Americans spend $2.4 trillion a year on health care. The Business Roundtable report says Americans in 2006 spent $1,928 per capita on health care, at least two-and-a-half times more per person than any other advanced country.This is what has needed to happen. Business leaders, mostly conservative, are being killed by health care costs. When they say "enough is enough" there is hope for change.In a different twist, the report took those costs and factored benefits into the equation.
It compares statistics on life expectancy, death rates and even cholesterol readings and blood pressures. The health measures are factored together with costs into a 100-point "value" scale. That hasn't been done before, the authors said.
The results are not encouraging.
The United States is 23 points behind five leading economic competitors: Canada, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom and France. The five nations cover all their citizens, and though their systems differ, in each country the government plays a much larger role than in the U.S.
The cost-benefit disparity is even wider — 46 points — when the U.S. is compared with emerging competitors: China, Brazil and India.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
The Truth About our Health care
For years progressives have been talking about America's awful health care system. But the constant reply from conservatives was "we have the best health care in the world." It was never true. Finally, everyone is now on the same page: our health care system is terribly expensive compared to the rest of the world and we are not more healthy because of it. We get this from the Business Roundtable:
Bad Hymns
Ben Myers picks makes the valid point that there aren't very many really good hymns. From any generation. The "good" hymns are the ones we remember singing as we were growing up in church. Those are the ones we will be requesting when we are old and the nursing home chaplain asks us what we want to sing today. (And what will the busters and gen-Xers want to sing when it comes their turn, I wonder.) But the theology of most of those hymns is awful.
But what made me laugh was this paragraph by Myers about progressive Christian music:
But what made me laugh was this paragraph by Myers about progressive Christian music:
Furthermore, it’s worth noting that our more progressive contemporary churches have actually invented a brand new way of writing bad hymns: these are the hymns that sound not so much like worship as the recitation of an official policy document. All the fashionable leftist causes are celebrated and affirmed with solemn sincerity; everything is carefully included, so that the entire song unfolds with all the humourless deliberation of a meeting of the committee of management. As I said, there are several kinds of bad hymns; but these ones are probably the worst of all (even though it is a genuine achievement to have invented an entirely new way of writing badly).We sing those songs at Open Circle and it is so true, for some of them.
A Death Remembered
Some 10 years ago I was at Southview Elementary School where my son Ryan was a fifth-grader. I was there for the school spelling bee competition. Ryan was in the final rounds. After misspelling himself out of the competition he walked over and sat on my lap, which was very nice. But he was only there for a few minutes when he began stealing glances at a young girl sitting on the floor nearby. He soon got down from my lap and sat next to her on the floor, and they held hands. What a transition. It was one of those memorable moments when you realize your child isn't really a child anymore.
That girl was Jordan Wilson. Her mom Jennifer died yesterday from colon cancer. She was only 42. Prayers for the family.
That girl was Jordan Wilson. Her mom Jennifer died yesterday from colon cancer. She was only 42. Prayers for the family.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
More Diverse and More Secular
That's the finding of a new survey on religious participation in the country. The American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) shows a continuing decline in religious affiliation with mainline Protestant and Catholic churches and a significant increase in the number of Americans who are opting out of religion all-together. Among the findings:
Among those who are active participants at OC there is what I would call a continuing left-ward drift on the religious spectrum. Most who come to OC are coming in from more traditional or more conservative churches. Church is still important to them but they want to be in a church where scripture isn't read literally, where other religions are respected, and where "spirituality" is more important than "religion." Perhaps most importantly, many of these folks have young children. They want their children to have a religious upbringing and they want it to be in a more liberal environment.
But as their children grow and move on to college they continue their left-ward spiritual drift. (To say this is not to say that they are spiritually adrift, but that the direction of their spiritual exploration, which they take seriously, is left-ward.) Some stay connected to church but experiment with alternative spiritualities: wicca, men's spirituality groups, new age, Buddhism, etc. A few drift further left into Unitarianism, but stay within the organized religion circle. Some drift out of church altogether and join the ranks of the formerly religious.
This is the niche market of a church like ours. We are "capturing" those, many with children, who have left behind traditional and denominational and Christian identities and are moving left-ward on the religious spectrum. It is a challenging and interesting place to be.
So many Americans claim no religion at all (15%, up from 8% in 1990), that this category now outranks every other major U.S. religious group except Catholics and Baptists. In a nation that has long been mostly Christian, "the challenge to Christianity … does not come from other religions but from a rejection of all forms of organized religion," the report concludes.In many ways here at Open Circle we are living on the front-lines of this phenomenon. There is very little denominational loyalty. We have a handful of folks who maintain strong denominational ties but the majority are post-denominational. They support the progressive vision of our congregation and are largely uninterested in what is happening in our denomination, or any other denomination.
Baptists, 15.8% of those surveyed, are down from 19.3% in 1990. Mainline Protestant denominations, once socially dominant, have seen sharp declines: The percentage of Methodists, for example, dropped from 8% to 5%.
The percentage of those who choose a generic label, calling themselves simply Christian, Protestant, non-denominational, evangelical or "born again," was 14.2%, about the same as in 1990.
Meanwhile, nearly 2.8 million people now identify with dozens of new religious movements, calling themselves Wiccan, pagan or "Spiritualist," which the survey does not define.
Among those who are active participants at OC there is what I would call a continuing left-ward drift on the religious spectrum. Most who come to OC are coming in from more traditional or more conservative churches. Church is still important to them but they want to be in a church where scripture isn't read literally, where other religions are respected, and where "spirituality" is more important than "religion." Perhaps most importantly, many of these folks have young children. They want their children to have a religious upbringing and they want it to be in a more liberal environment.
But as their children grow and move on to college they continue their left-ward spiritual drift. (To say this is not to say that they are spiritually adrift, but that the direction of their spiritual exploration, which they take seriously, is left-ward.) Some stay connected to church but experiment with alternative spiritualities: wicca, men's spirituality groups, new age, Buddhism, etc. A few drift further left into Unitarianism, but stay within the organized religion circle. Some drift out of church altogether and join the ranks of the formerly religious.
This is the niche market of a church like ours. We are "capturing" those, many with children, who have left behind traditional and denominational and Christian identities and are moving left-ward on the religious spectrum. It is a challenging and interesting place to be.
Friday, March 06, 2009
The Worst Buddhist in the World
New York Times columnist and blogger Judith Warner hits the nail on the head yet again in her column today.
I too talk in exclaimation points and I seek a community of friends who will talk to me mindfully--and honestly--about their feelings and emotions! Judy, thank you for being there when I need you!
Being and Mindfulness
The other night at a dinner party, a friend described how she tried to practice mindfulness meditation to keep herself from losing it during an utterly wretched seven-hour layover in an airport while she was exhausted, ill and desperate to get home to her children.
“I kept trying to be all ‘Be Here Now,’” she said, “but I just wanted to be anywhere but here.”
We all laughed.
Then she described how, on another day, she’d managed not to bite off the head of a woman who’d been gratuitously mean to her 8-year-old daughter, but instead had stayed in the moment and had connected and been able to join with the woman in an experience of their common, sadly limited, humanity.
At which point, full of congratulations (and suppressing my own story of having lost my temper with a woman in an airport bathroom who, I felt, had addressed my daughter Julia with an unforgivable tone of officiousness and disdain), I was beginning to wonder what body snatcher had taken my cranky friend away and left this kindly, calm, pod person in her place.
Where was the woman I always seek out at school events to laugh with? Where was the black humor, the sense of absurdity?
I felt strangely abandoned.
It was, I realized, my first experience of being on the receiving end of someone sharing their journey on the road to mindfulness, the meditation and life practice that’s all the rage now in psychotherapy, women’s magazines, even business journals, as a way to stay calm, manage anger and live sanely. (David Foster Wallace, too, was writing a novel all about “being in the moment and paying attention to the things that matter,” this week’s New Yorker revealed.)
In the past, I’d been only on the other side of the divide. I had, it was true, sensed a certain sadness, even feelings of betrayal, in my husband Max’s reaction to my proselytizing about my Pema Chödrön “Getting Unstuck” CD: “I never thought that you, of all people, would get into that New Age stuff,” he’d said wistfully. But I hadn’t realized that, when a person gets unstuck, the people around her can feel a bit left behind.
It has dawned on me lately, meditating on the Metro, thoughts silenced so completely that I can hear every page being turned by passengers up and down the car (I am above reading — I am present to myself) that being fully in the moment, all senses turned on, feeling your hands in your lap and the ground under your feet, is a very good way of not being there at all.
For me, this is a big part of the charm of the whole thing. I mean, it’s a lot easier to feel a loving connection to others — to the madding crowd, that is — when you’re entirely checked out. But it’s not supposed to be that way.
Mindfulness is supposed to bring people together. By embracing your essential humanness, getting in touch with and accepting your body, sensations, emotions and thoughts, you are supposed to join with, and empathetically connect to, all humanity.
“It helps to realize we are not alone,” the psychologist Mary Pipher writes in her new book, “Seeking Peace: Chronicles of the Worst Buddhist in the World,” an account of how mindfulness meditation helped her recover from the depression and self-depletion that followed the surprise success of her huge 1994 hit, “Reviving Ophelia” and subsequent bestsellers. “One thing I like to do is send my silent good wishes to people all over the world who have problems exactly like my own. Contexts may change, but emotions are universal.”
I have no doubt that this meta-connectedness feels real, and indeed is real, in the abstract at least. But in real-life encounters, I’ve come lately to wonder whether meaningful bonds are well forged by the extreme solipsism that mindfulness practice often turns out to be.
For one thing, there’s the seemingly unavoidable problem that people who are embarked on this particular “journey of self-exploration,” as Pipher has called it, tend to want to talk, or write, about it. A lot. But what they don’t realize — because they’re so in the moment, caught in the wonder and fascination and totality of their self-experience — is that their stories are like dream sequences in movies, or college students’ journal entries, or the excited accounts your children bring you of absolutely hilarious moments in cartoons — you really do have to be the one who’s been there to tolerate it.
For the truth is, however admirable mindfulness may be, however much peace, grounding, stability and self-acceptance it can bring, as an experience to be shared, it’s stultifyingly boring.
I’ve also come to wonder if something desirably human is being lost in all this new and improved selfhood. That is to say: an edge. That little bit of raggedness that for some of us is really the heart of what makes us human.
Shave that piece off, soften it too mindfully, and I wonder if we don’t leave others out in the cold.
I saw this very clearly the other day, in a chance email exchange with my friend D.
She had written me to share some anxieties about the recession. They were very real and very pressing, and in the past, I would have responded with very pertinent examples of how things were much worse for me.
This time, however, tapping into great human reserves of calm and centeredness, I tried instead to lead her into staying with her feelings.
“Hang in there. Things will be O.K.,” I wrote.
D., my oldest friend, has not in the past been shy about implying that there’s something inward-looking and self-indulgent about my professed attempts at being-present-in-the-world. Now she wrote back in outrage, “What did you do with the real Judy? Did you just tell me to hang in there, things will be O.K????”
“It is comforting to me when people say things like that, sorry. SORRY!” I screamed back. “There, is that O.K.?”
And it was O.K. The connection — 43 years of happy shouting — was restored.
