Funny Thing (But not that Funny)

You know what's funny? When it takes you four days to finally realize that there is a typo in your blog address! Oy vey! So the address was supposed to be optimisticcynicism.com, but in my infinite wisdom I typed optismisticcynicism.com. Whoops! That sucks. Guess I have to live with it.

This Too Shall Be Made Right

I have been around churches for a long time. And when I say that, I don't mean that I've gone to church for a long time. I mean that I have a father who was a preacher, so I hung out in the office a lot, and I presently work for a church and have worked for a church, at least a little, in the past. During all this time around churches, something has always bothered me above all else. Above all the discussions about all the little gossipy discussions about people in the church (which I have engaged in), above all the church politics and infighting (which I at times have helped fuel), above all this one thing always bothered me more: how the church, and more importantly church employees*, treat people who ask for help.

*I definitely have a lengthy rant inside of me about the idea of church employees. And this rant, would at the very least, be an effort in self-mutilation. I just don't know how to feel about different people being employed by a church. I think it stems from my distaste with the idea of a church being like a business. I have the same distaste for churches having budget meetings, posting their attendance, and posting the amount of contribution. It seems at times that we have more faith in the methods of capitalism and commerce than we do in the Lord. I know this isn't a conscious choice, but it is a choice that has been made.

I have noticed that most churches refuse to help people outside of an organized program of some kind. They refuse, usually passive aggressively, to give out assistance to those in need. The reason is usually obvious, the person is probably lying and we don't want them to take advantage of our kindness. But does this absolve us of our Christian duty to aid those who are suffering? Are we to be less kind just because people won't take our kindness the right way, just because they will use and abuse us?

I am not saying that I have an answer to this and I am not implying that I have no guilt in the matter (I look down on these people just as much as everyone else). I am only asking the cliched, but oft forgotton question, What Would Jesus Do?* Did Jesus teach us about giving to the poor? Yes, and it was a high priority for people during Jesus ministry. Did Jesus teach us about people being ungrateful towards kindness? Yes, twice at the very least. Once when 10 lepers were cleansed and one came back and thanked Jesus (at least that was the point all the sermons tried to make) and two, and most notably, when Jesus GAVE HIS LIFE FOR THE VERY PEOPLE WHO WERE KILLING HIM!! (Look what you made me do, now Jenna's gonna be mad because I used two exclamation points, darn you!)

*Let it be said that the What Would Jesus Do? movement was the epitomy of irony in Western Christendom. The question spawned a capitalist empire of things for Christians to consume, and when Christians consumed them they took the money they could have used to help the poor and the broken and instead it was spent on propaganda which proudly spouted our the primary question of our Christian endeavor. Let me summarize, by buying a WWJD product, we probably all did the exact opposite of what Jesus would have done. We all took part in a commercial venture which did a good bit of damage in Christianity be making people feel good, while at the same time accomplishing NOTHING!

Now with this said, does Jesus ever mention cutting off kindness just because "we don't know what people will do with the money*?" I do not know what the solution to the problem is, but it is a problem. Churches are INTENTIONALLY cutting themselves off from the very people that Jesus told us to help and protect. Church offices are now routinely behind locked doors and complex security systems. Have we turned Christ into nothing more than an expensive jewel with a complex safe, only to be taken out and admired on Sunday (and various other days depending on the tradition)? Jesus tells three parables about people finding that which was lost and then throwing huge celebrations in response. We have done the same, but our celebration has a bouncer at the door. We wouldn't want anything bad to happen now would we, we wouldn't want to be beaten (like Paul), or abused (like Stephen) or imprisoned (like everybody) or killed (like Jesus). Haha, we aren't even acting to avoid those ends, we just don't want to be inconvenienced.

