Lyrical Musings

Thoughtless Creeds
by Matthew Paul Miller

If dire straights are good
Then Nirvana is hell on earth
And the only thing that prayer is worth;
is knowledge of our pain
I don't know what I should
do in situations such as these
A reference to thoughtless creeds?
If to you it's just the same?

Give me a minute to figure out that I don't know what is wrong.
I could use the time to realize that what I thought was never right.

If intimacy's good
Then protection is a waste of time
Let's start believing that we'll all be fine;
until there comes a day
In a casket made of wood
They'll be viewing just a lifeless shell
Knowing that we didn't go to hell
'Cause for our sin to Jesus pay

Just give me a minute to figure out that I don't know what is wrong.
I could use the time to realize that what I thought was always right.
Do you know who you are to me?
Do you know who I ought to be?

If television helps;
we can watch a little matinee
Immobile in the middle of the day.
It's just a way of passing time
And all the feeling that we've felt
become invisible and float away
And when they ask us all about our day
we can say that it was fine

Just give me a minute to figure out that I don't know what is wrong.
I could use the time realize that what I thought was never right.
Do you know who you are to me?
Do you know who I ought to be?
I want to know who you are to me
and all other knowledge agnostic-ally.

Ezekiel 32

Your foreskin is showing, exposed, and I don't have the patience to deal with;
the problem
And there's a sword about your waste
And blood on your hand
but its not your own
But it will be someday
It will be someday

And there are swords
lying in heaps upon the hordes
of the dead
sword bearing warriors
And we honor you today
for your success in the campaign
But we've got our own blood on our hands

And I'm inclined to say;
that if you changed your ways
and your style
you'd be better off today
But am I unjust?
in assessing your misdemeanor?
You ought to be ashamed of yourself
You killed somebody else.

Kierkegaard, Not Steinbeck

If you take the time to look at the info on my facebook, you'll notice that one of my favorite quotes is one from John Steinbeck. The book: The Grapes of Wrath. The quote: "Fear the time when the bombers stop bombing while the bombers live. For every bomb is proof that the spirit has not died", which is the climax of the chapter. The chapter, unfortunately, I do not have memorized. But the chapter is exactly what I wanted to share with you today. I do not own the book however. (I don't own many books) So I went ot Barnes & Noble to borrow The Grapes of Wrath, but lo, NO GRAPES OF WRATH! Every other Steinbeck novel, short story, and poem was there, but not the one I wanted.
The truth is I didn't feel like saying anything myself to today, but I felt like saying something. I have this Kierkegaard book in front of me, so I have decided to quote him. (Or should I say, I have decided to quote Climacus?)
"With regard to the dissenting conception of what it isto communicate, I sometimes wonder whether this matter of indirect communication could not be directly communicated. For example, I see that Socrates, who ordinarily held so strictly to asking and answering (which is an indirect method), because the long speech, the didactic discourse, and reciting by rote lead only to confusion, at times himself speaks at length and the states as the reason that the person with whom he is speaking needs and elucidation before the conversation can begin. This he does in Gorgias, for example. But this seems to me an inconsistency, an impatience that fears it will take too long before they come to a mutual understanding, because through the indirect method is must still be possible to achieve the same thing, only more slowly. But haste is utterly worthless in understanding when inwardness is the understanding. To me it seems better truly to come to a mutual understanding separately in inwardness, even though this occurs slowly. Yes, even if it never did happen because time went by and the communicator was forgotten without ever being understood by anyone, it seems to me to be more consistent on the part of the communicator not to have made the slightest adaptation in order to ahve someone understand him, and first and last to watch himself lest he become important in relation to others, which far from being inwardness, is external, noisy conduct. If he does that, he will have consolation in the judgment when the god judges that he has made no concession to himself in order to win anyone but to the upmost of his capability has worked in vain, leaving it to the god whether it should have any significance or not. And this will not doubt please the god more than if the go-getter were to say to him, 'I have gained ten thousand adherents for you'... That subjectivity is truth is my thesis, I have tried to show... which at its maximum is Christianity. That is is possible to exist with inwardness also outside Christianity, the Greeks among others have adequately shown, but in our day things seem actually to have gone so far that although we are all Christians and knowledgeable about Christianity, it is already a rarity to encounter a person who has even as much existing inwardness as a pagan philosopher. No wonder that people are so quickly finished with Christianity when they begin by putting themselves in a state in which receiving an ever so little impression of Christianity is entirely out of the question. One becomes objective, one wants to consider objectively--that the god was crucified--an event that, when it occurred, did not permit even the temple to be objective, for its curtain tore, did not even permit the dead to remain objective, for they rose up from their graves. Thus what is able to make even the inanimate and the dead subjective is now considered objectively by Messrs. Objective"
Good enough.

