Before I start with anything important or serious, I wanted to make a couple of random observations, predominantly about sports, culture, and other things.
First, I miss Sean Connery. Don't ask why Sean Connery came to my mind (it involved a thought process that involved both Daniel Stern from City Slickers and A.C. Green of basketball and virginity fame), but I really do miss him. Then I thought about my favorite Sean Connery movie and known came to mind. Is that weird? Sean Connery just seems like such a transcendent actor that he should just have scads of great, legacy defining roles. But, when I looked it up, he has James Bond, and I have never seen one of his Bond films. With that said, I still miss him, if only as the creative material for one of SNL's best caricatures.
Second, I think there needs to be a readjustment of the scale for fame. I am sick and tired of hearing commercials and promos proclaim something to be "World Famous" when I have never heard of it. I tend to think of myself as fairly tuned in to the culture at large, so doesn't that mean I should be aware of "World Famous" things. Additionally, doesn't something have to be discussable (probably not a word) in order to be "World Famous". Things that don't spark discussion aren't "World Famous", they are simply present or perhaps ever present. So basically, I'm saying there needs to be a rule about when something can be called "World Famous". To echo Bill Simmons, this needs to happen.
As a corollary, MTV and other hype machines need to greatly, greatly reform their use of the word superstar. A superstar must be transcendent, they must be bigger than everything around them, in other words they must be a Super version of a Star. In the world of music, Bono is a superstar, Chris Brown...not a superstar, perhaps not even a full blown star. In basketball, Kobe Bryant is a superstar, Desmond Mason...not a superstar. Have I made my point? And, by the way, those two examples are things I have actually heard either on TV or on the radio.
Third, and the last of my random thoughts, sports radio personalities should be banned from using hyperbole and/or asking any questions where there is an obvious yes/no answer. For those of you who do not know, sports radio hosts have an annoying habit of creating mock "controversies" to drum up discussion. However, sometimes these seem desperate and absurd. Today, I heard a host prompt argument by saying that the White Sox/Cubs rivalry is bigger than Red Sox/Yankees. And the answer, without any hesitation, is no, it isn't. This isn't a discussion. Ever. Never. The pinnacle of this stupid hyperbolic prompting came during the NBA Finals when numerous call-in shows discussed whether Kobe Bryant was better than Michael Jordan. The answer is no. Ever. Never. Kobe Bryant is not, will not be, is not in the same conversation with, could not hold the jock, should not be allowed to move into the same neighborhood as Michael Jordan. I mean, just no. I'm basically saying that this needs to stop, there are more things to talk about, even if we (as sports fans) do continue to ignore almost everything about the larger world.
And just for good measure, I've decided to add a rant about oil and offshore drilling. Our country is addicted to oil. I don't think this can be argued. If you want to argue it, try and I will listen. But I am going to assume it can't be, because I haven't seen anyone say anything convincing against this assumption. Well, lately our lovely political masterminds have once again pushed forward the idea of drilling in Alaska or on the continental shelf. To quote Jon Stewart this is like saying, "I have a cocaine problem....I'm out of cocaine. Let's turn the kid's room into a cocainery." Let me add one more thing, I think arguing about gas prices is moronic and is the equivalent to a heroin addict complaining about the price of heroin. Yes, it is bad that it's making you broke, however its worse that you're ADDICTED TO HEROIN. So this is basically me saying that we (meaning I as well) have an addiction and a problem. I wonder where oil rehab is, I bet its in Sri Lanka.
So on to bigger things, I'm finally going to respond to Daniel's comment from 3 weeks ago (it's a little further down the page, its the only post with two comments). I am timely and efficient. Daniel made one core argument about that post that I wanted to address. Daniel took exception to my characterization of the Bible as a love story. He stated that if the Bible is simply a love story, like a novel, it loses all of its prescriptive ability in our lives. Daniel has a point, if the Bible is read as a novel, it loses the ability to tell us how to live. If it is simply a moral story, a love story even, it becomes a recommendation more than an authority. But that wasn't quite what I meant by love story.
