Here is Finn talking about his new solo effort:
The Hold Steady remain one of my current top 5. So Craig’s new album is good news for me.
Latest
Craig’s New Friend
New video from Craig Finn (lead singer of The Hold Steady):
Simply Jesus: An Interview with N.T. Wright
Simply Jesus, N.T. Wright (HarperOne) $24.99 Dr. Tom Wright is a prolific author of both popular and scholarly works about the historical origins of Christianity, focusing especially on the Gospels and the Pauline writings. We spoke to Dr. Wright from his home in Scotland about his new book, Simply Jesus. —The Editors Your work has been tremendously helpful. I think because some of us were just so frustrated, sort of being car salesmen for the church, trying to simply get people into the pews, and then …
N.T. Wright stands as my favorite current theologian and here is a really good interview about his newest book (which unfortunately I have not read yet)…
Book Review: Ronald Sider. The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience: Why Are Christians Living Just Like the World. Baker Books: Grand Rapids, Mich.; 2005.
Ron Sider’s work was introduced to me as a graduate student, and in that first work on Christian ethics I knew I had found a soulmate (I mean someone with whose work I could regularly and faithfully interact). As I have worked my way through his work I have truly found someone who sees Christianity in a way that I find compelling and more than a little bit exciting. Sider’s work flows with an outright joy at seeing God’s Kingdom brought (if only for a little bit and a little while at a time) to earth. All the reviews told me that his book, The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience: Why Are Christians Living Just Like the World, would be another page turner.
Yet, I had found myself picking it up and setting it back down a few times before recently plowing on through it. What were the reasons for my hesitancy, I oft wondered. Not that I disagreed with the premise that modern Christians are living lives similar to their neighbors. Nor that I disagreed that at times the Christians seemed to be living lives worst than their neighbors. The same studies and reviews have been read by each of us; and perhaps even we have attended many of the same churches. Not even a disagreement over Sider’s economic policies should have marred the book. Although they had driven a previous reader to distraction (my copy had been purchased gently used).[1]
No for me the general tone and message of the book was a little off-putting. It seems that works of this such are now so commonplace[2] to have become a little wearying. Take for instance his discussion of wife abuse. Now I do not dispute that such abuse occurs;[3] but still found some fault in his logic about how much this occurs and whether it happened more of less in the church. He seemed to have no numbers to confirm his theory; just some careful (or not so careful) geometric proof about hierarchical marriages and abuse rates.[4] It all seemed somewhat quickly researched, and poorly documented: like he was so sure of his rightness on the matter he had accepted its occurrence as a given and had not taken the time to prove its rightness. I felt similarly cheated on his take on racism in America. How can I feel outrage on the wrongness of these supposedly existing crimes, if the author has not felt the need to study, research, and build his case for their actions?[5] I must also say that like the reader before me, I had hoped that Sider might put some concrete description (and / or plan) to his case and not leave us, the reader dangling.[6]
The Chicken Little type of book has been quickly loosing its appeal to me, and I have longed for someone to not just complain that the sky is falling, but attempt to explain the why’s and wherefore’s of such a scenario. I would also love to see more authors taking on the big scary topics of what to do if the sky has fallen. To his credit I think Sider has done something like this, but better with his The Scandal of Evangelical Politics. Perhaps this book is simply a scrabbled-together group of edits from that book, it would explain the scatter-shot and haphazard affair of this editing job.
That is not to say that Sider’s message needs be lost. If any of the statistics he does quote are correct the American church could be in a world of hurt, and it behooves American Evangelicals to get their collective heads out of the sand.[7] In this way even his scattered recollect could and should serve as a wake-up call. Evangelicals have been asleep at the wheel for far too long; and if they hope to avoid the ditch on either side of the political and social road, they must get it in gear.
[1] His (or her, I guess) side notes about Sider’s “leftish” captivity and the fact that only an escape from such enslavement made good reading as well as the book.
[2] On the left and right.
[3] And probably occurs at rates higher than anyone of us would imagine or desire.
