And People say Science and Religion Don't Mix

I am amazed that this hasn't been published at normal news sites. Obviously, there is a vast, atheistic conspiracy to keep us from seeing the truth. You see, astronomers have actually discovered God up in the heavens. But they're keeping the truth from us. This should be the biggest story of century, but nobody's mentioning it. Here is the picture and it is amazing:

Of course, the evil scientists are trying to say that this is some sort of natural phenomenon, but we all know the truth. It's God's hand. And it looks like he's about to throw down some lightning bolts.

Now, perfectly seriously, this is an amazing picture. An article about it can be found here. And just to be clear, I'd don't actually believe it's God's hand. I was just channeling my inner fundamentalist for a second.

A Quick Question for the Governor of Texas

How do you claim to be patriotic on the one hand and on the other hand hint at Texas seceding from the Union over spending issues? That's like saying you love your wife more than anything, but then threatening to divorce her if she doesn't make your favorite dinner every night.

What's really crazy about this is that it is clear that it is just rhetoric. And the governor never actually used the "secede" word, he just hinted at it pretty strongly in a couple different speeches that he gave in the last couple days: Link.

I say that the Union should go ahead and let Texas secede. Then people born in Texas won't be U.S. citizens. We can build a wall to separate Texas from the States. People from Texas would have to enter the immigration process to get jobs in America. The minutemen groups could patrol the Texas border to make sure that no Texans were illegally trying to enter America. We could even make Puerto Rico a state without changing to a 51 star flag.

Seriously though, it is an interesting mental game to consider what would happen if a state seceded and then compare that to the way we treat immigrants from other countries.

A Messy Divorce

Okay, so I got an interesting chain email recently. Normally I don't read these, and I never send them on. But this one, though couched in humor, is actually quite disturbing. And what is even more disturbing is that it was sent to me by a really great, Christian guy who I know from another church in the area who I thought better than this.

Divorce agreement:

Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al:

We have stuck together since the late 1950's, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has run its course. Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way. Here is a model separation agreement: Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy!

Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes. We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell (You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them). We'll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have your beloved homeless, homeboys, hippies and illegal aliens. We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood. You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide security. We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U. N. but we will no longer be paying the bill. We'll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks and over-sized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find. You can give everyone health care if you can find any practicing doctors. We'll continue to believe health care is a luxury and not a right. We'll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem. I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute Imagine, I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing, Kumbaya or We Are the World. We'll practice trickle down economics and you can give trickle up poverty your best shot. Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag.

Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you ANWAR which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.

Sincerely,

John J. Wall Law Student and an American

P. S. Also, please take Barbara Streisand & Jane Fonda with you.

I'm a bit annoyed because I have a Subaru station wagon, so they called a couple things right I guess. But the one that really got me was the line, "we'll continue to believe that health care is a luxury and not a right."

Honestly? Health care a luxury for the rich? Something that we shouldn't assume we have a right to? So if someone is sick, has a chronic problem, can't get insurance, the health care system should just say too bad? If a baby is born with complications but their parents don't have insurance, we should just let the baby die?

How in the world does a philosophy that encourages a "culture of life" not want to improve the health care system and make it available to everyone who needs it? People on the right stand up quite strongly for the rights of unborn babies but once they're born, making sure they're taken care of is a luxury that they don't necessarily deserve? This is crazy talk. And yet it is very much where some are coming from.

It's funny that someone sent this to me. It wasn't someone in my church, but rather someone from another church in our area who I know. I'm sure they just found it funny, with all the stereotypes about liberals and conservatives. But the sad thing is that these beliefs are so strong in so many and this letter actually shows the regard that those on the right have for people who disagree with them. What was even more sad was that I then received two "responses" to this email where people responded to all saying something along the lines of "wouldn't it be nice" or "I only wish".

I only wish we could find ways to talk with each other about disagreements. Wouldn't it be nice if we listened to each other instead of putting words in each other's mouths? Mostly, what I really wish is that people didn't attack unknown motives of those around them, but instead tried to work together with those they disagreed with for compromise.

Update

It may seem like I've given up blogging for Lent. Not true. Rather, I spent a couple weeks on vacation and before that just didn't have much that I felt I wanted to blog about. Perhaps it's because the political season is over and I haven't been keeping up with it as much. Perhaps it's because I'm on Facebook. Perhaps it's because things are so busy at Church. Whatever the reason, I just wanted to let my readers know that I'm here, and I have a number of blog posts ruminating around in my mind. So I'll be talking with you soon.

