The Badger's Sett

King David, Pretty-boys, Homophobia, and Liminality -- Part I

2007-09-15T09:48:00.001-07:00

For some time now I’ve been fascinated with pretty boys. Okay, I guess that sounds strange when I put it that way. What I mean is that I’m interested in understanding the phenomenon where our culture considers certain men to be attractive, not in a rugged, “masculine” sort of way, but in a finer, almost feminine way (which is why the generally feminine term “pretty” is used to describe them). What’s particularly interesting is the way that many men (and women!) despise and reject pretty boys (try to find a “manly” man who has anything nice to say about Orlando Bloom). Why is that?

The thing that initially piqued my curiosity about this phenomenon was when I was reading the story of David and Goliath a few years ago and realized that Goliath belittles David because he is a pretty boy. The text says “When the Philistine looked and saw David, he disdained him; for he was but a youth, and ruddy, with a handsome appearance.” (1 Sam 17:42) Now part of Goliath’s scoffing is because David is young (male youths are often considered to be feminine; this is part of the reason young boys were sexually exploited in the Greco-Roman world, and why in the American colonial period boys wore dresses for the first few years of their life), but his “handsome” appearance is also a factor. I still need to do a more careful analysis of the passage, but from my understanding the term translated “handsome” (yph for you Hebrew folks) is generally a term used for feminine beauty – like “pretty” in English.
I was again reminded of the pretty-boy phenomenon recently when reading Euripides’ ancient Greek tragedy the Bacchae, in which the God-in-disguise Dionysus is ridiculed for his feminine appearance (from the description he sounds like Goldilocks).

It’s beginning to seem to me that the pretty-boy phenomenon (not surprisingly) is cross-cultural, and as such may offer us some interesting insights into issues of human gender and sexuality. There are a variety of ways we could interpret this phenomenon (and I’d love to hear some of your suggestions), but I’m interested in exploring its relationship to homophobia. My theory is that the source of the pretty-boy phenomenon and homophobia is the same – a fear of the subversive nature of that which is liminal. But I also believe that the relationship between these two social phenomena goes beyond mere analogy, and that homophobia is actually the driving force behind hatred for the pretty-boy, making the pretty-boy phenomenon a form of homophobia. (forgive any misuse of terms or hazy conceptual distinctions, I’m a bit new to these kinds of analysis).

1) Disdain and hatred for the pretty-boy is ultimately caused, like homophobia, by the basic human fear of liminality. As human beings we constantly construct categories which allow us to organize and interpret our experiences, and which give us a sense of identity and order. Black, white, liberal, conservative, man, woman, child, adult, slave, free, etc (the fact that some might object that things such as male or black are not social constructions but are ‘natural’ is evidence of how effective society is at convincing us that the things it has created have always been) Each category we construct comes with a behavioural script, telling people who they are and how they are expected to act, providing us with order and meaning (note that these ‘categories’ are often designed to serve the power interests of certain segments of society – the caste system and patriarchy are clear examples of this). Because these socially constructed categories/identities have an ordering effect and preserve power interests, violation of their behavioural scripts is seen as a threat to society – improvisation is not allowed. We respond to this threat by labeling the offender as a deviant. I think we are particularly threatened by any violation of binary categories/identities – such as male/female.

We often fear the liminal – those people and things which straddle the fence between social categories and identities. We fear them because they threaten our constructed boundaries, and because they force us to see these boundaries for what they are – creations of human culture. In my opinion, when some/many things ‘feel wrong' to us it is not because of some divinely implanted, universal moral sensibility – it is because our neatly ordered, human-made social universe is being threatened. This is why so many Christians in the previous century (and sadly even today) opposed interracial marriage as an immoral abomination against God (it threatened our racial categories, and therefore threatened white supremacy). It is also why so many feel such a strong disgust towards homosexuality in our own day (interestingly, some of the rhetoric used against homosexuality is identical to that which was used against interracial marriage in a previous generation – ‘It will lead to polygamy and sex with animals’). Homosexuals threaten our yin-yang gender/sexual categories and identities, creating a messy spot of gray that obscures that crisp, curvy, line which separates white and black. What is the gay ‘man’? Is it man? Is it woman? Which locker-room should it use? Social conservatives are right – homosexuality is a threat to society, because it challenges some of our most fundamental social constructions. But this isn’t necessarily a bad thing – the civil rights movement was also a threat to society, and forced us to rethink oppressive racial scripts that had become deeply embedded in American culture (a comparison between functionalist and Marxist approaches to social theory is illuminating here).

In the same way in which the liminal nature of homosexuality threatens our tidy, binary, gender/sexuality scripts, so the ‘pretty-boy’ is seen as a threat to socially constructed borders. Is it a man? Is it a woman? No, it’s Super Queer! (Sorry . . . ) The pretty-boy, like the tom-boy, throws itself against that border fence separating masculinity from femininity, earning the disdain of those who stand firmly on either side of the fence. Fortunately these border monkeys are not alone -- they can find a sense of community and comraderie with the many other sorts of folks who hang out at societies borders.

(The name ‘pretty-boy’ is itself quite interesting. It highlights the liminal nature of this ‘category’ of people by combining a traditionally feminine term with a masculine term, and in the process reinforces the very boundaries which the ‘pretty-boy’ threatens. The use of ‘boy’ instead of ‘man’ is also noteworthy, and points us to the relationship between boyhood and femininity mentioned earlier. In addition to some biological reasons for this relationship (the pre-pubscent male has not yet acquired the physical characteristics such as facial hair, muscle mass, and deepened voice which we use to distinguish man from woman), I think that patriarchy might also be a key source. The young male and the female are both groups who are subjugated by the adult male. Portraying someone as feminine or as childish have traditionally been a way of subjugating them. In the past African-Americans and other colonized peoples were often portrayed by their white oppressors/exploiters as innocent and childish).

Christians and the Environment

2007-08-07T05:26:00.000-07:00

Good news! There's a growing movement of "green-evangelicals" in the U.S. and abroad – evangelical Christians who are recognizing that their faith, and the Bible, call them to be active in environmental issues. These evangelicals are seriously challenging our culture's stereotypes that Christians don't give a rip about the earth. The Green evangelical movement is picking up speed, and includes evangelical leaders such as Tony Campolo, Rick Warren, Joel Hunter, Bill Hybels, and the heads of various Christian colleges, denominations, and organizations (Salvation Army, Christian Reformed Church, Judson College, Northpark, Wheaton, etc.)

Still, unfortunately, there are evangelicals who are not only apathetic towards environmental issues – they actually oppose environmental activism. It's been well publicized, for example, that Dr. James Dobson (head of Focus on the Family) has publicly opposed Richard Cizik (of the National Association of Evangelicals) for his focus on "creation care." According to Dobson, this takes the focus off of the "real" issues of abortion and family values. In my experience if you want to find someone who has a bad attitude towards global warming and other environmental issues the best places to look are a church, or the board room of a big corporation. In my experience, some evangelical Christians tend to be drawn more towards anti-global warming science (the vocal minority opinion within the scientific community which argues that human beings are not responsible for the warming of the globe, but that this is just part of some natural cycle) than others. Many of them WANT to believe that global warming is a joke, and are therefore drawn to these alternative scientific theories.

Why do many Christians have such a bad attitude towards environmental issues?

-I think a major reason is that environmentalism has long been associated with paganism and New Age movements, and evangelicals have been afraid of being associated with these movements, or of being "seduced" by the ideologies that underlie their environmental activism. They are afraid of "earth worship," etc. (Tony Campolo titled his book something along the lines of "How to Rescue the Earth without Worshipping Nature" for a reason). When Christians do talk about the environment they often throw out a disclaimer, "Now I'm not a treehugger."

-Another reason is that American evangelicals are in bed with political conservatism. For example, to be evangelical, unfortunately, often means you are also Republican. So, naturally, evangelicals have bought into the political conservatives' opposition to environmental issues. Amercian evangelicals don't realize it, but they have been seduced by "the world" by attaching themselves to conservative politics.

-An anthropocentric understanding of creation. Many Christians believe that human beings are the center and pinnacle of God's creation. Human beings, not the earth, are what really matter. This is wrong-headed and unbiblical.

Why should Christians care about the environment?

-We believe that God created the world and everything in it. To care for the earth is to honour the one who created it. To say that you love God but don't care about the environment is an impossibility – if you love God you WILL care about his creation. Can someone say they love da Vinci and then go and destroy the Mona Lisa? One of the deepest ironies is that the same people who yell the loudest about creationism are the ones who care the least about the environment. You can't really call yourself a creationist if you're apathetic towards environmental degradation. Atheists are doing a better job of practicing creationism than evangelical Christians – and that's just sad.

-The scriptures frequently speak of the trees, the rocks, and the animals worshipping God – I take these verses quite seriously. Nature, by its very existence, gives glory and worship to God. The world was NOT created for us (that's an unbiblical idea) – the world and everything in it was created for GOD. If Christians really care about worship they must work to care for the environment. As Tony Campolo has said, every animal that goes extinct means that God has lost another worshipper.

-To truly care for and value human beings requires caring for the environment. Environmental degradation poses real risks for human beings. Even if you believe that global warming is bad science (in which case you'd be disagreeing with the majority of reputable scientists, and taking a huge risk -- if the global warming folks are right, and you do nothing to stop it, then you're helping cause a lot of suffering), there are still other serious environmental risks. Pollution, even if it isn't warming the earth, causes serious health problems – including an increase in asthma and asthma related deaths, lung cancer, shortened lifespan, etc. (just check out the American Lung Association). Pollution also affects our drinking water. There's also a serious sustainability issue – there are only so many natural resources, and those in the West are consuming them at an unsustainable rate. The Earth cannot support a Western lifestyle.

-Evangelism. Evangelical Christians want to reach the world with the Gospel -- but anti-environmental attitudes (which are not demanded by the Gospel) threaten to needlessly alienate evangelicals from the broader culture, and in particular makes evangelicals ineffective in their attempts to share the Gospel with groups and individuals who define themselves by their environmental activism. How effective would some evangelicals be at reaching members of GreenPeace?

It's time for Christians to stop saying they believe God created the world, and start showing it. Join the growing movement of green evangelicals!

http://www.christiansandclimate.org/
Check out earthday.net to find out your ecological footprint

Thinking Critically about 'Wild at Heart' -- Chapter 1

2007-08-07T05:25:00.000-07:00

“Wild at Heart” by John Eldredge has become an immensely popular book in the contemporary American church – and just like any other fad (the Prayer of Jabez and all the rest) it is important for Christians to carefully and critically examine it, lest they be led astray. Unfortunately, many Christians have dogmatically attached themselves to the theology of John Eldredge without first exploring alternative opinions.

There are many problems with chapter 1, but I’m going to just identify a few key ones.

First, there is a potential problem in theological method, which many critics have pointed out (some don’t realize that the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood – an organization committed to preserving “traditional” gender roles has criticized Eldredge for his theology). Eldredge uses a bottom-up method, where he tries to understand something about God by looking at human beings. This is not necessarily bad, but it is dangerous. Christianity traditionally teaches that human beings are fallen and broken – we need to be careful about projecting that back onto God.

Second, his method is to look at the stories we tell and the movies we watch to get an idea of what is really at the “heart” of men and the “heart” of women. Eldredge is running the risk of taking cultural particulars and turning them into universal descriptions of what a human being “really” is. This underestimates the diversity of culture, both today and throughout history. We cannot look at the stories that resonate with us and assume that they resonate with all people. I’m not sure if Eldredge realizes this or not, but many of the story patterns that he keys in on do not go back to ancient times, and are not found in all cultures – many of them are particular to the West, particular to American culture, and had their origins in the medieval era or later periods (the cowboy image, which he seems to really like, is not appealing to all cultures). In the words of Hoggatt and Munn "Eldredge's characterization of true femininity appears to be influenced more by Middle English heroic sagas than by the teachings of the New Testament." Further, the stories we tell do not merely reflect “who we are” – they also make us who we are. Think about it – we intentionally tell children stories that model for them ideal behaviour. Why do parents not want their kids to watch a show like the Simpsons? Because they believe that Bart’s disrespect for his parents will teach their children to disrespect them. The stories we tell shape our values and our understanding of who we are in ways we don’t even realize (this is not a new idea -- Plato realized this millenia ago). The rescuing that Eldredge seizes on resonates with women not necessarily because it is programmed into them by God (if that were the case we would find it in EVERY culture), but because we are raised on these stories. They don’t reflect reality as much as they create it. If you analyze stories from throughout history you will see that they present very different pictures of ideal femininity and ideal masculinity. We must also keep in mind that stories have often been created and told by men. It was men who created the damsel in distress. Just as children’s stories represent attempts by adults to tell children how to behave, many stories throughout history have been attempts by men to tell women how to behave. Because women are raised on these stories they feel right and natural to them – the values and ideologies of the stories are internalized.
Christians recognize the dangers that movies pose to our values. Should we not also criticize the versions of masculinity and femininity that the movies feed us?

Third, he is making sweeping generalizations about EVERY boy and EVERY girl that just aren't true. He claims to be tapping into the core of a man’s heart and a woman’s heart (can the hearts of God’s creatures really be reduced to a list of three things?). More on this and the way Eldredge may be using psychological tools akin to psychics in later reviews.

This all raises a fourth problem: Eldredge is being incredibly influenced by his culture. It’s ironic that Eldredge argues that Christian feminists and others have sold out to our “culture’s” lies about manhood and womanhood, when Eldredge himself is highly influenced by his culture – he’s just influenced by different elements of it. If you notice, Eldredge often refers to the book “Iron John.” This tips us off the fact that Eldredge is influenced by the modern mythopoeic men’s movement – a secular movement which Eldredge is attempting to Christianize. Further, Eldredge is drawing heavily on movies and the like – doesn’t that indicate he is selling out to the culture? Christians need to engage in some more carefully nuanced thinking about the interaction between faith and culture. They often speak of “the world” or “the culture” as if it is monolithic – it’s not. Our culture is quite diverse. Sometimes Christians buy into one cultural movement (the modern men’s movement) and call it “biblical” and then identify those Christians who have identified with another cultural movement and label them as “sell-outs.” John Eldredge is just as influenced by “culture” as a hardcore feminist.

And finally, underlying much of his program is the idea that human beings were created in God’s image (amen!), and that men were created to reflect certain aspects of God, and women were created to reflect other aspects. This is a serious problem – and it is not suggested by the text. The text emphasized similarity and equality, rather than difference. This will be discussed more in the review of chapter 2.

I had a Gay Ole Time on my Vacation in Sodom

2007-06-07T04:16:00.000-07:00

Hey, did you know that if you rearrange the letters in Sodom it spells "dooms" . . . creepy. And if you rearrange the letters of Gomorrah it spells . . . Hormogra . . . ok, I'm not sure what that means.
The Sodom and Gomorrah story (Gen. 19) is one of the main texts used by Christians (and I suppose Jews, and maybe even Muslims) to condemn homosexuality, and has proven to be a very strong rhetorical resource in fundamentalist political discourse. You may have heard something along the lines of: "If we legalize gay marriage and let gays adopt then we're inviting God's judgment on our nation, just like Sodom and Gomorrah." Some, such as the late Jerry Falwell, have interpreted national tragedies such as 9-11 as an example of this. In my opinion, this is a complete misuse of the text. In fact, the REAL crime of Sodom is something completely different . . . something that most people in our churches are guilty of. Here are a couple thoughts:

1. Some believe that the story of Sodom is non-sexual – that the men of Sodom didn't actually want to rape the angels, but wanted to interrogate them.

2. Even if the story is sexual, it is about RAPE. It's not like the angels came into Sodom and saw a bunch of friendly, committed gay couples strolling around holding hands in the town square and decided to call down judgment. The men of Sodom were trying to violently rape these visitors – an action which is certainly condemnable. To say that God condemning a city full of same-sex rapists is an indictment against homosexuality would be as wrong-headed as saying that a story which condemns heterosexual rape (such as the rape of Dinah in Genesis, or the similar story in Judges where a concubine is raped to death) shows that God is against heterosexuals.

3. Rape doesn't necessarily say anything about sexual orientation. Prison rapes and other acts of sexual violence are often committed by heterosexual men. In the ancient world the prisoners of war would sometimes be raped, as a way of humiliating them and robbing them of their masculinity. Rape is about power more than it is about sexuality.

4. The REAL crime in this story is a breech in ancient hospitality codes. In the ancient world and in many cultures today hospitality was very important – you had an obligation to care for and protect the stranger and the traveler. There are many stories in the scriptures and in ancient Greek literature where angels or gods come disguised as strangers in order to test the hospitality of an individual or a city, and then dish out reward or judgment accordingly. People like Abraham and Lot passed – the people of Sodom failed. The Sodomites are wicked not because they're gay, but because they try to commit an extreme act of violence and humiliation against the very people they are obligated to welcome and accept. If the Sodom and Gomorrah story speaks to ANY contemporary political issue, it is the issue of IMMIGRATION. The God who destroyed Sodom is much more worried about how we treat people crossing the border than he is about where two grown men who love each other are putting their penises.

5. Sodom comes up a few more times in scripture. Of particular interest is Ezekiel 16:49: "Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy". Interesting . . . I don't remember ever hearing this one preached on . . . I wonder why? Based on Gen. 19 and this passage it seems that the REAL CRIME in Sodom was that they were not caring for the marginalized, the poor, the oppressed. If American Christians really want to avoid God's judgment perhaps they should keep their nose out of people's bedrooms and focus on their pocketbooks. My advice: the next time you run into a Christian who is doing nothing to help the poor, call them a Sodomite. It's a good way to make friends at church.

My problems with the 10 commandments -- Feminism and Coveting

2007-05-29T06:12:00.000-07:00

In my opinion, the commandment against coveting in Exodus 20:17 assumes and perpetuates a dangerous patriarchal ideology which continues to permeate western culture.

"You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbors."

Here we find the command that you are not to covet your neighbor's wife, a command which contemporary Christians often seem to read in light of and in connection with the prohibitions of lust in the Sermon on the Mount – i.e., coveting your neighbor's wife is equated with lusting after his wife.
There are several problems with this commandment from a feminist perspective, but the most important one is that it places a man's wife in a list of his other properties – she is listed right along with his livestock and his house. It is wrong to covet another man's wife not because it is in any way disrespectful to her, but because she is her husband's property, and his private ownership of her must be safeguarded in the same way that his private ownership of his house or car must be safeguarded.