[4] Not that I am a complementarian (I am not). Or that I would not like some case numbers and statistics for use in explaining what I am sure is a valid complaint about abuse.
[5] Perhaps he assumes that he has definitively argued and won his case in another book (or someone else has), and he does not want to waste space rehashing it (but at least do as some do and footnote a response such as “I (or someone else named here) have argued conclusively that this the case in the essay / article / book / dissertation, etc.” This lets me know that I can do further work in convincing myself.
[6] My copy had tons of aggravated side notes asking for specifics and I have to say at first I was annoyed but then felt something akin to sympathy for my beleaguered fellow book owner.
[7] Or perhaps just step slowly away from their TVs broadcasting FOX News long enough to realize that the problem with America is not gays, Mexicans, Democrats, or Muslims; but Christians who fail to be transformed into the image and likeness of Christ.
Disconnected: My Week without Media Otherwise known as the week I was bored, awkward, peaceful, rested, and not always better at prime time social engagement
For the week beginning 1/23/12 I agreed to disconnect from the media (from Sun midnight to after church on the next Sun.). That meant no radio, no TV, no magazines, no movies, and no social networking. The oblivious exception was work: I have to access the internet on the job, and music is playing inside the building, but as I need to eat, this would have to do.
A side note, my reasons for doing for three-fold: 1) I feel this is a good discipline, to pull back from all the things that seem at times to get in the way, that suck my time, and keep me from having time to both reflect on life, and connect with others; 2) I hope to devote time saved to my devotional life as well as spending some time on some projects that I should have been working on already (for this week I am going to do some editing on a book I hope to publish as an e book); and 3) I hope rather than simply mope around bored, but take some time to challenge myself (as I have set relationships as an important theme for the week), I have decided to take some time to think through some relational dynamics (to that end I have set aside a couple of books on the subject for quiet moments of deep thinking). Read the rest of this page »
Newt Gingrich: A Change We Shouldn’t Believe In? (or the social construction of Newt’s food stamps joke)…
I recently picked up a copy of Eric Alterman’s Why We’re Liberals: A Handbook for Restoring America’s Most Important Ideals. In many respects the sections I have read have contained some interesting facts and ideals, but that has been buried in a lot of “you should see the other guy…” type hand-ringing about conservatives. One of these moments comes in a discussion of “family values.” There, Alterman argued that the GOP contained more hypocrisy about family values than a corporate boardroom does hot air. His argumentation, though intriguing, seemed a little far-fetched; at least, until this evening. There I was sitting at my desk when a peer returning from break announced that Gingrich, the family values candidate of the year, had just won the SC primary.
After 4 years of listening to my Evangelical friends gripe about the apostasy (and possible anti-Christ candidacy) of the Obama Administration, I had recently proclaimed that these same people could not knowingly vote for a guy like Gingrich. In fact this has to be the first time in American history that rumors of a candidate’s request for an open marriage did not immediately sink his candidacy. I mean, W push-pollers just insinuated that McCain had a black child out of wedlock (a fact that was decidedly untrue) and destroyed McCain. What’s-his-name in NY was drummed out of D.C. for sending suggestive pictures. Not to mention the outrage at Mr foot-tapper in the Midwest. And let’s not even talk about S.C.’s golden boys Sandford and Edwards. Other than Clinton (who had rumors of affairs floating) , it hard to think of a candidate being hit with more allegations of un-family values allegations and managing to survive, much less win a primary state.
Before all this I had been sticking up for the GOP against Newsweek’s slam, but this is too much. It’s not that I don’t believe in redemption (I’ve exalted it from the pulpit, more than once). It’s not that I don’t believe in forgiveness (as Rush says, Ditto. I’ve counseled it as a place to start dealing from hurt). It’s not that I believe that people can’t be changed (as a pastor I’ve seen it and as a Christian I’ve experienced it). But here’s the thing, I can forgive you and you can talk a good game about changing’; but, I still want to see that change happening. I don’t need to see perfection, but I do need to see something.
