not on my watch

Human beings do not live forever, Reuven. We live less than the time it takes to blink an eye, if we measure our lives against eternity. So, it may be asked what value is there to human life. There is so much pain in the world. What does it mean to have to suffer so much if our lives are nothing more than the blink of an eye . . . I learned a long time ago, Reuven, that a blink of an eye in itself is nothing. But the eye that blinks, that is something. A span of life is nothing. But the man who lives, he is something. He can fill that tiny span with meaning, so its quality is immeasurable though its quantity may be insignificant. Do you understand what I am saying? A man must fill his life with meaning, meaning not automatically given to life. It is hard work to fill one’s life with meaning. That I think you do not understand yet. A life filled with meaning is worth of rest. I want to be worthy of rest when I am no longer here. Do you understand what I am saying?

______________________

“why do you cry, Father?” he asked me once under the tallis. “Because people are suffering,” I told him. He could not understand. Ah, what it is to be a mind without a soul, what ugliness it is . . . .”why have you stopped answering my questions, Father?” he asked me once. “You are old enough to look into your own soul for answers,” I told him. He laughed once and said, “That man is such an ignoramus, Father.” I was angry. “Look into his soul,” I said. “Stand inside his soul and see the world through his eyes. You will know the pain he feels because of his ignorance, and you will not laugh.” He was bewildered and hurt. The nightmares he began to have. . . .But, he learned to find answers for himself. He suffered and learned to listen to the suffering of others. In the silence between us, he began to hear the world crying.

_____________

Both of the above quotes are from the novel, “The Chosen,” by Chaim Potok. I just reread it over the past couple of days. It possibly my favorite novels. I first read it as an assignment for my Judaic Religious Traditions class as an undergrad. In that same class, I read “Night” by Elie Wiesel. “Night” is quite possibly the most important book written in the 20th century. If you haven’t read it, you must. It is a memoir written by a holocaust survivor.

In discussing “Night,” my professor talked about when he learned of the holocaust. He described it as one of those overwhelming things where you feel that you have to do something, but have no idea what you could possibly do. At the very least, he decided, he would make it his mission to make sure people were aware. And, assigning us the book “Night” was one way of doing so.

When I was working for a law firm in Cincinnati, one of the attorneys I worked for was on the board of the local chapter of the Red Cross. And, on the door of his office, he once had a postcard. On it, it listed, starting with the Holocaust, each genocide that has occurred since then. It also said, “never again.”

That was the promise that was made after the Holocaust. We would never let something like that happen again. But, we have. Granted, never to the tune of 6 million people. But, clearly we have yet to learn from our mistakes.

I bring this up because, today, with the above quotes swirling through my head, I went to a restraunt that had some “Save Darfur” information on the counter. Darfur used to be a pet project of mine, for a short time anyway. Somewhere along the way, I quit caring for some reason.

I suppose there are many reasons. One is the same as my professor: what can I do, anyway. One is that over the 3+ years I have been aware of the issue, nothing has happened. Supposedly, the first time Pres. Bush was briefed on this issue, in the margin of his notes he wrote, “Not on my watch.” Years later, it has all happened on his watch. And my watch, and yours.

What bothers me the most is that we don’t care. None of us. Sure, there is a part of us that doesn’t like that it is happening. We all wish it would stop. But we don’t care. People are suffering, but we don’t weep. We all have minds without souls.

I still don’t know what to do. I won’t, until I begin to weep.

oops

In the previous post, I mean to link to this.  It’s an outstanding column about what Jesee Jackson meant in the early days of his career.

friday queue cleaning–the jesees

It seems that over the past week, there have been a lot of Jesees in the news.  First of all, there is news that Jesee Ventura may run against Al Franken and Norm Coleman for the Senate seat in Minnesota.  Franken v Coleman should be, ummmm, entertaining, if nothing else.

But, it’s the other 2 Jesses that I find more interesting over this past week.  I am, of course, talking about Jesee Jackson and Jesee Helms.  They are two parts to a much bigger story, the struggle for civil rights and race relations in this country.  Many consider each to be heroic, while others demonize them for their sins and struggles.  Reality is usually more complex than either side of the story.

I really don’t know a lot about Jesee Helms.  Most of what I know comes from satire.  My earliest awareness of him comes from MAD magazine.  I don’t remember what the article was, but I just remember in the background was a picture of Helms, holding a piece of paper that said, “Helms essay contest:  500 words on the Benefits of Bigotry.”  In another MAD article, this one a bunch of “caps” for various products, had Helms’ face as a cap for a can of compressed air.  And then, there was a Letterman Top 10 list, top 10 ways you know your senator is stupid.  Number 1, “you live in North Carolina.” 

Reading up on Helms over the last week doesn’t paint a very flattering picture of him.  While many lauded him as a pioneer of modern conservatism, what you find is a guy who constantly fought against civil rights, even the most basic ones, and used race baiting as a campaign strategy. 

Yet, I also read something written by an African American woman, who, as a child, visited Helm’s office on a school trip.  She said he was very nice, put his arm around her, and was quite encouraging. 

