Wikipedia's Take on Sarah Palin's "Blood Libel"

If you haven't heard about the controversy of Sarah Palin's map from months ago in relation to the Tucson shootings on Saturday, you've been under a rock. With a few small statements here and there Palin had not said much in regards to the event or how some of her comments etc may have heightened the violent political climate in this country.

This morning she did when she tweeted this:

America's Enduring Strength http://fb.me/Sa5S5hrd

In it, she compared the political reaction regarding her to a "manufactured blood libel" and since that moment, "blood libel" has been a trending topic on twitter. In fairness, you can't expect her or her writing staff to know what blood libel means or the severity or controversial understanding of the term. They're not Jewish.

If you care, you can follow that link above and read the text of her "speech" as well as see the video (if you want a really good laugh).

If you care more, you'll probably end up on Wikipedia under blood libel. I did. I found this (it is unfortunate that this will surely be changed, but I must have hit it right at the right time):

In 2011, Sarah Palin, a quitter and no longer relevant political figure, reinserted herself into national spotlight and used the term without any idea of the meaning. This action reaffirms the American public and the world of her incompetence and stupidity.

Oh. Man. How could it get any better?

-B

On Marketing the Church

If you talk to a lot of people, especially church people, you'll get a lot of mixed responses about marketing and its relation to the church. Many many people think of marketing as a negative word.  Many many other people think that marketing is a reality, whether good or bad. Rob Bell has a quotation in Velvet Elvis that speaks about how upset he was when someone from the church that he was starting put a sign up advertising the church. He said something like "the words marketing and church can't be in the same sentence."

I bought into this theory for awhile. People have to want to come to church. No amount of commercials or billboards are going to bring them in. Sounds like a righteous argument right? If our intentions are the best, then people will want to come to church.  They will just have to.  As far as getting them there, God will take care of that.

My issue here is that I just don't see it working.

I've had the blessing now to help start two churches. Both very different, in different parts of the country. One has been around quite awhile and has struggled with many issues. One is still pretty new but has not shown any signs of huge growth.  Both have moved buildings when the first wasn't working. Both are in communities that don't allow for signs to be placed on the street.  Both are in communities that have tons of houses that house people that work in the surrounding cities. Both are surrounded by many churches. One committed itself early on to being a "contemporary" modeled church.  The other considers itself "eclectic", merging hymns and praise songs with traditional liturgy.

The second church spends lots of money sending out mailers to the surrounding neighborhoods in hopes of inviting more people to church. My initial reaction to this process (besides knowing that your response will be anywhere below 0.5% of all of the mailings you do) was one of Bell's fancy. Marketing? Church? How can they mix?  Are we trying to sell something? (You can read my take on whether or not the church has products here)

The answer (for new churches at least, and I would imagine almost for all) is...yes. We are trying to sell something. Because the more people come in, the more offering is given.  The more offering is given, means the more work that can be done to advance the Kingdom. The more work that can be done to advance the Kingdom, the more the church can live out its role. Don't believe me or disagree on principle? Ask any pastor who has been faced with a snow day or hurricane day. The decision to "cancel" church for Sunday means one thing: loss of offering.  It is even worse for those years that Christmas or Christmas Eve falls on a Sunday. Some churches refer to it as "low Sunday" (along with the week after Easter) because the attendance will inevitably be down. A low attendance means a low offering. Churches are like clubs, dues are necessary to keep them rolling.

I can tell that many seminarians are grinding their teeth at this point, but it is a reality of ministry. If your church can't meet payroll, you are out of a job and the ministry will inevitably suffer.  I don't care how "just" your principle is.  New church starts struggle in America with the same struggles that new businesses have. You have to establish your product and name in order for people to be attracted to you. This is why restaurant chains are so successful, it is much easier to start in a new area.

So, living into this reality, the next obvious question to ask is about marketing. What role does quality marketing play in the renewal of a church body?

Everyone knows that the best form of marketing is word of mouth. People speak highly of you and people come.  IF what you have to offer is worth grabbing hold of (not meaning music and sermons...although those play a very real role in the attraction of new members) then people will come. It really isn't much more complicated than that.

I recently returned from Passion 2011.  Say what you want about Louie Giglio, in a world that appears like the Church is dying - Passion is still moving. Passion is known for marketing.  They put out albums, books, DVDs, etc. all with the intention of glorifying the name of God...and bringing people to their conferences. It seems to be working too (if you consider more attendees, "working"). Next year, they are going to combine the 22,000 students who meet every year in Atlanta with the other 10,000-15,000 that are meeting in Fort Worth with presumably many more who couldn't register and hold the event in the Georgia Dome. I think it houses somewhere around 70,000 people. We'll see if they get anywhere close to that.

Passion gets a lot of criticism about a lot of things. One of the biggest - money. They market and sell everything. I mean everything. And for awhile I bought into Bell's idea. This is ridiculous.  It is the church.  I don't need to see another video advertisement.

