May 1st, 2011 - Life Wins

It was May 1st, 2011 at 10:50 pm.

I was on my way back from Durham, having just gotten off the phone with my dad, when Allison called me.  "Did you hear the news?" she asked. "No." "Osama bin Laden is dead. It's all over twitter and the President is going to make an announcement."

I have to admit, my first response was to...smile.

I think I even said something like, "that's great!"

Because, you see, I remember sitting in 2nd period band when a school administrator came in and told us that our nation was under attack and that two planes had hit the World Trade Center in New York. I remember watching the Today Show, and I remember watching people jump to their death from the buildings.  I remember watching both buildings fall, live, on television.

And I remember thinking, "who would do that?"

Before 9/11, I didn't know anything about Osama bin Laden.  I didn't know a thing about al Qaeda.  But later that week, al Qaeda became the center of all our lives.

And I will admit that when I watch that clip of President Bush standing on that rubble saying, "I can hear you! And the people who knocked down these buildings will hear all of us soon!" I get goosebumps every time.
Every single time.

Because to me, a man who sent in OTHER people to kill 3,000 innocent Americans ought to be "brought to justice."

I once watched an episode of Oprah where she was talking about Timothy McVeigh.  I remember the story going that after he dropped that van off in the basement, he ran from the building. He got down the block before the explosion.  When it finally hit, he kept running. After it was over, he looked behind him and I'm almost positive that his quote was, "Damn, I didn't get all of it."

When I heard that Timothy McVeigh was arrested and sentenced to death, I smiled inside. Evil had been "brought to justice."

You can call me an evil person. You can call me unChristian.  You can call me a hypocrite. But, I'd rather refer to myself as "honest."

These people did horrible things to our world. And now they can't anymore. That gives me some sense of joy.

But immediately, I started questioning whether this sense of joy was proper or not.  Joy is not true joy unless it comes from the right source.  When I got home, I looked at the news and the first thing I saw was people flooding the White House with American flags wrapped around their backs screaming "USA! USA! USA!" I immediately had a flashback to all of those videos I've seen of Middle Easterners burning our flag.

I got on Facebook (which took awhile, I had deactivated it until finals were over) and all of a sudden, I saw thinks like "F&$@ you Osama!" and "WE GOT HIM!" and "Proud to be an American!" and "Rot in Hell!"

But, of course, I'm a Divinity student, so I also had interspersed within the news feed things like "Love your Enemies" and "Why do we celebrate the death of a human?"

And I was back to being torn.  Do I act as an American? Do I celebrate one more embodiment of evil finally being gone? Do I mourn that my fellow countrymen are celebrating in the death of someone? Do I remember Jesus' line about a giving him the other cheek? Do I try to reconcile some of the emotions I am feeling with the almost unbelievable message of the Gospel?

See, we were confused about the details at first.  We didn't know exactly if the mission was to kill or to capture (although most signs point to kill). We didn't know that night if Osama had shot back (although we know now that he was unarmed). We didn't know how all of it had gone down (although we know more almost every second now).

Sam Wells, of Duke Chapel, raised the point that Osama wasn't given a fair trial before his death. And my first thought is that I don't remember those on 9/11 getting a fair trial before their death. In fact, Osama seems to have been unarmed and unaware of what was going on when they shot him. In that sense, he has something in common with the people he killed on 9/11.

But I return to Jesus' command not only to love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, but also to the idea of fighting this concept of "an eye for an eye." To Jesus, I think the concept of returning a bad deed with a bad deed seemed stupid...because it did nothing but return violence with more violence (though Jewish law really seemed to have laid it out as a fair and balanced system). In Jesus' mind, I am confident, violence returning violence only escalates.

When I said as a child, "Isn't it wrong to kill someone by the death penalty?" I remember being asked, "Well, if someone takes someone else's life, do they deserve to keep theirs?"

And, daily, I struggle with this question.

How is justice defined? Do Americans get to decide what is just? Is justice the same thing as fairness? Does the fact that "life's not fair" play into this? Is governmental justice different than vigilante justice?

And I continue to return to one fundamental concept. For Christians, none of us deserve to keep our lives. But because of the death and resurrection, God has given us the gift of eternal life, one that goes beyond the one that we currently inhabit. And, if we learn anything from the resurrection, it is that life defeats death...in each and every sense. It's not just Jesus' death that was defeated. Death...has been defeated.

Because of that, I choose not to condemn the US for killing bin Laden. I choose not to preach to my fellow Americans who are simply acting according to their emotions. I also choose not to celebrate a murder.

