09.30.04
Posted in culture at 6:02 pm by
Yet another charming example of selective morality by the religious right.
Democrats sermonizing on how various Scriptures illustrate the evils of President Bush (or whatever Republican they’re running against) is hilarious and so transparent that I wonder why their handlers let them do it. Liberal politicians’ interpretations of Bible passages can get very interesting (such as “moral values” equalling health care, medicare, and every government program under the sun).
Read more here.
So, just so we’re all clear. So far, here’s the list.
1. Health care - not a moral value
2. Medicare - not moral value
3. Affirmative Action - not moral value
4. Welfare - not a moral value
5. Abortion - moral value
6. Gay rights - moral value
7. Gun control - not a moral value
8. Balancing the budget - not a moral value
So, why is it that God doesn’t care about health care? Because, if he does…it’s a moral value, right? God couldn’t care less about welfare, screw the poor after all. But when it comes down to making gays feel like they are less than human, hells yah, God’s all about that.
Sounds to me like one’s standard of morality has shifted from the Bible to the RNC’s party platform. And if that’s the case, no wonder the religious right sees that Democrats are the scourge of morality. If morality = republican, then I’ll take immoral any day of the week.
Permalink
Posted in faith, politics at 12:46 pm by
So, I was thinking about Revelation last night. You know, fire, brimstone, nebulous dudes charging around on various colored stallions unleashing bowls of wrath on the earth and shit, etc. (I’ve always fancied Revelation as that book where God nances around kicking ass and taking names.) You get the idea. It occurs to me that I think I know who the anti-christ is.
You all remember back in Sunday School, when the teacher talked about Revelation she–or he, but women can only be trusted with the smallest of minds because they are inferior to men…so it was probably a she–talked about the anti-christ. You remember what she said, right? He’ll go around and get people to follow him people will think he’s good. Probably, if you’re like me, you began to panic at this point because you were worried you would fall for the anti-christ.
At this point the teacher tells you, because she too must have been like me once, that you needn’t worry about falling for the anti-christ because while he says he is good…he bears bad fruit. “Whew! Dodged that bullet.” Me and all the other 2nd graders in my Sunday School class thought, we’ll know he’s bad because he does bad things. (We prefer to go on in gleeful ignorance of the question, if he does such bad things why do people follow him?)
So, anyway, that’s my concept of anti-christ. I don’t really know if I believe it the way it was rolled out to me anymore. The concept could just be a metaphor for the type of evil that humans will battle in the world, or the anti-christ could have been many people throughout history. But for the sake of argument, today I’ll assume that it’s just one dude.
Okay, here it is, my pick for anti-christ (drumroll) goes to none other than the President of the United States. Now, hold on. Bear with me, here. Just think about it for a minute. Lots of people follow him. He sells himself as being a person of the light. He’s commander in chief of an (arguably) unjust war. He gives to the rich and takes from the poor. He supports the growth of a reckless amount of debt. Seems to fit the bill to me, right?
Obviously, I don’t believe this. Yet, it seems as though the Republican Party thinks it about John Kerry. For what other reason could a group unveil something as viscious as the pamphlet sent out to Alabama and West Virginia folks that claimed that John Kerry would ban the Bible? Actually, it was even worse. The pamphlet claimed that “democrats” would ban the Bible. Now it’s not just Kerry that is the anti-christ, but the whole of freakin’ capitol hill is just crawling with the little demons.
I suppose as long as there are liberals there will be conservatives there to call them the scourge of morality (and vice versa.) In the meantime, I think I’ll sit by my little window and keep my eye out for any horseman of the apocalypse, rumor has it they’re going to be out kicking ass and taking names.
Permalink
09.29.04
Posted in culture at 1:59 pm by
Greg at the parish posted this. It sorta got me thinking–I know, that’s not a good habit. But, think I did. It seems that Greg’s “hot, brilliant, hairdresser wife” (as opposed to any other of Greg’s mistresses, I suppose 
) ran into a fundy at work who claimed that a Christian had only the one alternative–vote Bush. If that Christian did not then they were not “orthodox.” Greg gives a good treatment over at his 40 blogosphere acres of just what this woman must have meant by “orthodox.” Suffice it to say I think she really meant “born again.”