Slaves To Tradition

Let me begin by saying that I love tradition. Tradition is a way of taking something that doesn't have meaning in and of itself and giving it powerful meaning. And in doing this we often find rituals or activities that we do to become more powerful. But at the same time I believe that traditions need to have meaning. When I sit down with a couple planning a marriage I like to look at the worship order and I like to look at the things they want to include and I like to ask them which traditions have meaning to them and which don't. I then encourage them to exclude the traditions that many expect to find at a wedding but which have no meaning to them. Which brings me to today's post.

Lisa and I are having a baby in early July. It is our second and we're quite excited about it. At the beginning of the week we went in for an ultrasound. Now everybody likes to argue about whether you should find out if you're going to have a boy or girl. Some want to keep the surprise. They want to wait until birth to find out. They think it's old fashioned and traditional to wait. And at first I guess I thought this way about it. But then I began to think about it a bit more. The only reason that the "traditional" thing to do is to wait is that it has only recently become practical to find out what the sex of the baby is before birth. There is no medical reason to wait to find out. There is no psychological reason either. The only reason to do it is that it is the way it used to be done. So, waiting to find out whether you're going to have a boy or girl has become a false tradition. It has become something we do because we think there is meaning in it but really there isn't.

With our first baby, Bronte, we ended up not knowing she would be a girl. We had an early ultrasound and the tech couldn't be sure it was a girl. We thought it was probably a girl, but we weren't sure until she was born. There was no medical reason to have another ultrasound, so we waited. This time around things were a bit more sure, so we now know what we're going to have.

Some people are surprised that we know. Some people hold tight to the idea that you should wait. It seems that they're allowing tradition to rule them instead of finding meaning in tradition. We looked at the tradition of waiting and saw it as something that holds us back. Knowing what we're going to have allows us to plan better. It allows us to be better prepared. And it's fun to know as well, especially since we aren't telling everybody what we're having yet.

I guess I just want to encourage people to look at their traditions. I want to encourage people to look at the things they do and ask why. Look for meaning in the things you do, and if there is meaning then continue them and allow that meaning to have power. But if there is no meaning, maybe you don't have to hold onto them quite so tight.

Maybe someone can find meaning in waiting. We couldn't. So we didn't.

Playing Victim

This week has been interesting on the television front. Two public personalities have been making the rounds on the talk shows trying to explain to the world why they have been victims. And the sad thing is that if you listen to them, without context, you can almost feel like they are victims. But then the pesky bigger picture enters the story.

Of course, the first of these is Illinois Governor, Rod Blagojevich. Instead of participating in the state senate trial to impeach him, he decided to spend the beginning of the week going from talk show to talk show trying to explain that he is being accused of crimes that he did not commit. Then, at the last minute, he decided that he wanted to make a closing statement at the trial, and he went before the state senators and told them that he should not be impeached. He complained that the system was against him. He complained that he had been presumed guilty without ever being given the chance to prove his innocence.

The second "victim" has been Ted Haggard, the evangelical Pastor who resigned from his church a couple years ago after a scandal broke about homosexual behaviors and drug use. He's been making the rounds promoting a new documentary about him on HBO and suggesting that the church abandoned him in his time of need. I caught a part of his Larry King interview last night and was surprised because he said the right things. He refused to get into details about other things he may have done, but at least admitted to the possibility of them, explaining that he was putting up boundaries about what he would talk about to the public, though he has talked with his therapists and his wife about everything. He said he was sorry to those in his congregation. He admitted to things that he had been accused of and didn't try to deny things that he had tried to deny before. It would be much more believable, though, if just last week, he hadn't denied things that he was now not denying. It was also odd to me that everybody seemed mostly interested in trying to classify him as homo-, bi-, or hetero-sexual, missing the real questions that need to be asked in his case.

Both of these "victims" were guilty of misusing their power, their authority, their office. And in doing this, they gave up their rights as "victims." Blagojevich says he wasn't given a chance to give his side of the story, but he refused to go under oath and do so. Haggard taught very clearly that homosexuality was deviant and sinful and then acts surprised that the church he founded held to his teachings when he could no longer live with them.

Both of these stories sadden me. Both of these men have fallen from grace in a horrible way. But worse, both have tried to change the storyline, tried to recast the story with them as hero instead of villain. And the scary thing, for me, is that it will probably work for some people.

A Quick Question about Socialism Fears

So, I've heard a couple people say that they are extremely worried that our country is going to become socialist with President Obama at the helm. (I'd like to argue this point, but for the sake of the question I'm going to ask, I'll just take it at face value.) I've also heard people saying that they have thought about moving out of the country to get away from this Socialist future. My question is this: Where would they move? Where could you find a country to move to where the health care is not socialized?