Some of us experience our emotions always in capital letters and exclamation points. This isn’t always pleasant but, to go all mindful for a moment, it is what it is, and if you are one of these people then probably one of the great pleasures of your life is finding others like you and settling in with them for a good rant. A world devoid of such souls can be cold and forbidding, and above all terribly, terribly dull.
It is selfish, undoubtedly, to want to hold onto the ragged edges that make me feel genuinely connected, not perhaps to humanity, but to the people I love. But then, the fact is, I can probably beat Mary Pipher hands down at being the worst Buddhist in the world.
Truth is, I just don’t want to let go.
I too talk in exclaimation points and I seek a community of friends who will talk to me mindfully--and honestly--about their feelings and emotions! Judy, thank you for being there when I need you!
Being and Mindfulness
The other night at a dinner party, a friend described how she tried to practice mindfulness meditation to keep herself from losing it during an utterly wretched seven-hour layover in an airport while she was exhausted, ill and desperate to get home to her children.
“I kept trying to be all ‘Be Here Now,’” she said, “but I just wanted to be anywhere but here.”
We all laughed.
Then she described how, on another day, she’d managed not to bite off the head of a woman who’d been gratuitously mean to her 8-year-old daughter, but instead had stayed in the moment and had connected and been able to join with the woman in an experience of their common, sadly limited, humanity.
At which point, full of congratulations (and suppressing my own story of having lost my temper with a woman in an airport bathroom who, I felt, had addressed my daughter Julia with an unforgivable tone of officiousness and disdain), I was beginning to wonder what body snatcher had taken my cranky friend away and left this kindly, calm, pod person in her place.
Where was the woman I always seek out at school events to laugh with? Where was the black humor, the sense of absurdity?
I felt strangely abandoned.
It was, I realized, my first experience of being on the receiving end of someone sharing their journey on the road to mindfulness, the meditation and life practice that’s all the rage now in psychotherapy, women’s magazines, even business journals, as a way to stay calm, manage anger and live sanely. (David Foster Wallace, too, was writing a novel all about “being in the moment and paying attention to the things that matter,” this week’s New Yorker revealed.)
In the past, I’d been only on the other side of the divide. I had, it was true, sensed a certain sadness, even feelings of betrayal, in my husband Max’s reaction to my proselytizing about my Pema Chödrön “Getting Unstuck” CD: “I never thought that you, of all people, would get into that New Age stuff,” he’d said wistfully. But I hadn’t realized that, when a person gets unstuck, the people around her can feel a bit left behind.
It has dawned on me lately, meditating on the Metro, thoughts silenced so completely that I can hear every page being turned by passengers up and down the car (I am above reading — I am present to myself) that being fully in the moment, all senses turned on, feeling your hands in your lap and the ground under your feet, is a very good way of not being there at all.
For me, this is a big part of the charm of the whole thing. I mean, it’s a lot easier to feel a loving connection to others — to the madding crowd, that is — when you’re entirely checked out. But it’s not supposed to be that way.
Mindfulness is supposed to bring people together. By embracing your essential humanness, getting in touch with and accepting your body, sensations, emotions and thoughts, you are supposed to join with, and empathetically connect to, all humanity.
“It helps to realize we are not alone,” the psychologist Mary Pipher writes in her new book, “Seeking Peace: Chronicles of the Worst Buddhist in the World,” an account of how mindfulness meditation helped her recover from the depression and self-depletion that followed the surprise success of her huge 1994 hit, “Reviving Ophelia” and subsequent bestsellers. “One thing I like to do is send my silent good wishes to people all over the world who have problems exactly like my own. Contexts may change, but emotions are universal.”
I have no doubt that this meta-connectedness feels real, and indeed is real, in the abstract at least. But in real-life encounters, I’ve come lately to wonder whether meaningful bonds are well forged by the extreme solipsism that mindfulness practice often turns out to be.
For one thing, there’s the seemingly unavoidable problem that people who are embarked on this particular “journey of self-exploration,” as Pipher has called it, tend to want to talk, or write, about it. A lot. But what they don’t realize — because they’re so in the moment, caught in the wonder and fascination and totality of their self-experience — is that their stories are like dream sequences in movies, or college students’ journal entries, or the excited accounts your children bring you of absolutely hilarious moments in cartoons — you really do have to be the one who’s been there to tolerate it.
For the truth is, however admirable mindfulness may be, however much peace, grounding, stability and self-acceptance it can bring, as an experience to be shared, it’s stultifyingly boring.
I’ve also come to wonder if something desirably human is being lost in all this new and improved selfhood. That is to say: an edge. That little bit of raggedness that for some of us is really the heart of what makes us human.
Shave that piece off, soften it too mindfully, and I wonder if we don’t leave others out in the cold.
I saw this very clearly the other day, in a chance email exchange with my friend D.
She had written me to share some anxieties about the recession. They were very real and very pressing, and in the past, I would have responded with very pertinent examples of how things were much worse for me.
This time, however, tapping into great human reserves of calm and centeredness, I tried instead to lead her into staying with her feelings.
“Hang in there. Things will be O.K.,” I wrote.
D., my oldest friend, has not in the past been shy about implying that there’s something inward-looking and self-indulgent about my professed attempts at being-present-in-the-world. Now she wrote back in outrage, “What did you do with the real Judy? Did you just tell me to hang in there, things will be O.K????”
“It is comforting to me when people say things like that, sorry. SORRY!” I screamed back. “There, is that O.K.?”
And it was O.K. The connection — 43 years of happy shouting — was restored.
Some of us experience our emotions always in capital letters and exclamation points. This isn’t always pleasant but, to go all mindful for a moment, it is what it is, and if you are one of these people then probably one of the great pleasures of your life is finding others like you and settling in with them for a good rant. A world devoid of such souls can be cold and forbidding, and above all terribly, terribly dull.
It is selfish, undoubtedly, to want to hold onto the ragged edges that make me feel genuinely connected, not perhaps to humanity, but to the people I love. But then, the fact is, I can probably beat Mary Pipher hands down at being the worst Buddhist in the world.
Truth is, I just don’t want to let go.
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Stock markets seem to not be sold on Obama
That's the headline up right now on MSNBC. I just tuned into the national news on ABC and listened to Charlie Gibson say essentially the same thing: Wall Street isn't reacting well to Obama. CNN has been all over this as well. Interestingly, I just watched Jon Stewart on The Daily Show and he talked about this too (it isn't up on the web yet). But here's my question: why is it that it is only on the comedy show that we actually get some perspective about this story? Stewart actually showed graphs with the stock market reaction to the policies of Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan; the markets tanked. Conversely, when the Titanic sank the market took off. Stewart's point being that gauging the success or failure of a President by the stock market isn't very helpful. But again: why is it that I only get this perspective from a comedy show? Stewart did the same thing last night with Rick Santelli and CNBC and their ranting about the homeowner bailout. Santelli has had nothing to say about the hundreds of billions being shoveled into the financial sector, where he makes his living, but makes a public spectacle when a small portion of that money is going to help homeowners. Stewart's piece was great, but it was great because it was funny and very informative. Unlike CNN, CNBC, or ABC.
The stock market is tanking because the ponzi scheme being run by our country's financial sector is finally being fully exposed. The market is actually reacting correctly to the financial truth about AIG and Citicorp and GM, among others. They are worthless and there is no hiding it anymore. They may be too big to fail and we may have to bail them out, but their management and boards of directors and investors should not be bailed out. The market can see this coming too. It's their pals and it's them and it isn't going to be pretty.
The stock market is tanking because the ponzi scheme being run by our country's financial sector is finally being fully exposed. The market is actually reacting correctly to the financial truth about AIG and Citicorp and GM, among others. They are worthless and there is no hiding it anymore. They may be too big to fail and we may have to bail them out, but their management and boards of directors and investors should not be bailed out. The market can see this coming too. It's their pals and it's them and it isn't going to be pretty.
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Are You a Christian Hipster?
According to Brett McCracken:
I'm sorta hip. I don't like Hauerwas and Willimon anymore. Never did like Wright. I don't love the Pope and I'd rather have a good cigar than a pipe.Things they like:
Christian hipsters like music, movies, and books that are well-respected by their respective artistic communities—Christian or not. They love books like Resident Aliens by Stanley Hauerwas and Will Willimon, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger by Ron Sider, God’s Politics by Jim Wallis, and The Imitation of Christ by Thomas a Kempis. They tend to be fans of any number of the following authors: Flannery O’Connor, Walker Percy, Wendell Berry, Thomas Merton, John Howard Yoder, Walter Brueggemann, N.T. Wright, Brennan Manning, Eugene Peterson, Anne Lamott, C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, Henri Nouwen, Soren Kierkegaard, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Annie Dillard, Marilynne Robison, Chuck Klosterman, David Sedaris, or anything ancient and/or philosophically important.Christian hipsters love thinking and acting Catholic, even if they are thoroughly Protestant. They love the Pope, liturgy, incense, lectio divina, Lent, and timeless phrases like “Thanks be to God” or “Peace of Christ be with you.” They enjoy Eastern Orthodox churches and mysterious iconography, and they love the elaborate cathedrals of Europe (even if they are too museum-like for hipster tastes). Christian hipsters also love taking communion with real Port, and they don’t mind common cups. They love poetry readings, worshipping with candles, and smoking pipes while talking about God. Some of them like smoking a lot of different things.
Deep Economy
My newsletter post this week:
I wouldn't wish this recession with its job losses and suffering on anyone. There is nothing good about it. I have heard a few pastoral colleagues essentially welcoming it because it brings people into the church. But it is a weak and insecure church that welcomes suffering because it fills the pews. We want people to have jobs and homes and healthcare.
Here we are, though. The economy is contracting and everyone, rich and poor, is being affected. President Obama has recently talked about the need to "reset" diplomatic relations with a variety of countries. Perhaps it is also time to revisit our values and reset our priorities.
Recently I have been reading a book called Deep Economy: The Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future by Bill McKibben. McKibben addresses what he calls the "single-minded focus on increasing wealth" that has "driven the planet's ecological systems to the brink of failure, without making us happier."
How we got to this point is pretty obvious, he says:
But we never slowed down. Everything kept getting bigger and bigger: our homes, cars, meals, our pile of toys, and our environmental footprint. We supersized everything. And we long ago passed the point where making more and having more could make us more happy. We know, too, that there is no way the mothership Earth can take the rest of the world living the way we have lived.
Now we are being forced to slow down. As I said at the beginning it isn't "good for us." People are suffering; they don't know how they are going to feed their families. We want the economy to recover and soon.
But as we recover we have an opportunity here to make choices about how we live our lives and where and how much we spend our money. Community, friendship, spiritual well-being don't take much money but they do take time and effort that can actually bring us happiness. Building a sustainable world with a healthy environment, making the world more just and peaceful take both time and money. But it is time and money well-spent. We don't want "no" economic growth. We want smart, sustainable, and slower economic growth that lifts all boats and takes care of the planet.
Over the next year you are going to be hearing much more about sustainability at the church. We are going to be studying sustainability in adult ed, actually working to make our own piece of land on Highland Drive more sustainable (and beautiful), hearing me and some guest speakers talk about it. It is a teachable moment. I hope and trust we will all use it well.
I wouldn't wish this recession with its job losses and suffering on anyone. There is nothing good about it. I have heard a few pastoral colleagues essentially welcoming it because it brings people into the church. But it is a weak and insecure church that welcomes suffering because it fills the pews. We want people to have jobs and homes and healthcare.
