Church Life as a Date

So the other night we had our first “launch team meeting” of the new church plant. [“Launch team” is one of those jargon terms that gets bandied about in church planting circles. It refers to the people that help you start the church. They used to be referred to as a “core group” but then, apparently, people would always refer to themselves as part of the “core group” even ten years later. Now they’re called a launch team since that supposedly takes away the implied status of “I’m more important. I’m part of the core group.”]

Anyway, the man who would be head pastor posed this little exercise: describe your church experience as a date.

Some of the responses:
-it was like an arranged marriage
-it was like going out for Ruth Crists but being stuck with Happy Meals.
-it was like going out with a beautiful girl only to find out that she was a vegetarian.

Mine went something like this: My church life has eerily mirrored my dating life: a series of aborted relationships in my efforts to find a lady that I can commit to and who is willing to put up with me. My first real relationship was with this really intelligent lady. The idea of a relationship was exciting and new, and she taught me a lot. It took me a long time to realize that she was all brains but had a cold heart.

I went on a series of one night stands that didn’t really go anywhere.

My next major relationship was with a lady who had what I needed at the time. She was bright, energetic, fun. However, in looking back on why it didn’t work, I think I outgrew her.

Most recently, I started a relationship with a lady whom I seem to have trouble committing to. I think it is because I see her going places that I can’t go and I want to go places she’s not willing to try.

And I’m trying to figure out a way to break up with her.

It was either this or a rant about my impending mid-life crisis. One of the ladies at our launch team meeting referred to me on her blog as one of “the two important pastor/leader/father type of guys” in her life. Well, if that isn’t enough to take the stroke right outta my game. That settles it. Should I ever find myself single again, I’m using the pick up line “Hey baby, got some father issues you want to work out with someone?”

As I informed her, my official title is “hot, older guy.” I’m getting stationary made.




###
Comment on this bit of rantus interruptus anyway you want (I don’t know where you’re reading it from) or just do so at my message board.

House

Remember the halcyon days of the Fall TV Season of 2003, when we had the battle of the “girls dealing with the universe” shows? Wonderfalls was great, but was cancelled after four episodes. Joan of Arcadia was very good, has found its legs, and is flourishing. And Tru Calling, which was mediocre on its best days, was mercifully cancelled after one season. These days we have House versus Medical Investigation competing for audience’s attentions with similar premises. The upshot? House wins.

Medical Investigation is a way station for actors and actresses whose shows were cancelled last season: Neal McDonough (Boomtown), Kelli Williams (The Practice), Christopher Gorham (Jake 2.0) and Anna Belknap (The Handler). Sticking closely to the CSI model of the procedural, the members of the mobile medical team from the National Institute of Health pursue disease outbreaks instead of murder scenes. The gimmicks that define the show include the blue tones that it is filmed in can be distracting, especially when one week their patients were turning blue; and the “brain blasts” (a la Jimmy Neutron) when Dr. Stephen Connor (McDonough) finally pieces together the case. However, the show is formulaic to the point of boredom: people get sick, staff looks for commonality among the patients, they run down a series of dead ends and bad leads, Dr. Connor has his brain blast, and a treatment is found. No twists, no turns, little character development; it’s like the constraints of their job limits what the writers can do with them. No amount of camera trick shots or special effect depictions of an illness will cover up a lackluster script; nor does a character’s earnestness equal an interesting character. You want better for the talented cast, but either this dour show needs to improve quickly or they need to fire their agents and put this snooze-fest behind them.

House on the other hand is everything that Medical Investigation is not. Witty, interesting, and filled with characters that, even if you don’t like, you want to watch. One of the things you learn when looking at a new show is to study its pedigree. House’s executive producers include Paul Attanasio (Homicide: Life on the Street, Gideon’s Crossing), creator David Shore (The Practice), and Bryan Singer (director of X-Men, X-2, and The Usual Suspects). Granted, pedigree doesn’t always equal greatness, but it’s certainly a good place to start.

In Dr. Gregory House (Hugh Laurie) we have a hero who is cavalier, cranky, and more than a bit of a jerk. “What would you want: a doctor who holds your hand while you die or who ignores you while you get better?” Brilliant, yet easily bored, the soap opera-loving doctor doesn’t like dealing with patients (he treats illnesses, patients make him miserable). He has to be power-played into working in his hospital’s clinic. He doesn’t believe that he’s always right, he just finds it “hard to operate on the opposite assumption”. Life’s too short and too painful, so he says what he thinks: “Humanity is overrated,” a question may seem rhetorical “when you can’t think of an answer,” “gorgeous women only go to medical school if they’re damaged,” and he tells a patient that his wife must be having an affair because he turned orange and she didn’t notice.

His staff is made up of (his) hand picked experts form a kind of super hero team, with each member specializing in a different area and bringing a unique skill set. Omar Epps’ character, Dr. Taylor Foreman, brings street smarts, as well as his medical specialty, and another character is told that she brings, well, a pretty face. The characters have a reason for being and doing, motivations beyond robots doing so for the love of the job. In a lot of ways, this is a similar medical whodunnit type show that Medical Investigation is, investigating all manner of mysterious diseases, except that it does so against the backdrop of a hospital with all of its attendant politics and patients.

“Our bodies break down ... it always happens and there’s never any dignity in it.”
“We’re to live with dignity, not die with it,” Dr. House snaps (almost all of his dialogue seems to be him snapping). Dr. House had an infarction in his thigh, and due to a mis-diagnosis, he ended up with a limp. His handicap reminds us of our own weakness. Along with these broken bodies we need to seek cures, seek doctors. Doctors aren’t here to help the healthy, but the sick. This mission statement is true of all of us: We are not sent to be served but to serve.

We have a love and fascination with our doctors. The medical drama is part of a longstanding tradition and one third of the trinity of television genres: medical shows, legal shows, and police shows. Right now, the steady-creaking-after-all-these-years ER and the wonderful sitcom Scrubs seem to be carrying on the tradition. House has smart dialogue, style, and a healthy dose of humor. Yes, its lead character has the bedside manner of a total cad, but it’s amazing how good a show can be when it has characters you want to watch.

Strange Bedfellows: Creation Science

Some people think that there’s a war between science and religion. This war is fought on various battlegrounds: stem cell research, creation vs. evolution, the Terry Schiavo mess. I was on a radio show once, back in my more fundamentalist days, put in a position to have to defend the seven day creation account. I made the usual arguments, God created the world with age, errors in scientific assumption. Though I stopped short of accepting one supporter’s assertion that fossils were posited by Satan and his minions in order to deceive mankind.

I was much younger, still working on my biology degree and trying to fit together in my mind how my scientific training could comfortably rest alongside my Biblical faith. How do you prove or disprove matters of faith? Why would you want to? Once you “prove” faith, it’s no longer faith, but fact.

There are thoughtful people out there who won’t participate in conversations about God because too many Christians apply the litmus test of evolution vs. literal six day creation on folks before they will let them in. The hubris of those in possession of this spiritual secret knowledge (latter day Gnostics in many ways) chase off serious spiritual seekers.

Again, I’ll point to the modern mindset that places the Bible as the foundation, ultimate authority (personal pope) of their beliefs. People, friends of the Bible, make claims then attempt to prop them up with evidence, proofs, and diagrams. This, by the way, despite the fact that the Bible never makes the claim of it being foundational (inspired and useful, yes; foundational, no.)

It’s just as bad, even worse, when science and religion get in bed together.

Think back to the halcyon days of the Medieval Church. The medieval worldview had the earth as the center of the universe and the heavens as a series of concentric circles radiating from it. Of course it’s natural for us to assume that we’re the center of reality. You see, the science of the age was so entwined with the religious beliefs that to argue against it (memo to Copernicus and Galileo) was tantamount to heresy.

