Neil Caffrey: A Case Study on Expectations
USA’s White Collar finished its Spring season last night with its usual aplomb. This season saw Neil Caffrey on the verge of his much wanted freedom. After (finally) helping Peter catch Keller and recover the treasure (which Mozzie had stolen earlier), the FBI had initiated a hearing dealing with the remaining 2 years of his sentence. The season finale, Judgment Day, brought the meeting to order.
SPOILER ALERT.
Why Evangelicals Love Fireproof and Are Unsure about Rob Bell’s theology…
Unless you are not so culturally aware (and if you aren’t, you picked a strange site to visit, but welcome), you know that tonight is the Oscars. Currently Billy Crystal is singing his way through the nominees; while my parents, sister, and brother-in-law are watching Courageous, the new movie from the people who brought you Kirk Cameron’s Fireproof. As I sat watching the Red Carpet (Rooney, I will gladly marry the heck out of you),[1] these thoughts crossed my mind: why do my family and other Evangelicals love such artistic nightmares as Kirk Cameron; yet are so scared of [2] anything resembling Hollywood?
I think Christian musician Charlie Peacock hit the nail on the head in his grand work, CCM at the Crossroads. In this work Peacock discussed the act of creating “Christian” music. No other genre of music compares to the challenges faced by the “Christian” artist, he argued. Any other type of music can be discerned by structural and / or textual signifiers. Jazz, Blues, Punk, Country, all of these announce themselves by the chords used, the instruments used, the ways in which these instruments are used, the tone and tenor of the vocal elements, etc. You play me a couple of notes and I can tell you the genre. You can even show me a cover and a list of members in the band and I can tell you the genre.[3] You cannot do such a thing with “Christian” music.[4] No, the difference in “Christian” music comes not in the accoutrements but in the content. You know “Christian” music by the use of Jesus Christ as a proper name and not just another cuss word. You know Christian music by the language: cross, saved, born-again, etc.
This would not necessarily be a problem, except this, like any other music industry CCM and Gospel music survives by turning a profit for its creators and money people. If CCM does not make money, then it cannot continue to create albums. Here is the rub, Peacock argued. What ways can a musician encourage his or her target audiences to respond by taking their hard-earned dollars and spending them on a CD? If you play Jazz, Punk, or any other “secular” music, you do this by creating outstanding examples of your genre and / or by creating a positive buzz in your industry. The struggle for a Punk Rocker is, of course, how to do this “without selling out.” How does one stay true to the spirit of Punk while creating songs that will attract plays on Pandora or Spotify? Yet these, in themselves, are artistic questions best answered by making great music.
The “selling out” question, though, is a dicey one for Christians. The only way to broaden the audience for CCM has been to broaden the language. The only way to truly prove that a song is Christian is to hit the audience over the head with the Christian language.[5] Being subtle, nuanced, and understated just leaves room for critics to question one’s faith. Not only that but most of life gets edged out of the picture. One cannot deal with troublesome subjects like doubt. One cannot ask questions without providing an answer in the chorus. One also dare not discuss life outside the sanctuary: songs about enjoyment eating beg questions of gluttony, and don’t dare mention enjoyment of sex or other pleasures of the world. Case in point I was once carpooling a group of Christian undergrads to a church event (thinking I was safe to have pulled the Springsteen out of the CD player in lieu of a “Christian” rock band) when someone in the back seat loudly began complaining about the song playing. It seems the band had just mentioned drug use. I panicked, worried that I was just about to lose our entire college group. Then it struck me, the song was a testimonial in typical Christian fashion, actually. The main character of the song begins the song addicted to drugs and ends the song drunk on the spirit, as it were. Yet this young undergrad was perplexed, “how could Christians talk about drugs and where was the correlation between the two?”
This is why my parents love Fireproof, and many evangelicals have dissed Rob Bell. There is nothing subtle about Fireproof neither in the script or Cameron’s acting. From the previews on there is nothing about that film to cause such consternation. These “Christian” films take the time-honored language and story formats that all Christians already know and are comfortable. There is nothing to prevent Church viewership: even in the opening segments where the actors are being “bad” and showing their “sinfulness.” Think about it Cameron supposedly is a raging porn-hound who is horrible to his wife, but you would never know that from the actual movie. He does not have a Tom Cruise-like walk on the wild side, at most he is questionably bland towards his wife.[6] The movie is safe and oblivious and hits all its marks with some professional decorum: not only in its action but in its content. One can watch, be thankful they are not near the dope Cameron is, and go away promising to be a stronger man who loves his wife better.[7]
This also explains much of the turmoil surrounding Rob Bell. Bell is the anti-Cameron.[8] He does not say exactly what he means. He talks about what others have said, but if one looks closely does not always present the Bell doctrine. He is subtle, nuanced, and needs time to ingest and consider. A week before his Love Wins hit the shelves and was read by anyone other than his wife or editor, critics had established the story that this book was Bell’s descent into heterodoxy. It was established that Bell was presenting Universalist and Annihilationist claims as good Evangelical doctrine.[9] On the charge of Universalism one can only ask his critics to actually read the text (personally I don’t see him saying that, many others much smarter than me have- one of all of us could be wrong). On the charge of Annihilationism one can only ask his critics to study the history and doctrine of our faith. No, this has not been a majority-approved doctrine, but it has a long history as a minority report[10] amongst many faithful Christians (once again this is a huge can of worms for all involved and requires delicate pastoral and academic care to fuss over).
