I like people, most of the time. I really do. But I'm one for whom first impressions mean a lot. Not that I do a good job always presenting my own best first impression (see: sloppy dresser), yet I quickly judge people based on a few things they do or say. It's not always fair, but my respect for people quickly jump up or down based on certain things. Based on certain things, my respect for somebody will instantly go up or down based on little things I sense. Here's a short list, and none of these are mutually exclusive. In other words, multiple transgressions/goodnesses add up to give somebody a respect-ability quotient in my eyes.
Thinking you can't have fun without alcohol: decrease of respect 9%
Being a farmer: increase 16%
Being a part-time farmer, doing it while working another job to support the farm: increase 23%
Wearing a 'tapout' t-shirt: decrease 7%
Smoking: decrease 14%
Morbid obesity: decrease 6%
Non-visible tattoos: decrease 2%
Visible tattoos: decrease 12%
Neck tattoos: decrease 28%
Beginning a sentence with "I saw on Fox News that ...": decrease 13%
Beginning a sentence with "I heard Rush Limbaugh say ...": decrease 42%
Beginning a sentence with "I read in the Economist that ...": increase 11%
Being a vegetarian: increase 4%
Being passionate about bacon: increase 10%
Being at a sports event and screaming at the officials: decrease 7%
Swearing at the TV because your team is getting beat: decrease 4%
Going nuts about a college sports team when you did not attend that college: decrease 11%
A woman who wears too much makeup: decrease 2%, feeling sorry for, increase of 15%
Having a ringtone of a Toby Keith song on your phone: decrease 3%
Knowing the difference between its and it's: increase 8%
Making less than $10/hour but still loving what you do: increase 13%
Bow-hunting or fly-fishing: increase 14%
Doing mission work for the Lord in a foreign country: increase 50%
Being from a non-Bible belt area but choosing to do ministerial work in the Bible belt: decrease 10%
Living your entire life no more than 10 miles from where you grew up: decrease 3%
Moving away for a few years to experience a new way of life: increase 5%
Moving back to within 10 miles from where you grew up after being away for a few years: increase 5%
Making your own clothes: increase 11%
Having no clothing that does not contain corporate logos: decrease 8%
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
Friday, December 20, 2013
Persecution, freedom, and the dangerous loss of communication skills
The first non-self-referential definition of persecution on dictionary.com is this: "a program or campaign to exterminate, drive away, or subjugate a people because of their religion, race, or beliefs"
So...is Phil Robertson (Duck Dynasty's supposed homophobic gay-basher) being persecuted? Earlier this morning I wrote a quick post about whether or not he is persecuted, and I waffled. "On the one hand, he's not being killed for his beliefs and nobody is throwing him in jail. He's certainly made his money on this show and this won't send him to the poorhouse. But on the other hand, he basically loses his job because of his statement. To lose a livelihood because of belief, no matter how fake that livelihood may be, certainly does border on persecution."
Whether or not we can say he is persecuted depends on how you define the term. Some think persecution has to be this big, systematic death-machine in which people are killed or tortured or wiped out. The other extreme is that it is a lot milder, in that you might suffer even the slightest of consequences for an opinion or an action. In reality, there's a lot of both these definitions that apply here. Phil Robertson is dealing with consequences for his words, but is it more than that? It's not just that A&E network is suspending him; there really does seem to be almost a systematic witch hunt going on to root out anybody who thinks homosexuality is a sin and then chastise (bully?) them until they skulk away. The vitriol by some on this issue is so uniform so as to seem to be part of a plan.
The reality is that everybody suffers consequences for what they do and think. Just the other day a Methodist minister was defrocked for performing the wedding of his gay son. Was that fair? Many of the same people who are outraged might well be Christians who think it right that a pastor be fired for his beliefs and his actions. By this definition that some have set for what is happening to Phil Robertson, is this pastor being persecuted for his belief by Christians?
Or think about what would happen if some Fox Advocacy Channel talking head suddenly changed his or her views. Imagine if Megyn Kelly suddenly changed her worldview and started espousing the same worldviews as Rachel Maddow, or Bill O'Reilly started sounding a lot more like Chris Matthews? How much longer would they be employed by FAC? Could we call this persecution, if somebody loses their job for a accepting and espousing a political ideology different from the tribe?
Again, the reality is this: we only want to hear what we want to hear, and increasingly we find many in this country on both the left and the right who refuse to listen to anything different than what their worldview tells them must be true. We have become so isolated in our thinking that anything else we might hear seems to us to be so scary as to be intolerable and worthy not just of mocking but legal action, deprivation of livelihood, state sanction, or even violence. Isolated and narrow thinking means that when the Phil Robertsons or the Michael Moores of the world pop up and say something we don't like our only reaction cannot be reason or spirited debate but the demonization of such a person by any means possible.
I suppose we should be grateful that here in the United States people are usually only fired or suspended for their words. Some places in this world people still get imprisoned, beaten, and killed for their beliefs. Now that's persecution, and we might well be heading in that direction unless people are able to state their beliefs openly, no matter how unpopular they may be, and then be peacefully willing to listen to others who disagree.
So...is Phil Robertson (Duck Dynasty's supposed homophobic gay-basher) being persecuted? Earlier this morning I wrote a quick post about whether or not he is persecuted, and I waffled. "On the one hand, he's not being killed for his beliefs and nobody is throwing him in jail. He's certainly made his money on this show and this won't send him to the poorhouse. But on the other hand, he basically loses his job because of his statement. To lose a livelihood because of belief, no matter how fake that livelihood may be, certainly does border on persecution."
Whether or not we can say he is persecuted depends on how you define the term. Some think persecution has to be this big, systematic death-machine in which people are killed or tortured or wiped out. The other extreme is that it is a lot milder, in that you might suffer even the slightest of consequences for an opinion or an action. In reality, there's a lot of both these definitions that apply here. Phil Robertson is dealing with consequences for his words, but is it more than that? It's not just that A&E network is suspending him; there really does seem to be almost a systematic witch hunt going on to root out anybody who thinks homosexuality is a sin and then chastise (bully?) them until they skulk away. The vitriol by some on this issue is so uniform so as to seem to be part of a plan.
The reality is that everybody suffers consequences for what they do and think. Just the other day a Methodist minister was defrocked for performing the wedding of his gay son. Was that fair? Many of the same people who are outraged might well be Christians who think it right that a pastor be fired for his beliefs and his actions. By this definition that some have set for what is happening to Phil Robertson, is this pastor being persecuted for his belief by Christians?
Or think about what would happen if some Fox Advocacy Channel talking head suddenly changed his or her views. Imagine if Megyn Kelly suddenly changed her worldview and started espousing the same worldviews as Rachel Maddow, or Bill O'Reilly started sounding a lot more like Chris Matthews? How much longer would they be employed by FAC? Could we call this persecution, if somebody loses their job for a accepting and espousing a political ideology different from the tribe?
Again, the reality is this: we only want to hear what we want to hear, and increasingly we find many in this country on both the left and the right who refuse to listen to anything different than what their worldview tells them must be true. We have become so isolated in our thinking that anything else we might hear seems to us to be so scary as to be intolerable and worthy not just of mocking but legal action, deprivation of livelihood, state sanction, or even violence. Isolated and narrow thinking means that when the Phil Robertsons or the Michael Moores of the world pop up and say something we don't like our only reaction cannot be reason or spirited debate but the demonization of such a person by any means possible.
I suppose we should be grateful that here in the United States people are usually only fired or suspended for their words. Some places in this world people still get imprisoned, beaten, and killed for their beliefs. Now that's persecution, and we might well be heading in that direction unless people are able to state their beliefs openly, no matter how unpopular they may be, and then be peacefully willing to listen to others who disagree.
Working Outline Of The Phil Robertson Rant In My Head That I Don't Care To Finish
1. I care nothing about Duck Dynasty. I've never watched it. As always, I'm always very concerned when Christians find other Christians to idolize, and the attention that has been paid to this family in recent months has been insufferable. We raise them up only to watch them fall.
2. It's A&E's network. They weighed the financial fallout of Robertson's comments and decided to go with the gay lobby rather than the Christian lobby. They took a bad day for business and tried to make the best of it. They're probably wrong from a business perspective.
3. If the network were really serious about how much they hated these comments, they'd cancel the show. They'd pull from the shelves the greeting cards, video games, posters, t-shirts, and everything else that they sell to make money off that family. But again, it's all about the bottom line.
4. If the Robertson family really wanted to stand for their beliefs, they would walk away from the show in protest of this decision. It doesn't appear that they are going to do so. I'd bet that the huge contract they signed last year probably has something to do with this decision.
5. But can we please, please stop with the 'leads' about this story being that Phil Robertson is 'homophobic' or 'anti-gay'? 'Homophobic' implies fear and loathing. There's none of that in this story. He's a man who knows about sin and speaks against it. We live in a world that tells us that all kinds of things are wrong...but no longer can we call something sin.
6. I go back and forth on whether this is 'persecution'. On the one hand, he's not being killed for his beliefs and nobody is throwing him in jail. He's certainly made his money on this show and this won't send him to the poorhouse. But on the other hand, he basically loses his job because of his statement. To lose a livelihood because of belief, no matter how fake that livelihood may be, certainly does border on persecution.
7. Why is it that on TV today weirdness is encouraged but some things can never be mentioned? All manner of lifestyle is promoted on the various networks of crap that are out there, but when a statement of belief outside the ordinary goes against the trends of today, that's forbidden? If you're going to promote weirdness, let it be where it may.
8. In a supposedly free country, stupid statements deserve mocking, not firing. Not sure we live in a free country, though. Not sure we ever did.
9. The right deserves part of the blame for what is happening. Read enough history of this country and you find that many behaviors and beliefs were suppressed, even persecuted from those of a 'conservative' bent when they ruled the country. Now this lack of tolerance is coming back to bite them. Freedom means freedom even for those with whom you disagree.
10. I have found it interesting that many people who cannot tolerate somebody disagreeing with them about gun rights or Obamacare or some other issue not cannot stand it that somebody cannot tolerate their views on homosexuality. Basically the problem is this: we live in such narrowcasted world today that we don't think we have to hear something we don't want. Even in diversity, we have become a nation of isolated belief structures.
11. Did you actually read the GQ article? There's a lot more in here than homosexuality that is interesting, troubling, and should raise eyebrows. But it's also a really poorly written article as well, with lots of frivolous bad language by the writer. The writer needed a better editor.
12. Amen to Phil's words about sin and his dangers...it's much more than about homosexuality, though this is part of it. We need to also pay more attention to other sins as well. Sins like heterosexual immorality and adultery are now far too overlooked, as is adultery. Sin is still sin, and the church does itself a disservice when it only focuses on one particular sin at the expense of others, especially a sin it does not think it has itself.
13. This too shall pass. The celebrity grinder will quickly move on to somebody else, and Christians will find something else to be outraged about.
2. It's A&E's network. They weighed the financial fallout of Robertson's comments and decided to go with the gay lobby rather than the Christian lobby. They took a bad day for business and tried to make the best of it. They're probably wrong from a business perspective.
3. If the network were really serious about how much they hated these comments, they'd cancel the show. They'd pull from the shelves the greeting cards, video games, posters, t-shirts, and everything else that they sell to make money off that family. But again, it's all about the bottom line.
4. If the Robertson family really wanted to stand for their beliefs, they would walk away from the show in protest of this decision. It doesn't appear that they are going to do so. I'd bet that the huge contract they signed last year probably has something to do with this decision.
5. But can we please, please stop with the 'leads' about this story being that Phil Robertson is 'homophobic' or 'anti-gay'? 'Homophobic' implies fear and loathing. There's none of that in this story. He's a man who knows about sin and speaks against it. We live in a world that tells us that all kinds of things are wrong...but no longer can we call something sin.
6. I go back and forth on whether this is 'persecution'. On the one hand, he's not being killed for his beliefs and nobody is throwing him in jail. He's certainly made his money on this show and this won't send him to the poorhouse. But on the other hand, he basically loses his job because of his statement. To lose a livelihood because of belief, no matter how fake that livelihood may be, certainly does border on persecution.
7. Why is it that on TV today weirdness is encouraged but some things can never be mentioned? All manner of lifestyle is promoted on the various networks of crap that are out there, but when a statement of belief outside the ordinary goes against the trends of today, that's forbidden? If you're going to promote weirdness, let it be where it may.
8. In a supposedly free country, stupid statements deserve mocking, not firing. Not sure we live in a free country, though. Not sure we ever did.
9. The right deserves part of the blame for what is happening. Read enough history of this country and you find that many behaviors and beliefs were suppressed, even persecuted from those of a 'conservative' bent when they ruled the country. Now this lack of tolerance is coming back to bite them. Freedom means freedom even for those with whom you disagree.
10. I have found it interesting that many people who cannot tolerate somebody disagreeing with them about gun rights or Obamacare or some other issue not cannot stand it that somebody cannot tolerate their views on homosexuality. Basically the problem is this: we live in such narrowcasted world today that we don't think we have to hear something we don't want. Even in diversity, we have become a nation of isolated belief structures.
11. Did you actually read the GQ article? There's a lot more in here than homosexuality that is interesting, troubling, and should raise eyebrows. But it's also a really poorly written article as well, with lots of frivolous bad language by the writer. The writer needed a better editor.
12. Amen to Phil's words about sin and his dangers...it's much more than about homosexuality, though this is part of it. We need to also pay more attention to other sins as well. Sins like heterosexual immorality and adultery are now far too overlooked, as is adultery. Sin is still sin, and the church does itself a disservice when it only focuses on one particular sin at the expense of others, especially a sin it does not think it has itself.
13. This too shall pass. The celebrity grinder will quickly move on to somebody else, and Christians will find something else to be outraged about.
Saturday, December 14, 2013
The church's alcohol culture shift
Last night the wife and I went to a Michael W Smith Christmas concert. It was at an old renovated theater, and like many concerts or plays these days the management of the theater came out to do their spiel about sponsorship. Specifically, they mentioned their lead sponsors that have helped renovate the theater and support its ongoing operation: Wal-Mart, a local bank, a few others, and a liquor store. After each of the mentions, there was applause, but as you might imagine a little bit less applause when it came to the liquor store. But it was there nonetheless, as well as a few other sponsors in the program that were beer distributorships or something similar. Then, of course, there were the concessions in the lobby that included an open bar selling wine and beer.
At first my thought was, these people don't really know their audience. But on second thought, it makes me think that it wasn't that unusual. While Christians over the last century and a half have often been thought of as non-drinkers, that thought is often changing. In addition many people at this concert, located firmly outside the Bible belt in a more Catholic/Lutheran/Methodist culture, were likely of the non-evangelical variety, in which beer and wine are as firmly embedded in the culture of the church as outside of it.
