No Love's as Random as God's Love

Lately, Cerberus has primarily been a political blog, which is fine by me, but I want to mix things up a bit with this post. This post is also unusual in that it doesn't draw many conclusions. Instead, I would like to encourage discussion on this topic. I would like Cerberus to be more interactive in general, rather than just three of us posting our thoughts and occasionally commenting on each other's posts. Many thanks to all of our readers who have been commenting already. Keep it up.

To the topic at hand: The first song on Wilco's album Summerteeth, "Can't Stand It," contains the lines "No love's as random / As God's love / I can't stand it / I can't stand it." I do not know exactly what the song is about or what Jeff Tweedy is trying to say here, but I always hear these lines as a criticism of Reformed theology, particularly the idea of election. After all, God's choice of whom He saves does seem random from our perspective. We do not know why He chooses whom He does, other than that it has nothing to do with anything good in the person He chooses. In fact, this is one of the most important features of the gospel, that there is absolutely nothing you are, have done, or will do that can make God love you any more than He decided to before He created the world.

I know the theological answers to this sort of objection: God's choice is based on His sovereign will and is perfect. God is the Potter; we are the clay; we have no right to challenge why He makes some vessels for one purpose and some for another.

These responses probably would not do much to satisfy someone who raised this objection, though. The objection as I hear it is based on an emotional response ("I can't stand it"). The logic of the above answers will not take away this emotional response.

Now for my lack of a conclusion: Is this what Tweedy is talking about? What is the rest of the song about? To what degree is this objection valid? What would you say to someone that raised this objection? Is there a better response that does deal with the emotional response? Is the only solution to let the Holy Spirit work to remove this emotional response? Does this objection bother you at all?

Scranton vs. Anaheim

Contrary to popular opinion, the release of Paris Hilton (which Fox News dubbed "The Liberation of Paris" for yuks) is not the most pressing cultural topic of the day, nor is the homicide-suicide of wrestling superstar Chris Benoit worth studying. There are some recent developments in Hollywood that require our attention.

Recently I discovered that John Krasinski is interested in playing Fletch in the upcoming movie, Fletch Won. Barring Chevy Chase's return, I'd say that's a good call. If you've been living under a rock, Krasinski plays Jim Halpert on the NBC sitcom The Office. I couldn't imagine anyone better myself.

So today I made my way over to the IMDb entry for Fletch Won and what do I find except some actor rumored to portray Fletch whose name isn't Jim Halpert.

Except this isn't just any would-be actor. It's Joshua Jackson.

Maybe you know him as Charlie Conway. Minneapolis, Minnesota.

I thought that Halpert would get in with no competition. I thought wrong. Jim and Charlie, while they play completely different games, will be tough competitors. Jim may be able to pull pranks on Dwight and undermine Dunder-Mifflin's administrative ethos, but is that going to get him past Charlie's ability to work with Coach Bombay and his teammates? Can Jim's blank stare pierce Charlie's belief in the mantra, "Ducks fly together"?

In short, will Charlie's triple dekes get him past Jim's vaunted comedic ability? Or will Halpert rewrite history-as-we-know-it and block Charlie's climactic penalty success?

The Office vs. The Mighty Ducks. Three seasons, three movies. An epic actor versus another epic actor. Count on Cerberus to continue the coverage.

"NPR, meet Toby Keith; Toby Keith, NPR."

Yesterday I heard a rather amusing piece of broadcasting. NPR's show Fresh Air contained a review of Toby Keith's new album. I suppose the people at NPR were trying to prove that they are accepting of all kinds of music and ideas, but the result was rather comical. As a frequent NPR listener who disagrees with its prevailing political philosophy and as a southerner who doesn't listen to country music, I feel ideally positioned to observe this collision of two worlds with which I am familiar but of which I am not really a part. If you are in a similar position, you might also find it entertaining.