Talking in this way means that critics talk about you. It means that critics pounce on your nuance and paint you in ways considered bad. This is Rob’s achilles heel. He asks big questions, but is not so quick to provide solid, easily understandable answers (if he tries to answer the question at all). This is good for sharpening one’s critical thinking skills, but makes for an uneasy pastoral situation. Bell, in some sense, has made himself a giant Rorschach blot in which his detractors can see a heresy and his friends a braze original thinker. It also confuses the middle ground of his readership, and this confusion is often met with frustration from the thousands of pastors who have to deal with the questions and turmoil he brings. This is a huge problem with no real good answers (other than to try and do better theology and this is the lesson here- write in more challenging and always accessible prose). True there will always be critics but being more open instead of pretending to be more open is a great start.
The funny thing is, Bell’s chapter on hell was infinitely more focused on the “biblical” text than many a pastor’s sermon one might hear (his entire third chapter is a collection of texts and a discussion of them- I would agree that he missed a couple of texts which would have ruined his argument, but it was scipturally focused). A great sermon can be expositional like Bell’s chapter just as a great book can be thematic like other sermons. That is my point. Great art is not always oblivious (an expositional sermon can be wronger while a thematic sermon is righter) . Great art takes hard detours, asks tough questions, and often does not often answer questions. Great art creates doubt where we would rather have certainty. Great art takes you places you might not go yourself. It presents life both as it is, and how we would like it to be. This is good, but in today’s Evangelical climate it makes for a tough sell.
The fact that, we, Evangelicals have such a mixed track record in the arts speaks to the poverty of our discipleship models. There is a laziness in our society that has leaked into our churches, and that shows no more than in our love of Fireproof. We are not creating the type of deep Christians that can tolerate discussion and messiness. We are not creating the type of Christians that are able to talk beyond the sound bites they hear from our pulpits or Fox News. This is our 21st century version of what Dietrich Bonhoeffer called ‘cheap grace.’ In our post-modern world we might refer to it as disposable grace: single-serving, lukewarm, moderate[12], and superficial.
In a world of questions, Evangelicals have coalesced because they talk about having firm answers. We have created a shadow world that does not question, does not do subtly, and looks askance on anyone who does. It makes for big churches full of smiling people putting money in the offering plates, but not necessarily for good art. I, for one, would rather see smaller churches, less smiling, and even less money if that’s what it takes to see more blues. Yet something tells me that if we were really doing the hard work of grace we could see more Bells in our congregations and less Camerons.
[1] For those not in the know; I have long surmised that a my pagan friends have too much fun with the “I’d do that” game, but unfortunately due to Evangelical beliefs on premarital relations the set-up stands as unbiblical. Therefore the good folks at work allow me to substitute a more Christian riff on the game; hence, I’d marry that… Try it, it’s fun.
[2] Or pretend to despise it (at least in public or surrounded by other Christians). This is not a new issue: see Tertullian’s What has Jerusalem to do with Athens.
[3] If you don’t believe spend a week cataloging music for use in a store as I do 30 to 40 hours a week. You may not know the artist but 9 times out of 10 you can probably categorize the disc or LP due to the artwork and band members.
[4] OK, you actually can, the blandness and datedness of the covers do often give them away.
[5] Do not believe me I once read a post arguing that Michael W Smith’s new album could not be Christian because while the name Jesus Christ can be found 1000s of times in the Bible, it was only there a couple of places for Smith. WTF.
[6] Or perhaps that was just his “acting.” He is a proud member of the Costner school of wooden acting,
[7] But only in a better hierarchical way. He is strong, tough, and takes charge of his marriage.
[8] And not in a Christ / Anti-Christ, orthodox / heretic way.
