Clear Hearts, Full Eyes Promo Interview (Craig Finn)
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.
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 after about five or six years of that you begin to wonder, “Why am I doing this?
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). (more…)
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.
Parental Warning: Today we are talking about sex and freedom…
The interwebs have been awash in comments, criticisms, and support of Mark Driscoll‘s[1] new book on sex, Real Marriage: The Truth About Sex, Friendship, and Life Together. Truthfully I have not read this title yet, so I will refrain from a critique. Instead I want to gab a bit about a recent publicity bit for the piece. The Driscolls appeared on Dr. Drew’s show, here is the entire interview as linked on Pagea Blog. I’m not a fan of Drew or the type of show he runs with a panel of mostly uninformed people asking a “guest” a series of unconnected, poorly constructed questions which are then glossed over without actually allowing either the “guest” or the “panelists” to actually deal with the topic at hand. What this type of show usually boils down to is a group of people competing for the glibbest commentary (though it should be noted glib here is never synonymous with wit).
What struck me with this interview, perhaps because of the absolute dearth of intelligent comments, was the repeated mantra of
“You can’t call this sin because I want to do it.”
I really do think that if we Christians were at all on our game theologically, this line of thinking would do no damage to us whatsoever. Were I on this panel, I would say “kill me now,” but after the desires to off myself, I would perhaps say, “our point exactly.” Paul put it this way:
“What I don’t understand about myself is that I decide one way, but then I act another, doing things I absolutely despise. So if I can’t be trusted to figure out what is best for myself and then do it, it becomes obvious that God’s command is necessary.
But I need something more! For if I know the law but still can’t keep it, and if the power of sin within me keeps sabotaging my best intentions, I obviously need help! 18I realize that I don’t have what it takes. I can will it, but I can’t do it. I decide to do good, but I don’t really do it; I decide not to do bad, but then I do it anyway. My decisions, such as they are, don’t result in actions. Something has gone wrong deep within me and gets the better of me every time.
It happens so regularly that it’s predictable. The moment I decide to do good, sin is there to trip me up. I truly delight in God’s commands, but it’s pretty obvious that not all of me joins in that delight. Parts of me covertly rebel, and just when I least expect it, they take charge.”
Sin is not a choice. It is not something freely chosen from a list of equally viable actions. No one sits down and says,
“You know what I have this list of things I can do, and from this list I am going to choose the sinful action.”
I really prefer the songwriter Charlie Peacock’s take on sin:
“Sin is a cancer / Not just some thing you do / It’s in you minister / It’s in me too”
There is nothing free about sin, either in the doing or the consequences of having done it. We in the church know this, but we still get these blank looks as the world talks about being “born this way.” I listen to the world, and think you understand sin better than anyone in my church. Perhaps a large part of our current stupidity comes from the Republican captivity of the Evangelical church. It has been decided that rhetoric about “a war on the family” will get people to the polls to vote (in record numbers); but any discussion about the actual sins that are damaging our families will lose votes so this is not actually done.[2]
Here is how we are applied this faulty and perhaps cynically-calculated language. Sin is a choice we make, and homosexuality is a sin; therefore homosexuality is a choice people make. Of course we want homosexuality to be a choice; because if it is not a choice, then what kind of bastards are we to say, “I know you can’t stop doing this, but you have to stop.” This would not keep people coming to the polls or the pews. This would just make your audience and friends that much more mad.
But this is the essential hermeneutical problem of believing the Bible. Rarely if ever does the Bible give into cheap, easy sentimentality. On face value the statement that sin is ingrained deeply in our psyches seems like a hard word, a nasty, brutal truth. In fact this reality leads the apostle Paul, as quoted above, to lament:
“Oh, wretched man that I am who can save me from myself.”
To be part of this world is to be in bondage, bound to commit the same wrong actions again, again, again, and again. It would seem that the current Michael Fassbender movie Shame stands as a dramatic statement of this pernicious side to sex.[3] Or if one prefers music I much enjoy Frightened Rabbit’s Keep Yourself Warm or EMA’s California. Each of these works in their own ways point to the inherent emptiness of modern sexual expression. As EMA says “they tried to tell me sex was free.” But the sad truth of modern times is that nothing, not even sex, is truly free or even truly something we do because of choice. All of our lives seem bound to a host of intendent issues and problems. Yesterday I watched (Ok, listened) to two people argue. It started simple, but the issues at hand in both persons showed themselves and the situation got real quickly. This is the reality that none of us seems able to comment to audible statement.
Yet this is the point at which I love Christianity, it is why I keep coming back day after day. Christ came to set us free. He came to set us free from this SSDD[4] syndrome. As scripture tells us,
“For freedom Christ has set us free.”
It is only in Christ that humanity truly finds freedom, the freedom to be who we really and truly are. In Christ we find the safe space to deal with ourselves. In Christ we find the ability to be the best persons we can be. As we allow ourselves to be transformed into the image and likeness of Christ, we become the best versions of ourselves, ones that are truly free to act as we really desire. This is the paradoxically liberating good news of the Gospel. To be really free, we must lay down our illusions of freedom and selfhood to gain true freedom and selfdom. Even as Driscoll does seem to argue, the freedom to express ourselves as sexual beings delighting in the beauty of sex.