Here we are, though. The economy is contracting and everyone, rich and poor, is being affected. President Obama has recently talked about the need to "reset" diplomatic relations with a variety of countries. Perhaps it is also time to revisit our values and reset our priorities.
Recently I have been reading a book called Deep Economy: The Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future by Bill McKibben. McKibben addresses what he calls the "single-minded focus on increasing wealth" that has "driven the planet's ecological systems to the brink of failure, without making us happier."
How we got to this point is pretty obvious, he says:
We kept doing something past the point where it worked. Since happiness has increased with income in the past, we assumed it would do so in the future. We make these kinds of mistakes regularly: two beers make me feel good, so ten beers will make me feel five times better. But this case was particularly extreme and easy to understand, because human beings have spent so much of their history trying to satisfy basic needs... Consider, say, America in 1820, two generations after Adam Smith. The average American earned, in current dollars, less than $1,500, which is somewhere near the current African average. As the economist Deirdre McCloskey explains, "Your great-great-great grandmother had one dress for church and one for the week, if she were not in rags. Her children did not attend school, and probably could not read. She and her husband worked eighty hours a week for a diet of bread and milk-they were four inches shorter than you." Even in 1900, the average American lived in a house the size of today's typical garage. Is it any wonder, then, that we built up a considerable velocity trying to escape the gravitational pull of that kind of poverty?But then, thanks to the genius of the free market wedded with the wonders of technology, we suddenly blew past a way of life that had marked our ancestors' lot for centuries. Good riddance. Life was better. People were happier. We don't want to go back to those days.
But we never slowed down. Everything kept getting bigger and bigger: our homes, cars, meals, our pile of toys, and our environmental footprint. We supersized everything. And we long ago passed the point where making more and having more could make us more happy. We know, too, that there is no way the mothership Earth can take the rest of the world living the way we have lived.
Now we are being forced to slow down. As I said at the beginning it isn't "good for us." People are suffering; they don't know how they are going to feed their families. We want the economy to recover and soon.
But as we recover we have an opportunity here to make choices about how we live our lives and where and how much we spend our money. Community, friendship, spiritual well-being don't take much money but they do take time and effort that can actually bring us happiness. Building a sustainable world with a healthy environment, making the world more just and peaceful take both time and money. But it is time and money well-spent. We don't want "no" economic growth. We want smart, sustainable, and slower economic growth that lifts all boats and takes care of the planet.
Over the next year you are going to be hearing much more about sustainability at the church. We are going to be studying sustainability in adult ed, actually working to make our own piece of land on Highland Drive more sustainable (and beautiful), hearing me and some guest speakers talk about it. It is a teachable moment. I hope and trust we will all use it well.
Obama's Going to Kill the Church
Over at the Christianity Today blog I see that some conservatives are worried that Obama's big government plans are going to be bad news for the church:
Not surprisingly, the historical and sociological record suggests that when the state addresses most of the physical and financial needs of people, or when individuals are wealthy enough to care for those needs entirely on their own, that people are less likely to turn to God, their local church, charities, or their families for help, direction, and consolation.
This is why in some important respects the Church is healthier in Nairobi than it is in New York, or in Lagos than it is Los Angeles. In these African cities, the Church—and faith—is more likely to take, by force of necessity, a wholistic approach to ministering to the human person. In stable, affluent societies the Church is often reduced to a therapeutic role in people’s lives. Any my worry is that a successful Obama revolution would only deepen that pattern in the United States, and reduce the size and vitality of the Christian faith in the process.
What is being suggested here is that the church needs a little (or a lot of) suffering in order to thrive. While it is certainly true that the church (or mosque) does well in parts of the world where human suffering is greater, and it does better in this country when the economy tanks, it is a weak and insecure church that depends on and perhaps quietly welcomes trouble so the pews will be filled.
Jesus said "blessed are the poor." He did not say blessed is poverty. I imagine that Jesus would endorse whatever system best alleviates poverty and human suffering. When there was no welfare state churches stepped into the void and cared for widows and orphans, created hospitals, and fed the poor. But today there is a welfare state and it has the potential to feed, protect, and care for our physical needs in a manner far more efficient than churches. We should welcome a robust state that sees it as an essential part of its mission to take the rough edges off of capitalism and make sure that no one lives in poverty, everyone has adequate healthcare.
If the church needs suffering to thrive, then the church deserves to die. Ditto for the notion that without fear of eternal punishment there will be no one left in the pews. There is plenty of heart, mind, and spirit left to speak to without relying on suffering, fear, or guilt.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Organ Donation Myths
A friend and member of Liberalchurch found out quite recently that he must go to organ transplant training at the Mayo Clinic. He has disease that is causing his kidneys to fail and at some point, he will need to begin dialysis and get onto the transplant list. I have another friend since preschool days who is a successful kidney transplant recipient. The donor of his new kidney was someone he knew and was found during a local organ donation drive. As you may or may not know, some organs can be donated while you are still living, while others are "harvested" after you are dead. Either way, donating an organ sustains the life of another.
I'm looking into what is required to accomplish an organ donation drive through publicity efforts by LiberalChurch. While doing this research, I came upon this informative article from The Mayo Clinic which busts 10 Common Myths of making an organ donation. In the case of making a kidney donation, please pay particular attention to Myth #8!
I'm looking into what is required to accomplish an organ donation drive through publicity efforts by LiberalChurch. While doing this research, I came upon this informative article from The Mayo Clinic which busts 10 Common Myths of making an organ donation. In the case of making a kidney donation, please pay particular attention to Myth #8!
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Gender and Religion
I can't say this Pew survey is much of a surprise. Women are more religious than men. I think the most interesting thing is the difference between those women and men who believe in "God or a universal spirit" and those who believe in a "personal God." Only about half the respondents of either sex have "absolutely certain belief" in a personal God.
Let it Snow
It's pelting it down this afternoon. The goldfinches, redpolls, and the female cardinal are barely visible a few feet away.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Indulgences Are Back
I see the Catholic Church is back in the business of issuing indulgences:
Like the Latin Mass and meatless Fridays, the indulgence was one of the traditions decoupled from mainstream Catholic practice in the 1960s by the Second Vatican Council, the gathering of bishops that set a new tone of simplicity and informality for the church. Its revival has been viewed as part of a conservative resurgence that has brought some quiet changes and some highly controversial ones, like Pope Benedict XVI’s recent decision to lift the excommunications of four schismatic bishops who reject the council’s reforms...Purgatory? You can get one for someone who is dead? Personally, if I thought my dead relative was "stuck" I'd rather get help from Melinda Gordon.
There are partial indulgences, which reduce purgatorial time by a certain number of days or years, and plenary indulgences, which eliminate all of it, until another sin is committed. You can get one for yourself, or for someone who is dead. You cannot buy one — the church outlawed the sale of indulgences in 1567 — but charitable contributions, combined with other acts, can help you earn one. There is a limit of one plenary indulgence per sinner per day.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Making it at Wal-Mart
Aubretia Edick is 58 and works in the pharmacy department of a Wal-Mart in Hudson, New York. Edick's starting pay was $6.40 in 2001; today it is $10.50. With inflation factored in, her wages have basically remained stagnant. She is among several profiled in a Mother Jones story America on $195 a Week. It's not just about Wal-Mart but since the big-box retailer is the largest in America, it features prominently in the story:
In essence, the nation's biggest employers of unskilled labor often leave workers having to feed from the public trough. In 2004, a year in which Wal-Mart reported $9.1 billion in profits, the retailer's California employees collected $86 million in public assistance, according to researchers at the University of California-Berkeley. Other studies have revealed widespread use of publicly funded health care by Wal-Mart employees in numerous states. In 2004, Democratic staffers of the House education and workforce committee calculated that each 200-employee Wal-Mart store costs taxpayers an average of more than $400,000 a year, based on entitlements ranging from energy-assistance grants to Medicaid to food stamps to WIC—the federal program that provides food to low-income women with children.When Obama unveils his proposals for healthcare reform and universal coverage, I sure hope Wal-Mart is a big public supporter. We are already subsidizing their business big-time.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
I Like Bacon
But I don't know if I could do this:
RiffTrax boss Michael J. Nelson is about to prove forever the health benefits of cured pork products. Or, he should be preparing his will.We had an Eggs Benedict and Canadian bacon brunch this Sunday.The former Mystery Science Theater 3000 writer and performer has pledged to eat only bacon throughout February.
A long-time fan of salt and nitrates, the RiffTrax head writer chose the unique regimen because "several doubters on the RiffTrax staff had the unmitigated gall to insult bacon by making the outrageous claim that, as good as it is, no one could eat very much of it and live."
To avoid dehydration, Nelson will allow non-bacon fluids such as beer, wine, martinis and water. Along the way, Nelson's blog will feature bacon-related updates and possible estimates on heart attack dates and times.
Under the terms of a no-lose bet with RiffTrax co-star Bill Corbett, if Nelson should survive the month, he will receive a prize of five pounds of bacon. If he should not survive, Nelson gets a cremation that smells like your house at brunch time on Sunday morning.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Friday with Samson and Sadie
Sunbathing, with Sadie attempting to get comfortable in a bread basket.
ELCA on Gay Clergy
This seems like a sensible solution:
This is the way the COB ought to go.An ELCA task force admitted Thursday that it could not reach a consensus on the issue that has polarized its members for years. But with the matter expected to dominate this summer's national convention in Minneapolis, its position paper offers this suggested solution:
The ELCA will allow the ordination of gay pastors but will leave it up to individual congregations and synods whether to ordain or appoint pastors. The term used to describe this compromise is "structured flexibility."
While acknowledging that such an intentionally vague policy probably won't play well with "the bumper sticker crowd," the bishop of the St. Paul Area Synod, the Rev. Peter Rogness, said it reflects the ELCA's practice of trying to match ministers to congregations. He compared it to a rural congregation feeling that it would rather call a minister with a rural background, for instance.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
The Irrelevancy of Mainline Churches, Continued
Drew was kind enough to continue the conversation about the "irrelevancy of mainline churches" on his blog in this post. Here is my reply:
Drew,
Thanks for your reply. First, a word about language. I prefer and use the language of transformation, not salvation. If I substitute that word I can agree that "we all need it, the nation needs it, the world needs it." The church, in my view is in the business of transforming people and structures.
Now, a question: a self-professed pagan joins my church and over the course of a number of years experiences profound personal and social transformation. But she never becomes a "Christian." Is Christ behind this transformation? Am I failing in my duty as a Christian pastor to present the essence of the Christ event?
I get a little edgy with the notion that the world would fall to pieces but for the grace of God. Sounds too much like a world dangling by a spider's thread over the fiery furnace. I think the church is unique because it invites transformation and discipleship of people and is clear to say that this is why we are here.
As far as attracting people, if we believe Christ offers something significant and that the world needs transformation, then I fail to see the problem with talking about ways to reach those people.
I would argue that the US is becoming both more pluralistic religiously and more secular. Perhaps secular isn't the best word, maybe profane, I don't know. But my point would be that even Christians live in a mostly non-enchanted, non-magical, world. We live most of our day as if we believe that God does not exist. Our worldview is largely secular.
I agree wholeheartedly with your last paragraph.