[9] Never mind that these are 2 different and competing views of the afterlife, so if Bell really is both then he would not just be outside Evangelicalism but really confused. But never mind, this is the argument from the same people who think Barack Obama is both a Fascist and a Socialist (try that trick).
[10] Don’t get the reference, please read the excellent Phillip K Dick or just see the decent film.
[12] In the bad meaning of the word; not the political or theological sense that one might refer to one-self as a moderate on the liberal-conservative scale.
What’s Your Morality?
Here is a great site with multiple tests studying various aspects of morality. It was done by UVa and is part of a study by them, take it:
I found the site reading this article:
Explaining Liberals to Conservatives (and Vice Versa)
Who Is or Might Be an Arminian?
Great Column by Roger Olsen:
Who Is or Might Be an Arminian?.
By this list I would qualify as an 11 pointer (take that 5 point Calvies)… I would also qualify as an orthodox Christian in good standing with the Church of any era or place.
For Tom:
“Why did it have to end so soon?
Why did you go away?
Although I know it may never come true
I hope to see you somedayAnd I’ll always remember
Those times that we shared
So if you’re listening from up above
This is my prayerYou’ve brought so much joy to this world of mine
Whenever I needed you came
A friend like you is so hard to find
Without you it won’t be the sameAnd though many will try
No one can ever compare
So if you’re listening from up above
This is my prayerMay the mountains rise to meet you
May the skies open wide
Know that in my heart, my friend
You will always be aliveThere are so many things that I want you to know
So many words to say
And when He finally calls me home
I’ll walk with you through those gatesSo please remember me
Oh I promise I’ll see you up there
I hope you’re listening from up above
This is my prayerMay the mountains rise to meet you
May the skies open wide
Know that in my heart my friend
You will always be aliveMay the angels fly to greet you
You can see it all from up there
I know you’re listening from up above
‘Cause this is, and will always be, my prayer ”– Marc Broussard, “Jeremiah’s Prayer.” Momentary Setback (2003).
For the Mullins Family…
“Your eyes see the shining city
Your love heels the poisoned mind
When the journey ends
There’s a new beginning
When the risen man
Heals the weight of time
I can feel it over the line
I see the other country
I see the other sideDo not be afraid of this earthly city
Do not be afraid when the pharaohs nighDraw near the lambs awaiting
Where the river runs thru the sky’s align
From that painting of a ship
We have all been chosen
To the painters creation
In his dream design
I can feel it over the lineI see the other country
I see the other side
Do not be afraid of this earthly city
Do not be afraid when the pharaohs nigh
When I was a child
I walked like a child
But now I’m a soldier
Like the Bride and Groom I will be married
I see the other country
I see the other side
Do not be afraid of this earthly city
Do not be afraid when the pharaohs nighEven though I walk thru the valley of the shadow of death
Even though I sink through the ocean
You will rescue me
I am standing in the fire
but I can hear the choir singing
I was a blind man stumbling
But now I see
I was blind, blind blind
But now I see
I was blind, blind blind
But now I see”- Burlap to Cashmere, “The Other Country.” Burlap to Cashmere (2011)
My Take: The real miracle of Jeremy Lin
Editor’s Note: Stephen Prothero, a Boston University religion scholar and author of “God is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions that Run the World,” is a regular CNN Belief Blog contributor.
By Stephen Prothero, Special to CNN
I don’t believe in miracles. But I believe in Jeremy Lin.
I grew up rooting for the Celtics so I have hated the Knicks ever since another Ivy Leaguer, Princeton’s Bill Bradley, patrolled Madison Square Garden in the 1970s.
Evangelical Rejects Meet Beyond Evangelicals (Guest Post: Frank Viola) | The Pangea Blog
Great Post from Frank Viola. I wholeheartedly agreed with each point of his call to move beyond Evangelicalism into a deeper faith:
Evangelical Rejects Meet Beyond Evangelicals (Guest Post: Frank Viola) | The Pangea Blog.
Anakin and Ben: Two Views on Life (and Death)…
Pope Benedict has rightly asserted that the true power of the Christian scriptures can be seen not on the page, but in the life lived in light of its revelation. To truly understand a passage we don’t necessarily need an educated commentary as much as we need real-world experience with those who are putting those words into action: i.e. should one want to consider what Jesus meant when he said, “I was hungry and you gave me food,” then look no further than the life of Teresa of Calcutta.
With that in mind my mind turned to two startling images this Sunday while at church: Anakin Skywalker (a.k.a. Darth Vader), and Ben Kenobi. What does a Sith Lord and Jedi Master to do with Jerusalem?[1] In a sense these two masters of the force represent the two ways that the Church Fathers presented for dealing with one’s life.