It’s like we forget that science and religion have two different jobs to do. Jobs that can co-exist, but neither need to fight nor join forces. You want another more recent misguided example?

The modern creation science movement, the attempt to apply scientific principles and scrutiny to the Genesis creation account, has led to the founding of the Creation Museum. The Creation Museum is an outreach of Answers in Genesis, a non-profit ministry located near the Cincinnati International Airport, in northern Kentucky, USA. This 50,000 square foot facility will proclaim to the world that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of faith and practice and in every area it touches on. Scheduled to open in 2007, this ““walk through history”” museum will be a wonderful alternative to the evolutionary natural history museums that are turning countless minds against the gospel of Christ and the authority of the Scripture.


To quote comedian Tim Bedore “If you believe that humans rode dinosaurs, then what you’re saying is that you believe in the Flintstones.”

I’m not saying that there’s no room to be both spiritual and free-thinking scientific intellectual. I’d like to believe that I am. Both can co-exist quite nicely alongside each other. But the point of the Bible is not to be a scientific text, so we shouldn’t force that role onto it.

We live in a modern, rationalistic age. That is the model, the worldview, through which we view reality. However, every model is limited by the limitation of the human mind in the context of the age that he’s living in. Models come and go as our frames of reference change. Yet all models eventually reach a point of no room for new development. Where the act of adapting the model, the contortions of logic that we do to maintain that model, is more cumbersome than chucking that model and developing a new one. Paradigm shifts are hard. Letting go of that which we know, that which makes us comfortable, is difficult.

There are times when religious texts are in accord with science, times when they are not (such is the nature of mysteries and miracles). The fact is that while both science and religion attempt to help us navigate our way through reality, religion focuses on matters of the soul and betterment of the spirit. Not to provide proof texts.



###
Comment on this bit of rantus interruptus anyway you want (I don’t know where you’re reading it from) or just do so at my message board.

No Wicca For You

An Indianapolis father is appealing a Marion County judge's unusual order that prohibits him and his ex-wife from exposing their child to "non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals."

The parents practice Wicca, a contemporary pagan religion that emphasizes a balance in nature and reverence for the earth.

Cale J. Bradford, chief judge of the Marion Superior Court, kept the unusual provision in the couple's divorce decree last year over their fierce objections, court records show. The order does not define a mainstream religion.

"There is a discrepancy between Ms. Jones and Mr. Jones' lifestyle and the belief system adhered to by the parochial school. . . . Ms. Jones and Mr. Jones display little insight into the confusion these divergent belief systems will have upon (the boy) as he ages," the bureau said in its report.

"This was done without either of us requesting it and at the judge's whim," said Jones.

Some people have preconceived notions about Wicca, which has some rituals involving nudity but mostly would be inoffensive to children, said Philip Goff, director of the Center for the Study of Religion & American Culture at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis.

The fact that the judge took it upon himself to make this intervention is scary enough. I know that I certainly don’t want a judge deciding for himself then coming along to tell me that my religion has fallen out of favor with him.

(And I know that I have my share of rituals involving nudity.)

Nor does the judge define what a mainstream religion is. Last time I checked, the Constitution guaranteed the freedom of religion. That doesn’t just go for Christians or religions we like.

Then there’s this whole notion about how much confusion divergent view points will cause their child. I know that I don’t buy that kids are worse off when they have to live with two seemingly contradictory ideas. These are called paradoxes and working through paradoxes are how we grow as human beings. Secondly, I’m not sure that the ideas are all that divergent.

As Wiccans, the boy's parents believe in nature-based deities and engage in worship rituals that include guided meditation that Jones says improved his son's concentration. Wicca "is an understanding that we're all connected, and respecting that," said Jones, who is a computer Web designer.

Yeah, that sounds kooky. Let’s burn them.

No, I’m not a universalist, nor am I advocating the worship of nature-based deities. What I am saying is that guided meditation sounds a lot like prayer. What I am saying is that understanding that all things are connected, that we lead lives of overlapping stories, and respecting that, isn’t exactly antithetical to a Christian position.

There is an aspect to Christianity that has gone long unattended, something that I’ll refer to as creation spirituality. Thoreau said that "with a keen awareness of the natural world one could find truth". God has created all things and declared them “good” (even “very good”). We’ve abandoned the a sense of “creation spirituality” from our spiritual walks, so it’s little wonder why people return to older religions in an effort to reclaim it.

One of the lessons from the Genesis account of creation is that we were created to be stewards of creation. Yet, we’ve lost our connection with creation, continuing to develop new ways to either insulate ourselves from it or encroach our brand of civilization into it. Our souls are starved for God’s creation; being an environmentalist could be considered spiritual work (and I’ll continue to point out that Environmentalism wasn’t made into a moral issue in this past election).

All spiritual people should enjoy God’s creation, embracing it the way God intended for us. We need to recover the mystical part of spirituality, learning to exist in harmony with God, others, and creation.



###
Comment on this bit of rantus interruptus anyway you want (I don’t know where you’re reading it from) or just do so at my message board.

AFA ends Disney boycott

The American Family Association, which led the charge against the Walt Disney conglomerate over moral values in the mid-1990s, is ending its Disney boycott.

“We feel after nine years of boycotting Disney we have made our point,” AFA President Tim Wildmon said in an article in the ministry’s June 2005 newsletter.

In a May 23 news release, Wildmon said boycotts are a “last resort” for the AFA. AFA, in launching its Disney boycott in 1996, criticized the entertainment conglomerate for what the AFA described as a decline in moral and family values from the days of founder Walt Disney. The American Family Association, based in Tupelo, Miss., primarily focuses its energies on the influence of television and other media on families.

The boycott shifted into high gear nationwide when messengers to the 1997 Southern Baptist Convention adopted a resolution, “On Moral Stewardship and the Disney Company,” in which Southern Baptists were urged to “take the stewardship of their time, money, and resources so seriously that they refrain from patronizing The Disney Company and any of its related entities.” The resolution criticized Disney for “increasingly promoting immoral ideologies such as homosexuality, infidelity, and adultery.”

Following the SBC’s 1997 action, Focus on the Family, the Assemblies of God, Concerned Women for America and other religious groups joined in the boycott.

“The intention of the resolution was never to put the Disney Company out of business, but to awaken and energize families to the fact that Disney and every other Hollywood studio has changed course over the past 20 years,” Land said.

The entertainment company is not out of the woods, Wildmon added, saying Disney is still on “probation” and that AFA will continue to monitor the company’’s productions. Wildmon also encouraged individuals to “continue boycotting if they believe that to be the right thing to do”

Whew! We sure taught those godless heathens! I say “we” not because I’m a Baptist or a member of AFA, but because, unfortunately, as a Christian, I’m sure I’ll get tarred by the same brush.

Um, did Disney even notice this boycott? And what exactly has changed over at Disney to signal the end to this boycott? Disney has distanced itself from Miramax, I guess you could say. Michael Eisner is leaving, which I don’t think is a rally cry of victory. More on point, the AFA may soon face its membership/relevance crumbling in light of the release of “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.”

This is similar to what happened with “The Passion of the Christ” as a lot of church-goers had to do some soul searching over their conviction against going to see rated R movies (*sigh* you know, having to actually think maybe we ought to look at movies for their overall message rather than the individual elements that are used to tell a story. Then again, violence has always been a lot easier to get over for religious folks. But there better not be any cussing or boobies). In the case of “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe,” the AFA knows that its members are going to see this movie anyway. So better they have an out and everyone save face. Rest up for the next protest.

