Uncategorized

Leaving the Church part 2

Bonnie Lewis — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:36:35 -0700

August 2, 2008

the difference between names and faces is completely fascinating. I can go my whole day and see a hundred faces. Where I get my morning coffee; it's the same barista, the audience is the same as we play out a joke we seem to have played so many times before this moment. I feel connected to that person, yet i do not know his name. if i saw him, not in the uniform of black and white and that silly hat, i may not know why i know them, but I would register that somehow i do. would i recognize him quicker if i knew his name?

all of this is going through my head as I am lazily standing around sipping my coffee. its about 8:30 and the day has begun. nothing much has changed, and i woke up with that same feeling of insignificance as i had the morning before, and the one before that, and the one...

it's not the feeling of smallness i got when i grew up by the ocean. when my Dr. parents lived at the hospital and provided me with the entertainment of the waves crashing and the seagulls making noise just by staring out of any of the windows. we had a roof that was protected and had lawn chairs, a fridge, a bbq, and a fire pit, and i remember after a late nights with friends over, sitting up there, and when all was still I would look up at the stars and listening to the ocean and just felt small. real small. small like the whole thing could come crashing down on me and i would just. be. immersed.

no, it was not that smallness, it was insignifigance that is rooted in fear and rejection. it's the deteroration of the sugar as soon as it's placed in my coffee. the photograph up against the real thing. and it hits me every morning when i wake up; this reminder that there is nothing better coming, that this, young son, is your life.

so i got up, and i started today like everyday. i got dressed, ate in silence and went for my morning coffee. i know it's cheaper to do it at home, but i live alone and the chances of me actually cleaning that coffee maker are slim to none, plus i like the idea of seeing people in the mornings, even if it's just the normal crowd at The Fix. Ha. that name. i'm sure it was penned by some guy playing off the words of the caffeine induced culture we live in, or maybe he really thinks that people must get their fix, and as much as i like coffee, i could switch if i needed to. you know, like if we got a universal message saying that all coffee was extremely bad and we had to switch or our futures and health and families would be doomed, then i could do it. but not this morning. not today.

i'm already here at The Fix and that little girl with her mom is already here and they make me smile. i dont know her name either, and sometimes i wish i did, but you risk sounding like a creepo...being a 30 year old guy who is asking little kids their names. so i smile politely and i just keep going.

my order has been completed awhile ago, and i have already begun to sip my coffee but i just keep standing there. i replay the steps of making the coffee perfect, even though i can taste the sweet flavors in my mouth. i go through the list of ingredients and meausrements and they are correctly there. but i just keep standing.

i am really bothered that this person, who makes my drink and the guy who takes my money and exchanges it for something smaller, does not know my name. he knows my favorite drink, relatively what time i get up in the morning, and what dress style my work has me dress in. he could probably guess my age, although i have been told i look younger than i am, but it's at this shallow level that he must stop swimming. the pool ends. no more.

i am sipping my coffe, watching the little girl, and staring at the barista. i am so incredibly bothered all of a sudden that he is a stranger to me yet we interact like we are old friends i want to scream and yell my name out loud. i want to shout about my family, about my dad who loved me and my mom who got sick. i want to yell about the sister that i always wanted but never had, about my job that i can not stand most of the days, but that like many good novels, i try and pretend it will all have a happy ending.

my grip tightens on my coffee cup and i am suddenly aware of the fragile nature of recycled cup. it has never seemed to be malleable and my own strength begins to surprise me. as my fingers dig deep into the protective sleeve, i start to think about all the faux pas' about me that make me, me. all of a sudden, these private facts that stand between me and the barista are tapping their feet inside my head impatiently and their hands are rattling their cages in desperate effort to get out. as i make a list of my own secrets in my head i start to wonder if this barista, and this world, would love me just the same if they knew them. i start to wonder if what makes a secret not it's content but it's packaging. what if i just let it out so they could all hear, would the coffee taste different? would he keep asking me how my morning was? or would it suddenly turn sour and bland, would that be the day that we got the message that we had to switch our coffee habits to something else, something that would sting away the harshness of the sun that has come into my life since i stopped keeping secrets.

suddenly my grip is so much that the coffee explodes, jumps out of the cup and all over the floor. im soaking wet with the fix, and my skin is burning under my clothes. like a movie pushed on pause, the entire place. just. stops. moving. eyes are on me, on my tie, on my watch, on my face. murmurs begin to stir as people loose interest and a few napkins are pushed in my direction. the barista begins to re-make my drink, i do not even have to tell him. he seems to realize we all fall out of cookie-cutter patterns, but we just need a reminder, a mark of something familiar to get back on track. with my clothes stained brown and my ego stained with embarrassment, I reach for my new drink

i imagined hearing, "hey jack. no big deal, you all right man?"

what i got was, "you still have some coffee on your face."

