The Words I'm Saying Now Mean Nothing More Than Meow to an Animal

So I was supposed to make some huge announcement last week. Apparently I was wrapped up in other things- hogging space in our church blog, teeing things up for The Blonde Buddha to make fun of Dan Kimball's hair, grading midterms, organizing peace "things" (more on that later). Well, all I was going to announce was my selling out, or buying in, to Obama.* And now the time has passed.

I apologize already to the Obama campaign, I have a history of supporting, not just underdogs, but losers.

You may also have noticed that I didn't comment on MY PRESIDENT's veto of the bill bringing the CIA's interrogation techniques in line with the Army Field Manual. Essentially what President Jesus was saying with that is torture is a good thing. That moment passed as well, but beside that, what else could I say in response to yet another demonstration of where we stand?

But over this all, at least hanging over me lately, has been a question about the world we're making. I would require a lot of space to develop why the above things, even those only hinted at, matter to this concern. Space I am not going to take, so you have to just accept that they do. Or not. But in my mind it is connected.

I read this early last week:
"The point of this exercise is to lead us to deep gratitude, repentance, and action"
And it made me angry.

It had been floating over me like a lone raincloud.

What a jerk.

Here's something that's supposed to make people grateful, repentant, and active; and what do I do? I get angry. The line was in a pamphlet promoting and explaining a "Stations of the Cross" installation on our campus. I'm glad Protestants, at least these, don't hate Catholics anymore, or if they do, they don't hate them so much they aren't unwilling to appropriate their practices. Or maybe the way they appropriate them is a manifestation of their hate for Catholics. I don't know. Whatever the reason there they were, all the stations interpreted by different student artists.

I appreciate an openness to others, an experimental and experiential approach with one's faith, a regard for those things that are meaningful to others, but I find myself rejecting much of this (this being things like the above) as a joke at best or, well, something worse at worst. It seems I want people to be open, and when they try to be, it bothers me. Well, it wasn't the installation that bothered me so much. I thought it was cute before I read the pamphlet. And it's not the openness to new practices. I was angered that this was supposed to lead one to be grateful, repentant, and active. And it's not that I find it troubling that people should be grateful, repentant, and active. And perhaps on any other day, well, I know that on other days I wouldn't have reacted like such a baby. It was just a perfect storm of thoughts and experiences that made me such a crank.

And what is there to crank? It's the confusion that this seems to reveal. Whether it's a confusion in the perpetrator or in me is up for grabs but there is a confusion. I think deep gratitude, repentance, and action are good... well depending on for what one is grateful, from what one repents, and how one acts. That is not my concern in this instance. It is this tendency to add strange layers of muddle and falsehood to a situation that is already unclear and fictitious. It seems the height of pretense to say something like, "Wearing head coverings is a meaningful practice to so and so, we should do it too, only don't wear head coverings the way they do it, let's make it artsy and incredibly self-unaware." That probably doesn't seem problematic to anyone for whom that is not problemmatic... Rather, maybe, it seems like saying, "My dead wife used to do 'blank' and it showed me she loved me, will you do that too, please? Then, when you act just as she did, I'll know you love me," or saying, "'Child Number Two,' you need to live your life just as 'Child Number One' did because she did so well. We can only know you're doing well if you're just like her."

I may be overreacting- (yes, maybe), but they seem like similar acts to me, and while I have a great deal of tolerance for confusion, this type of practice frustrates and discourages me. Yeesh. That "tolerance" makes it sound like I am incredibly gracious and understanding when clearly I'm not. What I mean is I expect a good deal of confusion when speaking about things that are difficult to articulate. This may bring something like physics to mind; it shouldn't. That is something that is actually quite easy to articulate- we may need to learn the language/s but it is something sensible and physical. One's being unable to understand certain things about some range of things called physics is not necessarily a problem with physics. It could be our own laziness or unfamiliarity, but with native effort you could do it. But speaking clearly of a subject that is not sensible, things that are metaphysical, ethereal, etc... is not a matter of effort. It is confused. That's as it is; and for me, there is always a measure of confession involved in expressing things that are best passed over in silence. I expect that type of confusion.

But this other practice seems not just confused, it is dangerously confused.

So much of what we do is self-indulgent and at risk of becoming foisted as the way things are rather than tentatively held as what we do. We risk becoming unintentional with our practices and forgetting that we are already trying to say something with our religious habits, they risk becoming normal. And boy, our practices are not normal; we need to remember it is just a familiar voodoo.

We already fabricate ways to express those things that aren't really things. It's how we demonstrate gratefulness, repentance, anger, devotion, joy, love. That kind of "thing". We forget that what we do is not some kind of magic that lures God into our presence nor is what we do the best practices for knowing God. We forget that what we do is already a set of acts meant to say something about something about which it is difficult to say. Further, we forget that it shouldn't be a matter of saying something about this "thing" which it is difficult to say things, rather we are responding in some way. Other people, other better than me people, may remember that easily and readily. For them, the habits of song, sermon, song ad infinitum could be just that. That's why they're better than me. But if there's a risk that we see it leads to God rather than follows as some hopeful response to God, it does not seem to me it is overcome or avoided by taking the strange of someone else as real magic. It is also problematic if we think someone else's magic is more meaningful because it is someone else's. What's worse to me is that the possibility of expressing gratefulness and repentance in action is overlooked. I mean, I don't know that we are likely to say the first thing to do to express repentance and gratefulness is to sing a David Crowder song and listen to a 20-30 minute affirmation. Perhaps that's part of why we look elsewhere for things that might lead us to express gratefulness and repentance.

It may be that the current ways we do that are not the most suitable and we sense a bit of frustration in that. The solution does not seem to be learn someone else's language in an attempt to express what is difficult in any language. I don't know that we can be led to be grateful and repentant by practices, reflecting upon certain things included as a practice. Unless the act of practicing meaningless acts is itself an act that we mean to do to demonstrate who we are.

I do know it's difficult to explain why one feels loved, or grateful, or wishes to turn from one thing and to another. It seems to require, then, that we be more critically familiar with who we are and how things make sense to us. As I hinted above, I've been especially sensitive to that lately. I'm feeling particularly responsible for the kind of world we are creating- not just in the leaving a mess or a better campsite to future generations way- but in a "what are we saying by what we are doing?" kind of way. We're always saying something in what we do, I need to be much more intentional and aware about what that might be.


*I'm sure some of you thought I was going to announce something else to the blogoglobe. Well, I wasn't.

Ugh, Listening to Some Other Guy's Playlist Isn't Right
Gone- Ben Fold's Five
Colorblind- Color Me Bad
Welcome to Jamrock- Damian Marley Feat. The Notorious BIG
I've Got Friends in Low Places- Garth Brooks
BOOTED
Blues for Pablo- Mils Davis
I'm Housin'- Rage Against the Machine
Never Going Back Again- Fleetwood Mac
Don't Worry About the Government- Talking Heads
Dead- Pixies
How Can I tell You- Cat Stevens
Motivation- Tripping Daisy
Killing an Arab- The Cure
September Song- Sarah Vaughan
Outer Space Doesn't Care About You- The Briefs
Nuguns- System of a Down

This Means No Fear Cavalier

So this is part of an ongoing blogversation TM I'm having with Nickname not Yet Assigned. I think I made my response a bit long for the comments, plus it might be fun for you, dear reader, to see how life at GFC can be. Or at least, how a corner of life typed out and put into the internets can be. You can pick up the earlier parts of the conversation here.

This starts abruptly if you're just joining us...

I guess it depends on what we mean by cross-cultural and how cultures are crossed.

The first Christians certainly dealt with how one becomes a Christian in light of real cultural/ethnic markers. In that sense, Christianity crossed cultures- and, in part, is why Christianity is Christianity and not Judaism- why a Christian understands Isaiah 53 one way and a Jew understands it another way. And I am not one who is troubled by the fact that some Christian of 2nd c. Palestine or 21st c India does not practice the same kind of Christianity I do, though we are all happily called Christians. That's cross-cultural as well. And the first Christians did desire to spread their faith to all people and so in that sense crossed cultural boundaries as well.

Here's the "but" though. The first Christians did not have a position of overwhelming dominance in the world. The first Christians did not have the option of converting kings and their subjects wholesale. That's old hat, I know, we don't conquer whole people groups in the name of cross and crown anymore. But we did try to craft a common sense of the world- or at least we often tried to tie ourselves to the project of creating a common sense of the world and hoped to make the foundational propositions of Christianity compatible with the foundational propositions of the world.

What I mean is, we know that communication is possible across cultural boundaries, but we only know that because of the dominating project of Modernity that attempted to erase any sense of cultural boundaries by creating a common world, a project largely undergirded by a type of Christianity. As obtuse examples, it's why "we" call Indians Indians rather than what any of those groups would have called themselves. It's why "we" call Conquistadores conquerors and not slaughterers or genocidal invaders. It's why the Reformation is the Reformation and not a violent nationalist church split. It's why we would understand religious syncretism as a bad thing. Of course we don't kill people in the name of religion anymore- now we kill in the name of our civilization, our way of life- the totalizing, absolute claims on our existence and being. We kill to protect and expand our sense of the world. But we don't always kill; sometimes we educate or evangelize to expand our sense of the world because our sense of the world is right and true. That, in part, is what I mean by saying we accept cross-cultural missions as a good thing.