Instead, I choose to focus on life eternal. I choose to focus on salvation.  I choose to focus on resurrection, because I know that the way that we sometimes view life and death here on earth is wrong.

If resurrection lives in us, which I believe that it does, then we celebrate the new life that God has given our country and world because an active doer of harm is gone. We also celebrate those who were under his leadership who didn't know what life really was, and now do. We celebrate the lives of the marginalized that are now able to think and act for themselves because there isn't a ruler over them who has extremist views and glorifies violence.

Sam Wells said we shouldn't celebrate. If we define "celebration" in the same sense that those who flooded the White House gates defined it, then I  agree.  But if we define celebration as taking comfort and joy in some form of new life here on earth, then I think the resurrection still lives within us and with that, the Word of God is still present.

Murder is wrong.

Life is good.

What a world we live in.

-B

Sam Wells Comments on "Celebration"

Great memo from Sam Wells of Duke Chapel regarding the death of Osama bin Laden. Well stated and thought provoking. You can read it here. I encourage you to read it more than once. While I agree with his statements almost whole-heartedly, I wonder about the mix of church and state and the influence a letter like this might have on civilization at large. Is it appropriate for pastors to comment on the ongoings of civilization? I would say, yes (given the virtue based content). But, the moment a pastor is interpreted as criticizing (and I'm not sure that he is, directly) the government (their decision to kill rather than to arrest and try), we have to think about how we are to interact with the world, as the Church.

Many pastors might preach about this, in some way, this coming Sunday. It would be unfortunate for them to use the opportunity to preach freedom, instead of life. I thought Revd. Dr. Wells did a phenomenal job of speaking the values of true justice and life (shown through his comments on justice and the setting of a trial) into a stern warning to our nation and our faith.

-B

UPDATE: Fred Phelps doesn't think we should celebrate either, but really for another insane, illogical, incomprehensible reason completely. Are you surprised?

Look Where Technology Has Brought Us

They watched it all unfold, halfway across the globe, in real time.Wow. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeA33hE8XfE&]

20110502-105138.jpg

20110502-105158.jpg

20110502-105212.jpg

"There was quite a bit of silence."

I think all in the room understood the gravity of what they had asked those SEALs to do.

-B

The Best American Idol

I got an email advertising this clip from YouTube tonight. Let's clear up a few things first: she sings the heck out of this. While she may be criticized for where she chooses to take breaths, it is beautifully and masterfully sung.

Watch the clip (it really is very good):

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLLMzr3PFgk&]

However, along with this clip, within the email...was this proposition:

"PLEASE watch and listen to the attachment of Carrie Underwood singing her heart out on "How Great Thou Art", I first saw it on T.V. last Friday night and she brought tears to my eye's and the audience to there feet, and I'll bettcha God heard her in Heaven cause if you watch her closely as she sings, she was singing to Him........."

The thing is, the song is great. Carrie is great. It is well done by both her and Vince.

But I wonder if this song, in this context, is being performed as a hymn or simply as a spiritual song. Is there a difference?

I don't doubt that she was singing to "Him" but I wonder if the applause from that crowd was for God, or Carrie, or both.

An honest question, I'm not sure how I feel about it.

No matter who the applause and praise was for..."I bettcha God heard her in Heaven." I'm pretty sure God hears everything. Especially words sung in praise to God.

-B

Can The Church Be Innovative?

One of the best shows on TV, in my opinion, is Modern Family. But that's not the one I want to talk about. That is, also on ABC, Shark Tank.

For those who aren't familiar with the show, it goes a little something like this: An inventor or someone with a "good" idea or product needs financial help. They may need financial help to be bailed out of the debt they've incurred upon themselves, they may need it to grow the business. Whatever the case, they need financial help for their business and so they seek an investor to invest in them and their product in exchange for a percentage of equity in the company or product.

Think of it like this: Joe Schmo makes really cool socks. And his sock business has been booming. It's been selling so well that he cannot meet the orders that he is getting, and so he is forced to make customers wait for the product (weeks, maybe months...sound familiar Apple?). So, in order to meet demand and not turn customers away, he comes and asks the group of investors (referred to as "Sharks" on the show) for, let's say, $50,000 in exchange for 20% of his business. The idea is that the idea and product are so good that with the Sharks' help, the business will grow and both people will make lots of money.

In fact, that's the goal...make money. One shark in particular, Kevin O'Leary, makes that point very clear. He isn't interested in stories of heartache and suffering. If he can't make money, he isn't interested at all, no matter whose feelings he hurts.

I've struggled with why I like this show so much.

