Peace on Thanksgiving

Are you the only politically liberal person in your family? Did you just spend your thanksgiving enduring an endless amount of Barack jokes? Are you the only political conservative in your family, and spent your thanksgiving enduring the "greedy white man" comments uttered by rich white people? Are you the only Roman Catholic, the only animal rights activist refusing to eat the Turkey your aunt slaved over, the only Protestant, the only agnostic, the only Christian, the only football fan, the only non-football fan? And yet you would never say to these people who are so different than you what you say about their kind to your friends. For instance you may think that "all Republicans need to taken outside and shot!"; except for Grandpa right? Sometimes, these differences divide families, but more often than not the differences themselves are the result of deep wounding. And usually in healthy relationships, the differences don't divide the relationship. Hmm...? I wonder if the family members who get along are compromisers? I wonder if they are peacemakers? More thoughts later.

Commercialism

The problem that a lot of people have with liking the more popular music is that it is too commercialized. It seems that eventually everybody's favorite band breaks up or sells out. It is a common indie theme to talk of the dilemma between having an art and having a career and how it doesn't seem that you can have both. A lot of times when a band signs on to a major label, it means that they going for a wider audience and so they broaden their music's "appeal" which usually means that they become a little more shallow, or bubble gum than they were before. Many people claim to be angered that their band has now sold out, or gone commercial, but what they don't seem to acknowledge is that they've always been commercial. Isn't just selling your music commercial? You may be legitimately upset that they've changed their style to reach a bigger audience, but you can't say that that automatically makes the new music bad, or imply that they were never commercial. The issue is that you want to see someone's "genuine" art, not the music they make to impress others. I can get that, but that has nothing to do with the quality of the music. There is excellent popular music and terrible independent music. Independent music tends to produce more genuine artists, with a more genuine fan base. But independent does not automatically equal quality.
Also, commercialism is not one of those things that you can be wishy-washy with. It's sort of a black and white thing. If you buy anything, that's advertised for the purpose of making money off of you cannot complain about commercialism. Perhaps capitalism and commercialism is stealing our souls and replacing it with a need for materials. But maybe its not. Economics is a consequence of the fall of Adam, and any system set up is a system based on the knowledge of the potential of sin. Every economic system is a system of distrust, a failsafe, a check on society. Therefore if an economic system is right in its assumptions, that at least enough people can't be trusted, then it will compromised. Ideally, capitalism seeks to provide good for everyone by providing work for everyone, but this also makes a way for exploiters to take advantage of it. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. If the issue here is authenticity, let's agree to be up front about what we're selling, and actually sell something that's worth having, not for greed's sake, but for simply making a living. Let's sell good music, because we believe its beneficial to hear, not because we want to make more money than we need. Because some are greedy, let us not dismiss an entire economic system. For authenticity is not derived from a any system, but from honesty within the system. Let no one hate.

Musical taste is subjective. (A rant)

I'd rather be the shallow clueless adorer of pop, than the self-righteous snobbish follower of wherever the underground is these days. In fact I assume that to someone or some society out there I am a lame sheep following that rest of the "indie" herd, and that these people whoever they are have no such label. Perhaps they are the real independents. I could live my life clamoring through old record stores to find the diamonds in the rough, to always like the band that nobody's ever heard of, or I can like what I like come what criticism, and nose raising may. I could realize that I am not taking my cd's with me when I die and that God will not love me more for watching foreign films and hate me more for owning everything Death Cab ever did. It's all relative anyway; the whole scene thing. Some of you are saying "Death Cab?", and I am saying to you. "They're better than whatever Taylor Swift crap you're listening to", then tomorrow some kid who is cooler than me will show me some CD put out by some electronica punk country band from Russia called "I can see Sarah Palin from my Bathroom", who only sing in 2nd century Latin, and I'll say I've never heard of them, and they suck. And this kid will inevitably say to me "They're better than whatever Death Cab crap you're listening to. "Shall I at this point be ashamed of Death Cab?" No. If I don't know where this indie enlightenment ends, I am content to end it here.
By the way I am convinced that snobbery goes both ways. People should be allowed to like what they like without people with inferiority complex's making them feel guilty. But really, some of you perpetuate the snob image, because you actually think of yourself as better if you have "better taste" in music, or wine, or coffee, or anything. Just get over it please. Everyone like what you like and demand that Taylor Swift propaganda stops being pushed on the increasing herd complex of our youth. If you like bad music, you like bad music. But don't act like you know its good. For there's always someone out there who will say about your favorite band what you say about somebody else's favorite band. You know what; musical taste is subjective. Sorry. It is. I am really not as angry as I sound in that last part. I intended this to be satirical and funny. So... please get that vibe.