I’d celebrate the end of this boycott as a dawning of common sense if it didn’t feel so patently calculated. As my colleague over at Hollywood Jesus put it, this announcement shows the shallowness and convenience of much Christian activism. In the same way that "Christian" media outlets quickly scuttled their proud refusal to air ads for "R" rated movies when one they actually liked finally came along (last year's The Passion of the Christ), the AFA is now dropping its boycott in part because Wildmon knows "there are a lot of evangelicals who are going to want to go and see" the Narnia film ... Boycotts should always be a matter of personal conviction, pure and simple. All matters of principle should be highly personal ... your boycott now has real meaning because sticking with it will actually cost you something. What good is boycotting something you don't want in the first place?

After a while, doesn’t it get exhausting keeping up with the list of who we’re suppose to hate, I mean protest, I mean love the person not the sin? I know that during this protest fervor, my e-mail box was clogged with the latest round of who we’re supposed to be protesting for Jesus. Soap companies. Shoe companies. Movie studios. Theme parks.

Few noticed who we were protesting and why, only that we were protesting something. Once again, we were being defined by who we’re against (soap and gay people getting health care because Jesus preferred everyone dirty and sick), rather than who we were for.

Live your life by your personal convictions. Keep them personal, where they mean the most; done for the right motives and not to show the world what sort of principled person you are.

I, too, am a man of conviction: I’d kiss another man if it meant shorter lines at theme parks.


###
Comment on this bit of rantus interruptus anyway you want (I don’t know where you’re reading it from) or just do so at my message board.

Bad Parents

Parenting is one of those sacred spheres wherein no one likes to cast any aspersions on another's parenting style. For good reason: no one wants to have someone tell them how to raise their own kids. That’s part of the drama of Nanny 911 and Supernanny, favorite shows of my wife.

However, there are some truly bad parents out there. You know how I know? Because I’m also forced to watch a lot of children’s television shows during the day. Maybe forced isn’t the right word, but since I stay at home with my boys during the day-- when I have to get some stuff done, lazy parent that I am (and thus in the perfect position to judge bad parents when I see them)--I let them watch a couple hours of television. Okay, sometimes they simply pester me to watch their favorite shows [and I engage in a little of the "Indulgo the Clown" brand of parenting].

I suppose I can cut a little slack for child rearing strictly in the animal community. Max and Ruby are rabbits, after all, but still you have an older sister watching her baby brother. Occasionally Grandma bunny pops on the scene. After a bout of my wife's protests, I quit telling the boys my imaginary “back story” explaining the continued absence of their parents. Though I long for the Fatal Attraction edition where they both end up in pots.

But who would let their daughter–how old’s Dora the Explorer? Four?–run around the country side with a monkey? I mean, really. I’ve been to the zoo. Monkeys aren’t the cleanest of animals: they’re prone to flinging their own crap and masturbating as soon as a crowd has gathered. Well, at least the monkeys at our zoo here in Indianapolis.

Though hanging out with a monkey has got to be better than the disturbing trend of letting your kids run around with monsters. There’s Maggie and the Ferocious Beast. You want to know how bored I get when it’s on? I’ve been trying to count the spots on the Beast. I think that there are somewhere between 23 and 31 spots, depending on how angry he is. At least Dragon Tales has a catchy theme song, unlike Barney.

I console myself with the fact that it’s either them or Jerry Springer and Maury Povich. There can’t possibly be that many trailer park dwelling transvestites. I’m even starting to recognize some of the mothers returning to Maury to test guys to see who’s their baby’s daddy (which will happen when you’ve been on 13 times with no luck).

You’ll note that no bad television choices are my fault.





###
Comment on this bit of rantus interruptus anyway you want (I don’t know where you’re reading it from) or just do so at my message board.

Star Wars III: Revenge of the Sith

Since it doesn't take a rocket scientist to guess that there were going to be a ton of Star Wars III: Revenge of the Sith reviews, I struggled with whether or not to bother writing one. But, hey, why not add another voice to the chorus? One of the great things about the reviews on Hollywood Jesus is that no two reviewers quite see things the same way on any given movie.

Previous entries into the most recent Star Wars trilogy, The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones, were Exhibits A and B in making the case that George Lucas was more master craftsman that effortless storyteller. The power of his productions have been in him submerging the viewer in his fully imagined galaxy. In Revenge of the Sith, the detail of his vision gave his dizzying city vistas and space battles an urgency in and of themselves. Ultimately, for all of the technical wizardry, it is the story, the space opera, that draws us into the movie. And this is the story that we all have been wanting to see: the tragic finale to how a good man finally gives in to the dark side.

This time around, the movie's plot kept more to the things that made the original trilogy great. In Episodes I and II, the epic story of the hero, or in this case the descent of a hero, didn't mesh well with the less than epic story of political drama and intrigue. Politics had plagued this most recent trilogy of movies, bogging the stories down to the point where an hour of C-SPAN held more drama. Not even serious politics since they are of the "don't think too hard because they don't make a lot of sense" varietyBthey seemed like exercises in pontification while waiting for the third movie to come out.

One certainly doesn't stay up until 12:01 a.m. for the opening day in order to see the great acting or scintillating dialogue. Unfortunately, Hayden Christensen (as Anakin) lacks the gravitas needed to show the torment of his slow descent to the dark side (especially noticed when compared side-by-side to even one line reading by James Earl Jones). Ewan McGregor (as Obi-Wan Kenobi) seems in tune with the spirit of his character, bringing a sense of whimsey to his character. Only Ian McDiarmid (as Emperor Palpatine) matches his performance, probably because he's given some lively dialogue to work with. Even the best actors and actresses can only do so much with the stilted, joyless dialogue to deliver. Everyone else was nearly upstaged by R2D2 threatening to steal the show. Since everything about the movie had a knowing sense of consequence to it, the cast didn't deliver dialogue, they made pronouncements.
All of which points back to the fact that it was the story, the visually stunning story, that counted. A story that abounds in spiritual implications.

"A prophecy misread could have been." --Yoda.

One of the primary overarching themes of the movie could be described as a misunderstanding of religion. In a lot of ways, this is a journey of faith. Faith can be abused, misdirected, mistaught, even mis-believed; the faithful always fear the possibility that somehow they might depart (or be led astray) from sound doctrine. To paraphrase one sentiment in the movie, to understand mystery, you must understand all aspects of the force; not just the narrow dogmatic view of the Jedi. This makes the Jedi sound like some brand of spiritual fundamentalist. It is not bad to question your faith, some questioning is healthy; however, this critique is given by someone who sees themself as the polar opposite of the Jedi.

"This is how liberty dies: with thunderous applause." --Padmee

This idea of faith gets further complicated once it gets in bed with politics. The question that gets to crux of the matter is what if the Democracy they had been fighting for, the Republic, becomes the thing that they are fighting against? There are enough pointed parallels between the Empire and the state of the American government to choke Jar-Jar, but this does open the door for some valid examination. Religion and politics have two different raisons d'etre. When the two blur the lines between one another, it leads to a kind of imperial religion. Spirituality, one's faith, should inform one's politics, not the other way around. Politics is about power and power always lusts for more power, leading to Machiavellian (or his intergalactic counterpart) level scheming. When the two conjoin, the danger rests in keeping politics from co-opting the spirituality.

This story also touches on the reality that the characters live in a state of "spoiled creation". In Anakin's case, he was deceived by a lie. The Sith's passions focused inward, thinking of the self; the Jedi were selfless, always thinking of others. However, good became a matter of point of view (the Jedi were liars and power-grubbers; the Sith possessors of secret knowledge) and truth was allowed to be misunderstood (read: ignored).

The path of darkness was paved with good intentions as a good end was attempted through evil means. "Fear is a path to the dark side." Throw in hate and anger leading down toward an inevitable path of death and destruction and you have the symptoms that diagnose the dark side being the fallen state of man. Said another way, living in a state of broken creation means that we are being untrue to what we were created to be.