A Quick Question about Wal Mart

Why does Wal Mart refuse to sell music CDs with Parental Advisory labels on them and at the same time sell R rated movies? It seems like a strange double standard, that's all.

Accused of Idolatry

I have occasionally found myself accusing those on the right of idolatry. I often see them mixing their Christian faith with some sort of American Imperialism and ending up with a civil religion that sometimes scares me. I saw this most obviously during the Republican National Convention this year where we were told to put our Country First and we were told about John McCain's conversion story, where he learned what it means to be an American.

This last week the other shoe has dropped (at least we aren't in the Middle East where it would have been thrown). People have been stating again and again that President Obama is not the Messiah. They have been saying that they are worried about the enthusiasm that so many have about Obama's Presidency, that people seem to think that he is going to fix all humanities problems.

As a strong supporter of President Obama and someone who is excited about what is ahead, I want to say that this excitement is not idolatry. I don't think that Obama is a Messiah. I don't believe that he can solve the world's problems, let alone our country's. But I am excited and hopeful about what is ahead.

Obama has already started the process to put an end to gitmo. Yesterday he put the military trials on hold at gitmo, signifying the change of plans for what is going to come there. I know that many have said that gitmo was a necessary evil, but it was an evil perpetrated by our own government and I am glad to see it go.

Obama recorded a message for an environmental conference that met in November in California. During his message he shared his plans to take climate change seriously. He showed that he is going to approach science honestly and not pick and choose.

These are just two examples of areas where I believe his policy is going to make our government a better government. I like his philosophy of government. He is already getting in trouble with some progressives because he seems too "moderate" for them... wanting to work with those on the other side of the aisle. We will have to wait and see if this continues. But in his inauguration speech he made a powerful statement: It isn't whether government is too big or too small... it's whether it works that counts! He wants to find a way to make government work. I'm excited about that possibility.

And then there's the historical symbolism of his presidency. This also has nothing to do with him being a Messiah. It has less to do with him at all than what it says about our country. We have elected a man to be President whose parents weren't allowed to be married in every state of the union when he was born. We elected a man to be President whose father wouldn't be served in some restaurants in D.C. sixty years ago. With the horrible history of slavery in our country, we have said that we are heading in a new direction now. This is one of those hinges of history, and it is worth celebrating. It is worth celebrating how far our country has come. It is not the end of the journey, but it is truly worth celebrating. And celebrating it is not worshiping President Obama.

So, lay off people. Let us celebrate. Let us look with hope towards the future. Let us be excited about the direction in which President Obama wants to take this country. Don't mistake our excitement for hero worship. Don't mistake our joy for idolatry.

And those who are celebrating, make sure that you aren't going too far. Make sure that you realize that our President isn't a miracle worker. Make sure that you don't fall into the trap of idolatry which others have fallen into on the other side.

Some Fun in Honor of the Inauguration

So the website is called Obamicon.me and it's a bit too much fun. Especially if you've got a collection of unusual hats and a webcam to play with. Unfortunately, you have to register with an email address to save any pics. But it is a lot of fun.

Dear Santa,

First of all, thanks for a wonderful Christmas this year. Last year's was pretty horrible with Bronte getting sick on Christmas day and vomiting over everything, but this year's definitely made up for it.

Bronte was so very cute as we opened presents. She was more interested in opening things that were weird shapes and didn't really care as much who they were to and, for that matter, what was in them. It was exciting being able to experience Christmas through her eyes this year, through the eyes of a 21 month old.

It was also nice having Lisa's parents out. Bronte is really enjoying being able to spend time with Grandma Kathy and Grandpa Chuck.

Now for the reason I'm writing. Please, next year, send less presents. I know we said we'd be cutting down this year (and actually I believe we did), but we really don't need all the stuff. Yes, the Buster Keaton hat was cool. I'm looking forward to wearing it out and about. And the Batmobile hotwheels collectables were fun. Bronte actually thinks they're pretty neat too. But really, we just don't need all these things. So next year Santa, let's limit ourselves with the gifts. Let's allow Christmas to be about family spending quality time together and be about some of those traditions that we want to pass on and be less about getting (or even giving) presents.

More than that, let Christmas be a time where we can celebrate the Incarnation; the coming of our Lord, Jesus; God's amazing graciousness and humility in sending his Son.

I hope you have a good 2009. Have a good break until next Christmas.