Think back to the newer series (the prequel series),[2] there we see the temptation and fall of Anakin Skywalker.[3] Throughout the series Anakin, affected by the deaths of loved ones, and raised in a cocoon by his mother, struggles to master the world around him and protect himself and his loved ones from evil. On the one hand this is the understandable concern of anyone raised in a single parent home which has been marred by tragedy, poverty, and enslavement. On the other hand this concern for one’s family and friends should be considered a prohibitive good. What right-minded individual would desire to do something other than protect one’s loved ones. Yet this concern for Anakin serves as a soft spot to be exploited by the manipulative and ambitious Senator Palpatine. As Palpatine sidles up to the young Jedi Knight, he asks if Anakin wouldn’t be interested in cheating death, in learning how to keep a loved one like Senator Amidala from death. “Join me and together we can assure that you will defeat death and keep it at bay,” the crooked senator cajoles the upright Jedi. So time after time Anakin seeks to preserve life and protect it from the encroachment of death: he goes dark to kick some serious Sandpeople butt[4], he lies about his motives, he considers tyranny as an appropriate response to the political chaos surrounding the Senate, and last he chooses to protect Palpatine against the attack of Jedi Master Windu. Over and again he seeks to soothe the chaos of life by asserting control, staking out short-cuts to conflict resolution, and crossing boundaries from accepted inquiry to long forbidden dark-side practices. Yet by the end of Revenge of the Sith, he stands as more machine than human having caused the death of his wife (and he believes the death of his child) and having perpetrated a crime of epic proportion (the slaughter of the thousands of Jedi padawans at the temple). True, he has cheated death at the hands of Ben Kenobi but at great cost both to body and soul. His ‘mastery’ of death has led to a besotted, broken, and painful existence abetted only by use of the dark side to power his ravaged body. In holding to life comes death.
Now think back to the original series and the first of the movies to hit the big screen.[5] Here we see the older Ben Kenobi and met his charge, Luke Skywalker, son of Anakin. The prequel series lets us know that Ben’s presence in Luke’s life is no fluke (as it seemed to the original audience watching without the backstory as seen in the 90s). After watching his pupil Anakin go wonky, the Jedi order utterly ravaged, and Palpatine named Emperor, he fled to far-away Tatooine where Luke was given to his uncle and aunt, and Ben has stayed in the picture overseeing the young man’s safety.[6] He, of course, joins Luke on his attempt to rescue Princess Leia Organa from the Empire. There Ben and his former pupil met and duel. Ben’s purpose in the duel is not revenge, is not hatred of Vader, but comes from his desire to distract the Sith Lord from Luke’s presence and ultimately enable Luke, Han, and Leia to escape. This man who has again and again given up his life for others:[7] taking on the apprenticeship of Anakin, taking on the responsibility for Amidala and her children, and last in taking on Luke as an apprentice (if somewhat short-lived). As the duel progresses he seeks not to save his life; yet offers it as a ransom for Luke. He tells Vader, “You may strike me down, but I will become more powerful still.” Ben is struck down, but even in death is able to mentor and train Luke, and through Luke bring peace to the universe, and balance to the force.[8] His death means something. His death plants the seeds for liberty and freedom to re-emerge in the controlled world created by Palpatine. In embracing death comes life.
Two lives[9] lived in pursuit bringing order to the chaos of life. Two lives faced with the tyranny of death and the damage and reward brought on by one’s choices. If Vader has sought to preserve his life at all costs; Ben counted it as nothing in the face of his responsibility to serve others. If Vader has sought to control his fate, then Ben has sought to meet his fate with honor intact. In their lives these two men illustrate the teaching of the Church Fathers who lived in deserts not unlike the one on Tatooine in which Anakin, Ben, and Luke called home. These Desert Fathers taught that in life one is faced with the choice of two pathways. They called these the Way of Life and the Way of Death. These titles referred not to their pathways but to their endpoints. So at the end of the one lies Life, and at the end of the other lies death. Taken this way what fool would choose the latter in favor to the former, many a protégée asked the fathers. Who would choose the way of death when the way of life is on the table? Yet here is the challenge as revealed by the lives of Anakin and Ben.