While our society may consider itself to be free from such archaic understandings of marriage and gender, we still tend to view women as the property of their men. This manifests itself most clearly in the emotion of jealousy. Jealousy is a possessive emotion which is activated when one believes that their possessions and territory are being threatened. A husband is not jealous over his wife because he cares about her or wants to protect her from harm – he is jealous because she is "his" and he fears that he will lose her. Sometimes literature and film portray jealousy as a romantic quality – it's not, it's a vice that comes from men's desire to conquer, possess, and control. It is not coincidental that according to psychologists one of the biggest warning signs that a man is a potential or actual abuser is excessive jealousy. Men physically, verbally, and sexually abuse women as a way of asserting power and dominance over them (a form of marking their territory). Jealousy is a symptom of this need to own and control, and is itself a form of abuse.

Sadly, the commandment not to covet your neighbour's wife provides religious legitimation for an ideology that continues to result in the dehumanization, objectification, and physical, emotional, and sexual abuse of women. I don't know about you, but that's not the sort of commandment I want hanging on the wall of my nation's courtroom.

My problems with the 10 Commandments -- Marxism and Coveting

2007-05-29T06:11:00.000-07:00

Many, even some who are non-religious, champion the 10 commandments as the most basic and essential of moral/ethical codes. While I believe "Thou shalt not kill" and some of the others are pretty good, there are a few of the commandments that, in my opinion, are potentially problematic, particularly the commandments against coveting and worshipping other gods.
Exodus 20:17 says "You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbors."
The basic idea here is that it's wrong to look at the things your neighbour has and say "I want that." On the one hand, this is a good commandment because it can discourage materialism. On the other hand, from a Marxist perspective this commandment has two fundamental flaws: it 1) assumes and perpetuates the idea of private ownership (rather than communal ownership) – i.e., that I can take an item, an animal, a piece of land (or even a human being) and say "This is mine, not yours. I am master of it, and I reap its benefits"; and 2) it discourages righteous discontent over economic inequality, providing religious legitimation for the elite who wish to maintain the status quo.
If you're not some sort of Marxist then the first point might not be a big deal to you, but regardless of what your views on Marxism are the second point is important for anyone concerned with socio-economic justice. We live in a world of gross economic inequality, where a small percentage of the world's population owns and controls the majority of the world's resources, while large numbers of human beings live in extreme poverty. If taken to its final conclusion this commandment seems to say to the poor "Don't look at those who eat three meals a day, those who can afford vaccinations for the most basic of diseases, those who get to see most or all of their children live to adulthood and say 'I want what they have.'" When we're dealing with dramatic inequalities coveting, far from being a vice, is actually a virtue which is fueled by a biblical desire for justice.

Back

2007-05-29T06:07:00.000-07:00

So I realized this morning that I've been neglecting this blog for some time now . . . and there's a good chance none of y'all check it anymore. But, regardless, I'm going to try to start posting some stuff here again. Shalom.

Holy Saturday Batman!

2007-04-07T18:44:00.001-07:00

There are two "holidays" in the Christian calendar that I believe are particularly special, but often underrated.. The first is Ash Wednesday, and the second is today – Holy Saturday. Ash Wednesday and the liturgy that is used to celebrate it is beautiful and meaningful, in that it vividly captures human brokenness, the liberating admission of that human brokenness, and the certainty of death. Holy Saturday (or as I prefer to call it – The Black Sabbath) is that day between Good Friday which commemorates Jesus' execution and Easter Sunday, which commemorates his resurrection from the dead. Part of the reason for having religious holidays is so that we can replay and participate in those stories and myths that are foundational to our faith. In my mind we are called during the Easter season to lose ourselves in the unfolding story, temporarily forgetting that we know how it ends. It is helpful to try imagining what Jesus' disciples thought and felt each step along the way. What might they have felt on Holy Saturday? I think they may have felt a little like this (Keep in mind – they did not know that the story would turn itself around the next morning):

-Lost – what now?
-Frightened – might they be next?
-Cynical – they just wasted years of their lives.
-Alienated from the divine -- where is God in all this? (I can imagine them singing Psalm 22 again and again).
-Disappointed and hopeless – they had pinned their hopes and dreams on one man, who was then brutally executed by the state.

To me Holy Saturday is significant, because many people live their lives in a state of darkness, disappointment, and hopelessness that resonates with the experiences of the disciples on that Sabbath. Every human being knows what it feels like to be lost and confused, to pin your hopes on something or someone only to have them shattered, to have no hope that life will turn itself around, to be consumed with the reality of human mortality, to be aware of the atrocities one human being can commit against another, etc. etc. Everyone at one time or another is deeply aware of the often sadistic nature of the universe: we all hold dreams and desires, and on occasion the realization of those dreams seem to be at hand -- only to be brutally crushed. Holy Saturday is a day for folks like that, a day when their darkness is in some way sanctified.

(The Anglican church has a liturgy for Holy Saturday – there is no Eucharist – and this is part of the anthem that is often sung for it (it is noteworthy that this anthem comes from the burial liturgy):
"In the midst of life we are in death;
from whom can we seek help?
From you alone, O Lord,
Who by our sins are justly angered.

Holy God, Holy and Mighty,
Holy and merciful Savior,
Deliver us not into the bitterness of eternal death." (this is repeated throughout)

Suicide

2007-04-06T11:29:00.001-07:00

There's that well-worn passage in Philippians where Paul says: "For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. If it is to be life in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell. I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better. But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account." (Phil. 1:21-24)
I've heard this quoted by people a million times, and for many this is their "life verse." But, to be honest, these verses always seemed a bit pedestrian to me – until I recently read an interesting interpretation of them.
In one of my textbooks, the author suggested that in this passage Paul might have been contemplating suicide . . . meaning that when he spoke about "which I shall choose" that one of his choices was taking his own life – which to me is understandable, considering the many hardships Paul went through (life is hard enough without being stoned, persecuted, shipwrecked, etc.). I don't know if this interpretation is legitimate historically/exegetically, but for me it really brings the passage to life. There are many people in our churches who struggle with suicidal thoughts . . . and some of them eventually transform those thoughts into reality. People who experience such thoughts often already feel alienated and alone, and the fact that they're thinking about taking their own life can cause them to feel even more alienated, as suicidal thoughts, depression, and other forms of emotional/spiritual suffering are implicitly or explicitly labeled "unspiritual" in many of our churches. But if the Apostle Paul, that hero of evangelicals whose name is attached to almost half of the writings of the NT really thought about taking his own life, then that changes things. Paul then becomes a fellow sufferer who can be related to and identified with. He becomes an example of the fact that those who suffer, those who live in darkness, are not "unspiritual." And, Paul's decision of life over death shows that, no matter what, life is worth living . . .
"Convinced of this, I know that I shall remain and continue with you all, for your progress and joy in the faith . . ." (Phil. 1:25)

Knocking Yourself Up in the Past

2007-04-06T11:25:00.000-07:00

Many time travel movies seem to assume a western understanding of reality. What if someone made a time-travel movie that assumed the Hindu doctrine of reincarnation? The main character could travel into the past and meet up with one of his previous incarnations. Oh the time they'd have. To make the plot a little spicier his previous incarnation could be a lady, and they could, well . . . do the "time-travel tango." Of course there have been some time-travel stories where someone goes into the past and impregnates a great-grandmother (gross, I know) thereby becoming their own ancestor, but has anyone ever made a film about someone impregnating himself in the past?

Cloudy with a 60% chance of execution

2007-02-08T10:36:00.000-08:00

You know what's wrong with our society? We show way too much mercy to meteorologists. Did you know that in any given week 40% of the predictions weather people make are wrong? (ok, that figure may not be super precise, but it's close). When they're wrong there are serious social effects. Many people plan their lives around the predictions of TV weather seers – I can't tell you how many picnics I've cancelled because a weatherperson predicted bad weather, only to end up having a perfectly sunny day (ok, so I don't go on picnics. But I should). Why are weather people so prone to error? It's because they have nothing to fear. Nobody's gonna punish them if they're wrong – they're just going to keep on forecasting and getting their grossly inflated paycheck. Bastards. That's why I'm writing all the major TV networks encouraging them to get tough with their weather personnel. My proposal is simple: when a weather person is wrong about their prediction the network will publicly execute them during the evening news (this sort of incentive program worked really well for Darth Vader). For the sake of the bleeding heart liberals out there you could enact a three-strike system – if they make three bad predictions they get whacked. It'd probably boost ratings, since everyone would be watching the weather reports to see whether their favorite weather personality gets to live (it's like Survivor). Water cooler conversations about the weather would no longer be a way to make pointless and somewhat awkward small talk – it'd actually be a topic worth talking about. "Hey, Bill on channel 5 predicted rain yesterday and was totally wrong. That brings him up to two strikes. You think he's gonna make it until the end of the month?" "I don't know, but channel 7 executed Sherry last night. They had a bunch of angry chimpanzees stone her to death. Me and the wife watched it with the kids." Nothing brings a family together like a weather woman getting executed by zoo animals.
Ok, so some Christians might have a problem with this idea. I agree, on the surface it sounds barbaric. But let's think about it. If you're the average North American evangelical you already support the death penalty – I mean let's face it, you support killing pretty much everybody except unborn babies. Just throw the corpses of the weather-people in mass graves with the Iraqi children, Palestinian children, and many others that you've helped murder through your votes (hmmm, I sound bitter, sorry). (okay, so I totally made up the 40% figure. I really have no idea how often they're wrong).

Parenting Tip

2007-02-03T07:17:00.000-08:00

One of the biggest risks faced by teenagers today is drugging. Not the "fun" kind, but the kind where you're at a party and somebody slips some vodka or ecstasy into your drink and you wake up the next morning next to something that looks a little too much like Gilbert Gottfried (sorry Gil, you know I love you). Drugging is a serious risk, but unfortunately many teenagers don't take it seriously enough. How can you, as a parent instill in your teenagers the street smart caution and almost paranoid distrust of others that they need to navigate the high school and college party scene without becoming another notch in Mr. Gottfried's belt? You could try talking to them, but let's be honest, that's not gonna do a whole lot. You could make them watch an after school special, but unless it has Johnny Knoxville making an ass of himself they probably aren't going to emulate any of the positive behaviours they see in the film. My suggestion is much simpler, and much more effective. You simply offer your son or daughter a purportedly non-alcoholic drink – Coca-Cola for example – which they will undoubtedly accept without question. Then, without them knowing you spike the drink with whatever hard liquor you happen to have on hand. After a couple of refills your child will hopefully be quite tipsy. This is the part where you drive them to a public place (I recommend the post office or a playground), drop them there, and drive away. On your way home make a quick phone call to the cops letting them know that you saw a drunk teenager playing on the slides at your local playground. The cops show up, arrest your kid for underage drinking AND public drunkenness, and haul them off. While the arrest may be unpleasant, it is a lesson that your child will not soon forget. Once they realize that they can't even trust their own parents not to drug them you can bet they'll be a lot more suspicious of strangers at a party. That's just good parenting.

In Search of God's Penis

2006-12-31T08:04:00.000-08:00

In our scriptures, our churches, our personal prayer life, and most of our public discourse we speak of God in exclusively masculine language -- he, him, his, etc. HE is after all our heavenly FATHER. Now I certainly don't know much about women, and I probably missed a couple of important steps in the birds and the bees talk, but I'm pretty sure the main thing that sets us men apart from the fairer sex is that we have penises and they don't. So . . . if having a penis makes you a HE, and God is always spoken of as a HE, then it logically follows that God must in fact have a penis. This realization has led me to embark on the greatest adventure of my life, an adventure that has consumed nearly all of my Christmas break -- trying to find God's penis. Unfortunately, I've yet to find it (I'm beginning to think that he doesn't keep it in the Midwest), and so I'm left with many burnning and unanswered theological questions. For example, how big is God's penis? I've heard somewhere that there are nine dimensions . . . does this mean that God has a nine-dimensional penis? Us Christians believe in the Trinity -- God being three distinct persons yet one -- so what exactly would such a Trinitarian penis look like? Is God's penis omnipresent? So many questions.
I suppose some people would find my search for the Sacred Penis to be either blasphemous or foolish -- I mean, surely God does not have a penis, does he? Good question. When God became incarnate in Jesus he did (as far as we know) take on a penis (he even had it circumcised), and if we could find Jesus' mummified body in Israel then we might be able to take a gander. Unfortunately, we believe that Jesus' tomb is empty and that his whole body (penis included) has been resurrected. And while Jesus is still in a "physical," resurrected form (somewhere), there are hints in scripture (Mark 12:18-27) that resurrected bodies are asexual. So, alas, my search for the Holiest Phallus may be as futile as the search for a Ben Affleck movie that doesn't suck.
Why then, if God is truly penisless, do Christians (and Jews and Muslims) insist on speaking of God in exclusively masculine terms? I'm serious -- I really need someone to explain this to me, because frankly I don't get it. Why do I get such startled responses from people when I tell them I occasionally address God as "Heavenly Mother" (and I only tell that to my open minded friends . . . if I told some of my other friends I'd be afraid of the response). Some Christians have tried to demasculinze the Holy Trinity by replacing the terms Father, Son, and Holy Spirit with Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer (the priest at the church I attend in Canada occasionally uses these gender neutral terms in her closing benediction), but this move has met with ferocious resistance from conservatives, Catholic and Protestant alike. Why? If God is in no way literally male, and if both men and women are made in the image of God and therefore both reflect God's nature then why can't we use feminine language to refer to the divine?

P.S. If you have any information regarding the whereabouts of God's penis, PLEASE, let me know.

Three Fingers Pointing Back

2006-12-31T06:39:00.000-08:00

I don't buy into the sado-masochistic spirituality that is popular in evangelicalism. You know, the spirituality that unquestionably elevates God and his ways while deprecating humanity. In keeping with the Psalms of lament I believe that a valid and healthy response to the suffering we experience in this world is to accuse, question, and even violently confront God. Where are you God? How long? Wake up! Deliver us! Show us your promises are more than empty words! etc.
I have precious little tolerance for those who offer easy answers for the suffering we experience and witness in this world. At the end of the day each of these explanations either fails to make sense of God or to fully appreciate the magnitude of human brokeness and pain. They are an insult to God and to his children. The most human and truly spiritual way to respond to pain and evil is not through simplistic theological theories, but through weeping and the genuine compassion and hope that can spring from it.
All that being said, I have been wondering for some time if it is, in a certain sense, necessary for us to earn the right to truly question God. For the Christian, Jew, or Muslim, the root of the problem of theodicy (how God can allow evil and suffering) is simply this: how can an all-powerful God, one who is capable of ending suffering and evil (or capable of never allowing these things to enter his creation to begin with) sit by and watch an innocent African child be turned into a solider, or a woman being raped, or a train full of Jews slowly make their way to the incinerators? The problem is that God could end these things – but he doesn't. He violates the good Samaritan law, a law which finds its source in his own Holy book. While these objections to the divine are valid, I think we need to examine ourselves in this regard as well. How am I any better than this seemingly negligent creator? Suffering surrounds me, and while I do not have the power to end it all, me and my fellow human beings have the power to end much of it. I have the power to save a malnourished sub-Saharan child from death – if only I were to use the money I spend on books to feed him. I have the power to help end the AIDS epidemic. I have the power to bring hope to the lonely. I have the power to sacrifice myself for the needs of others. I have the power to slow global warming. I have the power to help end hatred, racism, homophobia, patriarchy, etc. Yet, I am negligent. I don't sieze every opportunity to battle evil and suffering with love and sacrifice. Instead, I do just enough to slightly ease my conscious. How can I accuse God for committing the same crime I commit every day of my life? Have I truly earned the right to question him? When I have expended every last ounce of my time, energy, resources, and my soul itself trying to live out the peace prayer of St. Francis – then I'll have truly earned the right to have a showdown with God. And hopefully when I reach that point God and the world will make just a little bit more sense.

Broken Blueprints

2006-12-20T10:14:00.000-08:00

This world is a painful, frightening, and continually tragic place. By the time I get done writing this blog more than a few children will have starved to death, someone will likely have been killed by a drunk driver, someone will have killed themself, a couple of people will have been raped, a child will have been beaten, cancer will claim another slew of victims, AIDS will orphan some more kids, some girls will have purged after a good binge, some unwanted babies will have been born into loveless families, people will have cheated on their spouses for the first time, and Tim Allen will have been offered a contract for another Santa Clause sequel. The thing that particularly sucks is that we were never given a choice if we wanted to brave this broken world or not. How nice would it have been if before you were conceived you were given a vision of the joys and sorrows of life and your parents asked you "Hey, so, um, we're thinking about having some sex and bringing you into existence. Are you cool with that, or would you rather we use a condom?" I have a feeling Trojan's business would quadruple. But, we're not given that choice. We're thrown unwillingly into this world, and although we can leave it at anytime via suicide we all know that will just contribute further to the brokeness of the world as it forever destroys those we love. So we're stuck in a hurting world. I'm sure most of us have wondered at some point why God would create a world that he knew would break. I have this vision of God in a boardroom with some angelic architects, looking over the proposed blueprints for the human race, realizing how much brokeness there would be, yet ordering the building project nonetheless. Why? What was God thinking? Is she a sadist? This used to bother me a lot (well, it still does), until I realized that we make the exact same decision whenever we procreate. Think about it . . . when two people decide to have a child together they are intentionally bringing someone else into this broken world. You're creating someone who will cry, get sick, have their heart broken, be oppressed, lose loved ones, and ultimately die. You are willingly choosing to create a fellow sufferer. And you should know better. If you have a kid when you're 25 (that sounds really young), that means you've had a quarter of a century of firsthand experience with sin and brokeness -- yet, even with that experience, you have determined that it is worth it to create new life. Whether people realize it or not, when they decide to have a child they are saying "Sure this life sucks . . . but it is still worth it, life is still beautiful, and although it might seem like an act of hatred and violence to bring someone into else into existence, it really is, in some inexplicable way, an act of love." I'm wondering if God thought the same thing.