But then I saw this video: [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJnPnXmXk5k]

And I compared it to this video: [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ91eFAoJAk]

Both are simple.  Both have issues with them. One is noticeably "better" than the other.

And it occurred to me: Both are marketing. Given in different ways, both are marketing. Many United Methodists would disagree that the Church doesn't need marketing. But this video was sent out by the UMC. To market the conference.  I mean, really.

The reason marketing is necessary for us is because this is the way that humans take in information. You can tell someone about something. Or, you can show them. This is the role of marketing in the church. We have to tell and show people who we are. You may disagree with it on principle, but it is what it is. This may be unfortunate, but unfortunate is the way we have to live our lives sometimes.

The question then comes down to quality. Quality marketing triggers an emotional response. I think you can figure out which video above triggers the bigger emotional response.

If we confuse the ways of the world's money making with the Church, we will be pursuing a goal that does not align itself with the heart of God. IF, though, we take the principles that the world teaches because it better understands how sinful human beings relate to things and one another and use these to progress the Church, then we may learn something about ourselves and who God wants the Church to be.

Small churches are great. Small churches with clear mission statements are even better.  Small churches that are using evangelism to grow are even better. Small churches that meet solely in small groups may grow in their discipleship, but if they don't tell anyone about who they are, what they stand for, and what they think God is doing inside of them, they will die. Because people die. And unfortunately, the Kingdom work that that church had been doing dies with it.

And it doesn't need to.

-B

 

IN ADDITION - It is probably worth noting that the UM video is meant to encourage others to encourage young people.  Using word of mouth as well. Interesting use and direction.

Andre Rieu, "Classical" Music, Entertainment, and Art

[caption id="" align="alignright" width="300" caption="Image via Wikipedia"]The image represents André Rieu in Atlantic City[/caption]

If you've ever been bored in front of the TV and have stumbled upon PBS, you've probably seen Andre Rieu perform with his 5o-or-so member orchestra. The Today Show did a special on him last week an replayed it this morning. I couldn't find it online, but plenty of his performances are on YouTube.

In short, the sequence talked about how Andre was raised in a musical family and his father was a classical conductor. I assume that they were referring to the genre, not necessarily the actual Classical period.

Supposedly, Andre didn't like the "stuffy" atmosphere that was present in the Classical music world and sought to fix that because "music is an emotion" and served a higher purpose. I suppose you could say that Andre felt as if the uppity sense of the Classical world and the fans of it ("that pop music is just too...catchy")was destroying the culture of the art and he desired to make it a fun experience. If you watch any of his performances on PBS, you'll know that there are all kinds of parts added to the "show" to make it entertaining.

That's the word I was hung up on.  Entertaining.

When I studied music, I came to understand it as a form of art; it was sometimes in attractive forms, sometimes not...but still art.  Often, because it is a form of art that many people are not as skilled at, musical performances of any degree bear a sense of entertainment.  I enjoy going to recitals of singers who are better than me because I am not as good as them-I can learn from their performance and interpretations.  At face value, that logic would hold for a non singer...because someone who doesn't sing well is by definition not as good as the performer meaning that they would find a degree of entertainment inside of the performance.

However, if you have been to a "Classical" performance (recital or otherwise) in recent years and you observe the audience, you'll do well to glean a few details that might lead to a better understanding:

  1. If it is not an incredibly popular artist or series, most of the crowd will be at least in their 60's.
  2. Those who are musicians will be there with eyes wide open and critiques flowing.
  3. Those who aren't either a)Seniors or b)Musicians will be a few winks away from sleep.

Obviously these are generalized statements and will in no way hold true across every performance, but do have a ring of truth to them.

The logic from above just doesn't work. I've noticed it in the declining ticket sales of the Fine Arts Series in Branscomb Auditorium at Florida Southern. I've noticed it in conversations with others.  I've noticed it in observing performances and the audiences of them. Perhaps you have too.

I think the key is that a musician (or one who sympathizes...I know the broad statements seem a bit utopian-don't be offended) has a bit of a higher understanding about the composition, about the technique, and about the practice of performance.  This knowledge stimulates some sort of intellect that seeks to learn more. That learning is entertainment. It is enjoyable and will keep one who is intrigued by those thoughts on the edge of their seat at every phrase and breath.

But that's not the typical world. Most people don't understand. And because their idea of "good music" hinges around the backbeat and clever rhyming of words...this type of art is no longer as "entertaining" as it once was.

In the Baroque and Classical eras, music wasn't the "stuffy" thing we think about as now. It was meant for dancing.  It was meant as background music. It was meant for parties. It was an art form, but entertained as well. It was all they knew. Gradually, over time, this shifted. What would have been considered "catchy" melodies in Bach's time were replaced by "catchy" melodies in Beatles' music. Sure, people went to Beatles concerts, but as recordings were easier and easier to come by, people played that music at parties. Even now, you cannot walk into a club or bar where music isn't playing.