Make no mistake–that doesn’t change the fact that Helm’s political record on such issues is deplorable.  But, it makes me wonder about the man.  What was going through his mind when he was visiting with that girl,  Was he a good guy with messed up political views?  Was he putting on a show for the girl?  I wonder the same thing about him that I wonder about Fred Phelps.  If that name doesn’t ring a bell, he is the “godhatesfags.com” guy (if you haven’t visited that link, don’t).  Anyway, I read that at one time, he was the top civil rights attorney in Kansas.  And now even the most homophobic people think he’s insane.  And while I don’t put Helms in the same category as Phelps, I have to wonder about both:  what happened?

Jesee Jackson, on the other hand, has spent time both being what’s right and what’s wrong in the civil rights movement.  I wasn’t really aware of Jackson until the 1988 Presidential election.  In the time since then, I’ve mostly seen a man trying to hang on to his fame and importance, and to struggle mightily to do so.  He has had some moments, though, particularly his negotiation for the release of hostages on several occasions. 

But, I found this column last night.  The writer talks about the early Jesee Jackson, and what he meant to the civil rights movement.  I’m not going to comment on it much other than to say it was fascinating.  In particular, she talks about seeing this appearance on Sesame Street, and what it meant to her as a child growing up as an immigrant from Haiti.

As she points out, some of Jackson’s increasing irrelevance has been his own doing.  I think that one of Jackson’s biggest struggles is that he’s had trouble adapting what it means to be a civil rights leader over the years as the racial dynamics have changed.  At the same time, some of it is everyone’s fault.  We too easily dismiss what we don’t want to hear. Regardless of how or why though, it’s tragic, because he is clearly a man of great talent and we still have a lot of work left to be done on race relations.

Which brings us to the reason that Jackson was in the news this week–comments made regarding Barack Obama.  Personally, I think we should cut him some slack on this.  We’ve all used hyperbole in expressing our frustration with someone. 

But, I think this column really addresses the underlying issue on Jackson’s comment.  In particular, he talks about how the civil rights movement began as a group fighting from the outside.  One of the struggles Jackson has faced, to his detriment, has been continuing to fight it like that.  Now, there is a good chance that it’s going to be fought from the very top.  Anyway, read the article, it makes a lot more sense than I will.

how not to forgive

I’ve been trying to figure out how to “relaunch” my blog. Specifically, I want the “new and improved” version to be less negative. You know, more rave than rant I guess. And, more in line with with my role as a minister.

In my search for a topic, however, it looks like it’s going to start with a “rant.” But, at least it’s a very important rant, and I think quite in line with my role as a minister. Brandon had linked to this post on Gary Lamb’s blog (and here is Brandon’s reaction). Apparently, Lamb is a very important in the church planter circles (I say apparently not sarcastically, but because I am a bad pastor and don’t keep up with such trends like I am supposed to, and had not heard of Lamb prior). If you read the link, you find that one of Revolution’s (the name of Lamb’s church) trailers was stolen.

Lamb responds by writing an “letter” to the person or persons responsible. He starts by telling them that God loves them. Then, he says that the church forgives them. He points out that they don’t want to, but God says that they should, so they do.

I think that this attitude is valid to an extent. Forgiving is not our natural reaction when we have been wronged. It’s something that we have to learn how to do. We start by doing so out of obedience, even if we don’t want to. And, as we grow, it becomes natural, to the point that we do it because that’s the person that we are, and not so much out of obidence.

But, if you’ve clicked the link, you see what Lamb means by “we forgive you.” And, quite honestly, if this is Lamb’s idea of “forgiving,” then I don’t want to see what he’s like when he’s holding a grudge. He calls them names (scum bag, lowlife), and assumes that they stole it to buy crack. Mostly, he threatens physical violence on them. Not only does he want the people to be beat up, but he wants to be the one to do it. And, he wants it to be slow and painful.

Two things alarm me the most. One is that this blog post, while “addressed” to the culprits, is really addressed to the congregation. In other words, this is his teaching his church about forgiving. Secondly, he takes pride in being “probably the only church you have ever heard of that will honestly break your legs once your are found.”

It’s not often that one takes pride in being a church that ignores the words of Jesus. There is no “turn the other cheek” (or in this case, give them your other trailer) or “vengence is mine says the Lord.” Lamb wants vengence to be his.

I will say this: I don’t know Gary Lamb. So, I’m trying to be careful not to judge him personally. We all have shortcomings, including pastors (even me, I know, it’s hard to believe). And, I know firsthand what it’s like to have a blog post come back and bite you because it’s taken out of context, and I know firsthand what it’s like to have a blog post come back and bite you because it was stupidly written regardless of it’s context. All that to say, I don’t think Lamb is a bad guy for writing this, nor do I think he is a bad pastor. My guess is that it comes from one of two places. One is that it’s just an area he needs to grow in. If so, that’s for his church leadership team to handle with him (which is actually a weakness in church planting, but that’s another post). If not that, then it’s an attempt at being real by being totally “honest.” If that’s the case, then he’s failed. The idea in such a post would read, “I want to do all this to you, but I won’t, because I forgive you.” The “real” emotion is addressed, but then the correct reaction is then given. As it is written, Lamb’s post says, “I say I forgive you, but really, I don’t and if I had the chance, I would get revenge.”

old blog classics #2– the politics of harry potter

I have a lot I want to write about, but it’s a busy day, so instead, I give you this post from October 9, 2006.