It's an interesting place that Christians are often put in today...how do we react when some of the social mores are changing around us? I have to think that a few of the concertgoers last night might have been deeply offended at the reference to alcohol, but many more were not. I wasn't offended, but I was surprised. I'm still of the old, southern evangelical variety in which alcohol is usually seen as a vice. I don't necessarily see alcohol as inherently a sin, but I still think it's a bad idea for quite a few reasons. But while many Christians have 'stood firm' on some issues, this seems to be one in which the cultural landscape for the church is in the middle of a shift.
At first my thought was, these people don't really know their audience. But on second thought, it makes me think that it wasn't that unusual. While Christians over the last century and a half have often been thought of as non-drinkers, that thought is often changing. In addition many people at this concert, located firmly outside the Bible belt in a more Catholic/Lutheran/Methodist culture, were likely of the non-evangelical variety, in which beer and wine are as firmly embedded in the culture of the church as outside of it.
It's an interesting place that Christians are often put in today...how do we react when some of the social mores are changing around us? I have to think that a few of the concertgoers last night might have been deeply offended at the reference to alcohol, but many more were not. I wasn't offended, but I was surprised. I'm still of the old, southern evangelical variety in which alcohol is usually seen as a vice. I don't necessarily see alcohol as inherently a sin, but I still think it's a bad idea for quite a few reasons. But while many Christians have 'stood firm' on some issues, this seems to be one in which the cultural landscape for the church is in the middle of a shift.
Friday, December 6, 2013
Panemwear
On the way home from the city today after making some hospital visits I decided to stop by the mall to look for some Christmas presents for my lovely wife. Normally I do most of my shopping for her over the internet as I don't care for the mall crowds, but I decided to look around on a quiet Friday morning and see if anything stood out. I'm past the point where it fears weird as a forty-something guy to be walking through women's wear and having the ladies doing their own shopping think I'm some kind of pervert. I'm not...just find me what I need to get, and I'll leave.
So I walked through something like 10 stores at the mall that feature women's wear: Von Maur, Dillard's, Forever 21, so on and so forth. They have lots of clothes...and most all of them absolutely atrocious. My wife, who dresses simply but with generally good taste, would never wear most of the stuff in those stores. It's not that they are necessarily skanky (being wintertime, not a lot of very revealing stuff out there), it's just that they are overly colorful, overly decorative clothing that place so much more emphasis on some weird thought of 'style' than they do functionality. She's very practical, as am I...anything that won't really wear comfortably so that she can work, she doesn't want. She'd probably be most happy shopping at a sporting goods store to get some sweatshirt and comfy pants, but I had thought that I'll at least look in 'regular' clothes stores.
About the sixth store I was in it finally hit home where I shopping: the great mall of Panem.
So I walked through something like 10 stores at the mall that feature women's wear: Von Maur, Dillard's, Forever 21, so on and so forth. They have lots of clothes...and most all of them absolutely atrocious. My wife, who dresses simply but with generally good taste, would never wear most of the stuff in those stores. It's not that they are necessarily skanky (being wintertime, not a lot of very revealing stuff out there), it's just that they are overly colorful, overly decorative clothing that place so much more emphasis on some weird thought of 'style' than they do functionality. She's very practical, as am I...anything that won't really wear comfortably so that she can work, she doesn't want. She'd probably be most happy shopping at a sporting goods store to get some sweatshirt and comfy pants, but I had thought that I'll at least look in 'regular' clothes stores.
About the sixth store I was in it finally hit home where I shopping: the great mall of Panem.
It started to become clear that whatever store I was in had completely gone off the rails as far as fashion is concerned. Overly fashionable, utterly useless clothing for living seemed to be what I found, anywhere I went. It's not just that I thought "she'll never wear this", but rather, "why on earth would she ever wear this?" Most of the clothes in these stores would not have seemed that far out of place in Panem, and most of the fashions of Panem do not seem that radical for our modern sensibilties. Our celebrities are more like Panem than we think.
What's more, every once in awhile I would look at labels to look at price but I also noticed where they were made: Bangladesh. Vietnam. Pakistan. Could you make the case that each of these places are 'districts' that cater to the whims of the global superpower? In the Hunger Games each of the twelve districts work only to meet the needs of the bloated victors; are things much different in the real world? Yes, we say, we are helping these countries by providing a market for what they produce...but at what cost? Are they really being helped, or are we just justifying our bloated consumer economy by saying that they get to receive some of the scraps of our economic might?
Friday, November 22, 2013
Fox News Bias, A Brief Viewers' Guide
Recently I was speaking with an older gentleman whom I otherwise hold in high regard. Somehow we started talking about Fox News...he's an avid viewer and I think he was trying to relate a segment he had seen. I mentioned how I had no trust in Fox News, as it's is slanted so far towards a Tea Party/neoConservative point of view that it's hard to believe anything one sees on there. "Oh no, it's true. It's fair and balanced. It says that it is."
I didn't really have a good response to his, because when you're so totally believing that your own truth is infallible, how can you even imagine it to be otherwise? How can I point out the inherent bias on "Your World With Neil Cavuto" or "Fox and Friends" when it seems so benign to those who take it in everyday? It's not like they come out and admit any form of bias, or disclose to their viewers that they hold to a certain ideology. So how can we tell that this bias exists without driving ourselves crazy by having to watch this crap and point it out each time it happens?
I don't watch Fox News intentionally, but it seems to be on everywhere you go. I'll notice it is on the TV at the rec center, or be at somebody's house where it is has been left on, and so sometimes it will present itself to me even though I don't care for it. But I've noticed a few things that show its bias for anybody who is willing to see it.
(Necessary admission: Yes, every newschannel has their own bias. MSNBC tilts liberal in particular. I get it. But I live in a red state where far too many people assume Fox News is gospel truth. Where I live I don't have to deal with people regularly who think that because Chris Matthews or Rachel Maddow said something that it must necessarily be true. If I did, I'd probably be just as annoyed with them and be writing about them. But I don't, so I won't.)
-1. What are the 10-word talking points up on screen during a segment? Because we live in such a distracted culture where we can't sit for even five minutes to listen to a segment, the producers of these news shows sum it up in 10 words or less in the bottom third of the screen (just above the 'crawl' section that makes people think they know what's going on in the world because they see a two-line summary of some huge event). For example, here's are some current headlines on FoxNews.com as I write on Friday afternoon (likely very similar to the on-screen points): "Dems reveal 2014 strategy to be smash and grab." "Under attack on all sides, Obama Democrats return to ramming speed." "Cost of offering health care might make some small businesses opt for fine." Three headlines, all painting democrats with a negative spin: they engage in smash and grab and ramming and their policies hurt business. What other takeaways can you get if you have the attention span of a moth? These expression are never overtly slanted...but the way they use words (and they are experts at this, I'll give them that) can shape the opinions their viewer form in very subtle ways.
-2. What kind of pictures do they put up of liberals? I've noticed this a lot more lately in social media and elsewhere. You can change perception by still pictures without even having to resort to photoshop. Most of the time when Fox News uses still images, Obama looks like he's about ready to puke, Hillary Clinton looks like a shrew, and Harry Reid looks like a wimp. No strong, positive pictures are available, I assume.
-3. At any given time, what are the other networks talking about? Here's a fun game (for sadists): at any given time, compare what CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News are talking about. What they talk about during their 'in-depth' segments tell you about the narrative that they are trying to push. Today most channels are talking about the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination. But as I was working out today the guy next to me who was watching Fox News on his machine was paying attention to the ways democrats are changing filibuster rules (unfair!) and more on the failures of Obamacare (incompetence!). Tell somebody in so many ways so many times and people will believe that this is the only way to tell the story.
-4. Who are the representative opponents who allow them to say see, we are fair and balanced because we let them talk? Yes, Fox News occasionally have liberals, but usually it's just a beaten-down Alan Colmes . Ever see a lumberjack match on pro wrestling, in which one guy is technically facing only one other guy but has a ton of people outside the ring knocking them around as well? That's what Fox News must be like for a liberal. In addition, most of the representative liberals I've noticed on there are not well-spoken; it's like they have taken the time to find the cheapest talking heads they can. Put them up against an expert from your side, and of course it will seem like that one point of view is markedly better. It's like comparing the Red Sox with the Wichita Wingnuts: don't be surprised if the Wingnuts aren't going to win a lot of games in a head-to-head competition.
The reality is that most people don't want to believe that their favorite point of view is a product of bias. We don't listen to what others have to say, and with the fractured 'narrowcasting' of news programs this separation only gets larger. But the first step of healing is the acknowledgment of the problem.
I didn't really have a good response to his, because when you're so totally believing that your own truth is infallible, how can you even imagine it to be otherwise? How can I point out the inherent bias on "Your World With Neil Cavuto" or "Fox and Friends" when it seems so benign to those who take it in everyday? It's not like they come out and admit any form of bias, or disclose to their viewers that they hold to a certain ideology. So how can we tell that this bias exists without driving ourselves crazy by having to watch this crap and point it out each time it happens?
I don't watch Fox News intentionally, but it seems to be on everywhere you go. I'll notice it is on the TV at the rec center, or be at somebody's house where it is has been left on, and so sometimes it will present itself to me even though I don't care for it. But I've noticed a few things that show its bias for anybody who is willing to see it.
(Necessary admission: Yes, every newschannel has their own bias. MSNBC tilts liberal in particular. I get it. But I live in a red state where far too many people assume Fox News is gospel truth. Where I live I don't have to deal with people regularly who think that because Chris Matthews or Rachel Maddow said something that it must necessarily be true. If I did, I'd probably be just as annoyed with them and be writing about them. But I don't, so I won't.)
-1. What are the 10-word talking points up on screen during a segment? Because we live in such a distracted culture where we can't sit for even five minutes to listen to a segment, the producers of these news shows sum it up in 10 words or less in the bottom third of the screen (just above the 'crawl' section that makes people think they know what's going on in the world because they see a two-line summary of some huge event). For example, here's are some current headlines on FoxNews.com as I write on Friday afternoon (likely very similar to the on-screen points): "Dems reveal 2014 strategy to be smash and grab." "Under attack on all sides, Obama Democrats return to ramming speed." "Cost of offering health care might make some small businesses opt for fine." Three headlines, all painting democrats with a negative spin: they engage in smash and grab and ramming and their policies hurt business. What other takeaways can you get if you have the attention span of a moth? These expression are never overtly slanted...but the way they use words (and they are experts at this, I'll give them that) can shape the opinions their viewer form in very subtle ways.
-2. What kind of pictures do they put up of liberals? I've noticed this a lot more lately in social media and elsewhere. You can change perception by still pictures without even having to resort to photoshop. Most of the time when Fox News uses still images, Obama looks like he's about ready to puke, Hillary Clinton looks like a shrew, and Harry Reid looks like a wimp. No strong, positive pictures are available, I assume.
-3. At any given time, what are the other networks talking about? Here's a fun game (for sadists): at any given time, compare what CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News are talking about. What they talk about during their 'in-depth' segments tell you about the narrative that they are trying to push. Today most channels are talking about the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination. But as I was working out today the guy next to me who was watching Fox News on his machine was paying attention to the ways democrats are changing filibuster rules (unfair!) and more on the failures of Obamacare (incompetence!). Tell somebody in so many ways so many times and people will believe that this is the only way to tell the story.
-4. Who are the representative opponents who allow them to say see, we are fair and balanced because we let them talk? Yes, Fox News occasionally have liberals, but usually it's just a beaten-down Alan Colmes . Ever see a lumberjack match on pro wrestling, in which one guy is technically facing only one other guy but has a ton of people outside the ring knocking them around as well? That's what Fox News must be like for a liberal. In addition, most of the representative liberals I've noticed on there are not well-spoken; it's like they have taken the time to find the cheapest talking heads they can. Put them up against an expert from your side, and of course it will seem like that one point of view is markedly better. It's like comparing the Red Sox with the Wichita Wingnuts: don't be surprised if the Wingnuts aren't going to win a lot of games in a head-to-head competition.
The reality is that most people don't want to believe that their favorite point of view is a product of bias. We don't listen to what others have to say, and with the fractured 'narrowcasting' of news programs this separation only gets larger. But the first step of healing is the acknowledgment of the problem.
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
Behind the 8 Ball
My daughter turned 8 recently. It's a fascinating age. Tonight at dinner much of the discussion centered on Santa Claus. How will he get into our house, as we don't have a chimney? Well, he can get in through the fairy door in the kitchen (which has a matching door out on the tree in the front yard). It's a tiny little door, so how might that work? Well, he's magical and he can shrink things to get through, just like he is immune to the fire when he goes through the chimneys. It's an age of questions and pondering and the like. Santa is already a question mark, but in a way he's still a possibility as well. I love the innocence and the seeking of 8.
But of course 8 has its darkness as well. She has never really been an 'easy' child to raise like my son. From the time when we brought her home from the hospital, when she simply never wanted to sleep alone, until even the present day, when she still has her nightmares and still wakes us up at night, she's always had her insecurities. She rages once in awhile at us, and I know that she's the cause of my grey hair. We sometimes dread the coming teenage years.
One of the things we have been really watching lately is how she interacts with her peers at school. When it comes to younger kids she loves to play the mother hen...get her a bunch of kindergarten kids who need bossing, and she's there. But around her peers? The little girl who has never liked being alone doesn't mind so much sitting alone or playing by herself at recess.
On the one hand this concerns me, because as a parent I want my kid to achieve and succeed socially. Who wants to raise an outcast? Sometimes I worry she isn't 'ascending' into second grade social stratospheres (yes, the class structure is already starting to develop at such a young age). Part of it may be that even as we have lived in this town since she was born we'll always be considered outsiders on some level. That's just small town life for you...stay a generation or four, and you'll be fully accepted. But part of it may be that she sometimes isn't quite as mature as some of the other kids. She's rather dance around like nobody's watching. She still very much has that little kid imagination when probably a lot of her friends have already decided against Santa.
But on the other hand I'm proud of her. In her younger days she would have raged and cried about not having everybody rotate around her. Now, though? She's basically fine with it. What this seems to tell me is that she doesn't think she has to be a follower of what everybody else does. Girls of the second grade are starting to learn that meanness that will become something of their trademark for the next twenty years of their lives. They'll exclude and bully and gossip about girls who don't live as the gang leader says they ought to live. Childhood, especially for girls, can be cruel. But I'm grateful that my daughter may well be learning to live above the fray. While the other girls are off in their groups gossiping and plotting, she's playing on the jungle gym and singing a song to herself.
We tell ourselves as Christians all the time not be followers of the world's ways. Perhaps, just perhaps, this lesson is being learned by my daughter.
But of course 8 has its darkness as well. She has never really been an 'easy' child to raise like my son. From the time when we brought her home from the hospital, when she simply never wanted to sleep alone, until even the present day, when she still has her nightmares and still wakes us up at night, she's always had her insecurities. She rages once in awhile at us, and I know that she's the cause of my grey hair. We sometimes dread the coming teenage years.
One of the things we have been really watching lately is how she interacts with her peers at school. When it comes to younger kids she loves to play the mother hen...get her a bunch of kindergarten kids who need bossing, and she's there. But around her peers? The little girl who has never liked being alone doesn't mind so much sitting alone or playing by herself at recess.