The interesting thing about Andre Rieu is that he appears to have caught it.  He seems to understand this disconnect between the art of years ago and the culture of today. In making it funny and adding showmanship he has made it "entertaining". He is incredibly popular.

What was funny about the Today show piece this morning is that they spoke about how the "Classical" world has turned their nose at Andre Rieu's efforts. They say it cheapens the art.

I try to be a little more positive. I think it brings an awareness back to a culture that forgot.

It probably only "cheapens" the art because our culture has been..."cheapened". The music on the radio today is much more simplistic than even Beatles songs. And The Beatles were known for having A LOT of catchy music (I mean, just compare their stuff to Dylan and you'll understand). But Andre Rieu is taking a form of art and entertainment that he enjoys and bringing it back to the masses in a way that will get everyone's attention. I don't think it can be considered "cheap" if it is referring back to the art of old.

Better yet: his main crowd...Seniors.

I guess I'm saying this: Artists tend to want to bring attention to the art that they view as "sacred". That's fine. But in the end it was just a creation by a human. Talented, brilliant, genius humans are born everyday.  Let's celebrate the past and the thoughts and art forms of old.  But let's also recognize innovation.  Let's call what is good good and what is bad bad.

And finally, let's all get over ourselves just a little bit.

 

-B

Texting While Driving

Short, yet emotional documentary that AT&T put together about the effects of texting while driving. Told by family, friends, and strangers who caused and were affected by texting while driving. One of the arguments made is that no one sees drinking while driving as something that is acceptable but almost all of us text and drive. With the advent of keyboard less devices becoming more and more popular, the dangers are multiplied. With drinking and driving, your vision is impaired. With texting, your vision isn't there at all. I'd almost rather have a drunk driver because they are most likely trying hard to pay attention and drive safely whereas a texting driver doesn't care.

[youtube=Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DebhWD6ljZs&]

About a year ago, I noticed this to be a problem in my own driving habits. I have thought many times that phones need a driving mode, where text messages are automatically responded to with a "driving" mark and don't even appear to the driver. It could be automatic so that whenever a driver enters a car, the phone can't not go into the mode. Unfortunately, this would likely only appear in top level phones and cars, something teenagers don't often have. Unless, I suppose, congress were to step in.

Personally, I use my phone as a GPS device, attached by suction cup to my windshield. I use voice control for calling and ipod control and the angle is such that I don't even like typing on it while parked. It has worked for me because I don't even consider responding unless I am at a light. I just wish I had a way to let the sender know I wasn't ignoring them.

If you were 23 more times likely to die doing any other activities, you wouldn't do them. So why do we do this?

I invite you to think about what measures you might put into place in your own driving habits so that you aren't even tempted to respond to a text message.

-B

Sarah Palin Posted This to Twitter...

Her quote:

SarahPalinUSA Think Obama's tax policies are wise? Watch this... http://youtu.be/Xj7nRc3_EG0

You know what occurs to me?  This is not the way our tax system works.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xj7nRc3_EG0]

I enjoyed reading the YouTube comments as well.  Some of my favorites:

Dear Lee, Please send this to Obama. 

If Sarah Palin likes it, you know it must be a gross simplification.

What would really happen if this was truly based on US tax policy is that Man #10 would take all sorts of tax deductions and tax credits and end up getting back $25 dollars, and then he'd fire of all his American drinking buddies, move his drinking operation overseas, and only lay out $15 dollars for drinks while still getting $25 back from Uncle Sam.

Sarah Palin sucks man, don't talk to her lee

If this took place in in a Tea Party bar the 4th and 5th guy would be complaining that they should all drink piss instead.

I love your eye contact with the camera

Do you think having books behind you gives you credibility? This story doesn't change the fact that wealth has been migrating from the middle class to the richest Americans over the past 30 years while jobs (not rich people) go out of the country.

This is the dumbest argument ever! Hypothetically, a poor man gets $100 income and a rich man gets $1million income. Both get a 20% tax refund. The poor man can use the $20 to feed his family, and the rich man can use his $200,000 to buy a new Bentley? Although proportionally, the tax breaks are the same, this tax breaks are so much more important for the poor than for the rich. Ever heard of the Law Of Diminishing Marginal Utility?

I have a problem with your bar stool story. In my experience the first 4 men do not drink for nothing but are PAID to drink. I know a guy who refuses to live with his girlfriend with whom he has 3 children. For this she is getting cash, housing, heating and food dollar assistanced from the government in addition to her part time job. And he spends his money on pot.

So the entire justification for the rich receiving higher tax breaks is that if they didn't they'd move away and stop paying taxes altogether?

The woman who posted this could be our next President.