It's Beginning To Feel a lot Like Christmas

I'm not usually associated with one who is bubbling with that vague moniker: "Christmas spirit". I walked out my door today, it was snowing. And I got that feeling. You know that feeling. That little warmness like hot cocoa, teeming in the knowledge of the approaching festivities, the lights, the tree, the wreaths, the smells, the sounds, and the briskness in the air, the feel on your cheeks after taking a walk and coming home putting on your sweater and wool socks and snuggling with your special someone with something sweet in your cup. (Is that Christmas spirit?) I actually thought, "You know it really is the most wonderful time of the year".
And then I had to get gas. As I stood outside for what seemed like 10 minutes, I noticed one, that the temperature was 30, but that also a crisp wind was blowing, so I would say that it felt like 20 on my face, and two I noticed that gas was $3.09 a gallon. And then I got back in my car which takes until I get where I'm going to heat up to a comfortable temperature, and braved the horrendous traffic of downtown Scranton. I finally settled and then walked a block to the cafe' in which this post is being written. The moment I left my house this morning, and noticed that it was snowing, and got that warm feeling in my belly, it was gone by the time I was pumping gas. And I remembered why Christmas exists; to distract us from the reality that December is the most horrible time of the year. The shortest day of the year is in December. I think that the most hipster slackers see is 20 minutes of daylight that day. It's cold. Cold is unpleasant. As unpleasant as hot can be. Cold is much more unpleasant. The first snow is nice and nostalgic, and even pretty, but it is not long until the dogs, the plows, and the children turn into various shades of colors only elsewhere seen in toilets. I do like the evenings of cuddling, but I can't do that in the summer? I can do that in a pool or a beach in the summer!
I will not go into the endless woes of Christmas time. I have already mentioned all that is possibly good about it, which melts away as soon as you pump gas, shovel snow, or scrape the ice off of your car as you become later and later for work. Still, without Christmas, December would be even worse. But we can at least be honest about it.

Movies

I'm not a movie critic. But so what if I was? I'm not an actor or a filmmaker. Just a simple viewer for whom most of these movies are made (thankfully not all) And thankfully I am an American and most likely so are you, so you have to believe I have a right to share my opinion, even if it may be incredible.

So here are my thoughts on some recent movies I've watched.

Doubt-
I wonder how much skill it really took to make a movie as open ended as this. There is a subtle difference between laziness and subtlety. If you're open-ended enough, and know the right philosophical questions you can make anything seem profound. But with a work of art, being different than philosophy, its profundity is found in a large number of things, and is admittedly, annoyingly subjective. However, no aspect of this movie is poor. But what makes it truly outstanding isn't its plot, or its ability to solicit different responses from different individuals, which interestingly, is only remarkable because the movie works on every other level, and the frustrating thing is that the movie's creators are pretentious enough to think that it is the open ended aspect which makes their movie, when really it is the superb acting which makes the open ended aspect really really fun.) The acting jobs take this from the most mediocre movie ever made, to one of my favorite. But give no credit to the director, who simply found good actors who know how to provoke interesting questions that the philosophers conjured up centuries ago.