Gilmore Girls and Religious Violence

2006-12-05T06:49:00.000-08:00

My favorite non-animated television show of all time is, hands down, the Gilmore Girls. I initially got hooked on the series because of the quirky reality of the characters who drove the story lines, but I think I've stuck with the series because of its deep insights into culture and the human condition (ok, so maybe the fact that I love Luke's awesome flannel shirt collection has something to do with it too). There's been something I've wanted to say/blog for months now, but just couldn't quite put it into words until I thought of a particular Gilmore Girl's episode. In the episode I'm thinking of Rory's best friend Lane wants to sleep with her live-in bandmate/boyfriend (Zach I think his name is), but without knowing where it's coming from she says 'I can't until we're married.' Lane has lived most of her life under the staunchly conservative 7th Day Adventist Mrs. Kim. Her daughter doesn't share her mother's strict values, and is constantly sneaking around behind her back doing 'liberal' things like joining a band, dating boys, and dying her hair. Just when she has moved out and thinks that she's been freed from her mother's oppressive values she finds herself unwillingly committed to abstinence -- a value that she doesn't want, but that has become deeply internalized for her. What was once an external value system that could be resisted is now .. for better or worse .. a part of Lane's own conscience, and the site of an internal struggle.
So what does this have to do with religious violence? Most of us realize that religiously inspired violence is a very real problem in the world. Unfortunately, we often define religious violence too narrowly. We think of it as a person from one religious group physically hurting someone from another religious group. That does happen, and it sucks pretty badly. But in some respects that's one of the nicer forms of religious violence, since it is primarily an external attack against your body, and even if the attack leads to death you can still maintain the integrity of your soul. A much more sinister brand of religious violence is that which religions commit against their own, by instilling in them values and conceptions of God that oppress and damage the human spirit. When you're a part of a particular religious group, whether you were born into it, or whether you converted, whether you are really into it or just a casual participant, you are still deeply affected and shaped by the values and perspectives of that group. Their outlook on life is not a piece of clothing that can be donned or ditched at will .. it is something that infiltrates your soul, something that becomes internalized, and something that therefore follows you even when you've left that group behind. It becomes a voice in your head that just won't leave, no matter how loudly other, competing voices shout. This is exactly what happened to Lane . . . she found herself internally influenced by values that she had spent her whole life willingly resisting. If religious values can have that kind of influence on someone who resists, imagine the influence they have on someone who is quite committed to a particular religion. So how is this 'violence'? This phenomenon in and of itself can be good or bad, it ultimately depends on whether the values and conceptions of God that have been instilled in the individual are constructive/healthy, or destructive and oppressive (of course, determining which values are which is no easy task, and is at the heart of the religious life). With Lane's example some would argue that abstinence is a good value, others will argue that her conservative upbringing is hindering her sexual expression and is therefore an act of violence and oppression. Certainly even those who advocate abstinence have to admit that Christian attitudes towards sexuality create in many an internal sense of shame that causes serious problems for the sex lives of many newlywed couples (they may believe that sex inside of marriage is a good thing, but they just can't shake the lifelong attitudes of shame that their religious community has unintentionally instilled in them). I consider that an act of violence that is destructive to the human soul. Another example, that some might debate, is the issue of homosexuality. If you're a homosexual you might have enough self-confidence and acceptance to successfully resist the slurs and insults that ignorant people throw at you. You can stand up to that kind of violence. Unfortunately, I have a feeling that for many homosexuals, especially those raised in conservative religious envrionments, that some of the worst and deepest emotional wounds are self-administered .. their soul attacking their own soul. The closeted homosexual raised in a conservative religious environment that explicitly or implicitly condemns and demonizes homosexuality internalizes those homophobic attitudes and is forced to live a life of secret self-hatred. 'God, why am I like this? What is wrong with me?' etc. etc. This form of violence reaches its demonic fulfillment in the act of suicide, which is far too common among those with homosexual orientations. That is perhaps the king of religious violence .. not one person killing another because they're different and unacceptable, but someone taking their own life because oppressive and hateful values have taken residence in their own soul and have finally won out against all competing voices. Suicide silences the inner struggle and becomes a horrifying act of liberation from a life of constant internal religious oppression.
Sexuality is not the only example. Conceptions of God as an angry judge waiting to pounce on you for the slightest misbehaviour is something that is commonly internalized, and can be really hard to shake. Even someone who converts to atheism might continue to hear haunting echoes of this god. If you're a former fundamentalist, like I am, you know how hard it can be to outrun the narrow-minded fire and brimstone worldview and agendas that have attached themselves to your soul like a leech.
Another example involves gender roles. I'm a feminist, and I consider religiously legitimated patriarchy to be oppressive, violent, and wrong. The saddest thing to me is when a woman tells me that she believes it is her God-given duty to be submissive to her husband, and that she does not believe women should be leaders in the church. Women like this have fully and willingly internalized oppression .. that is an act of religious violence. Even women who come to embrace more progressive gender values are sometimes still haunted by the chauvinistic teachings and attitudes they may have been raised with.
Anyways, I'd be really interested to hear other's experiences with this kind of religious violence (I have a feeling that everyone has experienced it to some degree or another).
If you want to see a remarkable and haunting example of this phenomenon at work, check some of Flannery O'Connor's short novels, like The Violent Bear it Away and Wise Blood.

"You're in my head! Are you happy? You're in my head!" Lane to Mrs. Kim

Dr. King on Extremism

2006-11-28T04:57:00.000-08:00

“But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice: "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream." Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist: "Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God." And John Bunyan: "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience." And Abraham Lincoln: "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." And Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal ..." So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremist for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary's hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three were crucified for the same crime---the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.”

-Martin Luther King Jr., Letter from a Birmingham Jail

Fear -- the ultimate enemy of intimacy

2006-11-27T21:03:00.000-08:00

Did you ever wonder why your pet dog will play with you for hours, but a wild animal like a coyote will (generally) avoid humans? It sounds like a stupid question with an obvious answer -- dogs are domesticated, coyotes are wild. But what really lies at the root of domestication and the human-animal intimacy that comes with it, and wildness and the human-animal barriers it creates? On one level it has to do with upbringing -- raise an animal around people and it will be more likely to be "domestic." But, at the very root of it all is fear. The coyote avoids the human because of fear. The pet dog has learned, through experience, that it has nothing to fear from you (although fearful and abusive tactics might be used by some to ensure the dog's submission -- but submission is not intimacy). Where there is fear there can never be true intimacy. This applies to our relationships with other people, as well as our relationship with God. Fear can take a lot of different forms. If you know someone who is physically abusive you might be afraid of getting hit. While physical violence and the fear it creates are way more common in our "civilized" society than people like to think, there are other forms of fear that are more subtle and perhaps permeate our lives more deeply. Fear of rejection would be only one major example. Rejection is a very real emotional and social form of violence that everyone experiences to some degree, and is something we learn to fear from a very young age. I believe that this lurks under the surface of most human-human and human-divine relationships, and constantly gets in the way of real love and real intimacy (the really ironic thing is that our own fear frequently leads us to commit acts of physical, emotional, social, or spiritual violence against others -- which in turn creates fear in our victims). It's only when we have become thoroughly convinced that we have nothing to fear that we're able to lay our animalistic defense mechanisms to rest and begin the journey into intimacy, a journey which ultimately will allow us to see and experience our true humanity as our relationships with others and with God himself are able to reflect and participate in the eternal, fearless love that exists between the members of the Trinity in whose image we have been made. I'm not really sure how we go about doing any of that, but I think a first step might be trying to become the sort of people who don't instill fear in others, and love, it probably has something to do with that. No matter what though, I'll always be afraid of snakes and spiders, and to be honest, that's quite alright, because I don't need intimacy with arachnids and reptiles to be complete.

In the wise words of Yoda: "Fear is the path of the dark side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering." And in the words of an arguably wiser man, "There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and he who fears is not perfected in love." 1 John 4:18

Boycot Placemats . . . otherwise the terrorists win

2006-11-18T12:16:00.000-08:00

There's been no small stir caused by the recent decision of the world's astronomers to demote our beloved Pluto from its status of planethood. While I can certainly understand their reasoning (why call Pluto a planet when there are other similar sized clumps of matter also orbiting in our solar system), it seems odd to me that they would go through all the trouble to officially reclassify it. I mean come on, they're astronomers, they have better things to do than haggle over definitions. They're supposed to be finding alien life, getting us to Mars, or refining space tourism so that it becomes affordable enough for B-rate actors like Gilbert Gottfried to orbit the planet. So what's really behind all this Pluto nonsense? Three words: Educational Placemat Industry. Educational placemats are those nicely laminated placemats that have been covered with colorful educational material -- most commonly lists of the American Presidents, maps of the United States, and pictures of the nine planets in our solar system. They make eating educational, and offer the hope that as America gets fatter it might also get smarter. The Educational Placemat Industry rose to incredible power and wealth in the 1970s through the early 1990s. But around 1993 the placemat sales began to drop off, and the industry started to suffer. Why? Because most Americans already had an educational placemat or two, and saw no reason to buy another one. The market had become flooded, and there was no more demand. Every four years the placemat industry would perk up a bit, as they were able to release an updated presidential placemat. But the solar system maps lagged, as the placemat people's hopes that more planets would be discovered were dissappointed. In the mid-90s they decided it was time for action. If they could convince the world's astronomers to demote Pluto from its status as a planet they would be able to sell updated, 8-planet solar system maps. In addition, they could sell "Solar System Classic" placemats to those anarchists who would be unwilling to sacrifice the icy planet. They began to bribe, connive, and blackmail astronomers one by one, until they had enough influence to make their move. And that's why we're where we're at today. Placemat sales are up, and young children are confused ("Mommy, where did Pluto go?"). The placemat industry won't stop there though. They still have a whole line of USA maps that they'd love to update. Rumor has it that they're searching for a state that they can encourage to split into smaller states (can you imagine north and south Illinois?), or a Canadian province that they can annex (for the love of Gumbi, don't let it be Quebec). It's too late to save Pluto, but if we act fast enough we might be able to stop these placemat moguls from dividing our country.

Urinal Reform

2006-11-10T07:45:00.000-08:00

Urinals are an important part of most guys' lives. We encounter them at school, work, restaurants, church -- pretty much every public place we go. I don't know about you, but to me most urinals leave a lot to be desired. Politicians realize this is a pressing issue, but are trying to divert our attention from it with other issues like social security or the war in Iraq. Here are a few of my ideas for urinal reform:

1) More multi-colored urinals. Why do they always have to be white? What about some cool neon ones? The bathrooms could be blacklighted for some cool effect.
2) Some urinals have novelty freshener discs (you've probably heard about the ones that looked like Osama bin Laden). What about urinal murals? If the murals were reproductions of famous pieces of art then every trip to the bathroom would be a culturally uplifting experience. Wouldn't you want to relieve yourself on a Picasso?
3) More urinal dividers. I'm sorry, but it's a bit weird to pee right next to strangers. Especially when they decide that they want to have a conversation with you. What happens when you're done, but the jabber-mouth next to you isn't? Do you cut off the conversation and leave, or do you just stand there waiting for him to stop talking? Awkward.
4) The biggest problem with urinals is the splash-back, which you're naturally going to get whenever you direct a pressurized stream of liquid at a hard surface. Some urinals are worse than others, but all of them leave something to be desired in this regard. Gross. Someone needs to design some sort of absorbant urinal, perhaps one made out of a spongue-like substance.

Society's Inability to Restore the Offender in Film

2006-10-10T20:05:00.000-07:00

You ever notice that at the end of a lot of action movies the goodguy gains the upper hand over the bad guy (sometimes its a gun in the face, sometimes the bad guy is dangling from a ledge), and rather than finishing him off Mr. Goodguy offers him mercy? Go ahead and make a quick mental list of movies that fit this category. Now ask yourself, in how many of those movies does the bad guy actually accept the offer of mercy and survive? Undoubtedly there are some, but I have a feeling they are more the exception than the rule. Usually the bad guy responds with aggression, or at the very least refuses the hand of mercy. Have you ever wondered why this pattern is so common, or why it feels so right to us? My theory is that it affirms our cultural value of mercy (which is very different than non-resistance -- mercy is extended by one who has power, which has often been achieved through the use of some form of violence). The good guy is merciful, and that makes him even gooder. But, we only want that mercy offered -- not accepted. If it is accepted then another cultural value of ours is undermined -- retributive justice. If the bad guy accepts the offer of mercy then he doesn't get what's coming to him, and what's worse the good characters now have to face the frightening possiblity of some sort of reconciliation with the bad guy. A movie that ends with restoration is a movie with a resolution that many would find completely unsatisfying. Think about Star Wars. True, there is redemption and reconciliation in the end, but this is incomplete because 1) the Emperor, the "real" villain dies, and 2) Darth Vader dies after his redemption. How many people would have been satisfied if Darth had lived and the movie closed with a montage of him and Luke hanging out during the holidays carving a Turkey with their lightsabers?
I believe that the cultural dynamics that make rejected-mercy film endings so popular are the same dynamics that cripple our criminal justice system. We are fundamentally incapable of reconciling and restoring the "villain." Our prison system, and the death penalty in particular show this quite clearly. I find it odd that a nation which often claims to be built on "Christian" values is incapable of practicing the fundamental Christian principle of reconciliation.

A Relational Model of God as Grounds for a Limited Pluralism

2006-10-03T19:23:00.000-07:00

We often speak about ourselves as if we have a single, stable "self," and we assume that as a part of this self we have a core personality. At the same time we all realize that we can behave in drastically different ways in different situations -- we're different around our co-workers than we are around our grandparents for example. Our tendency is to try and sift through our diverse behaviours so that we can find out who the "real me" is. When we identify one set of behaviours as who we really are, then our other behaviours are seen as facades. If these facades are different enough from each other or from our "real" self then we may be called "two-faced." This is a common theme in songs and movies about romantic love (the movie/musical "Grease," or Avril Lavigne's "Complicated"). While I'd agree that there may be such a thing as being "two-faced" and that there certainly is something called hypocrisy, I don't think that any of us have a "real" self. How I behave around my grandmother is just as much a part of the real me as how I behave with my girlfriend. The self is a complex and multifaceted thing(s). We become different people depending on who we are interacting with and what situation we are in.
If human beings are capable of exhibiting different personalities and behaviours depending on who they are interacting with, then should we expect any less diversity from God, who is unimaginably complex? If God really is a relational being, then we should expect him to have different faces in different relational contexts. Who God is to the Methodist may be just as genuine as who he is to the Calvinist. Who he is to the five year old Sunday school attendee (who understands God through a hermeneutical lens known as the flannel board) is just as real as who he is to the 74 year old virgin from San Diego who was raised Catholic and later become a member of an Evangelical Covenant church. Understanding God as a complex relational being opens the door for a certain level of pluralism and ecumenism. As we realize that it is possible to have two different conceptions of God that are both "right" we will begin to see the value of interdenominational dialogue. Such dialogue allows us a fuller picture of who God "really" is. (This is not to say that I endorse full or "radical" pluralism -- I don't).

Dick Cheney needs your help!

2006-09-23T13:08:00.000-07:00

In these crazy times it's important for every patriotic American to do what they can to help this country. For some of us that will involve enlisting in the military so we can kill Iraqi civilians, for others it will involve verbally assaulting all the Muslims, gays, democrats, flag burners, karaoke singers and all others who threaten to erode this nation's values. But maybe neither of these options is right for you. If that's the case then you might consider signing up for Dick Cheney's newest program: the Civilian Innovative Torture Program. Because of all the recent criticism of our government's interrogation methods Cheney and other trusted leaders are searching for new ways to torture our nation's enemies. They're looking for stuff that is cruel and especially unusual, but that doesn't fit into traditional torture categories. Hopefully this will get Amnesty International off their back for a little while. If you submit an idea that they end up using on a subhuman terrorism suspect then you'll get a nice little tax break -- but more than that, you'll be helping our country.
A few ideas:

-Tape the suspect to a chair and make them watch Cuba Gooding Jr. movies for a solid 2 weeks
-Make them go on a series of 5 dates with Gilbert Gottfried
-Force them to eat at Arby's

Your country needs you! Submit some more ideas.

Another hypothetical situation

2006-09-12T07:07:00.000-07:00

An insane madman obsessed with disturbing and far fetched ultimatums kidnaps one of your loved ones and says you must do one of three things to get them back:
1) Take an automatic rifle to the nearest zoo and gun down as many monkeys as you possibly can before security or a mob of crying children takes you down.
2) Sell all of your possessions and use the money to buy as many collectible action figures as you can, then place them all in your neighbor's house (while no one is in it) and burn the house to the ground.
3) Glue gummy worms all over your body and then streak naked (is there any other kind of streak?) through every single church service in your area, climbing wildly through the pews yelling "the leeches, somebody get the leeches off of me!"
Remember, you're probably gonna get some prison time for all of these, especially the arson and the monkey rampage.

What do you do, what do you do?

The super duperest list of reasons why women should not be pastors

2006-09-07T06:03:00.000-07:00

Here it is. After ten years in the making a secret underground one-man coalition has finally released the ultimate, definitive list of reasons why women should not be allowed in our pulpits (unless of course they're putting a bottle of water there for the Sr. Pastor). If you're not thoroughly convinced by this groundbreaking document then you're probably hard-hearted and God may not love you.

Ten biologically and theologically sound reasons why having testicles is necessary for successful pastoral mininstry.

1. As more and more begin to realize that the natural and the supernatural are deeply interconnected we are forced to ask -- what, if any, is the natural/biological basis for "spiritual gifts" (spiritual gifts being specific gifts given to believers for the building up of the body of Christ). Cutting edge research in my basement lab has clearly demonstrated that the spiritual gifts of teaching and preaching actually find their source in the testicles -- preaching in the left one, teaching in the right (sorry Lance Armstrong). This makes it impossible for women to possess these gifts. A woman preacher is being just as deceptive about who she is as Robin Williams was in Mrs. Doubtfire.

2. P.M.S. I mean, if you let women be pastors then you're going to have to deal with some pretty crazy behavior every month. Do you really want to come in to church one Sunday morning only to find that she has completely rearranged the pews? And let's not forget the bears -- do you really want bears mauling the pulpit?