Take care, and again, thank you,

Gavin

A Lesson from King Alfred the Great

I enjoy historical fiction. Especially historical fiction written about the dark ages in the British Isles. There is just something about that time and that place that interests me. It started when I was a young boy interested in King Arthur and Robin Hood. It developed in high school when I read The Pendragon Cycle by Stephen Lawhead, re-telling the legends of King Arthur in a realistic and historically accurate (mostly) way. Since then I've read a number of books telling of the British Isles between A.D. 400 and 1000. Some of the highlights have been Credo by Melvyn Bragg, Island of Ghosts by Gillian Bradshaw and Lawhead's new series re-telling the legend of Robin Hood but placing it in Wales a couple hundred years before it usually is set. One other series I have been reading is Bernard Cornwell's Saxon Chronicles. I am currently reading (among other books, I read more than one book at a time usually) the fourth book in the series: Sword Song.

One interesting thing about historical novels set in the dark ages in Britain is that they usually deal with Christianity in some way. Lawhead is a Christian writer and usually portrays Christianity in his books in a positive light (though usually there are Christians who are bad also, and often the priests and monks are corrupt). Credo by Melvyn Bragg tells of one of the central religious discussions of the sixth century and you see Christians who are in it for themselves and others who are trying to seek God's will and you see these people on both sides of the issue. But Bernard Cornwell's books are written in the first person by a character during the reign of King Alfred the Great who is definitely anti-Christian. The protagonist in his series worships the gods of the Vikings and doesn't think much of Christianity. It is interesting to read the story because it makes you wonder how much this is the view of the author and how much it is just the character he has created.

On the other hand, the character has some powerful critiques of Christianity that Christians need to deal with and need to understand if we expect to reach the world around us. The main character is friends with King Alfred's oldest daughter. He is happily married and has known her since she was a little child. He sees her much like a daughter. At 13 she is married off to the main character's cousin for political reasons and it becomes clear quite soon that her husband is beating her regularly. The main character is appalled and, knowing that Alfred truly loves his daughter, tries to get Alfred to put a stop to what is happening. But Alfred and his priests respond by saying that his daughter needs to learn to be obedient to her husband, for this is what the Bible says. Alfred says that a child's willfulness and disobedience should be beat out of her. This is what he has been taught by the priests. This is what he believes the Bible says. He didn't do this himself with her, but her husband has the right because he is her husband. One of the priests gives a sermon in front of a group of Saxon leaders where he talks about the importance of wives obeying their husbands in all things as she sits there, the only woman in the group, with her face bruised and battered. The character (who is reminiscing as an old man looking back at these events) comments that he has heard that the priest is being canonised for sainthood. And then he states that he cannot imagine going up to heaven to spend eternity with that evil man.

Of course this is a fictionalized account. But the truth behind it is quite real. Christians have much to apologize for. When we lift people up and put them on a pedestal, we need to be careful about what that is saying. We have turned a blind eye to many injustices perpetrated by our own people and encouraged people to just look the other way. This is wrong. It is evil. It is not of God.

More than that, it is truly something that turns people away from God. People today wonder why some of their children have turned away from faith. They wonder why people they know are so bitter and angry and resentful towards the church. This is the reason. It is because the church has not stood up for what is right. It has taken the political issues and pushed them and ignored so many other places where injustice rules. We aren't going to be able to be a true witness to God until we acknowledge and do something about the injustice that we are responsible for.

A Great Quote about the Environment

Fresh Air with Terry Gross is an interesting show to listen to. It's on NPR and it could be considered one of those shows that gives NPR it's liberal reputation. Terry asks difficult questions and pushes people in their answers, though you can often tell where she is coming from with the questions she asks and she has gotten in trouble in the past for being a harder interviewer with more conservative guests. Bill O'Reilly, for example, walked off in the middle of her show because he didn't like the tone of her questions.

But at the same time, there are some great interviews that really get you into the heads of different people, and she is definitely worth listening to. This last Tuesday she interviewed Rev. Richard Cizik, the chief lobbyist for the National Association of Evangelicals. He has gotten a lot of grief from other Evangelicals for being too "liberal" and this interview definitely shows how he could be construed that way. He comes down in support of civil unions for gays. He is definitely pro-life, but he is willing and anxious to work with pro-choice leadership to reduce abortions (including increasing contraceptive availability). He is anxious to put an end to nuclear proliferation by getting rid of all nuclear weapons. He disliked so much of what Sarah Palin represented because he believes that she showed a lack of humility in her faith. And he is strongly focused on the environment.