Still, I wonder generally what it means to speak cross-culturally, and I worry specifically if we think it means to give someone the knowledge we have to make them similar to us so they can be better people (or sometimes, historically, people at all). Of course, I can only say any of this because I am not capable of living with that Modern certainty, which may completely invalidate anything I have to say. For someone unlike me, someone who sees things with an objective certainty as "the way things are," I may represent a loosey-goosey threat to orthodoxy- I am the boogie man "relativism." But whether I am right or wrong is beside the point (at least in this instance). I'm just leading up to what I think it might mean to really speak to someone "cross-culturally".

The sense is/was that the ethical and moral claims of Modernity were as certain as gravity, but there is now a perspective that sees that what we understand as morally or ethically good, the world systems and powers that we build, the cultures in which we make sense of the world are not fixed or objective. At one time, there was the sense that learning was simply a matter of discovering the way things objectively are. That largely does not fly anymore, especially in matters of ethical, religious, and moral truth. If post-modernity is any thing, it is, in part, a perspective critical of that possibility. Today, some might understand learning as a form of acculturation, becoming well-adjusted to the systems in which you find yourself, becoming more and more narrowly fixed to a certain sense of the world.

Good grief I'm a windbag. See why I linked to it instead of being a comment jerk?

So...

When someone talks about cross-cultural communication I wonder what their assumptions about culture and communication are. When someone talks about "reaching" post-moderns, I wonder if they realize that the possibility of even articulating that, let alone doing it, undermines the possibility of reaching people they identify as post-modern. There are other questions. Are we talking about offering someone a pile of data about the world that we say is true? Do we understand that it is only possible for us to say this pile of data is true because of our world? If we are talking about crossing cultures, do we see that the other culture, if it really is another culture, is another sense of the world in which our pile of data is something else entirely? And why are we saying that Christianity is a pile of data, anyway? It's a different concern than knowing that people X are more comfortable with visual media and people Y like hymns. If post-modernity is a term that broadly reflects the inclinations, impulses, commitments and worlds of some people, then the very idea of "outreach" as the Modern church understands it is without the pale of those cultures. Advising evangelists to not be dogmatic when they try to reach these people is missing the point.

Of course what I'm loosely describing could be, for some, a sign of the death of the church. In a sense it is apocalyptic, it may be the end of one sense of the world. And that may be a bad thing. I don't think it is, but again, I'm part of the problem. In fact, I'm an excited part of the problem. I'm not trying to justify this position or even undermine Modernity, rather I hope it reveals a bit of why I think the very idea of "reaching" post-moderns is nonsensical. I don't means it's stupid. I mean it doesn't make sense in the way it makes no sense to say "I'm going to bisect this ray." It is meant to explain why I think being cross-cultural might depend on assumptions that work less and less.

As I said before, I too, think there is something in Friends tradition that is capable of flourishing within this mix. It's not that Friends have an anything goes, avoid confrontation, if it works for you go for it, man approach. Where that is, that's actually problematic to me. What I see as hopeful are those bits of tradition that allowed Friends to see the worth of others even as they were "other." Difference need not be a matter of division. It's the tradition that allowed them to see the Lenape as equals and not subjects. It's the tradition suggested by "The Peaceable Kingdom." It's a tradition parallel to Roger Williams saying, "You know, maybe we don't have to make them just like us for them to be okay." I know he wasn't a Quaker, but I'm talking about the sense he represented and it has had a parallel expression in Quaker tradition. Plus I like to mention him because that ridiculous perspective of his led to Rhode Island being called the cesspool of New England.

Anyway, it's not perfect. I mean look at the images of "The Peaceable Kingdom." There is a chasm between the ideal and what is. But look at what is. Two groups on an equal footing, each retaining their identities, Quakers do not become Lenape, and Lenape do not become Quaker, but neither remain the same in the contact. Of course we know how things worked out for the Lenape... and others. Like I said, there is a chasm between the ideal and what is. Maybe that's why the ideal is in the foreground. The human actions are just that, and, as hopeful as they ever are, that's all they can ever be.

But back to Kimball and reaching post-moderns. The gripes that he mentions, or that you pointed out to me, are not gripes about the church per se, but are an articulation of what a Modern Christian Evangelical Church system is capable of identifying internally. It's not a matter of making these changes and becoming attractive to post-moderns. It may be attractive to some people, I don't doubt that. I, for one, am glad to be a part of a congregation that doesn't tie leadership to male biology, but that's not a shift in the world. I've already said why I think that kind of shift is nonsensical, but to belabor it and make a point that might make more sense 'cos we're not "in it," it would be like a Medieval church looking for a way to attract (which of course is already an anachronism) "Renaissancers" simply by saying "You know, they trust their senses, and individual perception and reason are legitimate authorities- how can we repackage our metaphysical hierarchies, sense of virtue and order, and church authority in a way that will bring them into our Medieval sense of the world?" To me, that misses the stated goal. I would add this qualifier though, I don't necessarily think the various forms that fall under some emergent label are "post-modern." So what he is describing may be perfectly suitable for people with particular aesthetic sensibilities, and it may successfully attract those people. But that, to me, is different and not really cross-cultural.

So that said, I am not trying to say, "This is how things ought to be," or trying to make the case that this is right. I am willing to accept that this seems wrong and dangerous to some people. That's fine, but it wouldn't change what I think is problematic about an attempt to conceive of post-modernity as a system commensurate with Modernity or people as post-moderns that can be reached in a Modern sense of that term. I don't think Kimball is building that bridge, nor that it is a bridge that can be built.

We Can Beat Them, Just For One Day

It's easy to be sanctimonious and cynical about... well, everything. It's cheap and easy. Everything is pfft. But I'm not. I don't mean I'm not pfft. I mean, despite evidence to the contrary, I am not sanctimonious and cynical. Though that doesn't mean we are not surrounded by fluff and fodder. If I say something is a pile of crap, it is only because I have a good view while floating in the cesspool. I am not above it.

If it wasn't for a Christian perspective I would probably be an anarchist of some sort. I would probably have an overdeveloped sense of things deserving to be destroyed and toppled by virtue of their lack of virute. I would probably give the wrong time, stop a traffic line, and the like, anything to show that things are only worth being toppled. But, though it seems we, especially WE, are confronted and overcome by the Word- that we are confronted and overcome by the Word is a matter for hope and not despair. So it's not for the fire. In fact, I don't, now see how it can be. Especially if it is a matter of some nature that this Word is for us.

...

Nonetheless, in a sense of my prophetic duties, I confess I err on the side of critique.

Long time readers of my worldwidediary are probably related to me but even those who aren't would likely remember a wonderful feature called the "Frequently Feingold" in which I would highlight the various heroic doings of the hope-inspiring Senator from Wisconsin, Russ Feingold, peace be upon him. It's been a while but it's not because he has been any less heroic. I'll admit I was greatly disappointed by his decision to not run for president (even that was a mark of great character and integrity). And just as it took me a long time to ever watch Jeopardy again after my disappointment, it took me a long time to return to Russ Feingold, peace be upon him, hagiography.

This to say the Frequently Feingold is coming back. I know I know. It is wonderful. Settle down. But by way of reintroduction, I am doing something a little different. You can go here for a Russ Feingold, PBUH, fix, (If it doesn't comfort and inspire you, you are dead inside.) but I'm going to broaden its sense here for a bit and use this as an introduction to a new feature that honors Heroes of Virtue after the Manner of Russ Feingold, PBUH.

For asking Countrywide Financial CEO if he was going to try to somehow blame the mortgage implosion on Bill Clinton:
Rep. Paul Kanjorski of PA.
Seriously, that was just a good line.

For calling BS on Citibank Compensation Committee Chair and Citibank's compensation criteria:
Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton of DC.

For making the Congressional Oversight Committee meaningful:
Rep. Henry Waxman of CA

I think, you're supposed to say, "Lord, here our prayer," or something like that after each one.

So there you go. I care. I'm vulnerable. So what?

If you think that's something, wait until tomorrow.

Confess This

The Vatican has brought up to date the traditional seven deadly sins by adding seven modern mortal sins it claims are becoming prevalent in what it calls an era of "unstoppable globalisation".

"They need to be more aware today of the social face of sin - the inequalities at the social level. They think of sin too much on an individual level. I think priests who hear confession should have a deeper sense of the violence and injustice of such problems - and the fact that people collaborate simply by doing nothing. One of the original deadly sins is sloth - disengagement and not getting involved," Father O'Collins said.

BBC News

Protestants largely have an ideological view of the Reformation that serves a "thank God for intervening into history at just the right moment to save us from popery" that colors a lot of how we understand Catholicism. Well, there's that and a whole lot of continental violence. Still, something like indulgences is broadly understood as the voodoo that Luther rescued us from. Remember indulgences? The last straw that inspired the wholesale return of the church to Jesus Christ, never to need fixing again?