Pithy Picture

tamb — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:12:50 -0700

Thought I'd share this picture I ran across. If you're like me, it's good for a chuckle.

"Hope in the face of difficulty, hope in the face of uncertainty, the audacity of hope: In the end, that is God's greatest gift to us, the bedrock of this nation, a belief in things not seen, a belief that there are better days ahead." - Democratic National Convention Keynote Address.

The inconsistency of it all…

Richard Dahlstrom — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:35:51 -0700

This election year, more than any since the days of Jimmy Carter, people of faith are divided and undecided regarding their vote. The marriage between Republicans and Evangelicals has been annulled. There are many reasons for this, including some large theological shifts in the emerging church (which I’ll hope to address later), and a sense of betrayal on the part many who feel that the promises of limited government and ‘compassionate conservatism’ turned out to be hollow words, as expansive executive powers, spiraling national debt, curtailing of health care benefits to children, and unilateral military actions became the voice that drowned out campaign promises.

As each of us pray, ponder, and share together regarding the vitally important subject of how our faith intersects with both our politics and our nationalism, we should be wary of presumptions that any party is wholly ‘consistent’ or wholly ‘Christian’. For now, let’s consider the consistency piece for a moment:

I’ve always found it intriguing that my friends on the right are so deeply opposed to ‘government intrusion’ and ‘government control’. They want their private rights as individuals to, among other things, buy assault rifles and drive cars that get 4 miles to the gallon. They resist government intrusion at the corporate level as well, preferring to self-govern business practices, including everything from waste disposal to whether the CEO can make 800 times the wage of the entry level worker or not, and whether that entry level worker should be given a living wage and access to health care since one visit to emergency room can cost more than 2 months salary for him/her. ‘Hands off’ is the cry. ‘Let the market forces determine what’s right.’

But then, in a stunning reversal of philosophy, this same party moves into the most private corners of people’s lives, regulating who can marry and what woman can do with the fetus in their womb. “The judgment of the people is not be trusted” they say as they push for legislation in these matters. “Abortion is a moral issue” they say as they try to find judges to move the supreme court in a pro-life direction (ironically, this comes from the party who often accuses their friends to the left of using the judicial branch to change laws rather than uphold them). The same party that calls for economic libertarianism, is quick to appeal to the need for government control in these personal matters because ‘the moral fiber of the nation is at stake.’

Yes. I tend to agree with my friends on the right that the moral fiber of the nation is at stake, and that the judgment of the people is not to be trusted – but not just in these personal matters. Isn’t the moral fiber of the nation also at stake if 47 million Americans are at risk of losing all their assets with a single health care crisis (and that’s just the number of uninsured – the fact is that those of us who have insurance are increasingly at risk as well due to eroding benefits and escalating costs)? This too is a moral issue. Is the fact that people in service industries, (people upon which most of us reading this depend for access to daily necessities) are being squeezed out of the range of ‘living wage’ due to both inflation, economic downturns, and corporate greed, not a moral issue? Are our dependence on foreign oil, easy access to assault rifles, corporate environmental degradation, and the irresponsible business practices of the banking industry and big oil not moral issues too?

The same critique exists, of course, for my friends on the left, who so clearly call for regulations and laws to protect ‘the common good’ from the evils of unregulated corporate greed, but who are suddenly libertarians in all matters at home. “What I do with my body is nobody’s business but my own” etc. etc.

Why would either party call for liberty in one area of life (private or public) and government control in another, claiming that humanity isn’t to be trusted? The right legislates ‘morality’ and lets the economy and environment run on the good will of the people. The left legislates the economy and environment and calls for libertarianism in the private lives of people. Of course, I’m generalizing here and the conversation is actually more complex than this, but still, these are the tendencies. Who’s correct?