______________________________________________________________________

I feel like writing again.  Hoperfully, the feeling will stick for a while.

Anyway, I’m walking through Clifton during the early afternoon hours, and I notice a car that has the license plate number “GRFNDR.”  Of course, any Harry Potter geek such as myself knows that this means Gryffindor, the school house that the protagonists in the Harry Potter series hail from.  Despite my enthusiasm for the books, I felt that this vanity plate takes the geekery a bit over the top.  Regardless, I noticed that the car also had may bumper stickers, which of course is the sign of a hippie.  Curious, I read some of the stickers.  2 of them were Harry Potter themed.

“George Bush is a muggle.”
“Voldemort votes Republican.”

Now, regardless of the implied political ramifications of these stickers, I found them to be amusing.  But, given what the implied implications of the stickers are, they are also inaccurate to the message they are trying to imply (at least when taken together, and given the overall market for Harry Potter political stickers, I’m guessing that these were made by the same manufacturer).

The Harry Potter books are not about magic.  They are about many things, and magic is used to create a world in which to explore these topics. One of the greatest themes in the book is that of racism.  Only, the racial lines in the book are not drawn by skin color, but by ability to do magic.  Thus, some of the pure-blood wizards are racist toward both half blood wizards and non-magic people, who are called muggles.

So, by calling George Bush a muggle, the Mr or Mrs GRFNDR is accusing Bush of not being a wizard, which of course, is accurate.  However, given the sticker about Voldemort voting Republican, it can be assumed that GRFNDR is not supportive of President Bush, and this calling him a Muggle is intended to be an insult.  Thus leading to the inconsitency.  The people in the HP series who consider Muggle to be an insult are, of course, the bad guys. Thus, GRFNDR is aligning him/herself with the racist characters in the book.  Which is odd, considering that they chose GRFNDR as their license plate instead of SLTHRN, since the Gryffindors tend to be the most friendly to Muggles and it is the Slytherins who consider muggle to be an insult.

Which takes us to the second sticker, Voldemort votes Republican.  Not if George Bush is a Muggle, he doesn’t.  Voldemort is the leader of all of the racists, the most racist of the bunch.  This sticker would be the equivalent of saying that, “David Duke voted for Jessee Jackson.”  It’s just not plausible.

Of course, if any of our Harry Potter politicians had any sense, they could keep the Voldemort votes Republican sticker, and then change the other one to “George Bush is a Death Eater.”  Then, GRFNDOR can remain a Gryffindor, Voldemort can still vote Republican, and Bush can be the bad guy that they indended him to be.

So, why did I just go through all of that?  Because, I like busting up hippie arguments!

frc–one track mind

I’ve picked on the Family Research Council a bit on this space.  Before I get back to criticizing them, I want to say that they aren’t always bad.  On many of the “alerts” that they continue to send me, I find myself nodding in agreement more often than I expected when they first started appearing in my inbox.

That being said, yesterday’s alert really summed up a lot of my issue with the right wing christian/right wing political component of our society.  Mr. Perkins was discussing the “Compassion Forum” on CNN Sunday night, something that I did not get the chance to watch.  Perkins was unhappy with the way the forum went, and concluded the following:

The bulk of last night’s program was taken directly from the playbook of the Religious Left, focusing not on the issues closest to Christians’ hearts but on climate change, AIDS, and global poverty. Although I have argued that those are important issues that demand the church’s attention (in fact, in concert with Bishop Harry Jackson I’ve written an entire book on the subject), our priority as Christians should be as those of the Founding Fathers; protect the sanctity of human life, preserve marriage, and defend religious liberty. Unfortunately, with the help of some of our friends, the Religious Left is trying to realign, and thereby dilute, the values voter message.

Here’s what I’ve never quite grasped from the right wing–why does being pro-life mean you have to ignore the AIDS crisis, global poverty, and global warming?  I tend to label myself as a “moderate,” but that’s not really accurate.  It’s more that I don’t see how the issues on each side of the spectrum really fit neatly together. 

Of coure, for a group like Focus on the Family and the FRC, the reason is obvious:  to call Christians to say, push for cleaner air might ultimately get them to vote Democrat.  Which of course would be getting them to vote for a pro-choicer.  So, rather than use their influence to get the pro-lifer to say, clean up the air, they just dismiss the issue as unimportant.

The irony is that poverty is one of the big reasons abortions even happen.  There is a reason that taking care of the poor was on of the moral instructions that Jesus gave us.  But, somehow, we remove that from “moral” and place it into “social” and then dismiss it. 

I understand that it ultimately is a comprimise made for pragmatic reasons.  But, I’ve never seen pragmatisim as one of the fruits of the spirit.

friday queue cleaning–april 11, 2008

The queue is kinda boring this week.  A lot of the same old stuff going on.  Obama and Clinton still don’t get along.  Clinton’s husband seems to still be losing it.  Howard Dean doesn’t seem to like John McCain very much.  A general and an ambassador said that we still have work to do in Iraq.  The Republicans were happy about that, and the Democrats didn’t seem to like it.  The 3 candidates seemed to think that going on American Idol was a good idea.  And the earth continues to simultaneously get warmer and cooler. 