[1] Ok so his wife is listed as an author as well, and I as a good egalitarian would usually be all for putting her name out there; but I am not entirely sure that having her name on the book is anything more than a publicity stunt. This hierarchical complementatorian couple when seen in public usually has Mark doing all the talking and Grace sitting there like a bump on a log. Besides this was not a true mention just a name check and his is the more recognizable name.
[2] This analysis works for megachurch culture as well. We can get people really excited and coming to our church, by using “us versus them” tactics. We can encourage attendance and fill seats by pumping up the rehetoric; but we lose people when accusing them of being sinful; so we avoid those topics except in the most generic, bland descriptions (or by attacking sins with which people in the seats are not professing trouble).
[3] I say “seem” because here I am going on the critical journalism about said movie. The strong sexual content of the film means that I will not be viewing it, no matter how much Fassbender’s performance is praised. I can handle sexual humor, but have no desire to watch other humans engage in the act (even in playacting). Call me a prude if you must.
[4] Same Shit, Different Day.
A Salute to King
God bless you and God Bless America!
“14 For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us. 15 He has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace, 16 and might reconcile both groups to God in one body through the cross, thus putting to death that hostility through it. 17 So he came and proclaimed peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near; 18 for through him both of us have access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are citizens with the saints and also members of the household of God,20 built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone. 21 In him the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; 22 in whom you also are built together spiritually into a dwelling place for God.” – Ephesians 2:14-22
A Problem Named Tebow: The Modern Failure of Imagination
For the record I am an UT alum and well tend to despise anything from Gainesville (sorry thems the rules); and as a self-loathing evangelical (as one friend recently called me) I tend to get twitchy around “Jesus helps me win football game types.” Also on the record I hope that is the last reference to Tebow’s faith in this column (that story is done in my humble opinion). No what I want to address today is what I see as the essential Tebow problem: a c0llective failure of imagination both among the Football genius’s in Denver and those football savants in the media.
Tebow is not your prototypical QB (thanks Capt. Oblivious); but neither would he be a prototypical RB, FB, TE, or WR. He has a body type and skill set that defies quick categorization. I think that is what irks me the most watching him play, he does not look right out there on the field anywhere. It is annoying then to watch someone who does not look right be successful especially when one considers all the guys who have passed the eye test; yet, been miserable players ( I learned my lesson on this topic my sophomore year of college as I watched a freshman Peyton Manning and Brandon Stewart battle for the starting QB job- one of them looked the part and other turned out to be the part. Many in the league learned that same lesson in the Manning vs Leaf debate before the 98 draft).
That brings us to the problem that Tebow presents. We as fans; and both the Broncos staff and media have a fixed idea of what a QB is (and what a RB is, a FB is, and so on). Yet sometimes individuals come along that defy any such known categorization. So what do we do? Mostly we try to take these special individual and pigeonhole them into one such existing and arbitrary category. In the case of Tebow he has been asked, “what position do you want to play?” He has answered, “QB.” So we have said, “Alright try to do that, but here are our expectations for what a QB does. He does this, this, and this; and occasionally we let him do this, this, or this.” The problem is, though, doing these things is not Tebow at his best, and so he even though he has worked extremely hard and made miles of progress he is still no where near what we expect, want, judge, or deem acceptable. AND WE BLAME TEBOW FOR NOT MEETING THESE EXPECTATIONS! “See!” we say, “I told you he wasn’t that good. He’s all hype and no substance.”
But what if the Denver Broncos were to admit that Tebow is not a normal QB, and what if there were to say rather than pigeonholing him into a position that is an ill-fit (at best), we are going to do something different. He is going to be a starter. He is going to be on the field for every play that our offense runs, but he is not going to be assigned a position that anyone currently recognizes. What if they went out and recruited a good QB, a game manager-type (with a little athleticism and great confidence), a guy that is solid, stable, and can make most of the throws and reads a ‘normal’ QB has to make? And what if you put him out there with Tebow? What if Tebow and said QB wander all over the field? What if some plays Tebow lines up at QB and runs a spread offense and sometimes a little wildcat? What if sometimes he lined up in the backfield at either the FB or RB position and was available as a runner (who is a threat to throw) and as a decoy or extra blocker? What if he lined up as a split-end slot and worked routes like Aaron Hernandez does for the Patriots or Anthony Gonzalez has at times for the Colts? What if he went into motion and was available to take direct snaps, quick handoffs, and pitches for end-arounds and reverses (always a threat to throw)? Would you want to be the DE with backside contain responsibilities who had to take down a Tebow going full-steam after taking a pitch? What he went in motion took a pitch and then had both the fullback and running back go with him for the threat of the option or just on the option? What if he took a screen-pass and then had the ball in space to use his natural running ability? Would you want to be the poor CB with screen responsibilities who had to fight off a block just for the honor of going after a Tebow running in space? Can you imagine the sleepless nights opposing D Coordinators would have trying to scheme for this type of wide open anything can happen offense? And how would opposing defenses be ready for this type of offense (which they guaranteed never to have seen before or again)? Can you imagine the joy Bronco RBs, TEs, and WRs would feel as confused defenses fell over themselves trying to account for Tebow, only to forget to stay solid with Demaryus Thomas on the fly or Eric Decker on the post or as Tebow flys by in motion taking half the defense so that Ball can take a handoff off the tackle side that Tebow just vacated? I can hear the critics now saying, “you can’t do that. It would never work, and beside it would be a lot of work and what if he gets hurt?” The answers in order: watch us, just because it hasn’t been done does not mean it can’t be, and if so we run the same plays we currently run, and play more basic techniques (or perhaps we find some other athletes that don’t fit elsewhere and have them doing some of the same things).
