So if you have ever wondered about the theological, cultural, and spiritual implications of wearing Christian T-shirts, tweeting your spirituality, or decorating your house with “Christian” artifacts, then this post might be helpful to you. Here is an excerpt:

“Christian” kitsch is going to be a part of our lives–it is utterly unavoidable. We can remove our bumper stickers, throw away our T-shirts, and refuse to project our spirituality through social media but kitsch will find us out. If we stop tweeting about spiritual things our friends will want to know what’s wrong with us. We will have friends, relatives, and neighbors who will give us kitschy gifts and we will accept them and don them because we love our friends. Further these same friends will wear cheesy “Christian” T-shirts and Jesus juke people on Facebook and we will continue to love them. We can’t know their hearts and Christian charity requires that we not dismiss them—many of them are genuinely worshipping. So we must honor those who proudly don it while warning them of its inherent dangers.

My article aside, the symposium looks to be a very interesting series and one worthy of your attention. I highly recommend Betty Spackman’s article, “Wounded for our Visual Transgressions”:

One must be very careful not to dismiss anyone’s desire to know and express the truth, even if, or perhaps especially if, it is not done in an approved language. The bigger problem is after all, the commodification of faith and the commercial exploitation of people’s sincere need to say and to see what they believe. Faith says we shouldn’t need to see but perhaps more than ever we are in a generation of doubting Thomases. However Jesus did not shun Thomas’s desire for visual aids. He bared his chest and opened His hands. He exposed His wounds and offered the possibility that they be handled. I’m sure that moment was as awkward as it was beautiful; sentimental and profound at the same time. I long for this humility and generosity of spirit and pray for us all as artists that this kindness be manifest in the art we put on the street, sell in the store or hang in the gallery, and that we might be able to invite whoever might want to, or need to, poke their fingers at it.

If you really examine the story of many of the most successful videogames you will find that they ask a great deal of the player. When playing the average triple AAA title, the player must constantly to suspend her disbelief so as to enjoy the story. Too often games ask us to take out entire military bases with an assualt rifle and a couple med kits. We know this is ridiculous and we embrace the joyful escape that games provide. However, this brings up a host of questions. Can games provide us with meaningful experiences beyond mere escape? Are there emotionally resonant moments in these big name games worth experiencing?

So how can we encourage developers to move their game stories in more meaningful directions? There are of course many answers to this question. Every dollar we spend is a vote and we can commit our money to the Team ICOs and the Jonathan Blows of the world. We need to recognize, however, that for every Tale of Tales game that is sold millions more copies of the latest dudebros game are purchased. Games are not going to change over night. First person shooters and action RPGs are safe bets for publishers and developers. Games made in these genres tend to both fun and over the top. Of course there is nothing wrong with fun. However, if games are ever to provide us with enduring narratives their stories must lend credibility to their mechanics and vice versa . In other words, story must mesh with play.

Stealth games are often the worst culprits of asking us to suspend our disbelief as we play. They often give a false sense of immersive authenticity in the way they ask us to sneak and silently take down enemies. In Splinter Cell or Deus Ex, the player is rewarded for finishing missions without taking any casualties. Thus the player sneaks from cover to cover, silently punching guards in just the right places in order to incapacitate them. I can do this to every single guard in the complex–I hide their unconscious bodies so as not to alert the other guards. I take them down one by one by one and in the  course of a half hour, I have subdued every guard in my path. That means that none of the dozen guards ever thought to check in with each other, heard me punching their comrades in the throat, or happened to walk into any of the many corners where I sloppily hid their friend’s bodies.

Don’t get me wrong–I loved the Splinter Cell trilogy and I worked hard to look past the horrible boss battles of Deus Ex: Human Revolution–these games are certainly fun. But their stories are only resonant in so much as we determine not to consider the implications of what we are actually doing on screen. This is why I was tickled by the stealth portions of Batman: Arkham City–it’s narrative gave weight and purpose to it’s mechanics.