So, I’m bored with the news this week.  Part of it was that I’ve had a particularly busy week, so I haven’t paid much attention.  But, there is one story that has caught my eye; the pope’s US visit.  In particular, his plans to seek reconciliation for the clergy sex abuse scandal.

I hope he seriously pursues this, though many beleive he’s just going to play lip service to the issue.  Frankly, even that would be a start.  The whole issue angers me deeply, in part because I am a “clergy member (not a Catholic)” and take the role very seriously.  I’m quite forgiving when clergy members make mistakes, as I have done quite often.  I am not so forgiving when they abuse their influence.  Which is the case here.

I’m not upset with the church over the sexual abuses themselves.  I think that anger should be directed at the indivdual offenders.  I am angry at the church’s handling of the situation.  Had they dealt properly with each incident when it happened, it would have helped with the victim’s healing (which is the primary role of the church), would have prevented a majority of the subsequent attacks, and ultimately would have prevented the scandal from being as big as it was.  It still would have been a tragic situation.  Certainly, one occurence, even handled correctly, is too many.

But, to the scale at whch it happened is ridiculous.  And the problem is that the church, acting out of it’s percived “infalliablity” became an enabler.  Offenders were simply moved to a new parish when they could find new victims.  They were placed in a situation where they didn’t have accountablity for their actions.  Most people, if they were found to be guilty of this crime, would go to jail, unable to continue.  Guilty priests were kept in positions of authority.

One idea that gets kicked around is that the vow of celibacy is to blame.  That the sexual tension just builds up to the point where they can’t contol themselves and they take it out on kids.  This, of course, is a complete lack of understanding of the roots of pedophilia.  Celibacy does not lead to pedophilia.  Neither does homosexuality, which is another attempt at explaining why this happened.  The idea is that religious homosexuals became priests since they couldn’t morally have sex anyway, but again, it all built up until they took it out on some kids.  Again, celibacy does not lead to homosexuality.

The problem is simply this: pedophiles became priests.  Pedophiles go into all lines of work.  However, when they are found to be pedophiles, they continued to be priests.  They do not continue in other lines of work when found out.  They go to jail.  So, with the priests, they were able to accumulate a large number of victims.  Thus, the scandal was huge.

Even I, as a single, non-catholic pastor, feel the effects of this stigma.  Many people distrust me, believing me to be a ticking time bomb waiting to go off at some moment. 

But, that’s not what upsets me about all of this.  Rather, it’s the betrayal of the very essence of what ministry is supposed to be about.  The trust was betrayed when the abuses occured.  But, it continued when the issue was covered up and healing was not pursued.  It continued even further when, finally when it all came to light, the church took it quite lightly, even accusing the American media of “persecution.” 

So, even if the pope only pays “lip service” to the issue, it will be a start if that “lip service” includes a confession that the church really dropped the ball on this.  While that’s not enough, no progress can ever be made until that step is taken.

old blog classics: mail delivery response

For 4 years, I had a blog over at blogger.  I like blogger, but decided on a change for a few reasons (you can read the original post on this site for more info).  I haven’t decided what to do with my old blog entries.  Currently, they are still on blogger, but unpublished.  It would just take a few mouse clicks to republish, or to import them to this site.  But, I can’t decide.  One thing I am going to do, however, is do an occasional “classic blog post” on this site, to fill in gaps when I have nothing to write about, or during weeks like this when I’m particularly busy.  So, last week, I was discussing my days as a mailroom employee.  While doing so, I mentioned some of the odd reactions people have to recieving mail.  So, I decided to repost this entry from July 13, 2005:

____________________________________________________________

Delivering mail is a very interesting sociological expirence.  It is interesting to note the various ways the people who are receiving mail interact with their mailroom personel.  For your information, here are some of the various ways that people respond to the daily mail delivery.

1.  The default, “normal” response.

This one is pretty basic, and covers about 60 percent of the people that I deliver mail to on a regular basis.  Typically, it goes like this:

Recipient:  Hello (or other generic greeting)
Me: Hi
(mail is handed off)
Recipient:  Thank you
Me:  You’re welcome
(I leave)

And that’s that.  Sometimes, nothing is spoken, they just nod to acknowledge that I am in the room, and reach out for their mail.  Or maybe they just cut the greeting and simply say “Thanks.”  Regardless, it’s a simple, quick approach, mail is delivered, and we are all back to work in no time.

2.  The “Way too entusiastic about mail” approach.

Sometimes, we all get really cool mail.  A birthday card that is going to have money in it.  The book we have been waiting for from Amazon.  So, sometimes, this is an appropriate approach.

At work, it rarely is though.  But, some people are just excited about mail.  These people typically come in 3 categories:

a.  The “I can’t wait until the mailcart come” approach, where they actually come to the mailroom looking for their mail that is about to be delivered to them in about half an hour.  I guess there is some type of motivation for that, I don’t know.  But, there always seems to be a few people who do this.

b.  The “meet you at the door types.”  Sometimes they know you are coming, and there they are, waiting at the door, excited about the one letter and six peices of junk mail that they are about to be handed. 

c.  The “really excited comment” type.  This usually involves some type of non-sarcastic “wow, thanks” or “great, thank you” comments.  Glad I could brighten your day.