I am currently reading the book, Too Big to Fail (review to come), and someone that has amazed has been the lack of imagination shown by the businesses involved. Yes, they have shown creativity in creating really bizarre investments; but they failed because even then they could not see beyond the categories they had already created. When Lehman failed to see that CDOs are not like the fixed assets their leaders grew up trading; they painted themselves into corners that only a tax-payer funded bailout could fix (and even then not so much). Or take this morning as I watched the brilliant film Moneyball (review pending as well), the problem addressed in the film is the failure of great baseball minds to think outside the box, the inability to see the values in players that did not play the way they were supposed to play. Beyond these three examples we see it day-in and out, at our jobs, at our churches, in our schools, in our governments, in our families, and so on and so on. Everyday we are surrounded by people that we attempt to quickly categorize, sort, and lump into their accepted places. We do this to try and make sense of our lives and ease up on the pressures of life. Yet how often do the people we know easily fall into the categories we have created for them (nor even does God, but that is another essay for another day)? I would argue that this is rare. So why can’t we have the courage to allow the people in our lives to break out of our neat nomenclatures? Why don’t we have the imaginations to see others in new ways, and new shades? Why do we force people into ill-fitting roles which do not suit and then blame them for the failure to not be what we thought they should have been? Why get mad because your husband failed to fill the role you had for him? Why get mad that your boss refuses to be the type boss you expect? Why fire employees for not meeting job descriptions for which they did not match? To break out of our comfortable fantasies and live life outside these imagined boundaries would take all our energy, our strength,our wits, and our patience; but I got to think that once freed from their bounds, these newly liberated beings might just surprise us, and in that surprise bring unimaginable joys and benefits.
A Reply to Job at Healtheland on the Subject of Evil and Its Relation to God
I thought I might look up an old friend and reader of the site: healtheland.wordpress.com, and read a few posts over there. I am happy to see his site maturing. The work is focusing more on exegesis and I applaud that (unfortunately Obama is still a big category for him and I did not dare look at that). I came across this article:
How the Penn State Case Reveals the Existence of God
I am a sucker for finding God in the most unusual of places and was intrigued by the title enough to skim the article for its argument that the existence of evil actually proves the existence of God (man, would I love someone to actually make that one workable, because then a lot of atheists would have to find a new argument). I posted a response and thought I might place it here as well:
Interesting response. Most commentators for the last 200 years at least have used evil in the reverse sense as the greatest problem for the existence of God. The line of logic would be that Sandusky is evil. If God was really good, really powerful, and really existed then He would have intervened and stopped the action. He didn’t so either He is not really good, really powerful, or does not really exist. As a line of logic it seems rather convincing. I, of course, would argue (as you hinted at) that God has intervened through the person of Son. That the cross of Christ represents Christ’s solidarity with the victims of Sandusky, as well as, his offer of healing to both victim and victimizer. Mix that with classical free will theory and I feel that the question has been answered; perhaps not superbly but answered nonetheless. You have sort of managed to argue that as well and one cannot argue with you on those grounds.
I do, however, have some concerns with the reverse logic, you used (if it had worked I would have loved you for it). You once stated that you enjoyed boiling down arguments to the logical extreme, and that is where pointing from evil to God fails. At it’s extreme it allows for no differentiation between evil and God. One might state that if evil has a positive outcome such as pointing to God; then committing evil cannot be entirely wrong (as it creates some good outcome). Therefore committing an evil act cannot be considered wrong and cannot then be evil. On another level it also implicates God in evil; because it seems to make God a participant in the evil action. Therefore one might question the goodness of God.
I prefer the Biblical account which simply claims that God is the good God who overcomes evil. He is the one that thwarts evil, and instead works good in the life of the believer where the evil one had sought to sow destruction. Evil, then, remains evil; and God remains good. It is not the evil action that points to God; but rather His action in turning away the evil and establishing his redemption in its wake. The redemption points to God.
One last point if evil has some positive function in our world then the ultimate destruction of it would in essence be destroying it, and with it destroying an important way of knowing God. Yet our God promises to end evil once and for all. That is our hope that on a day in the hopefully not-too-distant future He will return to bring into completion or fullness the reality of His Kingdom that he established in His previous visit. The cross is the seal of payment, and the spirit is his down payment asserting His intentions to return. Evil will be no more and His people will be entirely free to serve Him in eternity. We will then celebrate His victory, not His battle.