And yet he speaks eloquently from a Christian perspective and talks about why these things are important. He is definitely an Evangelical and represents more and more what the younger Evangelicals are interested in. It is truly worth listening to the interview here.

But my favorite quote from the interview, and the reason for this post:

"As a Christian, we can't claim to love the Creator and then abuse the world in which we live. To do so is to claim to be a fan of Shakespeare and then burn his plays."

Good stuff! A great way to help us as Christians understand our role in caring for the world around us.

Confessions of a Pastor Outcast

So, I finally signed up for Facebook and it has been fun catching up with some old friends from High School and College. It's kinda odd, though, because less than a week into this process I've already got almost 80 "friends". In truth, I am a pretty anti-social guy (funny for a pastor, but true) with very few friends. I don't do terribly well at holding onto friendships when I move away from people. Facebook might make it a bit easier, but it is still kinda weird and a bit phony.

But re-connecting with some friends from High School and College reminded me of something: I'm a bit of a nerd, I'm pretty geeky and quite a dork. (If I lived near my sister, I'm sure she'd remind me of this fact daily.) I automatically tend to reject something that is popular, often precisely because it is popular. I get on well with unpopular folks. I tend to vote against the incumbent. I'm attracted, for example, to the goth movement because I see in it a group who are very intentionally stepping outside the norms that society has set up.

All of this is basically to say that there is a part of me that wants to reclaim the label "Outcast." And there's a part of me that wants to see the church reclaim this label. I want to see church that is not produced or fake or unnaturally sunny but a real place where real people (warts and all) meet and bring their real problems and ask their real questions.

This could be a scary church to visit. You might not always feel comfortable there. It wouldn't necessarily fit the current models of church growth and church health. And yet it could be a place for people who don't necessarily like church. It could also be a place for people who aren't liked in church.

The church I went to in seminary had a gentleman who was a member who was totally and completely tone deaf. All churches have them. But he would sing out at the top of his lungs and clap along with songs totally out of beat and truly bring down the worship experience for everybody else there. Talking with him one day, he mentioned the fact that he was asked to leave the previous church he was at because of this. Talking to others at the church, they grumbled about him: why couldn't he just sing a bit quieter, he must know how off he was. And yet I rejoiced that he worshiped with us and praised his God with his whole voice and his whole heart.

I've got to believe that there are more out there like me. More who dislike what's "in". More who are quite sick of the way that Christianity has melded with American society, sometimes bringing out the worst in both. More who are ready to be outcasts themselves and reach out to outcasts with Christian fellowship.

Church for the outcasts! It's what we need more of.

Buster Keaton: Creating the Look

The story of Buster Keaton's entrance into cinema is pretty well known and accepted. He was in New York, about to begin work on the stage. He ran into a friend who was working for Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle and was invited to the studio where Arbuckle was filming his new short, "The Butcher Boy." Buster Keaton showed up and was invited to participate in the film. He said yes, but first he tore apart a camera to see how it worked and help himself understand it better. Keaton brags that he was able to do his first scene in front of the camera in one take, and many claim that they can see glimpses of his brilliance in that first scene.

But there is something else you see in that first scene: his trademark porkpie hat! This somewhat shocks me. If the story of his introduction to movies is true, then he sort of happened into the industry. You would expect that certain things done in his first picture wouldn't carry through the rest of his film career. Actually, this is definitely true. Keaton is known as "The Great Stone Face" because of the fact that he keeps a straight face throughout his pictures, choosing not to smile or laugh at the antics he goes through. And yet, the early Arbuckle films he was in had him laughing and smiling quite regularly. Obviously, the "Stone Face" was something he experimented with and then adopted. But the porkpie hat was there from the beginning.

Buster Keaton's porkpie hat is central to his character. It doesn't show up in every movie he did. His most famous (and spectacular) picture is "The General" and since it is a period piece, there is no porkpie hat. And "Steamboat Bill, Jr." only has a short (and quite funny) cameo of it. But the hat is a part of his look, his costume, his persona. He made the hats himself out of a good stetson fedora, wetting them with sugar water and crafting a look that was unique and a part of who he was. And it seems that Keaton made a whole slew of these hats through his career, as they would get ruined or taken as souvenirs while he filmed. And yet this central part of Keaton's look, of his character seems to have come as a fluke when he decided to film a scene in a Roscoe Arbuckle film.

What kind of small decisions do we make that end up having profound consequences on our lives? When do we make a small choice, thinking it unimportant and then find out that it changes everything about our future?

Buster Keaton decided to go with his friend and see a movie being made. He decided to wear a porkpie hat as he filmed that scene. And life changed quite drastically for him from that point on.