If we go back to the founding fathers, we discover an inherent mistrust in humans with power, rooted, I believe, in a basic understanding of our nature as fallen creatures. Thus were the three branches of government designed to provide a mutuality of checks and balances. What was unforeseen at the time was the rise of global corporations to places of prominence even greater than the government. I wonder how our founding fathers would have reacted to companies whose annual income exceeds that most countries? I have a feeling they would have put cautions in place to prevent the abuse of power there, just as in the other branches of government. And of course, as a country becomes increasingly pluralistic, its ‘private’ values also must come under increasing scrutiny. Do immigrants from strong patriarchal cultures have the ‘private’ right to keep their daughters home from school, preventing them from learning to read? If I’m to have liberty at home, can I have two wives, or six, or ten? Can I beat my children if they’re disobedient? Here too, it seems that some protocol and basic values need to be articulated as a means of saying, “We the people… believe….”

So you tell me – what’s to be legislated and what’s to be left alone? How you answer that question will, no doubt become a huge determinant in how you vote this fall. But please don’t tell me that either party is consistent in applying their principles, because they’re not. That’s why I’m independent.

Analog Love in a Digital World

CJ Casciotta — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 12:17:57 -0700

There’s a kinetic energy to the year 2008. Two years away from accomplishing our first decade as millennials, my generation has gone from Sesame Street, to personal computers, to compact discs, to laser discs, to internet, to DVD’s, to mp3’s to iPods, to streaming video and more.

Yet there’s this beautiful paradox invading this culture, something so profound, so full of depth and hope that it cannot be ignored. My generation has a fascination with history. We possess an unprecedented cultural compass enabling us to recognize what is passing and what is timeless.

Now there will always be Top-10 radio with programmed hooks and profound themes like “I kissed a girl and I liked it.” But delve just a hair deeper into the virtual shelves of iTunes’ music store and you’ll find successful artists like “My Morning Jacket” and Amos Lee who communicate through vintage instruments and timeless stories. While digital production has allowed for minutely close simulations of rock’s foundational sounds such as Fender Rhodes, Hammond organs, and vintage tube amps, a real musician knows there’s still nothing quite like the real thing. Many of these artists are choosing not to use digital enhancers for their vocals or productions in order to offer a more authentic recording to their audiences…and that takes guts.

In a world where the digital revolution offers you everything at your fingertips, authenticity is a deliberate and often challenging choice.

The mere truth that artists are starting to release lucrative vinyls again in addition to their CD and digital distributions is a sign that millennials may not seek a post-modern, instant gratification lifestyle as much as the previous one did.

I think there’s a genuine desire to hold on to what’s good, what’s true… things that withstand the test of time. While teens growing up in the 70’s probably tuned out their parents’ Sinatra records and embraced the Who, in 2008, we’re embracing the impact of Sinatra, the Who, and Coldplay.

What an amazing time to be a follower of an ancient faith. This longing for things that are constant, timeless, unwavering goes far beyond the pop culture wars. In my many conversations with students, there is a deeper desire to be loved and somehow learn how to love…authentically…. concretely…above the realities of their parents’ and heroes’ divorces, addictions, and secrets.

Take the movie “Juno” for example. One of the title character’s most telling quotes is as follows:
“I'm losing my faith in humanity…I just need to know if it's possible for two people to stay happy together forever, or at least for a few years.”

Our culture isn’t just looking for the next quick fix, the next bright piece of eye candy. Beyond the technology and entertainment revolution lies a revolution for authentic salvation, a faith that doesn’t fade with the pop trends, whose people portray an honest, sometimes off-pitch story to a culture in desperation for truth.

Interesting Conversation on Morality

tamb — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 11:40:44 -0700

I think some of you might be interested in the following conversation on morality and politics. You'll learn how a liberal's gut reactions differ from a (social) conservative's gut reactions, and why (social) conservatives are happier than liberals.

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/13700

BONUS!

A conversation on the role of religion in our society between Brian McLaren and Richard Land:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/13613

Power, Politics, & Persuasion

Nick Bogardus — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:58:25 -0700

A question.

In a large portion of the Christianity, particularly the younger generation, the orthodox tenets of the faith are being 're-imagined', 're-painted', and ultimately 're-written'. I believe much of this is being done in the name of cultural relevance instead of in the name of Jesus, with Biblical truth bowing to popular culture; not for the sake of evangelism but for the sake of acceptance.

The Bible, our highest authority and truth, finds itself secondary to, among other things, cultural trends, popular opinion, therapeutic needs, and entertainment.

