"Not that": An Observation of 'Contemporary Worship'

The more and more people that I speak with that are at least remotely involved with church life, the more questions come up about my opinion and experience with 'contemporary worship.'   They like to pick my brain, ask my preference, and get a sense for how I feel like worship in the church ought to be.  Yes, they often have their own preconceived responses and notions regarding the style of music used within the Church. The questions range. "What do you think young people are into?" "Don't you think 'traditional' worship is a turn off for young people?" "Don't you think contemporary worship is too hoaky these days?" "Is it possible to plant a church that only uses traditional worship?" "Does Chris Tomlin every write any good songs?" "Don't you think hymns are just boring?" "What's the purpose of the flashy lights? To try to be something we aren't?" "Aren't choirs outdated?"

Contemporary worship, though, is the newcomer in this game.  In many ways, it has to prove itself.  Somewhere around 50 years ago or so, the Beatles invaded America, forever changing pop music and rock and roll. This, along with the decline of mainline church membership in the United States sparked new ideas.  People left the mainline denominations to be 'non-denominational' in an effort to do church differently.  That was the goal: do church differently.  Maybe then, perhaps, people might think about coming back.  If we just aren't 'that,' maybe they'll be more likely to come back.

In a sense, then, Contemporary Worship (with a common low-key liturgy and more culturally-relevant music) became "Not That" worship.  See that stuff the Methodists are doing?  We aren't that.  We're cool.  We're hip.  We're reaching out to young people.  We are meeting you where you are.  You can wear jeans to our church.  That's the way we are.

This type of church is the church that I was born into.  We still were a part of the big Baptist church downtown, but we were open to those who had never been to church before.  We didn't have cryptic creeds.  We didn't have strange liturgy.  We watched movie clips and played slide shows.  We had drama. Our pastor preached from behind a music stand rather than a pulpit.  I was born into a church that was trying to make church relevant to a society that it wasn't relevant to.  What we did, in the early 90's, was to be "not that."  For peope too intimidated or scared to attend traditional worship, we were "not that."  We called ourselves the "Seeker Service" so that those who were 'seeking' could find a place to feel at home.  Too intimidated by the choir robes and organ?  We aren't that.

So, if this is true, and it was truly meeting a need, why aren't all churches like that now?  Why are there young adults begging to go back to the traditional services? Why are large portions of people leaving NOT ONLY the mainline denominations, but also the nondenominational churches?  If being 'not that' was supposed to save the church, why are we drowning more than ever before?

I'll tell you why.  We stopped.

It isn't 1995 anymore. What was hip and cool then is not hip and cool now. What drew people in because it wasn't 'that' then, pushes people away now.  'Contemporary' has become a way of saying 'not that' and it has done so in a permanent sense.  This is why so many 'contemporary' services feel hoaky.  This is why many young people want to return to traditional worship.  This is why when you hear about contemporary worship, you ask yourself if it is emergent or 'contemporary.'   Oddly, those leading the traditional services never went out of their way to reach the young people and different generations; it's very much a "take it or leave it" situation.  Some choose, for many reasons, to take it. Many, sadly, are choosing to leave it.

'Contemporary' was great when it needed to be. But it is stuck now.  Sure, churches like Hillsong and movements like Passion are successful, but by and large 'contemporary' music in many (especially mainline) churches is simply stuck.

'Contemporary' has to move forward. 'Contemporary' has to continue to be what it's high and lofty goal was (an environment that allows those on the outside access to the inside) instead of what its not-so-just goal was ('not that').  It has to be as innovative as it once saw itself being.  It has to live into its title.

In order for us to justify our worship style, no matter how it exists, we need to be able to articulate it in a way that explands the Kingdom.  Otherwise, it has little reason for being. This is true for traditional worship.  This is true for 'contemporary' worship.  Our worship should be creative.  Our worship should be innovative.  Our worship should remind of of who we are.  Our worship should define who we are.  Our worship should convey to those within it that the Church is thriving, moving, changing, and growing disciples. Our worship should be, of course, worship...reflecting the God who breathes life to the people.

We cant have 'not that' from either side.  We need quality, strong, theologically sound worship in both environments (and perhaps more to come).  That's when it finally becomes quality worship and we can **finally** get out of the way.

-B

A Struggling Quest for Identity #GC2012

I thought about writing my reflections on the General Conference of the United Methodist Church 2012 here. I actually did write my reflections on it, for a class. Below are not those reflections. I figured that anyone reading this likely read my tweets and Facebook status updates throughout the conference's ongoings and is also likely unwilling to listen to me rant about something that to them seems trivial. So, instead, I thought I'd present what I see to be an overarching problem with the United Methodist Church.

The United Methodist Church, as it stands today, has one large problem: it doesn't know who it is.