I think it is exciting. I think it is a neat idea, and to be honest...when a really good idea comes along, the show is breathtaking.

Then, last night I was reminded of one of Jesus' message while putting away laundry watching Godspell. You know the one, about not serving two masters...God and money in Matthew 6. The Greek word used is "μαμωνα" which I think is borrowed from Aramaic and is most often translated "money" or "wealth."

If we agree to work off of that translation (and not the one of the personified Mammona), we can see the rationale for people in ministry attempting to live a life of non-wealth (I personally think that describing American pastors as living a life of "poverty" is unfair and untrue). We can understand why many pastors and Christians get upset at pastors like Joel Osteen. We can also see why many pastors feel comforted when they hear of Rick Warren serving his church for free (although let's be real, Warren is making plenty with his book...it's just that by most accounts he tries to tithe most of it back to the church).

Keeping that in mind, back to Shark Tank. As someone who admittedly has issues with the wealth of the world and collecting products (I should really count how many Apple products I own sometime), my first reaction to this realization that these two worlds might possibly be incompatible was to come down on myself as being a gluttonous pig. While I'm not saying that isn't true, it still didn't feel like the right answer to me.

So I thought, what is it that I like about Shark Tank? Why am I so intrigued by Apple and the tech industry?

I realized: innovation.

I like the idea of progress. I like the idea of humans using their minds to be creative. I like the idea of humans truly pursuing their callings by inventing things. And I'm not saying all innovation is good, but I do think it has helped all of our lives (even those who think that things were always more authentic and better way back when). Some forget that the very Scriptures we read were written down on a paper like material...and copied over and over, all a form of technological progress.

And that's why I like Shark Tank. The people that come and bring in companies and products are innovating, for the most part.

But it occurred to me, the world and life-centering ideology of money and the inspiration for innovation go hand in hand. In our capitalistic American society, people innovate because they want to find a way to sell their invention and make money...lots of it (and save me the arguments about people like Jonas Salk, who are obviously the exception to the rule).

And if we function off of the rationale that these two function together, my question becomes: where is the Church? Are people inspired to innovate for the Church?

There was a time when the Church influenced the culture. Sometimes, that was paired with the Church ruling over others' lives without their sayso or freedom. Today, the Church doesn't seem to have much influence on the culture.

It seems to me, in these days, that the Church has also lost its interest in innovation. We study tradition (for good reason) and then sometimes we sit by the tradition and have it speak for itself. But we have forgotten that the Gospel is what needs to speak for itself. While the tradition of the Church has brought quite a bit of positive influence of the Church, it has also destroyed many many many people's faith in God. Our tradition is good, but it is also bad.

The churches that ARE innovating these days are drawing large crowds. And they get looked down on for that. Unfortunately, because often these churches have innovated in new forms of worship with the intention of drawing more people in, to collect more money. They sell their products outside the services. (I can't remember so well, but I seem to remember Jesus not liking that idea.) So these churches aren't truly innovating for the church, they're innovating like Americans innovate...for money and money alone (and probably to "save souls").

Maybe, then, the question is less about the Church innovating...and more about letting the Gospel innovate through the Church. At least, I sure hope that's what it is.

-B

Goodbye Music Industry?

About a year ago, Mashable posted the Infographic below.  I'll explain what it is, then you can have a look at it. It outlines how digital music has affected the music industry's profit models. With the advent of streaming services becoming more and more prevalent in our worlds and lives, you can quickly see how many times an artist has to have their song aired on a streaming service to make minimum wage ($1160 a month).

However, it is a bit of a loaded graphic because EVERYONE knows that artists don't make their money from album sales, they make it from touring and getting other artists to sing their songs (royalties is where the money is).

Another point to throw out as well: is the invention of home recording software making it easier and easier for artists to create their own work and sell it? Are independent artists able to market themselves like record companies can market? Can streaming music services like Pandora, Spotify, Rdio, and Mog help do some of marketing for an independent artist?  You can probably answer all of these yourself. You will probably notice that these answers don't really correspond or get along with each other.

I think the bottom line is this: while record companies have been getting rich off of artists' talent for years because they were willing to risk the capital up front, they have been unable to continue on that profit path because the original Napster and other P2P networks came through and made it incredibly easy to steal (I have argued before that this might be because the record companies failed to innovate). Trying to find a way to fix this, companies that didn't care about the profitability of the record companies (like iTunes by Apple) came through and figured out a way to do this digital download stuff legally.

Record companies lost out. Because of that, artists lost out. And because those responsible for the content creation have let others innovate for them, they've lost even more.