*Yet another point about capitalism in this context. Mark Twain once made the comment "To a man with a hammer, every problem is a nail." I think this applies to our capitalistic society, to a society with money, every problem is an economic one. We had a man come in to our building today who needed to get to Bartlesville, who knows if he was legit or not thats not the point. Automatically, everyone's mind in this situation went to money, why didn't I think about offering him a ride? Yeah, it was out of my way and I had other things to do, but what could be better than helping a stranger in need? What could I possibly have that was more important? Did I have a 2:30 appointment to find the cure for cancer or to save a little kid in the street? No, I did not. But I didn't even think about it until later and it bothered me a lot. We are so blinded by our society that we have lost our sense of creativity. We have become a blunt object that just hits things until they do what we want them to. And when they don't do what we want, we just hit them harder. It is said that insanity is repeating the same action over again and expecting different results. Is our capitalistic society insane?

And no, after all of that ranting I have no solution. Maybe we just need to be more creative. Maybe we need to be more trusting. Maybe we need to be more naive. Maybe we need to have higher expectations. Maybe higher expectations breed responsibility. Maybe we could preach the message without agenda. Maybe we could love as an ends and not as a means. Maybe we could hope for things unseen. Maybe we could begin to live like Christ. Then again, maybe we would end up just like him and so many of his other followers. Dead, having lost everything. And for a group of people who say that we aren't afraid of death, we seem to give up an awful lot to stay alive. But maybe we're just dying a different death.

-We say we're just tryin' to stay alive, but it looks so much more like a way to do die. And this too shall be made right. (Derek Webb, "This Too Shall Be Made Right")

P.S. To anyone reading this from South Brooke. I am not singling you out, almost every church I know does this. I have seen it in dozens of places, and it sickens me every time.

The Devil and Keyser Soze

Before, I say anything I must warn you that if you have never seen the movie "The Usual Suspects" and you hope to watch it in the future, do not read this post. I will spoil the ending and this is a movie worthwhile enough to not spoil. With that said, on to the show.

Here is a refresher, or for those not inclined to listen to the above warning, a primer, on "The Usual Suspects". The movie centers around five men who are brought together in a lineup at a police station, they range from petty criminals to former masterminds. From this meeting, the five eventually begin to work together doing odd crimes. Eventually, the find themselves working for a mysterious man named Keyser Soze. Soze is not shown and is cast as a type of criminal myth, a man who is never seen, never heard, and only legends are known about him. He is a story told to scare people, but it is unknown whether or not he is real. Soze sends the men on a mission and they are all killed except for one, Verbal Kint, a small time con-artist who is shown to be crippled and none too intelligent. Kint is brought in and questioned by authorities and makes the statement (when referring to Soze), "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled off was convincing the world that he didn't exist." (Spoiler Alert) This line foreshadows the twist ending where, after leaving the police department (he is charged with nothing), Verbal shakes off the limp, lights a cigarette, and reveals himself to be the mythical criminal mastermind Keyser Soze.

So what does this mean. Well, first, it means that this is an awesome movie, but that is neither here nor there. What I really want to get after is how this movie forms an apt metaphor for Satan (we talked about Satan in class tonight, that is where my mind is). Soze is never obvious, he is never seen nor heard, all his orders come through an intermediary, and even then, the principal rarely knows who they are working for. This parallels how Satan is viewed by both our society, and by Christians. We view Satan as a myth and we have conditioned ourselves to believe that myths aren't true. However, this myth is. Satan exists, but not in the sinister garb which we would clothe him in. His presence and his work is not obvious, it has no trademarks which distinguish it, and we never know whether we are under the influence of Satan, or whether our own depraved mind has pushed us to sin. Now is where I begin to ask questions. What does it mean to us to acknowledge the presence of Satan? Some would say that it shifts responsibility, but this shift is futile. God still holds us responsible for our sin, even if the sin was influenced by an outside (is Satan "outside"?) source, thus the necessity for God's grace and mercy.

So herein lies the rub of discussing Satan, does it matter whether Satan exists or not, whether we acknowledge his presence or not? What is the purpose of acknowledging Satan's existence? We still believe in evil even if we do not believe in Satan. Some will argue that Satan is the source of evil, but does evil necessitate a source? Can evil be solely the absence of God, instead of the presence of malevolence?