The S.C. winner can talk a lot about change; but has he. Just look at how he won this primary. He criticized an opponent for paying the lowest tax rate he could. But isn’t this the GOP wet dream, a millionaire paying 15% taxes is not a GOP problem; it’s the GOP’s stated goal. He criticized the current president for adding names to the food voucher rosters (despite the fact that the previous GOP president added more- during boom years). When criticized for past indiscretions he did not deny them so much as throw his kids at the media (as if to say see I do something right).
The worst offense, to my mind, was that when he needed a victory Gingrich went “racial” to do it. Now Gingrich and every GOP booster, I know is going to say that I am reading into his critique of the poor. Sure he was not running around S.C. using the “n” word, and talking about lynching folk, but he used language and stereotypes as a way to send coded messages to the far right’s nutcases that he was on their side. Language is a funny thing, sure it has its denotations that the rational mind can pick apart; but as conservative commentator David Brooks has argued in his book The Social Animal, most of our language operates on an unconscious level sending concrete communications without so much as raising a conscious thought or concern. Only when one is for 1 reason or another sensitive to these unconscious messages, does one stop and consider them; otherwise they appear inconsequential to the rational conscious mind. I would argue that much of the racism, sexism, elitism, etc. of our society finds life in these grey nether regions. If one studies the concerns of racial politics, the stock metaphors Gingrich used in his stump speeches of stamp soliloquies harbor as much baggage as his sexual history.
As Christians who call ourselves concerned about morality, family values, and such; we should be concerned with a candidate like Newt. His history speaks to the type of lapses for which we have openly condemned,impeached, and sent Democratic candidates running home. To make matters worse his current behavior reeks of a man who holds many of the 10 Commandments which we Christians esteem as optional. Now I am not saying that you Mr of Mrs Evangelical have to change your tune on Obama (but at least he is the husband of one wife); but for God’s sake please stop voting for Gingrich (and I do mean that literally not as an invective). It’s time for change. It’s time to stop giving our critics more ammunition. It’s time to practice what we preach (or perhaps better yield the pulpit).
The CW’s Nikita, Fox’s Emily Thorne, and the Revenge that Steals Your Soul
“Yesterday’s victim is today’s victimizer. Today’s victimizer is tomorrow’s victim.”
- Miroslov Volf. Exclusion and Embrace.
Ok, I have been trying to read more and write more this year (if you read this blog that might be oblivious), so this week I actually spent some time catching up on pop culture. On the DVR playlist was the winter opener of Nikita, “Pale Fire,” as well as this week’s episode of Revenge, “Commitment”. Both shows deal with the concept of Revenge. Nikita, Alex, and co. are determined to see the shadowy Division and Operations groups destroyed in much the same way that the Black Ops teams run by them torched their own lives (Division killed Nikita’s innocent fiancé, and Alex’s mafia dad). Meanwhile Emily Thorne and her scheming alliance are set to take down the nefarious 1-percenter family Grayson who imprisoned her dad. Beyond just the similarity in thematic material, these shows highlighted their females scorned as they faced important decisions on their continuing course of retribution. Emily watched as the most recent scheme of hers meant a brutal beating foisted upon the supposed love of her life, Jack. Nikita found her pursuit to reacquire a copy of Division’s black box (a treasure trove of digital files on every dirty rotten Division mission) bumping up against her protégée’s desire to rescue her mom (matters worse- hurt feelings and bullet wounds have separated the two). The major question of the episodes then revolves around the idea of second chances and forgiveness. Can Emily rethink her plan to eliminate unnecessary blowback as one of her cohorts suggests? Can Nikita and Alex put aside their hurt (physical and emotional) to work together, and if they do whose agenda trumps the other? SPOILER ALERT.