Hope for finding our way through this broken creation could be found in the power of discipleship. In Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, you see what amounts to a tale of two masters. On the one hand, you have Darth Sidious, the dark master dangling temptations of power and salvation. On the other hand, you have Ben Kenobi, lifelong friend and mentor. And one cannot escape the powerful image of this being a story of a master betrayed by his disciple.

What we can't escape is the power of learning in community. We've lost the idea of journeying with our teachers, that teaching and knowing have a relational component. The master-student relationship is an important one when it comes to the idea of "making disciples". In a lot of ways, people have gotten away from what the picture of making a disciple looked like. Anakin made becoming a master a reward, a power position to be obtained, rather than the act of humbly serving others. It called for a teacher to walk alongside their disciples, live life with them. The master/teacher embodies, incarnates if you will, the teachings and faith is lived out in the context of a community. No, this is not a perfect way to do it: Jesus walked alongside his for three years and most of the time they didn=t seem to get the point.

"I feel lost ... I'm not the Jedi I should be." --Anakin Skywalker

Which leads to the last element of story that this movie is about, this being a telling of the story of a Judas, one who walks in discipleship then betrays his master and his teachings. A good man, for all intents and purposes, led down a dark path because of some internal discontent. Most of us have this feeling that something is missing, but we don't know how to fix it. Also, whether we admit it or not, there is this longing to be more, to live lives of significance. We have this sense of lost-ness. This sense of incompleteness is necessary, as it hints of there being some greater story and purpose about life that we might be missing, one that should drive us to the Author of that Story. In our rush to plug that hole, we run the risk of filling it with the wrong thing. Anakin was lost, but he was found by Darth Sidious, then dubbed Darth Vader by him. And to be named is to be owned and defined. This led to a series of tragedies that eventuated in a wholesale slaughter of Jedi knights that echoed the persecution of the saints of the early church.

There is a lot to be explored in the themes of this movie. In short, this was the movie that everyone wanted to see, the one that took three tries to get right. A high action cinematic experience tinged with a sense of tragic grandeur, Revenge of the Sith brings the sprawling saga we've come to love full circle.

Like you really needed a reason to see it.

Emergent Convention 2005 Report

So I just got back from the Emergent Convention 2005 in Nashville, TN. Nothing like venturing into country will billboards reading “Hell is real” and “3600 children were lost to abortion today” for religious dialogue. I will say that I spent the first half of the convention plagued by an intestinal bug. Nashville, that I know of, has no “don’t drink the water” type advisories; but I should know better that to eat the clam sauce at hole in the wall restaurants.

I’m not going to try and define what the Emergent Church movement is, but I have a pretty good idea of how it is perceived. A bunch of what amounts to Christian hippies; New Agers cloaked in Jesus. Self-stylized, post-modern, deconstructionists who hold to no absolute truths, no moral core, and don’t value Scripture. I doubt that anything I have to say would change anyone’s mind who believes such things. And it’s not like I’m completely down with everything they do and say either. But I enjoy the dialogue. I do know that I’m in the process of re-thinking, or at least thinking through, how church is done and how I view the Bible, and making the Gospel relevant for a rapidly changing culture. So any resources that can stir my imagination, I will greedily consume.

I’m still troubled by the monochrome nature of the audience. If they are engaged in something that’s supposed to impact the world, they can’t keep looking like they are only having this conversation among young, intellectual, white folks. However, this is a problem facing the segregationist mentality of the American church as a whole, not just this conference. Plus, I know that they are pulling together global ministries to guarantee that the audience (and speakers) will look radically different in only a year or two.

I was also glad to see that they were done emphasizing the cosmetic changes. “Ooh, look at us, we’re so edgy. We have services in the dark, lit only by candles.” “Let’s ride our bicycles for Jesus as a form of meditative prayer.” “Let’s have the DJ spin an ‘I love Jesus’ re-mix for 11 minutes.” I’m all for creativity, but sometimes I got the feeling that they were doing “new” things simply for the sake of being creative, without any real purpose or meaning.

Most of this movement is a reaction to a church that has reduced much of what we call spiritual living to a series of business models, formulas, charts, graphs, and self-help prescriptions propped up with Bible verses and God talk to give them authority. That’s where I see the church at now, stuck in this “rational”(and odd word to associate negatively with religion which often doesn’t have enough rationality), “systematic”/reductionist for easy consumption mentality.

I like asking questions, especially questions that challenged my faith and the intellectual boxes that people liked to pre-package God in. What drew me to them was the fact that they were comfortable asking questions, even doubting some of the sacred cows of religion. Not simply criticism for the sake of criticism, either. I’m all about trying to rehabilitate the Christian tradition in the lives of people who have dismissed it. For example, I know many spiritual people who can’t get behind Christianity simply because the self-proclaimed “gate-keepers of the religion” bar entry with their list of test questions. “Unless you hold to the seven day creation account, you can’t call yourself a Christian. You obviously don’t value the inerrancy of God’s Word.” When church gets in bed with politics or tries to do the job of science, neither of which is the purpose of religion, many thinking people say “pass.”

We, and I’m definitely including myself in this, risk a certain kind of hubris in thinking that we’ve got it right. Such thoughts should drive us to a deeper humility as we realize how little we do get it. Also, I am working on my judgmental attitude that I tend to have toward “religious” folks. I’m sure that I’ll be working through some of this in my blog over the year (mixed in with other stuff. I couldn’t take writing a theology only blog.)

But, hey, I got to hang out with Brian McLaren. And he remembered who I was. And I also found out the answer to the long unaddressed mystery of how many long island ice teas does it take for me to try an evangelize a bush. The answer is known to me, but shall remain a mystery for you.


*And I’m no longer announcing when I’m going to be away on these type of retreats. Some of the women on my message board took it as an opportunity to “re-decorate”, starting too many “Bridget Jones’ Diary” inspired threads.




###
Comment on this bit of rantus interruptus anyway you want (I don’t know where you’re reading it from) or just do so at my message board.

Crash

[Yes, this is my review from Hollywood Jesus, but I wanted to post it here, too]

Crash

“Live your life at the point of impact.”

“You think you know who you are. You have no idea.”

“Moving at the speed of life, we are bound to collide with each other.”

Those are the tag lines to what may be the most powerful, if not the best, movie of the year. And they sum up the movie quite nicely. This is a movie dependent on word of mouth. The only thing that I knew about it was that a friends’ parents saw it, they convinced him to see it, and he convinced me to see it. I knew of the director and co-writer, Paul Haggis (writer of Million Dollar Baby) and I simply love Don Cheadle (Hotel Rwanda, Traffic, Ocean’s Eleven and Twelve), so I trusted in the pedigree of the movie.

“We miss that touch so much that we crash into each other just to feel something.”

This movie examines the taboo subject of race and race relations; how we see each other and how that impacts how we act, react, and live with one another. It opens with a car crash, a fender bender, that has a Hispanic woman trading insults based on racial stereotypes with an Asian woman over their driving habits. A Middle Eastern father and daughter are insulted as potential terrorists when they try to purchase a hand gun. Two young black males feel slighted at their service at a restaurant, evidence of racial discrimination, though at the hands of a black waitress. Because she, too, thought in stereotypes about young black males. A white couple are the victims of a carjacking. A black couple the victims of a particularly nasty DWB (driving while Black). A Hispanic man is shunned while doing his job because he looks like a criminal with his shaved head and tattoos.

As Anthony (Ludacris) proclaims, “This is America.”

Portraying lives connected by seeming coincidence, the movie feels like Magnolia or Short Cuts (though mercifully shorter), but shares its theme of interconnected relationships and stories. The movie points to two things: reality is relationships and we live lives of overlapping stories. If this movie is about anything, it is about how prejudice keeps us from seeing the people around us as they are, with characters speaking without the benefit of political correctness obscuring how they are feeling.