On the one hand this concerns me, because as a parent I want my kid to achieve and succeed socially. Who wants to raise an outcast? Sometimes I worry she isn't 'ascending' into second grade social stratospheres (yes, the class structure is already starting to develop at such a young age). Part of it may be that even as we have lived in this town since she was born we'll always be considered outsiders on some level. That's just small town life for you...stay a generation or four, and you'll be fully accepted. But part of it may be that she sometimes isn't quite as mature as some of the other kids. She's rather dance around like nobody's watching. She still very much has that little kid imagination when probably a lot of her friends have already decided against Santa.
But on the other hand I'm proud of her. In her younger days she would have raged and cried about not having everybody rotate around her. Now, though? She's basically fine with it. What this seems to tell me is that she doesn't think she has to be a follower of what everybody else does. Girls of the second grade are starting to learn that meanness that will become something of their trademark for the next twenty years of their lives. They'll exclude and bully and gossip about girls who don't live as the gang leader says they ought to live. Childhood, especially for girls, can be cruel. But I'm grateful that my daughter may well be learning to live above the fray. While the other girls are off in their groups gossiping and plotting, she's playing on the jungle gym and singing a song to herself.
We tell ourselves as Christians all the time not be followers of the world's ways. Perhaps, just perhaps, this lesson is being learned by my daughter.
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
Rick's death
An old friend of mine named Rick passed away yesterday. He had battled through leukemia several times but had recovered and done great things for God in the time that he had. He had spent time doing mission work in Japan, touched many lives, and will be sorely missed.
Most of the time when I mourn the loss of people they are those who have lived long, full lives, at least from my perspective. They are old, their bodies have extended past the traditional foursquare of life, and then they die. Rick, though, was in his mid-40s, the same as me. Most of us today who think about him think of what a shame it was that he didn't have a longer life than this.
Rick's certainly not the first guy of my generation to die early. The cheerleader a few years after high school killed in a car crash. The guy down the hall from me in college who died of an illness over the summer. A guy in my social club who drowned trying to save a kid at the lake. The guy who I picked on in youth group who died a few years ago from an illness. Too many people to name who were alive one day, dead the next, and always it was a surprise to hear that they were gone.
We expect people of a certain age to survive. Even when I heard last weekend that Rick's family was going to take him off a ventilator and it was not expected that he would survive, part of me expected that he would pull through this, that he'd be a scientific miracle, and he would have a few more years, even if it wasn't in good health. That only seemed right and fair.
Mickey Mantle's father died in his 40s, like many men who had worked in the coal mines of NE Oklahoma, and so Mickey assumed that his life would be short as well. His belief in a short life led to his womanizing, his alcoholism, and a life that perhaps did not live up to its potential. He lived into his 70s, but was it better for him to live this way?
But then I wonder whether it is good that we have an expectation to live into our 80s, as most trends now suggest. It is even thought that those who are born today might have a chance to live until they are 150, with better diet and medicine. Continually we are promised a longer life if we will just eat right take care of our bodies. Why do I go to the gym 4 times a week? Why do I bother with vegetables and fruit, even if I don't eat enough of them? Because I'm told that it's better to live longer.
Are we blessed to know that it is likely we will live long lives? We don't want to pull a Mantle and think that since life is (likely to be) short, we'd better do as much sin as we can. But a longer life...does it make us lazy? Do we not live as we ought to live because we think we have too much time? Even though life is longer than some have expected, we have a sense that there's always plenty of time. Mortality is only the problem of the old people, we think.
Maybe this is why so many people have an unfortunate death: many years are tacked onto the end of life that are, by most accounts, unhappy. Countless hours making doctors' appointments, taking medicines that cause too many side effects, becoming a burden upon others, living lives knowing you can't do most of the things you want to do because you are afraid of falling or need to stay home near the toilet. What kind of life is that? We've been brainwashed into thinking that a long life is so much better than a short one.
I've often thought (and said) that the day before I come down with a debilitating illness that starts me on my spiral I want to be hit by a bus. I hope that God will grant me that request. I don't want to live years or decades in old age. Maybe some do...I don't. I'd rather live enough years to be enjoyable, but not so many that life becomes a burden.
We grieve Rick's loss, but he's also fortunate as well. I love my wife and kids and church and job and so many other things. But today Rick is the one who is home with the LORD, who is fellowshiping with others who have been fortunate enough to die in Christ. His physical life is not as long as most of our lives today, but his eternal life has already begun.
I'm still a long ways away from that point in which I fully expect my peers to start dying off, where I don't plan a lot each week because I think I'll probably have to go to somebody's funeral. But a lot of me hopes that I don't have to do that at all; I'd rather be with the Lord first.
Most of the time when I mourn the loss of people they are those who have lived long, full lives, at least from my perspective. They are old, their bodies have extended past the traditional foursquare of life, and then they die. Rick, though, was in his mid-40s, the same as me. Most of us today who think about him think of what a shame it was that he didn't have a longer life than this.
Rick's certainly not the first guy of my generation to die early. The cheerleader a few years after high school killed in a car crash. The guy down the hall from me in college who died of an illness over the summer. A guy in my social club who drowned trying to save a kid at the lake. The guy who I picked on in youth group who died a few years ago from an illness. Too many people to name who were alive one day, dead the next, and always it was a surprise to hear that they were gone.
We expect people of a certain age to survive. Even when I heard last weekend that Rick's family was going to take him off a ventilator and it was not expected that he would survive, part of me expected that he would pull through this, that he'd be a scientific miracle, and he would have a few more years, even if it wasn't in good health. That only seemed right and fair.
Mickey Mantle's father died in his 40s, like many men who had worked in the coal mines of NE Oklahoma, and so Mickey assumed that his life would be short as well. His belief in a short life led to his womanizing, his alcoholism, and a life that perhaps did not live up to its potential. He lived into his 70s, but was it better for him to live this way?
But then I wonder whether it is good that we have an expectation to live into our 80s, as most trends now suggest. It is even thought that those who are born today might have a chance to live until they are 150, with better diet and medicine. Continually we are promised a longer life if we will just eat right take care of our bodies. Why do I go to the gym 4 times a week? Why do I bother with vegetables and fruit, even if I don't eat enough of them? Because I'm told that it's better to live longer.
Are we blessed to know that it is likely we will live long lives? We don't want to pull a Mantle and think that since life is (likely to be) short, we'd better do as much sin as we can. But a longer life...does it make us lazy? Do we not live as we ought to live because we think we have too much time? Even though life is longer than some have expected, we have a sense that there's always plenty of time. Mortality is only the problem of the old people, we think.
Maybe this is why so many people have an unfortunate death: many years are tacked onto the end of life that are, by most accounts, unhappy. Countless hours making doctors' appointments, taking medicines that cause too many side effects, becoming a burden upon others, living lives knowing you can't do most of the things you want to do because you are afraid of falling or need to stay home near the toilet. What kind of life is that? We've been brainwashed into thinking that a long life is so much better than a short one.
I've often thought (and said) that the day before I come down with a debilitating illness that starts me on my spiral I want to be hit by a bus. I hope that God will grant me that request. I don't want to live years or decades in old age. Maybe some do...I don't. I'd rather live enough years to be enjoyable, but not so many that life becomes a burden.
We grieve Rick's loss, but he's also fortunate as well. I love my wife and kids and church and job and so many other things. But today Rick is the one who is home with the LORD, who is fellowshiping with others who have been fortunate enough to die in Christ. His physical life is not as long as most of our lives today, but his eternal life has already begun.
I'm still a long ways away from that point in which I fully expect my peers to start dying off, where I don't plan a lot each week because I think I'll probably have to go to somebody's funeral. But a lot of me hopes that I don't have to do that at all; I'd rather be with the Lord first.
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
The Drone Wars
Imagine a situation in which Mexico finally gets serious about their war on drug trafficking. They arrest public officials and criminals who have been running rampant, they throw into jail people who are only marginally involved in the enterprise, and they set up a prison somewhere in the Caribbean to handle those who they don't feel can be tried in the courts for various reasons, chiefly that whatever information that would come to light during a trial would be embarrassing to those who are in charge.
But then the Mexican authorities decide to go further. In the interest of their own national security and the freedom and liberty of all its citizens, they decide to go after drug traffickers wherever they may be. And because many of the drugs passing through Mexico end up in the United States, they decide that they're within their rights to go after people within US borders. They send in troops who are forever snooping around San Diego and El Paso, they arrest American citizens and whisk them off to their Caribbean jail, and finally they launch drones that continually patrol the American sky looking for potential drug activity and occasionally reign Hellfire missiles onto unsuspecting bad guys. Unfortunately, they occasionally make 'mistakes' and innocent people get killed. Actually, it's not really occasionally...eventually the death toll would climb into the hundreds, with many more thousands of people getting hurt or having their property destroyed.
So, how do you think we'd feel about that in our country? Think we'd be a bit pissed off?
Change the cause for the war (drug trafficking to terrorism) and the location of the war (the United States to Pakistan or Yemen) and this is what is happening, according to reports from Human Rights Watch (Yemen) and Amnesty International (Pakistan). Here's an excerpt of the second: "According to NGO and Pakistan government sources the USA has launched some 330 to 374 drone strikes in Pakistan between 2004 and September 2013. Amnesty International is not in a position to endorse these figures, but according to these sources, between 400 and 900 civilians have been killed in these attacks and at least 600 people seriously injured." Hundreds of people being killed in Pakistan, and we act like we have a right to do what we want, all in the name of 9/11.
Now, let's say these figures are a bit overblown. Most objections to these reports are couched in the language of a)we can't verify that all these deaths come directly from drone strikes and b)they didn't ask the US for their side of the story, but only the baddies. Nobody is denying that the drone attacks on another country's sovereign soil takes place, but let's assume that we can cut down the number of kill strikes by 2/3.
Does this still make it OK? How many deaths and injuries of innocent foreigners are 'acceptable' losses? How long do these attacks continue?
For over 12 years now, through both Republican and Democratic administrations, the game plan has been the same: "Because of terrorism, we have a right to be doing these incursions, we have the right to ignore the sovereignty of another nation, one who supposedly has been our ally most of the time the past 50 years, because we still think there are a few al-Qaeda terrorists up in the hills."
After all the stories about the government spying on its own citizens, with all the failures we have encountered in trying to export western civilization to the middle east, with all the fear and money and lives expended to try to 'fix' the crazies of this world, we have to ask...who are the real terrorists?
But then the Mexican authorities decide to go further. In the interest of their own national security and the freedom and liberty of all its citizens, they decide to go after drug traffickers wherever they may be. And because many of the drugs passing through Mexico end up in the United States, they decide that they're within their rights to go after people within US borders. They send in troops who are forever snooping around San Diego and El Paso, they arrest American citizens and whisk them off to their Caribbean jail, and finally they launch drones that continually patrol the American sky looking for potential drug activity and occasionally reign Hellfire missiles onto unsuspecting bad guys. Unfortunately, they occasionally make 'mistakes' and innocent people get killed. Actually, it's not really occasionally...eventually the death toll would climb into the hundreds, with many more thousands of people getting hurt or having their property destroyed.
So, how do you think we'd feel about that in our country? Think we'd be a bit pissed off?
Change the cause for the war (drug trafficking to terrorism) and the location of the war (the United States to Pakistan or Yemen) and this is what is happening, according to reports from Human Rights Watch (Yemen) and Amnesty International (Pakistan). Here's an excerpt of the second: "According to NGO and Pakistan government sources the USA has launched some 330 to 374 drone strikes in Pakistan between 2004 and September 2013. Amnesty International is not in a position to endorse these figures, but according to these sources, between 400 and 900 civilians have been killed in these attacks and at least 600 people seriously injured." Hundreds of people being killed in Pakistan, and we act like we have a right to do what we want, all in the name of 9/11.
Now, let's say these figures are a bit overblown. Most objections to these reports are couched in the language of a)we can't verify that all these deaths come directly from drone strikes and b)they didn't ask the US for their side of the story, but only the baddies. Nobody is denying that the drone attacks on another country's sovereign soil takes place, but let's assume that we can cut down the number of kill strikes by 2/3.
Does this still make it OK? How many deaths and injuries of innocent foreigners are 'acceptable' losses? How long do these attacks continue?
For over 12 years now, through both Republican and Democratic administrations, the game plan has been the same: "Because of terrorism, we have a right to be doing these incursions, we have the right to ignore the sovereignty of another nation, one who supposedly has been our ally most of the time the past 50 years, because we still think there are a few al-Qaeda terrorists up in the hills."
After all the stories about the government spying on its own citizens, with all the failures we have encountered in trying to export western civilization to the middle east, with all the fear and money and lives expended to try to 'fix' the crazies of this world, we have to ask...who are the real terrorists?
Saturday, October 19, 2013
"It seemed like a good idea at the time..."
So tonight I watched the 2012 movie "This Means War" with the ever-hot Reese Witherspoon and a few random dudes.
Movies like this that combine action, sex, and supposedly a few laughs are getting tiresome for me in my middle age, as they are so predictable and dull and without any common sense, but once in awhile I watch if it's free at the library. Maybe I'll be surprised, I think. But not this one...I ended up rating it a 5 on IMDB, and was thinking of going lower by the end. Amazingly, Wikipedia says it made $156 million.
Here's the reason for this post: 2 CIA agents are trying to date the same woman and use every available CIA resource at their disposal. They wiretap her house, follow her everywhere, and not just from one team, but two teams of agents working against each other. Likely, millions of dollars of federal dollars are used to track this woman so that each agent can get an advantage. Sound familiar?
It's really not a good movie, but I couldn't help watching this movie through the lens of all that NSA mess not long ago, in which the federal government is basically watching everything we do and say and post on the internet. What was meant in this movie to be Good Clean Harmless Fun is in fact that which has exposed much malfeasance on the part of the government. It's can't be GCHF anymore, because we're all just sick and tired of what they may know about us. And so in the end, why on earth would Reese Witherspoon decide to stick with random dude #2? Any woman who learned what she learned about him in the end, why would she stick with such a moral generate? C'mon, Reese, you're much hotter than that.
A movie like this could never get made in today's climate because of all the spying stuff. But it should never have been made in the first place because it just really wasn't very good to begin with.
Movies like this that combine action, sex, and supposedly a few laughs are getting tiresome for me in my middle age, as they are so predictable and dull and without any common sense, but once in awhile I watch if it's free at the library. Maybe I'll be surprised, I think. But not this one...I ended up rating it a 5 on IMDB, and was thinking of going lower by the end. Amazingly, Wikipedia says it made $156 million.
Here's the reason for this post: 2 CIA agents are trying to date the same woman and use every available CIA resource at their disposal. They wiretap her house, follow her everywhere, and not just from one team, but two teams of agents working against each other. Likely, millions of dollars of federal dollars are used to track this woman so that each agent can get an advantage. Sound familiar?