Drew,
Thanks for your reply. First, a word about language. I prefer and use the language of transformation, not salvation. If I substitute that word I can agree that "we all need it, the nation needs it, the world needs it." The church, in my view is in the business of transforming people and structures.
Now, a question: a self-professed pagan joins my church and over the course of a number of years experiences profound personal and social transformation. But she never becomes a "Christian." Is Christ behind this transformation? Am I failing in my duty as a Christian pastor to present the essence of the Christ event?
I get a little edgy with the notion that the world would fall to pieces but for the grace of God. Sounds too much like a world dangling by a spider's thread over the fiery furnace. I think the church is unique because it invites transformation and discipleship of people and is clear to say that this is why we are here.
As far as attracting people, if we believe Christ offers something significant and that the world needs transformation, then I fail to see the problem with talking about ways to reach those people.
I would argue that the US is becoming both more pluralistic religiously and more secular. Perhaps secular isn't the best word, maybe profane, I don't know. But my point would be that even Christians live in a mostly non-enchanted, non-magical, world. We live most of our day as if we believe that God does not exist. Our worldview is largely secular.
I agree wholeheartedly with your last paragraph.
McCants Gone
The Timberwolves just traded Rashad McCants to Sacramento as part of a four player deal. McCants was a first-round pick in 2005 and turned out to be a huge disappointment. He was a fantastic shooter but played no defense and had a terrible work ethic.
McCants has "Born to Be Hated" tattooed on one arm and "Dying to Be Loved," on the other. At least he knows he has a problem.
Calvin Booth was also part of the Wolves trade. Booth is the only Penn State grad currently in the NBA.
McCants has "Born to Be Hated" tattooed on one arm and "Dying to Be Loved," on the other. At least he knows he has a problem.
Calvin Booth was also part of the Wolves trade. Booth is the only Penn State grad currently in the NBA.
If Governors Reject Stimulus Money
Some Republican governors are making noise about not taking stimulus money:
Though none has outright rejected the money available for education, health care and infrastructure, the governors of Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alaska, South Carolina and Idaho have all questioned whether the $787 billion bill signed into law this week will even help the economy.In the end they will take it because their states are hurting too. But wouldn't it be interesting to have a few states take no money and see how they fare compared to those states who take the money. No money for road construction; no extended unemployment benefits. Then we'd have some sort of measuring stick for how much good the stimulus is doing.
I'm a Social Democrat
Sheri Berman has a great article in Dissent Magazine on the history of leftist movement in response to capitalism. The very short synopsis: Marx thought capitalism served an important purpose in bringing to an end a feudal economic system. But he also thought it was a transitional phase on the way to communism. Lenin decided to help the transition along by using force. The rest of the left recoiled at the violence of communism but was split about whether capitalism still needed to die (democratic socialists) or whether capitalism was a good economic system but needed the state to protect its citizens against the worst excesses of Laissez-faire economics (social democrats) as championed by classic liberalism or modern American conservatism.
I think the evidence is clear that capitalism is unmatched in its ability to lift people out of poverty. It is equally clear, though, that the unchecked invisible hand of the market leads to vast inequality of wealth and power. Conservatives don't care of course; it's survival of the fittest or the will of God for them. I do care. I think in a global economy the state needs to be big and powerful and that it needs to use its muscle to police for the cheaters (and aren't they being forced out of the woodwork right now) and to provide a strong social safety network so that basic needs are taken care of for all citizens. This means that those who have succeeded or been fortunate (by birth) under capitalism need to pay a larger share of taxes to level the playing field. How much is always the big political question. You don't want to stifle the entrepreneurial spirit but you also don't want create a social situation that is so intolerable for the poor that they either give up or rise up in rebellion.
For awhile now in America the invisible hand has been allowed to move without adequate regulation or redistribution and inequality and cheating has been growing. The result is the mess we are in now. Hopefully we will seize this moment of crisis and reintroduce some needed regulations and take care of some serious problems, like our woeful healthcare system. We need some form of universal healthcare.
But we also don't want to go the xenophobic Lou Dobbs route of closing the borders to immigration and buying only American. We want the best and brightest to want to come to America. We want the tired and the poor to have a chance to make it here. We also want the Indians and the Chinese to buy our goods and sell theirs here. We want to lift all boats.
Capitalism can make this happen. With the power of the state to soften its hard edges.
I think the evidence is clear that capitalism is unmatched in its ability to lift people out of poverty. It is equally clear, though, that the unchecked invisible hand of the market leads to vast inequality of wealth and power. Conservatives don't care of course; it's survival of the fittest or the will of God for them. I do care. I think in a global economy the state needs to be big and powerful and that it needs to use its muscle to police for the cheaters (and aren't they being forced out of the woodwork right now) and to provide a strong social safety network so that basic needs are taken care of for all citizens. This means that those who have succeeded or been fortunate (by birth) under capitalism need to pay a larger share of taxes to level the playing field. How much is always the big political question. You don't want to stifle the entrepreneurial spirit but you also don't want create a social situation that is so intolerable for the poor that they either give up or rise up in rebellion.
For awhile now in America the invisible hand has been allowed to move without adequate regulation or redistribution and inequality and cheating has been growing. The result is the mess we are in now. Hopefully we will seize this moment of crisis and reintroduce some needed regulations and take care of some serious problems, like our woeful healthcare system. We need some form of universal healthcare.
But we also don't want to go the xenophobic Lou Dobbs route of closing the borders to immigration and buying only American. We want the best and brightest to want to come to America. We want the tired and the poor to have a chance to make it here. We also want the Indians and the Chinese to buy our goods and sell theirs here. We want to lift all boats.
Capitalism can make this happen. With the power of the state to soften its hard edges.
The Irrelevancy of Mainline Christianity: A Response
Drew Tatusko (with apologies for the original misspelling) has a post on his blog entitled: The Irrelevancy of Mainline Christianity. I find myself agreeing with the title but not with the content of his post. It is no secret that mainline Christianity has been in a decades-long state of decline. In my own small denomination, the Church of the Brethren, we have lost nearly 36,000 members in the last two decades, going from 161,824 members in 1,044 congregations in 1986 to 125,964 members in 1006 congregations in 2007. At our denomination headquarters we are going through another restructuring, a sure sign of a lack of both funds and purpose. What is happening to us is happening to other mainline churches. Mainline denominations are still floundering and declining.
Drew notes that conservative churches have a much better rate of retention than mainline churches. In part this is because they tend to have more babies. In part, and I think this is the heart of his post, it is because they have a clearer sense of what their message and purpose is: to proclaim "Christ crucified."
I will return to this latter point in a moment. But first I want to point out that while it may be true that conservative churches have a better rate of retention, it is also true that both conservative and liberal churches are losing ground in America, particularly among young people. The Barna Group has been tracking this trend for some time:
It is certainly true that beginning in the 1950's there was a significant migration of Christians out of the mainline churches into more conservative churches. But that migration appears to be over. At the same time there was, and is, a growing migration of people out of churches altogether. One fourth of Americans are not attached to any faith community. Christianity is no longer America's default faith. Among those who consider themselves to be Christian, conservative Christianity is doing better than liberal Christianity. But both are facing significant challenges in an increasingly secular and skeptical culture.
Now I want to get back to Drew's point about clarity of message. Drew says that liberal churches have tended to focus their attention on providing social programs that are increasingly better provided by other religious or secular organizations. And when this is all they have to offer they are in trouble:
Where I disagree with this point is that in an America where we are increasingly "bowling alone," the local church often provides the only real "community" that many Americans know. There are many liberal Christians I know who come to church looking first and foremost for community. In fact, in my congregation there are a number of non-Christians who are a part of our church for this reason. Someone once made a comment to me that our church was nothing more than a social club. They were wrong about that. But my first response to that statement is "so what." For some people this is the only social club they have and it is important to them. And there is still no social club in America quite like the local church with its ability to bring people together from a variety of social and economic backgrounds and its mission to get them to play nice together.
As to Drew's statement about the importance of preaching Christ crucified, here is what he says:
What isn't so clear to me is a future where this message retains its ability to attract an increasingly secular and educated population. The world is getting smaller. It is virtually impossible to grow up in America today and not know Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, athiests, etc. They are our neighbors and friends, at least they are in urban America. Fewer and fewer of our children are going to buy the notion that their religion is the exclusive domain on truth and eternal life. Fewer are going to buy the notion that they need a savior. America didn't experience the rush to secularism that western Europe experienced, but it is coming.
My own belief is that liberal Christianity is uniquely positioned for this movement. Drew is right that liberal Christianity needs a clear message, and that message needs to be Christ crucified. But the attraction of that message is going to be the kind of demanding and rewarding life that one experiences when you live in the way that Jesus lived. It requires transformation; it brings a rewarding life; it could conceivably get you killed. You don't need a savior, but if you choose to live this way your life will never be the same.
It is also possible that I will be proven wrong about this movement towards secularism. But even if I am wrong and America remains a bastion of Christian conservatism, there will still be a place for a liberal Christianity that has a distinctive mission and purpose. Our mainline denominations are not there yet. There is still a lot of dying that needs to be done. But there are many thriving liberal congregations who are there.
Drew notes that conservative churches have a much better rate of retention than mainline churches. In part this is because they tend to have more babies. In part, and I think this is the heart of his post, it is because they have a clearer sense of what their message and purpose is: to proclaim "Christ crucified."
I will return to this latter point in a moment. But first I want to point out that while it may be true that conservative churches have a better rate of retention, it is also true that both conservative and liberal churches are losing ground in America, particularly among young people. The Barna Group has been tracking this trend for some time:
Simply put, each new generation has a larger share of people who are not Christians (that is, atheists, agnostics, people associated with another faith, or those who have essentially no faith orientation)... Among adults over the age of 40, only about one-quarter qualify as outsiders, while among the 16 to 29 segment, two-fifths are outsiders. This represents a significant migration away from the dominant role that Christianity has had in America.Moreover, the perception these young people have of conservative Christianity is particularly negative. It remains to be seen whether a new generation of evangelical leaders can soften that perception.
It is certainly true that beginning in the 1950's there was a significant migration of Christians out of the mainline churches into more conservative churches. But that migration appears to be over. At the same time there was, and is, a growing migration of people out of churches altogether. One fourth of Americans are not attached to any faith community. Christianity is no longer America's default faith. Among those who consider themselves to be Christian, conservative Christianity is doing better than liberal Christianity. But both are facing significant challenges in an increasingly secular and skeptical culture.
Now I want to get back to Drew's point about clarity of message. Drew says that liberal churches have tended to focus their attention on providing social programs that are increasingly better provided by other religious or secular organizations. And when this is all they have to offer they are in trouble:
When the emotional and social functions of the church are all that remain of the church in its function, it is almost assuredly the kiss of death. The reward for immediate concerns through other social institutions is simply quicker, more efficient, and the expertise of the psychological, social and medical that was once the purvue of the church, is not at the discretion of specialized professionals to take care of the mind, the politics, and the body of those who are sick.I mostly agree. If all the liberal church has to offer is a spiritualized version of therapy, it doesn't stand a chance. The same goes for spiritual entertainment. For those who are coming from a more evangelical perspective the Willow Creek mega-church-like experience does it better. For those who are coming from a more secular or liberal perspective there are spiritual gurus, psychologists, and football games.