At some point, we, as a people, “lost our frame of reference.” We live in a multi-cultural world, whether we want to call it a melting pot, tossed salad, or whatever new paradigm we choose to live under. We don’t often get the humiliation of going through life always being treated as a suspect, guilty until proven innocent. We don’t often get the humiliation of casual victimization. We don’t often get how our reactions to those constant humiliations fuel our anger and further hatred. Where even what should have been a binding moment of shared commonality can instead have tragic consequences.

That our fallen-ness, our lost frame of reference, has led to broken relationships and a downward spiral of anger, fear, eventuating in death. Like Jean (Sandra Bullock) says “I wake up every morning like this. Angry all the time and I don’t know why.” And race only seems to be an excuse for that anger. So how do you fight an attitude, a thought, a prejudice? You certainly can’t pass laws against them, because these are crimes of the heart and mind. Do you expend the energy and emotion fighting every instance of prejudice or do you pick and choose your battles, sacrificing bits of your dignity along the way? Or do you get caught up in the downward spiral of destruction?

For the most part, they are good people (except, arguably the car-jackers). Angry, full of resentments, scared, trying to do the right thing or at least muddle through their series of moral compromises. I spoke to a cop about the problem of prejudice between cops and people of color. He told me that the only way to counter the under current of racism was for police officers to develop more relationships outside of their own race. The problem was that they saw the worst of people of all races, and like Officer Ryan (Matt Dillon), it changes them. It skews their perspective, because if that is their prevailing experience with that race, it bleeds into the fabric of their overall attitude. And they already have positive, balancing, relationships with members of their own race.

Who did this? We did. Graham’s drug addicted mother echoes the words of Christ when she says “I asked you to find your brother, but you were too busy.” We have to have some hard conversations and build what may be some uncomfortable bridges. Like the black tv director, we may have to tell our own kind when they shame the rest of us. Like the Persian store owner, we may find our angels in the strangest of places under the strangest of circumstances. Like Jean, we may find our best friends right under our noses. Like the rookie cop, we may learn things about ourselves and what we’re capable of, and that may frighten and scar us. Like Anthony, we may mature and progress. We all are victims of racism and guilty of racism, but we don’t have to be defined by it.

At once funny, moving, angry, and absorbing, this movie is something to be experienced, shared, and talked about. I hope that it doesn’t suffer the same fate as Hotel Rwanda, a great movie that essentially falls between the cracks because people aren’t comfortable with the subject matter and the implicit call to action.




###
Comment on this bit of rantus interruptus anyway you want (I don’t know where you’re reading it from) or just do so at my message board.

Off to See Brian

Well, today I’m off to the Emergent Convention. It’s a pastor’s convention with an emphasis on a postmodern take on things, exploring what it means to do church in a changing culture. Because, frankly, it’s important to study a culture if you are going to make the gospel at all relevant to it. And, as evidenced by even a casual look at churches these days, there is something about the gospel not being effectively communicated or connecting with people.

This year’s theme is an examination of humanity, church, scripture, and truth. Relax, it’s okay to question your faith to see if it’s working for you.

My big hope is that I’m able to see and hear Brian McLaren. His book, A New Kind of Christian: A Tale of Two Friends on a Spiritual Journey, has been instrumental in me re-examining and re-connecting with my faith. So, I’m hoping to hang with him again, pick his brain over his latest book The Last Word and the Word after That : A Tale of Faith, Doubt, and a New Kind of Christianity. Before they string him up as a heretic.

Oh, and I’m hoping to maybe pitch a non-fiction project or two while I’m down there. Above all, I hope to come back as jazzed as I did last year. Get back in time to hit the ground running and get to the serious part of planting a church.

This is a long winded way of saying I’ll be off-board/off-Internet/incommunicado for the next week. You know, in case you’re wondering and find yourself missing me.



###
Comment on this bit of rantus interruptus anyway you want (I don’t know where you’re reading it from) or just do so at my message board.

Dark Night of the Soul - May 9, 2005

A friend of mine (and regular poster on my message board) wrote a poem that she said was inspired in part due to some conversations that we have had and a couple of sermons (few and far between that they are) that I gave. I thought that I would pass it along:

Dark Night of the Soul - May 9, 2005

Demons taunt me
Surround me
Haunt me

But I keep on trying
Keep my heart from dying
It's not mystifying
Why I feel like crying

I am angry with my foe
Yet my fear still grows
No one can ever know
He said he loved me so

Can I ever be clean?
Can I be redeemed?
That's not how it seems
This haunts me in dreams

There's a scream in my throat
"I want you" he wrote
Words that should endear
Instead fill me with fear

Will I ever be loved?
Will I receive a hug
Without thoughts in my head
Filling me with dread?

Demons laugh in my face
"You know your place"
The trees have not seen
where my body has been

My heart feels cold
My Spirit grows old
In this dark night of the soul
Can I be made whole?





###
Comment on this bit of rantus interruptus anyway you want (I don’t know where you’re reading it from) or just do so at my message board.

Legion of Super-Heroes

writer: Mark Waid
artist: Barry Kitson

The Legion of Super-Heroes has seen several incarnations. In its complex history, the title has been started, stopped, revamped, gone edgy and dark, gone pre-L.E.G.I.O.N. (Yeah, you don’t go a more tangled continuity, in the name of pleasing old fans while creating a jump on point for new ones, than going pre-your original self. Hello, Star Trek: Enterprise.) Luckily, you need to know none of that continuity to pick up and enjoy the latest incarnation of The Legion of Super-Heroes.

The title has a simple premise: it takes place 1,000 years from now, during a new age of heroes. After a millennium of utopian peace, there is a security, stability, and order to our united world. (Yes, for all of the Left Behind brand of theology fans, it’s literally a thousand years of peace followed by the return of an evil.) But this newfound peace is at the cost of freedom and individuality (read: it’s boring).

The young are held in suspicion. They are tracked genetically via a system known as the “public service” that also filters what under-agers (those under the age of 18) see and hear. The peace is maintained by a global “science police” and the planet is a member of the “United Planets.” All the while, the society has grown so impersonal that two people in the same room talk to one another via video screen. Okay, maybe it’s not so simple, but it’s easy to get into the swing of things.

One of the daunting tasks about writing the Legion of Super-Heroes is that you have over thirty characters to juggle. Focusing on only the most popular characters misses the point of a book like the Legion (emphasis on Legion) of Super-Heroes. Mark Waid has fleshed out their individual personalities, since with so many characters, many became generic or interchangeable. This changed the team dynamic as not all the members get along, or for that matter, even like each other. We get more of a sense of the alien-ness of the members. He went so far as to re-imagine how some of their powers work.

The members of the Legion look back on the age of heroes (Batman, Superman, etc.) through a romantic lens (since, in the eyes of the law, they were costumed vigilantes). Inspired by them (they even generate their codes of conduct from them), the members retain a lot of the charmingly retro names from earlier incarnations of the Legion, in keeping with their emulation of the old heroes (or as they put it: adjective + gender = names). Ultra Boy. Colossal Boy. Dream Girl. Sun Boy. Star Boy. Light Lass. Phantom Girl. Invisible Kid. And they invite all young people to subscribe to their philosophy of reclaiming their individuality and standing against wrong. Since this is a movement created on the backs of the young, some adults view the Legion as a (super-powered) cult.

The Legion of Super-Heroes for all intents and purposes is a church. The membership is made up of different races, with different gifts, with differing personalities and temperaments, yet they are one body. As a “church,” they struggle with this question: what does it mean to be missional? Often churches are mission-minded; that is, they put on shows or do outreach along the lines of getting the community to go to the church. This idea that the church is an attraction for the world to come see needs to be jettisoned, or at least re-thought, in light of a missional mindset. With a missional mindset, one is concerned more with getting the church to go to the community. To incarnate Christ (and the Bible) puts a new light on how Christians should see themselves, since lives modeled on the Bible may be the only Bible that people may know.