3. Women pastors have negative impacts on their families. For example, who is going to wash all the dishes after a Saturday afternoon barbecue? It's not gonna be Nancy Preacherwoman, since she'll be too busy going over her sermon.

4. Male pastored churches tend to have mostly male leadership in other important church positions. If you had a woman preacher then she might start recruiting other women as elders, deacons, ministry leaders, etc. This could eventually lead to a complete female takeover -- relegating us men to nursery ministry and other womanish religious tasks. Us men can't ever forget that women outnumber us, especially in churches. Once they wise up to that fact we're screwed. If church leadership were to start representing the actual demographics of churches we'd be starting a very dangerous trend. What would be next? More females and blacks in congress?

5. A woman pastor would naturally read and study the Bible -- this will only perpetuate the myth that it's okay for women to read.

6. I read once somewhere that women have no shame. You can bet that a woman pastor with an infant would be breastfeeding her kid during the sermon.

7. I read somewhere that women are from Venus. You start letting that kind of alien lead your church and before long you'll have the illegal Mexican kind stealing all of our church jobs and giving sermons in Spanish (in my opinion, if they want to be in our religion, they need to learn our religion's offical language -- English)

8. It'll cause marital problems for couples in the congregation, as wives get jealous over their husbands staring at another woman for 45 minutes.

9. A lot of pastors wear suits. Women look weird in suits.

10. I heard on TV once that women can't get along with people. If you let women be preachers you're probably going to have all kinds of disunity, and will basically be forfeiting all of the peace that our churches and nations experience under male leadership.

11. A woman preacher wouldn't have the guts to make pre-emptive strikes against competing churches.

Bedroom Wall Quote #2

2006-09-07T05:30:00.000-07:00

"What good fortune for those in power that people do not think."
-Adolph Hitler

Bedroom wall quote #1 -- Gissing

2006-09-05T04:41:00.000-07:00

I'd like to invite you all into my bedroom. What I mean by that is that I write my favorite quotations in permament marker on my bedroom wall, and I thought I'd start sharing them on my blog (basically, it's a way to write blog entries with minimal effort.)

Here's one of my most recent ones that I stumbled across in a Social Psychology book.

"It is the mind which creates the world about us, and even though we stand side by side in the same meadow, my eyes will never see what is beheld by yours, my heart will never stir to the emotions with which yours is touched."
George Gissing

Evil religion: The subtle oppression of the transcendence of God

2006-08-26T03:27:00.000-07:00

Throughout the Jewish and Christian scriptures there is the recurring theme of the transcendence of God. God is seen to be completely above and beyond human comprehension. One of the classic expressions of this is Isaiah 55:8-9 -- "'For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways,' declares the LORD. 'For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts.'" We also see this theme beautifully expressed in God's monologue at the end of the book of Job.
I believe that these are accurate and beautiful expressions of who God is (of course it's funny to say that one of the things we certainly know about God is that he is not certainly or exhaustively knowable). Embracing and reflecting on the transcendence of God provides an important corrective to human arrogance and is highly enriching/therapeutic, as it points us to something beyond ourself that is good yet mysterious.
And now for the "but."
However, this theme is dangerous and can be quite subtely subverted in the hands of some pulpits. God's transcendence should lead us to humility, but for some it becomes a tool of arrogance. Some use images of God's transcendence to silence questions, doubts, and objections. It might look something like this:

Southern Christian in 1855: Pastor, this whole slavery thing seems really wrong. Would a good and just God really allow for one human being to own another?
Southern Baptist pastor: You've got to remember that God's ways are not our ways. You can't use your fallen moral reasoning to question God. The scriptures clearly sanction slavery. You need to shutup and let God be God.

Now, in some cases the pastor's reasoning would certainly be true -- but not in this case. In this case God's transcendence has been used as a legitimating trump card that silences all potential objections, quenching the sometimes Spirit inspired human ethical sensibility, and ultimately leading to further oppression. This is one of the greatest tools in the evil religion toolbox, since it suffocates genuine prophetic critique. God's true voice is essentially silenced in the name of God.

God's transcendence means that we need to also be humble about our human understandings of him -- our theological systems and particular interpretations of scripture. God's incomprehensibility means that he cannot be contained or tamed by any system of human thought. We do ultimately need to submit to the fact that God knows better than us, but we must always ask ourselves "Is this really God's ways I am submitting to -- or am I submitting to a false theology?"
We must also remember that the scriptures invite the believer to question, accuse, and doubt the ways of God. That's exactly what the lament Psalms do.

Bishop Ware on personhood

2006-08-26T03:15:00.000-07:00

"The aspect of free choice is particularly important for an understanding of man as made in God's image. As God is free, so likewise man is free. And, being free, each human being realizes the divine image within himself in his own distinctive fashion. Human beings are not counters that can be exchanged for one another, or replaceable parts of a machine. Each, being free, is unrepeatable; and each, being unrepeatable is infinitely precious. Human persons are not to be measured quantitatively: we have no right to assume that one particular person is of more value than any other particular person, or that ten persons must necessarily be of more value than one. Such calculations are an offence to authentic personhood. Each is irreplaceable, and therefore each must be treated as an end in his or her self, and never as a means to some futher end. Each is to be regarded not as object but as subject. If we find people boring and tediously predictable, that is because we have not broken through to the level of true personhood, in others and in ourselves, where there are no stereotypes but each is unique."
Bishop Kallistos Ware, 'The Orthodox Way' (page 51)

Meatloaf Hermeneutics

2006-08-12T07:35:00.000-07:00

Of all the questions that plague humankind, one of the most significant is the meaning of Meatloaf's song "I would do anything for love (but I won't do that)." Perhaps the most inspirational and philosophically intense composition EVER MADE, the meaning of the line "but I won't do that" has puzzled sages for the past 30 years or so. What is it exactly that Meatloaf won't do? True, he has said that the line refers to things he promises not to do in the song , 'I'd never lie to you', 'I'll never forget how you feel right now,' etc., but it's likely that these weak explanations are only meant to satisfy those who don't have the determination to search for the true meaning of the song.
You might ask, why does this even matter? Because love has often been treated by artists, theologians, and philosophers as one of the strongest and most significant emotions we as humans experience and express. Many songs speak about the limitless nature of love -- Meatloaf on the other hand points us to the limit of love: where does it stop? What is the one thing he won't do?

So what is the true meaning? I don't know. But here are a few possibilities -- please add your own.

but I won't . . . horribly disfigure myself with acid just so that you can feel prettier and impress your friends by sticking with me even though I have no face left, until you leave me for one of the doctors in the chemical burn ward.

but I won't . . . buy you Cosmo, make-up, or tampons.

but I won't . . . pretend to like your mother's saurkraut, because quite frankly it's rouger on my intenstines than super-laxative.

but I won't . . . move in with you unless you get rid of at least some of your pets, because right now the place smells like the set for Planet of the Apes.

but I won't . . . let you identify with your ethnic heritage by braiding your arm pit hair.

Perhaps Meatloaf has left the meaning of the line abiguous on purpose, so that each listener can contemplate what the limits of their own love for another really are. Perhaps this is another reminder of the futility of searching for authorial intention, or a single, stable meaning in a text. Maybe Meatloaf has shown us that we need to accept the polyvalence of texts, and wholeheartedly embrace the meaning we create as readers.

But now to the real meat of the matter: would you be cool if your partner braided their arm pit hair? Quite frankly I'd be impressed if someone had long enough hair to pull off a good braid. Judging from the small handful of images that came up when I did a google image search, most people don't have what it takes to do the pit braid (or they don't have what it takes to upload pictures of their friend's braids to the Internet)

Iraqi Stem Cells -- an option everyone can agree on

2006-08-10T08:26:00.000-07:00

Bush's stem cell veto has again brought bioethical issues into the thinking of Americans and reminded many evangelicals why they support Bush even though he's slammed our nation into a brick wall at about 90 mph. Stem cell research is yet another issue that polarizes America (or at least one that divides religious conservatives from the conservative and liberal mainstream). On one hand stem cells can be seen as the murder of very very very young Americans, on the other hand they offer the hope of saving and healing many many many Americans. Talk about being between a rock and a hard place. But does it really have to be so tough? I don't think so. The key term here that most analysts overlook is "American" -- the real issue is whether to forcefully sacrifice some AMERICAN lives for the potential good of other American lives (hmm . . . can you say military draft?). If we want to get conservatives on board with stem cells and move forward with medical breakthroughs that can cure diabetes, paralysis, and can enlarge your penis without you having to give your credit card number to some spammer who can't spell his own name right, then all we need to do is find a NON-AMERICAN source of stem cells. Let's face it, if you're not American or Israeli, your life and your stem cells are worth as much as a death row inmate in Texas.
So, my proposal is that we start harvesting the stem cells of Iraqis. This allows us to get much needed stem cells in the hands of researchers and also helps with the war on terror -- because lets face it, every Iraqi embryo, fetus, and infant, (hmm, can we harvest stem cells from adult Iraqis?) is just another potential insurgent. Now some pansies might say that this is wrong and that all human life is valuable, and blah blah blah. But we've already murdered thousands and thousands of full grown Iraqis in our attempt to liberate them (some say over 40,000), and since the religious right overwhelmingly supports the war in Iraq then they should have no problem with us murdering a few embryos for science, especially if you tell them that stem cell research could be used to cure gayness. The Iraqis aren't the only good source for stem cells, we can also start harvesting from the Palestinians and the Lebanese -- each embryo we take from them means one less person to speak out against Israeli oppression, and one less person to interfere with the safety of my Holy Land vacation tour.
Think about it -- it all makes sense. Killing Middle-Easterners doesn't have to be only about oil or supporting Israel because of our far fetched fundamentalist Left Behindish end times scenarios -- now it can be to cure childhood diabetes and my Uncle Hal's impotence. It's all about a better tomorrow -- less disease and less Arabs.

Cursing your very existence

2006-08-07T07:17:00.000-07:00

Isn't it strange how big of a taboo it is to talk about sex in some circles? Does anyone else scratch their head when they hear others label anything related to sex as "dirty"? Isn't it weird that so many people think that "vagina" is a dirty word, when the majority of people in the world have one, and almost every single person in existence has passed through one at birth (sorry C-section people)?
In my opinion, those who treat sex-related talk as a dirty taboo are suffering from an extreme and subconscious case of low self-esteem. Why? Because for nearly all of us an act of sex is what brought us into existence. Therefore, your attitudes towards sex reflect your attitudes to your very existence, and the existence of others. Think about it some time when you're in a public place -- each stranger you look at came into being as the result of some guy getting it on with some girl. If there's 6 billion people in the world, then that means 6 billion acts of sex (yikes, our world is seriously oversexed). Why are we so ashamed to talk about something that "everybody" is doing and that clearly has very positive results -- the perpetuation of the human race?
Additionally, from a Christian perspective God is the creator of sex, so to think of sex as dirty is to slap God in the face.
Fight the power of the taboo. Work "penis" or "vagina" into at least one or two ordinary conversations (without it being a part of a sex-joke). Let me know how it works out for you.

Don't call my lawsuit frivolous, or I'll sue you for hurting my feelings

2006-08-03T11:19:00.000-07:00

You hear people talking all the time about frivolous lawsuits, like some kid suing McDonalds for making him fat, or some old lady suing them for making their coffee too hot, or somebody suing Wendy's for putting a severed finger in their lunch (come on, employees have 10 fingers -- can you realistically expect them to keep track of all of them?).
While you might dismiss these sorts of lawsuits as "crazy," perhaps they're merely examples of slightly misguided yet brillinatly creative approaches to getting things done in this world. The key is to funnel this creative brand of legal action into something a little more substantive. I mean, if that lady who sued McDonalds got them to put "HOT" on their cups, then maybe we can use lawsuits to tackle larger issues. So here is the first of several frivolous lawsuits that can change the world. (I'm hoping to make a few of these babies class-action, so if you're up for it give your lawyer a call).

#1 -- Your Ford Expedition killed my Grandma

The Midwest and other areas of our nation have been experiencing scorching heatwaves this summer. One of the incredibly unfortunate effects of these heatwaves is the death of many elderly people who live in homes without air-conditioning. The purpose of this lawsuit is quite simple -- to use the heat-related death of somebody's grandparent to sue Ford and other vehicle manufacturers in order to help end global warming. The logic is likewise quite simple: a heatwave killed my grandparent > heatwaves are caused by global warming > global warming is contributed to by vehicles that have high emissions levels > SUVs have high emissions levels > THEREFORE SUVs killed my grandparent. This is an argumentative fortress that would convince any reasonable American (those Canadians might not get it though). All we need to do is get a bunch of people together who have lost relatives to the heat, pick our least favorite SUV manufacturer, and SUE LIKE ITS 2002! The billions of dollars in losses will force them to cease manufacturing SUVs and to put all of their efforts into designing more fuel efficient vehicles. Apart from helping to end global warming this lawsuit will accomplish two things: 1) Those stinking SUV drivers won't be able to rub their big expensive vehicles in the rest of our faces, and 2) with the money we make off the lawsuit we can pay to install air conditioning in more homes for the elderly, which will of course negatively impact the environment (can you say irony?).

Tune in to World News at 10 to find out how many times Leonardo DiCaprio peed his pants in the third grade

2006-08-02T08:00:00.000-07:00

I don't know about everybody else, but I'm pretty sick of hearing about the personal lives of celebrities in the news. Seriously, who really cares who Jennifer Aniston is dating and how gay Lance Bass is? Or why do we have to repeatedly hear about Mel Gibson's DUI? Lots of people come out of the closet, drink and drive, or date men as creepy as Vince Vaughn (seriously, what are you thinking Ms. Aniston?) every day, but they don't make national news. All I need to know about a celebrity is when their next movie or album is being released (unless it's Natalie Portman -- but everyone is entitled to at least one celebrity obsession).
Apart from being incredibly annoying, celebrity news takes precious coverage time away from other issues. Now I know that things like AIDS, starving children, conflicts in countries no one has ever heard of inhabited by people who speak crazy languages are nowhere near as relevant or newsworthy as who Pairs Hilton is skanking around with this week, but it'd be interesting to hear about them at least once in a while.
I don't blame the media for the ridiculously high level of celebrity coverage, I blame you, and me, and everyone else who continues to buy into that crap. Papers print what sells, so if we didn't buy it, they wouldn't print it.
If you'd like to start seeing more real issues covered in the news there are a few things you can do:
-Don't buy tabloids -- if there's a celebrity on the cover don't even take it off the magazine rack.
-Don't click Internet links related to celebrity news. Websites track what articles are popular and respond accordingly.
-Write letters/e-mails to stations, papers, magazines, etc., asking them to spend more time on the issues that are important to you (specify those issues).

Remember when . . .

2006-07-21T06:56:00.000-07:00

Hey, you guys remember that time when George Bush invaded Iraq under the pretense of weapons of mass destruction, despite the entire world telling him it was a bad idea, and then he didn't find any WMDs but instead caused the deaths of thousands and thousands of U.S. and Iraqi citizens, made everyone in the world hate the U.S. even more than they did before, and blew billions of dollars that could have been better spent saving lives of malnourished children? Good times, good times.

Same-sex marriage ban sputters and fails in the House

2006-07-18T13:02:00.000-07:00

The proposal to make an amendment to the constitution that defines marriage as exclusively heterosexual failed in the House today, after failing in the Senate a short while ago. Amen! Kudos to our nation's leadership for refusing to write discrimination into the constitution!

The battle isn't over though -- we can expect to see this and similar proposals in the future. I strongly encourage those of you who are American Christian voters to earnestly think through these issues before you go to the polls this Fall. It is possible to be a committed, evangelical Christian and still vehemently oppose legislation against same-sex marriage.

If you're interested in reading a Christian defense of same-sex marriage check out David Myers and Letha Dawson Scanzoni's book, "What God has joined Together."

I'm pretty sure you have cancer because of your lack of faith

2006-07-14T07:37:00.000-07:00

I’m pretty sure you have cancer because of your lack of faith

That statement would probably be in the top 10 list of the absolutely worst things a pastor could say to someone (the entire list is forthcoming). Why would it be so terrible for a pastor, or anyone else for that matter, to say something like that? 1) Cancer is a great tragedy, that causes immense emotional stress; 2) Telling someone it is their fault they have cancer is most likely untrue (lung cancer being a common exception), and devastating to the person, because now they have guilt to deal with too; 3) making someone think that the cancer is a result of a spiritual shortcoming means they now feel there is something wrong with their relationship with God – the relationship that should offer them the most hope and comfort in their time of trial; 4) to indicate that there is something the person can do to cure their cancer makes their feelings of guilt even more terrible.
Now, it’s unlikely (I hope) that you’ll hear a Christian say something like this to a cancer sufferer, so why am I even talking about it? Because we don’t extend the sympathy we give to our brothers and sisters who suffer from cancer and other physical diseases to those who suffer from psychological maladies. Depression, in its various forms is a prime example. Lots of people, Christians included, suffer from depression – a psychological “disorder” that often has a biological cause. In some ways depression is worse than purely physical challenges, because it affects the “soul,” and devastates your relationships with other people and with God. The cancer patient can hold on to hope and find consolation in family, friends, and God. The severely depressed person often can’t – because their illness drives these things away. You would hope that the church would embrace our brothers and sisters who suffer from depression and other psychological challenges – but instead we often kick them when they’re down. We judge them, telling them that it’s their fault, that they should have more joy in the Lord, or that if they just turn to God he will heal them. We invoke God to further their pain. We make them feel like they are less than us. We say things to them that we would never say to the cancer patient (“Maybe if you read your Bible and prayed more God will heal your tumors”) or to the disabled person (“Maybe if you confess your sin God will make your legs work again”). That’s just sick. We need to learn to love and support our suffering brothers and sisters – whether it is their body, their head, or their heart that is broken.