Any how, I began to ruminate on this issue. This woman’s problem pretty much solely came down to abortion. That was her only real reason for voting republican. I wonder if anyone ever told her that there were lots of republicans out there who were pro-choice? Even one of them who gave a speech at the RNC, albeit in broken english.
This woman even had the gaul to use the phrase, “well, I don’t want innocent blood on my hands.” The inference here is that EVERY liberal is not just pro-choice, but a baby slayer. This is patently ludacris, but let’s go with this line of thinking to expose just how infuriatingly ignorant, dense, thick, moronic, stupid, and assinine it truly is.
So, here we go. If all democrats are baby killers with the innocent blood of aborted children on their hands, the argument is that there is NO difference of opinion in the democratic party or amongst liberals. What this woman also argued was that there is no difference within the republican party. This means that ALL republicans support pro-life causes.
But this shouldn’t just be restricted to the abortion debate, right? If all republicans support pro-life, then all republicans are against gun control…hmmm? ALL republicans are in support the death penalty. ALL republicans support tax breaks to the rich and the downsizing of government programs to help the poor. ALL republicans should then support Bush, arguably the head of one of the shadiest election crews of all time. ALL republicans should be able to get behind Karl Rove in his political scheming, that seeks to portray his candidate in only the most positive of lights, even when that means hiding the truth, and casting shadows on John Kerry, even when that means bearing false witness, and then leaking it to the press. ALL republicans should then support Tom DeLay and his at best nefarious and at worst illegal fundraising activities.
If you couldn’t tell several of these things that ALL republicans are supposed to support go directly AGAINST clearly stated Biblical principle. (Ah, yes, that pesky Bible thing.)
On the other side of the coin ALL democrats support giving generously to the poor, funding education, getting guns and drugs off the streets, not going into an unjust war, international relations, balancing the budget, funding medicare and medicaid…the list could go on almost endlessly. All good things.
Well, this is, in the parlence of our times, complete and utter bullshit. Not ALL, at least I hope not all, republicans believe all of these things. Just like not all democrats are pro-choice. Being a democrat doesn’t mean that you’ll have anybody’s blood on your hands…and as hard as it is for me to admit, it’s quite possible to be a republican and not have blood on your hands as well.
The problem comes in when one group, here a republican supporter, says that I have the blood of thousands of aborted babies on my hands. The same logic could be used to say that she has the blood of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women, and children.
The difference, the Iraqis were born and wear turbans…and somehow that justifies their killing. So then, I’m left to wonder by this logic, I was born…and, ah, what’s going to be the next clothing style the Bush administration decides to erradicate by lethal force.
The above was sarcasm. This is not what the Bush administration did in Iraq. I have more faith in the system than that, not much more, but that’s just ludacris. But…at the same time that’s the message being sent through all this religious rhetoric, and it’s really starting to piss me off. I mostly just can’t believe that Christian evangelicals would buy a line of reasoning so stupid even Dubya knows it’s crap.
Permalink
09.28.04
Posted in culture at 11:31 pm by
Tony Blair addressed the labour party today and apologized for going to war based upon spurious intelligence information. He stopped short though of apologizing for ousting dictator Saddam Hussein. I don’t blame him for this, but it does raise the question: is Iraq better off without Saddam Hussein?
At first glance, this question seems stupid. I mean, of course, Iraq is safer without Saddam Hussein, right? I think the answer to this question is a VERY qualified yes. Yes–in the sense that Hussein systematized a national network of terrorism in order to rule his country. For that reason, Iraq is far better off without Hussein in power.
But in another very real way, Iraq is far worse of that we’re simply ignorant not to identify. You see, the removal of Saddam Hussein paved the road for a plethora of more organic terrorists to flex their wings. Before the “liberation” of Iraq any extremeist group that called Iraq home was living in the fear of a tyrannical leader that could at any moment descend upon their operation and kill each and every one of them.