Friends, it is time for the music industry to innovate with new models THAT THEY CONTROL of profit gain so that they can be sustainable.  If this doesn't happen soon, the whole industry might close up shop.

See graphic below.-B

I Had To Jump...

...off of the GaGa train. First, it was this.

Then her new single, "Judas" came out. I don't know exactly how I define "antichrist" but I'm starting to believe that GaGa is getting scary close.

I've  sifted through these lyrics over and over trying to find a different way to interpret it. Can't. Do. It.

She mixes all kinds of stories centering around Jesus to point to (I think) the fact that she is in love with some sort of sin. I get that. But I think it was poorly timed with Holy Week (I'm sure that's exactly why they did that) but I think she has mixed a few too many things with a story I'm not positive she has complete understanding of.

Proof point: "In the most Biblical sense, I am beyond repentance."

Hopefully someone can enlighten my interpretation of the song. I'd like to a hear a non-biased interpretation that finds her point among the trash mixed in.

I choose not to post the lyrics.  Find them yourself.

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

-B

Apple Employees: It Gets Better

A contribution to the It Gets Better campaign by employees of one the best, most thriving companies in the world. Masterful, masterful work.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWYqsaJk_U8&]

If being gay is still thought of by some to be some sort of conscious decision to go against "God's will," I don't know how to respond to those people.

I look into the eyes of these people as they tell stories and share feelings about how they felt like they couldn't be loved or accepted. And then, the turn of joy when they admit what they deal with and embrace it. That, my friends, is the love and joy that I think Christ was talking about.

For all out there who are struggling with who they are, just hear them well: you'll be able to discover who you are and it will get better.

-B

How Hard Is It To Get Into PS22?

PS22 choir singing at the Lincoln Center for an Eric Whitacre event. Singing the arrangement of "Daniel" from one of the last videos I posted. Personally, I think this soloist is much better.

Interesting to see their teacher playing on what looks like at least a 9 foot Steinway grand piano standing up trying to play/direct.

If you get to the end of the song, you'll see Eric Whitacre's visit to the green room. Seems like a cool guy.

If you didn't already know, Whitacre is a big fan of YouTube and different ways for choirs to interact with each other. I think it is particularly interesting that PS22, who have a different approach to choral singing (specifically in younger children), and Eric Whitacre, who has a different approach to choral arranging and is becoming fairly progressive with the use of technology to move the art form forward, are together here. I'd love to see Eric work with these kids and the fruits that would come from this work. As far as I'm concerned, there are big talents here.

Still love the arrangement.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECa1ITTG_as&]

And oh yeah, how hard is it to get into PS22? Evidently...pretty hard.

-B

Stop The Bullying

When P!nk's song "Perfect" released, I knew it'd be huge. In P!nk's music video, she tells the story of a cutter, someone who is depressed about who they are and where they are. The idea of the song is that whoever you are, you are beautiful and perfect. The video tells the story in a graphical way. I really enjoy following Ahmir on YouTube. They are an R&B group that does a lot of covers and posts them on YouTube. Phenomenal singers.

This video, a cover of "Perfect" uses the words of the songs to speak out not about a woman who isn't good enough, but rather about children who are being bullied in our communities. It stretches out and includes racial and ethnic backgrounds.

It's well done and pleads with the emotions of the viewer.

What I love so much is the phrase that came up at the credits, "Bullying is a learned behavior." Because of that, I believe bullying to be entirely preventable.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gliHyklHr6c&]

Those bullied must be taught to speak up. Both for themselves or others. Those who bully must be taught that their self worth does not come from their humiliation of a classmate.

Once our culture learns to treat each other with respect, dignity, and love, we will find that our true sense of self worth comes from a higher source and not from any comparison here on earth.

People deserve to be treated like people.

That's true in oppressive countries. That's true in countries without basic amenities. That's true in areas with hate crimes. That's true in our churches.

And it is definitely true in our nation's schools.

If our children learn this behavior, they might never unlearn it.

I've been bullied. And I've bullied. If one thing is true, it's that this isn't just a problem with our children. It's a problem with our culture. And it's our problem. And we've got to own that. Immediately.

Stop the bullying. Now. StopBullying.gov

-B

The New Music Business

20110408-105413.jpg

Mashable posted the above graph earlier today outlining what would have happened if peer-to-peer file sharing services such as Napster, Morpheus, LimeWire, Vuze, etc had never existed. Given the above chart, the support seems to be in the music industry's favor.

They claim a loss of $55 billion since the inception of Napster. They are suing LimeWire right now for a loss of income (and thus a decline of the business model) and if guilty, LimeWire is going to owe Sony and Warner in the billions of dollars. Billions, with a "B" as Kevin O'Leary says.