The Bible is full of multiple different literary styles. There are letters like those in the New Testament, poetry like Psalms, ancient historical chronicles, books of law, books of what can best be described as oral tradition (Genesis, Exodus), and the completely un-classifiable (probably not a word) prophetic books. So I guess I disagree with the idea of the Bible as a novel, and if I gave the impression that the Bible should be read in this manor, I did not intend to. When I said the Bible is a love story, I meant it in a larger sense then a story in a book. I meant it as an all-encompassing ideal, like when we talk about the story of our lifes.
The Bible is the raw and often frightening account of an all-powerful deity, who loves his people in a way that we cannot understand. And it isn't love in the sense of romance or even friendship, its something much larger. It is the kind of angry, intense, fierce, passionate, snot-bubble crying, cut the tension with a knife, conflicting, terrifying yet comforting, "I will follow you into the dark", jealous, heart wrenching, soul searching, bottom of the ocean to the top of the mountains, scrambling, scrapping, brilliantly radiating love. Its the love of mother, father, sister, brother, lover, husband, wife, friend, master, servant and every other relationship known to man.
So that's what I mean by love story. I mean that the Bible gives us a glimpse of this love through a multitude of mediums and all the time tells of the greatness of God's love. And unlike many think, the Bible is not equivalent to God. It isn't all powerful, it isn't the only revelation, there is far more to God than the Bible can teach us. The Bible is a sacrament, it is something that helps us come closer to God. Something that allows the veil between heaven and earth (between Zion and Jerusalem to use Hebrew terms) to become thin enough or even lifted so that we can see into the sanctuary of God. The Bible is not how God leads us, it is how we get close to him so that he can lead us. It's good stuff people, real good stuff.
Peace and love,
Ben
P.S. I hope all this made sense. Very few of my thoughts today, or yesterday for that matter, have been too coherent.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Validation, Lengthy Baseball Analogies, and The Ballad of Lincoln Ross
So to get right to it there are two things really bouncing around my mind today. One is far lengthier and more confusing then the other, so I will talk about the short one first. The first is happy, and the second is ... not so much.
First, I got to sit and talk with someone today for something on the order of three hours. I had initially gone to meet this guy so that we could go out to lunch and discuss some things about church events*, but we never really made it to lunch or really to the whole church events thing. It was amazing to talk with this guy. Not amazing in that he gave me new insights (which he did) or because of his linguistic skills (which were excellent), but it was amazing because it made me feel validated. It is a special feeling when someone from a completely different background with different outside input comes to the same conclusion on pretty much everything that you believe. It is even better when that person is a respected older man who has lived through much more than myself. I needed this today, I needed someone to make me feel like I wasn't alone, like my ideas were more than youthful ignorance. That's what I got today, it was great.
*I've been using this analogy about baseball for church events and how churches try and get people to attend for awhile and I think it is apt. In baseball, owners and PR people try all kinds of gimmicks to get people to come to games. They will do giveaways, promotions, little games, and all types of other little things to try and get people to games. Sometimes they will even get players, not because they are good, but because they think people will come to see those players for some reason (usually local ties or popularity). Sometimes these are desperate (like Tampa Bay signing Wade Boggs in 1998 because "He's from Tampa!" and "He's a Hall of Famer", nevermind that he's 40 and isn't good). But what actually draws people to baseball games..........BASEBALL! If you want more people to come......be better at baseball! If you want less people to come......be worse at baseball! (Please forget the fact that no one wants fewer people to come.) I think this is incredibly similar the church and especially "church events". We try and organize "fun" things for people to do at the church and things that will "build relationships", but that isn't why people come to church. People come to church for......GOD! See this is why I think churches are declining, church leaders forgot that people come because of God, everything else is secondary and most of everything else is simply superfluous. So churches need to stop trying to "attract" people and need to simply be better at being Christ and talking about God. However, I see where this will be difficult. As one of my friends says, and I agree, "The American church doesn't believe in God." So to all you church people out there, if you're church is dying, maybe it isn't the culture, or the media, or those darned kids, or not having the right events. Maybe it's you.