3.  The Comedien.

That’s right, some people have to greet you with some type of joke about the mail they recieve.  Occaionally, they are funny.  For example, one day all I had was two peices of junk mail for one attorney, and when I handed it too him, he said, “Thanks, I’ve been waiting for this.” Good stuff. 

Most of the time, it’s not funny.

The most common one:  Wow, you brought me presents! Now, I will admit that it was funny the first time I heard it, back in 1999, the first time I ever took a mailcart.  However, it quit being funny later that week, after I heard it over and over and over and over and over and over.  And people still use it.  They still think it’s funny.  If you are one of these people, stop. 

This is also the group where the sarcastic “wow, thanks” comments come in, as well as “I don’t want this,” “stop bringing me mail,”  and all the other overused jokes come in. 

If you are in this category, you are probablly not funny.  If you aren’t sure, run your joke by me.  I’ll let you know, so you can perform a great service to your mailroom by stopping if it is not funny.

4.  The restricted access people.

Most offices have some room somewhere that you can’t get in without the proper access code.  But, people who work in there have to get their mail too.  However, most of the time, these people are either file clerks or IT people, so they rarely get any type of significant mail.  Most of the time, it is some ad from Dell or some CD of a shareware version of some software they are never going to buy.

Anway, when you deliver to these people, you have to knock on their door and wait till they come open it.  And, usually, they are nice, but they have this look on their face like, “I can’t believe I just walked all the way across the room to get this AOL 10.24 cd.

5.  The utterly suprised people.

This is probablly my favorite group.  I really can’t figure these people out, or what the heck is going on in their heads.  I wish I could be a total smart aleck to these people and not get fired, because that would make my job SO MUCH more fun. 

Anyway, I’m guessing its pretty common knowledge that in the United States, mail is delivered every day, Monday through Saturday, with the exception of federal holidays.  We all know this right.  I’m assuming it would stand to reason that our mailroom would then sort and deliver every time mail is delivered to us.  Which is in fact the case.  We take mail around every morning, sometime between 9:30 and 10:30.

With this in mind, some people seem really suprised every time we take them mail.  As if they weren’t expecting it for some reason.  Often, it is just a vacant stare, as if they have never seen mail before.  But, I know they have, because I handed them mail just the day before.  So I know they know the drill.  Anyway, there are also 2 questions that come with this category.

a.  Is that for me?  Ohhhh, if I could just make a comment and keep my job, it would be so theraputic.  As if I was going to walk into their office when it wasn’t for them.  Usualy, I play along and actually check the name one last time, just to make sure. 

b.  What is this?  My absolute favorite.  This is just classic stuff.  I really don’t know where to begin.  Normally, I just assume that they realize it is mail.  So, they must be asking what is inside, because I obviously know.  I guess there must be one of two assumptions at work here.  One may be they the think that in the mailroom, not only do we deliver and send out the mail, but that we also create the mail that we deliver.  If not that, then I guess they assume that I have read the mail before I take it in to them.  But, this is against the rules, so there is no way that this can be the case.

Just one time, I want to answer this question by saying, “Probably some sort of legal documents.”  Maybe someday.

6.  The “I’m not going to acknowledge that you even exist types.” 

These people just piss me off.  Not always, but often.  Sometimes, someone is really busy, typing away at the keyboard or whatever, and don’t really noticed that I walked in.  I’m down with that.  If they are the clear desk types, I can usually just set the mail down and leave, no big deal.  If they are the messy types, then it can get complicated, but still, no big deal.

But, then there are those who clearly see me come in, are looking right at me, and say nothing, or don’t reach for the mail.  This is really awkward, because as they are looking at me, I assume they are in fact going to reach for the mail. Instead, they leave me hanging, so after a few seconds, I have to try and find a place on their messy desk to set it down on.  I just want to punch these people sometimes.

7.  The “I’m actually interested in your life” types.

These are rare, at least where I work, but they do exist.  They actually try and learn your name, ask how you are and actually listen and respond to your response.  Rare, but appreciated.

So, what kind of mail recipent are you??

sound of silence

And the people bowed and prayed
To the neon God they made.
And the sign flashed out its warning,
In the words that it was forming.
And the signs said, the words of the prophets
Are written on the subway walls
And tenement halls.
And whisperd in the sounds of silence.

–Sound of Silence, Simon and Garfunkel

 Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God.  Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

I John 4:7-8 (TNIV)

For those of you who are unaware of where my office is located, we have space in the basement of a bank.  Our floor can be accessed through the main lobby, but also there is a fire escape that leads to a door to the basement.  This serves as our unofficial “front door.”  This afternoon, I noticed that someone had written on our door (it is glass).  It said:

God is love–Period

This is atypical of your usual church door graffiti.  Generally, it’s something to the effect of God being not real or Christians being a bunch of morons.  Which makes me wonder where it comes from.  It’s usually done at worst out of hate, and at best out of misguided mischievousness.  This, at a glance, seems to not be the case here.  The message is written in marker on glass.  I attempted to rub off part of the hyphen to test the damage, and it comes right off.