The UMC (then the many forms of the methodist movement and the Methodist church) was both fortunate and unfortunate to have grown up around the birth of America. This means that values based on personal rights and liberties were, from the beginning of American Methodism, engrained into who the church was. To this day, this influence can be seen. The UMC still practices ways of democracy. The UMC constantly bickers about fairness and control of leading ecclesial (church) authorities. Let's face it: the UMC is a post-Enlightenment church heavily influenced by both the good and bad of American Christendom. It is not the Catholic or Anglican church and, to a very certain extent, is very proud of this reality.

The Methodist church in America has been through trial after tribulation after trial after crisis. Methodism in America has dealt with slavery. It has dealt with civil rights. It has dealt with feminism. It has dealt, and is dealing, with homosexuality. In fact with the exception of homosexuality, the UMC has been a leading charge in America, seeking to bring personal liberties and rights to all. It's as if 'all means all' has been written into a little bit of Methodism throughout America's narrative.

But, recently, Methodism has lost its cultural footing. As a church that once pressed the westward American movement, it struggles now to gain or maintain a foothold in what it used to have significant influence on: culture.

Simply put, the United Methodist Church is not culturally relevant anymore. It's not even, as a whole, socially relevant anymore. My diagnosis, again: it doesn't know who it is.

We've seen this before. After Steve Jobs left Apple (mid 1980's), the company began a downward spiral. It produced tons of products. It ventured into commercial areas it had never been. It tried new things without worrying about quality. It forgot the mission the Steves had set out for it since the beginning: make good products. Jobs used to tell this story about when he got back to Apple (late 1990's) where he asked the employees that had stayed why they had done so. Their response? "I bleed in six colors." (A harkening to the old Apple logo) They, evidently in the minority, could still sort of remember who Apple was.

Jobs used to tell this story alongside one about how he preached the future of Apple to his employees once he returned. He said that it became clear that if it was a zero-sum game and for Apple to win, Microsoft had to lose, it was clear that Apple was going to lose. "Apple didn't have to win!" Steve preached. "Apple had to remember who Apple was!" Jobs always said that the only thing Apple focused on was "making great products." That's it. If Apple was under Jobs' leadership, they would be about making great products and little else. Their identity was found inside of making great products. That's who Apple was.

To say that the UMC is not in the same place would be an effort to evade the truth. Little is wrong with the Wesleyan theological heritage of the UMC. Little is wrong with the connectional heritage of the UMC.

What's wrong with the UMC? It doesn't remember who it used to be. It has, because of its love for tradition and unwillingness to move and groove, forgotten that it used to write the American narrative before other groups. It has forgotten that it used to write the culture instead of the culture writing it. It has forgotten that it used to be full of innovation. It has forgotten that it used to be evangelical. It has forgotten that it used to be vital.

The UMC struggled at General Conference over the last two weeks to make any progress toward the future. It chose (because of a host of reasons) to maintain a structural format based off coroporate models that are now half a century old. It chose, in large part, to ignore the essential part of its future: young clergy. With the strange exception of 'guaranteed appointments' for elders, the UMC made very little progress in reshaping who it is and, because of this, must suffer the consequences over the next four years until issues can be brought forth once again.

News flash: four years is too long in today's world. Change was needed and it was needed fast. And it failed, motion after motion, amendment after amendment.

The UMC used to find its identity in strong Wesleyan theology that pushed the culture and innovated before it could. It was able to articulate new, sometimes controversial, ideas better so that the culture understood them in light of Christ rather than in pure Enlightened thought. Somehow, as a church, we have managed to live more into the Americanized version of who we are rather than the Christian version.

The church has simply forgotten who she is.

I fear it will get worse, too, as we become a more global church. As our surrounding culture begins to deal with what it means to have a global economy, it is faced with ways to run the economy. It chooses the easiest, cheapest route almost every time. What a time for the church to lead the way! Perhaps then we wouldn't struggle with the ethical violations! But, the church, forgetting that it used to shape the way, does not. And instead of the world realizing who the world is, the world simply thinks its way is normative. How sad a day.

I feared that change would not come at General Conference 2012. I feared the the church would be stuck in a rut because of its inability to remember who it is. I had little idea however about how bad it would actually be.

'Where's God in this?' you might ask. God's here. Have no fear. The Spirit is moving somewhere. But I don't believe United Methodism to be any sort of sacred thing. It can die. The Gospel will continue on. The Spirit will continue to carry it. The travesty is that the UMC actually has some interesting things to say about the Gospel.

If only it could remember how to say them.

-B

The Death of the UMC #explo2011

I've had over 63 pages of writing due in the last two weeks.  It's funny that we often describe Divinity School as "Hell on Earth."  Currently, I'm tired of writing my theology paper.  Thus, I am taking a break to do this. I attended Exploration 2011 this weekend in St. Louis.  Exploration is a conference for about 600 young, college-aged, United Methodist adults who are exploring (hence the title) a call into some sort of ministry.  It serves several purposes:

• Encourage young people to explore their calls into ministry,
• Explain the ordination process,
• Educate attendees about different methods and modes of ministry,
• Provide reflection time in small groups to discuss,
• Enable UMC young-adults from around to the world to meet each other, converse, worship, and fellowship.