This story reminds me of when Bon Jovi blamed Steve Jobs as having single-handedly killed the music industry. If anything (given the chart above), Steve Jobs helped give the industry a fighting chance.

To me, this brings up several questions regarding the role of technological innovation in the production of content.

Are the file sharing companies responsible for the dying business model? Or is the music industry's refusal to move forward, with thoughts and progression technologically, to blame?

I'm not quite sure of the answer here. There is no doubt in my mind that the file sharing services have hurt the industry, but digital music was becoming more relevant with the iPod and all of a sudden carrying your entire CD collection around with you (having to switch cds in and out) seemed impractical. The music companies were against this entire process because it placed music files into places where they could not only be shared (no one has ever borrowed someone else's cd right?) but edited, morphed, and uploaded to sites like YouTube.

It made the music...interactive.

Napster (and those like it) created a sense in America that you didn't have to pay for content. iTunes has successfully changed that. But, they neglected the idea of an album to do it.

So, in a sense, Steve Jobs did ruin the music business (because the entire industry was based upon selling $15 cds that people bought to hear 2 or three songs).

Or, if you are me, you see it as progress of technology blowing open a lucrative business model that was based off selling things to people that they didn't want, and then jacking up the price.

It would be as if the grocery store told you you could only buy the good bananas if you bought a group of them (of which only two were really enticing) and they charged you $15 for the group. If people could find a way to get the bananas one at a time, they would (even if it meant stealing). Either that or the banana business would go downhill.

And, that, is why bananas are sold by what you choose, by the weight. You only pay for what you like.

If the music industry would wake up to this reality, their business model would change and again be able to afford to stay in business and grow. I love the music industry, so I hope they do.

Sometimes things change. You must change with it or it will redefine you. And then you die.

-B

Obama's Got an iPad

"Jorge, I'm the President of the United States...you think I gotta borrow someone else's computer?" [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-WC2TgWwrE]

Ha. In fairness, there was a huge deal made of Obama's blackberry back when he was elected.

I can see the dangers of having a personal communications device when you are the President.

But, the world is changing and yes, Presidents will need to have their own iPads.

I wonder what his favorite app is.

UPDATE: YouTube's integration sucks with some videos.  You can watch it here.

-B

Bashir vs. Bell

I'm near the end of reading Harnack and needed a break. Duke is up by 12. Hopefully this will end well. I was told to watch Rob Bell's interview with Martin Bashir on MSNBC. Googling it, I ended up at our favorite (sarcasm) blogger's site, Justin Taylor's Gospel Coalition, where he graciously linked the YouTube video. Please, before going on, watch the interview below.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg-qgmJ7nzA]

A few things must be made clear in order to move from point A to point B:

  1. Shame on MSNBC for having Martin Bashir interview Bell.
  2. Shame on them for airing it.
  3. Shame on Bashir for his interview tactics.

And I'm serious.  I had to watch the clip three times.

Taylor refers to Bashir in this way, "Martin Bashir is a reporter impatient with evasive answers." I argue: Martin Bashir is a reporter who has his own agenda and wants to zing his interviewee. Moreso than ought to be acceptable in journalism. (I'm a fan of hard hitting journalism, but Bashir is worse at it than most and leads the interviewee into questions that are often unanswerable because he begins with presuppositions that aren't true to the interviewee...not sarcasm)

First of all, like all great journalists (sarcasm), Bashir begins with a line that is framed around bloggers and writers' opinions of the book and not necessarily off of the book itself. He says, "Bell says that ultimately all people will be saved, even those who've rejected the claims of Christianity..." Congrats Bashir, good way to hook the audience (sarcasm).

Then, because it is appropriate to focus a religious leader on Japan (not sarcasm), Bashir asks Bell about Japan--posing the question, "Which one of these is true: Either God is all powerful but [God] doesn't care about the people of Japan or [God] does care about the people of Japan and isn't all powerful.  Which is it?" Bell answers saying that God is Divine and that the message of the Scriptures is that God will fix this place and renew it again. Most likely frustrated that Bell didn't answer his unanswerable question (even Jesus spoke in metaphors), Bashir asks his question again. Bell responds that this is a paradox at the heart of the Divine.  "Some are best left exactly as they are" Bell says. Knowing that this paradox is a reality, Bashir backs off the question.

Then he asks if Bell is a "Universalist." Bell says no and points out that Christians have disagreed about this speculation (whether or not ALL will be saved) for ages.

Then it gets good.