That was a lengthy rant of a footnote. But we shall soldier on now to the second part of my day. This was the not so good part or at least the frustrating part. After an event at church tonight*chuckles*, a guy came into the church off the streets. His name was Lincoln Ross. He had a story, something about marrying a white girl and her parents being racist and he was from Atlanta. He wanted to go to St. John's*, I said I'd give him a ride, no problem. I forget to mention that during all of this he asks me to pray for him a few times, and I told him I would, and I would help him if I could.
*St. John's is a hospital at 21st and Utica in Tulsa. Don't ask me why he wanted to go to a hospital. I don't know. He said something about the chapel. He mentioned the word atonement, I didn't push for rationale.
So we get in the car and drive towards St. John's. In the car, he tells me that he could stay at the YMCA for $20 a week. I now become suspicious, well to be honest I already was suspicious because that's just how I am. I ask him if he wants me to drive him there, he asks for money, I bristle at the request. You must know, I want to help him, but I don't want to just give him money and leave him. I'll use money to help him, but not unless I know he is legit or I'm paying for somewhere where he can stay.
He then asks me a strange question, "Does the YMCA have rooms?" If he knows how much it costs, shouldn't he know if they have rooms? Now I am openly suspicious, I actually told him that I wanted to help, but didn't really believe him. He protested, of course, giving reasons why he wouldn't lie. I told him I would call and see if the Y had rooms, I really wanted to help. He told me to call the Salvation Army, he knew they had rooms, but he said he didn't think he could stay there because he didn't have a TB card. He then gives me the number (out of his head, kind of odd, I don't know). When I call the person there tells me that he can't stay there because he is DNAFAR. This means "Do Not Admit For Any Reason". I ask when this came in, he says February 2007. Hmmm....Lincoln told me that he had only been in Tulsa for a few months, but a year and a half ago he was kicked out of the Salvation Army shelter. What should I think now? What should I do now?
I decided to drop him off at St. John's, which I had promised I would do. I pulled into the parking lot, told him that I knew he was not being honest. He protested more and eventually tried to manipulate me by asking me what a real Christian would do, and asking me to pray for him. I told him we could pray together, and we did. I asked God to give him strength and help and to give me strength and discernment. He prayed to make me a better person and that someone would give him some money. What should I have done? I talked to Bob afterwards and he said that Lincoln was one of the best users he had ever seen. He said he had a great act and was excellent at pushing all the right buttons.
My heart aches after this episode. I want to help people I do. How am I to help them though? Should I have given Lincoln money even though I knew he was lying to me? Is the act of giving more important than what the person will do with that which is received? I don't know. I do know that money can't solve the problems of the world. Heck, Lincoln admitted that much. So is this just another symptom of the disease that is capitalism? That people are so impoverished that the best they can do is scam the only people who would really be willing to help them? I don't know.
I know that no choice that I made would have been the right one. I know that thought sickens me to the core. I know that money isn't the answer. I know that capitalism is a disease that has infected everything in society today. I know that the care of the poor is the duty of the church. I know that the church, by and large, rejects that duty. I know that I am confused. I know that there must be a better way. I know that Jesus is that way. I know all these things, and yet it seems like I am doing little more than screaming on mute. What do you think?
First, I got to sit and talk with someone today for something on the order of three hours. I had initially gone to meet this guy so that we could go out to lunch and discuss some things about church events*, but we never really made it to lunch or really to the whole church events thing. It was amazing to talk with this guy. Not amazing in that he gave me new insights (which he did) or because of his linguistic skills (which were excellent), but it was amazing because it made me feel validated. It is a special feeling when someone from a completely different background with different outside input comes to the same conclusion on pretty much everything that you believe. It is even better when that person is a respected older man who has lived through much more than myself. I needed this today, I needed someone to make me feel like I wasn't alone, like my ideas were more than youthful ignorance. That's what I got today, it was great.