Lies

Sometimes I say things and those things are lies. I do not intend this to be so when I make the original statement. I do mean what I say. I did mean to write about God and art, but upon writing about it I discovered that I didn't know what I was talking about. It was vomitous mass of the worse kind; a disjointed tirade that is not even funny, nor true. I am sorry. Shall I cease to assume that my mere opinions matter that much? I am glad they seem to matter to you. Thank you for allowing me to rant and to rant again.

Briefly, art is 1) a creation or 2)the denotation of the enterprise of creation. If the thing was not there before person A put it there then the now existent thing, abstract or concrete, is art. God is the original artist. Therefore, whenever one endeavors to create a work of art one endeavors to copy God. There is no shame in this provided that the artist realizes that his art is a copy. But most artists today don't seem to realize this. The pinnacle of modern art seems to be originality, coupled with aesthetic beauty. This combination we call creativity, a term that we consider, curiously enough, unquestionably virtuous. Creative people in our culture are sought after, praised, adored, financially compensated and sometimes exploited. And creative people exist everywhere. They obviously exist in the world of music, art, fashion, theater, and writing. But creative people are sought after in the worlds of business and athletics too. Creativity is a hot commodity. But as it pertains to artists i.e. painters, sculptors, writers, etc. , the cancer of egotism has somehow invaded the scene. Today's artist seems to be as protective of his art as he is his own soul, because his art is indeed his own soul, and perhaps this is the major problem. Perhaps another related problem is our modern perception of art as being a personal expression. I will try to show here what the problem is and why it's a problem, why proper art is an expression, that lays no claim to originality, or the personal and how this view of art will effect how it is used in the church.
A work of art isn't necessarily a personal expression. It certainly may be, but may easily not be. I may take a block of wood, carve into the shape of a swan, go show my friend my creation, and he may ask: "What are you trying to say by this swan?" and I might legitimately say. "It is a swan?" It may not be a personal expression of anything. But most of the time, art that is meaningful is expressive, and what it expresses is of great importance. Today, art often expresses the artist's feeling. It may sound insensitive to say that this is shallow, but think of a public speaker who means to say something profound to a group of eager students. And then he gets up, and says, "I am happy". I am assuming that art ought to communicate beyond mere expression, but some seem to think that there's merit in the mere expression, and the that the follow-up question: Why are you happy? is not only meaningless but almost contemptible. Any expression has meaning as an expression, but that something has meaning does not demand it be said. It is not fair to assume that your audience ought to be as engaged as you the artist are with you're feelings. It's very simply and yes crudely, whiny. This is not to say that art that is subjective or self-analytical is not worth our attention. Surely, human feelings can be portrayed in such a way that they have universal appeal, at least enough to be discussed. And surely every person has a right to express their feelings however they want, but it does not follow that I have to consider every expression worth expressing. What I want to see from an artist is more than just an expression, but an expression expressed in a technically artful, original, beautiful, and profound way. Is this subjective? Of course, but it's art.

Oops

One post in between. Sorry. I am a liar. Jack Kerouac is a fascinating person, a legend, an impossibly brilliant handler of words, a romantic in its most complete sense, the voice of a generation, a major literary influence, a genius, and a merely average novelist. Jack writing the way that he writes about what he writes, his novels are only about traveling the country and being really stupid. But what gives the novels substance and value is not the plot, but the meaning that Kerouac seems to give to every thought, instance, moment, emotion and happening. I said he is a novelist. I am not so sure he ever really told a story, ever had a legitimate plot. But by virtue that Jack wrote it, its more than worth the read

Hang In There (Stay Tuned)

I like this loaded statement because it is loaded. Regard this as teaser and read my next post. Coming soon. "A multi-parter" on art and God. It is not as big as it sounds. Dum da dum dum.