American Beauty-
If you really want this to be a derivative satire on the American suburban life, you can hate this movie, but given all the other great elements of this movie, can you possibly believe than director Sam Mendes is that dumb? To me its not a satire at all. It doesn't attempt to be. I don't mind unoriginality because I think to a large extent originality is just like the American dream, a mirage. The movie is a simple coming of age tale, and the fulfillment and victory that Lester experiences is real. It's scored well; acted well. The cinematography is great. It's entertaining, it's meaningful, and it understands the human condition.

Lebron

Brett Favre, Brett Favre, Brett Favre. Lebron, Lebron, Lebron. Heat, Heat, Heat. The decision, the decision, the decision. It's all you ever hear about right. I'll admit, I don't find Favre all that interesting, and am sick of hearing about him every time he breaks a nail, but Lebron fascinates me. It may be because he was "the franchise" of my favorite franchise for 7 manic-depressive seasons.
Now I don't like Lebron. I'm not naive enough to forget that I'm a Cavaliers fan. I understand that my dislike is rooted deep in my "fandom". But I want to make a case that Lebron is an unlikable person regardless of what team he is on. This holds true, even though Michael Vick killed dogs, and Steve McNair beat his girlfriend, and Kobe at least had an extra marital affair. If your point is that what Lebron did in "the decision", is nothing in comparison to what these men did, I would shoot back that what Lebron did wasn't even wrong. It's not even worth comparing. Dan Gilbert and the city of Cleveland's reaction would lead one to believe that Lebron committed the worst atrocity against humanity in the 21st century, but in the end their reaction also did more to justify Lebron's departure than anything. Who would want to work for a boss like that? The decision wasn't wrong. "The decision" wasn't wrong either. Lebron has broken no laws; has shown no one any disrespect. He has just went about his business as a free American employee.
With that said, I am also a free American employee, who has the right to not like somebody. And what makes Lebron so fascinating is how the last 5 months he has made PR gaffe after PR gaffe to the point where you wonder if he should fire his PR guy, or if he was always that much of a jerk, and now with new found free agent freedom he has come out. What he has come out as is a self-centered, naive, Generation Y crybaby, who is in way over his head. He overestimated his "untouchable" quality. He underestimated the value of team chemistry. He underestimated the historical value of bringing championships to a city, especially like Cleveland. He has made us suspect of his competitiveness, perhaps seeing his move to South Beach, as the easy road to a championship.
Granted, I don't know him. I might even like him if I met him. Maybe the media has cast him in this light. I admit that my opinion of him is based merely on the perception I get from the media. My only point is this. If the media is the only chance I get into Lebron's psyche, then I don't feel bad for him that people don't like him. With that said, I defend Lebron's right to play for whomever he wishes as a free agent. I am not really all that offended over "the decision", although a little irked by the way he went about it, and his undiscerning/insensitive/arrogant comment about taking his talent to South Beach. The Cleveland fans reaction has been childish, unacceptable, and worse than anything Lebron has done. But this post is not about the Cleveland fans. It's about me understanding why Lebron is not liked. He's not a real competitor, or leader. He doesn't seem to be very team oriented. He's a millionaire with a victim mentality. His one redeeming quality beside his skills at basketball is... um... he hasn't slaughtered any dogs, gotten in any legal trouble, or sold drugs??? In the immortal words of Chris Rock. "You're not supposed to slaughter dogs!" You also don't have to be a nice guy. You're allowed to be selfish and whiny. But I don't have to like you for it.