After much thought (well, much may be an exaggeration) there are two reasons why I believe the acknowledgement of Satan is important. First, the presence of an evil entity such as Satan gives us relief from the counterproductive guilt and accusation cycle which Christianity has fallen into. If we shift the fault from the sinner to the source, then we view the sinner as victim, which strikes me as a more apt and more biblical view of humanity. Additonally, it binds together all Christians in a fight (cringe) against a sole entity. Perhaps the reason for our discourse lies in our blindness to a common enemy. I mean, the United States got along with both France AND Russia when they were fighting against the same enemy (yes, my friends, I have drawn a positive comparison between WWII and the present, does this mean I have to give back my pacifist card?).

Secondly, the presence of Satan keeps us from falling to faulty logic regarding the nature of humanity and the nature of God. If we belief that Satan does not exist, then we must admit that sin came from man. If we admit that sin came from man, then we are faced with a paradox. Man is made in the image of God, sin came from man, doesn't this mean that sin came from God? With this logic, I believe it does. If we resolve that sin came from man, then there must be some deficiency in God that he has passed on to us. However, the presence of Satan alleviates this problem and salvages the true nature of humanity, that is to be the image of God in the flesh. To be fully human is to fully represent the image of God. This idea cannot exist in a world where sin comes from man.

I hope this was intriguing and I hope that some of you can comment and give me more to think about. Peace.

P.S. If being fully human means to be a full representation of God, doesn't this resolve the dilemma of Jesus being both fully human and fully divine? I would say that being fully human would by definition mean that he was fully divine. Perhaps this is not the duality of Christ, but the singularity of Christ.

First Post (aka Initial Ramblings of an Unaware Fool)

So, I decided to start a blog. What an arrogant, egotistical move that was on my part. In so doing, I am assuming that people want to be aware of the often incoherent ramblings which consistently bounce around in my head. I'm just going to continue on in the assumption that I'm right. So if you don't want to hear my incoherent ramblings, well tough I'll probably just call you and tell you if you don't read them here. So on to today's thought.

(Just so you know, I never will intend any offense with my statements. However, even with that knowledge, some of my views will be controversial and may seem harsh. Keep in mind that my goal is to love all people. If my writing does not convey this, then what was written is not a complete representation of my beliefs, or possibly I, like all men, have failed to live up to God's standards of love.)

Today's thought is two fold, and actually it started out as yesterday's thought, but I didn't have a blog yesterday, so it got carried over. Yesterday was Memorial Day. As a pacifist (and for those who didn't know, I'm a pacifist, surprise), Memorial Day is a conflicting holiday. I have always had a difficult time accepting the whole idea of supporting the soldier, but not supporting the war and Memorial Day brings this idea to the forefront. How exactly should I observe a holiday which celebrates men fighting and dying, ostensibly for my country and therefore for me, while at the same time I object to the actions which these men take? Am I ungrateful if I do not show respect to these people? Shall I grant them false gratitude when I know in my heart that I do not mean it? Granted, this wasn't much of a problem seeing that I stayed at home, slept, read, watched lacrosse, and listened to baseball games, but the point still stands, at least in theory. How exactly should I react in response to this kind of expected gratitude (therein lies an irony that I may later probe, perhaps on Independence Day)?

That thought, or to be more descriptive, line of unanswered questions, led me to a deeper and perhaps more revelatory and disturbing set of ideas and questions today. As represented by my above thoughts, have I become too much of a cynic? I feel (if you are a modernist or just don't like feelings, you can skip this section, but you must be aware that you have little or no soul) like I am often looking for the sickness of a certain area of society, I feel as if I am targeting the weaknesses of the world. My reasoning for this is so that I may be able to help fix these weaknesses, that I may help cure these ills, but in so doing have I fallen into a trap from whence there is no escape? Have I, and by extension those in the world like me, become so absorbed in wanting to fix the world that we continually look for flaws without ever fixing the things that we know are broken? Have we become optimistic cynics, missing the point in search of an ideal?

This idea dovetails nicely with a few other thoughts that I have had in the last months, but this is all that I am going to type for now, mainly because I don't want to type much more, and the post is already a little scattershot as is. I hope some of you reading this have some thoughts or insights or perhaps you'll simply laugh at me like Nelson on the Simpsons (Haha! You have unanswerable philosophical quandaries!), whatever, just give me some feedback.