Faith Like a Child

When I was a kid, I was selfish, and to make it worse, entitled. It's one thing to always want to get your way, but its worse when you believe you always deserve it. And then the worse kind of entitlement complex is the kind in which one is not aware of his entitlement complex, because that one is of course always entitled. And these are our children. Not only our children, but all children. Children learn quickly within the first months of their existence, that if they cry they will get what they want. It's funny to think that it may take a lifetime to beat out of them what we conditioned in them within the first few months of their life. As parents, we (we being human beings, not me and you, for I am not a parent, and this is not about parenting)spend 18 years (or more)unspoiling the child. Of course, the diaper must be changed, naps must be taken, food distributed, and of course babies have no other way to communicate to us their helplessness except to cry, but it does not take a way from the fact that babies learn to get what they want by crying and usually they get it, and once they're old enough we then have to deprogram of this. What a strange inconsistency this must seem to be to the toddler, who has heretofore, always been supplied his basic needs by employing the tool of crying, now he gets scolded for doing so, and is suddenly made to "go potty" on his own. We allow our kids to be selfish because they're helpless and clearly we have no choice, but we mistake the helplessness for innocence and the crying for polite requests instead of calling it (the crying) what it is; selfishness. Almost all kids struggle to share their toys, learn the word "mine" very quickly, and spend most of their first 3 years thinking the world revolves around them. And if we do nothing to discourage this behavior, they grow up to be entitled, winey, selfish adults. I always laugh when people talk about children as if they are saints. If kids were saints, you wouldn't need recess ladies, paddles, or bubble baths. When I was a child, I got kicked out of class my first day of Kindergarten for publicly making fun of another kid who peed his pants. In fourth grade, my first day at a new school, I was kicked out of class for laughing at a kid name Morgan. He was a boy. He had what I thought was a girl's name. You get the picture. These were not the worst things I ever did. The other things I did might put my pastoral position on the line if I mentioned them. The thing is, I wasn't the worst kid either. Some of you with children are thinking; "Yeah, tell me about it".
But children however have two redeeming qualities. They are worth emulating. These are the qualities of sincerity and faith. When a child says something, he means it. If he lies, its because he going to get in trouble. But if he tells you that you look ugly, its because you do. And if you tell a kid that the sky is pink, that elephants fly but only on Tuesday, and that the Cleveland Browns are going to win the Super Bowl she will without question believe you. So when Jesus takes a child and puts him on his knee, and tells the disciples that in order to receive the kingdom of God they must become "like one of these" He is obviously not telling them to be good. He is telling them to believe God, without doubting, the way that children believe everything their parents tell them. No matter how ridiculous something may seem to a skeptical adult, a child will never fail to believe it. No matter how ridiculous the thing is that God is asking us to do seems, the kind of person who will receive the kingdom of God is the kind of person who doesn't even give a thought to the ridiculous nature of the thing. In fact the thing is never ridiculous because in the mind of a "child" God would never ask us to do something ridiculous. If God says "I am for you", a child thinks, "He is for me".
Also, a child always means what they say. In may be inappropriate, but it is always sincere, without pretense or any impulse to manipulate. Sarcasm is not a vehicle employed by a child. Wittiness is not a virtue.
In conclusion, children are not innocent, but they are sincere, and they have tremendous faith. Therefore when Jesus tell us and His disciples that we must become like a child in order to inherit the Kingdom of God, he is not telling us to be innocent, but to be sincere, to mean what we say and to have tremendous faith.

Vomiting an Opinion on the State of a Once Glorious Enterprise.