Anyway, they're still something. That's right. There's a whole bunch of the world that believes that sins are actual things and actual sins have actual consequences and a part of the demonstration of our remorse at having actually done something is to seek to actually make amends. That's how they understand indulgences- demonstrating and participating in forgiveness.

Dummies. They don't realize that God does everything so you are entirely off the hook.

In a demonstration of how far they take this nonsense of making amends, the Catholic Church has just released the work they've been doing on understanding the manifestations of sin in our actual world. So with that comes teaching and training priests to properly understand contemporary sins and how one might demonstrate the forgiving transformative grace of Christ and do something that corresponds. That's the sense of an indulgence.

Talk about silly. Someone else telling me what is a sin? Telling me what to do? Like they know something I don't. I'm sorry, guy in the fancy robe, I have a book I carry around in a zippered nylon case with a velcro pocket for carrying colored pencils and it tells me everything I need to know about MY personal relationship with God. So stick it in your rectory.

And still worse, could you imagine if we thought of the social consequences of sin? Yeesh. I might end up doing something and before you knew it, I would think somehow my salvation was connected to what I did. Sin is personal, just like Jesus, and I'm not "doing nothing" as you say. Perhaps if you understood how dead all your works are, you would understand, that what you call doing nothing, I call Blessed Assurance.

Jesus Is Mine!
Ouch Ouch Ouch- The Briefs
Shoplifters of the World Unite- The Smiths
Consternation- Tito Puente
Thanks for the Memory- Stan Getz
Sloop John B- The Beach Boys
Down by the Riverside- Sister Rosetta Tharp



I hate the way it gets all bunched up down here now.

My Iron Lung

You've probably already seen this, the story of the college math teacher fired for altering the sense of a loyalty oath state employees are forced to sign. I'm not looking to get the public schools I worked for into any trouble nor pat myself on the back, but I did the same thing and they couldn't care less. In fact, one human resources manager told me she just needed the paper in my file and it probably didn't even matter if I signed it.

It matters though, if the people looking over your papers are fascists. Oh c'mon, fascists? Really?

Okay, maybe the supervisor who said Kearney-Brown could not alter her loyalty oath isn't a fascist. Maybe the supervisor just wants to make sure we all believe and do the same thing out of loyalty to the state and would gladly enforce that with violence. Or maybe Perhaps it's a status confessionis mortis. In an other time, we could be more tolerant of difference, we might even accept each other's differences, but in light~ of the looming specter of death we have to circle the wagons. We can't have middle-aged remedial math teachers refusing to take up arms against all enemies real or imagined.

In a time such as this it's necessary to trust our leaders to tell us what is and isn't acceptable- mostly what isn't acceptable. These are unique days wherein everything matters- even silly gestures of uber-patriotism.

Back in the days we had no enemies, I could get away with not swearing to violently defend the Constitution- so could Marianne Kearney-Brown. But now we know better.

The silly thing is, this is so far down the scale of things that matter that it's value really isn't in the act but in what it points to. I don't mean it's not important for her, or anyone else to live with their conscience. If you can't sign something, you shouldn't. But really? A 50 year-old math teacher? Taking up arms to defend the Constitution? As David Rakoff said- it's grass soup. (Read this, your day will be better.) I think it's good for her to have done that- even if the time never comes when we ask 50 year old women to do our killing. Directly anyway.

But what it points to- Right. That's where I was headed.

I think someone could make the case that this is silly theater. This is a bit of nonsense- especially because of the performers involved, it distracts from the ways in which we already participate and maintain the structures of a subtly murderous system. I'm not making that point, but I could see why and how someone might. If this act in itself is what matters, then we're in trouble. If this is the way one confronts the world, it doesn't do all that much. Instead, it points to a way it might be done, and as such, it is a reminder that there are features as plain as the noses on our faces that we accept and go along with for the sake of going along. That is, we take these marks of culture to conduct the business of the world, and because it is the world, like the noses on our faces, it generally goes unnoticed. But here's a reminder that something is there, something that demands loyalty, something that does what the world does in the way the world does it.

I think one of the greatest temptations facing Western Christians these days is no different than those Jesus is said to have faced in the wilderness and throughout his ministry: to get worldly authority and glory in exchange for worshipping the devil. Of course as long as we identify worldliness as love of boobies, booze, and the F word we figure we're doing all right. Right? I mean, we're in the world, confronted by sex and violence on the MTV video games, the gays with their agendas, and people who smoke and swear, but because we don't do that, we're not of the world so we're safe from the devil's offers.

Hooray for us. But at whatever points we think Christianity is about being a good citizen, we're dead. Insofar as we make Christianity a propositional prospect or even one that is concerned with confronting personal sin we are, in part, taking the marks and features of the world that allow us to get along and conduct our business. In short, Christianity, in a sense, prevents one from being what might be Christian. That's probably all that needs to be said about that.

But not signing or swearing a loyalty oath is pointing to the thing we don't see. We don't see that the world, as it's put together, makes certain demands that we be a certain type of person that fits into the world. We're especially tempted because we happily think the tenets of something called Christianity are universal- and everyone would want to be what it is to be a Christian because it's the best way to be. It makes us well-adjusted, self-actualized, and happy. It is the best way to get along because it is the Truth, and because it is the Truth, it inevitably makes us most suited to going along and fitting in. What else could something called the Truth be and do, after all? If it's True, wouldn't it make us good, virtuous, amiable, and happy to swear loyalty to a universal sense of the same? Not swearing the loyalty oath reminds us that the world has its own sense of good, virtue, and amiability and it's by accepting those premises that we have its authority and glory, the authority that allows us to be masters and creators and the glory of doing well in it.

It is in this way that I think Quakers matter. I don't think there is something objective or ontologically fixed that is Quaker and that's what we ought to be. Rather, given the world, it is an appropriate and timely method of response. To be clear, the world is late English Capitalist hegemony. To be clearer, I don't think being in the Word requires or is identified with something called Quaker, and the Word is more important to me than something called Quaker. But in this particular type of world, something called Quaker has features that make for a good method of response.

More on that later...
9/11 9/11d Everything
Coffee Klatch's Smooth Hits from the 70s Mix

Counterrevolutionary Activity

If you missed the Champion's League Arsenal-AC Milan meeting you probably got more important things done today. But then you also missed an aggressive Arsenal overcome Milan, the officials, and Senderos' clumsy defending to historically be the first English side to ever beat Milan at home.

It was beautiful. I was a bit panicky for the first quarter hour or so, especially after this past Saturday's performance. But then the pace at which Arsenal played, seemed like an entirely new team was somehow subbed in whole.

This is frivolous and entirely a distraction from anything that matters, but if others are allowed __?__,* I get this.

*Guess what I was thinking should go in the blank?
Boring, Boring Arsenal
1921- The Who

The Times They Are Whatever

In addition to likely being the day we'll finally get to know whether we'll be saying President-elect Obama or President-elect Clinton (I'm looking forward to that and hoping for the former), tomorrow the California Supreme Court will hear a case regarding marriage.

I have a "mark my words" position on the issue of what we call homosexuality and homosexual marriage as far as THE CHURCH is concerned. In the same way that contemporarily unconscionable positions were maintained by dominant Christianity in the US with the full support of scripture and tradition but overtime renounced, this finger-wagging, hand-wringing and brow-furrowing over homosexuality will change. Just as those who advocated the abolition of slavery or opposed the nonsense of anti-miscegenation were on the fringe of Christianity at one time, those who are mining scripture and tradition right now for the possibility of a new world regarding homosexuality, in the future, will be at the fore. Whereas today's dominant, or just louder, voices opposing the life of people conveniently missing from our communities will be suppressed or seen as an unfortunate mis-step in the history of THE CHURCH. That is, the Dobsons and Robertsons will go the way of the Wilsons and Graysons

"Who?"

Exactly

Few remember the pro-slavery and white supremacist theology of Princeton and still extant mainline seminaries throughout the US. Instead we craft a history that remembers abolitionists were Christians. We remember that Christianity is responsible for ending American slavery and forget that "All Christians believe that the affairs of the world are directed by Providence for wise and good purposes. The coming of the negro to North America makes no exception to the rule. His transportation was a rude mode of emigration; the only practicable one in his case; not attended with ore wretchedness than the emigrant ship often exhibits even now, notwithstanding the passenger law. What the purpose of his coming is, we may not presume to judge. But we can see much good already resulting from it--good to the negro, in his improved condition; to the country whose rich fields he has cleared of the forest and made productive in climates unfit for the labour of the white man; to the Continent of Africa in furnishing, as it may ultimately, the only means for civilizing its people." We remember that Christianity is responsible for advancing human rights and forget that "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

After tomorrow, a ruling will be due in 90 days. It's unlikely, though possible, that the majority Republican appointees will equally apply the law and say a person can enter into marriage with the person they want. The California Supreme Court did that in 1948 despite majority opposition; it may do it again.