Though one might desire the end of the one, the journey, itself, can be misleading. Many a good soul has chosen the path which looked to be more life-affirming, protected, and safe, only to find upon it only death. Meanwhile many bad apples have walked onto the path dotted with briars and seemingly filled with dangers unknown, only to find upon it life. The one way says, “Trod upon me I am comfortable and safe. I will give you freedom from danger. Look how wide and well-used, I am. See all the happy people traversing my path. Choose my branch and escape danger and threat. Take your ease and enjoy yourself. Take no worry of your surroundings.” The other, well, doesn’t talk itself up much. As I mentioned it looks formidable. Briars encroach upon its pathways, and the darkness and shadow of menacing forests cover large patches of ground. It appears not as well-used and long stretches may pass without sight of fellow journeymen, and what few pass its steps seem a little dangerous, moody, and ill-bred. The one offers short-cuts and quick riches, amusing fellowship and ample chances to experience pleasure. The other offers sore bones and bruises; silence and ample chances to experience deprivation. Along the one stand jokers, barkers, and show persons providing entertainment and plenty of encouragement that you have chosen wisely. Choose that one and family members applaud your decision-making abilities, in-laws celebrate your desire to provide a good life to their children and grandchildren, and the tastemakers of the world congratulate your sophisticated palate. Choose that one and no one judges your actions,[10] no one complains about your manners,[11] no one denies your inner desires,[12] and no one talks about death. Along the other death is a constant companion, if not an invited friend. Judgment, manners, and self-denial become watchwords. On that path the good life sometimes seems something reserved for some promised but never delivered future date. In short the one way looks enticing and promises mastery over death; while the other promises death upfront and looks seedy if not outright dangerous.
Yet something strange occurs along these paths. The way that once looked promising at some point begins to fail to deliver on its promises. You may not notice due to all the flashing lights and soothing enjoyments offered along the way, but look closely and this mastery over death comes with a surprising price-tag. Blink and you stand more machine than man, alone with beloved family members and friends dead at your feet. However along the other one becomes, if not, accustomed to death, able to give up that which cannot be maintained to gain that which cannot be lost. In giving up much, something more is gained. Decisions that once seemed quaint, and ill thought; now reverberate into eternity. While once alone a community has developed. The example and practice of giving up little habits for the good of others encourage a mutuality and magnanimity of spirit that attracts, bonds, and holds families and friends together (even in adversity). Blink and troubles fade into the background, while the sweetness of life explodes into the foreground.
Make no mistake, the desert fathers urged, there are two ways in life: one leads to life and the other to death. Along the one the pilgrim dies a thousand little deaths but is reborn anew each time, a little stronger, a little wiser, a little more open to quiet joys and sorrows of life as it is really lived. Along the other the settler experiences a thousand lives, but quickly becomes immune to each ultimately becoming sickened by anything actually resembling a true life. Careful now, you might hear the winds of the Tatooine desert whisper, there is the way chosen by our wayward son Anakin, and there stands also the way chosen by our exiled pilgrim Ben. There is life to be lived, and death to be gained. Careful now, mind the gap, watch your feet. Choose your steps wisely.
[1] I mean other than the start of a good joke: So a Sith Lord and a Jedi Master walk into Church…. Bum-Bump-Ba-Bum.
[2] You may also call it the lesser series, the Gungan Poo-doo Series, or the series that almost killed my love for all things Star Wars and any remaining respect for George Lucas as a writer.
[3] I guess at this point I should say SPOILER ALERT, but seriously if you have not seen the Star Wars by now 1) shame on you and 2) you really don’t care anyway so why complain if I reveal plot twists.
[4] If you listen closely this moment in Attack of the Clones gives us the first hint of Darth Vader as his theme from Empire is replicated a few bars both in the fight and his spinned recounting of it to Amidala.
[5] Star Wars, 1977. Of course, the name was changed to A New Hope in the 90s to account for being the 4th movie chronologically speaking.
[6] One of my all-time favorite duels is that of Ben and A’Sharad Hett (who would become Darth Krayt) who tangle when the two Jedis come into contact in thedesert ofTatooine and Hett takes too active an interest into Luke.
[7] Just as he saw his Master Qui-Gonn Jinn do for him. Jinn takes on the Sith Darth Maul and gives his life in protection of Ben and Anakin.
[8] If only temporary.
[9] Albeit fictional ones, but I quote G.K. Chesterton here: “Literature is important, fiction is necessary.” Our favorite stories tell more about our lives than anything we can ever express otherwise.
[10] At least as long as you do not judge theirs.
[11] Unless, of course, you have the misfortune to be behind the fashionable curve.
[12] Unless, of course, your desires have been judged icky or tacky by everyone in the know.
Songs to Ease the Pain
Seriously strange how life works, but’s here’s the most recent post on emusic:
Heaven Knows: 36 Songs to Ease the Pain
The Big Guy looks after me in unique ways. Like manna from heaven, a great piece of music can soothe the pain. Take a listen, tell them Unsanitary sent you.