In a very real way the coalition of the willing has unwittingly unleashed a dangerous breed of freedom on Iraq. Saying that Iraq is safer, or even that the world is safer, because of the removal of an evil dictator is a gross oversimplification of the issues present in Iraq. In a way, Blair seems to be making a straw person argument out of the situation. That argument goes something like this:
1. Saddam Hussein was a tyrannical dictator
2. Iraq was under the power of Saddam Hussein
3. Countries are better off when they are not under the control of a tyrannical dictator.
4. Saddam Hussein is no longer in control of Iraq
Therefore…
5. Iraq is better off (safer) now that Saddam Hussein is not in power.
My problem with this logic (though the logic itself is valid) lies in the fact that it really only tells half of the story. Saddam Hussein may now be out of ower but Iraq being safe is entirely another issue. This, however, is what the public is expected to believe.
I would posit that Saddam baing out of power and Iraq being safer are two entirely different issues. This is where the issue of the US et al. not having an exit strategy becomes particularly salient. It could be argued that if the countries that invaded Iraq had a comprehensive exit strategy, it actually WOULD be safer. This is the why Bush is trying so hard to convince folks that Iraq is a safer place–it makes it look at least marginally more like there was actually an exit strategy for the Iraq conflict.
Of course, even Blair supporters are saying, “it would be foolish to call Iraq safer now than before the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.” Bush, however, still claims that he would’ve gone to war knowing everything he knows now. He’d do it all the same, you know where he stands.
You’ll just have to make up your own mind if you agree with him.
Permalink
Posted in faith at 10:31 am by
Well, I’m home. 24 hours of driving made last weekend a doosie. The good news: the wedding took and I am now the proud owner of my second sister-in-law. (Barring any menopause babies this should be my last.) It was fun to be a best man, but stressful too.
On to business. I was reading over at Balaam’s Ass. The guys–and this is the correct term, no women post there–there are not of one accord with my worldview, but what the hey, variety is the spice of life (read: I like to get worked up over what they write.) Anywho, one gentleman, Michael I believe wrote this:
Can evangelism be non-confrontational?
I do not think it can. If we are defining “evangelism” as Gospel proclamation to unbelievers, God’s Word will always upset the sinner. For those individuals who do not have the Holy Spirit, evangelism will always be confrontational. The Holy Spirit will kill and make alive. That is quite the confrontation, and I am glad it happened (happens) to me.
I disagree. What we have here is a classic modernist interpretation of our charge as Christians to evangelize. I’d like to examine the comment.
When evangelism IS confrontational the “confronter” (or evangelist) is stuck in the unfortunate position of saying far more than the words she or he speaks. I am of the opinion that one’s words should be the last resort when it comes to evangelism. One’s words are too easily misunderstood, misinterpreted, or worse yet, not accurate altogether.
I would pose that it’s not God’s word that upsets the sinner, it’s the disconnect between God’s word and the actions of the confronter that causes frustration and hatred of the message. The truth is that there is a chasm between the intent of the message being sent and the reception of the message being received. A message sent in love may well be a message received that is certainly not received lovingly.
When will Christians begin to understand that the messages they send carry with them a whole culture full of nasty baggage, from hate speech against homosexuals to the savagery of the crusades. The messages we send arouse visions of Jimmy Swaggart and Tammy Faye, of Jerry Falwell and Joel Osteen, of Ken Hamm and Kirk Cameron.
Words are important and valuable, but they are a last resort. Our actions need to lead the day. Let’s show up at a gay parade to show our love for an often sidelined group of people. Let’s not come with “turn or burn” messages, but messages that say, you’re welcome to worship with us just the way you are. Then, when these sidelined folks do come…let’s do something unprecedented. Let’s do love.
But as it stands Christians send out messages with reckless abandon. Stupidly sowing seeds into a bed of thorns and hoping beyond hope that one or two seeds will take, ignoring all the others that don’t. Well, I say that sucks. Evangelism is work, and yes God does change the people, we don’t do that. But God gave us a book and a life to show us just how to love people.
Christians just can’t seem to understand why people would ever NOT want to be Christians. If you ask me, with the messages we send, I can’t understand why anyone ever would want to be a Christian. Sometimes, those messages even make me wonder. Is that the same group that I’m a part of? The answer, of course, is yes. It is. Which is why it’s so important that we get our story straight.