Pre- Garth Brooks country (including Garth) is good music. The first "crossover" artist is Hank Williams Sr. who is today considered to be country, and if you listen to his music today, it is unmistakeably country, at least to our millenial ears. But back then, it was pop, and it was really good. Popular music has no doubt advanced in creativity, but the simple country/rock rhythms and bluesy moans of ole' Hank Sr. are magical and legendary. He is the father of modern country music for sure, and arguably a pioneer of rock n' roll. After Hank came Johnny Cash, Waylon Jennings, David Allen Coe, Merle Haggard, Charlie Pride, Conway Twitty, Loretta Lynn, George Jones, Tammy Wynette, Randy Travis, Kenny Rogers, Dolly Parton,Swight Yoakum,George Straight, Chris Ledou, and other legends who could write music. Among the last country stars to be worthy of listening are Alan Jackson, Garth Brooks, and maybe a few others. I don't know when Country music started being horrible, maybe it was a gradual slide, but I was forced to listen to it on the radio yesterday, and it was terrible. It was all annoying melodies, uninspired chords, and the subject matter was either sentimental bull from an artist whose last single was about badonkadonks, (what is that?), or it was about cliche' country matters like loving America, hating the Northeast, or checking for ticks, or something equally as disgusting or degrading to women. Women who dig rednecks are rednecks, and being from the country, enjoying a simple kind of life is okay, but being a disgusting beer drinking, tobacco chewing, redneck who thinks it romantic to take your girl frog giggin', and make love in the bed of your truck, or in your algae ridden pond, or tick ridden forest, or on the jukebox in the "honkey tonk" is not okay, never has been, and never will be, and if you're joking, it's still not funny, because I know people who do that kind of stuff, and they are not happy nor are they proud to be rednecks until they hear these guys, glorifying their lives. Its the same thing that gangsta rap does for gangs. It's just not okay, mostly because its not true. I also knew a kid in the crips. He was a servant to the destructive system. The gang life is nothing to glorify, and and neither is the trailer trash lifestyle. In fact most lifestyles are not anything to glorify. Let's be honest about life, not make excuses for its shortcomings. And it really just isn't good music anymore. I don't have the time or energy to go into all that, but listen to Hank, or Johnny, and then listen to Taylor Swift, especially live, and you'll understand immediately my point.
I realize I sound like an angry jerk. When I was in undergrad my English Comp professor called writings like these "vomitous mass" I admit that's what this is. It's also pretentious, pompous, angry, and true. Enjoy.

High School

I find it difficult to be nostalgic about High School. I'm not bitter. I wasn't the loser kid, but I was definitely not the cool kid, not even close. Besides, all the kids who got made fun of the most in my school have turned out to be the most successful. Nerds really do rule the world. (Admit it jocko). Anyways, it just wasn't a great time for me. It wasn't bad, but it wasn't good. Not that I didn't like my friends, I did, and I do, but are they really my friends anymore. I guess once a friend always a friend, but... you all know what I'm saying.
I'm really into my friends right now, and have no way of knowing if I'll still be really into them in ten years. I know I will be into at least one. I don't know, I just feel like every person I haven't talked to in years and didn't even talk to in high school, wants to be my facebook friend. This is really strange to me. I guess going to the same High School qualifies for a friendship. To those who were the guys I hung out with in High School. I am gladly your friend on facebook. I'm mainly talking about those who I never ever talked to. Weird phenomenon.

The False Dichotomy of Reality or (What I Thought About Today)

Today is Monday. I spent the hours of 7am-9am in staff meeting. (For Steamtown Church) Then I went home and prayed for two hours. It was refreshing. I read the story of the fall of Jerusalem in the book of Jeremiah and it was moving. Then I continued my singing (yes I sing to myself) and praying through the Psalms. The Psalms are divided into several books. Right now I am going through Book One. Most of the Psalms are written by David, King of Israel. And the Psalms are composed in such way as to function collectively. Each Psalms plays off the themes of the preceding Psalms. It's like a huge concept album, the individual psalms functioning like songs in an album, but also with a holistic form. It's quite the spiritual experience.
I got on the bus when I was finished with my spiritual exercise. All that I experienced was negativity and complaining. This attitude pervades the social atmosphere of Scranton, where I reside, a town which I love, a town which I serve in the name of redemption. The contrast was stark between my past spiritual exercise and this 10 minute bus ride. By the time I got off the bus, nearly all of the positivity was sucked out of me. All this to say that an atmosphere is a powerful thing.
I find that human beings are embarrassingly susceptible to becoming their culture. Loaded statement I know, but think about how hard it is to "be yourself" (whatever that means.) In fact some people are so inundated into the culture or subculture they find themselves in that they do not know and cannot know their identity outside of the culture. However, I am not so sure that letting culture define us is so wrong. I am not even sure that's its possible to know yourself outside of the culture. Is there really a person in there, who is pure and untouched by experiences, or people, or worldview? Really I mean, who is the real you? And what makes you think that you are at any point, not the real you? If you do not know who you really are, at what point do you know when you're being real? Is the real me, the one who thinks life is great and God is good , or is the real me the one who thinks life stinks and God doesn't care. I suppose it depends on whether I'm at home or on a bus. Of course the real me doesn't depend on my context. The thing is there is no such thing as the fake me, just the real me, who is always whatever I am. In certain situations, the right attitude is difficult to maintain, but never impossible. I could be at home with a crappy attitude, and on that bus with an understanding that God is in control.
But at atmosphere is powerful. If one does not understand this, that one is susceptible to thinking however they feel is however it is. The key is not figuring out the real you, but what the "real" person would do in your situation. I will explain later. Keep it real.