In addition, all of the United Methodist Seminaries (13 in all) were represented by staff and student alike, providing information, sweet giveaways, and advice to potential seminary students.  I'm already a seminary student, but I was not a rep from Duke.  I was an attendee.  But, you know, I wore Duke stuff everyday.

Friday night's preacher in worship was none other than Adam Hamilton, the pastor of the largest United Methodist church in the world, Church of the Resurrection.  Adam has been promoted through churches like WillowCreek and is easily the best known United Methodist pastor in today's culture.  He spoke well, clearly, and with passion.  He encouraged young people to truly consider ministry for the good of the Church. If a quick search of the Twitter hashtags "explo2011" says anything, his message reverberated with a large percentage of the attendees that night.

One of Adam's main focuses: The United Methodist Church's decline.  It does little good to bore you with insignificant stats that prove this thesis.  Instead, this general point can be made: If the rate of decline in membership in the United Methodist church continues, the UMC will not be in existence in 2050.

Gone. No more.  One of the denominations on which Christian culture was established in the United States will have vanished.

It won't have been the first time a denomination that has been so influential in our history has declined. Or died.

Adam discussed a crucial point, too.  He admitted that our goal ought not to be to save a denomination, or religious group.  He pointed out, more or less, that our goal should be to make disciples. And, as United Methodists, we believe that the Wesleyan way of discipleship is the best, most effective way to do this.  By reaching into our Wesleyan core (which, from my observations, seems to be - at the most - ambiguously articulated in a majority of UM churches across the globe) we may discover new ways of changing the world through disciples of Jesus. I agree, but I do think that and established church has at least the possibility of bringing this on (This is obviously widely disproved throughout the course of history, but a man has to have a little faith, right?)

I'll quote Vance Rains here,

Does anyone here, including myself, really know how to save the United Methodist Church?

All I can do, as a new comer to this movement, is observe. I can tell you what I think the church is doing well.  I can definitely tell you what the church is not doing well.

And for me, it seems to be summed up in this: We aren't skating to where the puck will be.

This phrase is attributed to Wayne Gretsky (though I'm unsure if he actually said it) and was one of the favorites of the late Steve Jobs.  Jobs wanted to move ahead. So, to do that, he moved ahead…taking great ideas from other people and fusing them with his own.  Through this, he innovated and created products people didn't know they wanted. Like Henry Ford, he created phones without keyboards, tablets without styluses, and computers without disc drives. Ford is claimed to have said, "If I'd have asked the customers, they'd have said they wanted a faster horse."

But the UMC doesn't seem to be doing that.  The UMC doesn't seem to be taking old ideas, mixing them with new ones, and coming out with something effective. The UMC doesn't seem to be thinking creatively. The UMC doesn't seem to be not only listening and reading their Wesleyan heritage, but synthesizing it to create something that will serve the needs of the world. No, it doesn't seem to be doing that.

And that's ok.  Research In Motion isn't doing that either. But come five years, they won't be around.

Wesley was an innovator.  Wesley was clear about what he thought.  Wesley knew of effective ways of maintaining accountability in discipleship.  Wesley knew of positive ways to change the world.  Wesley knew that the power behind religious revival was in a movement. And Wesley should get a lot of credit for thinking differently than many, many others in his time.

I think United Methodists recognize this. And I do think, as a General Church, the UMC is trying to be relevant.

It's just that our methodology seems a little screwy.

Our version of "relevancy" seems to be based on what the Reformed or evangelical churches are doing. And we, as we always have been, are behind.  Seriously behind. And sometimes we throw resources into the wrong areas.  We staff the wrong places. We don't always hire the best in the field.

So no wonder our attempts at things are less successful.  We're creating the hi-PHONE instead of the iPhone.  We're trying to play contemporary music, but it's just not…quite…right…yet.

I think it is happening this way: through desperation, we are copying others.  20 years ago, we saw the evangelical denominations growing faster than us. So we decided something had to change.  We waited around for 5 years to make a decision to do so and then we got to work. We started marketing campaigns (I would say, some of the more successful things we've done). We started rethinking who we were. Why? Because we saw others do it.  I ask of you: how different are those rethink church commercials, really, than those billboards from non-denominational groups that advertise a "new way to do church"? They're only different in that they are more socially minded (a good a righteous thing), but our attitude is much the same. "Oh, God, they're undercutting us by stripping down some of the perceived ridiculousness of our liturgy and system," we might as well have said.

The funny part is, the ReThink Church commercials are easily one of the best things the Church has done, in my opinion.  I think we've called on people to question some things that ought to be questioned.  It just appears to have had little follow through.