University lectures -- the rapers of chaos

2006-06-29T15:30:00.000-07:00

"Before we go any further here, has it ever occurred to any of you that all this is simply one grand misunderstanding? Since you're not here to learn anything, but to be taught so you can pass these tests, knowledge has to be organized so it can be taught, and it has to be reduced to information so it can be organized do you follow that? In other words this leads you to assume that organization is an inherent property of the knowledge itself, and that disorder and chaos are simply irrelevant forces that threaten it from outside. In fact it's exactly the opposite. Order is simply a thin, perilous condition we try to impose on the basic reality of chaos..."

--William Gaddis, JR

Reasons why I'm a Christian #2

2006-06-27T21:27:00.000-07:00

In the first entry of this series I talked about creation. I find the Christian belief that there is a being that created this world both appealing and believable. If I had payed closer attention to my IDIS Christian Worldview classes I would move from creation to fall -- but I'm gonna skip the fall for now and talk about redemption, particularly the redemption that is still to come. I think just about everybody feels completely overwhelmed by the brokeness of this world at least some of the time. You may feel that brokeness in your interpersonal relationships, or in an awareness of larger social issues like poverty, AIDS, global warming, war, child prostitution, etc. These problems can press down on us, as we hopelessly realize that we will never be able to completely eradicate them -- the 20th century has shown that the utopian optimism of many modernists was a pipe dream. For me Christianity provides a light of hope in this darkness by affirming that Christ will bodily return to this world and establish a Kingdom of peace and justice. God will make things right.
Now, I don't buy into the Left Behind script for how Christ's return will play out, and I don't subscribe to the escapist versions of the end times. Expecting God to set things right should not lead us to withdraw and ignore important environmental and social issues -- that's dangerous theology. Instead it should inspire us to do what we can to establish the kingdom of God on earth. My eschatological hope frees me from the immobilizing panic that often sets in when I realize how impossible it is for me to fix the world completely. It shows me that I don't have to make the world ALL better -- that's God's job, I just have to try and make it better.
Christian eschatology isn't a "proof" that makes Christianity believable for me, in fact it's sometimes hard for me to really believe Christ will return. But it is an aspect of Christianity that I find satisfying and that provides me with hope and meaning.

Am I a Dinosaur?

2006-06-17T08:36:00.000-07:00

If so, I want to be a T-Rex. Those little clawed arms are cute.

So I'm a huge fan of Eddy Arnold, a guy who used to be big on the country/pop scene a couple decades ago. For some reason though, his music doesn't have the popular retro attraction of the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, or Johnny Cash. I did a Facebook search and of all the many thousands and thousands of college students on there, I am the ONLY one who has Eddy Arnold on his favorite music list. The only other result that came up was a guy whose actual name was Eddy Arnold, a staff member at some school in Louisville. I'm sure nobody ever makes fun of him because of his name, because apparently nobody even knows who Eddy Arnold is. So the Facebook search was slightly discouraging, but I decided to remain optimistic that there might be other young Eddy fans out there. After a search of other blogger.com bloggers' musical interests I was encouraged a little bit: 9 matches (including myself), with a couple of the matches being near my own age. However many of them were older than 50. Apparently microwaving imported gerbils is more popular with my age group than listening to Eddy.

What does all of this mean? Maybe it means that I'm a weirdo, or a senior citizen at heart (which would really explain my love for Matlock and my attraction to Martha Stewart). Or maybe it means that I'm called to raise the awareness of Eddy Arnold to fellow young adults, so that they too can enjoy his heavenly music. So, if you've never listened to Eddy before, now is your chance. Get on iTunes and listen to some stuff. Download one or two you like, and let me know how it turns out.

Corrupt religion #1 -- Who defines corruption?

2006-06-16T07:11:00.000-07:00

Like I said in one of my recent entries, I am deeply concerned about the atrocities being done in the name of religion around the world. We shouldn't be surprised, since religion has been an accomplice in many horrific acts throughout human history. We should, however, be actively involved in trying to understand, prevent, and battle corrupt religion.
One of the initial problems with this is identifying and defining "corrupt" or "evil" religion. To identify corruption in an institution you must have a firm vision of what the ideal or acceptable standard is for that institution -- for example you must believe that equal pay for equal work is an ideal before you can recognize that companies who pay women less than men are "corrupt." So when it comes to religion we have to ask -- what does the ideal or normative version of this religion look like? The problem -- it all depends on who you ask. Islamic extremists are driven by the belief that they are living the ideal form of their faith, and they see everyone else as corrupt. Additionally, conservatives in Christianity (as well as many other world religions) sometimes believe that there is no "ideal" version of another religion -- by the very fact that it's not Christianity it is already corrupt. The relative nature of normativity illustrates that there is no objective moral ground from which we can judge religions or anything else. When we try to prevent or fight evil religion we're really engaging in a battle of religious worldviews -- our understanding of true religion against opposing understandings. This should give us a sense of humility.

All that being said, I'm going to proceed in these evil religion entries with a somewhat vague understanding of "corrupt" religion that I think most in my culture (although not necessarily in my Christian sub-culture) could agree with -- anything that promotes violence against others (physical, emotional, sexual) and that hinders their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is corrupt religion. There are problems with that definition, but it'll do for now.

Lobster freedom baby!

2006-06-16T05:46:00.000-07:00

Whole Foods Inc. recently announced that they will no longer be selling live lobsters in their stores, because they have concerns about the humane treatment of the lobsters. Way to go Whole Foods! Let's hope other grocery stores begin to wake up to the barbarism of selling live lobsters (and selling all meat for that matter).

If you're looking for reasons to become a vegetarian, check out PETA.org

A Vision of Hell

2006-06-15T18:18:00.000-07:00

I had a vision of what eternal torment must be like. I finished my jar of peanut butter, but there's still at least a teaspoon full of it smothered along the walls of the jar. After using my fork to the fullest of its peanut butter recovery capabilities I switched to my tongue. But alas! The human tongue is far too short to reach most of the inner peanut butter jar. All that luscious peanut butter, mocking me and my short tongue . . . that's Hell people, and we're living in it.

In Heaven The Daily Show plays 24/7

2006-06-15T16:33:00.000-07:00

Check out: http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/videos/most_recent/index.jhtml

Watch "Donkey Showdown"

Podcast

2006-06-14T07:08:00.000-07:00

If you like listening to public lectures on interesting religious and political topics then check out the "University Channel" podcast. Just do a podcast search for it on iTunes, subscribe to the podcast, and then pick the individual archived lectures you want to download. These are all lectures given by various experts at various major universities. A few lecture titles:

-Global Muslim Identity and the Denmark Cartoon Crisis
-Missing Voices: women and democracy after conflict
-Newspapers in the Age of Blogs
-The Threat of Nuclear Terrorism
-Anatomy of Terror: understanding religious violence
-Fight Club Politics: fear and loathing inside the belt and how it's ruining congress
-State of War: the secret history of the CIA and the Bush administration

Anyways, check it out. If you find other good university/educational podcasts let me know.

More reverend fun

2006-06-13T09:14:00.000-07:00

Evil religion -- 5 warning signs

2006-06-12T20:37:00.000-07:00

I've decided to pick up on a blog theme that I did some entries on a while ago -- evil religion. Everywhere you turn there seems to be some atrocity being done in the name of religion, and as a religious person this is a concern for me. I want to do a few entries reflecting on the questions "What does evil religion look like, and how do we prevent and fight it?" Charles Kimball wrote a book back in 2003 that addresses some of these issues, called "When Religion becomes Evil: five warning signs." While I don't agree with everything he says, and his discussions are sometimes a bit simplistic (he was writing for a general audience though), it's a pretty good read. He includes a variety of contemporary and historical examples of corrupt religion from a variety of traditions (Islam, Christianity, etc.) Anyways, the five warning signs he identifies are:

1. Absolute truth claims

2. Blind obedience

3. Establishing the "ideal' time

4. The end justifies any means

5. Declaring holy war

Would you add, remove, or clarify these warning signs?

He should have bought them the mopeds

2006-06-12T20:00:00.000-07:00

A leak from an unidentified Iraqi intelligence official has confirmed that recently murdered insurgent al-Zarqawi was betrayed by someone within al-Qaida. Abu Shamar Abooby, a 19 year old al-Qaida member who used to bring Zarqawi his tea and biscotti gave the U.S. information (via Jordanian intermediaries) regarding the whereabouts of Zarqawi, allowing him to collect the 25 million dollars in reward money. Iraqi intelligence analysts believe that Abooby's actions were fueled by a conflict that developed between him and Zarqawi over the direction of al-Qaida's operations in Iraq. According to one analyst who spoke on the condition of anonymity, "Abooby wanted al-Qaida funds to be used for the purchase of 'some really cool mopeds,' because he was 'tired of having to walk everywhere in this damn desert country.' Zarqawi eventually rejected the idea, instead spending the money to equip all of his operatives with iPods loaded with every Celine Dion album ever made (including her sometimes underrated "Dion Chante Plamondon"). In Zarqawi's words, "The revolutionary political and monotheistic subtexts in Dion's music make it the ideal soundtrack for our epic struggle against the Western infidels." Apparently Abooby disagreed. I guess you should have bought the mopeds Zarqawi.

Smart cars -- the ultimate common ground between conservatives and liberals

2006-06-09T11:52:00.000-07:00

In these crazy bipartisan times when our nation is being pulled in two like a pair of toddlers fighting over their Stretch Armstrong doll, it is important for the right and the left (and those ambidextrous swingvoters) to find some common ground. With issues like homeland security, foreign policy, same-sex marriage, and who the next American Idol should be dividing us, where are we to turn for an issue which can unite us? The answer is simple: the Smart Car. I believe that the best thing our country can do right now is use government money to subsidize Smart Car purchases, making them more affordable for the American people. But why? Because the Smart Car provides solutions to issues that both the left and the right care deeply about: For the left, the Smart Car is a move towards reducing pollution and slowing global warming (which will not only be good for the environment but will also keep Al Gore from making any more movies). For the right, the Smart Car strikes a devastating blow to teen-sex, bolstering their abstinence agenda. You try having sex in the back seat of your parent's Smart Car -- even anorexic contortionist pygmies couldn't pull that one off. The one downside: large cars, as has often been suggested, are merely compensations for male penile inferiority complexes. Without large cars men will need to find another outlet for their feelings of inferiority. Unless a productive channel for these feelings can be found, we run the risk of another nuclear arms race beginning as the U.S. tries to make their missiles bigger than other nations'. One suggestion for a productive outlet for penile inferiority complexes:

-A nationwide initiative for every county in the U.S. to build the "biggest" of something as their county monument. The effort could be marketed as an attempt to raise local pride, community involvement, and boost the economy (you gotta buy a lot of rubberbands to make the biggest rubberband ball, and those rubberband company executives will quickly reinvest the profits into the gambling and porno industries, and through a trickle down effect we all reap the benefits). Competition would remain at the local level, rather than the international/military level (except in the states of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, where local militias may engage in inter-county warfare.) Some suggestions for the "biggest" monuments: the biggest ball of yarn. The biggest pile of those annoying free American Online CDs. The biggest pile of bull crap (what county is Washington D.C. in?). And the biggest inflatable yard Santa.

If such an initiative could be put into place then I believe everyone can jump on board with the Smart Car subsidies (except maybe the Mormons. You try fitting 18 kids and three wives into a Smart Car).

Any more ideas?

They preserved one of Zarqawi's testicles for Bush. Let's just say that his office isn't going to be the only oval shaped thing in the White House

2006-06-08T20:00:00.000-07:00

Unless you visit only Norwegian porno sites and this blog there's a good chance that you've heard the U.S. has successfully murdered al-Qaida leader al-Zarqawi. From the little bit of news coverage I've read this seems to be a cause of celebration for some. While I am definitely not an al-Zarqawi supporter, I wonder if this celebration is misplaced. First, is it ever a victory when the life of a human being, no matter how evil they may be, is taken? Rather than rejoicing that we finally "got him" shouldn't we be weeping for him? I'm not saying the U.S. wasn't justified in killing him (although capturing him and putting him on trial would have been preferable), I'm only saying that we should mourn the fact that a fellow human being "needed" to be murdered.

Second, is his death really a victory in the war on terror? The U.S. and anti-al-Qaida Iraqis weren't the only ones rejoicing. Zarqawi's comrades are also celebrating his death as a victory, but rather than seeing him as a villain the world has been rid of they have immortalized him as a martyr for their cause, a cause which they are even more committed to. Like Obi-Wan Kenobi, by being struck down Zarqawi will become "more powerful than you can possibly imagine." His memory will be an inspiration. Someone else will take Zarqawi's place, and the acts of terror will continue. This all reveals a fundamental error in our war on terror -- you cannot successfully beat terrorism by using the tools of terror, especially when the terrorists you are fighting are religious fundamentalists with strong martyr traditions. Military invasions, assasinations, increased border security -- at best these attack the symptoms of terrorism, and at worse they are themselves acts of terrorism and actually accelerate the agendas of their terrorist opponents. What we need to do is ask ourselves what economic, political, religious, and cultural factors contribute to the creation of a climate of terrorism, and what can we do to peacefully influence those factors? It may sound cliche, but as a Christian I believe that the ultimate answer is Jesus. Not the white-horse riding Muslim and queer hating Jesus that goes drinking with Bush on the weekends, but the Jesus of the Gospels, who advocated peace, love of enemy, reconciliation, social justice, inclusion, and non-resistance. I really believe that if THAT Gospel spread to the ends of the earth, instead of the American pseudo-Gospel that is really only the Republican party's slave (actually, it's probably the other way around), the world would be transformed. But, short of this idealism, there are many things that we can do to promote a world of pluralism, peace, and respect, and none of them involve invading Middle-Eastern countries. (I'm not categorically condemning military action, and I'm not saying Iraq is a black and white issue)

What are your thoughts? What are some practical things that can be done to attack the root causes of terrorism? For that matter, what are the root causes of terrorism?

Stadium names that crack me up

2006-06-08T00:25:00.000-07:00

These are all real names of staidums and other concert venues. Honest.

The Saddledome Calgary, AB

Gaylord Entertainment Center Nashville, TN

STAPLES Center Los Angeles

SaveMart Center Fresno, CA

Value City Arena Columbus OH

Mellon Arena Pittsburgh, PA

Shepherd's Bush London

And my personal favorite. . .

The Fargodome, Fargo ND

Wouldn't it be nice . . .

2006-06-07T16:58:00.000-07:00

Wouldn't it be nice if the Republicans had to propose a multi-billion dollar program to fight AIDS and world poverty in order to appeal to us evangelicals, rather than proposing an ammendement to the constitution that prohibits same-sex marriage? Wouldn't it be nice if our political priorities were driven by social justice, something about which the Bible (especially the prophets) has much to say, rather than homosexuality, something which receives virtually no attention in the scriptures?

We're coming around, slowly but surely.

TGFC - Thank God for Condoms!

2006-06-05T21:03:00.000-07:00

I mean this with all seriousness -- I believe that condoms are a gracious and merciful gift from God. (My apolgies to my Catholic readers). I was thinking recently about the tragedy of unwanted children, children who deserve the love and attention of their parents but who aren't getting it. Thinking about what kind of person that child might grow up to be, wondering if they'll be able to offer the love to their children that they never received. Thinking about what I can do to make sure that there is never another unloved kid in this world. And then something hit me, something that has been obvious to many people for many years but never really registered for me -- condoms! (and other forms of birth control too) While there are many people who plan to have their children yet don't nurture and love them, and there are many people who have "accidental" children and do an excellent job of raising them, it must be admitted that having unplanned children, particularly outside marriage, is generally not a good thing. It can cause terrible relational and economic stresses that can end up being bad not only for the parents, but more importantly for the kid. Using artificial brith control helps prevent this (duh).
So why do us conservative Protestants often have such negativity towards birth control and organizations that support its use? I think for many it comes down to the whole abstinence thing -- endorsing condom use for unmarried people is seen as endorsing sex outside of marriage. So we preach only abstinence, and spend a lot of effort telling everyone how completely ineffective artifical birth control is for preventing pregnancy and guarding against STDs (I've even seen this in comicbook form). There are serious problems with that. First, let's assume that abstinence until marriage really is God's ideal -- the great thing about God is that if we fail to meet his ideals he doesn't say "Oh well, I guess you're screwed" (double meaning unintended). God is a god of concessions, who continues to meet us where we are. So maybe two unwed teenagers getting it on in the back of a minivan (small cars are not only good for the environment, but effective birth control as well) isn't God's ideal -- does that mean that he's cool with them getting pregnant or contracting an STD? Is he so stubborn that he'd rather place his ideal above our safety? Some conservatives would have us think so, and I find that really sad.
We need to be realistic -- we're not going to be able to keep people from having sex outside of marriage. We can't even keep church kids who have had "I Kissed Dating Goodbye" read to them from the cradle from having sex, so what makes us think we can convince those who don't share our religious convictions to be abstinent?
I believe that conservative Christians need to take a two-pronged approach in their sexual education programs and agendas: they need to present both abstinence and safe sex. They aren't mutually exclusive. Abstinence is the only sure way to keep from getting pregnant (provided the woman isn't raped), but we also need to equip those who don't choose abstinence to practice sex as safely as possible.

A further thought . . . birth control means less unwanted pregnancies, and less unwanted pregnancies means less abortions, something that should make birth control very attractive to conservatives.

Music Library Acquisitions

2006-06-04T21:42:00.000-07:00

Some of my most recent iTunes downloads:

"Moon River" -- Audrey Hepburn

This "Breakfast at Tiffany's" classic always hits the spot. Not the hugest fan of the movie, but you can't help but be moved when Audrey sings this song in the film.

The Sea and the Rythm -- Iron and Wine

Mellow yet engaging. I'm hopelessy addicted to Iron and Wine.

Wie heisst du?

2006-06-04T06:53:00.000-07:00

Every day thousands and thousands of new parents have the privilege of naming their newborn child -- a privilege which most of them abuse by giving their son or daugther "regular" names. I'd like to see people get a little more adventurous in this department, and start naming their children something unique and/or significant. Even if they don't have the testicular fortitude to choose something fresh and risky for the first name they can at least do so with the middle name, which the child can easily conceal if s/he so chooses. The nice thing about giving your kid a weird middle name is that you can use it to embarass them if they ever piss you off. Some suggestions for names:

1) If you are going to choose something "normal" at least choose a name whose meaning you like, or a name from a family member or a friend

2) Try literary names, like Frodo, Samwise, Frankenstein, Rhett, etc.