Idealism and Realism

I am an idealist. To me that means that I try to make my life fit my values. A realist is somebody who tries make their values fit their life. Those of you reading this who are idealists are saying: "Yeah so?" those of you are realists are saying the same thing. If you're a realist, if you're consistent you're also immoral. If you have a moral base, you are inconsistent. We idealists, may be depressed all the time being discontent with how things are, knowing the way that they should be. But at least we're not in denial.
This is a rant.

Salvation and Suffering Part Two

The idea that I am about to write about has been written about well in many books. One of the more popular books being "Jesus Wants to Save Christians" by Rob Bell. This is the idea that throughout the Bible and Judeo-Christian history the people of God have been persecuted and rescued from persecution on such a regular basis that one can reasonably believe that persecution is a distinctive of being "the people of God"as well as a major theme of the Bible. From Egypt to Babylon; Persia to Rome; the Crusades to the Holocaust, to the present day persecutions of almost epidemic proportions, the "people of God" have suffered at the hands of the unjust. Indeed the symbol of our faith is the innocent Jesus, blessing His persecutors. Jesus' type is David who wrote a seemingly unending amount of Psalms asking God to deliver Him from his enemies. The Bible begins to come alive and really make sense when we put ourselves in the place of a persecuted people. With the lens of persecution on, books like
1 Peter, Philippians, 2 Timothy, James, and Revelation become surprisingly clear. Persecution is the world that the Biblical writers lived in. It's the framework from which Jewish people understand who they are. They see themselves as the persecuted people of God, awaiting their deliverer, Messiah. Paul, James, Peter and John were of course Jewish people operating in a Jewish framework. And we are part of the Jewish heritage. I assert that, given everything I have written so far, that we would be seriously lacking in our understanding of our faith, if we are lacking in our understanding of persecution, not only cognitively, but also experientially. Persecution is to the people of God what the Big Mac is to McDonald's. The New Testament is essentially the Apostles trying to understand and explain their Jewish religion in light of Jesus' being the crucified and Resurrected Messiah. Considering that suffering and persecution was the standard of their lives, (they all were martyred, with the possible exception of John) a suffering Messiah was perfectly in line with their experience. The New Testament is a rearticulation of the Jewish faith in light of Jesus' Messiahship, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, and imminent return.
We claim that in Jesus we are the people of God, the church. I don't know if the Bible teaches that persecution is a prerequisite for Christianity. I would doubt that because faith is the first prerequisite on our part. But if we find ourselves avoiding persecution at all costs, it is reasonable to check our faith. If we are in the world so much that we are actually of the world, the world will not hate us, and we will have no way to identify with our leader. (Jesus) The people of God have always been a threat to society, not in a violent or manipulative way, but society is threatened by a group of people committed to justice, righteousness, and Jesus. True dialogue must begin on what this looks like. For we cannot force persecution. As Peter says our suffering is not godly suffering if it is not "as a Christian". In other words, there is basic suffering that everyone experiences, and then there is persecution that comes from the hands of the same unjust opposition that crucified our Savior. We're not looking for it, or avoiding it. One is simply left to wonder: If I never suffer persecution, am I really a Christian? Am I really one of the people of God?