really just wanted to get the brain juices flowing. I want plenty of time for us to really examine what we believe about happiness, love, marriage, and relationships. But I don’t just want to look at what we belive but where did we get these ideas from? What is the origin of our beliefs on love? Ultimately I hope that in the midst of this question hurricane that answers we reach to the smaller questions will point us towards a conclusion about the overarching question; what do we believe about why we will be happy in marriage? Anyways be thinking, and hopefully by next time the title should make a little more sense, but that’s all for now.


“So this is love,

So this is what makes life divine”



The Quixotarian

4 Nov

There are echoes of what man was meant to be everywhere: myths, legends, fairy tales, movies, etc…  Man has it implanted within his soul, his spirit, his very being these ideals that he was meant to fulfill.  To borrow language from some men who, in some ways, met these ideals, I would say that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain, unalienable concepts of perfection.  That He has place within a yearning for the relaxation of that tension in which all of creation is suspended.  This relaxation is the realization of some original plan, some original beauty–a return to some Eden, that equilibrium.

Indeed, Scripture itself speaks of such an endowment.  I’m referring to Solomon and Paul, of course.  It is this endowment that renders all men without excuse (Romans 1).

Q:  So what does this mean?

A:  That because man can conceive a story in which the Knight slays the Dragon and rescues the Princess, we will be held responsible for the Truth that Christ ACTUALLY came and defeated that enemy Death, sacrificing Himself in order to save His Bride when we stand before Him, our LORD, Savior, and Judge.

Therefore, one can discern that this blog will, in some fashion, concern the Gospel, but how exactly?  The aspect of the Gospel of its affecting EVERYTHING!  There is not one thing that remains to be placed by the Father under the feet of Christ!

I have used the example of how all of our didactic stories which teach ideals are reflections of that inward groaning for the redemption of everything (as well as the reflection of that inward conviction that we are, in fact, that obstacle to the success of that Mission), to illustrate and explain the genesis of “The Quixotarian.”

The name owes its creation to the wordsmithery and creativity of Jeff after I told him of my appreciation of the word “quixotic.”  Its definition being (to the credit of Merriam-Webster):
“Foolishly impractical especially in pursuit of ideals; especially; marked by rash lofty romantic ideals or extravagant chivalrous

I personally think it noble for one to be such, to be a Quixotarian, when, as I have already explained, those ideals are actually due to and reflective of the Gospel that Christ came to save for Himself a People.

Since the Gospel swallows up all, expect this blog to speak on anything and everything:  philosophy (Jeff), theology (all), music (all), art, literature, technology (Kep), politics, C.S. Lewis, Doug Wilson, the stars, and so on and so forth…. Time escapes me to list everything that is fair game for us to discuss, as nothing escapes Christ’s Footprint.  To display how the Gospel permeates ALL areas of existence, and to let you know whose thoughts you’ll be reading, I’ll introduce the contributing authors/writers:  Ryan is a graphic designer/artist (I hope he doesn’t mind my linking to his website, which you should check it as he’s got some excellent work: Ryan D. Harrison Design); Josh Kepley, or “Kep” for all our intents and purposes, is our patron saint of electrical engineering and technology, and his corresponding holiday is, well, I forgot his birthday, but I call it “La Dia de San Joshua (Yoshua)”;  Matt McMichen, though he may simply be denoted by “McMichen,” is an accountant out yonder in Austin, TX with PWC;  Jeffrey Robertson is the house philosopher and a teacher at Auburn Classical Academy of Literature, Logic, History, and the Gospel through all of them;  last and least is myself, Wesley Sims, and am a student of Building Science, somewhat of a Chestertonian, and a recipient of much Grace through the camaraderie of each of these gentlemen and fellow saints.

As far as the content is concerned, if you’re Christian, do not worry–we won’t speak on anything “secular.”  It is impossible for those in Christ to do so (see the whole of the Reformation, and the Bible).  It’s not cheating; it’s actually inescapable.  It may be in the form of linked articles, prose, poetry, commentary, or your run-of-the-mill blogging style, perhaps even our own philosophical theories on Beauty and the Aesthetic (one can only hope).

But if you are one who does not consider yourself to be a member of the Church, you should not worry either.  We won’t speak of anything that isn’t of interest to you–we’ll just, prayerfully, speak with much more substance than those who do not enjoy the freedom of Christ.