It's really not a good movie, but I couldn't help watching this movie through the lens of all that NSA mess not long ago, in which the federal government is basically watching everything we do and say and post on the internet. What was meant in this movie to be Good Clean Harmless Fun is in fact that which has exposed much malfeasance on the part of the government. It's can't be GCHF anymore, because we're all just sick and tired of what they may know about us. And so in the end, why on earth would Reese Witherspoon decide to stick with random dude #2? Any woman who learned what she learned about him in the end, why would she stick with such a moral generate? C'mon, Reese, you're much hotter than that.
A movie like this could never get made in today's climate because of all the spying stuff. But it should never have been made in the first place because it just really wasn't very good to begin with.
Saturday, October 12, 2013
Charity guilt
Yesterday I'm with my family at Wal-Mart and as we are leaving a guy standing outside comes up to my kids and pushes a tootsie roll into their hands. Not one of the little ones, mind you, but one of the three-inch kinds that takes awhile to eat. Now, this guy wasn't like the one at Spangles the other day, an old guy with unkempt beard who came up to Jacob as he was eating ice cream, rubbed his head, and acted like something this side of a child predator. I was about ready to be forcible when he realized we were ignoring him and walked away. The guy at Wal-Mart was just an average everyday guy who was collecting for some charity. Not sure what it was...probably not Salvation Army, as it isn't that time of year yet.
The implication, however, was the same: please give. And by giving my children candy, the plea was all the stronger: I gave candy to your kids, so you ought to give to me (and my charity). In fact, not only ought you to give, you should feel guilty for receiving something and then walking away, you jerk. But we kept walking, and I'm sure he went onto somebody else and eventually collected whatever his quota was for the day.
In this week's Freakonomics podcast (almost always a good listen) they were discussing charity and altruism, the idea that how one asks often determines whether or not one gives. Basically, the two points I took out of the podcast were these: 1)Good-looking blondes have a lot better chance of getting your money than others do, and 2)People are much more likely to give if they think they derive some sort of tangible benefit from giving; in other words, you don't give necessarily to help others, you give in order to help yourself. It makes sense, really...most people are selfish and sexually motivated, so this affects their giving as much as anything else.
So the guy giving my kids tootsie rolls was obviously not an attraction to me, so what else did he have? He had candy for my children. Not a tangible benefit for me (and in fact, long-term, probably a negative, as candy makes them more wound up and less well-behaved), but something that might be thought of good for my loved ones. Shouldn't I then give? Don't I have a real obligation to give?
It's one thing, though, when I have time to think about whether or not this is a good. It's a wholly different thing when somebody forces a their 'gift' (and hence their demand) onto me or somebody else. I probably would have told my children that they didn't need anymore candy, and kept on going. In the end, his actions perhaps made me less likely to give had he simply asked for some money. I still probably would not have given, but I wouldn't have been as annoyed as in the end I was, annoyed enough to sit and write out this blog post.
I try to be generous in my life, but don't tell me that I have to be generous. If you do I'll just keep on walking.
The implication, however, was the same: please give. And by giving my children candy, the plea was all the stronger: I gave candy to your kids, so you ought to give to me (and my charity). In fact, not only ought you to give, you should feel guilty for receiving something and then walking away, you jerk. But we kept walking, and I'm sure he went onto somebody else and eventually collected whatever his quota was for the day.
In this week's Freakonomics podcast (almost always a good listen) they were discussing charity and altruism, the idea that how one asks often determines whether or not one gives. Basically, the two points I took out of the podcast were these: 1)Good-looking blondes have a lot better chance of getting your money than others do, and 2)People are much more likely to give if they think they derive some sort of tangible benefit from giving; in other words, you don't give necessarily to help others, you give in order to help yourself. It makes sense, really...most people are selfish and sexually motivated, so this affects their giving as much as anything else.
So the guy giving my kids tootsie rolls was obviously not an attraction to me, so what else did he have? He had candy for my children. Not a tangible benefit for me (and in fact, long-term, probably a negative, as candy makes them more wound up and less well-behaved), but something that might be thought of good for my loved ones. Shouldn't I then give? Don't I have a real obligation to give?
It's one thing, though, when I have time to think about whether or not this is a good. It's a wholly different thing when somebody forces a their 'gift' (and hence their demand) onto me or somebody else. I probably would have told my children that they didn't need anymore candy, and kept on going. In the end, his actions perhaps made me less likely to give had he simply asked for some money. I still probably would not have given, but I wouldn't have been as annoyed as in the end I was, annoyed enough to sit and write out this blog post.
I try to be generous in my life, but don't tell me that I have to be generous. If you do I'll just keep on walking.
Sunday, September 29, 2013
Lord of the Sabbath
Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. (Exodus 20:9-10 ESV)
And he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath." (Mark 2:27-28 ESV)
And he said to them, "Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?" But they were silent. (Mark 3:4 ESV)
And he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath." (Mark 2:27-28 ESV)
And he said to them, "Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?" But they were silent. (Mark 3:4 ESV)
This morning I preached on the passages from Mark 2-3 in which Jesus and his disciples pick and eat grain on the Sabbath, then Jesus heals a man's hand on the Sabbath. The ultimate point I was wishing to make was not that we are simply free to do what we want on Sunday (which is often today how many Christians view their Sunday afternoons, with eating out, shopping, or watching football), but that we are called to affirm life on this day, recognizing that Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath. If he is in charge, we are called to do good not just for ourselves but make it where others can rest, too. In an era in which so many have to work on Sundays in order to keep the economy going and make it so that we who are privileged are free to relax on this day, I challenged the church to give up activities that make it where others have to work on Sundays. Don't others wish to spend time with their family, rest, or even attend worship on Sunday, but can't because of our activities? Though I don't believe in passing Sunday laws and know that one can take this practice to Pharisaical levels ("Hey, you're writing this post on a Sunday afternoon...doesn't that mean that the controllers of the internet have to work so you can write?"), I think it's important that we question whether or not is good that we make cooks and servers work so that we can eat, grocery stockers and checkers so that we can shop, and football players and peanut vendors and grounds crew and traffic cops so that we can be entertained.
The reaction, of course, was rather indifferent. Hopefully it will change people over time, but likely not. Maybe I'm wrong in my interpretations on this subject, though I think that our culture (as well as the Christian subculture) has swung from legalism to libertinism. Yet here's the two general reactions to what was said that bother me.
-1)"I like what you are saying, but in our capitalistic world, we can't really stop what Sundays have become." This attitude basically admits that Christians as a whole are impotent to shine a light in our culture. Sure, we pass laws all the time telling people how to live their lives, but moral influence? Forget about it. This says more about the weakness of genuine Christianity today than it does about the world. Don't we believe in the power of the gospel to change the world? I guess not.
-2)"You may be right, but I'm still going to do what I want to do." Now, nobody will say this directly, but it's what we do. Maybe I made some people uncomfortable today, but after they've had their dinner at Applebees and then spent the next two hours looking through shops at the mall, they've forgotten about why they weren't very happy with the preacher this morning. Many Christians today are so comfortable in their own culture that they refuse to be changed. Yes, the preacher might say things that they know are right, but are they willing to change? Are we as hard-hearted as Pharaoh?
Friday, September 27, 2013
Fake Life
My old seminary buddy Bruce Bates linked to a terrific article about a film that takes on the subject of how internet porn has affected an entire generation. I especially liked the comment from the film's writer, director, and star: "Are you watching these images and concluding how this is how real life should be?"
Porn is certainly a serious problem for many many...but I'm wondering how much 'fake' life affects the rest of reality. It's not enough that a woman that doesn't have a size 0 body is now considered chunky in our modern society or that sex isn't always like it is in movies (both porn or mainstream). How much other kinds of fantasy do we live with from the stuff we allow into our homes. It comes in so many flavors:
-Romance novels that make a woman think that prince charming shouold be coming on his white horse to save her from the losers in her life
-TV dramas that make us think that criminal cases can be wrapped up easily within an hour
-Talk radio that makes people believe that their own extreme positions can and must prevail or nobody will win
Though I've not really had an appetite for porn and avoided it as much as possible (I've always found it somewhat disturbing, though in honesty I do know what my lust triggers are) and I've sought to stay as grounded in real life as much as possible, I've noticed that fake life has impacted me as well. I am a child of the first wave of the video game culture. From Space Invaders onward, we've been taught to believe that nothing in life is permanent. First we would put another quarter in, but later on we learned the beauty of switching the home consoles on and off. Don't like how the game is going? The reset button is right there. No problem, right?
I'm wondering if this kind of denial of the results of our games causes more problems than we think. Let's start with a simple game of Pac-Man that isn't going well. You get distracted by the kids, you lose focus for a moment, and soon enough you're dead. Just hit reset, problem solved. But life isn't that easy. Many people daily make horrible choices and think that there are no consequences. As a parent I am daily trying to make my children understand that what we do matters: if my daughter throws a tantrum, holding her to punishment doesn't seem fair to her. If my son spends all of his money on something frivolous (and yes, the frivolity of the marketplace is ever-stunning in the crap that it produces) and therefore has no money later to buy something of substance, not then loaning him five dollars may seem cruel. But consequences exist...have video games tried to convince us otherwise.
A few years ago I became interested in a game called Football Manager and still probably play it too much (finishing 30 seasons...yeah, that's too much). Basically, you take control of the management of a team and see where it takes you. I'm really quite good at working the game, getting the right players, and putting them in the right spots. But this game is so good in part because it leaves a lot of things to chance. Players get hurt, or we lose a match we should have won, or my team owner is demanding unrealistic results and fires me for not achieving them. But early on I learned how easy it was to not live with the results...quit early from the game in which your player gets hurt or you lose to Wigan. Who cares, right? But think about how video games makes us view sports: our team loses winnable games, and we think the coach is a bum. A player gets hurt, and we scream and rant because it's not just fair. Part of the problem of fan behavior in our modern society may come from the fact that we haven't accepted the reality of the results. Because we have no outlet to give us an upset button if, say, Sporting Kansas City loses tonight, we get upset and bitter. Our fake life has made it where we don't want to deal with the reality of life.
I don't know that we can ever go back to the way things once were. Many people even now spend all their time in Second Life or the Sims or playing some other game or watching porn or absorbing a romance novel. The escapism from reality may seem comforting for a moment, but inevitably it makes returning to the real world all that much more difficult.
Porn is certainly a serious problem for many many...but I'm wondering how much 'fake' life affects the rest of reality. It's not enough that a woman that doesn't have a size 0 body is now considered chunky in our modern society or that sex isn't always like it is in movies (both porn or mainstream). How much other kinds of fantasy do we live with from the stuff we allow into our homes. It comes in so many flavors:
-Romance novels that make a woman think that prince charming shouold be coming on his white horse to save her from the losers in her life
-TV dramas that make us think that criminal cases can be wrapped up easily within an hour
-Talk radio that makes people believe that their own extreme positions can and must prevail or nobody will win
Though I've not really had an appetite for porn and avoided it as much as possible (I've always found it somewhat disturbing, though in honesty I do know what my lust triggers are) and I've sought to stay as grounded in real life as much as possible, I've noticed that fake life has impacted me as well. I am a child of the first wave of the video game culture. From Space Invaders onward, we've been taught to believe that nothing in life is permanent. First we would put another quarter in, but later on we learned the beauty of switching the home consoles on and off. Don't like how the game is going? The reset button is right there. No problem, right?
I'm wondering if this kind of denial of the results of our games causes more problems than we think. Let's start with a simple game of Pac-Man that isn't going well. You get distracted by the kids, you lose focus for a moment, and soon enough you're dead. Just hit reset, problem solved. But life isn't that easy. Many people daily make horrible choices and think that there are no consequences. As a parent I am daily trying to make my children understand that what we do matters: if my daughter throws a tantrum, holding her to punishment doesn't seem fair to her. If my son spends all of his money on something frivolous (and yes, the frivolity of the marketplace is ever-stunning in the crap that it produces) and therefore has no money later to buy something of substance, not then loaning him five dollars may seem cruel. But consequences exist...have video games tried to convince us otherwise.
A few years ago I became interested in a game called Football Manager and still probably play it too much (finishing 30 seasons...yeah, that's too much). Basically, you take control of the management of a team and see where it takes you. I'm really quite good at working the game, getting the right players, and putting them in the right spots. But this game is so good in part because it leaves a lot of things to chance. Players get hurt, or we lose a match we should have won, or my team owner is demanding unrealistic results and fires me for not achieving them. But early on I learned how easy it was to not live with the results...quit early from the game in which your player gets hurt or you lose to Wigan. Who cares, right? But think about how video games makes us view sports: our team loses winnable games, and we think the coach is a bum. A player gets hurt, and we scream and rant because it's not just fair. Part of the problem of fan behavior in our modern society may come from the fact that we haven't accepted the reality of the results. Because we have no outlet to give us an upset button if, say, Sporting Kansas City loses tonight, we get upset and bitter. Our fake life has made it where we don't want to deal with the reality of life.
I don't know that we can ever go back to the way things once were. Many people even now spend all their time in Second Life or the Sims or playing some other game or watching porn or absorbing a romance novel. The escapism from reality may seem comforting for a moment, but inevitably it makes returning to the real world all that much more difficult.
Friday, September 20, 2013
Expecting Equality
Once again in the news today we find that the Republicans in Congress are trying to block Obamacare. It's not enough that they've voted to repeal it over 40 times, continually criticize it, and seek to have the supreme court strike it down as law of the land (all the while blaming Obama because of the problems it will inevitably have)...now they are trying to starve it out of existence. Foolish, I know...but nobody is accusing modern conservatives of any kind of common sense.
Here's the great question nobody is asking, though...do we believe that all people in our country, no matter how rich or poor, no matter their social status, and no matter their health history, deserve the same quality of health care? It's a question that nobody is asking, and nobody is getting close to answering. For if we believe that all people deserve the equal opportunity of treatment when it comes to health care, should we not simply make it a right, and thus make socialized health care a fundamental basis of our social system?
For example...let's say a young person with no money in her checking account comes down with cancer. Do we offer her the same drugs, the same screenings, and the same treatment as somebody whose insurance can pay for it? Or do we go ahead and let her die, because economically treatment for her is impossible to be paid for by herself or her family?
Or think about an older man who needs a liver transplant and can afford the finest medical care. Do we believe that a different man, without money, should have the same right to the same kind of treatment, even though he can't afford to pay for it? Let's be blunt: does the wealthier (or more resourceful or the better connected) person have a greater right to live than somebody else?
It's interesting that in much of life only the most ardent communists would believe that people should have the same access to a product: almost nobody believes that we are all entitled to drive a lexus, live in a fancy house, or have the opportunity of an Ivy-league education. Some might feel entitled to such things, but that's usually more a problem of the rich in my experience.
Yet increasingly we believe that there are many other elements of life in which we ought to strive for equality as much as possible. Only the most hardened people do not believe that inner-city kids do not have a right to a quality education, as hard as it may be to get it. Only the most embittered would say that low-income defendants do not have the right to at least a competent level of legal defense, though often that is more of a goal than a reality. In some areas of life, we have determined that people have a particular right to equal opportunity, regardless of their social standing or their wealth.