*I've been using this analogy about baseball for church events and how churches try and get people to attend for awhile and I think it is apt. In baseball, owners and PR people try all kinds of gimmicks to get people to come to games. They will do giveaways, promotions, little games, and all types of other little things to try and get people to games. Sometimes they will even get players, not because they are good, but because they think people will come to see those players for some reason (usually local ties or popularity). Sometimes these are desperate (like Tampa Bay signing Wade Boggs in 1998 because "He's from Tampa!" and "He's a Hall of Famer", nevermind that he's 40 and isn't good). But what actually draws people to baseball games..........BASEBALL! If you want more people to come......be better at baseball! If you want less people to come......be worse at baseball! (Please forget the fact that no one wants fewer people to come.) I think this is incredibly similar the church and especially "church events". We try and organize "fun" things for people to do at the church and things that will "build relationships", but that isn't why people come to church. People come to church for......GOD! See this is why I think churches are declining, church leaders forgot that people come because of God, everything else is secondary and most of everything else is simply superfluous. So churches need to stop trying to "attract" people and need to simply be better at being Christ and talking about God. However, I see where this will be difficult. As one of my friends says, and I agree, "The American church doesn't believe in God." So to all you church people out there, if you're church is dying, maybe it isn't the culture, or the media, or those darned kids, or not having the right events. Maybe it's you.
That was a lengthy rant of a footnote. But we shall soldier on now to the second part of my day. This was the not so good part or at least the frustrating part. After an event at church tonight*chuckles*, a guy came into the church off the streets. His name was Lincoln Ross. He had a story, something about marrying a white girl and her parents being racist and he was from Atlanta. He wanted to go to St. John's*, I said I'd give him a ride, no problem. I forget to mention that during all of this he asks me to pray for him a few times, and I told him I would, and I would help him if I could.
*St. John's is a hospital at 21st and Utica in Tulsa. Don't ask me why he wanted to go to a hospital. I don't know. He said something about the chapel. He mentioned the word atonement, I didn't push for rationale.
So we get in the car and drive towards St. John's. In the car, he tells me that he could stay at the YMCA for $20 a week. I now become suspicious, well to be honest I already was suspicious because that's just how I am. I ask him if he wants me to drive him there, he asks for money, I bristle at the request. You must know, I want to help him, but I don't want to just give him money and leave him. I'll use money to help him, but not unless I know he is legit or I'm paying for somewhere where he can stay.
He then asks me a strange question, "Does the YMCA have rooms?" If he knows how much it costs, shouldn't he know if they have rooms? Now I am openly suspicious, I actually told him that I wanted to help, but didn't really believe him. He protested, of course, giving reasons why he wouldn't lie. I told him I would call and see if the Y had rooms, I really wanted to help. He told me to call the Salvation Army, he knew they had rooms, but he said he didn't think he could stay there because he didn't have a TB card. He then gives me the number (out of his head, kind of odd, I don't know). When I call the person there tells me that he can't stay there because he is DNAFAR. This means "Do Not Admit For Any Reason". I ask when this came in, he says February 2007. Hmmm....Lincoln told me that he had only been in Tulsa for a few months, but a year and a half ago he was kicked out of the Salvation Army shelter. What should I think now? What should I do now?
I decided to drop him off at St. John's, which I had promised I would do. I pulled into the parking lot, told him that I knew he was not being honest. He protested more and eventually tried to manipulate me by asking me what a real Christian would do, and asking me to pray for him. I told him we could pray together, and we did. I asked God to give him strength and help and to give me strength and discernment. He prayed to make me a better person and that someone would give him some money. What should I have done? I talked to Bob afterwards and he said that Lincoln was one of the best users he had ever seen. He said he had a great act and was excellent at pushing all the right buttons.