However, even this “church” has to deal with fragmented ideology that needs to be integrated, as different members pursue their own agenda and competing visions. In other words, their gospel message, their uniting vision, needs to be re-thought and figured out.

Boiled down, the gospel is about re-learning what it means to be free and fully human. To enjoy community, acceptance, while reviving the concepts of socialization and interaction. To be transformed and in so doing be a part of a generational revolution that frees people from being prisoners to the bondage of society, and the tyranny of their selfish ways. And as they grow, they realize that there is a lot to learn from history and tradition that has been forsaken in the name of expediency and progress. In so doing, they are swept up into a greater mission: to be a blessing to the world. Even the galaxy.

This book hasn’t forgotten its sense of fun, a fun not seen since the Paul Levitz, Keith Giffen—even the Jim Shooter—era of the book. Yes, it is a book featuring kids coming together in defiance of adults, emulating the vigilantes and highly individualistic “cowboy” super-heroes of the past—basically, rebelling against a society that controls every aspect of their life. Yes, those themes have a particular appeal to a new generation of readers. However, they leave room for the “older” generation of fans to enjoy this run also.

Batman: Year One

“Year One” (issues #404-407)
writer: Frank Miller
artist: David Mazzucchelli
published by DC Comics

The year 1986 proved to be a pivotal year in the modern era of comics. Back in the halcyon days when comics cost only 75 cents (and I remember being upset by that price jump), several books came out that changed the face of comics. Crisis on Infinite Earths. The Dark Knight Returns. Man of Steel. Watchmen. Swamp Thing. This was a great time to be collecting comic books. Frank Miller, fresh on the heels of his seminal The Dark Knight Returns, turned to the main title, Batman, to write basically a mini-series within the series called “Year One.” Between these two works (along with Alan Moore’s Watchmen), interest in comic books was revitalized, even among non-comic book readers. In fact, so much interest was stirred about Batman that the Batman movie, long languishing in “development hell”, was put onto a fast track, coming out just a few years later (1989).

Years later, this book is serving as the inspiration for relaunching the Batman movie franchise as Batman Begins prepares for its debut. (And, by the way, a Watchmen movie is currently in the works.)

This “Year One” story arc spawned a series of “Year One” issues. The premise was simple: what was it like during the first year that the given super-hero donned the tights? The issues examined the emotions that drove them to pursue the life of a hero as well as letting the reader in as they were figuring out their method. Basically, they focused on their purpose, but working it out often proved to be messy.

Miller returns Batman to his roots, including David Mazzucchelli’s Bob Kane (creator of Batman)-inspired rendition. The story is simple: Bruce Wayne returns to Gotham City after a twelve year absence after his parents’ death at the hands of a mugger; the event that triggered his war on crime. During that time, he’d traveled the world, training in martial arts and developing detective skills. The idea for Batman hasn’t occurred to him. After a botched attempt to attack the problem as “just another guy”, he’s inspired by the crashing of a bat through his window. Understanding the power of superstition, symbol, and myth, he crafts the image and legend of Batman.

However, the story isn’t about him alone. It is also about Lieutenant James Gordon, the future Commissioner Gordon. New to the Gotham City, he finds that he has to deal with a corrupt commissioner, a corrupt police force, and crime families. All while juggling his marriage to his expecting wife. So while Bruce Wayne is figuring out how to be Batman, Lt. Gordon is figuring out “what it takes to be a cop in Gotham City.”

“You’ve eaten Gotham’s wealth. Its spirit. Your feast is nearly over.” –Batman.

Gotham City, for all intents and purposes, is like man’s battle against his sin nature: all temptations and corruption. You see, there are no splashy villains in the story (though we do see Selina Kyle don her Catwoman gear in response to the appearance of a man running around as a bat). Instead there is only the corruption: the relentless, seemingly unstoppable, enemy within.

It never fails to amaze me how the stories of heroes echo the story of Christ.

Here you have a city, a world, caught up in the despair of its own iniquities. A man appears on the scene—before years of experience turn him into the cool, all-knowing, martial arts expert—who’s a “lucky amateur,” but still seems more than a man. He becomes a symbol of hope. He takes quite a beating and more than a few bullets, wounded for their transgressions. But even as he’s about his mission to “cleanup a city that likes being dirty,” he realizes that he can’t do it alone. He needs allies. A united trinity of a lawyer (a pre-Two Face Harvey Dent), a cop (Lt. James Gordon), and a vigilante (Bruce Wayne).

So, as Batman goes about his mission, others join him and in so doing, Gotham City finds out what a difference a few good men can make. Frank Miller triumphs in this bout of simple, yet powerful, story-telling.

Which SF Writer are You?

I normally hate these sort of things, but I saw this on Neil Gaiman's blog, and fanboy that I am, felt compelled to try it.

I am: Robert A. Heinlein Beginning with technological action stories and progressing to epics with religious overtones, this take-no-prisoners writer racked up some huge sales numbers.

Which science fiction writer are you?

I fully expected the answer "not much of one."

The Dynasty Begun Part II

I know that some of you have heard the rumors, so let me clear up a couple of things:
1) yes, I was writing the last e-mail as Sally was going into labor;
2) yes, I did stop on the way to the hospital to run a couple of errands (HEY, I got stuff to do!).

Um, that last part may or may not be a relevant part to this little narrative.

Continuing where I left off, our neighbors had gathered outside to see us off. When they saw the three of us shuffling toward the car, they knew and were shouting words of encouragement to us (encouragement may be a strong word: more like encouragement to my wife and harassment to me).

Now, of course, the one time I have a legitimate excuse to speed, there was no one out to even pull me over. It actually wasn't my intention to speed, however, there is something about a woman gripping your arm and screaming how she can't do this and this thing must come out of her now that makes one's foot hit the accelerator.

The usual procedure, for those of you who don't know, is that when you first check into the hospital, you are wheeled into the triage area so that they can assess if you are really in labor (this is where we spent the night before) and then they roll you into “labor and delivery” where you get your epidural and you deliver your baby. It's all good. They put my wife on the bed in the triage, start to check her, and the nurse says 'oh my.'

As an aside, allow me to list for you all the circumstances the words 'oh' and 'my' can be used consecutively by a medical practictioner of any sort in a way that is re-assuring:





Anyway, apparently my wife, in her bid to not have to wait around forever in triage only to be sent home again (watch carefully folks, blink and you'll miss it, as I make this her fault and having nothing to do with my running errands) waited just long enough for the action to start immediately. That's my way of politely saying that neither of us had time to be drugged before everything started rolling (you can check this by seeing the time that I sent the last e-mail and compare it to the time of the birth). Then things turned into a bad ER episode as our room was flooded with people (at one point I counted 11), and the resident said that he might have to deliver the baby since our doctor, despite being only across the street, might not make it on time.