Which gets me to my point.  We copy others. AND THAT'S FINE.  But, in our copying, we aren't thorough.  We write things like "Open Hearts, Open Doors, Open Minds" when large percentages of our church simply don't believe it. We try to be relevant, but many of our churches are much, much older than other churches.  So, we try to do things in our old buildings that just aren't practically possible.  And the product of our efforts doesn't look "cool" like we think it does.  It looks like a cheap knock off. And people, congregants, don't see authentic worship, they see posers (something our culture is less and less tolerant of everyday).  They see people faking what's popular.  They see BOBS instead of TOMS.  They see Samsung instead of Apple. We're ripping off others, and to make it worse…we're not even doing it well. (At least Samsung stuff still looks good)

Instead, perhaps, maybe we ought to truly rethink church.  Not basing it off of our own social values.  Not basing it off of our own bias.  Not basing it off of our own thoughts.  Not basing it off of our own Scriptural interpretation. Not basing it off of our own political beliefs.  Not basing it off of our own definitions.

Because the Wesley that I read doesn't seem to have been ripping anybody off. Wesley seems to have been starting something new, incorporating the traditional values, thoughts, concepts, and theological insights of the old tradition to bring about a revival that focused on holiness in discipleship. That movement is what helped influence the Christian culture in America.  And his thoughts were so good, I'm convinced there's another opportunity, if only we'd wake up.

Picasso said, "Good artists copy.  Great artists steal."  There's a huge difference between the two, and I'm unconvinced that the UMC understands that.

So please, let's not put up a GPS (or phone…we had disagreements about what it was) around the lyrics being projected on the screen unless we're going to take the time to actually explain it, incorporate it, and usefully employ it. Otherwise, it looks like we saw the evangelical churches using the iPhone theme for their events and thought, "Oh, God, we're behind." Which, I'd imagine, is exactly what happened.

If we're going to do it, we need to do it well.  Otherwise, we're going to die.

Like Vance, I don't know what is going to save the church.  But, I do feel as if I'll know when I see it. And I know this from observation: we can't keep following everyone else.  We have never been like that as a church and this is an awful time to start. We ought to seriously rethink who we are, where we're going, and where we've been. We make corrections, we synthesize, and we move on…making the best, most faithful decisions we can as fast as we can. And we have to do it throughly, with class, artistry, energy, and resources.  Every detail has to be ironed out so that what we say is cohesive and intentional. And we don't need to try to be "cool."  That'll come to us, if we are who we are and the story is as good as we say it is.  And, friends, it is.

Please, it's too good of a story not to tell in new and fresh ways. And besides, Jesus is calling us to tell it.

-B

On Florida Southern College's Beauty

I spent five years (four as a student, one as a staff member) at Florida Southern College in Lakeland, FL.  Yesterday, it was announced that the Princeton Review named Florida Southern College as the "Most Beautiful College Campus" in the United States. Good ol' FSC announced it on Facebook  and Twitter yesterday and this morning, it showed up on the Today Show (despite Ann's questioning look and incorrect graphic):

[vodpod id=Video.14362285&w=425&h=350&fv=launch%3D43985296%5E200874%5E225578%26amp%3Bwidth%3D420%26amp%3Bheight%3D245]

Of course, I posted this all over the Twitter and Facebook. Many friends of mine felt as if this was an appropriate time to throw out the, "Hey, looks aren't everything" lines.  I'd like to share below (names blurred to spare the guilty):

All of the above participants are friends of mine, a few of whom I'm very close to. They miss the point, however.

When I came to Florida Southern, I remember moving into Hollis Hall, the dreaded first year male dorm (although I'd be slaughtered for mentioning the D-word, they are residence halls or community living centers, not dorms). The day we moved in, they were conveniently replacing major portions of the flooring in the lobby. Hollis's rooms were small, brick rooms, with non-moveable furniture. I remember thinking, "Welp, welcome to college." My girlfriend (now wife) though, moved into one of the gorgeous brick buildings in the center of campus, where the first year women live. She had a large room, with a giant window to the outside, her own bathroom, etc. I remember thinking, "Welp, I guess I'll hang out here."

That year, though, was the second year of the current President's residency at Florida Southern, Dr. Anne Kerr. Florida Southern's previous President had done phenomenal things for the college's relationship with students and Dr. Kerr came in to take care of some of the finances and build needed buildings.

What most people don't know about Florida Southern is that it is the largest single-site collection of Frank Lloyd Wright architecture in the world. Those people weren't in Annie Pfeiffer Chapel setting up for Praise Band Practice when tourists came waltzing through gazing up at the large glass ceiling overhead. Like him or not (I could take him or leave him), Frank Lloyd Wright is probably one of the best known, and most skilled, American architects of all time. While Florida Southern's buildings are not his most famous pieces, they are fine work and are working examples of quality artistry by FLW. They speak highly of our President Ludd Spivey, when he convinced FLW to come design a campus.

Throughout Dr. Kerr's tenure at Florida Southern, she has made it her goal (through her skills as a fund raiser) to beautify the campus...one building at a time. She's torn down the buildings that made no sense, didn't fit the FLW theme, and worked to build buildings that made the campus stand out.  She's raised money to support the United Methodist Church (and our relations with the school), and she (along with a hard working maintenance staff and generous givers) has turned the college into a gorgeous campus over the past six years or so. As she's built buildings, she didn't just hire any random architect to come and build new buildings, she hired Robert A.M. Stern of Yale University's School of Architecture.  His mission was to design brand new, functional buildings, that attempted to emulate Frank Lloyd Wright's artistic vision, while bringing Florida Southern into the 21st century. He has, and continues to do, a phenomenal job.