In an article, David Wells quoted radical deconstructionist Stanley Fish as saying, "since there is no such thing as truth, all that we have left is power, politics, and persuasion."

In a time when American culture as a whole seems hopelessly adrift and when some in the Church are cutting loose their anchors and sawing down their masts to drift ever more efficiently, is this true?

In the absence of Biblical truth, is the Church left with only power, politics, and persuasion?

If so, what do we even have to offer the world but more of the same?

Nicholas vs. Arius: Smack Down in Nicea

Sanjay Merchant — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 13:35:38 -0700

I often tell my children an apocryphal story about Nicholas of Myra's courageous stand against blasphemy at the Council of Nicea in 325.

Here's how it goes:

"A long time ago--just a few hundred years after Jesus rose from the dead--all the Christian pastors went to a city called Nicea to talk about some important things. There were a lot of great men there; many of them had been beaten up for telling people about Jesus and some had almost died. Still, none of them ever gave up believing in Jesus because they loved him so much... and the people loved them too.

"One of the great men at Nicea was Athanasius. You know about Athanasius because we named your baby brother after him. Another great man at Nicea was Nicholas of Myra. Today, everybody calls him Santa Claus. Nicholas was good--he was kind to the people, he gave money to the poor, and he told them the truth about God. But there was also a very bad man at Nicea named Arius who told a lot of lies. You've heard of Arius because we named the iguana that used to live in our courtyard after him. (Remember how we would yell, "Get out of here, Arius, you ugly lizard!" as it crawled along our fence?)

"Well, when it was Arius's turn to talk, he began telling the pastors that Jesus wasn't really God but, instead, that the Father had created him, just like the angels. Now all the pastors knew that he was telling lies because Jesus is our savior and only God can save us. Plus, he forgave sins, which only God can do. And the Bible calls him the creator, but there aren't any creators other than God. The pastors also knew that we should worship Jesus, but it doesn't make sense to worship anybody besides God. So, Nicholas listened quietly but, after a while, all the lies made him really angry. When he couldn't take it anymore, sweet Nicholas stood up, walked over to Arius, and punched him in the face! I know that's not a nice thing to do, but Arius was being a really, really big dork.

"Of course, you shouldn't punch people in the face for telling lies... usually... but if you really love Jesus, you might do some strange and unexpected things. So don't worry about making mistakes, be like Nicholas: do the things that God wants you to do, trust him, and love him with all of your heart; even if it takes a lot of courage. And by the way, if any Jehovah's Witnesses come to the door, let Daddy do the talking. Okay?"

Pop-theology and Conspiracy Theories

Sanjay Merchant — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 12:55:07 -0700

Pop-theology is awash with conspiracy theories. We're breathlessly informed that the church (that omnipotent, crafty monolith) suppresses evidence that Jesus developed his philosophy in an Indian ashram, or that he survived his crucifixion, or that he fathered a child with Mary Magdalene, or that religious bullies hijacked his original message of peace and equality in order to illicitly place his imprimatur upon their own strange metaphysical theories.

On his blog, Five Sacred Crossings, Craig Hazen aptly calls conspiracy theories "the fruit of the soul's dark regions" and notes that such nincompoopery tends to emerge from the fertile ground of blind contempt. Once it has thoroughly poisoned a soul, this emotional vice creates dark regions from which bombastic conjectures grow like diseased fruit. That's why, to use his example, those who obsessively villanize George Bush find it easy to believe almost any outlandish rumor about his nefarious scheming. After all, if you're going to beat a dog, does it really matter what kind of stick you use?

But there's also an intellectual vice which tends to give rise to conspiracy theories; or, perhaps, makes them attractive once they've been formulated: intellectual laziness. Experts in every field of study enjoy insights that non-experts lack; that's what makes them experts. While the information and fundamental ideas from which they've drawn their insights are readily available to everyone, it takes more work to acquire these insights than most people are willing to invest. Those who actively cultivate virtuous mental lives--exemplified by rationality, openness, persistence, vigilance, laboriousness, and humility--gain understanding; those who find this too difficult do not.

Conspiracy theories seemingly shortcut the need for serious study by providing maximum intrigue at minimal mental expense. So, for the lazy-minded, a conspiracy theory is hard to pass up because, although it may seem to be the product of serious study, one need not engage in serious study to grasp a terse, pre-packaged rationalization. One only needs to be in the know. And, once one is in the know, he feels as if he has gained insights that have eluded the ignorant. Coming into possession of such stunning deliverances on the cheap is like buying an academic degree online; it has the form of scholarliness with none of the substance.