I will spare you the details of what happened next and leave you with a few of my take home lessons:
-I am a lot less amusing when my audience is passing something the size of a bowling ball
-despite the fact that at no point did she use profanity, had I brought out my miner's helmet or catcher's mitt like I had planned, I would've found them lodged in such a manner as to make it difficult for me to walk
-nothing good happens when scissors are by one's genitals (first learned during a particularly gruesome–putting to death the idea of birth as a 'beautiful act of nature'–moment involving my wife, then re-learned a day later at circumcision time)
-the hospital won't discount your stay if you skip the drugs (I won't tell you at what point during the delivery I tried those negotiations)
-I thought, during the entire course of the pregnancy, that we were having a girl. For the record, a woman is never too tired or in too much pain to point out when you are in error (and say 'I told you so')
-and finally, a typical exchange during our (thankfully)--and mind you, I say 'our' as if I had to do anything except have my hand be crushed by hers--brief labor:

"Honey, breathe"
"I can't"
"Push"
"I can't"
"Relax"
"I can't"
"Open your eyes"
"I can't"

-in the end, it doesn't matter if it was a boy or a girl or how light he is (though i've been assured that his pigmentation will come in over the next week or so, for those who saw him within the first days. hey, here's a factoid for you: you can tell how dark you're going to get by checking your testicles)*. all that matters is that everything was there:
1-2-3-4-5
1-2-3-4-5
1-2-3-4-5
1-2-3-4-5
1 (woo-hoo!)

So, for those who care (READ: women), here are the vital statistics:
Maurice Gerald Broaddus the second (aka "Reese", not “junior”, not “li'l Mo”)
born on Mother's Day, 5/13/01 at 5:50 pm
6 lbs 13 oz
19 1/2 inches long




*This has since been proved to be a hideous lie. Thought up by nurses to taunt and get back at me for pretended to be angry when they first showed me a white baby.








###
Comment on this bit of rantus interruptus anyway you want (I don’t know where you’re reading it from) or just do so at my message board.

The Dynasty Begun Part I

Today is Reese’s birthday. He’s four years old today and for some reason my wife thought it’d be a good idea to give him his very own drum set. I didn’t have a blog when he was born, but I did send out an e-mail or two at the time. I thought that I’d post them (with some editing at my wife’s insistence).

***

This weekend was OPERATION: INDUCE. The plan was to try every wives tale (castor oil), rumor (Don Pablo's, White Castle's), doctor's recommendation (doing a lot of what married couples are supposed to do), or advice from recent mothers (walking). Or bizarre speculation (one friend, neither a mother nor married, said that he once heard that either a full moon or new moon was supposed to have an effect, he just couldn't remember which. he may have been yanking my chain, but i tonight i may roll sally out under the moon, just in case). This went against my policy of not listening to unsolicited advice [a policy that comes back into effect when the baby is actually born and the breast feeding Nazis and the “raising kids God's way” crowd--I had to quit referring to their program as 'beating kids God's way'--come out to play.]

That was the plan as of Friday.

All day Saturday, after working our way through half our list, she'd been having pretty severe contractions. This was probably initiated with the White Castle outing of Friday night that led to a very uncomfortable night of bathroom time reminiscent of the 'night of a thousand vomits'. This, however, didn't stop her from going garage sale-ing, and thus squeeze in another round of walking; nor us from having lunch at Don Pablos.

At 2:30 a.m. we had to go to the hospital. The contractions were so bad that I couldn't sleep. What did they have us do? A whole lot of nothing. At 4:00 in the morning, they made us walk for an hour. Afterward, she got to lay in bed and I was forced to flip channels. There was nothing on tv except The Byron Allen Show. BYRON ALLEN. (from Real People. He had a talk show that started the same time as Arsenio). I didn't know he was even still alive, much less had a career that justified him being on television. Come 6:00, we were walking again. By 8:30 a.m. they finally said to go home and take two Tylenol. Two Tylenol. They could've told us that on the phone. Heck, I could've rolled over and told her that. At least have the decency to prescribe us something (they did eventually give us two sleeping pills. I guess they were for her, but if she does too much more moaning, I’m popping one).

By the way, I love nurses that treat husbands like extraneous furniture, if they acknowledge their exist at all. This one wouldn't even talk directly too me. She'd tell my wife what she'd want me to know. If she looked at me, it was with this 'you did this to her' look. I have no idea why she didn't take to my charm; I was basically there to pull up the car (I guess she really didn't like my 'her legs aren't broke, she can make it to the car' comment) and hold her purse.

At 4 this afternoon, my mom showed up. A grand perk of this whole pregnancy thing is that people can't resist bringing us food. Our neighbors brought us dinner last night. A friend dropped off food earlier this week. And my mom brought lunch. On Mother's Day (it was part of my grand plan to have the kid on Mother's Day and get me out of having to buy a card or something for my mom).

[Then came a unique bit of wife-mother bonding that my wife has insisted be deleted this time around.]

Then again, why complain. The contractions are now five minutes apart. The hospital just told us to come in. I'm well rested and am now in full, obnoxious, I mean, support mode.

to be continued...

A Case that I’m Keeping an Eye On

Indiana law and a couple's faith in the power of God and Indiana law will clash head-on this week in a Johnson County courtroom.

Dewayne Schmidt, 36, and his wife, Maleta Schmidt, 30, are facing a single charge each of reckless homicide in the August 2003 death of their daughter, Rhianna Rose Schmidt. She died from sepsis two days after birth.

Jury selection began Friday in Johnson Superior Court 2 with Judge Cynthia Emkes presiding. Opening statements in the trial are scheduled for Tuesday.

Prosecutor Lance Hamner said he has struggled with the case.

"This is one of the most tragic cases we've ever seen," he said. "Usually, we're dealing with people who are cruel or who don't care about their children. Here, we have the opposite -- a loving family who did care for their daughter very much. However, parents have a duty to seek medical attention when their child's condition is life-threatening, as it was here."

The Schmidts told investigators they relied on God to heal their daughter, said Johnson County Sheriff's Detective Lt. Mike McElwain.

Yet another case that could be used to make fun of people of a religious conviction, but there are a lot of real issues here to be examined. Okay, a quagmire of other issues to wade through. I probably have no business posting opinions on topics like this. I’m not exactly a strongly opinionated person when it comes to politics. However, once again, there’s been a running discussion about it on my message board about this.

[Partly because it struck so close to home. As was shared with me, several of us are acquainted with someone who came from a family much like this one. They had grown up in a loving Christian home, on of those conservative, fundamentalist kind of homes that take Biblical doctrines to the point of legalism. However, one of their siblings got sick and died pretty suddenly, leading their parents to be arrested. Obviously, it decimated their family. Most all of the members of the family eventually dropped out of church life and into all manner of trouble. In fact, only one person in the family now is a practicing Christian.]

As a Christian, I have my beliefs and no threat by government (I would hope) would deter me from them; but I’d like to believe they are spiritually and Biblically informed (which, I’d be willing to bet that this family would say theirs are). However, we also have a brain. If I’m sick, I go see a doctor. I don't know about this family, but often people of similar convictions have no problem getting eyeglasses or seeing a dentist.

And as a parent, if I see my child sick, I’m praying. Not only am I praying, but I’m praying on the way to the doctor. Look, if I’m on fire, don't pray that the skies will open up and God puts me out. Put me out! You acting might be God's action/answer to that prayer. I know that God can heal people without doctors and medicine, but I think he also uses those things to heal.

And to be honest, though no one seems to point this out, we’re all going to die. Eventually that prayer to be healed is not going to get answered.

On the flip side, there is also the tension of figuring out where "freedom of religion" ends and the law (the institutions we’ve set up to govern us) begins. In the name of "freedom of religion", people can go too far, and someone has to put their foot down. Yes, this gets weighed against the fact that there are times when God’s law trumps man.

The rub of the matter is that to allow a child, who's done nothing wrong, who's just barely been born, to die, when there is help available, is wrong. Your religious convictions, for you, is one thing. But the baby--any child, for that matter--hasn’t made an informed decision for themselves regarding their belief in God. (I hate to break it to Sunday School teachers, but you can get kids to parrot any prayer, if only for the sake of them gaining your approval. I’m not saying that some of those prayers aren’t genuine, but you have to keep this in mind.)