Because when you visit a place, what it looks like says a lot about it.

Dr. Kerr knows that.  She gets it.

In all honesty, what Dr. Kerr has done with Florida Southern mimics, I think, what Steve Jobs has done with Apple during his tenure there. She got rid of unnecessary, nonsensical pieces and replaced them with new, beautiful, architecturally-fitting buildings and landscapes that say quite a bit about where Florida Southern is, and where it is going. Because while the outside does not always give us a clear image of the inside, it says a lot about attitudes and forward thinking ideas. I think Duke University's campus reflects the same mindset.

So, does it matter what Florida Southern looks like on the outside? Yes, yes it does. It's not about attracting more students, although that certainly is a byproduct. It's not about "fooling" the outside world. It's not even about getting Florida Southern's name on the map. Florida Southern's beauty is about creating a gorgeous environment where young minds can come to be molded, shaped, and changed. Florida Southern's environment says a lot about the future of the college and where the leadership behind the school is taking the school. Ludd Spivey is regarded around campus as a brilliant mind who brought the school back from devastation in a tough economic time and changed the campus to be the "temple of education" that he thought it needed to be. Dr. Kerr's transformation of the campus is perhaps not as dramatic, but I think she's done for the school what few Presidents would have dreamed possible.

Florida Southern's tagline is: On the move!

And it is a very, very appropriate tagline. I think the Princeton Review's choice of Florida Southern as the most beautiful campus is complete affirmation of that fact.

Dr. Kerr ought to be congratulated, not criticized, as she has done an extraordinary job.

-B

See below when Florida Southern was featured on the Travel Channel (and my Grandmother in law talking about how she helped to build the Buckner Building).

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSjlqERhAq4]

Did you catch the Travel Channel's quality videography at 3:22?

Casey Anthony and Our Broken Society

Some things become immediately clear when big news occurs. When Osama Bin Laden was killed, people celebrated in the streets. When Michael was acquitted, people burned his albums. When OJ was acquitted, well, I don't remember what happened...I was in second grade.

But when the verdict was read that Casey Anthony was not guilty of anything more than lying, Facebook and Twitter took to doing what they do best: providing user-biased-commentary on events that the writer generally knows very little about.

Society, as a matter of history, generally disregards systems. They riot, they fight, they write music, and some societies even go on suicide missions. They do what they, as one person or one small group, can to make a change in society. At that point, society may or may not change ("progress" is really a relative term) how it functions.  Moreso, it may or may not make a change to the system.

I'll probably take flack for this, but as I made clear when I wrote about Rev. DeLong, I am a fan of the system (whatever the current form of it looks like).  Why? Because we, as a society, have to trust the system to decide things for us. We have to trust something in order to keep from killing each other left and right. Ask any leader who has ever decided something that wasn't popular. Now, I also have a conflict of interest, because I am also a fan of progress.  But I think that progress comes through actions (with any luck, non-violent) of those within the system.  They make arguments about why something should or shouldn't be the way it is, and then votes are taken so that a democracy can do its best job to decide the best and move on.

More or less, I say follow the rules. If you want to make a change because you think something is unjust or wrong, do so, but do it in the way that is set up. It's the societies that do not allow citizens to voice opinions that I would rather rail against. They oppress people, and that is wrong.

But America, for the most part, does not oppress its people.  It has systems set up to decide things. We must follow those systems (and that still stands for someone who wants to change the system).

Here's how our legal system works:  One person is on trial for doing something that breaks the law. They have the right to have a lawyer. Then, the state has a "prosecutor" who tries to prove their guilt. Then the person on trial's lawyer defends against the guilt. 12 people listen to all the evidence, think about it, listen to all the arguments, and then go back into a room and talk about it until they come up with a verdict. More or less, the lawyer with a better show wins. We all would hope that that winner would be the person is "right." But, what we forget is that "right" is often a matter of bias, is often vague, and is rarely agreed on by multiple people.

That's the system. If you don't like it, I heard North Korea is nice and welcoming.

So, we could say that the justice system is broken. And it is.

But, it's only broken because our society is broken.  We build our lives on lying to each other. We get ahead by stabbing friends in the back. I'm not saying that it is good(obviously I think quite the opposite), but it is reality. So my question is: why should we expect our legal system to be any different?

One of the things that the Bible makes pretty clear (I think) is that justice belongs to God. Jesus calls on us to not judge others. But see, the Bible isn't a prerequisite to being an American. So we have to judge others.  Because if someone takes someone else's life, do they deserve to keep theirs?

And we do that in the best way possible. If you look at our American legal system over others, we're doing ok.

And we have one more kink in the cable in America. Not only is our society built on lies, cheating, and general deceit, but we have the media to spin everything for us. And it's convenient, because we find out about mothers who are accused of killing their 2-year-old daughters, stuffing them in a trunk, dumping their bodies, and then not telling anyone for 31 days.