Where I disagree with this point is that in an America where we are increasingly "bowling alone," the local church often provides the only real "community" that many Americans know. There are many liberal Christians I know who come to church looking first and foremost for community. In fact, in my congregation there are a number of non-Christians who are a part of our church for this reason. Someone once made a comment to me that our church was nothing more than a social club. They were wrong about that. But my first response to that statement is "so what." For some people this is the only social club they have and it is important to them. And there is still no social club in America quite like the local church with its ability to bring people together from a variety of social and economic backgrounds and its mission to get them to play nice together.
As to Drew's statement about the importance of preaching Christ crucified, here is what he says:
Liberal Christianity loses its soul when it ceases to stake its claim on the centrality of Christ crucified. Any church that wants to retain members has to place demands on them as well. These do not have to be theologically or biblically conservative demands, but even as Christ demands that we seek the outcast, seek justice, love mercy, and hate evil, so must the church. If Christ is the most important message in Christianity, that is what must be preached with verve and vigor, and what must always be at the center of what the church has to offer.
Without Christ crucified, the church will cease to exist; it will be as a droplet into the vast sea of secular conscience. With Christ, there is nothing but an irreducible tension that the church will have with the prevailing normative society because Christ demands that those in the church change it. It is not a matter of if people need a savior. It is to claim the conviction that people do need a savior and there is only one social institution that can offer it. This is the one unique calling of the church in a secular world. May the church of Christ live up to its calling and purpose for its existence.
I find this statement both confusing and wrong. It is confusing because I am not really sure what he means by "Christ crucified". Is it all about the demanding life that requires us to "seek the outcast, seek justice, love mercy, and hate evil?" Or is it about the message that we need a savior? The two are not necessarily the same. It is possible to believe the one and not the other.
It is possible to preach Christ crucified and focus on the kind of demanding life, the life of discipleship, the kind of life that got Jesus crucified and that that ought still to have us living in constant tension with our culture. It is also possible to balance that challenging message with the good news that we are unconditionally loved by God and to frame the Christian message first with the good news of God's love for us and then with the invitation and challenge to take up one's cross and follow Jesus.
It's also possible to preach Christ crucified and focus on the magic of the resurrection of Christ and the good news that God loves us and sent his son to save us but if we don't believe that Jesus is our savior and if we don't believe that we need a savior, then we are going to burn in hell. And, by the way, it so happens that we have the only institution that offers this message.
What isn't so clear to me is a future where this message retains its ability to attract an increasingly secular and educated population. The world is getting smaller. It is virtually impossible to grow up in America today and not know Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, athiests, etc. They are our neighbors and friends, at least they are in urban America. Fewer and fewer of our children are going to buy the notion that their religion is the exclusive domain on truth and eternal life. Fewer are going to buy the notion that they need a savior. America didn't experience the rush to secularism that western Europe experienced, but it is coming.
My own belief is that liberal Christianity is uniquely positioned for this movement. Drew is right that liberal Christianity needs a clear message, and that message needs to be Christ crucified. But the attraction of that message is going to be the kind of demanding and rewarding life that one experiences when you live in the way that Jesus lived. It requires transformation; it brings a rewarding life; it could conceivably get you killed. You don't need a savior, but if you choose to live this way your life will never be the same.
It is also possible that I will be proven wrong about this movement towards secularism. But even if I am wrong and America remains a bastion of Christian conservatism, there will still be a place for a liberal Christianity that has a distinctive mission and purpose. Our mainline denominations are not there yet. There is still a lot of dying that needs to be done. But there are many thriving liberal congregations who are there.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Bible and Great Literature Quiz
United Kingdom Poet Laureate Andrew Motion has raised concerns that students of English literature are struggling because they don't understand Biblical references. Is he right to worry? Test your knowledge with this quiz.
I scored 7 out of 10.
I scored 7 out of 10.
Faith of Britain Day
If Britain pulls out of its economic slump we may have found our answer:
Faith Of Britain Day is a day that focuses all of the positive energy in the country towards achieving our hopes and aspirations. For exactly two minutes on March 6th at 11.00am our consortium of psychics and healers will act as a channel for the positive thoughts of the entire country.HT Andrew Sullivan
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Flowers for Valentine's Day?
Not sure what the message is behind those flowers you are sending/receiving for Valentine's Day today? Well, here's the old and new versions of the decoded messages behind certain types and colors of flowers that will leave you laughing.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Happy Birthday Charles Darwin!
The Vatican has apparently given a 200th birthday gift to Charles Darwin according to this article from Newser.
Fondly Do We Hope...
...fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war economic turmoil may speedily pass away. From Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address:
Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.One wonders what Lincoln would have to say about our precipitous economic decline.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Best in Show
The 133 Meeting of the Westminster Kennel Club is now history. I won't spoil the suspense and announce the winner. Instead I will post a link to the WKC website which shows the opening video of the t.v. broadcast of the event which has aired the past two nights. This video not only introduces this year's competition, but also highlights last year's winner, Uno, the beagle. After you watch this video clip you can look on the website to see the winners of each of the groups and the winner of Best in Show.
If you still need more cheering up on this gloomy day in February, go rent the video of the mockumentary "Best in Show". You will laugh until you cry!
If you still need more cheering up on this gloomy day in February, go rent the video of the mockumentary "Best in Show". You will laugh until you cry!
Monday, February 09, 2009
Change We Can Believe In
Steve Benen notes that something happened today at a Presidential town hall meeting that hasn't happened in more than eight years: a President took a question from someone who disagrees with him:
Throughout George W. Bush's presidency, White House staffers implemented what were generally called "Bubble Boy" policies. The goal was the shield the former president from those who may have disagreed with him or might ask him questions he didn't want to answer. The anti-dissent policy was often taken to comical lengths, including blocking people from attending public events based on their bumper stickers, requiring loyalty oaths for tickets, and in at least one instance, rehearsing a town-hall meeting a day in advance.
In contrast, consider Obama's approach to diversity of thought. The new president traveled to an economically-depressed community that voted heavily for his opponent in November. Tickets to the event were publicly available to anyone, no loyalty oaths or Democratic fealty required. White House staffers didn't check bumper-stickers for conservative messages, and there was no "blacklist" of Republicans who would be denied entry. There were no hand-picked questions and no hand-picked questioners.
So this is what it's like to have a president with the courage of his convictions, and the confidence to talk to Americans who may disagree with him. I'd almost forgotten.
Saturday, February 07, 2009
All That Matters
To the Congressional Republicans:
Obama "could have had a very, very impressive victory early on," said Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, who heads the Senate Republican campaign committee. "But this is not turning out to be an impressive victory. it is turning out to be a little bit of a black eye."
Friday, February 06, 2009
Postpartisan vs. Bipartisan
Diana Butler Bass on the difference between being postpartisan and bipartisan:
Bass is right, though, that Obama won as a postpartisan candidate. He was able to draw into his winning coalition young people heretofore uninterested in politics, disaffected Republicans, Independents, as well as the usual progressive suspects. But Washington is not postpartisan; it is intensely partisan in large part thanks to the tactics of Karl Rove that thrived on a winner-take-all, no compromise philosophy. The 24-hour media thrives on the partisan battle too. You'd never know there was an economic crisis in the country by watching CNN; it's all about the politics.
If Obama is going to succeed as a postpartisan President he is going to have to get outside of Washington and use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to re-mobilize his coalition. They need to hear from him words of encouragement and marching orders on what to do next. He needs them and they need him if there is any hope for change in the way things get done in this country.
Well, yes, but Obama won an election. McCain lost. It is true that all voices matter, and that progressives including Obama have a certain modesty about their aims and claims. Obama has been very clear that he is open to listening to all ideas and he has gone out of his way to include some from the Republican side. But in the end, whether there are two parties or ten "voices," when votes are cast there are going to be winners and losers. No one know this more than the Republicans who stand to lose a lot if Obama wins and is successful.President Obama campaigned as a postpartisan candidate. Postpartisan means that politics must move beyond the current party structure. A postpartisan vision recognizes that there are many voices in the larger body politic--and that a good number of those voices have never been heard in the American process. Thus, postpartisan, a sort of generational mantra for those under 40, is an attempt to create new relationships, draw diverse people and perspectives to a table, and develop innovative possibilities to address social and political issues.
In case no one in Washington has noticed, postpartisan does not mean bipartisan. Yes, the root word--partisan--is the same, but the prefix is different. "Post" means "after, beyond, or subsequent to;" "bi" means "two."
Now, folks in Washington are a very smart group--they attended lots of private schools and good colleges and most of them probably studied Latin. Yet, every time the new President says "postpartisan," they substitute "bipartisan." For nearly two weeks now, pundits have been fuming about the failure of "bipartisanship" on the recovery package. Republican politicians have asserted that because they didn't vote for the act, President Obama's attempt at bipartisanship has failed a mere ten days into his administration. "He's just like Bush," some say. "Bush came to office calling for bipartisanship, but he was really just the old politics of division." In other words, bipartisanship can never work in our political system. Someone has to take charge--be a leader--and enforce their party's will on the other side.
The new progressive vision is not based in the idea that there are TWO parties. "Progressive" is not simply a linguistic find-and-replace for "liberal" as in "liberal" versus "conservative." Emerging progressive politics--and religion as well--insists that there are more than two voices. The voices of the common good and the voices of vibrant faith come from multiple traditions and perspectives, and all of these voices matter. Progressives, unlike old-style liberals, approach this multiplicity with a certain degree of modesty. Progressive politics isn't about winning nor is it about balancing two agendas. Progressive politics is about setting tables, about hearing and listening, about constructing new possibilities where none currently exist. It is pluralistic and adaptive, not dualistic and winner-take-all. Progressive politics is not a zero-sum game.
Bass is right, though, that Obama won as a postpartisan candidate. He was able to draw into his winning coalition young people heretofore uninterested in politics, disaffected Republicans, Independents, as well as the usual progressive suspects. But Washington is not postpartisan; it is intensely partisan in large part thanks to the tactics of Karl Rove that thrived on a winner-take-all, no compromise philosophy. The 24-hour media thrives on the partisan battle too. You'd never know there was an economic crisis in the country by watching CNN; it's all about the politics.
If Obama is going to succeed as a postpartisan President he is going to have to get outside of Washington and use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to re-mobilize his coalition. They need to hear from him words of encouragement and marching orders on what to do next. He needs them and they need him if there is any hope for change in the way things get done in this country.
A Moderate Republican
Susan Collins of Maine is one of the "moderate" Republicans working with a group of moderate Senators to make the stimulus bill more palatable to some Senators. Here is the kind of change she wants to make to the bill:
She proposed eliminating money in the bill for K-12 education while boosting funding for Pentagon operations, facilities and procurement by $13 billion.Pathetic. Just pathetic.
The Science of Kissing
Via Scienceblogs:Given up to ten percent of humanity doesn't even touch lips, should we accept it's actually a cultural phenomenon? I'm not convinced. You see, kissing undoubtedly allows us to find out all sorts of information about our partner. We're exchanging pheromones. In fact, when we're engaged, our bodies release a cocktail of chemicals related to social bonding, stress level, motivation, and sexual stimulation. We become, in effect, 'under the influence.' It's powerful. The right kiss boosts feelings of euphoria stimulating pleasure centers in the brain leading me to suspect there's something to kissing that goes beyond social mores. While it may have evolved from primates feeding their babies mouth-to-mouth (I know, how terribly unromantic!), other scientists suggest it's crucial to the evolutionary process of mate selection.I just thought the xray picture was cool.