There is much to be said about Arkham City’s sheer impossibilities, like taking on 50+ armed thugs at once, but we have an easier time suspending our disbelief as Batman, who is superbly trained and impeccably equipped. However, the game constantly highlights Batman’s humanity. Any time you come across an enemy with a gun, it only takes one misstep for Batman to die. These encounters require thoughtful stealth and ask the player to plan his attacks and calculate their consequences. These encounters are given distinct narrative weight as well. When you manage to silently take down one of the Joker’s armed goons, Joker knows it. He has equipped them all with heart rate monitors–so with every victory the game becomes more difficult and requires greater precision from the player. Take out another enemy and Joker threatens his guards from an overhead speaker and warns Batman that he is watching. In this moment my heart p0unds and my breathing quickens–I fear Joker yet I determine to best him. In this moment, I am Batman.

I can’t say that Arkham City represents the best of videogame storytelling of 2011 but I can say that the game succeeded in making it’s stealth battles meaningful. Though often hard to find, there are meaningful stories that have been told in games and I trust that I will have the privilege of experiencing many more. This moment in Arkham City gives me hope because it was a moment of truth. A moment when the world worked as it should and my determination to save it was tested.

The California native, now 21, said that in the wake of baring her body as an Angel, she was also hosting parties, posing for men’s magazines, and craving more and more attention.

But she was not feeling good about herself.

“My body should only be for my husband and it’s just a sacred thing,” said Bisutti, who had gotten married just before winning the 2009 modeling competition. “I didn’t really want to be that kind of role model for younger girls because I had a lot of younger Christian girls that were looking up to me and then thinking that it was okay for them to walk around and show their bodies in lingerie to guys.

“It was pretty crazy because I finally achieved my biggest dream, the dream that I always wanted, but when I finally got it, it wasn’t all that I thought it would be. Especially being married I just wanted to keep my marriage sacred because divorce rates now in America are pretty high, and I just want to do everything I can to keep my marriage special.”

Killing is easy in the moral vacuum of videogames. So when Daniel Mullins needed a challenge, he gave peace a chance.

Mr. Mullins, 19, is the creator of “Felix the Peaceful Monk”—his character in a videogame called “The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim.” The game gives players wide latitude over their on-screen characters’ appearance and actions. Felix, who is half man, half cat, has become a small-time Internet celebrity for his steadfast refusal to kill.

In videogame excerpts Mr. Mullins has posted on YouTube, Felix roams an icy fantasy world doing things like soothing angry wolves with magic. In one video, he explains how to turn away threatening skeletons, noting Felix won’t even harm the undead. And when an assassin tried to gut Felix with a knife? While most players have swords and arrows for would-be hit men, Mr. Mullins hit his with a calm spell.

If you have a story to tell, videogames might not be the best medium for you. I essentially agree with Will Wright (lead designer of Sim City and many other successful games) who says, ”Games are not the right medium to tell stories . . . video games are more about story possibilities.” Before you list your the top 5 story-driven games that changed your life, think for a moment about what it is that you like about those particular games and what those games ask you to do.

When we sit down to watch a movie–we expect to be passive, when we sit down to game, we expect to participate in the action. We expect that what we do “in game” is going to matter. We like to play games because they engage us in ways that other media can’t. That does’t make games better or worse than books or movies, it just makes them different and I think the best games emphasize this.

Consider Bioshock, one of the greatest narrative-heavy games in recent memory. What makes playing Bioshock a memorable experience? It is not so much Andrew Ryan’s monologues or Atlas’ radio messages so much as it is a combination of those elements and your own experience of the world being spun by them. The “story” of Bioshock exists somewhere in between the expositional narrative being laid down by Ken Levine and company and your unique participation in it. Andrew Ryan is undoubtedely one of the great characters ever envisioned in a game. However, were it not for the hours spent defending ourselves from crazed splicers swooping down on us from the ceiling, learning how to best handle each Big Daddy, and determining what to do with the little sisters–Rapture would not come alive to us. The contrast between Ryan’s vision for Rapture and it’s actual state might be seen but it would not be experienced.

In fact, what makes Bioshock‘s story particularly memorable is that the game’s narrative breathed new life into the idea of the silent protagonist. Bioshock asks us to do a lot of seemingly mindless shooting but in the game’s climax–all that mindless shooting  makes sense. So many games require mindless shooting that it is all too easy to take such actions for granted–Bioshock highlights this and gives such actions weight and consequence.