And everything has a cost, including convenience. The cost is that we hear "facts" third or fourth-hand.  We hear them in a way that excites page views and more channel subscribers.  We hear them in a way that catches your attention. There is no doubt that Nancy Grace has used this story to increase her ratings.  I appreciate that she is so disgusted about this death and has made it her goal to spread love and accountability. But know this: she makes money from what she does.  And she makes more money if her shows gets high ratings. So what she's doing isn't bad (in fact, spreading awareness about the death of children is great) but her view and premise is biased.

Which is why I get upset when I look at the tweeting world and see so many people drawing judgment on Casey.  Because no one I personally know spent every day in that court room. And those who watched online or watched via news programs did not get a clean view of what was going on. And even if you had sat in that courtroom every day, you wouldn't know exactly what happened because you're getting the information from people who get paid to show their information in a way that makes them "win."

So, as long as rhetoric draws people to vote for you, we will be a broken society. As long as people murder and lie, they will be able to get away with it. As long as lawyers paychecks are on based on their performance, we will never truly understand justice.

I kind of have a feeling that Casey did it. But what do I know? I only ever watched the news.

We just do the best we can and respect our system so that we can, as a society, maintain some semblance of fairness and justice.

We have nothing more than that.

Like in the Rev. DeLong case, I am convinced that no one wins. Caylee is dead. Casey will never be able to go in public again. The entire Anthony family has been accused of horrible things. No one, including our society, wins.

-B

Well, maybe Baez wins.

"Obama Thinks Jesus Is Nuts."

Bill Maher talks about how  he is a non-Christian, just like most Christians. Beware of the foul language, it is Bill Maher.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giVXvveef8Y]

While his rhetoric makes logical sense, I think he is targeting the part of the Christian body that won't watch his show and might never agree with him.  The "hippy" Christians already agree with him and...probably aren't watching his show either.

His point about Obama I thought was most interesting, as Obama has to be a politician first and foremost, probably above his faith.  He has to get Scripture to his phone every morning so that the Right will continue to tolerate him while he also has to go after America's enemies...because, well, he is the President.

But really, who is Bill Maher to talk about accountability of Christians?

Oh, yeah, that's right...this isn't accountability, it is just more of his campaign against faith.

-B

Thanks to Chad Holtz for sharing.

Sheen vs. The World

[vodpod id=Video.5665367&w=425&h=350&fv=launch%3D41825237%26amp%3Bwidth%3D420%26amp%3Bheight%3D245] Hey Charlie, you're right...the world is SO against you (or more like CBS is the world). Gosh, that $2 Million an episode must really be a burden.

I had to watch this interview 3 times in order to make sure I took it all in.  I've aggregated some of my favorite lines below:

• "Drug tests don't lie."
• "I closed my eyes and made it so." - on how he became clean
• "No,  I did that because they work...change the way you see things, the way you feel." - on turning to drugs and alcohol
• "Sober Valley Lodge"
• "At that point it's just the gibberish of fools" - people who talk about him who don't know the "situation"
• Jeff: "Are you embarrassed that your kids will one day read about this?" Charlie: "God, no. I mean, talk about an education."
• "Passionate.  My passion is misinterpreted as anger sometimes."
• "They are trying to destroy my family."
• "Defeat is not an option.  They picked a fight with a warlock."
• Jeff: "How do you plan to win that war?" Charlie: "With zeal, and focus, and violent hatred."
• "Accept me Chuck."
• Jeff: "Are you going to OD? Are you going to die?" Charlie: "No, that's for amateurs."
• "Fools, fools, trolls, they allowed defeat to be an option. I won't." - on strong people who relapsed
• "Come Wednesday they're going to rename it Charlie Brothers and not Warner Brothers...duh. Winning!"
• "I won Best Picture at 20.  I wasn't even trying."
• "I'm a man of my word."
• "3 mil an episode, take it or leave it."
• They owe me a big one, publicly, while licking my feet."

Something tells me that CBS is not going to apologize.

But, I do think that Chuck Lorre should do a primetime and morning show interview responding to Charlie's questions.

I'm always amazed by eccentric people.  I do believe that there really is a fine line between crazy and brilliant, and sometimes the two are mixed together; Hitler was crazy, but brilliant; Steve Jobs is brilliant, but crazy.

Charlie is in a positon where he thinks he knows that his acting can make or break that show. He also mentioned (not included above) that he had been converting Chuck Lorre's "tin cans" into gold for eight years. I tend to be of the mind that it does require both writer and actor to work together to create a work like Two and a Half Men. The show might be nothing without Charlie, but it is definitely nothing without Chuck Lorre. Based on Lorre's other success, he'll be ok.

So, no, I don't see CBS paying him 3 million just to finish the show.  I think we have seen the end of Two and a Half Men. And yes, I think 2 million an episode is too much. But, you're worth whatever people will pay you to do what you do. When you're good, and in demand, you can request whatever you want. And if they want you bad enough, they'll give it to you. That's supply and demand economics and is the way the world tends to work.