Oh I know, I know, natural order, foundations of civilization, and all that. The natural separation of the races and the continuation of White civilization are threatened by- oh wait, you meant, the natural difference between male and female is threatened- I thought you meant something else. Well, those conceptions will change and we will rationalize our positions in relation to them. We'll advance certain ideas and suppress others. Christians are good guys and whatever is the good in the future will be where we stand, whatever else may have happened up to then.

Or not. I don't mean it won't happen. I mean not all people will say it's the good, and so not all Christians will say, "This is where we ought to be." After all in 2000, Alabama had to vote on their already decreed unconstitutional anti-miscegenation laws and 40% of those voters thought "the races" ought not mix in marriage. For many, maintaining that adversarial position will be "the good." It will be a mark of purity and virtue to be a hold out. But we'll know that that is a hold out position against what is accepted, and so, some Christians will know themselves as Christians precisely because they never gave in. Whatever, the California Supreme Court may not decide in favor of equal protection in this case, but that time will come.

But as far as "or not" goes, I also mean that the above may not be the necessary position of something called Christian. Up to this point I haven't suggested a judgment and I am not advocating a wait and see approach. It's just what I think will happen- enough to say "Mark my words..." enough to wager a cop moustache.

sp!? What- that's how you spell moustache, isn't it? ... Oh mustache. Moustache is a European variant- or is mustache the American variant? See how much things change?

In any case, it's a comin' and that set of relations will be there. I don't think it is necessarily the role of something called the church to be the cheerleader for the broadening reach of Modernity or the long arc of moral justice... or something like that. I do think, in something called the church there is the possibility, and responsibility, to question assumptions and ideologies of gender and live as a people who are learning to worship God in relation to even something as basic seeming as gender.

Face it, what you think it means to be a man or woman, depends on what we think it means to be a man or woman (duh), but if what you think it means to be a man or woman has a thorough, self and other-dominating claim on you then what place does that leave for anything else- especially a not a thing else like God?

We're Number 1!

"The United States imprisons more people than any other nation in the world. China is second, with 1.5 million people behind bars. The gap is even wider in percentage terms."

NY Times

In completely unrelated news:

"School districts across California have begun trimming services and preparing to lay off teachers in response to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's proposed budget, which could cut about $4.8 billion in education funding this year and next year. Educators say it's the worst financial crisis they can remember."

LA Times

Sow The Wind
Nothings Shocking Album- Jane's Addiction

Dear Diary,

I'm not usually a twelve year old girl, but here I am sharing a poem in my online diary. What else should I do to finish the performance? I don't have any My Chemical Romance to listen to... Maybe I'll put my picture of Zac Efron on the back of my bedroom door- I mean a picture- a picture of Zac Efron on my door.

"Obvious Song"
by Paulo Freire

I chose the shade of this tree
to rest from all I will do
while I am waiting for you.

One who waits and only waits
lives out a time of waiting in vain.

Therefore, while I wait for you,
I will work the fields, and
I will talk to the men.

My body burned by the sun, I will drench it in sweat;
my hands will become calloused hands,
my feet will learn the mystery of the paths,
my ears will hear more,
my eyes will see what they did not see before,
while I am waiting for you.

I won't await you only waiting,
for my waiting time is
a what-to-do time.

I will distrust those who shall come to tell me,
in whispers and cautiously,
"it is dangerous to act,"
"it is dangerous to speak,"
"it is dangerous to walk,"
"it is dangerous to wait, in the way you wait,"
for those one refuse the joy of your coming.

I will distrust those too who shall come to tell me,
with easy words, that you have come,
for those ones, as they naively herald you,
will first betray you.

I will be preparing your arrival
as a gardener tends to the garden
for the rose that shall come in the spring.

A Horse and an Aardvark Go on a Date...

At some level I felt like apologizing for wanting to see Semi-Pro. I will find plenty of funny about it and people smarter than me would say it's a tired old trick. But that's funny too. And now I read this:
"I'm trying to totally exhaust people's capacity for seeing me in these types of movies."
I don't know how that lets me off the hook. I don't entirely know that I'm on a hook, but now, this seems to make it even funnier to me.

There was a summer that Camp Roommate and I were comedy gold. He and I would perform the song Wipeout. He banged out the rhythm on an overturned pot and I would groan the melody while dancing. We thought it was fun to do, but funny to perform, especially because the song lends itself to never ending. I don't mean that the act itself was all that funny, but the performance of it as a thing was funny. So we performed it as a joke early in the summer and were requested to perform it throughout the summer. Some people thought the act itself was funny, most people didn't- but performing it was a joke and doing it over and over made it even funnier to me. There was a "How am I not myself" moment, but pushing something beyond the point of possibly funny, through awkward, to absurd is hilarious to me.

I also think this is funny:

Less than 20 dB

Unless you're better than me, you've probably heard that Starbucks will be closing their doors for three hours in a move to save their coffee soul.

It's true.

I like that idea. I like that Howard Schultz, back in the saddle, after having done more than possibly anyone other than Mr. Coffee to make coffee so ubiquitous worries that he has commodified the experience. I know it's hard to tell when I'm being ionic, or even ironic, (even I can't tell sometimes, thank God~ for my irony mark) but I really do like that kind of self-awareness.

It's rare anywhere and he's part of the machine.

My blood used to oil parts of that machine. Regular readers of this blog may want to reconsider their existence, and may also remember I was a Starbucks barrista.

Tooting my own horn, I was the kind of barrista that would get us a five star snapshot. Now to sound like a "It Was Good, But You Should've Seen It With the Broadway Cast" I stopped frequenting Starbucks when they started selling hot sandwiches. That was sort of the last straw in a change that I felt was occurring while I still worked their. It was a change marked by a number of things- no more cinnamon twists, larger retail spots, more and more cross marketing, hot sandwiches.

I know Starbucks is a global corporation so it's silly to think of them as a small neighborhood business, but as far as global corporations go, it was like a small neighborhood business. It lost some of that with these changes. I think Howard saw that that was disappearing.

So they're closing to maybe find what was lost. Like I said, I like that. Oh I know it's just a gimmick. But it's an important gimmick. At least, it is in the life of Starbucks.

I probably won't go back. I've found a new place. But I think it is none the less important for Starbucks to do this.

Now, I'm going to take it too far. But I'm going to take it too far because so many church leaders stupidly think churches should be run like businesses. I don't always know what that means, though it generally corresponds to a sense of masturbatory, ego feeding, greatness- becoming bigger to become bigger.

What if churches tried that? I don't mean self-affirming back-slapping. That is already tried a-plenty. What if there was the opportunity to stop what one does to question what one does? What would one find?

I know that's crazy talk. There couldn't possibly be anyway to stop what we do as churches to be confronted with something beyond us~

In Case of Rapture...

I've heard more than a few times now, concern about Mike Huckabee's performance in the Republican primaries as well as hope that he can use his influence among some conservative Christians as a lever to influence candidate selection. I mean I've heard this in churchy circles. I've heard church comrades express this.

I don't hide my political leanings, nor do I expect anyone else to necessarily hide their inclinations or hold their tongue simply because I'm a brown lefty, as long as they're willing to be called on their BS. So when I heard, multiple times that this concern and hope are rooted in a desire to finally have "a real Christian" president, I crapped. Then I asked, what were the last seven years? I tortured any sense of what "Christian" might mean for you, and now you tell me it wasn't necessary? When did this realization strike you? It certainly wasn't three years ago. At what point did you jump the 30 Percenter Express? Is this part of the same phenomena that cause a certain stripe of Christian to jump on other cultural trends five years behind the curve? Is this the political equivalent of "God Tube"?

It's statements like that that tempt me to believe in the phrase "You people."

The best response, well really the only response other than "... uh well..." was the following:
"Well if George Bush is a Christian, he's the kind who would have a 'God is my co-pilot' bumper sticker, but Huckabee's would say, 'If God is your co-pilot, change seats.'"

So there you go.

... Start Clapping
Faith and Inspiration Playlist

What's In A Name?

In one of our Sunday school classes we're going over an Evangelical Declaration Against Torture.

When I've mentioned that to people, they've often said it's a weird topic for a Sunday school class. Maybe. But we seem to be enjoying it. As much as one can enjoy the topic of torture and not be hellbound, I suppose.

In any case, we're not just looking at it to say "agree" or "disagree" or to come away from it and be able to conclude "torture bad." I guess that's part of it, but as much as is possible in a 45 minute, once a week class, we're also looking at it to sharpen the edges of our understanding, to see how this particular document sees the world, and to know how something we call the Word confronts that sense of the world- our sense of the world.

So that's that. So far so good.

A couple of times in I've wondered how to approach a certain issue, especially as it reflects our place in creating a sense of "the world". For example, in discussing the history of human rights I wondered how pointed to make the document's veiled reference to the evangelical objection to gay people's audacious claims that they be seen as people with the rights we would say that being human includes. How do I address that we're able to include a blastocyst in our understanding of humanness but not "a gay"?

I kept it veiled. I'm a sell out.

But one thing that could not remain easily hidden was the dearth of positive participation by evangelicals in the creation of contemporary understandings of human rights language. Drag.