Thank God for the Enlightenment
Or we'd still be doing this kind of stuff:
No one knows who brought the book to the mosque, or at least no one dares say.The pocket-size translation of the Quran has already landed six men in prison in Afghanistan and left two of them begging judges to spare their lives. They're accused of modifying the Quran and their fate could be decided Sunday in court...
The clerics said Zalmai, a stocky 54-year-old spokesman for the attorney general, was trying to anoint himself as a prophet. They said his book was trying to replace the Quran, not offer a simple translation. Translated editions of the Quran abound in Kabul markets, but they include Arabic verses.The country's powerful Islamic council issued an edict condemning the book.
"In all the mosques in Afghanistan, all the mullahs said, 'Zalmai is an infidel. He should be killed,'" Zalmai recounted as he sat outside the chief judge's chambers waiting for a recent hearing.
It's bad enough condemning the book. But then they are going to kill the people who created it. Why are we helping these people?
Thursday, February 05, 2009
Why Tax Cuts Won't Cut It
Robert Reich talks some sense about why government spending is so much more effective than tax cuts at this moment:
First, most people who receive a tax cut don't spend all of it. They use part of it to pay down their debts or they save it. Most of us did one or the other last spring with that tax rebate. From the standpoint of any particular individual, paying down debts or saving may be smart behavior -- even commendable. But what's intelligent for an individual does not necessarily translate into what's good for the economy as a whole. The only way to get businesses to create or preserve jobs is through additional spending. And unlike tax cuts used to pay down personal debt or add to savings, every dollar of government spending flows directly into the economy and adds to overall demand.Every cent of our last stimulus check went to paying bills and debt. Every cent of any new stimulus check we get will go in the same direction. We are glad for the money and sorry we won't be spending it to help the economy. But that is the reality of our economic situation. My guess is you can multiply that thinking by millions.Second, even that portion of a tax cut we might actually spend doesn't necessarily go into the American economy. It goes all over the world. I have nothing against creating or preserving the jobs of Asians who assemble those flat-panel TVs you see at the mall, for example, but right now we're trying to create or preserve jobs here in America. Sure, the retail workers at the mall who sell the flat-panel TV's might benefit, but remember we're talking about how to get the biggest bang for every dollar. When government spends to repair a highway or build a school or help pay for medical services, the money and the jobs stay here in America.
Finally, those who say cutting taxes on businesses is the best way to create or preserve jobs forget about the demand side. Even with a tax cut, businesses won't hire workers unless there are customers to buy what those workers produce. A government stimulus that creates jobs is a necessary precondition.
Obama at the National Prayer Breakfast
From the Economist:
We know too that whatever our differences, there is one law that binds all great religions together. Jesus told us to "love thy neighbor as thyself." The Torah commands, "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow." In Islam, there is a hadith that reads "None of you truly believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." And the same is true for Buddhists and Hindus; for followers of Confucius and for humanists. It is, of course, the Golden Rule - the call to love one another; to understand one another; to treat with dignity and respect those with whom we share a brief moment on this Earth.And this:
I was not raised in a particularly religious household. I had a father who was born a Muslim but became an atheist, grandparents who were non-practicing Methodists and Baptists, and a mother who was skeptical of organized religion, even as she was the kindest, most spiritual person I've ever known. She was the one who taught me as a child to love, and to understand, and to do unto others as I would want done.A President who speaks for all Americans and who knows that it takes more than saying the name of Jesus to make one a good person. More evidence that in small but important ways the country is in better hands.
The Source of Republican Economic Advice
Leading Republicans in Washington are claiming that government spending doesn't create jobs. In Newsweek, Daniel Gross tells us where they are getting their economic advice:
There's plenty of legitimate argument over the stimulus—too much, too little, not fast enough, too fast, the proper mix of tax cuts and spending. Alan Blinder's op-ed in the Wall Street Journal is an excellent guide to some of the debates. But the Republicans in Washington aren't reading Blinder. And it's almost impossible for the Obama team, or anybody else, to engage them in serious discussions. Virtually all the prominent Republican economists who were associated with the Bush administration in any way have fled Washington for the private sector or academia. Today, the congressional Republicans are taking their advice from Joe the Plumber.
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
Two Takes on Obama and the Stimulus
One, he is screwing up:
A changed tone in Washington, if costless, would be a wonderful thing. But voters put Obama and Democratic majorities into office in order to get results. If Obama chooses to embrace Republicans even as they actively work against the interests of the vast majority of Americans, then we have to question his judgment. It takes two to change the tone. Republicans aren’t interested, and they’re using his overtures to undermine the American economy and the Obama presidency. Obama’s mandate is his to deploy or squander, and the speed with which he has lost control of the storyline on stimulus suggests that he has miscalculated in figuring how much magnanimity that mandate affords him.Two, he is doing exactly the right thing:
For me, that is simply a relieved expectation that a) this president understands that change is a process in which other actors and interlocutors need to be heard from; b) his team seems able to take constructive criticism and adjust; and c) this president is not fazed by much.
The issues in the stimulus bill are real ones - the Goldilocks question of how to put together a counter-cyclical measure that will be neither too small nor too big requires some healthy to-and-fro (even if a lot of it is above my professional pay-grade). Leonhardt's column this morning is, as always, clarifying on this.
But I'm not worried yet that no bill will pass. Of course, Obama could get a partisan bill immediately if he wanted to. But he's letting the process take its (still-limited) time and work. Not a "Decider", remember. A presider.
I am not sure right now which is an accurate assessment. It certainly hasn't been pretty.
Grieving Over a Lost Jesus
I have been somewhat quiet in the blogosphere recently, in part because I have been preoccupied with my wife's job loss and then transfer, fortunately, to a new position in her company. I have also been busy with church stuff.
But I have also been digesting a number of the blogging posts recently on the state of the Jesus Seminar and what is being called the new Jesus Project. The Jesus Seminar is familiar to everyone in my congregation as I have been talking about it and reading books by its authors with groups for 15 years. You can read some about the Jesus Project here, and by following some of the links there.
I have been particularly struck in recent days by a series of posts by April DeConick entitled The Jesus Seminar Jesus is Bankrupt. What DeConick does in these posts is take on the method used by the scholars of the Jesus Seminar to paint its picture(s) of Jesus and suggest that while the method has value, it doesn't necessarily lead us to the historical Jesus.
I enourage you to read DeConick's posts for a good short summary of the scholarly method employed by most biblical scholars and her critique of it's assumptions. If you read through some of the other links mentioned above you can see some of the other critique of the work of the Jesus Seminar.
I have to say that I find myself entering a state of grief over the Jesus Seminar and its apparent demise. I have always been aware of the criticisms that the Jesus Seminar set out to find the historical Jesus and instead found a cool California Jesus. I began to read some of Dale Allison's writings a few years ago and found his arguments for an apocalyptic Jesus strong and at least worth considering. It has also been obvious for a number of years that the scholars of the Jesus Seminar themselves essentially changed the subject of their inquiry and moved onto early Christian origins, either because they had run into a dead end or knew that there were problems with their Jesus.
But for at least 20 years my thinking, preaching, teaching, and faith have been informed and inspired by the work of Jesus Seminar. There was a time when I looked forward to every book that came out by Crossan and Funk and Borg and others. The Jesus Seminar Jesus was very much alive for me. And now I feel like he is dying again.
It's probably a healthy thing, but I am not too happy about it right now.
But I have also been digesting a number of the blogging posts recently on the state of the Jesus Seminar and what is being called the new Jesus Project. The Jesus Seminar is familiar to everyone in my congregation as I have been talking about it and reading books by its authors with groups for 15 years. You can read some about the Jesus Project here, and by following some of the links there.
I have been particularly struck in recent days by a series of posts by April DeConick entitled The Jesus Seminar Jesus is Bankrupt. What DeConick does in these posts is take on the method used by the scholars of the Jesus Seminar to paint its picture(s) of Jesus and suggest that while the method has value, it doesn't necessarily lead us to the historical Jesus.
I enourage you to read DeConick's posts for a good short summary of the scholarly method employed by most biblical scholars and her critique of it's assumptions. If you read through some of the other links mentioned above you can see some of the other critique of the work of the Jesus Seminar.
I have to say that I find myself entering a state of grief over the Jesus Seminar and its apparent demise. I have always been aware of the criticisms that the Jesus Seminar set out to find the historical Jesus and instead found a cool California Jesus. I began to read some of Dale Allison's writings a few years ago and found his arguments for an apocalyptic Jesus strong and at least worth considering. It has also been obvious for a number of years that the scholars of the Jesus Seminar themselves essentially changed the subject of their inquiry and moved onto early Christian origins, either because they had run into a dead end or knew that there were problems with their Jesus.
But for at least 20 years my thinking, preaching, teaching, and faith have been informed and inspired by the work of Jesus Seminar. There was a time when I looked forward to every book that came out by Crossan and Funk and Borg and others. The Jesus Seminar Jesus was very much alive for me. And now I feel like he is dying again.
It's probably a healthy thing, but I am not too happy about it right now.
Moving in a Better Direction
There are some things, like the stimulus bill, that are going to require tough sledding. But it is nice to see Obama moving quickly in other areas that require only executive action:
In its first action to overturn Bush administration policies on energy, the Obama administration on Wednesday said it will cancel oil drilling leases on more than 130,000 acres near two national parks and other protected areas in Utah.The country is already moving in a better direction.
Shrike Attack
I looked out the window into my backyard yesterday and saw something I had never seen there before. A Shrike was feeding on what appeared to be a female Cardinal. I have seen Shrikes in the wild before. I have never seen them in my yard and never seen them carrying out their distinctive kind of predatory behavior. Shrikes are predatory songbirds that often impale their victims on thorns. They will leave them there to return later to feed.There are two varieties: Northern and Loggerhead. Northern Shrikes winter in Minnesota so this is likely what I was watching in my yard. We have had extensive rabbit damage of our shrubs this winter - I wish we had more large predators in the neighborhood - and the Shrike had used the chewed-off stem of a Chokeberry as its thorn.
I watched it through my binoculars for a few minutes then attempted to take a picture out the back door of the garage. It eyed me for long enough to capture two shots with my very inadequate (for nature photography) camera and then it pulled the Cardinal off the stem and flew off.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Homeless and the Superbowl
What is Tampa doing to prepare for the Superbowl? They are "cleaning up" the streets by housing the homeless in their local jails for the weekend according to this article in Change.org. It makes me wonder how things went this summer for the Republican National Convention in St. Paul. Be sure to read some of the comments people have made following this article to find out how other cities around the world have prepared for large international events where there would be major media coverage. Then, continue the discussion on homelessness in your church. Homelessness is on the rise as the world economy still spins and goes down the drain. Silence does no good, talk is a first step, action is what is needed!
Friday, January 30, 2009
Superbowl Sunday and The Boss
Well, it is the weekend of Superbowl Sunday. Those with ties to Pittsburgh or Phoenix are revved up. Some of us who could care less about the game love to see the new commercials and listen to the halftime show.
This year The Boss is doing the big show. Please comment with your guess/hope for what songs you think Springsteen will play during halftime.