I’ll keep you posted if a conversation ensues…
The Quest for Higher Ground: A Review of Vera Farmiga’s Higher Ground
I love movies. I love the ability to escape the mundane for a few moments to swirl through a Bondian adventure. I love the chance to escape the confines of my own eyeballs and brain to live in the life of another. This is the bargain between the movies and I, you give me a chance to step out of my life for 2 hours, and I give you my attention (and of course a few of my hard-earned dollars). For this reason it is all the more surreal when a movie transcends its agreed-up boundaries and leaps into one’s own life. When it tells your story better than you could ever attempt to do, or teaches you something about yourself that they had never know before that fateful viewing. At risk of seeming silly, I had experienced this ability a few times in such movies as SLC Punk, High Fidelity, Love Actually, 500 (Days of Summer), and a few others. These were grand moments seeing myself in a movie up on the screen in a character, plot, yearning, or action.
Moments ago I sat transfigured by the lights of my TV as I found myself there again. Months ago, I read the reviews and had been inspired by interviews with Vera Farmiga concerning her directorial debut in Higher Ground. Yet (thanks again, to the lack of a good art house in Alabama[1]) I just recently was able to sit down with this gem of a film based on the memoir This Dark World: A Memoir of Salvation Found and Lost by Carolyn S Briggs. I have not read said memoir (it is going quickly onto my wish list), but media reviews tout it as a fresh, realistic, and emotional tale of one woman’s struggle to find an authentic faith. The movie follows Corinne (played wonderfully by daughter-mother pair Taissa and Vera Farmiga) as she moves from a dysfunctional family to an existence with her family in an unnamed church (referred to as Fountain of Joy in the memoir). This church was of the Fundalmentalist / Bible type pioneered during the Jesus People Movement.[2] In this church the faith is real, emotions show up (when not discouraged by the menfolk or judgmental ladies clique), and the religion being practiced means something to these people. Unlike the editors of the memoir Farmiga takes great pain to present the faith and lives of these families in neither a positive or negative light.[3] Farmiga questioned about the tone, stated that:
“It’s not even a positive or negative portrayal; I’m not skewing it either direction. I’m just showing a legitimate struggle—the struggle to find intimacy in our relationships with God. It takes an enormous amount of courage to say “I’m struggling” and to find your voice. That honesty, the terror, the fear—it’s brutal, the admitting of that. But God is big enough to accommodate it.”[4]
Truly it was refreshing to spend time with a series of on-screen Christians who were presented as real 3-D human beings. Each person on screen seemed real. In fact in many cases I found myself relating to the characters greatly. These struggles and faults, victories and strengths fleshed out the story greatly (truly, Farmiga has shared her former co-stars George Clooney and Matt Damon’s ability to bring out the best in her performers when they move behind the camera). As for the loving church scenes, they were many times I found myself reliving my own childhood experiences.[5] It was oblivious that someone involved with the production had truly lived this life.
In times like these, one may read the preceding praise yet remain waiting for the ‘but.’ It is the de rigour form for these things, and there is a ‘but’ here as well. For many of us Christians that ‘but’ comes in the portrayal of the dark sides of these churches. While I must say a thank you to Farmiga and Briggs for showing us what we look like in a mirror, any Christian would want to expound upon this theme. In the above-mentioned interview, Mathewes-Green[6] hones her point stating “A lot of that has changed since the ’70s; the role of women is very different than it was four decades ago.” This, not unexpectedly, was question that did not seem to connect with Farmiga (or maybe that is bad or malicious editing- though I would not expect such a slight from CT, other companies, yes). Yet I am forced to admit the scenes surrounding the lack of male wisdom, lack of male accountability, lack of emotional intelligence, intellectual coherence, and the outright hostility to female intelligence, emotion, experience, and existence do not lack a historical or current (sigh) honesty.