It would be a happily spinable absence if it was a matter of evangelicals wishing to remain in some critical position to those Modern conceptions of self and humanity, but this was not the case- and it would be very difficult to say it was. The truth is, in recent history, evangelicals have largely been on the wrong side of most issues.

The document itself attempts a funny reconstruction of history by identifying the wonderful role Christians have played in developing a particular conception of human rights; it identifies a history of participation by groups that are not a part of contemporary evangelicalism. Ignore for a moment that when we want to construct a history of any Western concept we can say Christianity had a role in it, for good or ill; that's not the issue here. I mean it speaks of the role Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Deists, Natural Law Philosophers, and 17th c. English nonconformists had in developing a sense of human rights but doesn't acknowledge that evangelicals, either didn't exist at the time or were on the other side of the fence from these groups, often making sure the gatekeeper didn't let the others in. So to say we (as evangelicals) are a part of that train is a bit disingenuous.

I would add a big "EXCEPT" though. Evangelicals did, because of their understanding of Christianity, participate in some of the English speaking world's most progressive movements for a brief part of history. It's worth mentioning that before the Civil War and the advent of inerrancy statements evangelicals were unequivocally hippies.

But now? Ugh.

Anyway, in class we had to address that we are not the heirs of Martin Luther King Jr. or those who fought alongside him, but instead we (and I still say "we") took up the cause of those who fought against him- who wanted the negroes to take it easy, to know that God is in charge, who said, "Only when Christ comes again will the little white children of Alabama walk hand in hand with little black children." (Google it.) We were not part of that great human rights tradition- not as evangelicals anyway. I guess we could be as Quakers, but we're Evangelical Quakers. Actually, we're not even that. We're Evangelical Friends. Evangelical Friends Church Southwest.

We made ourselves contradictory. When I say "we" I mean that group in that classroom who wants to understand themselves as Quakers and evangelicals.

It's strange for a Quaker to be that. We want to carry the torch for abolition, pacifism, workers' communes, Civil Rights, and advocating the bombing of North Vietnamese water supplies.

I'm of the mind that the the two can't go together. I'm of the mind that it was a mistake to want to be called Evangelical Friends.

That happened. I mean, there was a moment in time when a group known as Southwest Yearly Meeting had to decide about being called Evangelical. And know we are.

I've talked to people who participated in that move who say it was a matter of clarifying that these particular Quakers were professing Christians. When they said "Evangelical" they meant Christian- I suppose one can make that claim. In the same way, I can claim that our church is led by presbyters so we're presbyterian.

I'm sorry if saying we're presbyterian causes confusion for anyone out there. When we use a term it means precisely what we want it to mean, nothing more nothing less. So we're Glendora Friends Presbyterian Church.

I suppose we do have the ability to use words any way we wish- but the sense we're trying to make depends on the sense a word can make. So we can say we're "Evangelical" because we love Jesus and preach the Gospel and that's all we mean by that, but unfortunately, that's not all that's meant by that.

It's a mixed bag. Depending on whom you ask, you might hear the label wasn't at all tied to the broader American understanding of "evangelical." So even though it meant Reagan, the Moral Majority, Hal Lindsey, and a Southern Christianity it didn't necessarily mean Reagan, the Moral Majority, Hal Lindsey, and a Southern Christianity. Even though that's the direction these Friends were moving, the label didn't mean, that's the direction these Friends were moving.

Fine. It doesn't mean that. Just like I don't mean we're Presbyterian when I say we're presbyterian. Just like I didn't call you "stupid," I said what you did was stupid. (You have to have siblings for that to make sense.)

It's also unfortunate that we couldn't have said, "I suppose it's not always clear what is meant by Quaker, but perhaps you will know us by our fruit, perhaps you may know we are Christians by the way we love each other and demonstrate this love to the world."

But who does that?

Well, in recent history, it hasn't been evangelicals.


So it's all garbage. No. It's not. I hope, in the truest sense of the word, I hope that maybe we can mean and be evangelical in a way that is wholly foreign to us. Maybe we can be evangelical in the way our Sunday school class is kinda' evangelical, in the same way the declaration is essenatially evangelical, the way the gospel itself is evangelical. It's that strange point of divinity that confronts who we think we are.

We could mean that. We just have to show that that's the case.

And I Think I'm Going to be Recorded?
Irresistible Bliss- Soul Coughing

WHAT!

I was so wrapped up in making Valentine's Day special for the Qweenbeen I totally forgot to do anything for you- I'm so sorry I took you for granted. I hope you accept a belated Happy Valentine's Day wish from me. Here, an oldie but... well it's an oldie where I come from:

Going To Jupiter

I hope, in the same way I hope televangelists will some day come out as ironic performance artists, that the Enzyte commercial creators are actually mocking the idea of masculinity that they are ostensibly targeting.

It's possible, though very unlikely.

What I hope is since the commercial is offering a product for male enhancement what they mean is Enzyte enhances what it means to be male (an adjective) thus making male characteristics more prominent in the same way someone might enhance what it means to be ugly, or dumb, or malodorous. This is how one makes sense of "Bob's" vacant eyes and wide-mouthed grin. His maleness is enhanced to the point that he is made a vapid, dumb-struck, shell.

I like that.

I don't mean to say that "male" is idiotic so enhanced male is more so. Rather, that the sense of male to which Enzyte appeals and demonstrates is idiotic and so one who practices it is an idiot.

So then Enzyte is intentionally an aposematic marker for idiocy and to that end it actually does deliver on its promise of enhancing maleness.

What do you know?

What I know is now that I've knocked Enzyte out of the way, next to go are Billy Mays and international calling cards. Thanks for the work FSC.

It's In The Bible, People

KANSAS CITY, Mo. (AP) -- Kansas activities officials are investigating a religious school's refusal to let a female referee call a boys' high school basketball game.

The Kansas State High School Activities Association said referees reported that Michelle Campbell was preparing to officiate at St. Mary's Academy near Topeka on Feb. 2 when a school official insisted that Campbell could not call the game.

The reason given, according to the referees: Campbell, as a woman, could not be put in a position of authority over boys because of the academy's beliefs.

SI.com

So what's the problem?

Forward Thrust Is Proportional to Airstream Mass Times The Velocity of the Airstream!

Let this be a lesson to the rest of you!

This is what happens when you don't believe in physics.

Unless You Turn and Become Like Children...

Watch this clip and note how the dialogue of Casablanca is especially wooden and hacky.

I don't mean to say, "Hey, did you ever notice Casablanca isn't so great? It's actually a poorly written and acted pile of crap. Who are the jerks that like this?"
It is wooden dialogue isn't it? And isn't the interaction stiff and awkward? But that's a good thing. The stiffness depends on the scene, they're actors acting like people who are acting like they aren't in an awkward situation. So that's good. I mean the stiffness performed in the scene is especially revealed by the voiceover.

And isn't the humor in Singin' in the Rain more humorous. It's not that the added voices are the joke- or the only joke. They seem to reveal more humor in the scene itself.

The scenes are fictions and so the supposedly unnatural layer returns us to the product of the fiction. It puts us into a critical mood so we might see the material as an object. I don't mean we see it objectively. Pfffttt. you should know how I feel about that. I mean we can see it a bit more as the part of a machine that it is.

How might I do that elsewhere?

Ugh- Now you have to go here

And All for Ten Bucks

...

Barber: So do you think people still believe in spiritual magic and shit like that?
Skybalon: Maybe, it depends on what kind of spirits or magic we're talking about. I think we still believe in types of magic.
Barber: Like astrology and lighting candles?
Skybalon: Eh, no. I mean like turning the sweat and blood of poor people into dollars.
Barber: Yeah, that's a pretty good trick.
...

Then the conversation turned to zoophilia

H to He

I would guess most people would say they couldn't affirm the idea that might makes right, but what we might say aside, that's how we live. I don't mean "might" simply in the sense of who has the sticks and guns. I mean might in the sense of whatever has power. Certain things have power and those things make up how we see right and wrong.

Again, I think we probably don't want to say that's what we do, but it is what we do. For example, let's say, for the sake of argument, everyone everywhere says stealing is wrong.

Fine.

Stealing, boo!

But, what we say counts as stealing having some kind of sense depends on who we are. Finding a dollar on the sidewalk? Not stealing. Slipping a candy bar into your pocket at 7-11 and leaving without handing over some money? Stealing. Walking out of the supermarket with the pen you used to write a check? (Who writes checks, grandma?) Not stealing. Giving someone eight dollars an hour for their work? Not stealing.

Whatever, you get the point. What we say is wrong as we live it depends on some sense of us. I know that doesn't seem like it should be so. I know we want to say there is some objective certainty we'd like to have about right and wrong. It can't be so dependent on the vagaries of history, culture, life, and actual existence; that would mean anything goes wouldn't it? (And if history shows us anything, it's certainly not that anything goes~*)

C'mon. Quit being a baby, and confront how you actually live. Or quit being a Calvinist and live in the reality of the Word. Either way, are you really going to try to get away with saying that truth and questions of morality are facts or objective things?