My heart aches after this episode. I want to help people I do. How am I to help them though? Should I have given Lincoln money even though I knew he was lying to me? Is the act of giving more important than what the person will do with that which is received? I don't know. I do know that money can't solve the problems of the world. Heck, Lincoln admitted that much. So is this just another symptom of the disease that is capitalism? That people are so impoverished that the best they can do is scam the only people who would really be willing to help them? I don't know.
I know that no choice that I made would have been the right one. I know that thought sickens me to the core. I know that money isn't the answer. I know that capitalism is a disease that has infected everything in society today. I know that the care of the poor is the duty of the church. I know that the church, by and large, rejects that duty. I know that I am confused. I know that there must be a better way. I know that Jesus is that way. I know all these things, and yet it seems like I am doing little more than screaming on mute. What do you think?
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Back and Also Not Back
So apparently a 2 week lay-off in blog posts makes some people (read: Daniel) a bit antsy. Honestly, I have no idea why I haven't posted anything. I guess I just didn't get around to it. Is that a good enough reason? I suppose not. My apologies to the one or two people who read this semi-regularly.
I don't know what to write about. I have a couple of things that I could talk about, but none of them are hitting me as all that intriguing. I could discuss my personal life and a couple decisions I've made about my future, or I could talk about the minor prophets that I've been studying, or I could talk (a little) about the idea of cheap grace from Cost of Discipleship by Dietrich Bonhoeffer, or I could talk about the idea of evil in the world, or I could rant about the church being run as a corporation, or I could bemoan the frustrating discrepancy between church theory and church action, or I could even rant about the uselessness of right action if it isn't accompanied by a love of the "weightier matters of the law". But I honestly don't know what I want to talk about. I have a bunch of ideas all piled up. Maybe that's the problem, there is too much to write about. Or maybe its that all of those topics have at least a hint of cynicism and negativity and I'm becoming increasingly tired of my critical and negative self. Maybe that's it. Maybe it's the fact that I feel frustrated that little of what I say will come to any avail as few people are interested in changing their minds about what they think*.
*Actually this very thought is why I decided to give up what was left of my ambition to become a lawyer (Surprise!). See, I was always told that I would be a good lawyer because I could argue. In retrospect I hate that people told me that because that is a backhanded compliment. That's like saying "Hey, you're good at being stubborn, use that!" It has only been recently that I realized why I like discussion and argument (in the non-angry, debate sense) so much. I like to confronted with other points of view. I like to, not necessarily change, but alter my thoughts and beliefs based on the input of others. I finally realized that being a lawyer means that I take one side and make that one side win, no matter what. I can't do that. Add in the fact that I'm not about working 80 hour weeks and not having a life and the decision was pretty easy. So, I think I may try and teach (college) or write or something completely different.
So with all that said, I don't have anything big to write about today. Well, I have things to write about, but I'm blocked by something. I don't know what it is, just something. I just wanted ya'll to know, I'm still thinking, I'm just not writing. However, I will try and get back to writing in the near future (like tomorrow or Tuesday).
Peace and love,
Ben
I don't know what to write about. I have a couple of things that I could talk about, but none of them are hitting me as all that intriguing. I could discuss my personal life and a couple decisions I've made about my future, or I could talk about the minor prophets that I've been studying, or I could talk (a little) about the idea of cheap grace from Cost of Discipleship by Dietrich Bonhoeffer, or I could talk about the idea of evil in the world, or I could rant about the church being run as a corporation, or I could bemoan the frustrating discrepancy between church theory and church action, or I could even rant about the uselessness of right action if it isn't accompanied by a love of the "weightier matters of the law". But I honestly don't know what I want to talk about. I have a bunch of ideas all piled up. Maybe that's the problem, there is too much to write about. Or maybe its that all of those topics have at least a hint of cynicism and negativity and I'm becoming increasingly tired of my critical and negative self. Maybe that's it. Maybe it's the fact that I feel frustrated that little of what I say will come to any avail as few people are interested in changing their minds about what they think*.