On the whole, Bioshock isn’t particularly dynamic in terms of player choices. There are really only two: either save or harvest the little sisters. And yet everyone who plays the game will have a markedly different experience in the world depending not just on how they interacted with the Little Sisters but based on every move, bullet, and plasmid. Their experience will be colored by every sign they stop to read, every corner into which they wander looking for supplies, and every window out of which they look to take in their surroundings. Bioshock is a special game because of the tremendous detail devoted to each of these elements such that most everything the player does contributes to bringing Rapture to life and making the player feel like an essential part of that world.

So if a game is going to attempt to tell a story, it must do so in a way that significantly involves the player in its telling. This is why most game stories are terrible–because the mechanics (namely what you spend most of your time doing in game) do not add anything to the story itself–they are mere tack-ons or fillers to transition us from one piece of expositional narrative to another.

When Will Wright says that “games are not the right medium to tell stories” and that games are more about “story possibilities,” I think the Sim City creator highlights what makes games special. The best games give us a sense that we are making our own story and our place in that story is absolutely essential. Games engage us most when we assume a key role in that story’s telling.

But there is a bigger issue. We must not equate courage with success, or even youth with success. We must avoid ever leaving the impression that these equations are valid. I have spent too much time in places like Japan, or in parts of the Muslim world, where courage is not measured on the world stage, where a single convert is reckoned a mighty trophy of grace. I am grateful beyond words for the multiplication of churches in Acts 29, but I am no less grateful for Baptist ministers like my Dad, men who labored very hard and saw very little fruit for decades in French Canada, many of whom went to prison (their sentences totaled eight years between 1950 and 1952). I find no ground for concluding that the missionaries in Japan in the 20th century were less godly, less courageous, less faithful, than the missionaries in (what became) South Korea, with its congregations of tens of thousands. At the final Great Assize, God will take into account not only all that was and is, but also what might have been under different circumstances (Matt 11:20ff). Just as the widow who gave her mite may be reckoned to have given more than many multi-millionaires, so, I suspect, some ministers in Japan, or Yorkshire, will receive greater praise on that last day than those who served faithfully in a corner of the world where there was more fruit. Moreover, the measure of faithful service is sometimes explicitly tied in Scripture not to the quantity of fruit, measured in numbers, but to such virtues as self-control, measured by the use of one’s tongue (James 3:1-6).

“Now this is my project, but it’s about all of us, it’s about our kids and securing a monumental future for them,” he said. “How do we teach them the truths that will set them free internally and externally for the world that they live in and secure their future?”

Monumental tells the story of men and women who risked all for liberty, including the travails of the Pilgrims, and shares stories of faith that helped shape education, government, and civic life in the United States. The film also features interviews by Cameron of current-day political and faith leaders, including Christian author Os Guinness, Senate Chaplain Barry Black, David Barton of WallBuilders, Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.), and Marshall Foster of the Mayflower Institute.

The concept driving this documentary bothers me. Watch the trailer and feel free to disagree with me, but I think it’s a stretch to argue that Christianity is what has made our country so free and prosperous. Making such an assumption neglects a myriad of other forces that were at work in contributing to our prosperity and freedom–many of which are unseemly to say the least. For instance, our forefathers came to this land and forcefully took it from the natives that inhabited it, literally killing millions of them. Since then we, as a nation, have entered into conflicts with other nations to protect what we took by force and secure our interests abroad.

I am not trying to say that all of those wars were categorically unjust, I just want to bring a much needed reality check to what seems to be a film that  unhelpfully conflates Christianity with politics and prosperity. I believe the gospel has done immeasurable good to many individuals in our country but I want to draw clear lines between the gospel and the many forces that combined to lead our nation toward freedom and prosperity. The gospel, after all presents us with a king who conquers not by force but by loving self-sacrifice and calls us to do the same (Mark 10:45).

Further, I find it troubling when Christians conflate  prosperity with the gospel. In fact, often times in the Old Testament, it was the richest nations that seem to reject God most vehemently. Prosperity is never categorically seen in the Bible as a sign of God’s blessing and favor, nor are we commanded to seek it for ourselves or for our nation. Also we must remember that Jesus’ kingdom is not of this world and it extends to every tribe, tongue and nation–our role in advancing it shouldn’t center on our country’s interests alone.