Instead of vandalism, this is a profound message.  And that makes me wonder who wrote it.  While I know that such theological statements written on the church door is not unprecedented* (see Martin Luther), it is something I have never encountered before.

And it is a theological statement.  Prior to the hyphen, “God is Love,” is simply a quote of scripture (see above).  After the hyphen, “period,” is theology.  And it makes me wonder about who wrote this.

Is this an indictment of our ministry?  Is it an encouragement?  Is this person mad at us specifically?  Do they even know us?  Are they mad at Christians in general, and we just happened to be the door they took it out on?  Or, was it simply a message from a brother or sister out there, sharing what they deem to be the most important?

I wish I knew the intent of the author, but since I don’t know who that is, I’ll have to merely go with the interpretation of the reader, which makes this not only theological, but also artistic.  It also comes at a time where many in our group have been discussing the nature of love, which makes it also prophetic.

Since we rent and do not own our space, I’m sure it will be washed off sooner rather than later.  And, it makes me wish I had a camera.  While I don’t know the intent of the artist, I do know this:  If it’s a criticism, it’s a good criticism, and if it’s an encouragement, it’s a good encouragement.

* So technically it’s not a church door, since we technically are not a church.  But, we are part of the church, so it is a church door.

march madness part 5: what’s a hilltopper?

 

With my beloved alma mater making it into the sweet sixteen of the NCAA tournament, I’ve heard the question many times, both directed to me and thrown about the media:  What exactly his a Hilltopper and what’s the deal with the red blob.

One thing to note first off is the difference between a “nickname” and a “mascot.”  The nickname is what a team is called, such as the Western Kentucky “Hilltoppers” or the Iowa State “Cyclones” or the Kentucky “Wildcats.”  The mascot is the character, typically that runs around and does stunts at the game.  Generally speaking, the mascot is based on the nickname, but that is not always the case.

Western Kentucky is known as the “Hilltoppers.”  This is likely due to the fact that the campus is on the top of a large hill.  Legend has it that the school started at the bottom of the hill, but the founder, Henry Hardin Cherry, thought it would be poignant to have the campus located at the top of the hill.  So, one day, they moved, with each student carrying a piece of furniture, they marched to the top of the hill to the new campus.  Since then, the campus has expanded, gradually moving towards the bottom of the hill on the other side of campus.  Now it is convieniently designed to where most of the dorms* are located at the bottom of the hill and the academic buildings are at the top of the hill, meaning that each day, Western Kentucky students truely are hilltoppers and have to climb a hill every day walking to class.

The mascot, who is a giant red blob, is simply called Big Red.  If you watch enough ESPN, you’ve seen Big Red before, as he appears on many a SportsCenter commercial.  Big Red was designed in the late 1970’s.  Since it’s really difficult to convey visually what a “Hilltopper” might look like, the person commissioned to design the mascot didn’t even try.  Captain Caveman was used to come up with some of the early prototypes.  So, Big Red really, truely is “nothing.”  Just a big red blob.  I think he (or she) is pretty cool, though. 

unsexiest woman alive?

First off, I just want to say that on occasion, Maxim magazine has some well-written, interesting articles.  Some of which I even enjoy.  This makes sense, with it being a men’s magazine and I being a man. 

But, I’m not always part of their target demographic.  The truth is, so much of their magazine is geared toward the inner 11 year old in us.  Usually, it takes us well past 11 years of age before that inner 11 year old fades away, but most of us grow out of it eventually.  But, as we all know someone who fits the bill, many never seem to.

And, it seems that the geniuses behind Maxim have not grown out of that stage.  But, the more accurate description would be that they know how to market to the 30 year old man still stuck in his pre-teen mindset. 

So, as troubling as it is, it comes as no suprise that they recently put their collective 13 brain cells together and came up with an “Unsexiest Woman Alive,” poll, with Sarah Jessica Parker as the “winner.”  Apparently Parker, as well as her husband Matthew Broderick, were upset by this news.  I’m not really sure why.  Yes, it’s insulting.  But, receiving such and insult from Maxim magazine and its readers is along the same lines as Triumph the Insult Dog deeming you worthy of “pooping on.” 

Still, such a poll and it’s results are troubling.  Now, I hated Sex in the City as much as the next guy.  So, the optimist in me wants to think that this is just male backlash against a very female oriented show.  I could live with that, to an extent.  It’s just as juvenile, but not quite as shallow.

But, of course, this is not the case.  It’s purely based on looks.  And here’s where it gets dicey:  Sarah Jessica Parker is not unattractive.  At all.  But, of course, she doesn’t quite fit in to the Madison Avenue “Create-A-’Perfect’-Woman,” marketing image.  And, clearly, the readers of Maxim have bought in.

Consider the following quotes from Parker:

Do I have big fake boobs, Botox and big lips? No.

Do I fit some ideals and standards of some men writing in a men’s magazine? Maybe not.

In other words, Parker is paying the price for not conforming herself into this false image of beauty that has been created for us.  And the problem is that Parker is not the only victim in this.  In a time where teenage female self-image is alarmingly bad, we now have an article from Maxim telling them that not even Sarah Jessica Parker is good enough. 