*Actually this very thought is why I decided to give up what was left of my ambition to become a lawyer (Surprise!). See, I was always told that I would be a good lawyer because I could argue. In retrospect I hate that people told me that because that is a backhanded compliment. That's like saying "Hey, you're good at being stubborn, use that!" It has only been recently that I realized why I like discussion and argument (in the non-angry, debate sense) so much. I like to confronted with other points of view. I like to, not necessarily change, but alter my thoughts and beliefs based on the input of others. I finally realized that being a lawyer means that I take one side and make that one side win, no matter what. I can't do that. Add in the fact that I'm not about working 80 hour weeks and not having a life and the decision was pretty easy. So, I think I may try and teach (college) or write or something completely different.
So with all that said, I don't have anything big to write about today. Well, I have things to write about, but I'm blocked by something. I don't know what it is, just something. I just wanted ya'll to know, I'm still thinking, I'm just not writing. However, I will try and get back to writing in the near future (like tomorrow or Tuesday).
Peace and love,
Ben
Monday, June 9, 2008
An Honest Hope for a New Perspective
How many problems in the world would be solved if we let love be love, if we let truth be truth, if we let beauty be beauty, if we let hope be hope? There is so much greatness swirling around us, so much holiness swirling around us, so many of the things that we strive for are present in our lives. I want us to save the world, but I don't us want to miss out on the parts that have already been saved. We can't keep trying to save the world with a sneer. No, that won't work. I hope that we will be a part of the renewal of heaven and earth with a smile on our faces, with hope in our spirit, and with peace in our souls.
*And yes, Daniel, I do plan to respond to your rebuttal of the Bible as love story idea. But as you can tell from above, my heart just wouldn't have been in it today.
*When I initially wrote this post, I put everything in first person singular. Or for those non-English people, I said I a lot. I decided to change this to plural because I wanted this to be a prayer for all of us, because we are all one whether we care to admit it or not. We can not survive apart from each other. So, my brothers, my sisters, let us love another and be holy. Amen.
*And yes, Daniel, I do plan to respond to your rebuttal of the Bible as love story idea. But as you can tell from above, my heart just wouldn't have been in it today.
*When I initially wrote this post, I put everything in first person singular. Or for those non-English people, I said I a lot. I decided to change this to plural because I wanted this to be a prayer for all of us, because we are all one whether we care to admit it or not. We can not survive apart from each other. So, my brothers, my sisters, let us love another and be holy. Amen.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
The Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything is...42. (aka Bad Answers to the Wrong Questions)
So today in the Tulsa newspaper there was a full page ad from some church in Elk City blaring the headline "Does the Bible condemn homosexuality?" Now, it should be no surprise that I not only did not agree with the ad, I disagreed with the premise of the ad*. But, this wasn't the biggest problem that I had with the ad. Nor was my problem with the publicness of the statement, even though I found that aspect appalling. No, my problem was in the bluntness of the discussion. The article actually did an excellent job (well as good as can be done from this viewpoint) of not condemning the sinner, they did attempt to work in the idea of grace. Yet it was like bludgeoning someone with God, and I don't think this is way that things are supposed to go.
*I am of the idea, by way of many others, that we need to stop reading our culture into the Bible. By this, I mean we stop asking questions like "Does the Bible condemn homosexuality?" or "Is abortion wrong?" when the Bible isn't commenting on these issues. The Bible is not a handbook in political decision-making. It is not a rulebook. It is not an owner's manual or anything else along this line of thinking. The Bible is a story. More to the point, its a love story. Now, as in any good love story, there is conflict and discord, but there is an eventual reconciliation. That's what the Bible is, a story telling of God's mission to save the people he loves, the people he created. The Bible's discussion about homosexuality is not a discourse on the correctness or incorrectness of one act, but is part of the larger story. To rip this one item from its larger context and make it a discussion unto itself is an affront to the whole love story. To me, this discussion is the equivalent of reading a love letter and pontificating over the correct usage of grammar used therein. It isn't, nor will it ever be, the point of the letter. Thus it is with the Bible.