Here's my 4 picks. Vegas wouldn't give me good odds, I'd guess.
Hungry Heart
Born in the USA
Born to Run
Title track of his new CD (can't remember the name--haven't heard it yet)
Here's a one that I never really listened to before that I'm sure he won't play it because it is a slow tempo ballad. But it is a good song from 1995 and it was apparently on the Soundtrack of the movie Jerry Maguire based upon this video from youtube. Secret Garden
This year The Boss is doing the big show. Please comment with your guess/hope for what songs you think Springsteen will play during halftime.
Here's my 4 picks. Vegas wouldn't give me good odds, I'd guess.
Hungry Heart
Born in the USA
Born to Run
Title track of his new CD (can't remember the name--haven't heard it yet)
Here's a one that I never really listened to before that I'm sure he won't play it because it is a slow tempo ballad. But it is a good song from 1995 and it was apparently on the Soundtrack of the movie Jerry Maguire based upon this video from youtube. Secret Garden
Thursday, January 22, 2009
The Credo of a Change Optimist
More from Ariane de Bonvois founder of www.first30days.com and author of Your First 30 Days Your Guide to Any Change (and loving your life more).
Principle 1:
I have positive beliefs--about change, about life, and about myself.
Principle 2:
I know that change will always bring something good into my life.
Principle 3:
I know I am resilient, strong, and capable of getting through anything.
Principle 4:
I know that my emotions, including the negative ones, are there as a guide and that I can replace them with more positive ones.
Principle 5:
I know that the quicker I accept or choose change, the less the pain and the hardship will be.
Principle 6:
I use empowering questions and words, I think better thoughts, and I allow any and every feeling to come up and embrace it.
Principle 7: I know I am connected to something bigger--my soul, my spirit, my higher self.
Principle 8: I surround myself with people who can help and who have an optimistic mind-set, and I create an environment that supports change.
Principle 9: I take action. I have a plan, and I take care of myself.
Principle 1:
I have positive beliefs--about change, about life, and about myself.
Principle 2:
I know that change will always bring something good into my life.
Principle 3:
I know I am resilient, strong, and capable of getting through anything.
Principle 4:
I know that my emotions, including the negative ones, are there as a guide and that I can replace them with more positive ones.
Principle 5:
I know that the quicker I accept or choose change, the less the pain and the hardship will be.
Principle 6:
I use empowering questions and words, I think better thoughts, and I allow any and every feeling to come up and embrace it.
Principle 7: I know I am connected to something bigger--my soul, my spirit, my higher self.
Principle 8: I surround myself with people who can help and who have an optimistic mind-set, and I create an environment that supports change.
Principle 9: I take action. I have a plan, and I take care of myself.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Thursday, January 15, 2009
The Promise to Change
I am doing some required reading for our church leadership team. We are reading Bruce Sanguin's book The Emerging Church. It talks about making a "Compact for Change". Meanwhile, in my own reading, I'm reading the book from the library by Ariane de Bonvois who is founder of first30days.com and has the same title, The First 30 Days: Your Guide to Any Change.
Here is the promise that Ariane made with herself--and urges us to make with ourselves--as we all attempt to undergo changes whether they be forced upon us or whether they are things we know we need to change about ourselves but are not sure we have the personal strength to make these changes.
The Promise to Change
Please promise yourself
No matter who or what you will become
No matter how unpredictable life is
No matter the growth you will experience
No matter the lonliness, pain, and sadness that will arise
No matter the fear, the questions, the disbelief
No matter the doubts, the resistance, and the impatience
No matter the surprises, the joy, and the pain
Always take change by the hand and welcome it
For
Change will bring strength
Change will bring faith
Change will bring new possibilities, new people, new paths
Change will bring self-esteem
Change will bring you what you are ultimately looking for
Always change
In change you will awaken
In change you will become wise
And in change you will finally be in partnership with life.
Here is the promise that Ariane made with herself--and urges us to make with ourselves--as we all attempt to undergo changes whether they be forced upon us or whether they are things we know we need to change about ourselves but are not sure we have the personal strength to make these changes.
The Promise to Change
Please promise yourself
No matter who or what you will become
No matter how unpredictable life is
No matter the growth you will experience
No matter the lonliness, pain, and sadness that will arise
No matter the fear, the questions, the disbelief
No matter the doubts, the resistance, and the impatience
No matter the surprises, the joy, and the pain
Always take change by the hand and welcome it
For
Change will bring strength
Change will bring faith
Change will bring new possibilities, new people, new paths
Change will bring self-esteem
Change will bring you what you are ultimately looking for
Always change
In change you will awaken
In change you will become wise
And in change you will finally be in partnership with life.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
The Jesus Smackdown
The New York Times Magazine recently ran an interesting feature on Marc Driscoll, the pastor of a mega-church in Seattle, Mars Hill. I must confess that the first thing that popped into my mind while reading this article was the YouTube "sermon" by Steven L. Anderson entitled "Him That Pisseth Against the Wall." If you never saw it you need to watch it. Religion can be so entertaining.
Driscoll is very entertaining. He "has the coolest style and foulest mouth" of any preacher you have ever seen. He talks frankly about sexual acts. He swears. He is "cool" with tattoos and rock music and latte-drinking and body piercing. He is not "cool" with women in leadership in the church or home, or homosexuality, or the Jesus who looks like "a Richard Simmons, hippie, queer Christ."
About that effeminate Jesus, is there anyone whose Jesus really looks like that? I suppose if your image of Jesus is shaped by "What a Friend we Have in Jesus" and "In the Garden" Jesus might look something like that. But my guess is that the Jesus Seminar-inspired picture of Jesus has an edge that is harder, not to mention truer, than Driscoll's.
Driscoll preaches a form of Calvinism that holds that everything that happens to us is the will of God. Good and evil; Beethoven and cancer. It all comes from God. We ultimately are not in control of anything. We are, however, completely fallen in sin and utterly deserving of eternal damnation. We are all hanging by that proverbial spider's thread over the eternal fire. And for some of us the chord is going to be cut. All for the glory of God. But some have also been elected to go to heaven. But how would one know? Well, the early American Puritans were among those Calvinists who obsessed about this very question. Although they knew they could never be sure - the ways of God being inscrutable - they came to believe that there might be certain signs of God's election made visible by the manner of ones living. You couldn't know for sure, but you could be pretty sure that if those signs were not present you were not among the elect. My guess is they would have held that swearing, body-piercing, and rock music were not among those signs. I have to wonder, really, how much his congregation understands or lives with the paradox and uncertainty of Calvinism. I wonder if Driscoll does himself.
Here is my take on Driscoll's popularity. First, he is edgy. Think Lenny Bruce for Christians. His audience loves the way he pushes the envelope with his language, music, and style. Their parents' Christianity doesn't look anything like this. There is nothing new about this, of course. Bill Hybel's Christianity didn't look anything like that of the previous generation's. It, too, was hip for a while. There is something that comes along like this for every generation.
But there is also a dark side to Driscoll's popularity. If you really want to know what Driscoll is all about you have to take in this paragraph:
It is no surprise to me that Driscoll has a following. He's a way-cool dictator.
Update: GetReligion covers the NYTimes story here. In the comments section we get this Driscoll quote about pastors cheating on their wives:
Driscoll is very entertaining. He "has the coolest style and foulest mouth" of any preacher you have ever seen. He talks frankly about sexual acts. He swears. He is "cool" with tattoos and rock music and latte-drinking and body piercing. He is not "cool" with women in leadership in the church or home, or homosexuality, or the Jesus who looks like "a Richard Simmons, hippie, queer Christ."
About that effeminate Jesus, is there anyone whose Jesus really looks like that? I suppose if your image of Jesus is shaped by "What a Friend we Have in Jesus" and "In the Garden" Jesus might look something like that. But my guess is that the Jesus Seminar-inspired picture of Jesus has an edge that is harder, not to mention truer, than Driscoll's.
Driscoll preaches a form of Calvinism that holds that everything that happens to us is the will of God. Good and evil; Beethoven and cancer. It all comes from God. We ultimately are not in control of anything. We are, however, completely fallen in sin and utterly deserving of eternal damnation. We are all hanging by that proverbial spider's thread over the eternal fire. And for some of us the chord is going to be cut. All for the glory of God. But some have also been elected to go to heaven. But how would one know? Well, the early American Puritans were among those Calvinists who obsessed about this very question. Although they knew they could never be sure - the ways of God being inscrutable - they came to believe that there might be certain signs of God's election made visible by the manner of ones living. You couldn't know for sure, but you could be pretty sure that if those signs were not present you were not among the elect. My guess is they would have held that swearing, body-piercing, and rock music were not among those signs. I have to wonder, really, how much his congregation understands or lives with the paradox and uncertainty of Calvinism. I wonder if Driscoll does himself.
Here is my take on Driscoll's popularity. First, he is edgy. Think Lenny Bruce for Christians. His audience loves the way he pushes the envelope with his language, music, and style. Their parents' Christianity doesn't look anything like this. There is nothing new about this, of course. Bill Hybel's Christianity didn't look anything like that of the previous generation's. It, too, was hip for a while. There is something that comes along like this for every generation.
But there is also a dark side to Driscoll's popularity. If you really want to know what Driscoll is all about you have to take in this paragraph:
Nowhere is the connection between Driscoll’s hypermasculinity and his Calvinist theology clearer than in his refusal to tolerate opposition at Mars Hill. The Reformed tradition’s resistance to compromise and emphasis on the purity of the worshipping community has always contained the seeds of authoritarianism: John Calvin had heretics burned at the stake and made a man who casually criticized him at a dinner party march through the streets of Geneva, kneeling at every intersection to beg forgiveness. Mars Hill is not 16th-century Geneva, but Driscoll has little patience for dissent. In 2007, two elders protested a plan to reorganize the church that, according to critics, consolidated power in the hands of Driscoll and his closest aides. Driscoll told the congregation that he asked advice on how to handle stubborn subordinates from a “mixed martial artist and Ultimate Fighter, good guy” who attends Mars Hill. “His answer was brilliant,” Driscoll reported. “He said, ‘I break their nose.’ ” When one of the renegade elders refused to repent, the church leadership ordered members to shun him. One member complained on an online message board and instantly found his membership privileges suspended. “They are sinning through questioning,” Driscoll preached. John Calvin couldn’t have said it better himself.Who is attracted to this kind of leadership? Who thinks that this kind of leadership is healthy? Who wants to be this kind of leader? Driscoll is appealing to an age-old male fantasy that if everything was really right with the world our spouses would have dinner ready when we get home from work and our children would be quiet and obedient and our subordinates would unquestioningly follow our every order. And no-one, ever, would dare question our decisions. To his credit, I guess, physical abuse is not allowed. But systemic abuse is built right into the fabric of church and home life. And it is all according to the will of God.
It is no surprise to me that Driscoll has a following. He's a way-cool dictator.
Update: GetReligion covers the NYTimes story here. In the comments section we get this Driscoll quote about pastors cheating on their wives:
“It is not uncommon to meet pastors’ wives who really let themselves go; they sometimes feel that because their husband is a pastor, he is therefore trapped into fidelity, which gives them cause for laziness,” Driscoll wrote. “A wife who lets herself go and is not sexually available to her husband in the ways that the Song of Songs is so frank about is not responsible for her husband’s sin, but she may not be helping him either.”Wrapping a sick male-fantasy world in on old-time religious doctrine.