So here is to hoping Cameron goes back to sharing videos of his street witnessing.

Just a few years after his confirmation in the summer of 1983, Ellefson moved to Los Angeles. Within a week, he had formed a band and named it Megadeth for the unit of measurement equal to the death of 1 million people by nuclear explosion.

Soon, he was playing bass on stage in front of thousands of heavy metal fans in New York with other bands like Metallica and Slayer. In 1985, Megadeth released its first album, “Killing Is My Business … And Business Is Good!”

In the 1980s and 1990s, Megadeth gained a reputation for an intelligent take on heavy metal, earning several Grammy Award nominations, and was known for its album covers, many of which depicted a character named Vic Rattlehead, a skeleton whose eyes, ears and mouth were fused closed with metal.

But by the time Ellefson was 25, the rock star lifestyle had caught up to him. In a 12-step recovery program, he was reintroduced to his faith and embraced it. He moved to Arizona, married and had children. He eventually landed at Shepherd of the Desert Lutheran Church, a Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod congregation in Scottsdale.

Videogames’ interactive nature requires that they tell stories differently than any other medium. Of course given the medium’s short history there is no shortage of games that have tried to adopt the storytelling methods of longer standing mediums like books and movies. Before gameplay visuals reached high definition resolution, games were constantly setting aside interactivity for visual impact. This is why games like Final Fantasy VII and Metal Gear Solid 2 invested so intently in their cut scenes. The result was that many games most significant narrative moments were taken out of the hands of players. This is unfortunate because what makes videogames unique is their tendency to invite the player to participate significantly in their story. We could hope that such tendencies are being phased out of videogames, but games like Uncharted 3 seem to indicate that many game developers are not yet comfortable letting games be games. This isn’t to say that cut scenes have no place in games but rather that sole reliance upon for the advance of a narrative represents neglect of videogames greatest asset–namely interactivity. This begs the question–how should games tell stories?

I won’t pretend to be intelligent or learned in game design enough to know games can best tell stories.  What I can share with you, however,  are some ways in which games are currently telling stories admirably. 2011 saw the release of number of excellent examples of smart, intuitive, and interactive stories, so in a short series of posts, I intend to highlight some examples of smart and meaningful storytelling in games.

The most obvious example of great storytelling in games from 2011 is The Binding of Isaac. While the basic premise of the story is laid out in the games opening video, it’s the world of the game that brings Isaac’s story home. The game is a loose modern retelling of the Biblical narrative of Abraham taking Isaac up the mountain to sacrifice him per the Lord’s command (Genesis 22). In the game, Isaac’s deeply religious mother, who has an unholy fascination with charismatic christian television, receives a vision from the Lord telling her to sacrifice her son. Isaac discovers her plans and takes refuge in the basement of their house.

Isaac is a rogue-like, meaning the game is different every time you play it–every dungeon is randomly generated as are all the items you find as you progress. This is where Isaac’s story comes alive. The items you pick up tell the story of an abused and neglected little boy. “Brother Bobby” and “Sister Maggy” are ghost-like drones that follow you and mirror your actions doubling your abilities. Who are these drones? Perhaps Isaac isn’t the first of his family to be threatend by his mother. Find the “paddle” and Isaac will immeidately be able to run faster reminiscent of a child running from an abusive mother. When you find the “coat hanger” it lodges itself into Isaac’s head and allows him to shoot his weapon faster which happens to be his own projectile tears. If I am to survive I must pick up this coat hanger–I need an improved weapon but as I pick it up, I can’t help to consider what that coat hanger represents for Isaac.

Item pick ups are essential elements of rogue-like games and yet The Binding of Isaac manages to take this essential element and infuse it with significance.  At times, the game is deeply unsettling but this is appropriate. There is nothing pleasant about child abuse. The Binding of Isaac tells a powerful story, not by foisting cinematics or lengthy exposition onto the player but by simple letting the player explore Isaac’s basement and discover the various objects long discarded there. Isaac  respresents a stellar achievement in storytelling by taking something as simple as “powerups” and using them to shed light on the troubling world in which a young boy lives.