A Year from Now, We’ll All Be Gone…
This song ended tonight’s HIMYM. After the past weekend, it really struck a chord:
Rivers and Roads,
Rivers and Roads,
I Got Rivers and Roads Rivers till I reach you….
Start with the Ending: A Post About Going Gently into that Dark Night
“When there’s no pretending,
then the truth is safe to say,
Start with the ending,
get it out of the way
Now there’s no defending,
because no one has to win
Start with the ending,
its the best way to begin”– David Wilcox, “Start with the Ending”
Today was a fairly miserable day which I gladly used a precious vacation day to “enjoy.” I spent the morning at the life celebration service (funeral for those who do not speak positivese). It was a lovely service as these things go, but it was still a time marking our concern at the loss of a friend, co-worker, family member, etc. After the service my family dropped by the home of another friend to say our goodbyes and show our love to his family. It seems another service is not long for my schedule.
If you are thinking that’s a lot of grieving on the plate (unfortunately compounded by the ill-health of several other friends, both involving long hospital stays), then you and I are on the same wavelength. All this thinking about death has left me a little morose, struggling again with my insomnia, and generally longing for this long week to end mercifully soon.
Yet as I sat at the service this morning I found myself thinking about the words of David Wilcox. Sure the song is about relationships and not death, per se; but in the testimonies being offered I saw the lyrics in a new light. Too often we go through life clinging to it, clawing; scrapping, and fighting for it. We, like the poet, rage about not going gently into the dark night. Yet, I wonder if this is not the wrong way to go about this thing called life. I wonder if this is perhaps the apotheosis of the Christian life. Our scriptures as Christians, our experiences as humans, and our cliches as Americans point to one single inevitable fact: death waits for us all. One day it will knock at our door, and we will be forced to answer its knock, no matter how hard we fight or what medical advances we may create.
So why not start with the ending? Why not get it out of the way? We can stop pretending to our invincibility and stop defending against the inevitable encroachments upon it. When we start by dying, we open up ourselves to truly living. When the end is assumed then we can truly begin living our lives as they should be lived.
I know I am bordering on cliche-land here, but give me a break my brain is mush right about now and I have been fighting the temptation to grab some brews and just get blotto to dull the pain. Because that’s how we normally do this, we just blind ourselves to the true reality of life, and avoid making any changes or improvements. What we need is something to break through the monotony and shake us awake. That is why I think a second song popped into my head this morning and has been sharing space with Mr Wilcox. So allow me to go out on a high point with the words of Mr Thom Yorke:
“In the next world war
In a jackknifed juggernaut
I am born again”
- Radiohead, Airbag
In the words of this song I hear hope (even if its author may never have found it ). I hear the hope which each new Spring brings along. The hope that I see every day. The hope that in death comes life. The hope that should I choose to die now, I will truly rise anew like a phoenix from the ashes. And so I commit myself to going quietly, to accepting my fate; yet always looking for the hope of rebirth in the fires of my misfortune. And in so doing I hope to echo the words of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego which I learned long ago in Sunday School:
“O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to present a defense to you in this matter. If our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the furnace of blazing fire and out of your hand, O king, let him deliver us. But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods and we will not worship the golden statue that you have set up.”
I will not worship the god of eternal youth, for it is a lie; and it’s time to stop pretending otherwise. Who’s with me?
Robert Deeble Back in Business…
Robert Deeble, the great folk musician, is back after 6 years. You got to love any musician who quotes Emily Dickinson as a muse for the work he is doing.
A Religion for Males, Females, None of the Above, or All of the Above
Help me out here: God is male, female, none of the above, or all of the above; and the church is female, male, none of the above, or all of the above. As we have that settled we can therefore assert that the church needs to be more male, female, none of the above, or all of the above. Careful how you answer the above questions as they may prove you are a sexist, hierarchical, misogynistic, dictatorial jerk; or a weak, limp-wristed, liberal, Kenyan anticolonial- socialist, antinominial[1] heretical, Rob Bell-loving cultural sycophant. Or none of the above. Or all of the above. Regardless of how we answer, we should be prepared to go to our separate corners, and come out swinging with any or all of the bad words we know. Or none of the above. Or all of the above.