To take one scene explicitly, the pastor asks of anyone present has anything to say, add, or testify to during a meeting involving the entire church (a common experience in those days which I wish we would see more of, to be honest). Corinne stands up and states that she was praying with another woman and heard from God. The pastor squirms, attempts to shut her down, and then interrupts with the statement that if any of the women need prayer that he and the elders would be glad to do so. The implication being that this woman was not qualified to ‘preach’ or ‘pray’ for others.[7] As someone who has experienced such a comeuppance from the pulpit of a well-meaning but insecure pastor[8], I was horrified. Several other scenes paint the petty dramas and problems of having the poor judgment to have received a ‘y’ chromosome from one’s mom, and then attempting to go to church. Add to this my anger at the male character for not even attempting to reconcile with his wife (he seems a passive creature awed by, scared of, and unable to connect with his passionate, intellectually gifted wife) and one can feel the horrors of a Christian life as it could have been or should have been.[9] To these I can only say mea culpa. Unfortunately the church has long been filled with bastards, scoundrels, lusthounds, and assholes just in need of salvation and grace as much as the next person.[10] In addition to these the church has also long be packed with humans who have the great impertinence to act human (that is dumb, ignorant, and imperfect) from time to time. To those who would require that Christians be perfect and never fail the church, their savior, or each other, I can only quote Christ, himself, “let the one without sin cast the first stone.”[11]
The Church (particularly the church as it is seen in this film) stands a long way from the standard of Christ. We hurt. We ache. We grieve. We struggle (many times unsuccessfully). We fall down. We lust. We lurch. We shut down.[12] Yet we also succeed. We also shout in joy. We also get back up. Such is the reality of our existence. I would argue that there are many of us that would whole-heartedly feel the power of Corinne’s monologue at the end of the film in which she reveals the fact that while she knows she has connected with God on occasion she has also spent much time waiting on the porch of her heart waiting for God to come but not seeing hide nor hair of him.[13] Tears glistened at the corners of my eyes as Corinne hung there in the doorway looking at the church weighing her exit, or perhaps re-entry. I’ve been there, done that, and now have a favorite movie about that moment and all those conflicted feeling of the truly and honestly faith-filled. But that leaves the single-greatest tragedy of the film. The fact that as she bared with her soul and its troubles, the church hu-rumped and went back to its order of service allowing her to walk to the door. And that is the greatest truth and problem as revealed by the film the real inability to step off our high places, wrap our arms around the lost and hurting, and usher them back into the loving embrace of the beloved community. It is a haunting flaw, what my English teacher called hubris, and if we cannot find a way to maturity, honesty, emotional stability, and love then Corinne / Briggs will not be the last to make that march down the aisle away from the altar and to the door. In this respect Farmiga stands for generations of like-minded people when she ends her interview saying:
“So for us, God is in temples and in churches, and on park benches. I don’t belong to any particular church, but I’m someone who will be able to walk into any place of worship, any house of worship, and have a direct correspondence.”
So here we can learn from Farmiga. We can learn what it means to get out of the comfortable spaces of our own worship spaces and be able to experience the greatness of our God in the unordered confines of the world, and other-ordered confines of other denominations.[14] As she so aptly demonstrated in this film and stated in her interview, our God is big enough for it. The question is, are you?[15]
[1] Seriously in the Birmingham metro area we have almost 1 million people, and 10 theaters but only 2 of those devote screens to non-mainstream fare (much less independent) and even then those 2 theaters devote 1 screen occasionally to film.
[2] Point of historical clarity the Jesus Movement is most often identified with the Charismatic Movement; however, as the movie points out some of the hippies getting saved in the JM funneled into Fundalmentalist / Bible Churches (which believed such Charismatic ‘excess’ as ‘speaking in tongues’ was wrong). John MacArthur (the Charismatic critic and author Charismatic Chaos) would probably been a favorite of this church.
[3] My literal-minded (not that there’s anything wrong with that) mother walked in mid-movie, sat down, and promptly complained about another movie making fun of Christians (I annoyingly shushed her); but any of my Atheist friends would probably be just as upset at another movie that presents the Christian light as real and important.
[4] Frederica Mathewes-Green. “Vera Farmiga Struggles with God.” Christianity Today Online (CT Entertainment). http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/movies/interviews/2011/struggleswithgod.html?start=1
[5] I, too, grew up in a church that had emerged from the Jesus Movement (as have my parents). Two differences exist between us: 1) my church was on the Charismatic line, and 2) though both of us have made journeys outside these church (while never really leaving), I have returned there and proudly stay (if at times frustrated in many of the shortcoming highlighted on screen).
[7] Even other women which is a little strange as much Fundamentalist churches get around the so-called Pauline admonishment against female leadership by allowing women to teach and pray for other women (while ‘remaining quiet’ in front of the men). This backdoor practice has always irked me to no end and I have often joked that I would prefer these churches just be intellectually honest and shut down women completely. After squirming through this scene that joke is banished with other tasteless jokes for which I am now appalled.
[8] Long story, not for this time around. I will say it’s happened once on purpose (I think), and a couple of times when the well-meaning pastor went on rants against beliefs I have held dear.
[9] I have not even gotten in the subplot surrounding Corinne’s best friend Nika played amazingly by Dagmara Dominczyk. One could write a long paper on this film.
[10] That is wrong, they are, perhaps more in need of grace as some of us. The professional term for these people is EGR (extra grace required). Don’t be mad at me, when I used the terms you thought of Christians you knew, admit it.
[11] Farmiga, to her credit, does a good job of not lobbing stones, but letting them lie as they were. Many Christian directors (if they used scenes like these at all) would immediately follow them up with the character showing remorse or finding redemption in their fallenness; while a Hitchens or Dawkins would paint the scene then insert some smug element that said, “look at these fucking smug assholes, just fucking look at them, the hypocritical bastards.” Farmiga goes for neither extreme, letting the movie speak for itself.
[12] I just accidently just typed ‘shit down.’ Freudian slip? Perhaps I should have left it that way.
[13] The film did a great job when it namechecked the Christian classic Dark Night of the Soul. So I was waiting for them to compare Corinne to Mother Teresa who famously expressed a similar sentiment in her journals (time and again).