3) Try names from TV shows or movies that will be archaic by time your kid is in Jr. High, like Mr. T, Cheetara, Ferris, Thumper, Simba, Lando, or Chewbaca. This will make your child really stand out at school, and we all know that kids who are different are less likely to get beat up.

4) Make the kid's initials mean something. Some examples: If your last name is Smith, you could name your daughter Arlene Sarah Smith, and your son Peter Isaac Smith. You can always do the double middle name too. So if your last name is Kohl, you could have a son named Jeff Elton-Ray Kohl, or a daughter named Dinah Irene-Carla Kohl. Of course the initials don't have to spell a cuss word, it could be anything that will allow your child's peers to easily ridicule him/her. For example, if your last name is Nelson, you could have Ferris Ulysses Nelson. Use your imagination.

Any more ideas?

Something I stumbled across

2006-06-02T19:07:00.000-07:00

http://www.virtuesproject.com/index.php

Interviewing the Bible

2006-06-01T16:23:00.000-07:00

Studying any text is like performing an interview -- there are many different kinds of questions you can ask, and different interview strategies you can use. And just like in an interview, the kinds of questions you ask a text are going to determine the kinds of answers you get. No set of questions is "right" or "wrong," it's just a matter of what kind of info you're looking for.
This is no less true for the Bible. There are many interpretive strategies we can profitably use when we read scripture, and the more strategies we use the fuller and richer our experience with the text becomes. Here are just a few examples of approaches we can take:

Historical
Literary
Sociological
Psychological
Political
Economic
Feminist
Theological
Devotional
Vegetarian

and on and on and on. Any academic discipline (sociology, literary studies) can and should apply its theories and models to the reading of scripture. Likewise, various ideologies can ask biblical texts questions that are relevant to them. As an ethical vegetarian I sometimes ask "what are the implications of this passage for issues related to animal rights?" That may sound crazy to some of you, but you all knowingly or unknowlingly ask similar questions of the text.

Anyways, refresh your reading of the Bible by trying out a new set of interview questions. If you're an evangelical Christian much of your reading of the Bible has probably been personal/devotional in nature -- the governing question you ask the text is: "how do these passages help me in my personal walk with God?" Be adventurous. Try reading one of your favorite Bible books straight through, focusing only on the political assumptions and implications of the text, or ask traditional literary questions (character development, plot, etc.). You'll see things in familiar texts that you never imagined were there. Read critically too . . . challenge the assumptions of the text, wrestle with them. Trust me, it's fun. The Bible is like a playground (just with less urine and more blood).

Would you like that manuscript medium-well?

2006-06-01T10:49:00.000-07:00

For any of you who are aroused by really really old texts, check out: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060601/ap_on_sc/greece_ancient_scroll

On a personal note

2006-05-31T07:09:00.000-07:00

I just made a really important life decision that I thought you all should know about. I just became a member of Oprah's Book Club.

Talking about PC on my PC -- Part 1

2006-05-30T18:05:00.001-07:00

Do people still talk about the whole political correctness issue? Or am I like 6 years behind the culture? Anyways, something got me thinking about it the other day, and I came to the realization that political correctness doesn't bother me that much . . . anymore. It used to infuriate me. This in turn got me wondering why exactly it is that I used to be, and so many continue to be opposed to this thing we call political correctness?

I think that political correctness can be broadly defined as written or unwritten rules that prescribe what is appropriate and inappropriate in the public discourse of any social group, and particularly those rules whose intention it is to avoid further marginalizing or discriminating against oppressed or minority populations. I'm not a poly sci guy, so that definition may suck, but it's what I'm going to work with. All I want to argue in this blog entry is that many of those who oppose political correctness are not opposing the basic concept (the idea of rules regarding what is appropriate in public discourse), but a particular set of rules that have become popular in our nation. Basically I'm saying that churches practice a form of politcal correctness. For example . . . let's say that your pastor said this one Sunday morning
(warning, offensive material follows):

"Jesus is there for you, no matter what kind of shit you may be wading through in life."

or this:

"You know, sometimes the Apostle Paul seems like kind of an ass."

or this:

"The Bible's got some o.k. stuff in it, especially in Song of Solomon, but most of it is pretty much a waste of time."

or (if you're still reading) this:

"The disciples totally went to the wrong tomb. The guy who rose from the dead was really Vern, a used camel dealer. Jesus was two doors down."

or this:

"Peter's failure to walk on water reminds me of a failure in my own life. You see, I had this really bad sexual experience with my wife last week . . ."

or this:

"You know that Jesus would have been a Democrat. Remember, he rode a DONKEY into Jerusalem."

or finally this:

"I wish those Palestinians would just drive the Jews into the sea."

My question for you is: will Pastor Blasphemous here still have a job come Monday morning? Will people sit through an entire sermon of that kind of stuff? Certainly not. Why? Because he has violated his social group's rules governing what is appropriate in public discourse. Some of those rules he broke include:
1) Thou shall not use swear words
2) Thou shall not criticize Jesus or Paul
3) Thou shall not share any personal stories involving your sex life, or any stories involving sex for that matter, unless it's about how Larry Loosepants has STDs because of his wickedness.
3) Thou shall not say anything that violates the doctrinal beliefs of the church (the Bible, resurrection, no panty Thursday, etc.)
4) Thou shall not say anything that violates the political ideologies of the church (the Democrat thing, anything against the modern state of Israel, etc.)
5) Thou shall not say anything that might make people laugh at themselves

And of course the church also shares in other rules of political correctness that are widely accepted in our society. So Pastor Blasphemous probably could not say something like:

1) You ever wonder if Jesus healed a retard? (followed by a horribly offensive impression of someone with cerebral palsy)

(If you were appalled by that last example I'm sorry, but I had to prove a point. If you think the idea of a pastor saying that is funny, well you're just a terrible human being)

You get the picture. There are things you just don't say in church. And the fact of the matter is, churches are far more controlling and oppressive in the enforcement of their rules of discourse than the "politically correct" crowd.

In part 2 I'll babble about some reasons why I think some are opposed to the form of political correctness popular in our culture.

My first ever audio blog entry! Completely Uncensored!

2006-05-30T06:44:00.000-07:00

Click here to hear my oh so sexy radio voice.

Baptizing Dead Jews

2006-05-29T23:57:00.000-07:00

As you probably already know, an important religious practice for Mormons is baptism for the dead. This is where a living person is baptized on the behalf of an unbaptized deceased person in an attempt to bolster their chances for entering heaven (Mormons actually believe in various levels of heaven, with there being the potential for some post-mortum mobility between levels if I recall). They base this practice on 1 Corinthians 15:29, where Paul says "Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?" Interestingly, 1 Cor. 15 is also used as support for their belief in various levels of heaven and hell, as they read Paul's comments on different kinds of bodies as references to places in the afterworld. Anyways, there has apparently been some tension between the Mormons and Jewish groups over Mormons performing baptisms on behalf of Jews who died during the Holocaust. (By the way, baptism for the dead is one of the reasons Mormons keep such a massive genealogical database . . . the more names of the dead, the more baptisms you can do). Apparently some Jews find this offensive. I can understand why, but you have to give the Mormons credit -- their heart is in the right place. If a Mormon wants to baptize themselves on my behalf they're more than welcome. I do wonder, however, about the wisdom of having a widely practiced ritual that requires water when you live in a desert state like Utah (should be more like the dessert state of Utah. Seriously, have you had their truffles? To die for. And then be post-mortum baptized for. mmmm . . . sacrilicious.)

CelebraCritters

2006-05-28T18:54:00.001-07:00

I don't know about you, but I'm pretty excited about what genetic engineering and all that jazz is going to produce within our lifetimes. Grapes the size of Jay Leno's head (there's more on that guy's neck that we can make fun of than his chin folks), super babies, people living to 110 without any wrinkles, what a wonderful future world. One possibility that I'm really enthralled with is what I like to call CelebraCritters (patent pending). Imagine . . . you get a catalog in the mail one cool summer day in 2027 (wait, forgot about global warming . . . one sweaty summer day). The first half of the catalog has pictures of various animals, both common and rare. The second half has nothing but pictures of various celebrities, living and dead. And there, on the last page, right underneath the color ad for timeshares on Mars is an order form. The deal is simple: for a low price of 2700 krona (by 2027 Iceland will be the unquestioned ruler of the world) you can have a lab in Milwaukee genetically engineer a creature that combines the DNA of an animal and a celebrity of your choice. Some popular selections:

Brad Spit (Angelina's boy toy meets the camel)

Will Ferret (SNL superstar meets weasely critter)

Barbara Walrus (this Barbara Walters combo is actually better looking than the original)

Simon Cow (American Idol judge who gets particularly cranky if he hasn't been milked by Paula recently)

What are some combinations that you would be interested in purchasing?

Jeremiah was a bull frog

2006-05-28T18:19:00.000-07:00

I've started reading through the book of Jeremiah, and got to thinking about the ways in which contemporary Christians can/should apply and contextualize prophetic interpretations of politics. It is clear in Jeremiah and the other prophetic writings that Yahweh both raises up and punishes nations. Conquests, deportations, and famines can at least some of the time find their ultimate causation in Yahweh. If we embrace this perspective on political events in our own day it can have far reaching effects, not only in the way we interpret what is going on around us politically, but also in the political actions we take.
Many Christians in America today sound like the Hebrew prophets – America was founded as a Christian nation by the providence and blessing of God; certain secular political and cultural agendas and institutions are threatening America’s faithfulness to God; the potential result is judgment by God; therefore Christians are called to political and social activism, to get America back on track with God. This thinking has had an enormous impact on American politics (ever heard of the "red" states). It has also led to some interesintg (troubling?) understandings of recent disasters. Some have attributed 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina to God’s judgment. Some have seen America as the whip being used to chastise Iraq.
While this thinking is in many respects "biblical", it is also very dangerous. If we are to embrace the prophets’ theologically driven understanding of political events then we must be open to the possibility that God will judge nations, and must do what we can to remain faithful to God. But the major question is: what does a faithful nation look like? What does God require of us? By what standard will we be judged? We must be very careful not to assume that people like Robertson and Falwell are right in their understandings of God’s standards. I would tentatively argue that God does not hold the United States, or any other contemporary nation to the same standards to which he held biblical Israel and Judah. As a theocracy established by Yahweh, Judah was held to a standard of religious fidelity – worship of other gods was a national failure that invited God’s judgment. America, however, is not a theocracy founded by God, and is not to be equated with biblical Israel. This is one of the fundamental flaws in the agendas of many of the politically active Christian right. They argue that America is, and always has been a Christian nation, and they like many Americans throughout our history see us as a new Israel. I strongly disagree. One illustration of my point: Thomas Jefferson, the father of the Declaration of Independence and the third president of the United States took scissors and literally cut out all of the miraculous stories (including the resurrection) from the New Testament. There are many historical and theological problems with the Christian right’s understanding of the nature and origins of our nation, not to mention all of the classic Anabaptist/Mennonite arguments for the separation of church and state (that's right, you can be a devoted Christian and still believe in the separation of religion and politics), but we will leave this issue for now.
Assuming that I am correct, and that we are not to understand America as a Christian nation or equate it with biblical Israel, by what standard are we then to judge ourselves? I would argue that we are not held (nor should we be) to a standard of religious fidelity. That is, God will not judge us based on whether or not we hang the Ten Commandments in courthouses or have prayer in public places. He will not judge us because we have no law against Buddhists and Muslims. I believe that we should identify ourselves with the other nations in the opening verses of Amos. In those passages we see prophetic judgments dealt out to several nations, including Judah. Judah is judged based on her lack of obedience to the Law, while the other nations are judged by more general ethical and human rights breeches. This should be the standard by which we judge ourselves as a nation. At the national level there should be little concern for the first greatest commandment, and great concern for the second greatest commandment. That means that many politically active conservative Christians need to change their agenda, and begin focusing more on human rights issues (ever hear of a nice little vacation spot named Guantanamo?). To their credit conservatives are becoming much more active in these areas. (A recent cover of Christianity Today read something like "Why Torture is Always Wrong.") And of course Christians have been active for some time addressing human rights issues related to abortion and genetics.
Anyways, I believe that our application of the prophetic literature should focus on the religious fidelity of church’s and individual believers. We should ask “will our church come under judgment?” rather than “Will our nation come under judgment?’ And when we do offer prophetic critiques on the national level they need to be devoted primarily to the promotion of human rights, with one such right being the freedom of religion.

Reasons why I'm a Christian #1

2006-05-28T03:44:00.000-07:00

So, I realized that a lot of my posts come close to Christian bashing. My goal of course isn't to ridicule Jesus or Christianity, but to criticize what I consider to be distortions of true faith (and I guess I'm arrogant enough to assume that I have any inkling of what true faith looks like). So, I thought it's probably about time to write some "positive" entries that give some of the reasons why, despite all of the problems I have with Christianity, I still consider myself a Christian.

Reason #1 -- Genesis 1

I'm not a creationist under the typical definition of the term. That is, I do not hold to an understanding of the origins of life and the universe that bases itself on a literal reading of the Genesis accounts and that precludes the possibility of evolution. I'm also not an evolutionist. I really don't have a strong conviction one way or the other. What I do have strong convictions about are the twin claims of Genesis 1 -- God created the world and everything in it (whatever way he did it), and he said it was good. While these beliefs are "traditional" they should still be seen as revolutionary by every new generation. Genesis 1 tells us that our existence is not an accident, but that we are here for a reason. Even more than that, it tells us that our existence, and the existence of the entire universe, is good (tov). This simple claim shouts "no way!" to the gnostic teachings that the physical world is an evil prison for the spirit, and similar quasi-gnostic trends in contemporary Christianity. God was the original critic and he gave his own work a vigorous two thumbs up. It is interesting that this positive appraisal of creation is placed at the beginning of the Bible, as if to say: "There's a lot of terrible stuff coming in this book, including a murder in only a couple pages, so I just wanted to make clear at the beginning that it's not my fault! I created this place good! Don't forget, no matter what happens from here on out, this world is good!"
Not only do I find these twin claims (creation, and the goodness of creation) very encouraging, I also find them very believable. Despite its many problems, this world remains an amazing, beautiful, and good place, and it is impossible for me to believe that such a place has come into existence on its own. There must be a creator behind it.

Harvested Politcal Humour

2006-05-27T07:30:00.000-07:00

"President Bush was hosting the Chinese president at the White House, President Hu. Or as I call them when they're together: President Hu and President Huh? ... It was actually a very controversial summit. Some think it's wrong to meet a dictator with a deplorable human rights record, but apparently President Hu was okay with it." --Bill Maher

"Bush said his brother, Jeb, would make a great president. That's all we need. Big Brother's little brother." --Bill Maher

"Condoleezza Rice brings an impressive resume to her new job. The granddaughter of a cotton farmer, the former provost of Stanford University, she is fluent in four languages, an accomplished classical pianist, and even an expert figure skater. Wow, it seems like the only thing she can't do is make peace with other nations." —Jon Stewart

"In a speech this week, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said America needs to work together to conserve oil. Then Arnold lit a cigar and drove over the crowd in his hummer." --Conan O'Brien

"The president of Mexico has arrived in the U.S., thanks to some nifty fence climbing. ... I thought this was encouraging. He offered to take President Bush's job for $3 an hour cash." --David Letterman

"This is what I don't get about this. They've got oil. Their citizens love the United States. Forget Iraq, we should have invaded Mexico." --Jay Leno

"This problem with illegal immigration is nothing new. In fact, the Indians had a special name for it. They called it 'white people.'" --Jay Leno

BTW, you can watch clips from the Daily Show (the only news source I trust) at: http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/videos/headlines/index.jhtml

Moulin Rouge

2006-05-25T16:30:00.000-07:00

If you've never seen Moulin Rouge, you should rent it sometime. I saw it for the first time recently and it has quickly become one of my favorites. Anyways, I thought I'd share one of the theme quotes from the film:

"The greatest thing you'll ever learn, is just to love and be loved in return"

In the context of the movie "love" is primarily romantic, but if we broaden the sense of the term then this brief statement becomes an incredible summary of our greatest task as Christians and as human beings. We are called, empowered, and given the right to reciprocally love both the divine and our fellow creatures -- nothing less than this will make us whole, and nothing more than this really matters. To live a life of reciprocal love is to be who we were meant to be as humans, and in a sense to be divine as we become imitators of and participants in the eternal, personal love that exists between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (for more read some Eastern Orthodox theologians).
This quotation is particularly significant to me as a student, since it is a reminder that of all of the things we can learn nothing is more valuable, and often more difficult than loving. Textbooks, papers, and lectures only have true siginificance if they enhance (no matter how indirectly) our ability to give and receive love.
Finally, the quotation draws our attention to something Christians often neglect -- that it is not only important for us to love, but to receive love, and learning how to receive love from God and from others is oftentimes more difficult than showing love.