The fact of the matter is this: of all these options perhaps we ought to choice all of the above with a healthy dosing of none of the above. The Scriptures we love and the Traditions we have established tend to be multi-vocal[2] on the topic (as they often tend to be on all the ‘important’ topics). Yes, God has chosen to reveal Himself[3] as Father, Son, and Spirit. Yes, He at times seems to like the fellas, promoting them to positions of authority within His Kingdom.[4] He often talks about Himself in decidedly masculine language, and at times seems to act of the man playbook for dealing with issues.[5] Last he commanded women to take a lesser role in the church and family (because women are weaker and need to be protected).[6]
But there are more verses at play here. God also reveals more feminine characteristics to ‘himself.’ He refers to ‘his’ relationship with Israelas one in which he feeds them much like a mom does a baby. When Christ looks down on Jerusalem, ‘He’ says that ‘his father’ longs to collect ‘his’ straying people just as a mother hen collects her chicks. The picture gets even murkier when one studies the life of the early church. As Scot McKnight has so aptly illustrated in his little ebook, Junia is Not Alone, women played very important roles in the early church (even if some medieval and modern theologians would like to argue otherwise). This is not surprising because if one really studies the Gospels one can see that women played an important role in Christ’s ministry as well. In fact one might contrast the simple faith and good works of Mary, Martha, and Mary Magdalene (the real scriptural one) with the bumbling cluelessness of the menfolk called Apostles. It goes beyond the pericope of Scripture. Celsus, who penned the earliest extent criticism of the ‘Christians,’[7] stated that this strange new religion brought by the Jews to the Gentiles was a religion of ‘women, children, and criminals.’ Granted some mockery was definitely in play, but in all mockery there is an element of truth. The early Christianity was one that valued nurture and care in a world that valued strength and dominance. As sociologist Rodney Stark and historian Peter Brown have argued elsewhere the early Church succeeded because of this stance. In a world of hard truth, the church showed the value of soft power, i.e. the ability to change the hearts and mind through cultural interaction.
Just last week I was reading a text on leadership for a leadership training program within my local church. In a section entitled “The Leader and the Heart of a Father” I came across the following paragraph, which was discussing 1 Thess. 2:17:
“In the New Testament Greek, a ‘nurse’ nourishes children to the point of fattening them, cherishing them with choice foods. This word denotes a mother who nurses her children before they are weaned. It describes the mother would would [sic] take the most anxious and tender care of her little ones (italics mine).”[8]
Great passage, right, seems to be proving our point that in Christ there is room for both culturally learned maleness and femaleness. Yet the author went on:
“This is the true picture of the ‘nursing’ father, in the masculine sense, as it relates to the apostle Paul and to every leader.”[9]
To my credit I resisted the urge to write ‘WTF,’ in the margins;[10] but I did add a big “female is OK” inscription.[11] Unfortunately this type of conflagration passes as biblical scholarship in many churches. We harp on the masculine passages, and then we at best subconsciously convert, or at worst attempt to explain away these passages. In close reading of scripture finds this verse in the first chapter (which are important and to be taken ultra-literally):
“So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.”
The repetition is meant to highlight something important. The church has long taught that to be human is to be in someway like God. In this way to truly understand God one must understand his creation; and to understand his creation, one must understand him. The one is like the other. The one reveals the other. Yet this is often where we stop. Yet the passage goes on and tells us something else. Namely that both male and female are created in God’s image. This means that in God there is what it means to be truly male. It also means that in God there is what it truly means to be female. And perhaps even vice versa. Funny, how we want the first several verses of Genesis 1 to be accepted as literal, but suddenly backpedal like Champ Bailey when it comes to this verse. It is here that we might begin to understand the dialectical synthesis upon which the church should be grounded. The Church is called to be both male and female in ecclesial unity just as their triune God stands as three persons in divine unity. When we understand this truth we are ready to exist as he has called as to be. Males and females united in love and acceptance mutually submitted to each other, and mutually being reformed into His image, according to His likeness. Here we understand what it means to love as Christ loves.
Yet this is only our starting point. It is here that we might listen to the great mystical tradition as illustrated by St. John of Damascus or Pseudo-Dionysius both of whom argued that no human can truly understand or comprehend God in his Fullness or Completeness. We all stand before him like Moses on Mt Sinai. God tells us he will reveal himself, but only if we promise to stand in a cave with our eyes focused on the dark shadows, and our backs to his passing. Even as we see his reflection in the shadows, we cannot explain or comprehend all that we see. And so in this sense God is none of the above. He is God. He is not male as we suppose it to be. He is not female as we suppose it to be. He is beyond all our feeble attempts at social construction. When we understand this truth we are ready to take on the stance of humility. Here we can go forth boldly, knowing that while all attempts to interact carry the stench of failure, but are destined to be accepted by Him and credited as faith. And as he accepts and loves so we accept and love. And in this we find our better natures. Male. Female. Both. And. Not at all.
[1] I think I misspelled that one but unfortunately spell-check is no help in the popular Evangelical slur department.
[2] Thank you Christian Smith.
[3] There I said it.
[4] The 12 apostles = Jewish men; regardless of what 13th Apostle Rufus or Sir Leigh Teabing would say.