[14] And perhaps even religions.
[15] Allow me to end this essay by stating my prayerful hope that Farmiga and Briggs might find the God they are looking for. May they be blessed with the presence of God in their lives. May they experience the joy that comes from perseverance and growth through the flames. And may the men and women of Fountain of Joy experience conviction over their faults and find the redemption they too are seeking. Amen.
Decided to christen the site redesign with a video post. Her is White Stripes vs Blur vs Nirvana “White Song Spirit:”
Enjoy Now!
The Post in which I Elicit why D.A.R.E. may cause Spontaneous Satan Worship (SSW) or not…
Every week at work thousands of books cross my desk, many of these Christian. Today I was struck by how many of these Christian books are geared toward the “warfare” of our daily lives. Each of these promises to reveal the hidden dangers (to our Christian lives, eternal security be damned) waiting in our closets or under our beds. Today I actually noticed on chapter on how the drug-free living program D.A.R.E. was just such a Satanic indoctrination program. As someone who has had to sit through multiple D.A.R.E. meetings I feel secure is stating for the record that the only danger there was boredom. I waited to grab the author and say seriously, this is what is killing the American church, D.A.R.E., it’s not even successful as an anti-drug indoctrination much less Satan worship (or maybe that’s why their anti-drug message sucks, they are really focusing on the Satanic stuff).
Usually I just laugh at such nonsense, thank God for a real education, quote Mark Noll (the problem of the evangelical mind is that, there is none) obsessively and rock myself back to normal; yet, today something struck me. All these books are telling all these Christians to be obscenely scared of so many programs and people from our society. All these books showing how something so seemingly banal as the cheesy anti-drug program at your son or daughter’s school is really just a Satanic front designed to capture them early and send them failing into the fores of hell. How can anyone survive one day inside this level of fear and paranoia much less walk boldly into these places with the love of God in our hearts? If I were to ask I think all of us could quote and ramble on a bit about the verse, “we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers and rulers of darkness.” All of us know this and preach it, and hopefully are able to keep this in mind when Uncle Frank comes over in a D.A.R.E. tee; but how can this paranoia, this outright fear of everything not affect us, and how can it not affect our ministries and our witness for Christ. Most of us can toe the party line, and talk a good game about this verse, but when push comes to shove which words are ringing in our ears, Jesus or Glenn Beck? The message of self-sacrificial love for one’s enemy or the message that we need to watch them socialist democrats carefully because of we blink at the wrong time, they’re gonna send us all to Hell?
It’s interesting, though, that verse. Paul emphatically reminds us that the enemy is not found where you might think he is. He is not finding under Nero’s throne, or in the back room of the Chief Pharisee. He is not in the home a Greek pagan or hiding in the vestibule to the Temple of Diana. The true enemy is located in “the heavenly places.” The true enemy has not but that one time actually taken spatial form (maybe, depending on your exegesis of Genesis 3, I guess). The enemy is not human. He is not Barack Obama or even Adolf Hitler. He is not the D.A.R.E. police officer at the local precinct. He is not a Democrat or Republican. He is not black or white. He is not even a ‘He’ or even a ‘She.’
I’m sure we know this mentally, cognitively. We can quote the verse and all that, but when these books cross my desk and they do (even from authors who should know better- I’m looking at you Chuck Colson. I couldn’t find the offending book on Amazon to link with and wish I had snapped a quick photo for my records, but you were there this afternoon, I saw you), I worry that maybe we’re causing irreparable harm, not just to the reputations of good well-meaning Police officers everywhere, but to our own abilities to accomplish the plans and purposes of our Creator and Savior. And I think we all know what happens to those whose abilites are impaired in such a manner. I’ll let Jesus explain:
“You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men.”
A Christian Response to FACT and HB 1153
This weekend my Facebook feed begin blowing up with discussions of the FACT supported law, HB 1153, being debated in Tennessee, a state I lived in for eight years and still love greatly. This would seem to be an incident (much like the dustup about the NDAA or any number of manufactured stories appearing daily on Fox).[1] First off the bill defines harassment as:
“any act that substantially and measurably interferes with a student’s educational benefits, opportunities or performance, that takes place on school grounds, at any school-sponsored activity, on school-provided transportation or at any official school bus stop and that has the effect of:
(1) Physically harming a student or damaging a student’s property;
(2) Knowingly placing a student in reasonable fear, as determined objectively, of physical harm to the student or damage to the student’s property; or
(3) Creating a hostile educational environment.”
All of which seems like a perfectly normal definition which would not be debated by anyone at all. The smoke, however, comes from the next provision which then states that:
“ ‘Creating a hostile educational environment’ shall not be construed to include discomfort and unpleasantness that can accompany the expression of a viewpoint or belief that is unpopular, not shared by other students, or not shared by teachers or school officials.”
At first one should be hard-pressed to really find grounds for debate over this line of thinking as well. We live in a country that values the right to speak one’s mind freely, and as Hustler magnet Larry Flynt has been so kind as to remind us,
“protection of any speech, even that considered wrong, immoral, and abhorrent, is protection of all speech.”