The Church is not Progressive
So say's an emailer who didn't think too much of our church website:
I read a few disturbing things in the FAQ's on your church's website. One of the statements the most troubling is how your church does not believe the Bible to be the literal word of God. The scripture is God Breathed, and alive. Still Relevant. How can you believe parts of the bible, and not other parts of it? It has to be ALL true or none of it. You cannot pick which verses you like and disregard the rest. May God have mercy on the Pastors and staff of this church for they will be held accountable for misleading His people. The Bible says the darkest places in hell are reserved for false teachers. The church is not "progressive". Jesus Christ never changes, nor do His standards.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Bunnies
On a typical winter day the bunnies assemble under the birdfeeders (or in this case under the sparrow trap under the feeder) in the afternoon for feeding. Today is a snow day and I caught this one outside the window; he didn't look like he was enjoying the snow.
24
I watched the season premier last night and continued to question why it is that both Dick Cheney and I like that show. I know why he likes the show.
Jack Bauer confessed his torturing sins to a Senate committee but was unrepentant about it. Then he gets paired up with an FBI team on the trail of some terrorists; the FBI people do not trust Bauer because they don't believe in torture. Until... Bauer and a female agent have a would-be informant cornered in his room and he isn't about to give up any information to them through the usual highly skilled non-coercive investigative techniques used by law enforcement, at least not in the 30 seconds they have to explore that possibility on the show. So Bauer turns to the hardened, squeaky-clean agent and says, "So what do you want me to do?" And she melts in his arms and says, "Do with me anything you want!" Or that's what it looked like to me even though I heard her tell him to go ahead and torture the hell out of the guy.
So what does Bauer do? He grabs a ball-point pen and yanks the guy's head to the side and is just about to ram the pen into his ear when the guy pleads for mercy. "I'll talk, I'll talk, just don't stick me with the pen!" Fortunately for the informant there was a terrorist sniper outside who put him out of his misery before he could talk or be poked with the pen.
I started laughing as soon as Bauer grabbed the pen and pretty much lost interest in the rest of the show. I keep hoping that the writers will allow Bauer at some point to feel some remorse or question his own sick mind. But until the ratings start to slip he is likely going to keep torturing.
Jack Bauer confessed his torturing sins to a Senate committee but was unrepentant about it. Then he gets paired up with an FBI team on the trail of some terrorists; the FBI people do not trust Bauer because they don't believe in torture. Until... Bauer and a female agent have a would-be informant cornered in his room and he isn't about to give up any information to them through the usual highly skilled non-coercive investigative techniques used by law enforcement, at least not in the 30 seconds they have to explore that possibility on the show. So Bauer turns to the hardened, squeaky-clean agent and says, "So what do you want me to do?" And she melts in his arms and says, "Do with me anything you want!" Or that's what it looked like to me even though I heard her tell him to go ahead and torture the hell out of the guy.
So what does Bauer do? He grabs a ball-point pen and yanks the guy's head to the side and is just about to ram the pen into his ear when the guy pleads for mercy. "I'll talk, I'll talk, just don't stick me with the pen!" Fortunately for the informant there was a terrorist sniper outside who put him out of his misery before he could talk or be poked with the pen.
I started laughing as soon as Bauer grabbed the pen and pretty much lost interest in the rest of the show. I keep hoping that the writers will allow Bauer at some point to feel some remorse or question his own sick mind. But until the ratings start to slip he is likely going to keep torturing.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Best Republican President Ever
There are six candidates vying to be the next chairperson of the GOP. Here is one thing they all agree on:
In one telling moment at a debate last week, all six had the same answer when asked to name the best Republican president in the history of the nation: Ronald Reagan.This just proves how out of touch the GOP is with the country, and how ignorant, perhaps, those wanting to to run the party are. Ronald Reagan may be the hero of modern conservatism, but Abraham Lincoln is an American hero, one of the greatest Presidents ever, and by far the greatest Republican President in the history of the country. But the modern GOP, beholden to its evangelical and white southern base, is probably not too fond of Lincoln. He wasn't very religious, in the traditional sense, and he wasn't very popular in the south. For some reason.
Friday, January 09, 2009
I wasn't too keen on President-elect Obama asking Rick Warren to offer the invocation at the inauguration, but I have held my nose thinking that Warren was at least an improvement over the Falwell types. Apparently I was wrong. Here, according to Christianity Today blog, is what Warren wrote some conservative leaders in the Anglican community:
You would think that Warren would at least have the good sense avoid rubbing salt in wounds before the inauguration.... [The Episcopal Church has] already considered me an adversary after partnering on projects with Kolini, Orumbi, and Nzimbi, and writing the TIME bio on Akinola.
But since last summer... I’ve been on Gene Robinson and other’s attack list for my position on gay marriage. ....[Our] brothers and sisters here at St. James in Newport Beach lost their California State Supreme Court case to keep their property.
We stand in solidarity with them, and with all orthodox, evangelical Anglicans. I offer the campus of Saddleback Church to any Anglican congregation who need a place to meet, or if you want to plant a new congregation in south Orange County.
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Not my idea of a Fun and Relaxing Vacation!
I just read about the new upcoming sightseeing opportunity for live history at the Coliseum in Rome--Gladiator fights! I put this new tourist attraction into the same category as sitting in bleachers watching Civil War reenactments. Watching choreographed violence is not my idea of a vacation whether it be hand to hand or with weapons!
Friday, January 02, 2009
God is in the Details
My newsletter article this week:
The devil is in the details. It's a phrase we all know well. It means that we better read the fine print. That sub-prime mortgage might look awfully appealing, but we better know what is going to happen to our loan in 5 years, or if we are unable to make a payment.
The devil is in the details. This might very well be true in financial transactions. But more and more I have come to believe that in all other matters we find that God is in the details. First, a confession: I confess that over the years I have gotten less interested in the "big" questions: What is the meaning of life? Is there a God? What happens when we die? Why did Penn State lose to USC in the Rose Bowl? While I enjoy a good discussion about these questions, and will always do my best to provide a cogent response if asked, they don't really occupy much of my thinking time.
I am much more interested in the details of life. The gory details. The beautiful details. The amazing details. For instance, this past week I received my copy of Minnesota Conservation Volunteer. It is a wonderful magazine put out by the Minnesota DNR, and I have learned much over the years about our state's flora and fauna. In the recent magazine there was an article about the return to Minnesota of the American Marten, a woodland member of the weasel family related closely to the Fisher. The Marten was once thought to be extinct due to trapping and decimation of its habitat, but it is making a comeback in northern Minnesota. Did you know that Martens, like most members of the weasel family, reproduce through delayed implantation? They breed in summer but the pre-embryonic blastocyst does not implant and begin to develop until late winter. The article doesn't explain why this happens, but one can guess that Martens evolved to give birth at the "right" time, perhaps when there was an abundance of food. Now I will have to find out if that is true.
I didn't make any New Year's resolutions; I never do. But I did make a winter resolution to spend some of my outdoor walking time learning to identify trees by their bark and buds. I like to think that I know trees. Give me a leaf and I can tell you the tree. But take away the leaves and I am lost, apart from some of the most obvious trees, like sycamore. It has been my aim to rectify this shortcoming during this winter. It is amazing to walk through the woods stopping to look at trees to study the bark. Every family (oak, maple, ash, etc.) has recognizable markers. And every tree has its own kind of beauty in winter. This winter I have been paying attention to trees.
So where is God in all of this? To say that God is in the details is to say that the more we pay attention to what is going on around us, close attention, attention attached to time, the more we are apt to see awesome, beautiful, amazing things that open our hearts and set our minds ablaze. It has been my experience that this is how and where God is found. In the depths. In the unfolding mystery of life, human life, plant and animal life, the evolving life of our planet.
This is not the whole story of where God is found, of course. God is also found among the suffering and grieving. And I find it more than a little interesting that if you open up your Bible and read the parables of Jesus and read about his life, you will find that the details of the natural world and the everyday suffering of his people were the focus of his words and deeds. Apparently, in the beautiful detail of the lilies of the field and in the midst of the gory details of lepers and outcasts Jesus, too, found God.
Where is God found? God is found in the details. I'll give the last word to Mary Oliver. At the end of her poem When Death Comes she says:
The devil is in the details. It's a phrase we all know well. It means that we better read the fine print. That sub-prime mortgage might look awfully appealing, but we better know what is going to happen to our loan in 5 years, or if we are unable to make a payment.
The devil is in the details. This might very well be true in financial transactions. But more and more I have come to believe that in all other matters we find that God is in the details. First, a confession: I confess that over the years I have gotten less interested in the "big" questions: What is the meaning of life? Is there a God? What happens when we die? Why did Penn State lose to USC in the Rose Bowl? While I enjoy a good discussion about these questions, and will always do my best to provide a cogent response if asked, they don't really occupy much of my thinking time.
I am much more interested in the details of life. The gory details. The beautiful details. The amazing details. For instance, this past week I received my copy of Minnesota Conservation Volunteer. It is a wonderful magazine put out by the Minnesota DNR, and I have learned much over the years about our state's flora and fauna. In the recent magazine there was an article about the return to Minnesota of the American Marten, a woodland member of the weasel family related closely to the Fisher. The Marten was once thought to be extinct due to trapping and decimation of its habitat, but it is making a comeback in northern Minnesota. Did you know that Martens, like most members of the weasel family, reproduce through delayed implantation? They breed in summer but the pre-embryonic blastocyst does not implant and begin to develop until late winter. The article doesn't explain why this happens, but one can guess that Martens evolved to give birth at the "right" time, perhaps when there was an abundance of food. Now I will have to find out if that is true.
I didn't make any New Year's resolutions; I never do. But I did make a winter resolution to spend some of my outdoor walking time learning to identify trees by their bark and buds. I like to think that I know trees. Give me a leaf and I can tell you the tree. But take away the leaves and I am lost, apart from some of the most obvious trees, like sycamore. It has been my aim to rectify this shortcoming during this winter. It is amazing to walk through the woods stopping to look at trees to study the bark. Every family (oak, maple, ash, etc.) has recognizable markers. And every tree has its own kind of beauty in winter. This winter I have been paying attention to trees.
So where is God in all of this? To say that God is in the details is to say that the more we pay attention to what is going on around us, close attention, attention attached to time, the more we are apt to see awesome, beautiful, amazing things that open our hearts and set our minds ablaze. It has been my experience that this is how and where God is found. In the depths. In the unfolding mystery of life, human life, plant and animal life, the evolving life of our planet.
This is not the whole story of where God is found, of course. God is also found among the suffering and grieving. And I find it more than a little interesting that if you open up your Bible and read the parables of Jesus and read about his life, you will find that the details of the natural world and the everyday suffering of his people were the focus of his words and deeds. Apparently, in the beautiful detail of the lilies of the field and in the midst of the gory details of lepers and outcasts Jesus, too, found God.
Where is God found? God is found in the details. I'll give the last word to Mary Oliver. At the end of her poem When Death Comes she says:
When it's over, I want to say: all my life
I was a bride married to amazement.
I was a bridegroom, taking the world into my arms.
When it's over, I don't want to wonder
if I have made of my life something particular, and real.
I don't want to find myself sighing and frightened
or full of argument.
I don't want to end up simply having visited this world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)