And, it’s based not on one lie, but two:  first off, not even super models look like super models.  And the second one is that Maxim magazine polls are not representative of what men consider attractive. 

Only those who still act like they’re 11.

bizarro, bizarro, i love you, bizarro

Back on my old blog, I wrote a brief, “humorous” post about an alternate universe. In that universe, Creed was a really good band. I then speculated that I would be a “ladies man” in such a universe.

I’ve put some more serious though to what “Bizarro Eric” might be like. The “Bizarro Universe” is something that occurs a lot in pop culture. It started with a Bizarro Superman causing all kinds of mayhem. It has since been spoofed several times.

One is in an episode of Seinfeld, which I think may be my favorite Seinfeld episode of all time. In that episode, things are backwards: Kramer becomes a business man, George in fact does become a ladies man. Elaine breaks up with “Kevin” but remains friends with him. She notes that he is the exact opposite of Jerry. He is Bizarro Jerry.

And, it turns out that he has two friends who end up being a Bizarro Kramer and a Bizarro George. South Park also has an episode where the characters meet up with their parallels from an evil alternate universe.

The humor of these episodes comes from what it reveals about the character’s being spoofed. The Bizarro superman was typically a bad guy (though often an anti-hero). But, the Bizarro Jerry, Kramer, George, and Cartman were all good guys. They were thoughtful, considerate, well read, ect. The humor is in how it points out the flaws of the characters being parodied.

And it makes me really think about myself: What would Bizarro Eric be like? Would he be a good guy, or a bad guy?

The more I think about it, the more I realize that either character is possible. In one Bizarro universe, I could see myself being a total jerk. But, I think there is another universe where I would be a really good guy.

In this universe, I’m not a total jerk, but I’m often somewhat of a jerk. I’m somewhere in the middle, maybe leaning to one side or another, but not a total anything. So, if my “bizarro” showed up, he might be a villain, being rude and obnoxious to people, completely self-absorbed, oppressive, hateful, without any compassion. On the same side, he might be the good guy, never rude or obnoxious, never self absorbed, standing up against oppression, totally loving and completely compassionate.

And, as I think about it, it bothers me that both are a possibility. I recently read “The Irresistible Revolution” by Shane Claiborne. It made me think a lot about what it means to love people the way Jesus commands us to love people. Through the course of discussing that book, I John 4:18 came to mind: Perfect love drives out fear.

The meaning of that had not been clear to me before that, but it then occurred to me. We often fail to act on behalf of others based on fear. Fear of rejection, fear of reputation, fear of being robbed, or of being hurt, maybe even fear of being killed.

If we love perfectly, though, then our love for that person cancels out any fear we may have regarding what may happen to us. So, if we fail to act, then we do not love. We may “care,” but care without action is not love.

Fear, then, is the opposite of love. And, I find myself filled with fear. And, as I think about what “Eric from an evil parallel universe” might be like, it may be that he doesn’t care at all. Or, he may be someone who truly loves.

Because neither version exists here right now.

blog evolution

In developmental psychology, most models take you through various “life stages” in which, depending on the theory, different things happen.  For Freud, it was a matter of what or who you were attracted to sexually.  In Piaget’s model, our brains process information in different ways.  For Erikson, we faced various crisises during different stages of our lives.

And I’ve recently noticed that during various life stages, we use different blogging tools, pretty much in order.  Consider:

Stage 1:  livejournal or myspace.  You can use either of these up until you graduate.  While some people on these sites choose to use correct spelling, grammar, and complete sentences, it is by no means a requirement.  And, you have to be able to read text message language when looking at these sites, since much of it is written in “lol” or “OMG” or “SQUEE” or “2″ when you mean “to.”  Eventually, though, after you graduate college, you most definately have to leave live journal (I used to have 20 friends on there, and now I’m down to 2).  Myspace is a bit different, since most myspace users don’t really use the blog option.  In fact, most myspace blogs seem to last about 3 months, and have about 4 posts total.

Stage 2: Blogger.  Those who leave livejournal end up here.  And many even skip stage one and start here.  I, for example, was several years out of college before blogging caught on, so I skipped straight to this step.  I think the fact that you have to know HTML in order to post links on your blog weeds out most of the “lol”ers.  Which is good. 

Stage 3:  WordPress/Typepad:  For some reason, lately it seems that everyone is ditching blogger.  I think a few things happened.  One, they lost some people during the merger of people’s blogger and gmail accounts.  It didn’t go smoothly for a lot of people.  Other’s got bored.  I really like blogger, but after nearly 5 years, it was time for a change. 

And, I think that having “press” and “type” in the names just gives wordpress and typepad an aura of respectablity.  You just feel like you are an actual published author using one of those sites.  It’s where “serious” blogging happens.  For those of you still on blogger who take umbridge with that statement, just know this:  you’ll be here soon enough.  It’s just the natural course of human development.  It’s like going from Concrete Operational Thought to Formal Operational Thought (2 of Piaget’s stages, for those who didn’t take developmental psych).  It just happens. 