More on Obama's Abortion Answer

tamb — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 10:32:03 -0700

I'd like to make one more point about Obama's answer to Rick Warren's question about abortion last weekend. In my last blog, I looked at Obama's claim that he doesn't know when a fetus becomes a person with human rights. My argument, roughly, was that if that's true, he should at the very least recuse himself from voting on abortion legislation, since the crucial question addressed by such legislation is "above his pay grade." Yet he doesn't recuse himself; he actively pursues pro-choice policies. And that seems irrational to me.

Second, if he really is ignorant about when a fetus becomes a person with human rights, and if he is going to endorse legislation on the issue, he ought to endorse very conservative pro-life legislation. If fetuses are people with human rights, abortion is murder. If they're not, it isn't. And if you're not sure whether they are or aren't people, you ought to play it safe and endorse pro-life policies. Yet Obama is pro-choice, despite the fact that he's unsure whether fetuses are or aren't people. That too seems irrational to me.

Later on in the interview with Rick Warren, Obama explained why he is pro-choice. Here again is the video. Here's the transcript:

OBAMA: I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe v. Wade and come to that conclusion not because I'm pro-abortion, but because ultimately I don't think women make these decisions casually. They wrestle with these things in profound ways, in consulation with their pastors or spouses, or their doctors and their family members.

In this quotation, Obama tells us why he is pro-choice. But the reasoning seems to me to be really, really bad. The argument is roughly this:

(PREMISE) Women don't make the decision to have abortions casually, but only after profound deliberation or extensive consultation.

(CONCLUSION) Therefore, we ought to legally protect abortion; that ought to be a right for women; we ought to be pro-choice about abortion.

There seems to me to be a whopping gap between the premise and the conclusion here. I think the invalidity of this inference from PREMISE to CONCLUSION is most easily seen by a parallel argument using the same logical form as Obama's argument:

(PREMISE*) Women don't make the decision to kill infants casually, but only after profound deliberation or extensive consultation.

(CONCLUSION*) Therefore, we ought to legally protect infanticide; that ought to be a right for women; we ought to be pro-choice about infanticide.

I think we can agree that the move from PREMISE* to CONCLUSION* is invalid. It's most likely true that women who kill their infants don't take that decision lightly. Yet it doesn't follow for a second that we ought to legally enshrine a right to infanticide. That's crazy.

And yet this crazy move from PREMISE* to CONCLUSION* is exactly the same move that Barack Obama makes in his argument from PREMISE to CONCLUSION. And so if we think the inference is invalid when it concerns infanticide, we ought to also think it is invalid when it concerns abortion.

(Just one caveat. I'm not comparing abortion to infanticide. What I've done is constructed a parallel argument using the same general inference Obama used in order to make it obvious that the inference is invalid. I'm just attacking the inference, not the conclusion. Obama may be right to take a pro-choice position for all I've said in this blog. My point is only that the argument he gave in support of his position is really bad.)

My Hero in the Pool

Barb Sherrill — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 09:54:44 -0700

Dear Dara Torres,

Thank you.

While I realize Michael Phelps dominated the swimming headlines last week (and I can’t imagine you would begrudge him one minute of his coverage—what he did was extraordinary), you were the person in the pool who inspired me the most.

You’re probably tired of hearing that you are the oldest swimmer ever in Olympic history…but there’s no getting around that fact. You’re 41. In a culture that worships youth, you are a startling reminder that life doesn’t end at 35. Your lively personality, your grace under pressure, your perspective on what it means to compete (how many other swimmers would have asked the referees to hold up the heat because a fellow competitor had torn her swimsuit?), and your passion to go after something even though, at first glance, it probably looked ridiculous (a 41-year-old competitive swimmer!) personified the Olympic spirit.

I’ll never be an Olympic athlete (wouldn’t matter if I were 21, 41, or 101!), but I do have dreams and hopes and things I’d very much like to do still. And there’s no getting around the fact that every day I’m getting a little bit older. But now when I wonder if it’s too late for some of this, you come to mind, along with the words you shared in interview after interview (and always with a smile on your face), “Don’t let your age discourage you from pursuing your dreams.”

So, thank you, Dara Torres, for a great week. And congratulations on your silver medal. You are a beautiful reminder to all of us that it isn’t over until it’s over.