The problem here comes in the form of Jacob Rogers or Jamey Rodemeyer or Tyler Clementi or Ryan Halligan or any number of teens who have committed suicide after being bullied. It is understandable that the LGBT community might be a little skittish about any piece of legislation which would seem to help the victimizers at the expense of the victims.
Now my Evangelical friends will say they, too, are increasingly the victims and that this law will give them the ability to continue speaking their minds on a divisive issue, and they as Americans deserve this right. Yet one might wonder if all rights deserved equal actions that are justifiable. On this point I always remember something my sister once said. I was going on about some song on the radio that I loved, and my sister, ever the conservative, asked why I was so enthused by it.[2] There’s nothing bad about it, I said. There’s nothing good about it either, she countered.[3] Her logic did have a scriptural logic, equaling the proviso, “whatever is good, whatever is noble, think on these things.” I have long remembered this lesson from my little sister, and sought to find the good and do that.
This cute story would not dissuade many of my fellow church members. They would say that by going public with their feelings on any number of issues, they are speaking the truth to the world, and besides to not speak the truth would not be love. And so they speak this truth to anyone in shouting distance. They complain and bemoan and elicit long discourses on the wrongness of those that they deem wrong. Yet they seem to forget one crucial piece of information: no one asked them what they opinion was. Jacob, Jamey, Tyler, and Ryan never asked the Church or the Religious Right what they thought. They never asked to be reminded time and again about their perceived wrongness. In this regard it is really easy for the Church and the Religious Right to speak out. The LGBT for the most part stands outside of the Evangelical Churches from which these pronouncements commence.[4] In making these pronouncements the Church can appear “tough on sin” without ever dealing with any sin areas that will ruffle feathers within the community itself. Compare these types of statements with perhaps an indictment that strikes closer to home, and suddenly being “tough on sin” looks a lot less enjoyable to the congregation and brings much uncertainty to the status of the pastor’s job.[5]
In these matters we might heed the words of Paul:
“with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace… We must no longer be children, tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine, by people’s trickery, by their craftiness in deceitful scheming. But speaking the truth in love, we must grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every ligament with which it is equipped, as each part is working properly, promotes the body’s growth in building itself up in love.”
Granted Paul is speaking these words to the Church, but they form a standard for how we might consider our standing in the world. We might consider humility, gentleness, patience, love, and an irenic spirit to be the forms our address to the world should take. Getting back on point, we might discuss how true righteousness is a righteousness which seeks to say the right thing at the right time in the right way for the right reason. If any of these requirements gets wiggy then the action or thought or speech becomes less than righteous. What this has come to mean for me follows two main provisos to how and when I speak. First, true authority[6] can only be earned, it is never a given. That leads to a second point, one can only speak to the level of relationship attained. Where little exists, little needs be spoken; where more exists more can be offered. These two provisos add up to one simple thought, I cannot think for another or insist that another think like me, but I can help someone think for themselves, and evaluate for themselves. In short I can enter into a conversation, a conversation that implies a long-term relationship built and maintained upon mutual trust and understanding.
This type of discussion cannot occur when both sides are yelling and accusing one another from across a deep chasm. In all truthfulness Christ died for each of these. He loved them and desired that they live and find fullness, and as people called by God to reveal the self-sacrificial love of Christ to a hate-filled world, I would call upon the church to be the first to attempt to bridge that chasm, and embrace those upon the other side. To take them in, to love them, and when asked to humbly, gently, and peacefully discuss life with them, to stop pushing, to stop prodding, and above all to stop bullying. Those who have gone before us deserve better, it can be better, we can be better. Our savior whom knew the bully’s lash cries out to us to live out a faith that reveals the life gets better with Him in it. When we do that we will truly be living the family values we have preached.
[1] I kid you not, today I was getting a cup of coffee at McDonalds, to kill time before meeting a friend for dinner, when I looked to hear Fox discussing a “secret party” at the White House. It seems several people were invited for anAlice in Wonderland themed party held on Halloween 2009. If there ever was a smoking gun proving that Obama really is evil, that there, I say, that there is it.
[2] In order to protect the guilty, namely myself, we will not say what song it was, but it my have been Bohemian Rhapsody by Queen. What can I say I was young, sheltered and easily impressed by music without an easily discernible message, and changes in melody.
[3] And there you see the main difference between my quasi-liberal self, and my conservative sister. I am ever the optimist looking for the silver lining (well, it doesn’t suck), and my sister, ever the pessimist grimacing at every dark cloud she can find.
[4] Mea culpa. This statement is not totally accurate (but makes, I think, a rhetorical point). There are perhaps many within these churches struggling with their same-sex desires and longing for someone within the church to love them and accept them. So yes there are LGBT persons within the church, but from the moments their desires become prominent, they are quickly ushered out the door. The environment of these churches often makes it impossible for anyone to deal with these issues in a concerted way (whether that means acceptance of them or the attempt to change them). Our starting point makes any work here untenable.