I know the answer to that. We do try to get away with saying that is so. Even as we are busy creating our moral sense of the world, we do so with a wink. We cover the scaffolding surrounding our world with a tarp of "objectivity." Done and done.

Silly us.

But who cares? I mean if you want to pretend that X can be known to be wrong as certainly as the earth spins on an axis, that's great. Barring any mitigating circumstances, you'll likely live as if X is wrong. If I'm going to pretend that I only can know X is wrong because of some complex network or web of layered meaning, commitments, conditions, and narrative, then fine. Barring any mitigating circumstances, I'll probably live as if X is wrong.

Of course if we don't realize we are busy creating the boundaries of understanding we might not realize we are busy creating the boundaries of understanding. Something like this might fly under the radar. This being:

"The White House said Wednesday that the widely condemned interrogation technique known as waterboarding is legal and that President Bush could authorize the CIA to resume using the simulated-drowning method under extraordinary circumstances."

Hmm... maybe what MY PRESIDENT means by history being the judge is that, if we work hard enough now, well create a world wherein it is impossible to say, "Tying someone up and drowning them is wrong."

Worse... maybe not worse... Bad right along with everything else, if we don't realize we are busy creating the boundaries of understanding maybe we'll start to be so sure of ourselves and the world we've made we become the people who say stuff like, "God I thank you that I am not like other men..."

But who cares?

Oh and that time I don't mean it rhetorically. Really, who cares? Anyone? Please, help me out here.

* From now until some point in the future when I won't, I will use this symbol "~" to denote irony.

That Sounds About Right

I know it must be tough right now for REAL CONSERVATIVES who don't have a clear ersatz Jesus as a candidate, but I am not a REAL CONSERVATIVE, so I watch with a bit of schadenfreude the fight to be the discipline daddy. I am plussed by the sheer inanity of the Republicans. That bodes well for thoughtful voters, though I wouldn't call Clinton or Obama "president elect" just yet (I'm sure something scary can happen or we'll invade Iran and the horses-in-midstreamiots will rule again).

Who's going to chase Bin Laden to the gates of hell? Who's going to double Guantanamo? (I say more asbestos, more asbestos!) Who hates THE GAYS the most? What a silly pissing contest. I think most people have had their fill of urine. Still, I've often lacked the imagination to see how low we can go.

But whatever the future holds, I am especially glad, and it's something I can happily affirm, so many are saying that the Republican candidates, if not perfect, are at least a part of Reagan's stool.

That I like.

We've Much to Be thankful For

I know sometimes I may seem a bit pessimistic or appear given to cynical suspicions and assumptions. If it ever seems that way it is only because I have a sense of transcendent hope; I believe in an an other-than-worldly potential. On what grounds could I possibly level a critique against narrow, self-interested, death-mongering or a deadly acquiescence to subjugating powers were it not for some sense of awareness of that which transcends our subjective existence?

Seriously, I mean on what grounds could I do it? Someone else might do it another way, but what else could I do? I despair only because I know there is a reason to hope.

So when I see examples of realized potential I am thankful and feel compelled to share those examples with you.

You've seen the new presidential dollar coins, yes? I, for one, love them. I wish we had five and ten dollar coins as well. I don't know if it's their cosmopolitan appeal or that there's something irresistibly power-uppy about them, but I often go out of my way to get change in these wonderfully alien bits of Americana. I'm also a fan of the unique state quarters but that's more a matter of seeing what each state imagines to be emblematic of itself. You're so lame, Michigan. But maybe there's something in the art work on these dollar coins too. Maybe I love the modern flare and pomposity of a 3/4 view portrait over the staid classical profile of all our other coins. Whatever it is- they're good.

I was aware, though, that some had a problem with these coins. Specifically, the problem was these coins had "In God We Trust" printed on the edge instead of on either face. To some, this seemed like a move to eliminate God from America or something like that. As at least one moron asked, "Has [sic] the ACLU and the militant atheists infiltrated the U.S. Mint?" It also didn't help that one run of the coins was mis-died and "In God We Trust" and "E Pluribus Unum" were left off entirely.

But like I said, this is supposed to be a happy time- and so it is. Thankfully, some very concerned Christians- deeply concerned Christians- concerned with the condition of our souls- concerned with how well we represent Jesus Christ- concerned with actually living out the good news of the Word, the Word that confronts us to change our history from death to life, from oppression to freedom- decided this is exactly the kind of thing the Gospel challenges. And challenge it, it has. Thanks to legislation sponsored by Sen. Sam Brownback, in the future, God will be right where God should be- eternally fixed next to a dead rich white person's face.

Wow.

Aren't you inspired? Aren't you filled with the hope of God's spirit? Especially when you consider how small this group of concerned Christians must be, aren't you filled with the hope of possibility? If this small vocal group can change the very structures of government- literally- doesn't it give you confidence and a blessed assurance in the kind of faith that can move mountains?

Hooray.

And aren't you further blessed by the knowledge that we truly do have a responsive and representative government?

For such a time as this and all that..., dummies.

This Post Has Nothing to Say About Ayn Rand Disciples But My Next One Might

It's difficult to ask people to make sacrifices. It's difficult but it seems something good leaders are able to do.

I don't mean just taking something from someone because you can- wether it's time, money, lives.

That's not leadership. That's being a bully. But convincing us that we're responsible to each other, that we're in something together, that we have a reason to overcome our differences, and work towards something bigger and more important than our individual interests. That's what a good leader does.

It's difficult, but that's why it's the purview of good leaders.

But I suppose not being able to lead might also be a result of being a people who don't need leaders. That is, perhaps we are such that we know it's inappropriate to ever have someone tell us to make those choices if it's not something we want to do for ourselves. I think, these days, we call that an ownership society. Later, we'll call it hell.

Last night I only watched a bit of the State of the Union. I thought I would watch the whole thing, but had a meeting to be at later and it was putting me in too foul a mood to handle much more than a few smirks and the affected cheering of the government we deserve.

MY PRESIDENT made it pretty clear that he's coming from a place that has no need for leaders because there is no need for us to come together for anything bigger than some sense of "me." We've no responsibility to anyone other than ourselves. Free market this, private that; take care of yourself and that takes care of enough.

I like that he made that very clear, especially in his pledge to use his mighty but rare veto on any bill that raised taxes. And then to make clear where he's coming from, he joked about the idea of being willing to sacrifice for each other: "Others have said they'd be happier to pay higher taxes. I welcome their enthusiasm. The IRS accepts both checks and money orders."

Usually when he mentions those faceless others, he's talking about people that don't actually exist. Strangely, in this case, he might actually be ridiculing the majority of Americans who say they would be willing to pay more in taxes for health care, or providing relief for those in need, or that the tax cut he wants to make permanent are not worth "it." But instead of leadership, he offers derision. Instead of inspiring us to something greater, he mocks the very idea of inspiration. What an ass.

Later, at said meeting, we were confronted with the idea of how difficult it is in our erstwhile Yearly Meeting to get people to sacrifice the time to come together for anything. Everyone's got their own things to worry about. That's true. We do. And broadly, we're not a people looking for leadership, we're looking for a way to take care of ourselves in such a way that it might take care of everything else. That's true broadly, but particularly- particularly as our Ministry and Counsel- we were struck by how odd and unfortunate that is.

I want to be careful to not make this a "pat ourselves on the back moment" but we're pretty great. So great that pretty great doesn't seem to say it. We're pretty [expletive] great. So great, in fact, that we undermine that sense of how great we might be and are able to be confronted by how great we really aren't so we might be even greater.

We recently had a small winter retreat. We had about half our congregation there. Larger, more successful, no use for a leader congregations in our Yearly Meeting have noted that not only could they not get that rate of people to show for something like that, they could not even get the same numbers from their mega-congregations to show.

I wonder if it's any coincidence that the die-hard 3 out of 10 that approve of MY PRESIDENT would be found in these very same congregations that don't need leaders, that only need to be affirmed in what they want to do to be a part of anything called the Body of Christ.

There was a bit of a realization last night that we're a weird bunch in the larger group. And who wants to listen to weirdos?

M'eh
The Past and Pending- The Shins
I Wanna Be Your Lover- Prince
Nessun Dorma- LP
Not Ready Yet- The Eels
Shrink- Dead Kennedys
Abstract Plain- Frank Black
Penthouse Serenade- Sarah Vaughan
I'm Lonely- The White Stripes
Darn that Dream- Mile Davis
Moonlight Becomes You- Chet Baker

ed.- And in case you can't tell, I wrote this yesterday but didn't post it right away.

This is all you're getting out of me today. I say that like it's a bad thing, but really, this is better than anything I would have written, or anything else you will read, today.

In case you are link weary, here's an excerpt- and inducer:
State of the Union Drinking Game
by Will Durst*

"What you need to play:

4 taxpayers: 1 rich white guy wearing a suit, tie loosened. 2 folks (any sex) wearing jeans, 1 in a blue work shirt, the other in a flannel shirt, and 1 person wearing clothes that look like they were dragged through the sluice chute of the Three Gorges Dam. Belt and shoelaces secured in a safe place.