Paste Magazine reports that Jay-Z has vowed to stop using one of the many derogatory words that made him famous:

The birth of Blue Ivy Carter has influenced Jay-Z to stop using “bitch” in his lyrics, according to the New York Daily News. The rapper, who topped the charts with “99 Problems,” where he famously proclaimed “I got 99 problems, but a bitch ain’t one” over and over, recently wrote a poem dedicated to his daughter where he promises to axe the word from his vocabulary.

Many people have chided the rapper for not changing his tune when he got married to pop star, Beyonce Knowles, however I think that is an unfair criticism. Anytime some stops using damaging language, no matter the context, we should applaud them. Understanding comes in various times and circumstances and as a father of a daughter myself, I am encouraged to hear that one of hip hop’s biggest players is thinking about the weight of his words.

We can wish all we want that Jay-Z had come to this realization earlier and even scoff at him for a perceived lack of respect for his wife. None of that, however, changes the simple fact that this shift in thinking is a positive move and one we can celebrate.

There is reportedly an article coming out in a British Christian publication that features an interview with me. As is often the case, to stoke the fires of controversy, thereby increasing readership, which generates advertising revenue, a few quotes of mine have been taken completely out of context and sent into the Twittersphere. So, I thought I would put a bit of water on the fire by providing context.

Driscoll never denied saying: “Let’s just say this: right now, name for me the one young, good Bible teacher that is known across Great Britain. You don’t have one – that’s the problem. There are a bunch of cowards who aren’t telling the truth.”

In fact, Driscoll said, “In particular, the quote about cowardice may not fit all British men, but for men who misuse their authority to advance their agenda, it seems applicable.”

I understand that journalists can be snakes and from reading Driscoll’s article I very much sympathize with him. I know he is a controversial figure, and I know a lot of people don’t like him and even have personal vendettas against him. I feel for him, and I don’t envy his position. He is probably right that he never should have taken that interview in the first place, and I understand that he was misrepresented.

I will say, however, that Driscoll fails to apologize or really significantly take anything back from the statement in question — he merely admits the possibility that his comment might not apply to all British men. It’s an odd thing to say when in my mind the most obvious thing to say is, “I’m sorry.”

So in closing — I feel for Driscoll — people in the media can be real snakes but the fact remains that Driscoll made a very derogatory statement and didn’t apologize for it. In fact, his closing statement seems to obscure that fact even more; he said:

In the providence of God, I trust everything will sort itself out in time. The best thing is to not waste time blogging, twittering, and talking about me. I was not born of a virgin, have not lived without sin, and am not going to judge the living and the dead. Jesus is all that matters.

Of course Jesus is all that matters, and of course many people (self included) are wasting time blogging and tweeting about Driscoll, but the fact remains that a very popular and highly sought after pastor who represents Jesus said something that was inappropriate and didn’t bother to apologize for it. That bothers me. And that issue, to me, is still hanging out there untouched, and for Driscoll’s sake, I sincerely wish it weren’t. He is too influential for that not to matter.

Let’s just say this: right now, name for me the one young, good Bible teacher that is known across Great Britain. You don’t have one – that’s the problem. There are a bunch of cowards who aren’t telling the truth.

Andrew Finden responded appropriately, wondering if Driscoll has an unhealthy bias toward famous, multi-site, mega-church pastors:

Putting aside the (frankly, wearisome) hyperbole, am I wrong in seeing Driscoll want to apply a kind of one-size-fits-all approach (e.g. famous & young) to churches in the UK? Just because there’s no household name, beamed into multi-site churches across the country each week, it doesn’t mean that there aren’t faithful leaders, young and old, teaching the bible, preaching the gospel, stirring their communities on to love and good works, and holding them accountable. In fact, if Driscoll had even visited some of the churches in the UK he’d know that, even in the CofE, it is a egregious stereotype to paint them as “guys in dresses preaching to grandmas”. We shouldn’t assume that unless someone is doing everything the way we would do it, that the important things are not getting done! . . .

It really is a shame to see the good things overshadowed by the stupid things, and I’m actually glad that there is not an all-american smack-down celebrity pastor or culture in the UK. I’m very glad for the faithful and challenging bible teaching I sat under when I was there.

Drew Dixon, editor at Christ and Pop Culture, an online publication that discusses Christian reaction to and engagment with popular culture, told The Christian Post that people should not really be shocked by this shift.