The exeption: Xanga.  I don’t know what it is about Xanga.  I don’t know what age group it appeals to.  I don’t know why people use it.  I don’t know why people continue to use it.  But, they tend to stick with it.  Perhaps they just like getting “eprops,” I couldn’t tell you.  And those who do leave, they just jump randomly to whatever site.  It’s an unpredictable bunch.  For the record, I hate Xanga.  But, the people who use it seem pretty cool.  So, there that is.

And finally, there’s Brent.  He just wrote his own blogging software.  He’s going to be a mad scientist some day. 

off your soapbox

I came across this blogpost the other day.  For those of you who don’t like opposing view points, it’s pretty harsh on religion, and there is profanity involved.

It really reasonated with me, though.  I have the exact opposite religious views, and yet, I feel the same way he does on this subject.  He writes about his grandfather’s funeral which he recently attended.  He contrasts 2 speakers:  one a family member, giving a eulogy, and the other, a pastor, who ends up giving what amounts to a sales pitch.

It took me back to a couple of years ago, to my great-grandmother’s funeral.  The pastor in that service ultimately took it as an oppertunity to make his sales pitch.  Some would call this “evangelism.”  But, it’s not.  Evangelism is about spreading the “good news.” 

I get that it’s well meaning, but it’s bad pastoring.  Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I have not had to perform a funeral.  Being that I work with college students, I may never have to do one, although Barnes has me lined up to do his should he pass on before I do (for those of you who don’t know my from my Cincinnati days, I am ‘the Colonel’ that he is referring to).  So, I get that it’s probably a bit tougher that I even realize (and I expect it to be pretty tough).

But, I do know this:  the role of a pastor at a funeral is to offer comfort and hope.  It is not to manipulate emotional people into making “a decision.”  It is to celebrate the life of and to mourn the loss of a loved one.  It is not a soapbox for your agenda.

And I get it, there is going to be a religious aspect to it.  And, there should be.  I get that atheists such as the one I linked too won’t necessarily like that part of it.  And, as he points out, at his funeral, he doesn’t want a pastor there.  That’s a valid request, in my opinion.

But, if you are a pastor asked to officiate a funeral, there is an expectation of some “religious content” on your part.  And, I think that, if done properly, most who dissent to your faith won’t really mind.  Talk about hope, talk about comfort, share some verses to those subjects.  Talk about the life of the person.  If you don’t know them, then have someone else talk about them.  And, if that’s the case, keep your part short.  Pray.  Read some verses. 

The guy at my great-grandmothers funeral did none of that.  Rather, I recall 2 things that he said.  One, he told a story about a woman on her deathbed.  She called all of her children together (she had like 30 or something) and told all of her “saved” children (which was 29 of the 30) “see you later.”  But, to her one heathen child, she said “goodbye.”  I’m sure you can piece together the rest of the story. 

But, that emotionally manipulative story isn’t the worst part.  Later on, he warned us, “If you aren’t a Christian, don’t ask me to do your funeral.”  Put aside the fact that once you are dead, you don’t really ask anyone to do anything.  The reason he doesn’t want to do your funeral if you are not “Christian” is that a lot of pastors seem to think that part of the funeral service is for them to sort of “certify” your passage into heaven.

If they can’t certify it, then it gets kind of akward for them.  I was at another funeral once where the person we were mourning had gotten into some bad things and was then trying to get his life back in order.  Part of that was going back to church, but he was working through whether or not to make a “decision,” and had not “formally” done so, at least in the presence of the pastor.  So, much of the eulogy was spent with the pastor trying to convince himself that this guy was in heaven. 

So, while I didn’t find it to be a particularly comforting funeral, at least this guy had stumbled onto the fact that there was a complexity to such matters, even if he hadn’t completely bought into the notion.  The guy at my great-grandmother’s funeral was not so gracious, though.  In fact for him, the only comfort or hope he could possibily offer is in the certification of passage into heaven.  Beyond that, he has nothing else of comfort to say.  That makes him a bad pastor. 

But, I’ll give him credit on one point:  at least he asks for permission to keep his mouth shut in such a situation.  One of my seminary professors told us a story once about when he was still a church pastor.  I don’t remember the details of how it came about, but he had formed a relationship with a family of non-believers.  I think that one of thier teenage daughters was dating a guy who did go to a different church.  Anyway, the daughter and the boyfriend died in a car accident.  So, my prof. was at the hospital grieving with the family.  The boyfriends pastor showed up and started berating the family, telling them, “It’s your fault that your daughter’s in hell now.”

That’s not pastoring.  That’s not even evangelism.  A pastor comforts.  An evangelist shares good news. 

My professor was a good pastor.  He told the guy to take a hike.  And made sure that he did so.

To the author of the blogpost:  I’m sorry for your loss.  And, I’m sorry that my collegue took your time of grief as an invitation to further his agenda. 

PS:  A few days ago, Bill Simmons of ESPN.com posted this article about the funeral of a teenager in LA.  It’s another example of why he is the best sports writer around right now.

parenting (and pet owning) tip

From the “instructions” from one of those toilet cleaning disks:

Safe for use around pets and children, though it is not recommened that either be permitted to drink from the toilet.

I want to read the case that led to that disclaimer.