At first it seems that Emily may be rethinking her decision as she and Nolan discuss a retrenchment. Emily is going to say “no” to Daniel Grayson’s proposal, actually seems to be bond with her unknowing half-sister Charlotte, gets the homicidal ‘Amanda’ away from the Hamptons, and shows up at the hospital to utter a request for forgiveness to the unconscious Jack (whew!). Meanwhile Nikita volunteers to help Alex rescue her mom and drops her plans to grab the black box. Tantalizingly she and Michael set up a long needed dialogue about how to handle Michael’s desire to be there for his recently discovered son. Nikita and Alex take turns saving each other’s bacon, but their plans become FUBAR’d and so they leave the home without the mom (seems that mommie dearest has taken up with the man who set Division on daddy, and chooses him over Alex). Back in the Hamptons Emily meets up with Daniel with the intent of breaking off the engagement, just as, Daniel relates a new horrific rumor spread by his own mommy dearest (seems that rather than come clean on her affair with David, she has allowed Daniel to believe she was raped and conceived Charlotte that un-pro-choice matter).
After spending an entire episode coming to grips with the devil inside themselves Nikita, Alex, and Emily now find themselves staring once again into that dark abyss. Far be it from me to state that the assassin Nikita has a better grip on morality, but it surprisingly this spitfire turned deadly killer who speaks eloquently about the morality of the second chance. “Everyone has done things wrong that they regret (including ourselves if we are honest), and therefore all of us are in need of some kind of second chance,” Nikita argues. Here she is applying her request for forgiveness not just to Momma Udinov (who may be slowly realizing the deal with the devil she has made) but to Alex. Michael, and herself. Meanwhile Emily’s voiceover spoken as Daniel’s dissertation on the evils of David Clarke fades into the background speaks of commitment, the idea that all of us are knowing or unknowingly committed to our actions, choices have been made, and consequences set into motion. To Emily, she is not responsible for her regrettable actions because it was the Grayson family that started things, and she is simply responding in kind. Two similar circumstances breeding two different results[1]
In this way these shows reminded me of the work of theologian Miroslav Volf who has witnessed first-hand the results of grudges and hatreds left to fester.[2] In his book Exclusion and Embrace, he sought out to discuss the power of these slights and the power they hold to destroy our worlds. Like several other scholars (both Christian and non) who have witnessed the power of hate he described in detail how the path of victimization is fraught with complexity. Innocence and guilt is never quite as easily assigned as first believed. Both these shows have done excellent jobs at showing the mixed emotions and oversized baggage that has led to the current hostilities. In many ways Percy and Amanda, as well as Victoria and Conrad are not the cruel remorseless villains seen in earlier shows and movies. Each is conflicted, hurt victims in their own right. In this land of repeated and cyclic violence and oppression, Volf located only one hope, the cross of Christ. When the only truly innocent victim in history opened his arms to be pounded into that cross, Christ revealed the only true way to deal with the cycles of hate, the open embrace of the other. Only in a selfless and at times painful love and acceptance of the other can true peace be found. Here’s hope that at long last Nikita, Alex, Emily, and Nolan realize this life-changing reality (and then there shows would end, because who really wants peace, revenge seems so much sweeter). As this will not happen, the viewer must, I guess, prepare to see these morality plays work out as its proponents, perhaps, gain the world, but lose their souls.
[1] Though to be honest we have yet to see Nikita apply her live and let live philosophy to Percy and Amanda at Division. In a way she, too, can be seen to hold a grudge. And in another way she, too, is responding to continuing provocations from her sworn enemies.
[2] He watched as his homeland of the formerYugoslavia was rent with violence as old hurts led to new animosities and atrocities between Christian and Muslim; as well as, Bosnian, Serbian, and Croatian.
The Rise of Neo-Fundalmentalism: A Great Overview
There was posted on Roger Olsen’s blog and presents a great overview of the rise of a new kind of fundalmentalism within evanagelicalism:
Young, Restless, and Fundamentalist:Neo-fundamentalism among American Evangelicals
Love is a battlefield
I was fascinated by the US Today’s coverage of this story:
Military Family Finds Healing Together
Here is a link to the blog mentioned in the story:
I cannot reccomend this story highly enough. It is an amazing story of two families beset by loss, but finding health and healing in each other and their God. Just fascinating.
Love / Hate Unsanitary