“If we as Christians are committed to reaching the world for Christ, we have a responsibility to understand the people who inhabit it. If we are exercising that responsibility faithfully, we really shouldn’t be surprised by these sorts of things,” he said.

“I think the only reason that this is a news story is because Archie is such an iconic figure in the world of comics. Truth be told, gay marriage is legal in enough states now that most of us [are] likely to know someone who is married to someone of the same sex and that shouldn’t suprise us — ‘Archie’ comics are simply recognizing an undeniable aspect of our culture.”

As for Archie Comics fans who may feel conflicted over the publication’s promotion of a gay lifestyle, Dixon suggested that disengaging might not actually be the best reaction.

“Christians aren’t crossing any lines by reading Archie comics, not any more so than they would be by going to a grocery store or a bank with a homosexual manager. When [it] comes to pop culture, I think Christians often miss the bigger picture. While the Bible is clear about the sinfulness of homosexuality, it’s also clear about our primary calling as Christians to love our neighbor and proclaim the gospel,” Dixon said.

“As we think about how to do that, we need to recognize that the culture surrounding us differs from us significantly on important issues like marriage. We need to think carefully about how we can simultaneously promote the sanctity of marriage in our local churches while still reaching out to, loving, and serving the homosexual community.”

Dixon, also a pastor who earned his Masters of Divinity degree from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, noted that Jesus engaged socially unpopular figures during his earthly ministry, such prostitutes and tax collectors.

“I think when our first reaction to stories like this is to boycott products that present a worldview contrary to our own we miss a pivotal opportunity to engage the world around us for Christ. When we choose to boycott things like this we are sending a message to the homosexual community — we don’t agree with you and we don’t want to hear your side. Who knows, perhaps reading ‘Archie’ might help us understand better where some homosexuals are coming from so that we might be better equipped to serve them, love them, and share the gospel with them in the real world,” he said.

Our own Rich Clark recently got the chance to chat with Illiger about the game, how success has changed him, and even the meaning of life.

Here are my two favorite excerpts:

Why do you think Tiny Wings was so popular?

I’ve talked a lot with many people about this subject in the past months, and the main aspect they mentioned was “character.” For me the atmosphere of a game is very important. I wanted to make a positive game (there are so many negative ones out there) and I think this touches the players. I got a lot of emails from fans who said that my game gives them happy feelings, and that is the greatest thing I can hope to achieve with one of my works.

People seem to love the bird character because they can identify with his story. He is a little bit disabled with his tiny wings and he is stuck on the ground. The player helps him to reach his dream of flying. The tiny metaphor hidden in the gameplay is that anybody can reach his or her dream even if he or she has tiny wings. That is not a very unique message, but I think it’s a strong one which also touches people.

What was the inspiration for Tiny Wings?

The overall style is inspired by several animated movies (I created animated movies during my study of graphic design) like the short movies by Studio AKA from London.  The core gameplay mechanic is inspired by a game called Wavespark by Nathan McCoy. The character is not inspired by Angry Birds.

I wanted to make a game about the dream of flying—because that is the dream of my childhood—and thought a lot about a character who cannot fly but wants to. Penguins were too obvious, so in the end it was a bird with tiny wings. I think such a story is important for a game character.

Did you catch that? “The character is not inspired by Angry Birds.” Don’t get me wrong, I liked Angry Birds (though I am terrible at it), but Tiny Wings is the most delightfully pleasant game I played all year–so to me, this litte bird with his little wings is “the Angry Birds Slayer”!

Dan Kimball, pastor of Vintage Church in Santa Cruz, Calif. responded:

We aren’t Christians based on whether we go to a church meeting or not, that is based on our faith in Jesus. So I agree with him there, but having faith in Jesus then means we should then be functioning in a local church according to the guidelines of Scripture. It would be sad thinking of a Christian living out their faith on their own without being in a faith community.

In other incredibly important Beiber news, the teen star got a portrait of Jesus tattooed on the back of his calf.

If there is any one thing that will motivate me to put down a game never to pick it up again, it is “grinding.” For those of you nongamers out there, “grinding” refers to the practice of delaying progression in a game in order to focus on menial tasks required to make the player strong enough to advance. I rarely have to  grind in games because games rarely require grinding anymore.  So many people hate the idea of grinding that most games don’t require the practice. And yet lately, I have found myself willingly spending most of my time in Skyrim doing just that.