Do I think the government is the best judge of right and wrong? Have you seen our government in action lately? However, just because authority can be abused, doesn't mean that we can willy-nilly ignore authority. Government has its place. The law has its place. And there are people, no matter how sincere in their beliefs, who may make poor decisions such that someone in authority over them has to step in and re-make it for them. For the sake of what’s in society’s interest. This is a tenuous argument, since it risks the majority abusing this power not that this country’s had its share of that.



###
Comment on this bit of rantus interruptus anyway you want (I don’t know where you’re reading it from) or just do so at my message board.

Democrats Voted Out of a Baptist Church

WAYNESVILLE, N.C. May 7, 2005 —— Some in Pastor Chan Chandler's flock wish he had a little less zeal for the GOP. Members of the small East Waynesville Baptist Church say Chandler led an effort to kick out congregants who didn't support President Bush. Nine members were voted out at a Monday church meeting in this mountain town, about 120 miles west of Charlotte.

"He's the kind of pastor who says do it my way or get out," said Selma Morris, the former church treasurer. "He's real negative all the time."

During the presidential election last year, Chandler told the congregation that anyone who planned to vote for Democratic Sen. John Kerry should either leave the church or repent, said former member Lorene Sutton.

Some church members left after Chandler made his ultimatum in October, Morris said.
The head of the North Carolina Democratic Party sharply criticized the pastor Friday, saying Chandler jeopardized his church's tax-free status by openly supporting a candidate for president.

"If these reports are true, this minister is not only acting extremely inappropriately by injecting partisan politics into a house of worship, but he is also potentially breaking the law," Chairman Jerry Meek said.

"He went on and on about how he's going to bring politics up, and if we didn't agree with him, we should leave," Isaac Sutton told The News and Observer of Raleigh. "I think I deserve the right to vote for who I want to." Sutton, a deacon who worshipped at East Waynesville Baptist Church for the past 12 years, said he and his wife were among the nine voted out.

Nine members were "excommunicated" and 40 other members of the 405 member church resigned in protest.

"One of the local women who got excommunicated said on TV that it was like a cult. Another man who got excommunicated said that the rest of the congregation stood up and applauded as the Democrats were told to leave."
During last Sunday's sermon, he acknowledged that church members were upset because he named people, says he'll do it again because he has to according to the word of God.

[...] A former church treasurer says she's at church to worship God and not the preacher.

Gee, I don’t know why people read news items like this and then hold Christians and the church up in ridicule. This has been an ongoing debate on my message board, so I thought that I would write about it. Once again, I’ll point out two things: one, we--as a church–are in danger of being defined more by who we are against rather than who we are for. Two, don’t make me apologize for idiots. Idiots who insist on getting behind a microphone and making it harder for the rest of us.

Look, I don't believe in separating my politics from my spirituality. I am perfectly comfortable believing that one should inform the other, but it should be my spirituality informing my politics. Many problems arise when it is my politics informing my religion, a problem that has been plaguing this country for a while now, leading to a brand of religion that I’ve taken to calling “Imperial Christianity”.

Now, I’ve been on both sides of this issue. There are black churches that condemn Republicans as evil (and black Republicans as sell outs) and white churches that proclaim that the Republican agenda God's agenda, and anyone against it amoral, irreligious, or anti-God. I’ve been to Republican and Democratic meetings and found them both attended by people who love this country and seek its best interests. And both opened their meetings in prayer, but this is Indiana.

I find “two-issue” thinking fairly boring. This country, and the world, are bigger than two issues. If we are going to have a platform based on our various Christian claims, we should have a broad platform that I bet crosses political lines. For example:

-God created us and tasked us with being stewards of creation. Shouldn't environmentalism be a high priority then, politically?

-the Bible has hundreds upon hundreds of verses that say we are to be concerned about the poor, the widows, and the orphans. If we are to claim politics in the name of religion, shouldn't our political agenda reflect an emphasis on helping the poor?

-homosexuality is a sin, I get that. However, isn't adultery? If we are going to shape a true Defensive Marriage Amendment, which is the bigger threat to marriage: homosexuality or rampant adultery?

-abortion as birth control is heinous. Now, should we be lining up to yell at and condemn women who are in agony over this decision, or should we be putting feet to our faith and lining up to adopt "unwanted" children?

The important thing is that you've given honest and critical thought to who you're voting for, as well as what you feel is (truly Biblically) correct when you decide to cast. Too often it boils down to a matter of picking the lesser of two evils on any candidate. However, I maintain that it takes more than two issues (abortion and an anti-homosexual agenda which smacks of legal bigotry) to form a moral platform.

Like I said, just a few thoughts. I’ve been told that I ought to read God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It. From what I’ve learned about it, and in my continuing mission to please no one on either side of the aisle, I think I’ll be getting to this soon.





###
Comment on this bit of rantus interruptus anyway you want (I don’t know where you’re reading it from) or just do so at my message board.

The Important Conversations

OR, “Why my wife is ready to quit her job and devote herself to full-time de-programming of our boys.” Reason #9931:

So the other day I sat the boys down because I felt that it was important that we have one of those conversations. [Actually two of those conversations, since the first one had to explain why we aren’t allowed to watch South Park anymore. You see, I’d been quoting Chef by saying “Children, there is a time and a place to do drugs and it’s called college.” Between that and Reese (age 4) telling his brother Malcolm (age 3) to “respect his authoritay”, it was all over for us.]

Part of the problem is my boys’ inability to keep a secret. Everyday when I come home from work at noon, I am greeted by them yelling “DADDY!” then rushing to see me. I’m a little disturbed by how surprised they sound each day, as if they are stunned that I bothered coming back. My wife, however, is greeted with “guess what daddy let us do!”

This brings me back to our conversation. “Boys,” I say in my faux-stern, daddy’s almost being serious voice, “there are a lot of bad people in the world and sometimes they do bad things. For that matter, sometimes bad things happen for no reason. So it’s always best that we plan ahead and be prepared. Do you understand?”

They nodded their head, dutifully staring up at their all-knowing and benevolently wise father. I get that look confused with “hurry up and say what you have to say then give us cookies for lunch again.”

“We need to decide, in the case of an emergency, who we would eat first.” This proved quite the fervent discussion. We decided that neither of them could be eaten because 1) they are far too skinny (this has nothing to do with daddy’s cookies and Coke for lunch menu selection) and 2) I need my genes to be passed along. Our cat, Dinsdale, didn’t fare as well, since he’s about the size of a chicken, and we all know that I have enough recipes to stretch one chicken out for a week of meals.

Mom didn’t fare too well either. But we decided that because we’d miss her, we’d only eat a leg and then hunt for better options.

This was followed up with the evening greeting of “guess what we decided today!”



###
Comment on this bit of rantus interruptus anyway you want (I don’t know where you’re reading it from) or just do so at my message board.

The Brian Keene Effect

I’m new to horror. I didn’t grow up reading it, I simply have a natural bent towards dark story-telling. I’m trying to respect the genre, learning its history as I hone my craft. Lord knows, I thought Lovecraft was over-rated and a tedious read, but I also wanted to study why he has left such an indelible mark in horror. However, as I look across the landscape of up and coming writers, of which I realize that I am one, I think that I’m seeing a disturbing pattern. Too many people are succumbing to what I call “the Brian Keene Effect”.

The Brian Keene effect has a few dimensions to it, but it boils down to people emulating what they think worked for Keene. Don’t get me wrong, Keene was not the first person to make a name for himself with “bad boy” behavior. However, he was the poster boy for the Generation X brand of it. Following his example, some up and coming writers adopt a similar bad boy posture, thinking that their steel-toed boots will be used to kick down the doors to professional, and widely read, popularity. Some find a stage, a bully pulpit visible enough to be heard and draw attention to themselves. Be it a muck-raking image on a message board, a “controversial” regular column in some foru