So why not health care? What I'd really like to be asked to politicians on both sides of the aisle is this: do the poor have the same right to health care as the wealthy? If we can come to an agreement about this as a country, the health care debate might well get a lot more simple.
Here's the great question nobody is asking, though...do we believe that all people in our country, no matter how rich or poor, no matter their social status, and no matter their health history, deserve the same quality of health care? It's a question that nobody is asking, and nobody is getting close to answering. For if we believe that all people deserve the equal opportunity of treatment when it comes to health care, should we not simply make it a right, and thus make socialized health care a fundamental basis of our social system?
For example...let's say a young person with no money in her checking account comes down with cancer. Do we offer her the same drugs, the same screenings, and the same treatment as somebody whose insurance can pay for it? Or do we go ahead and let her die, because economically treatment for her is impossible to be paid for by herself or her family?
Or think about an older man who needs a liver transplant and can afford the finest medical care. Do we believe that a different man, without money, should have the same right to the same kind of treatment, even though he can't afford to pay for it? Let's be blunt: does the wealthier (or more resourceful or the better connected) person have a greater right to live than somebody else?
It's interesting that in much of life only the most ardent communists would believe that people should have the same access to a product: almost nobody believes that we are all entitled to drive a lexus, live in a fancy house, or have the opportunity of an Ivy-league education. Some might feel entitled to such things, but that's usually more a problem of the rich in my experience.
Yet increasingly we believe that there are many other elements of life in which we ought to strive for equality as much as possible. Only the most hardened people do not believe that inner-city kids do not have a right to a quality education, as hard as it may be to get it. Only the most embittered would say that low-income defendants do not have the right to at least a competent level of legal defense, though often that is more of a goal than a reality. In some areas of life, we have determined that people have a particular right to equal opportunity, regardless of their social standing or their wealth.
So why not health care? What I'd really like to be asked to politicians on both sides of the aisle is this: do the poor have the same right to health care as the wealthy? If we can come to an agreement about this as a country, the health care debate might well get a lot more simple.
Monday, September 9, 2013
Christian Nation: A Novel
Last week my brother told me about a novel he had read recently called Christian Nation. It's a book that is a 'what-if' account that assumes John McCain won the presidential election in 2008 and dropped dead two months after the inauguration, leaving Sarah Palin to became president. It's written from a liberal perspective that is terrified of the religious right, and is a word of warning about what would happen if the aims of the extreme religious right (personified by a dominion/reconstructionist ideology) gain credence in this country. I'm about halfway through the book, and though it's not the best book I've read, it is certainly something to pique one's attention. As a Christian sometimes I lament the fact that we are increasingly a wicked nation, but yet I also lament where conservatism has gone. I've drifted from my 1990s Rush Limbaugh conservatism into what I think is the sensible center, but sadly nobody looks to centrists anymore...both parties are too busy running so far to the far left or far right that the silent majority of those of us in the middle have been left without a political home.
I think there are two major problems with the premise laid out by Frederic Rich, the author. First, the novel paints a tea party movement that is swallowed up by the Christian right, when in fact I think that the Christian right has been swallowed up by the tea party movement. When the Christian right really started getting involved in politics several decades ago they found it necessary to align themselves with others who might be sympathetic to their POVs and would give them a foothold into the corridors of power. Their aims might have been good as they sought to promote morality and defend life, but in fact they have been co-opted to the point that their message could hardly be considered Christian at all anymore. When Christians of a particular bent are demanding unlimited gun rights, intervention into foreign conflicts, abolishing education programs, and incarcerating people at alarming rates, it's hard to think of them as truly being guided by Biblical Christianity. Maybe they think they are promoting the Kingdom of God, but rather they are more hell-bent on promoting worldly values than they would ever care to admit. Biblical illiteracy may well be part of the problem...they've gotten so far away from what the Bible actually says that they can be deluded into thinking that second amendment rights are found in the gospel. (This is an argument I actually heard a Christian make recently; it centered on Jesus telling his disciples on the night he was betrayed to take two swords with them. No, really.)
The truth is that the right wing of American politics is far more concerned with a pseudo-libertarian agenda than they are with Christianity. Sure, they may throw Christians a bone once in awhile on abortion or gay marriage, but modern conservatism is concerned with two things: 1)LOWER (or better yet eliminate) MY TAXES and 2)CURB (or better yet neuter) GOVERNMENTAL REGULATIONS. Everything else bows at the altar of these two points. The pursuit of money and what it can do for those in power, even the promotion of America First and our military might, guides the agenda of these right wingers. Whether it's right-to-work legislation, NAFTA, or overturning environmental regulations, what really matters is the bottom line...will it make the rich even more money? The Christian right, having forgotten about the prophets of the Scripture and their warnings about those who would build paneled houses while others starve, have bought into this agenda and made it their own. Christ may be spoken about sometimes, but in truth this is only a minor portion of the far right agenda.
A second problem with the novel, and perhaps more fundamental to why 'it can't happen here' (or at least not in the way it thinks) is that all evangelical Christians are portrayed with a broad brush. In the novel all evangelicals are reconstructionists, demanding a right-wing Christian America in which gays and Muslims and abortionists are all shown the door or shot, their choice. Truth is, this is a caricature that simply does not hold water. While there are fringes of Christianity that have bought into this agenda, it has become interesting that evangelicalism is becoming a much more broad place. Writers like Tony Campolo and Jim Wallis and countless others have been having a big impact on the conversation, taking Christians back to issues like social justice and love for one's neighbors. While some Christians make it hard for the rest of us to tell of the grace of Jesus Christ (and indeed, introlerant bigotism has become the common public perception many people have of Christianity as shown by books like UnChristian, which surveys those who believe that Christianity is a homophobic and intolerant and angry group of whiteys), there are many others looking to dispel that perception.
Most of my friends come from what could broadly be called 'evangelical' in their worldview, but with a few exceptions most have little or nothing to do with the reality of demanding forcibly a 'Christian' nation. Yes, they are bugged by gay marriage and abortion and similar issues, but most of them simply want to serve God the best way they can. Most of them can see through the false veneer of the lunatics, and like me are appalled at the extremes in both directions. This is why McCain ultimately lost the election. While many were nervous about electing a black man with a Muslim name, most of us were far more terrified at the prospect of a President Palin, she being recognized for the nincompoop she was by even sensible conservative voters. Yes, maybe we wanted a president that was a bit more white a bit more conservative, but we at minimum we wanted somebody who could string two sentences together. Obama may not have been perfect (and ultimately he has been mediocre), but we dodged a bullet by not having Sarah Palin be a heartbeat away from the presidency, a bullet that was far wider than the author of this book would have us believe.
In the end, it's an interesting book, and one I've enjoyed reading. But it's just fiction, and Lord willing will remain that way.
I think there are two major problems with the premise laid out by Frederic Rich, the author. First, the novel paints a tea party movement that is swallowed up by the Christian right, when in fact I think that the Christian right has been swallowed up by the tea party movement. When the Christian right really started getting involved in politics several decades ago they found it necessary to align themselves with others who might be sympathetic to their POVs and would give them a foothold into the corridors of power. Their aims might have been good as they sought to promote morality and defend life, but in fact they have been co-opted to the point that their message could hardly be considered Christian at all anymore. When Christians of a particular bent are demanding unlimited gun rights, intervention into foreign conflicts, abolishing education programs, and incarcerating people at alarming rates, it's hard to think of them as truly being guided by Biblical Christianity. Maybe they think they are promoting the Kingdom of God, but rather they are more hell-bent on promoting worldly values than they would ever care to admit. Biblical illiteracy may well be part of the problem...they've gotten so far away from what the Bible actually says that they can be deluded into thinking that second amendment rights are found in the gospel. (This is an argument I actually heard a Christian make recently; it centered on Jesus telling his disciples on the night he was betrayed to take two swords with them. No, really.)
The truth is that the right wing of American politics is far more concerned with a pseudo-libertarian agenda than they are with Christianity. Sure, they may throw Christians a bone once in awhile on abortion or gay marriage, but modern conservatism is concerned with two things: 1)LOWER (or better yet eliminate) MY TAXES and 2)CURB (or better yet neuter) GOVERNMENTAL REGULATIONS. Everything else bows at the altar of these two points. The pursuit of money and what it can do for those in power, even the promotion of America First and our military might, guides the agenda of these right wingers. Whether it's right-to-work legislation, NAFTA, or overturning environmental regulations, what really matters is the bottom line...will it make the rich even more money? The Christian right, having forgotten about the prophets of the Scripture and their warnings about those who would build paneled houses while others starve, have bought into this agenda and made it their own. Christ may be spoken about sometimes, but in truth this is only a minor portion of the far right agenda.
A second problem with the novel, and perhaps more fundamental to why 'it can't happen here' (or at least not in the way it thinks) is that all evangelical Christians are portrayed with a broad brush. In the novel all evangelicals are reconstructionists, demanding a right-wing Christian America in which gays and Muslims and abortionists are all shown the door or shot, their choice. Truth is, this is a caricature that simply does not hold water. While there are fringes of Christianity that have bought into this agenda, it has become interesting that evangelicalism is becoming a much more broad place. Writers like Tony Campolo and Jim Wallis and countless others have been having a big impact on the conversation, taking Christians back to issues like social justice and love for one's neighbors. While some Christians make it hard for the rest of us to tell of the grace of Jesus Christ (and indeed, introlerant bigotism has become the common public perception many people have of Christianity as shown by books like UnChristian, which surveys those who believe that Christianity is a homophobic and intolerant and angry group of whiteys), there are many others looking to dispel that perception.
Most of my friends come from what could broadly be called 'evangelical' in their worldview, but with a few exceptions most have little or nothing to do with the reality of demanding forcibly a 'Christian' nation. Yes, they are bugged by gay marriage and abortion and similar issues, but most of them simply want to serve God the best way they can. Most of them can see through the false veneer of the lunatics, and like me are appalled at the extremes in both directions. This is why McCain ultimately lost the election. While many were nervous about electing a black man with a Muslim name, most of us were far more terrified at the prospect of a President Palin, she being recognized for the nincompoop she was by even sensible conservative voters. Yes, maybe we wanted a president that was a bit more white a bit more conservative, but we at minimum we wanted somebody who could string two sentences together. Obama may not have been perfect (and ultimately he has been mediocre), but we dodged a bullet by not having Sarah Palin be a heartbeat away from the presidency, a bullet that was far wider than the author of this book would have us believe.
In the end, it's an interesting book, and one I've enjoyed reading. But it's just fiction, and Lord willing will remain that way.
Friday, September 6, 2013
To emigrate or to stay
Philip Yancey tells the story of a man he knew as a kid growing up in the south who got infuriated with the United States and its acceptance of the civil rights movement. This man moved his entire family to South Africa, which at the time was still fervently apartheid-ruled and would be for another 20 years or so. To him, it was a place where people knew their place, and things could be as Yancey's friend thought they should be.
I thought about that story this morning when I came across a brief article that said that more Americans are emigrating to other countries than ever before. The article didn't really give a reason why, and didn't really say where people are going to, but stories like that always make me want to read the comments. I'm a sucker for punishment, but I do. Basically it was the same whining and moaning that has become so common in our country. People are getting away from Obama, or higher taxes, or remaining restrictions on homosexuality, whatever. Everybody had a reason for why they might want to emigrate, but with a few exceptions only a few people posting had done so.
I'm wondering how many people horrified by gay marriage are thinking about going to Russia right now, considering how homosexuality is being suppressed there.
I'm also wondering how many people who consider themselves True Patriots are thinking about leaving the United States. They love this country so much in their minds that they have to leave it. Kind of bizarre thinking, if you ask me.
There have been times in my life when I think about leaving the United States. Sometimes my reasoning is altruistic, in that I want to GO somewhere else...to do mission work in other lands, or to raise my kids with a simpler lifestyle. But usually my reasoning says more about my feelings about where this country is going...I want to get away from the right wing nutjobs as well as the left wing bloodsuckers. I get fed up with life here and think that it would be better somewhere else.
Like most of my thoughts, though, they usually don't last very long. Back in my single days when I thought for several weeks about going to teach English in China (and do covert mission work) all it took was the realization that I knew nothing of the culture or the language and that likely I'd be in a giant city and stand out like a sore thumb. I can remember sitting on the floor of a Barnes & Noble reading about the language and thinking that I had lost my mind.
As Christians, sometimes we are called to go somewhere else, or in fact are sent in order to tell about Jesus. But I believe that most of us are called to stay where we are, wherever we may be, to be salt and light and leaven in this world. It means that instead of moaning and complaining about everything, we are called to work where we are to make things better. Instead of just talking about how bad things are and wringing our hands, we are called to be a witness to the gospel, which is Good News, not a listing of all the evils in this world. And instead of threatening to take our balls and go play somewhere else if things aren't exactly as we ought to be, we are called to be good neighbors to the foolish people around us, to be a blessing in their lives instead of using them only as a warning about how not to live.
I thought about that story this morning when I came across a brief article that said that more Americans are emigrating to other countries than ever before. The article didn't really give a reason why, and didn't really say where people are going to, but stories like that always make me want to read the comments. I'm a sucker for punishment, but I do. Basically it was the same whining and moaning that has become so common in our country. People are getting away from Obama, or higher taxes, or remaining restrictions on homosexuality, whatever. Everybody had a reason for why they might want to emigrate, but with a few exceptions only a few people posting had done so.
I'm wondering how many people horrified by gay marriage are thinking about going to Russia right now, considering how homosexuality is being suppressed there.
I'm also wondering how many people who consider themselves True Patriots are thinking about leaving the United States. They love this country so much in their minds that they have to leave it. Kind of bizarre thinking, if you ask me.
There have been times in my life when I think about leaving the United States. Sometimes my reasoning is altruistic, in that I want to GO somewhere else...to do mission work in other lands, or to raise my kids with a simpler lifestyle. But usually my reasoning says more about my feelings about where this country is going...I want to get away from the right wing nutjobs as well as the left wing bloodsuckers. I get fed up with life here and think that it would be better somewhere else.
Like most of my thoughts, though, they usually don't last very long. Back in my single days when I thought for several weeks about going to teach English in China (and do covert mission work) all it took was the realization that I knew nothing of the culture or the language and that likely I'd be in a giant city and stand out like a sore thumb. I can remember sitting on the floor of a Barnes & Noble reading about the language and thinking that I had lost my mind.
As Christians, sometimes we are called to go somewhere else, or in fact are sent in order to tell about Jesus. But I believe that most of us are called to stay where we are, wherever we may be, to be salt and light and leaven in this world. It means that instead of moaning and complaining about everything, we are called to work where we are to make things better. Instead of just talking about how bad things are and wringing our hands, we are called to be a witness to the gospel, which is Good News, not a listing of all the evils in this world. And instead of threatening to take our balls and go play somewhere else if things aren't exactly as we ought to be, we are called to be good neighbors to the foolish people around us, to be a blessing in their lives instead of using them only as a warning about how not to live.