I have been crafting weapons, enchanting them, selling them for more materials to craft more weapons and enchant them again. I did all this long enough to get two perks that would make my character tremendously strong. There is nothing particularly exciting about the time I have spent in Skyrim traveling from merchant to merchant and smithy to smithy. It’s mundane and oddly enough, nothing about the game itself required me to do this.

The fact that Skyrim broke me of my anti-grinding ways is a tremendous compliment to the world that Todd Howard and his team at Bethesda have created. The world of Skyrim is so rich and vibrant that 8+ hours of smithing, enchanting, and selling seems like a cat nap.

Brendan Keogh recently wrote about how Dark Souls requires grinding but manages to do so in a way that feels productive and meaningful:

People have told me Dark Souls is about the journey, not the destination. I think this is more true than they realize. I can’t imagine Dark Souls even has an ending. Partly, this is because story-wise I wouldn’t have a clue what is actually going on or what my goal is. And, partly, because there is little hope of me ever actually finishing it. Even as I progress from one area into the next when I finally defeat a boss, the singular open-world nature of the game steals even a sense of spatial progression away from me. It still feels like I am trapped in the same place, even when I move on. Dark Souls is about the journey. One long, neverending journey.

And so grinding is okay. That is my purgatory. Not just mechanically but thematically. Some souls sells wares off rugs. Some souls drum hammers onto anvils. Some souls run the same paths ad infinitum, defeating the same enemies over and over and…

While I think Skyrim manages to give the player a much more concrete sense of progression than Dark Souls appears to, at the end of the day, I am not so sure I really care about the impact of my acts of heroism on the world of Tamriel. So why did I spend so much time grinding in Skyrim? I think it was because I found the world to be compelling and grinding these two perks served to make exploring it all the more simple.

I think this is the first time I have ever worked so hard to make a game experience less challenging. Skyrim’s dungeons are so beautifully imagined and its mountain are so majestic that I hit the grind until I could make my time there more like a vacation and less like a quest.

What Real Marriage has going for it, in the end, is the only thing it doesn’t share with scores of other marriage books: Mark Driscoll. Driscoll has preached the book’s content, he tells us, in “England, Ireland, Scotland, South Africa, Australia, India, and Turkey” and has talked personally to “hundreds of thousands of couples.” The author’s bio reminds us that he is “one of the world’s most downloaded and quoted pastors.” He pastors the “2nd most-innovative church in America.” The hype in the press release isn’t, ultimately, about Real Marriage; it’s about Mark Driscoll.

Tim Challies wonders why half of the book is dedicated to the topic of sex and notes that the books foundation lacks gospel emphasis:

. . . the fact that half of the book focuses on marriage and the other half on sex leads to some confusion as to the nature of the book. Is it a book on marriage or a book on sex? How do these things relate to one another in such a way that they merit equal attention? Obviously marriage is not less than sex, but is the sexual relationship fully half of marriage? Why does it receive such emphasis?

. . . . Noticeably absent in this section is a firm and robust gospel grounding for marriage. Ephesians 5 is referenced only in passing; the marriage relationship as a mystery, a picture of Christ’s relationship to the church, is never clearly offered as the big picture or ultimate purpose of marriage. That gospel foundation is utterly, absolutely critical to an understanding of marriage and it is missing from Real Marriage. This is a tragic oversight. And I say “tragic” because the biblical understanding of marriage influences everything else—everything they discuss from chapter one to chapter eleven.

Rachel Held Evans says Driscoll’s book is evidence that evangelicals expect too much of their pastors:

In addition to demanding they serve as nearly flawless leaders and teachers, many of us demand that our pastors serve as professional counselors and advisors, experts on everything from politics to science to sex to health to money to marriage to relationships.

As a result, some pastors simply crumble beneath the weight of the pressure, “faking it” for years and then burning out. Others develop a heightened sense of self-importance and arrogance, as they slap the word “biblical” in front of each of their opinions, claiming to speak on behalf of God on every given topic. Still others live complete lies, lecturing the congregation on the importance money management on Sunday while struggling to overcome secret credit card debt on Monday. Others project their insecurities and obsessions onto their followers and demand that everyone look just like them. Very few manage to remain humble, honest, and brave in the face of our unrealistic expectations.