Powers and Principalities

So I've been on this Gospel kick. Been on it since 1993. Over the years I have greatly struggled with my Christianity. Many of the issues that caused my frustration were political and cultural. By now the acute difference between Republican/Bible Belt politics and the politics of Christianity is so plain to me that it takes me a minute to place my wits when I meet a person who does not see that difference. Having been tormented over the issue of how an ancient message such as the gospel, can be clearly understood in and communicated to a post-enlightenment culture, I have scoured the likes of political theologians, right and left, but mostly left. I have dabbled in liberation theology, only to find that it was as worldly, and defunct as the Bible Belt ideology I was raised in. I have read relativistic postmodern theologians, and emergent authors who tickled my ears, and found in the end, that that was all they did. All this to say that I have recently read a book that tickled my ears, but also warmed my heart with a renewed love and deeper understanding of my own treasured Christianity with its precious Gospel. The remainder of this post will be a quotation from that book by British missionary, pastor, apologist, and theologian Lesslie Newbigin called "The Gospel in a Pluralist Society". But before that I must say that I doubt that my struggle is over. There must always be struggle for the Christian trying ot live out the ideals of the next world in the world that he finds himself in. But we are already victorious in Christ, and in this faith, I stand strong, and am glad to proclaim that despite the struggle, I walk into the future with my basic faith in Jesus' cross and resurrection stronger than ever.

Quotation from "The Gospel in a Pluralist Society" from the chapter entitled "Principalities, Powers, and People"

"We are not conservatives who regard the structures as part of the unalterable order of creation, as part of the world of what we call "hard facts" beyond the range of the gospel, and who therefore suppose that the gospel is only relevant to the issues of personal and private life. Nor are we anarchists who seek to destroy the structures. We are rather patient revolutionaries who know that the whole creation, with all its given structures, is groaning in the travail of new birth, and that we share this groaning and travail, this struggling and wrestling, but do so in hope because we have already received, in the Spirit, the firstfruit of the new world. (Rom 8:19-25)...The soldiers in Christ's victorious army were not armed with the weapons of this age; they were martyrs whose robes were washed in blood. It was not that a particular Emperor was discredited and displaced; it was that the entire mystique of the empire, its spiritual power, was unmasked, disarmed, and rendered powerless. A conversion of individuals which failed to identify, unmask, and reject that spiritual, ideological power would have been futile as an attempt by Christians to wrest that power from is holders. Evangelism which is politically and ideologically naive, and social action which does not recognize the need for conversion from false gods to the living God, both fall short of what is required."

How To Preach Foolishness to the Learned.

A preacher is to preach the Gospel. The Gospel is the good news that Jesus died, was buried, rose again, and is coming again to receive His folk. Of course, explaining why the Gospel is good news is integral to preaching the Gospel. Keep in mind the teachings I use to explain the good news are not the Gospel itself. The Gospel is unchanging. The way I make it make sense in a given culture is flexible.
In preaching, I am trying to persuade people that the Gospel is good news for them and everyone. I realize that if one is not convinced of the historicity of Jesus' death and resurrection, that they cannot believe the good news. I do not believe that a skeptical person however must be convinced of the historicity of the Gospel, prior to believing the Gospel. I believe that they may believe the Gospel on grounds that do not line up exactly with the skeptical worldview, and change their skepticism from the inside out. But I do not believe that it must happen that way either.
For these reasons I think that proofs for the existence of God are often overemphasized by preachers of the Gospel.For instance, while a person must accept the existence of God when He accepts he or she accepts the Gospel, it may be that he or she believes in God because he or she believes in the Gospel. A person may see that the cross and resurrection explain the human life and purpose better than any other gospel and accept it even as an atheist (As they simultaneously cease to be an atheist).A person only has to call on the name of the Lord to be saved, so a good route for most common folk to take in their preaching of the gospel, lacking perhaps in formal academic education at a culturally legitimate university (not a Bible College), instead of trying to explain the teleological/ontological/cosmological proofs of the existence of God, (a passe' proof laughed at in the universities since the the 19th century), is to be a walking testimony of how the Gospel has changed their life for the better. Perhaps, most small churches, full of common folk, should concentrate more on understanding the kingdom that they're representing, and then working to live it out, than understanding passe' philosophical proofs, because there is a Holy Spirit who is able to open people's eyes to the truth of the Gospel without human wisdom. Perhaps, the Holy Spirit can use beautiful and meaningful redemption story of the church as a witness to the blind. This happens when we understand, talk, and walk the story.