Saturday, August 24, 2013
My NFL end
As we get older in life we have to make conscious decisions about things to give up in this life. Because there are many things we add in maturity that are More Important (spouses, children, jobs, houses, faith), many of the things we were raised with lose their importance.
In recent years I gave up college football (there were many negative reasons to give it up: athletes getting ripped off, many dull games, games were far too long, no real champion, why are colleges involved in this?) and except for the Royals I have gradually given up following any major league baseball. There are just too many games, and I just don't have time to follow 25 players on 30 teams. Of course, I could say that since I only follow the Royals I don't follow any major league baseball. Zing.
It was hard to give up both of these things in my life: baseball was part of my upbringing, and for many years most of my Saturdays were dedicated to college football. Especially when I lived on the west coast, Saturday football would start at 9am and many days I would watch the better parts of four games before the day was done.
The NFL, however, has been a relatively more recent addition to my life. I didn't grow up having a team, as the closest team was the Cowboys and I picked up my older brother's hatred of them, and the Chiefs never seemed worth rooting for. Only when I hit my mid 20s and was not far from Kansas City and had many friends rooting for what was often a good team (Derrick Thomas, Joe Montana, Marcus Allen, Neil Smith) did I jump on the bandwagon. But never was it a huge thing for me...I didn't live or die with the Chiefs like I ever had rooted for the Royals or the Sooners.
I have also developed a growing fascination with soccer in recent years. I'd much rather go to a Sporting Kansas City game than a Royals or Chiefs game, and I'd much rather spend a Saturday morning watching EPL soccer than a Sunday afternoon watching the NFL. I'm not sure exactly when things changed...part of it may be that after 40 years of baseball and football it seems to dull to me...soccer is something new, even though I played it as a kid. I enjoy learning the nuances of the game in a way that is something like learning a second language...it's not natural, but it's fun when it starts to make sense.
The NFL in many ways is a greatly entertaining product, but I'm just about done with it. The Chiefs have been bad enough that they haven't been must-see for years, but now that all this information about head injuries is coming out I'm not sure that I can keep watching. Just as I don't want to watch MMA because the point of it seems to be to hurt somebody else, the idea that football leaves so many people with debilitating injuries makes me squeamish about supporting it. I decided a few years ago that my son would not be playing football (there's plenty other games out there to make him tough without squashing his brain), and so maybe it's also time to give up the NFL as well.
The season starts in a few weeks, and it might be tough to escape it. But there are enough projects around the house to be done that I think I can get by without it.
In recent years I gave up college football (there were many negative reasons to give it up: athletes getting ripped off, many dull games, games were far too long, no real champion, why are colleges involved in this?) and except for the Royals I have gradually given up following any major league baseball. There are just too many games, and I just don't have time to follow 25 players on 30 teams. Of course, I could say that since I only follow the Royals I don't follow any major league baseball. Zing.
It was hard to give up both of these things in my life: baseball was part of my upbringing, and for many years most of my Saturdays were dedicated to college football. Especially when I lived on the west coast, Saturday football would start at 9am and many days I would watch the better parts of four games before the day was done.
The NFL, however, has been a relatively more recent addition to my life. I didn't grow up having a team, as the closest team was the Cowboys and I picked up my older brother's hatred of them, and the Chiefs never seemed worth rooting for. Only when I hit my mid 20s and was not far from Kansas City and had many friends rooting for what was often a good team (Derrick Thomas, Joe Montana, Marcus Allen, Neil Smith) did I jump on the bandwagon. But never was it a huge thing for me...I didn't live or die with the Chiefs like I ever had rooted for the Royals or the Sooners.
I have also developed a growing fascination with soccer in recent years. I'd much rather go to a Sporting Kansas City game than a Royals or Chiefs game, and I'd much rather spend a Saturday morning watching EPL soccer than a Sunday afternoon watching the NFL. I'm not sure exactly when things changed...part of it may be that after 40 years of baseball and football it seems to dull to me...soccer is something new, even though I played it as a kid. I enjoy learning the nuances of the game in a way that is something like learning a second language...it's not natural, but it's fun when it starts to make sense.
The NFL in many ways is a greatly entertaining product, but I'm just about done with it. The Chiefs have been bad enough that they haven't been must-see for years, but now that all this information about head injuries is coming out I'm not sure that I can keep watching. Just as I don't want to watch MMA because the point of it seems to be to hurt somebody else, the idea that football leaves so many people with debilitating injuries makes me squeamish about supporting it. I decided a few years ago that my son would not be playing football (there's plenty other games out there to make him tough without squashing his brain), and so maybe it's also time to give up the NFL as well.
The season starts in a few weeks, and it might be tough to escape it. But there are enough projects around the house to be done that I think I can get by without it.
Monday, August 19, 2013
The Failure of 'Evangelism'
This past weekend our church attempted one of our bigger evangelism pushes we have tried in the past few years. Every year our town hosts an event like many other small towns do...crafts, carnivals, street dances, parades. It's a really big deal for people in small towns to have events like this. If you grow up with these traditions, they are important...if not, then they just mean more traffic.
Anyway, we plunked down our $50 and reserved a space and then tried figuring out what to do with it. We wanted to promote the church, but more importantly, to tell about Christ. The idea we settled on was to try and get people to take a simple 10-question 'test' about basic bible knowledge. If they were to take the test, they would get a Bible. The idea was that if we could get them to think about these things then they would be willing to talk about the Lord. We also had plenty of promotional pens, magnets, and fans to pass out as well to people walking by. Then, on Sunday, we had a cookout at the church building and were to spend time inviting people to come and worship and eat with us.
We quickly discovered several things. 1)Most people have no interest in stopping and taking a test, nor do they really want to talk to you. They might be interested in the incense seller on one side of us, or the spice seller on the other, or the candle sellers or the horseshoe art guy across from us, but only for what they could buy. 2)The ones who might be interested in talking already believed they knew everything there was to know about the Bible, even if they took the test and missed quite a few (IMHO) easy questions. If they did not have a church background, taking a Bible test was intimidating to them. And not much fun, either, especially when there was so much other fun to be had elsewhere. 3)In the end, because most people were walking quickly we resorted to passing out stuff. Almost 2000 pieces of material. Many invitations to the cookout. We were friendly and non-threatening...it's true!
And guess what? Not a single visitor, even those whom we talked to and seemed genuinely interested in coming, came to church on Sunday and ate lunch with us. Not a single one. We tell ourselves that we've planted some seeds. Six months from now, somebody will see that magnet or that pen and walk through our door. But deep down I think we know the truth...it didn't really work.
It's hard not to feel like a failure in this job when it seems like nothing we do works. Depressing failure means that most churches give up and stop trying to reach out at some point...some studies show that evangelism stops being a primary focus of a church within a decade after it is founded, and by the time 25 years passes outreach is rarely attempted. I'll give credit to our church (or at least a few people in it)...we don't stop trying. 'Think souls' remains the motto for at least a few of our hearty souls. But yet we continue to lose people more quickly than we gain them. Indeed, even many of those churches gaining in number don't grow anymore, they swell, picking off healthy members from older, dying congregations. Lord knows we've lost enough people that way. Those of us left in smaller, dying churches feel like a shrinking pack of cheetahs waiting for another attack by the lions and the hyenas and the praise bands down the street.
More and more I realize the truth that mass evangelism simply does not work. A number of years ago in another town we knocked on every single door and did not get a single favorable response. Maybe our technique was bad. Maybe (as I've later learned was the case) this church had a not-so-favorable reputation amongst its neighbors. Or maybe then and now we're just not doing what we ought to be doing...we're shooting for the random stranger rather than really doing evangelism. On a larger scale we keep throwing money into mailers (tried it), TV shows (seen it done), pens and magnets and fans (yep), and who knows how many other plans. It makes us feel good, at least for a moment, until nobody new walks through our door. Maybe another technique will try. What's Outreach magazine talking about this month?
Maybe, just maybe, we've missed the point. Maybe evangelism was never meant to be massive. Instead, it is to be as simple as getting to know the neighbor next door, being a friend who continually intercedes before the Lord on their behalf. It is to be as simple as sharing with that cousin who has gone through three marriages and countless bad relationships about what is really missing in her life. It is to be as simple as being an example, but eventually a faithful witness, to the co-worker who spends far too much time worrying about all the money he doesn't have. Maybe evangelism is about just knowing who is the ONE that we can reach for Jesus.
It might even be easy to blame the Bible for our failures. Matthew 28 tells us to go and preach to all nations, and Acts shows Paul as the dynamo who did it. We're inspired by the Billy Grahams and the heroes of faith and the shiny sparkly televangelists who seem to be able to reach millions. And so we think, hey, we can do that too...we have fans and pens and magnets, don't we? We have a great correspondence course that teaches important Bible facts, right? Good for us.
But somehow I think we long ago missed the point. If we're going to reach the world, we need to start one person at a time.
Who's my ONE going to be?
Anyway, we plunked down our $50 and reserved a space and then tried figuring out what to do with it. We wanted to promote the church, but more importantly, to tell about Christ. The idea we settled on was to try and get people to take a simple 10-question 'test' about basic bible knowledge. If they were to take the test, they would get a Bible. The idea was that if we could get them to think about these things then they would be willing to talk about the Lord. We also had plenty of promotional pens, magnets, and fans to pass out as well to people walking by. Then, on Sunday, we had a cookout at the church building and were to spend time inviting people to come and worship and eat with us.
We quickly discovered several things. 1)Most people have no interest in stopping and taking a test, nor do they really want to talk to you. They might be interested in the incense seller on one side of us, or the spice seller on the other, or the candle sellers or the horseshoe art guy across from us, but only for what they could buy. 2)The ones who might be interested in talking already believed they knew everything there was to know about the Bible, even if they took the test and missed quite a few (IMHO) easy questions. If they did not have a church background, taking a Bible test was intimidating to them. And not much fun, either, especially when there was so much other fun to be had elsewhere. 3)In the end, because most people were walking quickly we resorted to passing out stuff. Almost 2000 pieces of material. Many invitations to the cookout. We were friendly and non-threatening...it's true!
And guess what? Not a single visitor, even those whom we talked to and seemed genuinely interested in coming, came to church on Sunday and ate lunch with us. Not a single one. We tell ourselves that we've planted some seeds. Six months from now, somebody will see that magnet or that pen and walk through our door. But deep down I think we know the truth...it didn't really work.
It's hard not to feel like a failure in this job when it seems like nothing we do works. Depressing failure means that most churches give up and stop trying to reach out at some point...some studies show that evangelism stops being a primary focus of a church within a decade after it is founded, and by the time 25 years passes outreach is rarely attempted. I'll give credit to our church (or at least a few people in it)...we don't stop trying. 'Think souls' remains the motto for at least a few of our hearty souls. But yet we continue to lose people more quickly than we gain them. Indeed, even many of those churches gaining in number don't grow anymore, they swell, picking off healthy members from older, dying congregations. Lord knows we've lost enough people that way. Those of us left in smaller, dying churches feel like a shrinking pack of cheetahs waiting for another attack by the lions and the hyenas and the praise bands down the street.
More and more I realize the truth that mass evangelism simply does not work. A number of years ago in another town we knocked on every single door and did not get a single favorable response. Maybe our technique was bad. Maybe (as I've later learned was the case) this church had a not-so-favorable reputation amongst its neighbors. Or maybe then and now we're just not doing what we ought to be doing...we're shooting for the random stranger rather than really doing evangelism. On a larger scale we keep throwing money into mailers (tried it), TV shows (seen it done), pens and magnets and fans (yep), and who knows how many other plans. It makes us feel good, at least for a moment, until nobody new walks through our door. Maybe another technique will try. What's Outreach magazine talking about this month?
Maybe, just maybe, we've missed the point. Maybe evangelism was never meant to be massive. Instead, it is to be as simple as getting to know the neighbor next door, being a friend who continually intercedes before the Lord on their behalf. It is to be as simple as sharing with that cousin who has gone through three marriages and countless bad relationships about what is really missing in her life. It is to be as simple as being an example, but eventually a faithful witness, to the co-worker who spends far too much time worrying about all the money he doesn't have. Maybe evangelism is about just knowing who is the ONE that we can reach for Jesus.
It might even be easy to blame the Bible for our failures. Matthew 28 tells us to go and preach to all nations, and Acts shows Paul as the dynamo who did it. We're inspired by the Billy Grahams and the heroes of faith and the shiny sparkly televangelists who seem to be able to reach millions. And so we think, hey, we can do that too...we have fans and pens and magnets, don't we? We have a great correspondence course that teaches important Bible facts, right? Good for us.
But somehow I think we long ago missed the point. If we're going to reach the world, we need to start one person at a time.
Who's my ONE going to be?
Friday, August 2, 2013
Movie Pitch: Buy Your Life
I have loved movies for most of my life. They have affected the way that I look at life, at relationships, even at faith. I've preached sermon series about movies, and I'm convinced that Hollywood isn't missing out at not using the Bible as an almost-endless supply of source material (and no, I'm not talking about junk like 'Left Behind'). The Bible is filled with terrific stories of intrigue, sex, violence, and forgiveness. Just look at the book of Judges or the lives of Saul and David. I'm preaching through David's life right now in fact and would think that the story of David and Bathsheba definitely ought to be made a movie. Michael Douglas as the aged king who falls from nobility into lechery. Some young hollywood babe to be Bathsheba. Al Pacino as Joab, the military commander who has a past of his own. Denzel Washington as Uriah, a man sent from the palace carrying his own death orders.
Instead, we get Fast and Furious, part six. Oh well.
But I have other ideas as well. One of them takes the best elements of The Hunger Games, Death Race, Running Man, and our current resentment and fascination of the wealth class of this country.
Imagine a dystopian future (they are all that, these days)...the wealth have secluded themselves into little islands of fortune, while the rest of civilization is poor, strung out, and does nothing but seek entertainment. Revolution is in the air, but it is stifled...why? The biggest show in entertainment: Buy Your Life. (OK, I know...better titles can be made than this...but we're just brainstorming here). Once a month the wealthy offer up a sacrifice to the proletarian masses. In an arena, the wealth superstar (picked at random, of course, or so it seems) has to defend his/her life in some way. Maybe it's in mortal combat with killer. Maybe it's in escaping from a hunt by expert hunters. Maybe it's in a race to buy their freedom by making an agreement with a group of rag-tag people who might (or might not) be able to be bought. The beauty of this is that the rules of the game are always changing...and there is a chance for freedom, or a chance for death. Sometimes the end is gruesome...a beautiful heiress gets raped and tortured. Sometimes the end is heart-warming...the wealthy creep pays for a new, well-maintained village for a few hundred families out of his fortune and finally learns the most important lesson of life.