1 shot glass per person. Everybody furnishes their own, placing it on a coffee table in front of the television. Suit gets to choose first among the assembled shot glasses for use during game. Blue shirt picks next, then Flannel shirt. Suit takes last shot glass as well, and Rags must arrange to rent it from him for the evening or drink out of own cupped hands.

Everybody antes 10 bucks. Cash. Except Suit, who tosses in an I.O.U.

1 pot of Texas Chili, and a bowl of guacamole in middle of coffee table with Kettle Brand Salt & Fresh Ground Pepper Krinkle Cut™ chips nearby. If any players are women, they have to prepare and serve the chili and guacamole. Otherwise, buy some pre- made stuff at Costco.

...
Rules of the Game
1. Whenever George W uses the phrase "economic stimulus package," the last person to slap his/ her hand to their own forehead, has to drink 2 shot glasses of beer. Every time the President says "make tax cuts permanent," everybody must drink a whole beer then throw the empties at the television. If can hits President's face, everyone else must drink 1 shot of beer.

4. Every time Senators John McCain, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama are shown in the audience, you have 30 seconds to throw a chip of guacamole at the television and if anyone makes a chip beard on one of the candidates, everyone else has to drink 5 shots of beer.

11. The 1st time George W mentions the tragic events of 9/11, the last person to eat 1 dollop of guacamole off a tortilla chip must drink 3 shots of beer. The 2nd time he mentions the tragic events of 9/11, the last person to eat 1 dollop of chili off a tortilla chip must drink 3 shots of beer. Continue to alternate. If you mischip, drink 2 extra shots of beer.

13. Whenever George W smirks during a standing ovation, take turns drinking shots of beer until the audience sits down. Do it double time if his shoulders shake with silent laughter. If George W winks and points to someone in the audience, Suit has to drink out of beer filled hands of Rags who gets to dry his hands on Suit's jacket."

*Interesting that Fred Durst's twin brother would be the exact opposite of him in terms of talent.

Warhellride: Sublating The Onion

There are those moments in life when words fail to communicate precisely or truly the depth, severity, or intensity of a thing. We could call those moments sublime. The thing is just the thing, but our response to it, or lack of in that moment, is beneath articulation. It is, by it's nature inexplicable. Once it is described, the purity of the moment is lost.

Those pure moments may be followed by laughter, anger, an awareness of some need, devotion, piety, silence, frustration, eloquent or stilted expression. Whatever it might be, trying to rest in that preceding moment is difficult. God has given us drugs, but even better, this:

You must go to this site. I cannot say in strong enough terms, how good it will be for you to go here and know this exists.

It is pure purity.

Would You Want Others to Achieve the Knowledge You Now Have?

If you haven't had the opportunity to be turned off to Little Handsome Man, here's a chance.

He doesn't say anywhere that he believes the galactic ruler Xenu transported his victims to Earth in interstellar space planes that looked exactly like Douglas DC-8s. Rather he talks about wanting to share with other people what he knows because life will be better for them. He has something that he knows is missing from other people's lives. He has something that can bring people together, bring peace, create a better world, blah blah blah.
Specifically he says, "We have that resposnsibility to say, 'Hey, this is the way it should be done because we do it this way and people are actually getting better...' There is nothing better than going out there and fighting the fight."

That's cool?

I believe a guy came back to life after he was killed and then flew into space like a rocket. But that's totally true- not like the junk Tom Cruise believes. We temporarily go to Venus when we die?

That's stupid. Right? Am I right? High five- don't leave me hanging.

People of Earth
Adult Books- X
Fazer Eyes- Frank Black
My Ship- Miles Davis

Not The Noel Coward Post

I was camping this past weekend. For all the work I put into it, it's a bit sad that people still know it's me in my Carmen Miranda get up.

But seriously, folks.

We got back home at about 7PM on Monday. And to be clear, when I write camping, I mean I was at a place called "Camp." It wasn't what most of us call camping- what I generally consider camping. No tent. No packing in my own food and cooking it on a little stove. No burying my poop. None of that. I slept soundly in a heated building, took hot showers, ate 3 meals a day and had a place to dry my wet clothes... and I dressed up as Rita Hayworth.

Anyway, I was tired and only now feel fully recovered and rested from the weekend. I enjoyed the weekend. I don't think I could say more than that without sounding cheesy.

I feel I want to say it was something like "great" or "wonderful" but I'm not sure I should. Don't adjectives like great or wonderful sound trite? Maybe they only sound trite in reference to something that really is great or wonderful but for me suggesting that it was great or wonderful seems a bit pretentious since I helped plan the great and wonderful experience. Or maybe I don't want to say it was great or wonderful because I did help plan it and if everybody else thinks it was less than great or wonderful, here I'll be with egg on my face.

Well... no, it's not really either of those things. I really did enjoy myself but am reluctant to describe it beyond that. I don't mean it was so over the top that words fail to describe the experience. Only that the words that I might use to describe it wouldn't mean much if I don't explain it more fully and to explain it more fully would, to my mind, diminish some of its significance for me.

Or maybe explaining it more would give it a sense of completion that I don't think is appropriate yet. I mean there are certain things that I think I must do in response to what I experienced or learned and unless or until those things are done it's not something to describe.

Maybe that's silly, but I think to perhaps best give a sense of what I took from it I simply have to do what I think will best give a sense of what I took from it.

You And Your Team

A lot of my family is from Mexico. A lot of my family is also from France and Spain. The French folks came to the US, and after a couple of winters and many meals in Indiana, moved to Mexico, and from there to Oxnard, California where my great grandfather was born. My grandmother was born in Redondo Beach. That's my father's side. On my mother's side, my oldest white ancestors were in the New World in the 16th c. And the brown in me was here even before that, but I know that doesn't count.

Despite geography, history, birth, and my own general skepticism towards issues of identity, the way YOU PEOPLE do things, I'm Mexican. Well, a kind of Mexican- the kind that has no place in Mexico.

So sometimes I do embrace the idea of Mexico, which is about as Mexican as what any of the other idealized ethnicities people in the US pretend to be. But there are times when I will act the part of a Mexican though I don't always know the role.

Soccer is one of those "times." I mean I often support the Mexican National Team and vaguely follow some Mexican players. So that means I'm glad for Mexican players that make it to better teams and I like it when they do well, or the Mexican team as a whole does well. Unless, of course, they're playing the US.

Then I hate them with a burning hate I generally save for MySpace, Christmas Shoes, and hell. Funny how that works, isn't it? I may hope that Nery will have a chance to score a lot in the EPL; come February though, I hope he breaks both of his legs or chokes himself with his jersey.

Metaphorically of course.

It seems difficult for things to not work that way. I mean as fluid as identity might be, we easily fall into more rigid clannish categories when push comes to shove, or when push comes to putsch. Maybe that is so because identity is so fluid rather than in spite of it.

This past summer I proposed a pantomime fight with a Columbus Crew fan sometime after I yelled "Chivas Suck!" at some schlub on the sidewalk. I like to think that was a bit of confession and camp on my part. I mean, I caught myself really acting like an idiot, so I decided to pretend to be an over the top idiot to show how idiotic it is to be an idiot.

You may know, if you have half a brain, the half necessary for reading and comprehension, that I'm not a big fan of MY PRESIDENT. Yet reading the news about his trip to Israel and Palestine puts me into that strange position of wanting to defend him. Sure he's a vampire war criminal, but that's for me to say. I'll burn his effigy, you find your own leader to burn. After all, he's MY PRESIDENT.
Well... it's more than that. As much as he and I are not from or on the same plane[t], I feel a subtle pinch when I see these pictures, as if Bush is some new signing I have to support.

True story- I was sitting in a United section of a "pub" for the Arsenal-Man U match earlier this season and I called Rooney a fat load. A woman behind me said something to the effect that if he were on my team I would love him. I said that might be true, but he would still be a hefty blob of pale flesh under whatever colors he wore.

I think many of the claims much of the world can make against the US right now are legitimate... depending on how they're made... But for a brief moment this morning, I wanted to buy a Chinese-made yellow vinyl magnet and PRAY FOR THE TROOPS. I guess that's supposed to happen. The reptile in me wants to narrow who THEY are and what I can do. I guess this is a confession of sorts.

Nationally, many of us still seem to suffer from a lack of imagination when it comes to dealing with people we insist are no more than enemies. Or rather, any energy we put into imagining goes to creating unreal scenarios of how we will deal with our caricatures. Seriously, follow Bin Laden to the gates of hell and shoot him with a Smith and Wesson; get Jack Bauer to hunt and kill our enemies?

I don't write this because it's necessarily news to me. I'm not surprised that I can be parochial. But as we've made it a habit lately, and if others are as susceptible as any, what will we make of the most recent events in the Gulf of Tonkin... I mean the Strait of Hormuz?

We're moving that ball right along while others do the same. We're all so busy creating caricatures to hate, valorizing some sense of us and demonizing them to make it easier and more palatable to kill each other. And there seems to be a sort of velocity building. It's more work at first; then it gets easier. Then it's moving along so freely it's hard to imagine it's not a natural thing after all.

Oh well, Jesus will come back soon and then everything will be great.