Bashir asks the question that he will harp on for the rest of the interview: "Is it irrelevant, or immaterial, about how one responds to Christ in this life in terms of determining one's eternal destiny." Bells says, "It is extraordinarily important."  Bashir responds immediately (interrupting) that in Bell's book he says that "God wins regardless in the end."

I think it is at this point that Bell realizes that Bashir and he are operating on two different mindsets, two different paradigms of thinking.

Bel says, "Love wins, for me, is a way of understanding that God is Love and love demands freedom." Bashir says, "You are asking for it both ways, that doesn't make sense." While I might argue that yeah, Bashir, it doesn't "make sense," because the idea behind a God who puts its children on earth and those people fall away from God and God still chooses to save them doesn't "make sense"...it is not my point. Bell isn't asking for it both ways.  Bell is asking for a new way of thinking.

Bashir repeats the question. Bell says it is terribly relevant. "Now, how exactly that works out in the future, we are now...when you die...in speculation." Going on explaining himself Bel basically says that entire Dogmas have been written and designed around this, which seems to be logical speculation. (I actually think this is a weak answer from Bell and perhaps without the TV cameras and the elusive British accent, he may have responded in a way that makes more "sense")

OOOH. Then Bashir says, "I'm not asking what happens when you die, I'm asking about the here and now." Oh Bashir, how messed up you are. YES YOU ARE. You ARE asking about what happens when you die because the question you are asking revolves around the idea of what happens when you die! You're asking that if your response to Christ's love matters in the here and now.  AND you're functioning off of the assumption that that response secures you in either Heaven or hell.  So, yes, Bashir. You ARE asking about what happens when you die.  And it is to that point that Bell is responding.

Bashir continues to ask, "Does it have a bearing or not have a bearing, how you respond to Christ now, to determine your eternal destiny."

I think Bell is making the point that you have to "know" what's going to happen when you die...and you can't. However, for Bell, that doesn't make how you react to God's love irrelevant. (I might argue that it is indeed necessary...simply because Jesus commanded it.)

"It has tremendous bearing" Bell messed this up (Cameras, lights, and British again). I'm not totally sure that Bell actually thinks it has a huge bearing.  I think he DOES think it is relevant. (Again, I think this can be explained inside of Jesus' calling and command on our lives.)

Bell also says, "I assume God's grace give people space to work those things out." Some may think, including Bashir, that this is a cop out answer.  To which I respond: Saying this is a cop out answer assumes that you don't allow God's grace to move and work in the world.  Because this entire faith is built off of a grace, one that surpasses understanding, I might argue that you have nearly disqualified yourself as a "Christian." It's not a cop out...it's an explanation (or at least an attempt) at wrestling with the many questions of life that are unclear.

Bashir quotes a critique of Love Wins: "'There are dozens of problems with Love Wins.  The history is inaccurate, the use of Scripture is indefensible.' That's true isn't it?"  To which Bell obviously responds, "No." Does Bashir really expect Bell to admit that his factual information is wrong? I'm not sure.

The kicker: "Why do you choose to accept the works of the writer Origen and not Arius..."

While I haven't read the book (Divinity School is time consuming), haven't compared the historical notes (and typically Bell's books and messages are well backed up and researched...even perhaps moreso than others...), the assumption of understanding Origen over Arius is assumed because while both were controversial at times, Arius is understood to have believed that not only is the Son subordinate, but also did not believe in Trinitarian theology and thought the divinity of the Father was over the Son. This is typically considered somewhat heretical and so...my point...BASHIR OUGHT NOT LEAD THE QUESTION AND ASSUME THAT IT IS "TRUE" WITHOUT ASSUMING THAT BELL OPERATES UNDER TYPICAL PROTESTANT CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES LIKE THE BELIEF IN THE TRINITY. Bashir should not assume anything as a journalist, but if he does...he has to be fair about what he assumes.

I thought Bell was going to handle this. But...he went a different way. I think this was a mistake on Bell's part.  He started, "Well, first and foremost because I am a pastor." However, he went on to talk about a personalized side of the pastoral role rather than emphasizing the doctrinal thoughts and principles. Unfortunate.

I wondered why Bashir went back to the, "That's true isn't it?" line. Here's my hypothesis: Bashir thinks Bell is a hipster pastor who is changing the Gospel to serve a purpose and in that process the Gospel is watered down and destroyed (he actually uses this as an argument later). Bell doesn't think so. But, it doesn't matter because Bashir has his own agenda. He later says that Bell has tried to make the Gospel more "palatable" for contemporary people who find the idea of Heaven and hell hard to stomach. Then the line, "That's what you've done haven't you?" And Bell says, "No. I spend an entire chapter in the book talking about hell."