The first 20 minutes set up this world...but what then? There's several ways to go. One of them is about how the game is rigged...maybe a business tycoon pays off the 'random selection' committee in order to have his main rival put into the arena. Maybe a trophy wife, having had her husband caught, sells him in much the same way. Or maybe, just maybe, we find out that the people being sacrificed all along were not the wealthy ones. Instead, they were stand-ins for somebody else. The powerful continue to get their own way, and the poor are instead unknowingly killing their own.
Maybe it's a personal story about an oblivious young wealthy person who gets entered into the arena. He's done some bad things, but nothing too horrible, but his name is selected. At first he is terrified and does all the wrong things, but eventually his heart and his courage (not to mention his good looks) make him into somebody that the viewers can identify with. What's this? Can we really root for the rich man? But I'm not sure where this story ends up.
Or maybe it's a story of the sneering wealthy guy whose death is not enough. The arena erupts, and violence begins spilling out into the streets. If one wealthy person is killed, why not all of them? Homes are invaded, rebellion comes, and a new world order comes out of it all.
Maybe somebody competent will take this idea and run with it. But I think it's a good start. I'd pay to see this...or at least get it from Redbox.
Instead, we get Fast and Furious, part six. Oh well.
But I have other ideas as well. One of them takes the best elements of The Hunger Games, Death Race, Running Man, and our current resentment and fascination of the wealth class of this country.
Imagine a dystopian future (they are all that, these days)...the wealth have secluded themselves into little islands of fortune, while the rest of civilization is poor, strung out, and does nothing but seek entertainment. Revolution is in the air, but it is stifled...why? The biggest show in entertainment: Buy Your Life. (OK, I know...better titles can be made than this...but we're just brainstorming here). Once a month the wealthy offer up a sacrifice to the proletarian masses. In an arena, the wealth superstar (picked at random, of course, or so it seems) has to defend his/her life in some way. Maybe it's in mortal combat with killer. Maybe it's in escaping from a hunt by expert hunters. Maybe it's in a race to buy their freedom by making an agreement with a group of rag-tag people who might (or might not) be able to be bought. The beauty of this is that the rules of the game are always changing...and there is a chance for freedom, or a chance for death. Sometimes the end is gruesome...a beautiful heiress gets raped and tortured. Sometimes the end is heart-warming...the wealthy creep pays for a new, well-maintained village for a few hundred families out of his fortune and finally learns the most important lesson of life.
The first 20 minutes set up this world...but what then? There's several ways to go. One of them is about how the game is rigged...maybe a business tycoon pays off the 'random selection' committee in order to have his main rival put into the arena. Maybe a trophy wife, having had her husband caught, sells him in much the same way. Or maybe, just maybe, we find out that the people being sacrificed all along were not the wealthy ones. Instead, they were stand-ins for somebody else. The powerful continue to get their own way, and the poor are instead unknowingly killing their own.
Maybe it's a personal story about an oblivious young wealthy person who gets entered into the arena. He's done some bad things, but nothing too horrible, but his name is selected. At first he is terrified and does all the wrong things, but eventually his heart and his courage (not to mention his good looks) make him into somebody that the viewers can identify with. What's this? Can we really root for the rich man? But I'm not sure where this story ends up.
Or maybe it's a story of the sneering wealthy guy whose death is not enough. The arena erupts, and violence begins spilling out into the streets. If one wealthy person is killed, why not all of them? Homes are invaded, rebellion comes, and a new world order comes out of it all.
Maybe somebody competent will take this idea and run with it. But I think it's a good start. I'd pay to see this...or at least get it from Redbox.
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Enterprise Square, U.S.A.
When I was in my early teenage years one of my favorite activities was going to Enterprise Square, U.S.A. It was located on the campus of Oklahoma Christian University and was a monument to anti-government extreme capitalism. It was kind of a museum, kind of video games place. For $3 it wasn't at all a bad day for a 13-year old to spend a fall afternoon. Mom would drop me off, I'd quickly make my way through the museum portions to play the video games, and several hours later I'd finally get sick of going bust on the Oklahoma oil fields and have my mom come and get me. I'm guessing the combination of growing up in Oklahoma to conservative parents and visiting ESUSA probably 20 times in two years (remember, this is the time of my life of video game obsession before girls were on the radar) made me the supply-side Republican that I became throughout my early 20s.
Enterprise Square opened in 1982, and even then I thought the museum portion a bit cheesy. Singing presidents made to be Reagan-era capitalists, Bob Hope reading off of cue cards, aliens crash-landing on earth to examine our way of life...yeah. That's why I would usually go straight to the video games. There was always something wonderful about mowing yards and fighting off government regulations and being a truck driver that was something appealing. It was, after all, the very, very best way to live. the American way. Even now I still have within me the suspicions of government...though I'm probably more suspicious of large multi-national corporations whose only interest is profit and owe no allegiance to anybody but their biggest shareholders.
Sadly, the thousand visitors a day never really materialized. Even in the mid-1980s the place already had a kind of run-down feel to it. Nothing was ever updated, and the building has set mostly empty since it closed down over a decade ago. Mocked and now mostly unloved, it's a living reminder that capitalism is a dangerous proposition. When it fails, it fails miserably.
One final side note...only in recent years have I found great irony in the fact that a Christian institution, which Biblically speaks to the nature of fellowship and helping out the poor, allowed such a monument to be built on its campus. As I remember it now, Enterprise Square loved the individual and spoke to the glories of unfettered capitalism...but where was God in all this? What about the poor? Do we just let them get crushed by the overwhelming world economy? What about those who have been in jail and have no real future? Do we say sorry, you don't fit into the model of supply and demand? Nowhere in my memory do I remember anything about God at Enterprise Square. Reading the prophets of the Old Testament as much as I have for the last few years I have been struck by its call for economic justice and its warnings about the rich growing richer while the poor get left behind. This, more than anything, has pushed me away from the extreme conservatism of my youth.
Enterprise Square opened in 1982, and even then I thought the museum portion a bit cheesy. Singing presidents made to be Reagan-era capitalists, Bob Hope reading off of cue cards, aliens crash-landing on earth to examine our way of life...yeah. That's why I would usually go straight to the video games. There was always something wonderful about mowing yards and fighting off government regulations and being a truck driver that was something appealing. It was, after all, the very, very best way to live. the American way. Even now I still have within me the suspicions of government...though I'm probably more suspicious of large multi-national corporations whose only interest is profit and owe no allegiance to anybody but their biggest shareholders.
Sadly, the thousand visitors a day never really materialized. Even in the mid-1980s the place already had a kind of run-down feel to it. Nothing was ever updated, and the building has set mostly empty since it closed down over a decade ago. Mocked and now mostly unloved, it's a living reminder that capitalism is a dangerous proposition. When it fails, it fails miserably.
One final side note...only in recent years have I found great irony in the fact that a Christian institution, which Biblically speaks to the nature of fellowship and helping out the poor, allowed such a monument to be built on its campus. As I remember it now, Enterprise Square loved the individual and spoke to the glories of unfettered capitalism...but where was God in all this? What about the poor? Do we just let them get crushed by the overwhelming world economy? What about those who have been in jail and have no real future? Do we say sorry, you don't fit into the model of supply and demand? Nowhere in my memory do I remember anything about God at Enterprise Square. Reading the prophets of the Old Testament as much as I have for the last few years I have been struck by its call for economic justice and its warnings about the rich growing richer while the poor get left behind. This, more than anything, has pushed me away from the extreme conservatism of my youth.
Saturday, July 13, 2013
The parable of the house fixer-upper
There was a man who was hired to fix up a house. It was a house that was too small for all who needed to live there. It was too expensive for those already living there. It had chipped paint all around, holes in the floor, cracks in the wall, dangerous plumbing and electrical work. All in all, the house was a mess, though it was located in what all its residents claimed was the Greatest Neighborhood.
Was this man the right man for the job? Many others had applied, all spending millions of dollars to get the job that paid a relative pittance. But this man was hired because of his promise. He worked hard, said all the right things, and finally got the job. Some never liked this new hire. Too young, too cultured, too dark, too different, some continually complained about this man.
And so this man began his new job. Even though he had other jobs to do, his one particular special project in fixing up this house got off to a rocky start. It seems that while many people wanted this project finished, others did not. Continually they complained, stalled, worked against the project. They told all sorts of lies about what kind of project this was and how incompetent the builder was and went on Hound News to speak about how everything had been fine before.
But the man continued to work at his new job. He crafted designs and plans, yet his opponents kept ripping them apart. He suggested improvements to the structure of the house, and his opponents kept denigrating them. He pointed out how floorboards were broken and cracks were in the foundation, and his opponents kept on looking the other way. Too much money, they said. Too much work, they said. Too much change, they said. Too many people will be able to live in this house, they said.
But the man continued to work at his now not-so-new job. He met with experts about how to fix the house. He suggested numerous improvements. And the complainers continued to complain.
And finally the builder presented his plans. It wasn't like he really wanted; in fact, it wasn't like anybody really wanted. But the complaints had taken their toll. Compromise with those who complained about the cost, about the design, about anything in this house had made the project almost unworkable, but plans were made anyway to start building.
And so real work began. Old structures were torn out, new structures replaced them. There were improvements, but more and more it began to look like the same old structure. More cracks appeared. More age showed on the house. And all the while, complaints continued, deadlines were pushed back. Hound News daily reported breathlessly about what a failure it all was.
All the while lawsuits were filed to stop this construction. Challenges were made as to the qualifications of the man. Nothing was ever presented as an alternative to his plans, and most people began to forget how bad the home had been that a house-fixer was needed in the first place.
After years of work, and much money spent, things were about the same as they always were. The once-promising young man, now much more grey and tired, finally left his job in order to write books about his mediocre project. And all the while, some complained just as much as they ever did, satisfied in their role as obstructionists. Why did we ever need to change things, they asked? Their own rooms were just fine.
Now, I ask you, who is to blame for the failure of this project? The man who tried to fix the house, or those who continually complained about everything from the very first day he worked?
Was this man the right man for the job? Many others had applied, all spending millions of dollars to get the job that paid a relative pittance. But this man was hired because of his promise. He worked hard, said all the right things, and finally got the job. Some never liked this new hire. Too young, too cultured, too dark, too different, some continually complained about this man.
And so this man began his new job. Even though he had other jobs to do, his one particular special project in fixing up this house got off to a rocky start. It seems that while many people wanted this project finished, others did not. Continually they complained, stalled, worked against the project. They told all sorts of lies about what kind of project this was and how incompetent the builder was and went on Hound News to speak about how everything had been fine before.
But the man continued to work at his new job. He crafted designs and plans, yet his opponents kept ripping them apart. He suggested improvements to the structure of the house, and his opponents kept denigrating them. He pointed out how floorboards were broken and cracks were in the foundation, and his opponents kept on looking the other way. Too much money, they said. Too much work, they said. Too much change, they said. Too many people will be able to live in this house, they said.
But the man continued to work at his now not-so-new job. He met with experts about how to fix the house. He suggested numerous improvements. And the complainers continued to complain.
And finally the builder presented his plans. It wasn't like he really wanted; in fact, it wasn't like anybody really wanted. But the complaints had taken their toll. Compromise with those who complained about the cost, about the design, about anything in this house had made the project almost unworkable, but plans were made anyway to start building.
And so real work began. Old structures were torn out, new structures replaced them. There were improvements, but more and more it began to look like the same old structure. More cracks appeared. More age showed on the house. And all the while, complaints continued, deadlines were pushed back. Hound News daily reported breathlessly about what a failure it all was.
All the while lawsuits were filed to stop this construction. Challenges were made as to the qualifications of the man. Nothing was ever presented as an alternative to his plans, and most people began to forget how bad the home had been that a house-fixer was needed in the first place.
After years of work, and much money spent, things were about the same as they always were. The once-promising young man, now much more grey and tired, finally left his job in order to write books about his mediocre project. And all the while, some complained just as much as they ever did, satisfied in their role as obstructionists. Why did we ever need to change things, they asked? Their own rooms were just fine.
Now, I ask you, who is to blame for the failure of this project? The man who tried to fix the house, or those who continually complained about everything from the very first day he worked?
Wednesday, July 3, 2013
Outreach Magazine
Several years ago, encouraged by a fellow minister, I subscribed to Outreach Magazine. Basically it seeks to be what the title says: it wants to help churches figure out ways to reach their communities for Christ. For that it should be commended.
Eventually, though, I let me subscription drop, but they continue to send it to me. I just don't get a lot out of it. Over time I've figure out that they have two target audiences: 1)the large church which can afford the time, money, and staff to try many different things and 2)the hipster church plant targeted towards 30-somethings that has nothing to lose (sidenote...every person they picture looks like he just stepped out of a Aeropostale ad, even though some run into their 50s). For churches like the one I work with, older churches that have been in decline for a number of years (that is, most churches in the United States), it has very little to say. Yes, once in awhile it will have an interesting idea or an example of what another church did, but even most of their ideas run gimmicky. This month gave snippets about a guy who came back to church because the church next door had a fireworks display, back-to-school giveaways for teachers and kids in poor communities, and a church that formed a running club. Oh, and of course there were the numerous advertisements for seminary educations for the real world, books that would Change Your Ministry Forever, software programs to get your administration running smoothly, God's word coming alive through the Action Bible, and Inspiring and Powerful Guest Speakers who will entertain your audience. Not exactly the same stuff as members sharing the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ or about the powerful Holy Spirit of God.
This month is also their Small Church annual (?) issue, in which they give words of advice from their expert writers (most of whom work at megachurches) that comfort us poor benighted souls stuck with small churches. "Do we measure ourselves as healthy?" "Are our metrics beyond a numbers obsessions?" "Do we celebrate our creativity and involvement and innovation?" Blah blah blah. Heard it before, probably in last years' issue. Basically they don't have anything to say beyond just "hang in there, God loves you too!" I guess they need something to contrast with their annual Megachurch issue where they (no, really) list the largest and fastest growing congregations in the country and profile many of the hipster pastors who lead them. But in this month's issue what was most telling was their section giving small church profiles. Quickly I noticed a trend: in the nine churches profiled, EIGHT were planted within the last five years. The ninth has been around since 1943, has grown to five different sites in San Diego, and runs 225 people...far more than the national church average, and probably placing it in the top 20% of churches...not exactly small by most church standards.
If there is a real benefit to this magazine, it's that it makes me realize how much I love little churches like the one I am blessed to work with. We may not be hip, and we certainly do have our problems, but we do have an existence that is a little bit longer than last week. I desperately want it to grow, but I'd better look elsewhere for ideas on how to do this. I'm sure there are a lot of people who get a lot out of Outreach. But for me, I'd wish they'd change their name to Megachurch Gimmicks and Church Planting Catalogue. Might not get quite the publication numbers, but at least the title would be a bit more honest.