[5] At least as how we define manliness and / or what type of behavior modern man wants to excuse. God is dangerous, like a man. He takes risks, like a man. He hammers nails, fishes, and possibly drinks, like a man. And if you believe Nikos Kazantzakis, he desired to ‘marry that,’ like a man.
[6] O.K. so there is debate on this one. O.K. I don’t buy this one for a variety of reasons. See 10 Lies the Church Tells Women by J. Grady Lee or Different But Equal by Derek Morphew for excellent scriptural analyses on the main verses in question.
[7] While his actual manuscripts have yet to be recovered, thanks to the 1st century Church Father Origen, we have a good chunk of it recorded in the apologetic work Contra Celsus.
[8] No references is coming in order to protect the guilty. We’re not here to name names.
[9] Sigh, reference withheld. See above note.
[10] I would be opening and reading from it in a church setting.
[11] This may have been more dangerous for my standing. After all, all the cool pastors are revered for being able to throw a choice derogatory out from time to time; but only effeminate liberals would see something praiseworthy in a women (I mean other than her abilities to produce offspring, cook, and clean).
Excellent Post- Questions on the Slippery Slope
Here is a really good essay from Rachel Held Evans:
In this life we are faced with questions, and yes even doubt; but instead of creating self-fulfilling prophecies about how doubt and questions lead to the loss of faith, we need to begin to understand how they can act as a purifying fire which refines our faith making it more beautiful.
Why I Dig African-American History Month…
As you may know February is African-American history month. Unlike some of my white brothers and sisters (here in the South and elsewhere), I really enjoy and look forward to this month each year. As a historian (in training and hopefully one day occupation) I enjoy reading and hearing all the stories of those people, places, and events that the high school textbooks may have forgotten to include. Unfortunately this list would include many African-Americans (and kind a few women). February[1], then, is a chance to remember to rectify that mistake. True, we should be doing this work all year, but the special billing of this is a call to be better.
If this is true for American history, then it is even truer for American Christianity. African-American religiosity has from the first arrival of the first slave ship been a significant stream merging with the Puritan, Pietistic, and High Church streams to create American Christianity as it now flows through the land. My own faith group (Pentecostal- Charismatic) would not exist without the courage and commitment of William Seymour. As I have argued elsewhere, my own sub-grouping within P-C Christianity (Third Wave Pentecostalism) within this faith group was formed due to cross-pollination with Global South Christianity. When you understand this fact, you come to the realization that for even a white boy from suburban Birmingham (Ala.) to understand his faith he must seek to understand African-American faith (as much as he sought to understand Edwards, Asbury, Torrey, or Wimber).
Yet this fact remains almost a joke in many circles. I have encountered those who want to ask me when I think we can get White History Month.[2] Beyond that I will never forget the time I was asked to give a speech defining the place of music in worship and theology. Sure I quoted Barth and Bonhoeffer, but what got all the attention was an assertion that if one listened, even to those songs and styles one might consider inedible, one could hear the call of Christ in a wide range of places. There was a joke at the end of the talk. I set in tension a hymn from the 18th century with Kanye West’s Jesus Walks hoping to highlight the fact that despite the differences in form and meter both showed a person trying (in song) to deal with Jesus. The joke, as I saw it, was on us as here was someone deemed “outside the faith” expressing the faith in terms we might accept from an insider. The joke, as the class and professor saw it, was that I had just referred to a rapper as a theologian. After all, they all knew that rappers can’t teach us about the faith, and definitely have no thoughts other than b*****s, drank, and where to get tomorrow’s re-up. This type of thinking is wrong, horrible, and unchristian. Our Christ loved the outcast, the widow, and the orphan. I am sure that were he to walk among us, he could be found hanging with the hustlers, killers, murderers, drug dealers, the strippers, the victims of welfare, and those living in hell here.[3]
Jesus walks with them, and in a million other places off the accepted White Christian mega-Church parkway. So I encourage and implore you to get out of the nice house in the suburbs and if nothing else go to the library and find a couple of books about African-American Christians[4] and dig into the past (which is also your past). You never know what you might find.
[1] The paranoid comedian side of my personality finds it amusing or sad or frustrating that February is the shortest month of the year. Talk about a back-handed compliment.
[2] For the record, my standard reply is: “White History Month is the other 11 months of the year.” There I said it, please let this be the last time is month I say it, please.
[3] As Kanye put it in another section of Jesus Walks.
[4] Or a few rap CDs, or an all Black-casted movie (such as Red Tails in theaters now) not created by Tyler Perry.
Love / Hate Unsanitary