I imagine that if Matt Lauer were interviewing Bell, he would've asked "Have you done that?" Instead of "That's what you've done, haven't you?"

There is a huge difference.

The long and short is that Bashir has an agenda, something every good journalist should have (sarcasm), and wants to appear as "hard-hitting" and so he asks leading questions (poorly disguised I might add), that do no give justice to the discussion and rather try to catch a writer in his tracks.  This is poor journalism and does nothing but provide viewers to your television show. This, perhaps, is one thing that is wrong with the world at hand.

Shame on Bashir.  Shame on MSNBC.  Give the man an opportunity to defend himself in a way that is fair and just.

-B

The Church vs. the church

I wrote a paper recently where I referred to the Reformation and I needed to be clear about capitalization of a few key terms.  So I asked.  The answer I got basically said that the Catholic church has capitalized "Church" and so because of that, reformed churches do not capitalize "church" because they are not referring to "THE Church" but rather to "church." Since I began this blog, I've been capitalizing "Church."

I thought I knew why at first. Since then, I have wondered about the significance this might bring about.

I remember learning, in high school, about the difference between "Communism" and "communism." "communism" was the ideal. "Communism" was what actually happened (think dictators and more non-communal type leadership efforts that created a bad name for communism and socialism among most of today's conservative Americans).

To me, in light of understanding the concept of Big C communism vs. Little C communism, I've had to reflect on the significance of the capitalization.  Because, as is true in every language, the words that you use and the way you place them and conjugate them signify and often mimic what you intend to say.  Even in my brief study of Greek in order to learn to read the New Testament, I have learned how certain interpretations of words can change entire theological ideas.

So my gut reaction, after hearing the explanation that the Catholic Church is referred to as "The Church," was to be pissed off. Who says they get to claim the proper noun?

Much of the language that many of the early Christians used, especially those around the time of Luther who did not agree with the dissenting voices, involved the idea of the "true church." Somehow, because the Catholic Church had some apostolic tradition and had been in existence since the beginning (many consider Peter to be the first papal type voice), their traditions were right and though there were many issues that came up...the "universal" (credit to Ignatius?) church was still worth sticking with.  Before the days of video cameras, copy machines, and computers, much emphasis was placed on the succession of traditions and documents. It all mattered where things came from and whom (who? The English language is so confusing) things came from.

The idea is dead simple: because I wasn't there with Jesus, I must try to understand those who were with him. This was important for the early church and it ought to still be important today. (I've always wanted to write a post about how stupid the Gospel of Peter is for attempting to try to pin Peter's name to it to give the document authority. What a bad practice.)

However, to me, the Reformation (both in parts of Europe, including England) changed that. Because we had a Canon, and the Catholic church had some unfortunate leadership, churches split off. Some maintained some traditions, some didn't. And, in 2011 we have a whole mess of churches that call themselves Christian churches.

When I refer to the "Church," I refer to the body of Christ (and purposefully I leave that "body" not capitalized).  For me, despite different traditions and understandings of Scripture, anyone who claims Christ and has confessed of their sins and accepted the love and grace is a part of the Church (this includes, but is not limited to: Catholics, Westboro Baptists, Methodists, persecuted Asian churches,  Calvinists, Church of Christ-ers, casual Catholics, casual Protestants, youth, women, Black churches, and more.)

**To me, it doesn't have ANYTHING to do with discipleship. Is discipleship a necessary trait in someone who follows Christ? Of course. They help make up the "Body" of Christ (see, capitalization).**

Here is the issue: if we continue to think of the crazies as some other sort of body, some other entity, we miss the boat and we end up with the same situation as the Islamic people today (i.e. they won't let us build a building of worship wherever we want).  The world paints them and us with the same brush: Westboro Baptists = Christians.

To me, anyone who would call themselves a Christian helps to make up The Church.

And The Church is in trouble. Why? Because as it stands right now, the Western part of The Church (mainly Euro-American bodies) is the body of Christ.  And we need to be the Body of Christ.

Can we continue to use the word "catholic" as "universal"? It seems to be that unity needs to be #1 priority and so when we talk about the future, we ought to use one term and all get behind that in order to move forward.

I think God has such high hopes for The Church.

-B

Sermon as Performance?

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjXYlwvS5LY] Not minding the attraction of the word "sermon" to a clip shorter than many pop songs, is this overproduced? Is it too much? How much of that is Bell's intention rather than the intention of the video producer?