Hello Dolly . . . the truth about cloning

2006-05-24T04:42:00.000-07:00

Every generation has it's major ethical crises. In the 40s it was the use of the atomic bomb. In the 60s it was Vietnam. In the 80s it was the question of whether or not it's really bestiality if you are attracted to Cheetara from "Thundercats." Today one of our many ethical issues is the question of cloning, and human cloning in particular. Cloning technology has been an explosive media topic that has captured the attention of not only professional ethicists and other nerds, but also the average moraless schlub (google.com recorded a record number of science-related searches from web users within the Midwestern U.S. after the news that Dolly had been cloned. The number swiftly dropped once Midwesterners realized it was a sheep, not the country singer). As expected, the religious right has weighed in heavily on this bioethical issue, condemning cloning as an attempt to "play God." But is this really what's motivating conservative leaders? I don't think so. After extensive research (pondering the issue as I read grafiti on the wall of a public restroom), I'm proposing that many key conservative religious leaders in America are actively condemning cloning technology not because of ethical and religious objections, but because they want to perfect the technology first. It's not about values at all, it's about the tortoise trying to slow down the hare. They realize that natural reproductive methods result in disturbingly high percentages of Democrats, women who like to think for themselves, and worst of all -- cartoonists who create homoerotic shows like Sponge-Bob. Through cloning technology they hope to refine the human race. In an astounding twist, recent seismic data for Colorado Springs, CO, (which has more conservative organizations than Seattle has Starbucks) has revealed that a gigantic building rests deep beneath the surface of the city. Leaks from former Focus on the Family leaders have confirmed that part of this secret subterranian structure houses an advanced genetic research center funded by a coalition of conservative Christian leaders, which has the primary purposes of 1) determining why Rush Limbaugh is so hideously ugly, and 2) cloning human beings. I'm sad to say that after multiple failed attempts, they've suceeded. Rush Limbaugh gets it from his Mother's side. But they've also made some progress on the whole cloning thing. The first generation of clones was born almost exactly three months ago, and while specific details have yet to be uncovered, it is certain that once the technology is perfected conservative organizations will begin mail-order-child programs, so that every American family can have a Patty Robertson or Jimmy Dobson Jr. of their own.
Future generations of luxury level clones will be made special order, allowing the parents to customize their child. Options will include:

1) Do you want your child to be a) Southern Baptist, or b) Southern Baptist?
2) If your child is a girl would you prefer her to be more proficicent in a) laundry and household chores, or b) submitting to her husband?
3) If your child is a boy would you prefer him to be more proficient in a) masculine sports (providing you with constant reassurance that your son isn't gay, or a sissy liberal), or b) making creative insults and jokes against liberals?

You get the idea.

What miniature conservative leader would you want and why? Can you think of any other luxury options to offer?

P.S. This blog-site in no way supports the unethical practices of cloning or raising children Southern Baptist, since both are potential human rights threats.

Slitting throats is okay, as long as everyone has their clothes on

2006-05-23T08:27:00.000-07:00

I believe that the things you watch can have an influence on you (a fact well supported by social-scientific research), and while I'm generally opposed to government enforced censorship I believe that parents and people in general have the right and responsibility to exercise personal censorship in what they choose to watch or let their children watch. Many Christians take this right quite seriously. What I don't understand, is the particular censorship choices some of them make. I have talked to many young people whose parents won't let them watch movies with sexual humor or scenes of sexuality beyond fully clothed making out, yet are allowed to watch violent R rated movies like Terminator, We Were Soldiers, etc. Does this make sense to anybody else? The message this sends is that physical violence is ok, but sex (even between people who are lovingly committed to each other) is not. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't we be more willing to appreciate a movie scene that celebrates human sexuality which is a creation of God, than a scene that celebrates violence, something that is fundamentally out of line with the teachings of Jesus?

The Van Gogh Code

2006-05-22T11:49:00.000-07:00

Recent history has shown us that one of the easiest ways to make money is to write a controversial book that challenges traditional religious ideas, especially those related to Jesus. Not only will curious, conspiracy minded persons buy your book, but every conservative devoted to "the truth" will buy it as well, in hopes of deconstructing your arguments. Financially, ya can't lose -- which is why I've decided to ride the da Vinci Code's coat tails (is that the right expression?) and write my own novel that communicates my (re)vision of the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth. I call it: The Van Gogh Code. I don't want to give everything away up front, but here's a basic sketch for anyone who's interested:

The traditional portrayals of Jesus as a teacher/miracle worker who is executed by the Jews/Romans because of his radical message is not quite accurate. Jesus of Nazareth was in fact one of the earliest, and perhaps the greatest circus leaders of all time. And when I say circus, I don't mean it metaphorically -- I mean he led an actual circus. Times were rough in the poor, Roman controlled, backwoods region of Galilee in the 1st century A.D. Many Jews chafed under the leash of Roman control, and a loss of faith/hope was rampant. Some spoke of military revolution ala the Maccabees, while others waited for direct intervention from God. During this dry period in the life of Israel a hairy and eccentric hermit named John came forth with a new idea, a way to avoid both hopeless submission and military revolt -- entertainment. Harnessing the miraculous power of comedy and showmanship John designed a water entertainment show on the Jordan river. By today's high standards (thanks a lot Seaworld) John's act was pretty rudimentary, but for 1st century Jews even the simplest of stunts performed on the smallest of rivers was live-giving (water skiiing behind a donkey was a pretty big deal). People flocked from miles around to witness the antics of this camel-hair wearing crazy man. His success at raising the spirits of the people raised opposition from the conservative religious establishment, who found him blasphemous, and the governing authorities, who found him dangerous. Eventually he would be executed for mocking Herod in a riverside stand-up routine but not before he inspired his cousin from Nazareth to follow in his footsteps . . .

To be continued

The Cruel State of Michigan

2006-05-16T14:34:00.000-07:00

So I'm hanging out in Ann Arbor, Michigan right now. When visiting a new city I judge it on a handful of very important criteria: Does it smell gross (a bad thing)? Does it have plenty of sidewalks and crosswalks (a good thing)? Does it have any cool playgrounds (a good thing)? Does it have a ton of Baptist churches (a bad thing . . . sorry Baptist readers ;) And last, but certainly not least, does it have good bookstores and a big library? Well, Ann Arbor smells alright, has a good amount of sidewalks, lots of playgrounds (although many of them are small), few Baptists in sight, I'm assuming it's good in the library department (it is a major university town), and judging from the visitor's guide it has tons of bookstores, several of which are used and discount stores (30-90% off!!!!). I thought it was Heaven -- until I started calling the bookstores (actually I had my lil' sister call them, because I hate the phone). Apparently there has been some kind of book depression, because every used/discount bookstore we called was unreachable or gone. One of them has been closed since February. Cruel, cruel Michigan, why have your tourism documents misled me in such a tormenting way?

The Imago Dei and the Face of the Other

2006-05-09T14:39:00.000-07:00

I came across this beautiful passage in 2 Enoch, an ancient Jewish apocalyptic writing:

"The Lord with his own two hands created mankind; in a facsimile of his own face, both small and great, the Lord created them. And whoever insults a person's face, insults the face of a king, and treats the face of the Lord with repugnance. He who treats with contempt the face of any person treats the face of the Lord with contempt. He who expresses anger to any person without provocation will reap anger in the great judgment. He who spits on any person's face, insultingly, will reap the same at the Lord's great judgment. Happy is the person who does not direct his heart with malice toward any person, but who helps the offended and the condemned, and lifts up those who have been crushed, and shows compassion on the needy."
2 Enoch 44:1-4

These words may not come from the Bible, but it doesn't get any more "biblical" than this. The author of 2 Enoch, like James 3:9 ("With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God's likeness"), recognizes that the idea that human beings have been made in the image of God has significant bearing on the way that we relate to each other. Our relationship with God becomes inseparable from our relationship to our fellow people, and it becomes impossible to follow the first greatest commandment (love God), without following the second (love your neighbor). The true barometer of our spirituality is our actions towards the face of the other, particularly those who suffer from all forms of oppression and marginalization. This simple truth, when practiced, prevents the corruption of religion and makes the life of faith something incredibly liberating. (If any of you have familiarity with the philosophical writings of Levinas I would love to hear your comments on how this passage relates to his thinking)
Test yourself. Think of an individual or a group that you have great dislike or hatred towards, and replace the "any person" in the passage above with that name.

Immigrants -- a Trojan Horse?

2006-05-02T07:02:00.000-07:00

I don't really watch the news a whole lot, but I was forced to find out what's going in the world yesterday when I realized there was (warning: a possibly offensive but only meant in good fun racial stereotype follows) no one clearing the dishes from my restaurant table, no one mowing the grass in the local subdivision, no one manning the counter at the local convenience store, and a significant decrease in alcohol related violence (and you thought I was going to single out Mexican immigrants -- take that Indian and Irish people . . .) Apparently there was a major immigrant strike yesterday, intended to bring awareness to how much the hardworking immigrant population contributes to our economy. From my horribly uninformed standpoint immigration issues are pretty complex (as are most issues involving human beings) and there is no simplistic goodguy/badguy solution. There is one thing I'm certain about though: there is no place for the inhumane, racist, xenophobic attitudes that some hardliners take in this debate (and certainly no place for stereotypical jokes . . . some people).
As anyone who has ever unknowingly gone out with a transvestite can attest to, sometimes it's prudent to look under the surface. The immigration crisis is no different. I believe that underlying the harder line conservative positions on this issue is, (surprise surprise) corporate America, and one corporation in particular: Trojan Condoms. Nearly every hard line congressman, news commentator, and local political idiot is in the pocket of Trojan. But why? Why this issue, why this company? For years Trojan executives have feared that the Mexican and Latin American immigrant population is a trojan horse, waiting to destroy them. Why? Because most Mexicans are Roman Catholic, and the Roman Catholic church remains strongly opposed to all forms of articificial birth control, including -- condoms. An increase in the Roman Catholic population is a threat to business, and so must be controlled at all costs. The current immigration crisis is just one of Trojan's many twisted initatives. The explosive Protestant missionary efforts in recent times in Latin America have been substantially, but indirectly funded by Trojan and a congolmeration of other birth control companies in an attempt to decrease the Catholic population. Some of the priest sex scandals in the Catholic church have also been the result of Trojan-related interference. The attempted assasination of the previous Pope -- Trojan. We are living through an intense, international battle between two institutions vying for world dominations -- the Catholic church, and the birth control industry. Which side do you want to be on?

Homophobia in Jamaica

2006-04-27T11:32:00.000-07:00

For an excellent yet very disturbing article on violence against homosexuals in Jamaica check out: http://www.guardian.co.uk/gayrights/story/0,,1762155,00.html?=rss

It's on the long side but it's worth reading. A couple of questions that came to my mind after reading it:

-In what ways has colonialism, both in its overt historical forms and in its more subtle modern forms (of course I'm not so sure you can call the invasion of Iraq "subtle") contributed to the violence and discrimination in places like Jamaica? As the article states, Jamaica's anti-sodomy laws initially came from colonial powers; we have to ask if colonial influence has played a significant role in influencing not only homophobic legislation, but also homophobic cultural "values"?

-In what ways are the scarring memories of colonialism in the national psyches of countries like Jamaica preventing positive intervention on human rights issues by international groups? The article demonstrates that human rights initiatives or pressures exerted on Jamaica by foreign influences are perceived as a form of colonialism and therefore conflict with Jamaican nationalist sentiments. Has the colonial history of the major western powers, along with the current actions of the U.S. in Iraq and other situations led to the resentment of "western" values like tolerance? In what ways does the globalisation of American entertainment (the article mentioned Will and Grace, for example) counteract, or intensify these attitudes?

-What is the difference between colonialism in its traditional forms, and attempts to ensure human rights in other nations? (Personally I think there is a big fundamental difference, but there still remains some startling similarities)

Anyways, let me know what y'all think.

55 Days Later

2006-04-25T10:40:00.000-07:00

So I sort of unintentionally began a bit of an online communication fast at the beginning of Lent, and have been well on my way to carrying it through to Pentecost. For those one or two of you who may still be periodically checking this blog for notices about my death or arrest, the fast is over. I'm hoping to send an update e-mail out to a bunch of you pretty soon.

By the way, congratulations to all of you who are graduating! And to those of you who still have some semesters to go . . . sucks to be you.
Don't forget that graduation is just one more ritual passage that brings us closer to death.

Ash Wednesday

2006-03-01T10:44:00.000-08:00

"Almighty and everlasting God, you hate nothing you have made and forgive the sins of all who are penitent: Create and make in us new and contrite hearts, that we, worthily lamenting our sins and acknowledging our wretchedness, may obtain of you, the God of all mercy, perfect remission and forgiveness; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen"

"Dear People of God: The first Christians observed with great devotion the days of our Lord's passion and resurrection, and it became the custom of the Church to prepare for them by a season of penitence and fasting. This season of Lent provided a time in which converts to th faith were prepared for Holy Baptism. It was also a time when those who, bcause of notorious sins, had been separated from the body of the faithful were reconciled by penitence and forgiveness, and restored to the fellowship of the Church. Thereby, the whole congregation was put in mind of the message of pardon and absolution set forth in the Gospel of our Savior, and of the need which all Christians continually have to renew their repentance and faith.

I invite you therefore, in the name of the Church, to the observance of a holy Lent, by self-examination and repentance; by prayer, fasting, and self-denial; and by reading and meditating on God's holy Word. And, to make a right beginning of repentance, and as a mark of our mortal nature, let us now kneel before the Lord, our maker and redeemer."

The Book of Common Prayer

Happy Fat Tuesday

2006-02-28T15:07:00.000-08:00

It's Fat Tuesday, which means tomorrrow is. . . you guessed it, Ash Wednesday! I hope your church has a service for the day, but if it doesn't find one that does (I'm going to the local Episcopal church). I also want to encourage you to join the many Christians around the world who are observing the season of Lent as a time of fasting, repentance, and reflection in preparation for Easter. I'm focusing my Lent fasting on repentance for the way we as evangelicals have betrayed the Gospel through our neglect for the poor and the marginalized, and I invite you to join me. You don't have to give up all food, maybe just try eliminating meat and sweets.
BTW, Ash Wednesday in the year 9999 will be on February 10th. http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/easter.html

Prayer for the Aged

2006-02-24T17:36:00.000-08:00

"Look with mercy, O God our Father, on all whose increasing
years bring them weakness, distress, or isolation. Provide for
them homes of dignity and peace; give them understanding
helpers, and the willingness to accept help; and, as their
strength diminishes, increase their faith and their assurance
of your love. This we ask in the name of Jesus Christ our
Lord. Amen."

The Book of Common Prayer

Liturgy Meets Club Music

2006-02-19T09:12:00.000-08:00

So my Ma is a youth worker, and she recently showed me this book she has called something like "The Book of Uncommon Prayer," which is a guide to doing liturgical and reflective worship for youth. The book is pretty cool, but the real gem is the CD that came with it. It's called "Eucharist" and comes from Jonny Baker, an emerging church pastor in the UK. The style is "ancient-postmodern" and comes out of the UK's growing alternative worship movement. Anyways, I've never heard worship music I've loved more in my entire life. It's really hard to find for sale on its own (so if you want to buy it you might have to get the youth book).
Jonny Baker apparently has an independent record company, and their website has some samples from various albums they've produced. Check them out at:

http://www.proost.co.uk/sampler.html

I HIGHLY recommend listening to "Justice" from the Backbone album.

Things that boggle/annoy me #2

2006-02-16T08:00:00.000-08:00

People that feel sorry for themselves on Valentine's Day. People who actually have a significant other and who blow a bunch of money on crappy Valentine's Day merchandise (or even worse, who blow a bunch of money on classy and expensive merchandise) are, in my estimation, losers. But those who don't have a significant other and sit around and mope about it are even more pathetic. The first group is letting the greeting card companies manipulate them financially, the second group is letting the greeting card companies manipulate them emotionally. Both groups need to stop being American culture's slaves and get lives. So you're single and nobody will ever love you. . . boo hoo hoo. Life is short, so get over it. Besides, the fact that you're not wasting money on some guy/girl allows you to buy more books.

Good words from John Collins

2006-02-16T07:56:00.000-08:00

Here is a really good excerpt from a commentary on the book of Daniel that I'm reading, which resonates with my personal understanding of and approach to the Bible (I've put things I consider particularly key in red):

"It should be obvious from the preceding pages that our objective in this volume is not to extract theological doctrines from these books. The bible cannot be viewed as an accumulation of revealed truths, each of which is permanently valid once it is manifested. Such a view results when we attempt to read the bible as if it were from God's point of view, without regard to the human circumstances which shaped its composition. There is simply no way in which human critics can profitably discuss the intentions of a divine author. We can however discuss the method and message of the human authors, and the differing perspectives of the individual books show the propriety and even necessity of taking this approach. Any theology which takes seriously the historical genesis of the biblical material must be inductive in character. Theology from this perspective is the human attempt to articulate the meaning and purpose of life, and is distinguished from other such attempts (e.g. literary or philosophical) by its reliance on specifically religious traditions for the data on which it reflects. The biblical books do not provide normative conclusions or definitive revelations. They provide samples of the religious tradition. They differ from modern systematic theology mainly in their mode of discourse: where theology usually involves philosophical reflection, the biblical books rely on narrative and poetic symbolism. But they too, like modern theological ventures, must be seen as human constructions which attempt to articulate the meaning and purpose of life. Their relevance to the modern age lies not so much in their conclusions, which were closely bound to the historical circumstances which evoked them, as in their method. They illustrate the ways in which the religious tradition can be used to illuminate the changing crises of history. This point is especially obvious in the later biblical books such as Daniel and Maccabees where there is considerable use and adaptation of the earlier biblical tradition. The fact that these books do not simply develop religious conceptions but seek to integrate them with the social and political realities of their day makes them all the more interesting for our purpose. Any theory of revelation or inspiration must fully accomodate the historical and social human factors in the genesis of these books."
-John Collins. Daniel, 1-2 Maccabees (Old Testament Message: a Biblical-Theological Commentary) pages 6-7.

Things that Boggle/Annoy Me #1

2006-02-14T08:28:00.000-08:00

People who have call blocking on their phones, so that your caller ID won't tell you who they are when they call you. I mean, caller ID I definitely understand. Answering machines I more than understand. But why would you want to conceal your identity when you call someone? If you're afraid they're going to see that it's you calling on their caller ID and not pick up then do you really want to talk to them? Not to put anyone down (well, maybe to put them down a little bit), what kind of pathetic loser is so intent on getting someone who is ignoring them to talk to them that they pay for a service that allows them to conceal their identity? Seriously, have some self respect.

Of All the Ridiculous Things. . .

2006-02-13T04:30:00.000-08:00

The blogger.com spell checker does not recognize the word "blog"? Does anyone else find that hilariously ridiculous?

"Your son is a witch" -- Will Ferrel

2006-02-13T04:22:00.000-08:00

So I've finally done it, I've read the first Harry Potter book. It only took me 9 years. While I do think the book is a bit overhyped (I mean, it is no Lord of the Rings), it is well worth reading. Some aspects of the book are definitely reminiscent of Roald Dahl's absurd and hilarious adventure stories (James and the Giant Peach, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory). Rowling has put very human, believable characters into magical and absurd situations, allowing the reader to feel as if s/he has entered a strange new world that is still strangely familiar. To me, that is the mark of a good fantasy writer. If you haven't read it, I recommend giving it a try.