But...it doesn't keep you from being a jerk.

Whatever happens with his career, we will forever connect the name Charlie Sheen with a guy living a rock star life with multiple live in girlfriends who cares nothing about anything else except to play this game called American life better than anyone else.

Sadly, he'll probably do pretty well at it too.

-B

P.S. - Something tells me that when you are used to making $2 million an episode, someone canceling your job seems like a big deal.  But, in comparison, the world isn't against you.  I'm sure he feels like the world IS against him because of all of the negative publicity regarding the situation.  But, an interview like this does little except to present you as a man who only cares for himself. I wish him luck, mentally more than anything else.

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

On "Calling", Servanthood, and perhaps...Itinerancy

In the United Methodist Church, ordained elders practice itinerancy. If you are unfamiliar with the concept, the United Methodist Church's website says this:

United Methodism has a unique system of assigning clergy to churches which dates back to John Wesley and which is different from any other denomination. The system by which pastors are appointed to their charges by the bishops is called itinerancy.  The present form of the intinerancy grew from the practice of Methodist pastors traveling widely throughout the church on circuits. Assigned to service by a bishop, clergy remain with one particular congregation for a limited length of time. All pastors are under obligation to serve where appointed.

And you can read more about it here.

Itinerancy, like anything in life, has a lot of upsides and a number of downsides.  UM churches always have a pastor, sometimes several, and pastors always have a job. Sort of.  Even in the conferences when guaranteed appointment is not a reality, being a UMC elder still serves as a bit of security.

Downsides? Well, that depends on who you talk to. Some pastors will tell you that there is no downside.  Some will tell you that moving often is a downside.  Some will tell you that being at the mercy of a human decision who appoints you is a downside. Some will tell you that being put in a position that does not play into your greatest strengths is a downside.  Others would add that not being able to do much about it s a downside.

Still, most pastors would tell you that they enjoy being a servant. Because allowing themselves to be open to wherever they are "led" allows them to have a servant's attitude and posture at all times. For good reason too, because it is true.  However ascetic that may seem at any point, it is the way and tradition that it has been handled and for the most part...it seems to have worked.

As I often do though, I have many questions. And as most of my questions do, I might piss people off. So? Press onward.

Servanthood.

Like, "choose life", I never like when utopian, goal-centered, life-inspiring words are aligned with practices. My immediate thoughts when I hear this language approached in this way are not that that practice (in this case, itinerancy) is simply a form of servanthood (which it is), but rather that that use of language implies that that practice is either 1) the only way to achieve the goal-centered, life-inspiring, way-to-live-your-life or 2) that your form of being a servant is a higher form of servanthood than someone who might not "serve" in the same form that you do.

Let me be clear: I've never heard anyone suggest this. But, the language-to me-is scary.

Of course, you'll never meet a United Methodist pastor who thinks this way. Well, I hope not. Why? "Call".

I truly believe that all pastors who serve congregations are serving as pastors (no matter what their appointment...even if it is not in a church at the current moment) feel called to do so.  They feel called to serve as a pastor.  In general.  Serve as a pastor.

For me, and I don't claim that it is fair to blanket anyone else in my statements, I don't get it. For me. Some people feel called to serve wherever they are told to go. They do it with a willing heart. If they are specifically talented in one area (let's say that they are church "rebuilders") and they are sent to a church that doesn't need those specific talents at that given time, they do so willingly because they feel called to...serve.

But when I examine myself, my own gifts, my own talents, I don't see where they fit into this model.

When you feel so strongly about how God is using and shaping you, I can't help but feel like even though it may not be as ascetic (because I maintain some control of my own future) it is still a sense of servanthood. And I doubt that many would disagree.  This is why the UMC has an order of Deacons.

So, the main argument-I think- has to do with appropriateness of the role of being a servant for each person, as it relates to their life and situation, and "calling."  This seems fairly obvious. To many, this is the definition of calling.

I believe that God will use every single person. And I think that God will use every single person's talents for the good of the Church if they'll allow.  And, obviously that not only includes pastors but also anyone else who is willing to serve in any capacity.

And maybe it is my own struggle with authority.  And maybe it is that I don't like being told what to do.

Or.  Maybe.  It is that I truly feel like I am talented in certain areas of ministry (and suck in others) and that to be placed somewhere where those gifts aren't being used to the full potential would be a detriment to the potential of what God could be doing. Not that God won't use you in every situation and circumstance, but certainly talents and gifts can be used in new and refreshing ways in some places over others. I think that's what the issue is for me. Find your fit. Find your place. Find your gifts. Put them there.

God uses all in all situations, this much is true.  But, the burn and fire inside of your heart is perhaps a true calling from God, not your own desires. And maybe you ought to do something about it, and stop the ascetic servanthood.

Do what you do, well.

-B

P.S. - I hope this blog post sparks conversation about submission and obedience.

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:

killpath

Dear Lee, Please send this to Obama. 

darkblacksky

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.

SturmKorps

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

judgemartiniz

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.