Rob Bell is quite a speaker and teacher.

 

-B

Red Light Cameras

Warning: Some of these are hard to watch.

Every once in awhile I get an email that actually is worth sharing in a way that is uplifting.

Here is what I have to say:

Do not run red lights. No hurry you are in is ever worth your life or the life of another.

ALWAYS enter intersections with caution, being aware of your surroundings and traffic intersecting you. Never trust another driver to take care of you, watch out for yourself.

If you run a red light and get caught, you get what you deserve. If you don't get caught, remember that Red Light cameras don't save lives. Only you can prevent an innocent life from being taken.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qvXbIenivk&]

-B

Patriot Network TV

This guy is a community college professor in Arizona. His whole premise is that Obama is going against the American people by siding with the drug cartels and filing a lawsuit to stop Arizona's illegal immigration codes (SB1070) from going through. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsH8xvjTAlo]

Only a few comments:

  • "Let that sink in."  How about, no.
  • The President should never be referred to as "Mr. Obama," but rather, "President Obama."
  • The uses of the words "patriot" and "great Americans" imply that others against the movement are not either. I hate that.
  • Videos that are intended to be seen as off the cuff speeches (no obvious TelePrompTers) are always more effective when they also appear unedited.
  • "You're next." No. Please don't compare illegal immigration to the Holocaust. It is offensive, severely offensive.
  • It sounds like he has been hanging out with Sarah Palin for too long.
  • His watch would be cooler if it played music.
  • Arizona's racism and harsh attitude toward illegal immigrants is so last year.
  • I still say that our ancestors immigrated illegally here. The Natives hated it.

-B

Let My People Go

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_emuOVvlbU&] Not completely sure what they are saying but from what I could find it was either, "God is great" or "Mubarak down down."

This is a mess. A real mess.

When has government oppression and violence ever led to peace among a nation? Unfortunately, at this point, one of the ways I can see this getting fixed is by more substantial violence. If the US can stay out of it, we will be lucky(but perhaps wrong). When authoritative vans go out of their way to run over protestors, we are in big trouble.

If it is democracy that they want, they all (government and people) need to understand that peaceful demonstrations are an integral part of our success here. Think MLK Jr over Malcolm X.

Will it work? I'm not sure.

-B

People That Impress Me

We are not who we are until we discover who it was that made us who we are. Then, and only then, can we live into the reality of who we are and where we are going. To deny influences in our lives is just silly. For me, I have a lot of respect for the brilliant. I have a lot of respect for the movers and shakers in our world. These people have helped define our culture and because of my obsession with the impact that culture makes on our lives, I cannot help but be incredibly impressed with them and their work. Many of these below are not "righteous" people and did not stand for a purpose that we consider right. It is impossible however to deny their gifts and talents.

Whether or not I agree with them, these are people who impress me. In no particular order, off the top of my head, and I am sure the list it largely incomplete. I haven't even googled the names, so my apologies for misspellings.

Those that impress me:

Jesus Christ Howard Stern Leo Laporte Steve Wozniak Julia Roberts Bill Gates JS Bach Nolan Ryan Adolf Hitler Eminem Meryl Streep Steve Jobs Rob Bell David Crowder Joe Torre Andy Crouch Keith Olbermann Rush Limbaugh Paul Michael Jordan Louie Giglio Michael Jackson Tim Russert Eugene Peterson Jonny Ive Ellen Degeneres Kobe Bryant Franklin Delano Roosevelt Constantine Moses Chris Tomlin Mark Zuckerberg Larry Page Babe Ruth Asa Candler Mother Teresa Barack Obama Bill O'Reilly George Washington Job Thomas Jefferson Aaron Sorkin Leonardo DaVinci William Shakespeare Darlene Zschech TobyMac Matt Lauer Shane Claiborne John Wesley Warren W. Willis Diane Sawyer Beethoven Kevin James Norman Rockwell Benjamin Franklin Ruth Rick Warren Ray Romano Francis Chan Moses Hogan B.o.B Ricky Gervais Anne Frank Bruno Mars Michael W. Smith Billy Graham Ted Williams Steven Curtis Chapman Joel Houston George W. Bush Dan Marino Henry Ford Thomas Edison Dan Brown JK Rowling Stephanie Meyers Taylor Swift Kanye West Mark Driscoll John Gruber Charles Wesley Albert Einstein King Tut Peyton Manning Napoleon George Lucas Tom Hanks Ann Curry Jack Mason Peter Sean Parker Sergei Brin Jackie Robinson Martin Luther Martin Luther King Jr. JFK Abraham Lincoln My family

-B