Eventually, though, I let me subscription drop, but they continue to send it to me. I just don't get a lot out of it. Over time I've figure out that they have two target audiences: 1)the large church which can afford the time, money, and staff to try many different things and 2)the hipster church plant targeted towards 30-somethings that has nothing to lose (sidenote...every person they picture looks like he just stepped out of a Aeropostale ad, even though some run into their 50s). For churches like the one I work with, older churches that have been in decline for a number of years (that is, most churches in the United States), it has very little to say. Yes, once in awhile it will have an interesting idea or an example of what another church did, but even most of their ideas run gimmicky. This month gave snippets about a guy who came back to church because the church next door had a fireworks display, back-to-school giveaways for teachers and kids in poor communities, and a church that formed a running club. Oh, and of course there were the numerous advertisements for seminary educations for the real world, books that would Change Your Ministry Forever, software programs to get your administration running smoothly, God's word coming alive through the Action Bible, and Inspiring and Powerful Guest Speakers who will entertain your audience. Not exactly the same stuff as members sharing the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ or about the powerful Holy Spirit of God.
This month is also their Small Church annual (?) issue, in which they give words of advice from their expert writers (most of whom work at megachurches) that comfort us poor benighted souls stuck with small churches. "Do we measure ourselves as healthy?" "Are our metrics beyond a numbers obsessions?" "Do we celebrate our creativity and involvement and innovation?" Blah blah blah. Heard it before, probably in last years' issue. Basically they don't have anything to say beyond just "hang in there, God loves you too!" I guess they need something to contrast with their annual Megachurch issue where they (no, really) list the largest and fastest growing congregations in the country and profile many of the hipster pastors who lead them. But in this month's issue what was most telling was their section giving small church profiles. Quickly I noticed a trend: in the nine churches profiled, EIGHT were planted within the last five years. The ninth has been around since 1943, has grown to five different sites in San Diego, and runs 225 people...far more than the national church average, and probably placing it in the top 20% of churches...not exactly small by most church standards.
If there is a real benefit to this magazine, it's that it makes me realize how much I love little churches like the one I am blessed to work with. We may not be hip, and we certainly do have our problems, but we do have an existence that is a little bit longer than last week. I desperately want it to grow, but I'd better look elsewhere for ideas on how to do this. I'm sure there are a lot of people who get a lot out of Outreach. But for me, I'd wish they'd change their name to Megachurch Gimmicks and Church Planting Catalogue. Might not get quite the publication numbers, but at least the title would be a bit more honest.
Political grace
Today I
finished re-reading Philip Yancey’s wonderful 1997 book ‘What’s So Amazing
About Grace?’ It had been a number of
years since I had read it, but as I was reading it struck me how much his
thinking has affected my own over the years, and how we both have lamented much
of the ‘un-grace’ that has characterized Christians and the Church in my
lifetime.
Near the end
of the book Yancey takes aim at political Christians, primarily conservatives,
who have sought to equate the Kingdom of God with the Kingdom of the United
States. Because we have sought to
legislate so much about what people can and cannot do with their lives, even as
we have been increasingly screaming about how much we want to get Big
Government out of our lives, much of the world looks at our witness as being
about small-minded moralistic fervor. Years
before the book came out called UnChristian that spoke of how young people look
at Christians as judgmental, hateful, and homophobic, Yancey related story
after story of the un-grace of Christians against Bill Clinton and others in
government and society; I’m sure if he was to update this book today he could
really dig into the Obama haters of the world.
One section
he wrote really is as relevant today as it was 16 years ago (just replace the
names of the ‘important’ issues then with what some are screaming about today):
Stephen
Carter offers good counsel about political activism: to be effective,
‘gracious’ Christians must be wise in the issues to support or oppose….
What about today? Are we choosing our battles wisely? Obviously, abortion, sexual issues, and the
definitions of life and death are issues worthy of our attention. Yet when I read the literature produced by
evangelicals in politics I also read about gun rights, abolishing the
Department of Education, the NAFTA trade agreements, the Panama Canal treaty,
and term limits for Congress. A few
years back I heard the president of the National Association of Evangelicals
include in his list of top ten concerns, ‘Repeal of the capital gains
tax.’ Too often the agenda of
conservative religious groups matches line for line the agenda of conservative
politics and does not base its priorities on a transcendent source. Like everyone else, evangelicals have a right
to present arguments on all the issues, by the moment we present them as part
of some ‘Christian’ platform we abandon our high moral ground….
All too often in their forays into
politics Christians have proved ‘wise as doves’ and ‘harmless as
serpents’—exactly the opposite of Jesus’ precept. If we expect society to take seriously our
contribution, then we must show more wisdom in our choices.
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Freedom to annoy
One of the more memorable scenes from Team America: World Police was a montage of 'Merica...F___ Yeah! in which the song goes with stuff (in other countries) getting blown up. Sure, it's a movie filled with a lot of terrible language but one of the messages of the movie, a mockery of thinking that we can blow up whatever it is we want to blow up whenever we want to, speaks to the feeling we have as America. Our freedom means that others just need to shut up when they don't like what we do.
I got to thinking about that tonight because we are in that time of the year when inevitably my daughter will come running into our room at night a few hours after we put her to bed. Why? Because some fool is out in the street shooting off fireworks, and it's all about FREEDOM (I can hear Mel Gibson screaming out as his nuts are chopped off as I write that). We celebrate our freedom from the tea-tax bullies from Britain by blowing stuff up, sometimes our own hands.
I used to be one of those people who had the 'Merica, F___ Yeah!' attitude about life. We're free, we're Americans, and nobody is gonna tell us what we can and can't do, whether within our own borders or outside as well. I used to be all about freedom: free markets, freedom for guns, freedom to live however we want to.
But as I've gotten a bit older, and hopefully more mature, I've realized that in a country of 300 million people that my freedom has limitations. I don't have the right to always do what I want to do. The 299,999,999 other people who call this place home have an interest in my life, and I have an interest in theirs. Thus maybe it's not such a great idea that we blow up fireworks outside of houses when people in those houses have to get up at 4:15am to go to work. Sure, YOU may get your jollies by doing that, but it's not so pleasant being woken up by either the fireworks or by an already sleep-deprived daughter.
So we recognize this. The fireworks only last for a week. We limit smoking inside buildings. We stop selling high-capacity gun clips to people who are likely to go onto murderous rampages. We don't allow people to scream 'FIRE!' in a crowded theater. Somewhere along the way, we have a bit of common sense, limiting some of our freedom for the common good.
Freedom ain't free, but it ain't unlimited, either.
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Minor League parks I've been to
As I was mowing in 95 degree heat I also got to thinking about some of the minor league parks I've been to over the years. It's not as long and varied as the major league list, but there are still some good memories here, even if they are incomplete. I don't remember any of the names of the ballparks but the teams I do.
Portland, Oregon (2002)
Eugene, Oregon (several times, 2000-2002) This remains the only time in my life where I could not get a ticket for a game. It was the 4th of July (fireworks!), it was completely sold out, and nobody had even a single ticket to sell.
Medford, Oregon (c.2000) This team was, according to Wikipedia, the Southern Oregon Timberjacks. Only thing I remember about this game was that it was the very worst baseball field I've ever seen. It was worse than most high school ballparks. No wonder they no longer have a team.
Arkansas Travelers, Little Rock (several times, 1990-1992)
Memphis Chicks (several times, 1993-1995). They were AA at the time and in 1994 Michael Jordan and the Birmingham Barons came to town. We sat out in the left field bleachers for $2 if I remember right. Even from there I could see he would never make it...his bat was way too slow. He did get a seeing-eye single that night, however.
Nashville Sounds (c.2009)
Oklahoma City 89ers (several times when I was a kid) and Redhawks (several times, current day). The old 89ers used to play at a dump called All-Sports Stadium over by the fairgrounds. When I was probably about 9 the Phillies, the parent team of the 89ers, came to town. I remember Pete Rose playing a few innings. I also remember another time when little leaguers were invited onto the field to field with the players. I was shocked to notice that their uniforms had holes in them. These were really pros?
There have been others that I have forgotten about, but these are the ones that stand out at least vaguely in my mind.
Portland, Oregon (2002)
Eugene, Oregon (several times, 2000-2002) This remains the only time in my life where I could not get a ticket for a game. It was the 4th of July (fireworks!), it was completely sold out, and nobody had even a single ticket to sell.
Medford, Oregon (c.2000) This team was, according to Wikipedia, the Southern Oregon Timberjacks. Only thing I remember about this game was that it was the very worst baseball field I've ever seen. It was worse than most high school ballparks. No wonder they no longer have a team.
Arkansas Travelers, Little Rock (several times, 1990-1992)
Memphis Chicks (several times, 1993-1995). They were AA at the time and in 1994 Michael Jordan and the Birmingham Barons came to town. We sat out in the left field bleachers for $2 if I remember right. Even from there I could see he would never make it...his bat was way too slow. He did get a seeing-eye single that night, however.
Nashville Sounds (c.2009)
Oklahoma City 89ers (several times when I was a kid) and Redhawks (several times, current day). The old 89ers used to play at a dump called All-Sports Stadium over by the fairgrounds. When I was probably about 9 the Phillies, the parent team of the 89ers, came to town. I remember Pete Rose playing a few innings. I also remember another time when little leaguers were invited onto the field to field with the players. I was shocked to notice that their uniforms had holes in them. These were really pros?
There have been others that I have forgotten about, but these are the ones that stand out at least vaguely in my mind.
Major League parks I've been to (updated)
Jonah Keri recently made a list of his favorite stadiums and I got to thinking about how I've been blessed to go to a lot of baseball games over the years on my journeys...mostly major league, but a few minor league games as well. Part of the allure of baseball is the parks in which they play; every one is different. Not all are created equal. It's not just that the outfield dimensions are different, but that the feel is different. Can you really say that about a basketball arena or a football stadium?
So here, with as little comment as possible, and in no particular order, are the major league baseball parks I've been to in order to see a game. Many of them no longer exist. Many of them have changed names many times thanks to corporate branding, so I don't always remember the names. Many of them I visited when I was kid when my dad would have veterinary conferences in these cities. Many others I visited in 1992 when on my two-month road trip to nowhere after college. Mostly the years are approximate.
Note: after thinking about it for about an hour, I had to annotate the list just a bit...
Kauffman (nee Royals) Stadium, Kansas City (many times, c.1976-2012); it was a better stadium when it was just baseball and fountains. Now it's too busy with all the videoboards and the stuff beyond the outfield walls.
Petco Park, San Diego (2013); went to this just a few weeks ago. From the outer upper concourse you can see the bridge where they filmed the scene in Anchorman where Jack Black throws off Ron Burgundy's dog.
Dodger Stadium, Los Angeles (1980); memorable for me because I saw the great J.R. Richard pitch against the Dodgers a few weeks before he had his massive stroke. I still remember his greatness, even though I was only 9 at the time.
Anaheim Stadium (c.1983)
Oakland Alameda Colosseum (c.1986)
Safeco Field, Seattle (c.2001)
Arlington Stadium, Rangers (several times)
The newer stadium the Rangers play in (several times)
old Busch Stadium, St. Louis (1997); I saw Mark McGuire hit one of his 70 steroid-induced homers that night. Even better, the Royals won the game. :)
Atlanta Fulton-County Stadium (c.1977)
Shea Stadium, New York (2001); two weeks before 9/11, my friend Rob and I were watching the game against the Giants (I think this was the year Bonds hit 73, maybe not), and flying over the stadium at regular intervals were planes coming in or going out from LaGuardia airport. I remember distinctly thinking how close these jets were and how easy it would be to crash a plane into the stadium. It still gives me chills.
Yankee Stadium, New York (c.1982)
Veterans Stadium, Philadelphia (1992)
Riverfront Stadium, Cincinnati (1992); I remember parking two spots away from where Marge Schott, the owner of the Reds, had her parking spot. Her car seemed way too exposed.
Tigers Stadium (1992); I remember a young Ken Griffey junior turning around to the people sitting in the center field bleachers and flipping them off.
The old cavernous stadium the Indians played in, Cleveland (1992)
Comiskey Park, Chicago (c.1985)
Olympic Stadium, Montreal (1992); most massive and ugly concrete slab ever constructed.
Camden Park, Baltimore (several times); probably the best stadium I've been to.
It's not the greatest list in the world. A few stadiums that supposedly make the top of the must-see lists (Wrigley, Fenway) are not on it. A few of them were dumps (old Tiger stadium comes particularly to mind). But it's still not a bad list...19 different parks in all, and still half a life to go.
So here, with as little comment as possible, and in no particular order, are the major league baseball parks I've been to in order to see a game. Many of them no longer exist. Many of them have changed names many times thanks to corporate branding, so I don't always remember the names. Many of them I visited when I was kid when my dad would have veterinary conferences in these cities. Many others I visited in 1992 when on my two-month road trip to nowhere after college. Mostly the years are approximate.
Note: after thinking about it for about an hour, I had to annotate the list just a bit...
Kauffman (nee Royals) Stadium, Kansas City (many times, c.1976-2012); it was a better stadium when it was just baseball and fountains. Now it's too busy with all the videoboards and the stuff beyond the outfield walls.
Petco Park, San Diego (2013); went to this just a few weeks ago. From the outer upper concourse you can see the bridge where they filmed the scene in Anchorman where Jack Black throws off Ron Burgundy's dog.
Dodger Stadium, Los Angeles (1980); memorable for me because I saw the great J.R. Richard pitch against the Dodgers a few weeks before he had his massive stroke. I still remember his greatness, even though I was only 9 at the time.
Anaheim Stadium (c.1983)
Oakland Alameda Colosseum (c.1986)
Safeco Field, Seattle (c.2001)
Arlington Stadium, Rangers (several times)
The newer stadium the Rangers play in (several times)
old Busch Stadium, St. Louis (1997); I saw Mark McGuire hit one of his 70 steroid-induced homers that night. Even better, the Royals won the game. :)
Atlanta Fulton-County Stadium (c.1977)
Shea Stadium, New York (2001); two weeks before 9/11, my friend Rob and I were watching the game against the Giants (I think this was the year Bonds hit 73, maybe not), and flying over the stadium at regular intervals were planes coming in or going out from LaGuardia airport. I remember distinctly thinking how close these jets were and how easy it would be to crash a plane into the stadium. It still gives me chills.
Yankee Stadium, New York (c.1982)
Veterans Stadium, Philadelphia (1992)
Riverfront Stadium, Cincinnati (1992); I remember parking two spots away from where Marge Schott, the owner of the Reds, had her parking spot. Her car seemed way too exposed.
Tigers Stadium (1992); I remember a young Ken Griffey junior turning around to the people sitting in the center field bleachers and flipping them off.
The old cavernous stadium the Indians played in, Cleveland (1992)
Comiskey Park, Chicago (c.1985)
Olympic Stadium, Montreal (1992); most massive and ugly concrete slab ever constructed.
Camden Park, Baltimore (several times); probably the best stadium I've been to.
It's not the greatest list in the world. A few stadiums that supposedly make the top of the must-see lists (Wrigley, Fenway) are not on it. A few of them were dumps (old Tiger stadium comes particularly to mind). But it's still not a bad list...19 different parks in all, and still half a life to go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)