Andrew Finden has written a balanced and helpful review; here is an excerpt:

The middle section contains a number of chapters focused on sex, with a big reliance on (a somewhat questionable interpretation of) Song of Solomon. Issues such as abuse and pornography are dealt very seriously. This section also deals with the ‘can we…’ questions, which we’re told they are frequently asked when they teach on this subject. They helpfully offer a framework of asking 3 questions of any act in question: 1. Is it lawful? (biblically and legally) 2. Is it helpful? (does it build up) 3. Is it enslaving? They proceed to run a number of common examples through this. This feels a little overdone, in that a couple of examples to show the process would have sufficed, and let the reader do it themselves, rather than showing their answers on so many of the examples. As it is, it reads a little too much like the Driscolls giving their approval or not for various things (although I don’t think this is at all what they meant). Another place where it felt a little too much like the Driscolls giving the reader too many specifics rather than principles, is when they begin to suggest what ‘date night’ and other such things might look like. I can understand why they give examples, but to those of us outside of the suburban, middle-class context they are in, it just feels a little too much.

David Moore says “Mark Driscoll Thinks Wives Are Only Good for Sex”:

I saw it coming, and got blindsided. This book is an astoundingly unbelievable work of disrespect for women.

I’m not much of a feminist. Men and women are different, generally have different gifts and abilities and both are valuable. In our household, I’m the chief decision-maker because my wife and I agree that is what the New Testament instructs. Plenty of people don’t agree with that, and that’s fine.

But holy cow: My wife is still a person, she still has needs that are at least as important as mine, and I am called to serve her as Christ serves the church.

What about you? Are you going to read Driscoll’s new book? Have you read it? If you have share your thoughts in the comments.

In other words, some people in our culture want too much out of a marriage partner. They do not see marriage as two flawed people coming together to create a space of stability, love and consolation, a “haven in a heartless world,” as Christopher Lasch describes it. Rather, they are looking for someone who will accept them as they are, complement their abilities and fulfill their sexual and emotional desires. This will indeed require a woman who is “a novelist/astronaut with a background in fashion modeling,” and the equivalent in a man. A marriage based not on self-denial but on self-fulfillment will require a low- or no-maintenance partner who meets your needs while making almost no claims on you. Simply put—today people are asking far too much in the marriage partner. . . .

Any two people who enter into marriage are spiritually broken by sin, which among other things means to be self-centered—living life incurvatus in se. As author Denis de Rougemont said, “Why should neurotic, selfish, immature people suddenly become angels when they fall in love … ?” That is why a good marriage is more painfully hard to achieve than athletic or artistic prowess. Raw, natural talent does not enable you to play baseball as a pro or write great literature without enduring discipline and enormous work. Why would it be easy to live lovingly and well with another human being in light of what is profoundly wrong within our human nature? Indeed, many people who have mastered athletics and art have failed miserably at marriage. So the biblical doctrine of sin explains why marriage—more than anything else that is good and important in this fallen world—is so painful and hard.

Slavery is a great evil, but even slavery cannot stand in the way of the grace and glory of the gospel. And just as we learn from the blind spots of the generations who have gone before us, we trust that the blood of Christ will cover our own blind spots. That’s why the more we walk with God, the more we cry like David: “Cleanse me from my hidden faults.”

It’s only in the security of being wrapped up in the righteousness of Christ that we can say, “Challenge me, Lord. Change me, Lord. Expose my wickedness.” And in the midst of it all, we cling to the hope that God’s grace is bigger than our biggest flaws.

I’m not saying Salander (or the book or the movie) should be boycotted, rallied against, or tarred and feathered. As Christians, we too often fall into the twin traps of demonization or idolization. In the case of Dragon, neither is correct. I don’t propose replacing Lisbeth Salander with Elsie Dinsmore, the dreadfully saintly heroine of the 19th century children’s book series. Unlike Dinsmore, there are people in the world like Salander—tough on the outside, wounded on the inside—who need neither to be put on a pedestal nor pushed away. People who need the love of Christ.