Controversy exists primarily because there is no easy answer. If there was an easy answer, there would be no controversy. However, the harshest controversies exist because the discussion has been tabbed with two greatly opposing positions. Further, these positions are cast as the ONLY positions that can be taken. You are allowed to choose option A or option B. The problem that exists is that the answer is, inveritably, neither. In fact, it seems obvious to me, that if controversies exist because the answer is not easy, and that the two existant answers prove no solution, then perhaps neither are the correct response. This is definitely the case with the homosexuality issue, just as it is with so many issues of both our times, and all time.
I say all this to say, that the correct Christian response to controversy is almost always nuanced. The answer is not an obvious "Yes" or "No". In fact, the correct response lies in the formation of the question. Simple questions can be answered with a simple answer, but complex questions require something more. For example, the question "Does the Bible condemn homosexuality?", actually presupposes numerous other questions, and presents itself as a formation of these answers. For instance this question asks:
What is appropriate sexual activity?
How do we define appropriate sexual activity?
Does the Bible discuss sexual activity?
Is the Bible an authority on appropriate sexual activity?
Does the Bible have an opinion on sexual activity?
Is the point of the Bible to point out appropriate sexual activity?
Does the Bible condemn certain actions unilaterally?
Is the condemnation of an act in the Bible the point of the Bible?
Do practicing homosexuals care?
Does any of this matter?
Those are just a few of the questions I can pick up from this "simple" question. Well, I think this makes it plain that it is not a "simple" question and therefore necessitates a bit more nuanced response*.
*By the way, my view on homosexuality is really complex. And by really complex, I mean I do not completely understand it. Therefore, I am not going to answer the above question. Additionally, I think that its the wrong question. I guess to me a lot of the questions of morality in culture to me are like a messed up multiple choice tests where you have a question and a bunch of answers that obviously don't match the question. I would say in the Bible, in Jesus, in the Holy Spirit, and the Christian tradition we have the answers the we need (note need, not want). The problem is we can't answer the wrong questions.
The way Christians normally go about responding to controversy often reminds me of that little wood block game where you had to roll a little metal ball perfectly to settle in a small divot. It took the proper amount of balance, timing, skill, and patience to achieve the goal of the game. Most Christians remind me of little kids playing that game. They just roll the ball back and forth really fast and jerky and hope that they get lucky, but they won't. Or perhaps its more like a surgeon trying to do heart surgery with a pointy stick instead of a scalpel, it might work eventually, but you'll kill off more people than you save.
All in all, I don't know how we are supposed to respond to controversial issues. I advocate the thoughtful nuanced approach, but then I realize that very few on either side will take the time to listen. Why? Because most people don't want answers, they want validation. So perhaps these controversies are more a symptom of a disease than a disease in and of themselves*. I wish I had an easy answer, but its not an easy question.
*One of my favorite responses to the problems in the world is pulled from an episode of House. House makes a statement akin to, "We can treat the symptoms and she'll keep dying, or we can find the disease and she can live, you're choice?" I think this is a really insightful statement for problems. I think the church, and society in general, are always scrambling to relieve the latest symptom of a much larger disease. The problem, however, is that 1) we rarely relieve the symptom and 2) there is always another, and oftentimes worse, symptom to come along. I have no idea what the underlying disease is that affects the failures of our culture (I could say sin, but I think Daniel might scoff at me), but we, as a society, have completely ignored it. And this is yet another example of the short-sightedness of the world today. We have no scope, no perspective, we are "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Well that was a depressing ending. Have a nice day.
*I am of the idea, by way of many others, that we need to stop reading our culture into the Bible. By this, I mean we stop asking questions like "Does the Bible condemn homosexuality?" or "Is abortion wrong?" when the Bible isn't commenting on these issues. The Bible is not a handbook in political decision-making. It is not a rulebook. It is not an owner's manual or anything else along this line of thinking. The Bible is a story. More to the point, its a love story. Now, as in any good love story, there is conflict and discord, but there is an eventual reconciliation. That's what the Bible is, a story telling of God's mission to save the people he loves, the people he created. The Bible's discussion about homosexuality is not a discourse on the correctness or incorrectness of one act, but is part of the larger story. To rip this one item from its larger context and make it a discussion unto itself is an affront to the whole love story. To me, this discussion is the equivalent of reading a love letter and pontificating over the correct usage of grammar used therein. It isn't, nor will it ever be, the point of the letter. Thus it is with the Bible.