(Warning: Some good-natured Bible bashing follows) Also, concerning all of the Christian hype over the evils of Harry Potter: I think they're a bit over the top. The book is about witches and wizards, but most of the magic in it is imaginative fun, mixed in with some typical stereotypes about witches (riding brooms, etc.). If some of Harry Potter's critics had their way we'd live a dull gray world where the only "fiction" is doctrinally sound evangelistic propaganda disguised as stories (it may sound harsh, but take a gander at the trash that Christian bookstores call fiction. Tolkien would turn over in his grave, then vomit up his own ribs, then remove his jaw from his decomposing head and try beating himself to death with it, before realizing in agony that he was already dead). Everything else would be destroyed in book burnings. That being said, Harry Potter is a risk for some readers. I can see how an impressionable kid could easily become interested in witchcraft because of the book. S/he could start reading other witchcraft fiction that is much darker. But, in all honesty, I worry less about what a Harry Potter reader might do than about what a Bible reader (or a Qur'an reader) might do. To me the Bible is much more frightening, and much more dangerous to our children and society than Harry Potter. I hope to illustrate this in my upcoming blog series: "Bible Passages that Scare the Hell Out of Me." (I might tone down the title a little bit)

Found Lottery Ticket

2006-02-13T03:55:00.000-08:00

I found my winning ticket! It was inside a book I bought the same day I bought the ticket. Now I just need to redeem it. And for some reason some voice inside me keeps saying, "send half of it to Seth or you will suffer greatly."

Final Exams

2006-02-10T04:15:00.000-08:00

I just got an e-mail from TWU saying the final exam schedule is now up. Well guess what, I don't have any final exams! Eat that!
Let's see, on Friday April 21st at 6:00 PM in RNT 125 a group of suckers are going to be taking a GEOG 102 final exam (be sure to be able to label all the ocean floor stuff). Hmm, where will I be. . . sitting on my butt NOT taking a final exam!
On Saturday, April 22nd at 6:00 PM in RNT 127 a bunch of keeners are going to be taking a Japanese final, while I sit at home. Konichiwa biatches!
And let's not forget Tuesday the 18th at 9:00 a.m., when a whole bunch of lab coat wearing egg heads are going to be taking an Organic Chemistry final. Try using your scientific black magic to conjure your way out of that one.

Puppies!

2006-02-10T04:03:00.000-08:00

So by putting this picture up I guess I've turned into one of those dumbasses who make webpages where they talk about their hobbies and their pets. Before long I'll be putting up some dumb little 3d animations. I've become everything I hate.
But anyways, these are our new puppies, Will (the brown lab) and Hope (the black lab). By brother's labs had a litter, and these two were born blind. They were going to put them down but we adopted them instead. They're pretty cute when they're not eating their own poop or trying to eat my books. We're HOPing to adopt out Hope to a good home (get the word play, clever eh?), but so far everyone we've tried to give her to has turned us down. If we end up having to keep her that'll bring us up to 5 dogs, so my plan would be to start a dogsled team (if we ever get any freaking snow).

I won the lottery!

2006-02-09T05:24:00.000-08:00

. . . but it was only a scratch ticket, and I only won $5, and the ticket cost $5, and I still haven't redeemed the ticket, in fact I think I lost the ticket, so really I shouldn't be celebrating.

Pilgrim Theology

2006-02-03T11:15:00.000-08:00

http://www.trueu.org/Academics/LectureHall/A000000303.cfm

"What if theology is a process rather than an answer? As Christians, are we seekers of truth or custodians of truth? Michael Bauman's article will challenge what you 'know' to be 'true.'"

Check out this article and let me know what you think.

Matt Damon or Rosie O'Donnell

2006-02-03T08:43:00.000-08:00

If someone wanted to make a movie based on your life, what actor would you want to play you?

A Different Kind of Drug Dog

2006-02-02T05:43:00.000-08:00

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060202/ap_on_re_us/puppy_drug_smugglers

Apparently Colombian drug smugglers have smuggled millions of dollars worth of heroin into New York, using puppies! They surgically implanted liquid heroin into the poor creatures. The drug trade is no longer a human affair, it has now gone to the dogs. Drug sniffing dogs versus drug smuggling dogs. Who will win? (You have to wonder, when a drug sniffing dog smells a drug smuggling dog's butt, can he/she detect the heroin?) The sad part of the story is that some of the puppies died from infection. The Colombian police adopted three surviving dogs, one of which will be used as a drug sniffing dog (a canine born-again story).

By the way, you meat eaters out there don't have the right to be appalled by this story, because you are responsible for even worse animal cruelty when you support the livestock industry. Watch the "Meet your Meat" video with Alec Baldwin at peta.com

Hypothetical Situation #1

2006-02-01T09:00:00.000-08:00

In order to be well prepared for whatever curve balls life will throw at you it is necessary to carefully think through every possible situation you may encounter, and plan out your response. Then, when something crazy happens you won't be forced to think on the spot, because you'll already know what to do.

So, you're hanging out with your best friend when s/he turns into a zombie. Fortunately a nearby police officer manages to shoot his zombie antidote dart into your best friend's neck. Unfortunately the antidote takes about 25 seconds to kick in, so your friend murders the cop and starts stumbling murderously towards an innocent bystander, who is frozen from the shock of the whole situation. You know that the bystander will be murdered mere seconds before the antidote kicks in. Do you 1) Grab the cop's gun and shoot your zombie friend, killing him/her and saving the bystander? (merely wounding your friend isn't an option, because s/he is a super zombie who can only be stopped with a kill shot) or 2) Let the bystander get killed, giving your friend time to snap out of his/her zombie state?

It could happen. Will you be prepared?

Still Waiting for the Dawn

2006-02-01T05:46:00.000-08:00

"Take these shoes
Click clacking down some dead end street
Take these shoes
And make them fit
Take this shirt
Polyester white trash made in nowhere
Take this shirt
And make it clean, clean
Take this soul
Stranded in some skin and bones
Take this soul
And make it sing

Yahweh, Yahweh
Always pain before a child is born
Yahweh, Yahweh
Still I’m waiting for the dawn

Take these hands
Teach them what to carry
Take these hands
Don’t make a fist
Take this mouth
So quick to criticise
Take this mouth
Give it a kiss

Yahweh, Yahweh
Always pain before a child is born
Yahewh, Yahweh
Still I’m waiting for the dawn

Still waiting for the dawn, the sun is coming up
The sun is coming up on the ocean
This love is like a drop in the ocean
This love is like a drop in the ocean

Yahweh, Yahweh
Always pain before a child is born
Yahweh, tell me now
Why the dark before the dawn?

Take this city
A city should be shining on a hill
Take this city
If it be your will
What no man can own, no man can take
Take this heart
Take this heart
Take this heart
And make it break"

-"Yahweh," U2

Like many of U2's other songs, "Yahweh" expresses a hopeful yet unfulfilled longing with a social activist flavor that I find much more authentic and satisfying than most contemporary Christian music I hear. Their words resonate with many of us Christians who prefer to be called "seekers" rather than "believers." Those of us who feel equally uncomfortable living in either the consuming darkness of meaninglessness and cynicism, or in the manufactured daylight of the "happy clappy" religious who have all of the answers. Those who live in the cusp between the darkness and the dawn.

A Personal Salsa Revolution

2006-01-31T07:44:00.000-08:00

For those of you who like to make your own fresh salsa (I know you do Jason) I have to share this:
Add some Jolly Green Giant canned super sweet corn! Seriously, it's amazing. For most of my life I've never known that corn could be a participant in the tasty vegetable orgy we call salsa, but a couple weeks ago I had some corn salsa from an apple orchard (if you're reading this Seth, it was Edward's orchard) and it changed my snack life. I've successfully made a couple batches of my own now. It's not as good as the stuff from the orchard, but I like it. If you want to make it even better, add some Paul Newman's oil and vinegar dressing (or if you're into straight vinegar, try that).

Man with Blind Diaspora Father Seeks Angelic Assistance in Finding a Relative to Marry

2006-01-31T05:39:00.000-08:00

The literature produced by Jews in the centuries immediately preceding the coming of Christianity is a treasure trove. One work that I find particularly interesting is the tale of Tobit, a Jewish writing that can be found in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Old Testaments. The book of Tobit is an ancient Jewish novella that contains drama, adventure, humor, angels in disguise, a gravedigger, near-suicide, magic fish, a bride cursed by a groom-slaying demon, healings, and romance. I highly reccommend reading it. The Revised Standard Version translation of it can be found at: http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/RsvTobi.html You can probably find some sites with it in the NAB (not NASB) version too. I like the NRSV, so if you can find one of those then go for it. Here are some basic thoughts/interpretations of the book of Tobit:

The story takes place in the 8th century B.C. when the Northern tribes of Israel had gone into exile under the Assyrians. It follows the sorrows and joys of a faithful Israelite family that has been exiled to Nineveh. While the story is set in this time, the book itself was likely written centuries later, sometime after the conquests of Alexander the Great (300s B.C.). It is a work of historical fiction.

If we are to make ancient literature relevant for us today, we must first understand the ways in which it was relevant in its own time. The story of Tobit was relevant because it was a great story (I mean, who doesn't love a story for its own sake?), but also because it resonated with the situation of many Jews in the Greco-Roman era in which it was written. In this period the majority of the Jewish people were living outside the land of Israel in Diaspora, scattered abroad in places as distant as Babylon, Rome, and Egypt. Jewish religious identity, cultural identity, and national identity were intertwined, so living as minorities in foreign lands created a challenge for them. How do we live as faithful Jews outside the promised land? Books like Tobit, Daniel, and Esther that tell the story of how Jews lived faithfully while in foreign exiles of the past (under the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Persians) would provide encouragement and models of living for Jews in Diaspora. Books like these continue to make themselves relevant to religious communities that find themselves in contexts where they feel like minorities. The book of Tobit emphasizes, among other acts of piety, proper worship at the Jerusalem Temple, acts of charity towards ones kinsmen, proper family relationships, and marriage within the kinship group.

One of the interesting aspects of Tobit is its similarity to Homer's Odyssey. Not all scholars are convinced that there is a relationship, and for those that are convinced there is debate as to whether or not the author(s) of Tobit had actually read/heard the Odyssey or was influenced by it more indirectly. Regardless, there are remarkable similarities between the character Telemachus and Tobit's son Tobias. In short, they both take a journey for the sake of their father, and receive divine help in disguise (in the Odyssey it is the grey-eyed goddess Athena, in Tobit it is the angel Raphael disguised as a mortal). It might sound coincidental, but when you read the two together you find more detailed points of contact. This illustrates that Judaism (and Christianity) was influenced by Hellenism.

Tobit is also interesting because its plot, language, and themes are very clearly influenced by earlier biblical literature. Tobit as the suffering righetous man reflects the story of Job. The romance reflects the story of Isaac's search for a bride. The interchange between Sarah and her maid in Tobit reflects the antagonism between Sarah and Hagar in Genesis. One of the central themes in the book is marrying within the same kinship group and religion. This theme is found in places throughout the Old Testament, and becomes particularly important during and after the Babylonian exile. In Ezra, for example, the Jews are forced to divorce their foreign wives. The practice of endogamy (marrying within your same social class, whether it be economic, religious, racial, etc.) is a means of preservation (and sometimes oppression), and became an important way for Jews to preserve their ethnic and religious heritage in Diaspora. Conservative Christians today have inherited the practice of religious endogamy, since they generally refuse to marry people of other faiths, often citing Paul's warning about being "unequally yoked" in 1 Corinthians. Anyways, if you haven't read Tobit I highly recommend it. It's entertaining, thought provoking, and edifying.

A Prayer from a 4th Century Syrian Christian

2006-01-29T12:56:00.000-08:00

Whom have we, Lord, like you --
The Great One who became small, the Wakeful who slept,
The Pure One who was baptized, the Living One who died,
The King who abased himself to ensure honour for all.
Blessed is your honour!

It is right that man should acknowledge your divinity,
It is right for heavenly beings to worship your humanity.
The heavenly beings were amazed to see how small you became,
And earthly ones to see how exalted.
-St. Ephrem the Syrian

A Quaker Proverb

2006-01-27T09:23:00.000-08:00

"It is better to light a candle then to curse the darkness"

An Udderly Amazing Discovery

2006-01-26T06:56:00.000-08:00

I live in Wisconsin, as we speak (or I guess as you read. . . well maybe not, because I'm writing at like 6:51 in the morning when cows are actually being milked, you might be reading this at 10:20 at night when I think all of the farmers are sleeping and the milking machines are shut down. Then again, maybe you're not reading this at all. . . which would mean I can tell you I'm typing without any pants on) gazillions of cows are being milked . . . most of our baked goods use milk . . . people put it on their cereal . . .how did milk become so important? Who was the first person to drink milk from a cow (or a goat)? Think about it, at some point in human history someone had the bright idea to put their mouth on some cow's udder (hey, maybe the discovery happened before humans invented cups) and drank, and thought "hey, this ain't bad." Based on extensive analysis of all of the relevant archaeological data I've constructed the following possiblilities:

1) A Mesopotamian toddler/preschooler woke up in the night hungry (remember, in other cultures children will sometimes breastfeed until they're 4 or 5 years old . . . little Johnny wouldn't be bringing Teddy Grahams for snack time at Kindergarten), and started crawling in search of his Mother's milk. He got disoriented in the dark, and mistook the family cow for his mother. The cow's milk tasted so much better than his mother's that he would only nurse from the cow from then on. Other kids found out and began demanding only cow's milk (remember, we're talking preschool kids here). Because it tasted so good the mothers were never able to wean their children off of it, and they continued to drink throughout adulthood, eventually passing the tradition on to their descendants.

2) An ancient fraternity at Assyrian University (ASS U) was playing one of those dumb drinking games and ran out of alcohol. They didn't want to stop playing, and with their booze impaired judgment they decided to use the milk from Saucy Sennacherib, ASS U's cow mascot. They liked the taste, and the drinking game known as "Chugging the Cow" or "Binging the Bovine" (don't worry, the Assyrians used cups) quickly caught on in fraternities throughout the ancient world. Before long everybody was doing it.

However it happened, at some point someone tried cow's milk and goat's milk and liked it. Perhaps there are more mammals out there with delicious nurtritious milk? Is there anyone brave and adventurous enough in our day to try bear's milk, or racoon's milk? (Hmmm, does the platypus have milk?)

Let me know if you can think of some more historical reconstructions, or if you were brave enough to try another kind of milk.

More Reverend Fun

2006-01-24T17:20:00.000-08:00

Felt like I should mix up all of this religious oppression talk with a totally unrelated cartoon . . .

(In case you missed the reference. . . "Devil in a Blue Dress" is a song. . .)

The Conversion of St. Paul

2006-01-24T15:52:00.000-08:00

So I got my Book of Common Prayer from Amazon.com the other day. It's pretty amazing. It 's like an ecclesiastical version of Batman's utility belt. Need to celebrate the Eucharist? Need the Easter liturgy? A Psalm? A prayer for social justice, a sick friend, the nation, or a birthday? Need to marry somebody? Bury somebody? Heal somebody? Baptize somebody? Confirm somebody? Ordain a priest, a deacon, or a bishop? Need to know which day Easter will begin in the year 2087? It's all there, and a whole lot more. I highly recommend getting a copy. (By the way, in 2087 Easter will be celebrated on April 20th)
Anyways, I was perusing the list of Holy Days in the BCP and apparently tomorrow (Wednesday the 25th of January) is the holy day celebrating the conversion of St. Paul the Apostle. Here is the collect for that day:

"O God, by the preaching of your apostle Paul you have caused the light of the Gospel to shine throughout the world: Grant, we pray, that we, having his wonderful conversion in remembrance, may show ourselves thankful to you by following his holy teaching; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen."

The conversion of Paul is definitely a moment to remember and reflect upon, for Christians and non-Christians alike. The ministry and writings that grew out of that conversion have had an effect on the Christian faith and Western culture that should not be underestimated. Some historians consider Christianity to have really begun with Paul. 13 letters in the New Testament bear his name. The book of Acts is largely concerned with his ministry. His writings are the source of central Christian doctrines and have been the battleground for some of the greatest theological disputes in Christian history (the doctrine of salvation by grace, and predestination are two major examples). Christianity would have been very different if we did not have Paul. His legacy is a double-edged sword though. His writings have been the source of great encouragement and enlightenment, and have compelled many to love God and their neighbors. At the same time his letters have been a tool of oppression. Nearly all of the major biblical passages that have been used (and continue to be used) to justify patriarchal family and church life come from letters with Paul's name attached to them. When I used to be a "complementarian" (someone who believes men and women are equal in value and standing before God but have different, God ordained roles in church and family life) I drew my inspiration from Paul's words, particularly those in I Corinthians 11 and I Timothy 2. It is passages like these that keep my own denomination, The Evangelical Free Church of America from ordaining women. (Even if the complementarians are right, they have to admit that these passages have been used to abuse and oppress women in ways that they would never condone) Paul's letters and women have had a rocky history, but the interesting thing is that Paul is also an important source for the arguments of Christian feminists. Paul's frequent positive references to particular women in his letters (some of them leaders of house churches, one of them potentially an Apostle) and his beautiful statement about there being no male or female, slave or free, Jew or Greek in Galatians 3 have led to liberation. We see a similar situation with slavery, where Paul has been used by both sides. A key issue in our day that Paul is a major player in is homosexuality. Paul's words, particularly in Romans 1, are the bedrock of Christian condemnations of homosexuality (more on this in another entry). Whatever your position on homosexuality, Paul's words have been a contributor to discrimination and hatred towards homosexuals (they were biblical food that fed my former homophobia). More than this, Paul's words have caused great internal anguish for an untold number of Christians who have homosexual orientation.
I'm not necessarily criticising Paul . . . maybe it's all the fault of people interpreting (or misinterpreting) his writings. Or maybe traditional interpretations of Paul are right, and we need to shutup and obey God's Word. Regardless, his words have shaped our world, and the conversion that began it all is worth reflecting on.

(If you feel I've been a little harsh on Paul feel free to say a nice thing or two about him . . .)