Run for the hills.

 

-B

Apple in Education

[caption id="" align="alignright" width="300" caption="Image via Wikipedia"]The iPod family with, from the left to the rig...[/caption]

Brilliant, just brilliant.

Propaganda for sure, but still pretty great. Make sure to watch the videos.

I can speak, from experience, that GarageBand and iMovie has helped my father in school announcements, etc.  Yes, this technology was very possible before, but I think it is fair to say that Apple's implementation of iLife has brought the art of recording and editing audio and video to life for...children. How powerful.

It occurs to me that the integration, ease of use, consistency of not only the products alone, but the User Interface of them makes this an enjoyable experience for all.

My only question: What's the cost? Who pays for this? Seems to me that private schools might be the first to be able to implement this because of financial constraints.  They could most easily work it into the price of tuition.  I know of many schools (including Duke University) that have given an iPod or MacBook to each of their students when they enter college in hopes that they will use them for school activities (like iTunes U).

Here comes the future my friends.

 

-B

Merry Thanksgiving

Here's to the holiday that exists for thanks giving and is followed by the most self centered day of the year. By the way, who came up with the idea that Merry had to be associated with Christmas and Happy with every other holiday?

Hope your thanksgiving, however you celebrate it, is filled with thanks for the blessings in your life. Don't eat too much. You'll end up fat like me.

-B

It Goes On and On and On...

Cancer survivor is asked to show her prosthetic breast during a TSA screening. To be fair, flight attendants do have access to more of the plane than typical citizens, but very rarely have any access whatsoever to the cockpit throughout the flight. I do suppose that some sort of weapon could be stored in place of her breasts and thus requires screening.

This, though, appears to be a greater violation of privacy than others encounters with the TSA.

She must:

1) admit that her breast is a prosthetic

2) recount a time that is very possibly difficult for her to talk about and

3) actually present said fake breast so that it can be known that it is not a bomb or weapon.

All of this to do...her job...not to travel...but to do her job.

Has this gotten out of hand?

 

-B

Disgusting...3 Year Old Searched by the TSA

I'm not sure how you feel about National Security, but something tells me that this 3 year old didn't pose much of a threat. You can see the video here.

It literally made me sick to my stomach to see it.

I don't know the details, and all we are doing is taking this reporter's word for it, but this just seems disgusting.

The next question is, or perhaps should be, when will all of the media backlash force the TSA to reexamine these new x-ray machines?  How will they decided what constitutes too much?

If you'd like another story, read this account of the man who refused the new x-ray machines and the "groping".

What a world we live in.

-B

TSA: My First Cavity Search

TSA has been relatively unpopular recently with their changes of airport security that seem like huge invasions of privacy. The new book for kids:

Can anyone confirm that this is real?

-B

Patriotism

When we start equating patriotism with things like this instead of our old definitions I'll be happy. Just because someone stands for the pledge of allegiance, doesn't make them a patriot. It is, like soldiers, putting your actions where your mouth is.

You fight for this country? You are a patriot.

You help a child learn that hard work and discipline will make you a better person? You're a patriot.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzPQWL1J8wg&sns=em]

I don't know if this is some sort of promotional video that Auburn put together to publicize the social work of Cam Newton (there was lots of material like this for Tim Tebow).

In any event, people who give of themselves for others, no matter their profession or hobby, are patriots.

And it is about time this country came to this realization.

-B

Why does respect have to be used in this way?

We all respect those who have given of themselves to protect us overseas. Both liberals and conservatives.

So why do we have to shove this attitude of respect into people's faces?

A right is a right, and someone fought for it. We get it.

Don't make a child feel bad that his/her religious beliefs calls on them not to pledge their allegiance to the flag by ASSUMING that they aren't being respectful or patriotic.

This is how America ought to be different than the rest of the world.

-B

The Burn a Koran Song

If you make it all the way through this video...something is wrong with you. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKF1ifwB-FA]

"Barack Osama Homo Bin Laden"

This kind of stuff is still happening and unfortunately social media sites are giving credence to this type of talk and "entertainment".  Like it or not, this guy's YouTube channel gets views, not a ton, but it does.

It will get a few views because I posted it.  Does view count mean that it's good or right? You'll be tempted to say no, but think about whether or not you go to a restaurant that has no cars in the parking lot as opposed to a restaurant that is packed.

There is a reason things are popular.

This is a sad sad world.

-B

 

PS - For the record, I thought this was a joke.  As far as I can tell, it is real. Very real.

America as the "Force for Good"

Got this in an email. Thoughts? [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNUc8nuo7HI&]

Is America the force for good in our world?

Should it be the church instead?

Auschwitz was rescued by military forces, not peaceful forces. Is that a good thing? Would peace have ever prevailed?

What does it mean to be American in today's world?

Are we the same country with the same values that we had originally?

-B