[5] I once made the mistake of comparing the love that many in the church had for Dale Earnhardt to that which the same church showed for the poor. Wow, let me say nothing about that sermon was remembered other than the fact that I had criticized their Dale. Another pastor friend once stated that good Christians could vote Democratic for Biblical reasons and spent a week worrying about his sanity.
[6] i.e. the ability to speak hard truths or express disagreement in a constructive manner.
Why Drinking Scotch is a lot like being a Christian
Recently I found myself having drinks with several friends, one of whom was coming off a rough six month period. I ordered my usual dark porter but he surprised the table by going for a scotch. In talking about his new penchant for scotch, he made the following comment:
“I don’t think there are any scotch drinkers who aren’t broken sad people, we all have some deep brokenness which has brought us to scotch.”
We laughed and continued discussing the past six months, but that statement has haunted me throughout the holiday season. Perhaps because it seemed like a riff I have always used for Christianity and Christians. Steve Taylor, the 80s Christian pop-star, perhaps said it best,
“Jesus is for losers /
all those broken at the foot of the cross.”
Standing at the door greeting participants at the New Year’s Day service I was struck by this same sentiment. Perhaps it was as I welcomed in a member from our staff that is recuperating from surgery on a brain tumor. Or perhaps as I watched a women with a broken foot and sprained ankle slide by. Or even as I attempted to get high fives from 2 boys recently adopted fromAfrica. All of us turning up that morning had stories, some happy, some sad, but stories we had. Happiness and grief, acceptance and loss walked hand in hand through our doors. As I stood sentinel watching over such a motley flock, it dawned on me that this is why I love this church, this is why I come out Sunday after Sunday. It is the stories, being a part of all these stories. Watching and participating in all this grief while also standing by and sharing in all these minute victories over this surgery or that recovery, this job loss or that promotion.
I think this is one reason that taking communion is a lot like drinking scotch. To be a participant in the action is to enter into a community of the damned, a community of people broken and battered by life. We all stand or sit at the bar exchanging knowing glances. “I may not know you but I know why you are here,” we say with our creased eyes.
On the little-seen TV Series My Boys, there was a great episode revolving around a recent rating of the titled boys favorite bar. It seems that the little dive the boys gathered at in every episode was listed in a tour guide as the primo place to have beers with the locals. Suddenly there are no tables, no good brews, too much noise, and no place to laugh and drink. In short what was great place to drink and enjoy one another’s company became a great place to be seen, but a lousy place to well drink or talk. This in a nutshell is what seems to have happened with American Christianity (particularly the Evangelical brand). We sought out fame and publicity and mainstream acceptance, and we have gotten ourselves written into many a guidebook as the places to be seen and experienced, the places that everybody that is anybody attends. In doing so we have brought in dynamic crowds of excitable people just happy to be there; yet, in doing so we have alienated our main clientele, those we really want and need us. We are too crowded, too noisy, too banal, and too preoccupied with all the new money, and power to see the former best customers kicked out of their favorite booth and groaning all the pretty but overpriced liquors.
I once heard Carol Wimber, the wife of John Wimber who was the driving force behind the establishment of the Vineyard Community of Churches, say that they left their first church plant (a successful Quaker church plant with some 500 members) because they realized, “we had built a church for winners, but deep down we knew we were really just two losers.” I wonder how many others have created churches for winners, churches which major on success and prosperity when in reality no one there, pastors included, are really winning. Like Charlie Sheen we send out our tweets promoting our successes while the watching world collectively shakes their heads and mutters obscenities about what comes from the backside of bulls. Perhaps it’s time we stop with all the Pollyanna stuff, and fess up to being the losers that we really are (deep down inside). Perhaps it time we admit that all this Jesus is really a crutch and yes, we do really need one, think you very much. Should we do this we may lose some congregants, we may become laughingstocks, we may become the butt of some jokes; but maybe we this would be for the best. After all once we get all the happy, no worries mate, beer drinkers out of the place, we might get back to our scotch, our troubles, and our quiet conversations.
There was one last thing I learned that evening at the bar: how to properly drink a scotch. It seems that one cannot down a scotch the way one pounds shots or beers. The way to unlock the full flavor is to take in the liquid, hold it in one’s mouth, and wait for the burn. It is that burn that unleashes the full flavor of the drink. Skeptically we all tried this drinking tactic, and surprisingly enough our problematic professor was correct. The wait and the burn do unlock the bouquet, and that is one last way in which drinking scotch is like being a Christian.
One of my professors once gave this answer to a student wanting to know how to handle a broken-heart and the ensuing doubts about the faith,
“Go to church, participate in the worship, take the sacraments, and repeat as necessary.”
Like a good scotch, the communion of the saints is best held onto until it burns. It is the burn that unlocks the full flavor of communion with God. It is holding onto the hope of the faith even when everything tells you that nothing is happening. It is hobbling through the door Sunday after Sunday. It is the long hours crying out into the darkness,
The burn comes sooner or later, the flavor hits, and you join the community of those who truly know about scotch (or Christianity as the case may be).
Love / Hate Unsanitary