Controversy exists primarily because there is no easy answer. If there was an easy answer, there would be no controversy. However, the harshest controversies exist because the discussion has been tabbed with two greatly opposing positions. Further, these positions are cast as the ONLY positions that can be taken. You are allowed to choose option A or option B. The problem that exists is that the answer is, inveritably, neither. In fact, it seems obvious to me, that if controversies exist because the answer is not easy, and that the two existant answers prove no solution, then perhaps neither are the correct response. This is definitely the case with the homosexuality issue, just as it is with so many issues of both our times, and all time.
I say all this to say, that the correct Christian response to controversy is almost always nuanced. The answer is not an obvious "Yes" or "No". In fact, the correct response lies in the formation of the question. Simple questions can be answered with a simple answer, but complex questions require something more. For example, the question "Does the Bible condemn homosexuality?", actually presupposes numerous other questions, and presents itself as a formation of these answers. For instance this question asks:
What is appropriate sexual activity?
How do we define appropriate sexual activity?
Does the Bible discuss sexual activity?
Is the Bible an authority on appropriate sexual activity?
Does the Bible have an opinion on sexual activity?
Is the point of the Bible to point out appropriate sexual activity?
Does the Bible condemn certain actions unilaterally?
Is the condemnation of an act in the Bible the point of the Bible?
Do practicing homosexuals care?
Does any of this matter?
Those are just a few of the questions I can pick up from this "simple" question. Well, I think this makes it plain that it is not a "simple" question and therefore necessitates a bit more nuanced response*.
*By the way, my view on homosexuality is really complex. And by really complex, I mean I do not completely understand it. Therefore, I am not going to answer the above question. Additionally, I think that its the wrong question. I guess to me a lot of the questions of morality in culture to me are like a messed up multiple choice tests where you have a question and a bunch of answers that obviously don't match the question. I would say in the Bible, in Jesus, in the Holy Spirit, and the Christian tradition we have the answers the we need (note need, not want). The problem is we can't answer the wrong questions.
The way Christians normally go about responding to controversy often reminds me of that little wood block game where you had to roll a little metal ball perfectly to settle in a small divot. It took the proper amount of balance, timing, skill, and patience to achieve the goal of the game. Most Christians remind me of little kids playing that game. They just roll the ball back and forth really fast and jerky and hope that they get lucky, but they won't. Or perhaps its more like a surgeon trying to do heart surgery with a pointy stick instead of a scalpel, it might work eventually, but you'll kill off more people than you save.
All in all, I don't know how we are supposed to respond to controversial issues. I advocate the thoughtful nuanced approach, but then I realize that very few on either side will take the time to listen. Why? Because most people don't want answers, they want validation. So perhaps these controversies are more a symptom of a disease than a disease in and of themselves*. I wish I had an easy answer, but its not an easy question.
*One of my favorite responses to the problems in the world is pulled from an episode of House. House makes a statement akin to, "We can treat the symptoms and she'll keep dying, or we can find the disease and she can live, you're choice?" I think this is a really insightful statement for problems. I think the church, and society in general, are always scrambling to relieve the latest symptom of a much larger disease. The problem, however, is that 1) we rarely relieve the symptom and 2) there is always another, and oftentimes worse, symptom to come along. I have no idea what the underlying disease is that affects the failures of our culture (I could say sin, but I think Daniel might scoff at me), but we, as a society, have completely ignored it. And this is yet another example of the short-sightedness of the world today. We have no scope, no perspective, we are "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Well that was a depressing ending. Have a nice day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)