Shad0wSquirrel

I love your eye contact with the camera

bassgod89

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.

paulwei88

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?

KidSheIeen

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.

JimHendryShirt

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

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

WWII Posters

Got this email today.  I'll include it as it appeared, but with pictures arranged in a slideshow like before.  My comments will be below.

Old War II posters found .

Most of us are too young to recall  these posters and WWII, but they were a part of our parents' lives and a  good demonstrations of the values of that time. These are great.   Pass them along, especially to your older email buddies "WW II Posters Found"

I wonder whatever  happened to this kind of thinking. I got a lump in  my throat when I read this. I "grew up"  thinking: patriotism, it is the AMERICAN way! I am glad to see  that somebody saved them. The statement at the end  says it all!

[slideshow]

These were our parents. What in  God's name have we let happen? I guess we are the last generation  to see, or even remember anything like these? Whatever happened?  Political correctness (or "re-education") happened, lack of God's  name happened, lack of personal responsibility happened, lack of  personal integrity and honesty happened, lack of respect and loyalty  to our country happened, lack of being an American  happened.

Did all of these die along with common sense?!? I'm proud to be an American! If you are too.. pass it along, in English!

If you didn't find the English crack offensive, stop reading here and spare us all your comments.

A couple of things:

"Lack of being an American happened"

Really?

"Lack of respect and loyalty to our country happened"

Please tell that to every family that has a member in Afghanistan or anywhere overseas.

"I guess we are the last generation to see, or even remember anything like these?"

Yeah, you're absolutely right. How could we have missed Fox News over the past 9 years?

The MOST interesting part though, is in the rhetoric.  It is SO interesting to me how people react (namely Americans) when we are attacked on our home ground.  The words on these posters are the EXACT same thing we've seen from "true patriots" since September 11th.

How many countries have we attacked on their home ground? Please think back to history class and remind yourself how WWII ended.

I think our short record of a few on our home land is pretty good.  Especially considering the destruction we have caused all in the name of "freedom".

Listen, I have just as much respect for our troops, our leaders, our country as any other patriotic American.  I do agree that things have changed in terms of patriotism since the days of the World Wars.  I was taught to stop what I was doing and stand for an American flag passing by.  Most people don't anymore. But, I don't go around parading the fact that America is going to doom. And I don't make strong statements that aren't true. This accusatory tone is what is ripping our country apart.

When can we go back to "United We Stand"?

-B

Separation of State and...Church Related Institution?

I've been getting into The Chronicle at Duke recently.  It's published every day and has some interesting articles about a wide range of topics. Today's front page article was entitled "Methodist ties spark modern debate" You can read it online here.

The article explores the problems that Duke's campus police might run into, after the North Carolina court system dismissed charges against a Davidson College student who was arrested by Davidson police for Driving Under the Influence.  She claimed that (taken from the article),

her arrest by a campus police officer was an excessive and unconstitutional government entanglement with religion.

Essentially, they (the NC Court of Appeals) decided that because Davidson is considered to be a religious institution or at least retains "significant religious ties", the college must be stripped of its rights to exercise state police power.

Really? The girl was driving while impaired, and was arrested and all charges dropped against her because Davidson police can't arrest because of their religious affiliation?

The article goes on to talk about how this might affect Duke:

Indeed, Durham-based attorney Bill Thomas plans to challenge Duke University Police Department’s arrest powers on the same grounds.

“I think you’ll see that in the immediate future,” Thomas told the Herald-Sun.

He added that language in Duke’s bylaws suggests an “adherence to the Christian tradition and [the promotion of] Christianity.” He did not respond to repeated requests for comment from The Chronicle.

Jerk.

This brings up an interesting idea. How can a school like Duke (private, religiously affiliated, yet relatively large) police its own campus?  If Duke were to have to call city police each time there is an incident, Durham police might have to provide Duke its own sector. Hmmm...we'd be back to where we are today.

I know very little about policing a college campus (although I have been involved in the process from time to time) but I would imagine that on a campus the size of Duke, officers must often be trained in specifics relative to the institution as well as typical training.

At Florida Southern, when there was a crisis that called for police action, we called the Lakeland Police Department.  But, we had very few of these instances and we didn't have the Cameron Crazies. Really, have you seen the Duke v. UNC games?

Duke University is a very reputable school that still (unlike many) has maintained its early Methodist (or even religious) ties. As it grows and expands, shouldn't it be allowed to be able to police its campus?

Only one more thing: MADD posts this statistic on their website:

In 2008, an estimated 11,773 people died in drunk driving crashes involving a driver with an illegal BAC (.08 or greater). These deaths constitute 31.6 percent of the 37,261 total traffic fatalities in 2008. (Source:NHTSA, 2009)

No one should be allowed to drive while impaired with anything, get caught, and go free because they claim the arrest was unconstitutional.

I think that not killing someone is a Christian ideal.  A religious institution should be able to enforce this, just as state police can.

Drunk driving is against the law. Period.  Don't do it.

This is utterly ridiculous.

-B