Wow That Really Does Work- I Feel So Off the Hook
Gimme the Car- Violent Femmes
Revolution Rock- The Clash
Welcome- The Who
America The Beautiful- Neil Young
Myxomatosis- Radiohead
Once- Pearl Jam
Give the People What they Want- Jimmy Cliff
Helter Skelter- The Beatles
Stomp Box- They Might Be Giants
Just Like a Woman- Bob Dylan
That Old Black Magic-Louis Prima
DMSO- Dead Kennedys
I Die- THe Magnetic Fields
Innervision- System of a Down

Hey, Foreigner

I haven't mentioned yet that I got laser vision over the Christmas break. My hatred for glasses finally overcame my fear of going blind from lasers or long term complications.

Though many of you are uglier than I ever could have known before, all in all, I am very pleased with my fixed eyes, though that's not the point of this.

During my recovery I had to put various drops in my eyes- antibiotics, anti-inflammatories, moisturizing drops. Most every time I did, I thought of my laser vision, and I couldn't think laser vision without thinking of my previous double vision, and then that awesome Foreigner song, Double Vision. So at least five times a day I was saying to myself, "That laser vision gets the best of me..." and at least a few times I would sing it out loud. But each time I was clearly making the link from my eyes, through laser surgery, to laser vision, and finally to the song Double Vision.

That was then.

The past few times I have put anything in my eyes (dog water, gravel, etc...), which I have to do much less frequently now, I go to the melody of the song in my head without thinking anything else. There is no conscious path from the eye drop to the song. This morning, when I put the artificial tears in my eyes, I thought right away of Double Vision, and not being a fan of the song, or having actually heard it in some time, for a split second I wondered, why "Ba da da dada da da duh duh duh" was in my brain.

Laser surgery is why. They don't tell you about that possible side effect.

I suppose we are relatively quickly and easily conditioned to do any number of things. Things that are deliberate little acts soon become rote patterns.

Completely unrelated I'm sure...

If you're a concerned citizen you probably already received this email alert:
"Evangelical Leaders Pledge Common Cause With Islam"
The content of this alert goes on to tell you, concerned citizen, that some eggheads are selling out Christianity in an attempt to dialogue with Muslims. Thankfully, the sellout points are itemized in the alert:
-apologizing for the sins of the Crusades "without mentioning Muslim atrocities" (Whenever I am truly sorry for something, I mention what the other person did to make me do the wrong I would have never done otherwise)
-opening the deity of Christ to discussion (I make sure to only talk about the deity of Jesus with people who already believe in the deity of Jesus)
-putting Christian communities in the Muslim world at risk by admitting any guilt (Nothing makes the isolated Christian communities in the Muslim world stick out like confessions out of Yale. Those Assyrian Christians in Iraq who live under a constitution declaring Islam as the official religion, having their stores and churches blown up, family members crucified and raped really aren't looking forward to word getting out that Muslims might have reason to resent them.)

Keeping It Real

Classic Grandpa- How come you didn't preach while Bruce was gone?
Skybalon- I dunno. No one asked me to.
Classic Grandpa- Why not?
...
Skybalon- They've been reading my blog.

Zinng!

Hail The Conquering Hero

Robin M wins my latest interblog contest.
She wins a copy of His Glorious Reappearing by James White, an 1895 text telling us how we know that Jesus is returning about 100 years ago. I'm a big lame and collect stuff like this. It has some minor water/mold damage on the cover and some pencil marks on the endpages and notes throughout.
I hope, Robin M., you find this text as fascinating as I do.
To the rest of you, I hope you remember the stinging shame of your defeat so that you try harder the next contest.

Eat It Like This

Before January 1st I only had a passing awareness of how awful Rachel Ray is. Through commercials, channel surfing, and standing in supermarket checkout lines I figured I gleaned enough to know that I did not like what she did for the world of food.

On the 1st though, I was literally stuck- and by literally, I mean literally- watching her CBS talk/food show. Before I knew only in part, now I understand fully. Now I've seen more than enough.

If there is a bright shining center to the world of TV cooking food learnery, let's say America's Test Kitchen, then Rachel Ray is the point furthest from it.

The food she makes is horrible and she's a dud.

The Queenbeen would try to get me to cut her some slack by telling me she was a cook and not a chef.

So.

I don't see why that matters. Well, I see why that could matter. If she were trying to make things simpler, maybe changing things for the regular home cook by making things accessible, explaining or reducing some complex cooking processes so others could try and enjoy them, altering things for the sake of health, ease, or efficiency. Doing something like that. But that's not what she does. She makes high sodium, high fat, pre-packaged, over-processed, bland, lumpy, awful garbage.

If you are ever going to have me over to share a Rachel Ray meal, do us both a favor and throw my portion straight into the toilet. Thank you.

So I watched her show and the food was horrible looking. Then there were the interviews. Good grief.

One of the actors from one of the CSIs was on talking about how great it was to be one of the actors on one of the CSIs. Then some lady showed us how easy it is to multitask with a waffle maker; quesadillas, hamburgers, and sandwiches can all be cooked in a waffle maker. Brilliant right? Not necessarily more easily, better, or in a more healthy way, but still, why not throw a quarter pound of ground beef into one of the more expensive to buy and use cooking appliances?

Sure.

And all this was done with the grace and conversational flair of Paula Abdul interviewing Kim Jong Il. It would have been more entertaining to have the guests talk to a jar of mayonnaise and then invite some passersby to read and demonstrate the recipe found on the side of said jar.

Of course as I write this I know I'm wrong. Rachel Ray is at the top of some mega-food media... not quite an empire... territory? Okay. Rachel Ray is at the top of some mega-food media territory, so she's right. Right? She must know food and I just know that in the world she rules, I'm some dumb jerk.

If, years ago, she were to ask me if she should pursue becoming some cooking mogul, I would gently tell her, "No." I would suggest that's not where her particular gifts are and that she would be wasting time and other resources chasing that dream. I would be the nay sayer, the small-town mind that had no way of seeing her vision in the made for TV movie of her life. I would be the memory that would keep her going through the hard times- she would overcome the obstacles laid by people like me until she realized her dream of sharing ground turkey and crouton meat blob with the masses. Then I'd see.

And I do see, but still I'm here, like an idiot, arguing with the results. 'Cos really, when it comes down to it, we're all about the results aren't we? It takes quite a dummy to argue with that.

There's a monster church pastor I know who, despite how untalented, dangerous, ungifted for the role, out and out wrong, and ultimately opposed to the Gospel I think he is, rules over a very large congregation. He was one of two churchy speakers that have ever made me so angry I shook. When we used to have reason to speak to each other, I would take off my shirt, cup my hands on my buttocks and hop around on, first my right, then my left foot, and sqwuak. He would stare at me with the focused but far away look of a man trying to remember the lyrics to a toothpaste jingle he'd known as a child.

Like Rachel Ray, I would say he is not suited for what he's doing. If I was some elder, at some point in his past, I would have said, "This is not for you." Then years later, or after a montage set to a David Crowder song, he would be the pastor of a giant church, selling CD's, hosting prophecy seminars, calling Jesus "immortable," and he'd feel more than right. He'd know that he had discerned God's call for his life. He'd see that it had come to be, and like some Gamaliel, I'd be there with my hat in my hand saying, "You can't argue with results."

He's right. When he taught that America is God's anointed power for good in the world and got me a'shakin, he was right. When he told his daughter to screw school because a.) Jesus would be back very soon so high school and college don't really matter or b.) she just needed to marry someone who could take care of her he was right. When he focuses his entire November-December sermon series on the need to defend Christmas, he's right. He's got a mega-church empire to prove it. Well, not an empire. I guess in the Calvary Chapel way of doing things, it's a fiefdom.

I'm not so big a dummy that I argue with that. Not because there's not something to argue with there, but there's there and here's here. It's when there shows up here that it requires some arguing. And when there seems to be what everyone's after, it's hard to not believe that here should be more like there.

And then what?

As Far as Pretty Cooking Ladies That Look Like Natalie Portman With a Big Forehead Go, I Really Like That Giada De Laurentiis
Aquarius- The 5th Dimension
C for Conscription- The Almanac Singers
Message From the Underworld- The Weirdos
What Do I Get- The Buzzcocks
Frontier Psychiatrist- The Avalanches
Level- The Raconteurs
Why Can't I Touch It- The Buzzcocks
God Only Knows- The Beach Boys
Gimmie Some Salt- Clap Your Hands Say Yeah
Panic In Detroit- David Bowie
Moonage Daydream- David Bowie
Los Angeles- X
The Guns of Brixton
Luz Azul- Aterciopelados
White Riot- The Clash
We Americans- The Briefs
Kiss Me On the Bus- The Replacements
The Last of the Famous International Playboys- Morrissey

ed- I was not going to embed the Madness Colgate ad, but even just alluding to it in my brain forced me to search the internets for the commercial. I'm amazed that this commercial matters to the 14 year old shut-ins that curate the YouTube. Oh, and if you dispute me that this jingle is not clearly a Madness song I will cook a Rachel Ray recipe for you.