Perhaps, it’s just the “confrontational” language that bothers me about the above comment. Maybe I’m not suggesting something radically different. But it seems to me that evangelism has become something of an idol for Christians. We worship evangelism, and we worship evangelists. The brave souls that go out and do the work of “the Kingdom.” But, what if those who garner our respect are no more worthy of that respect than the humble farmer who harvests his crops dutifully, and gives generously to the local homeless shelter. The working single mom who loves her kids so much that she stays up late every night just to make their lunch. The married couple that climbs past the rocks in their marriage to model love and reconciliation. To me, that’s the work of “The Kingdom,” that’s evangelism.
Permalink
09.21.04
Posted in culture at 10:05 am by
I’ve been thinking about blogging on this topic, and Hugo’s post really pushed me over the edge. I’m a big believer in swearing. Strange, I know. I think that popular Christian culture has it wrong when it comes to derogatory words. Take this list for example (certianly non-exhaustive):
The F-bomb
the s-word
ass
damn, etc.
These words are, in communication and speech lingo, symbols. Culturally, these symbols have garnered a bit of a taboo. But from where does this taboo arise? To tell the truth I don’t have a good answer to that question. Perhaps it may be helpful to examine the relationship between symbols, references, and referrents. As we said, symbols are words. These symbols bring to mind thoughts (references.) These references or thoughts are inextricably tied to a referrent (the actual thing.)
That’s confusing, let’s look at an example, the concept “table.” The symbol in this case is the word T-A-B-L-E. It is a collection of letters. Of course, these letters have a connection to a reference or a thought. When I say the word table–you can picture in your mind not just the word “table” but also a tangible image of what a table may look like. Now you couldn’t sit down next to this “thought-table” and eat dinner. For that you’d need to find the referent - a table that you can set a plate, silverware, a beer, and possibly a napkin on and eat–and drink copious amounts of beer.
Now let’s apply this construction to a word commonly held to be derogatory by Christian popular culture. Shit. (Let’s use it as a noun.) In order to determine why a word is derogatory, one must examine all three of the conceptual constructs of the particular framework of a word to determine the offending party. The symbol “shit” doesn’t seem to me to be particularly offensive. It is in a sense simply a collection of letters or sounds. If this particular collection of letters or sounds were inherently more offensive than others one should see a common intercultural derogation (despite the temporal framework it appears in) of the symbol “shit.” This is not the case. If I go to France and say “shit” to an exclusively french speaking person, they may be confused–as they don’t understand the language I speak–but they wouldn’t find the word particularly offensive (unless, by chance the symbol “shit” is in French has a different reference and referrent that ARE offensive.) The symbol “shit” is not offensive.
How about the reference. The concept of shit. When I say the word (noun or verb, really) one can conjure up a mental picture of what I mean. Now, your image may be gross, but gross is not on par with derogatory. Most folks think of the reference “vomit” as gross but by no means is the term “vomit” a derogatory concept. Likewise, if the reference of “shit” is what makes the term derogatory, one should not see any homonyms in the english language that are not derogatory. Yet, “poop”, “feces”, “crap”, “terd”, etc. carry far less socio-religious cultural taboo than “shit.”
Finally, the referent. The physical thing, “shit.” Again, gross, perhaps but no more gross than crap or poop or feces. So why the semantic derogation? The best I can come up with is that certain terms have become culturally taboo–even though these terms in their symbolic make up do not have a particularly negative connotation.
Now, I’m not arguing the cultural rules aren’t valuable. But, let’s call a cultural rule a cultural rule. Certain contexts demand adherence to cultural norms. For example, I’m making the toast at my brother’s wedding this Saturday. Were I to drop the F-bomb 10 or 20 times, this would represent a cultural insensitivity. However, there are appropriate conditions to use what I am going to call “terms socio-religiously deemed inappropriate.”
My problem is not with the words, though, that are deemed derogatory as much as the words that aren’t. (Thanks to Hugo for reminding me of this!) You see, these words that Christians rally against the use of are often not used in negative contexts as often as they are to highlight a point. For example, If I say something is F***ing stupid. Here the f-word highlights and intensifies stupid. Cool, appropriate use of the “f-word.” However, if I use the term “f***ing bastard” I’m using that term to derogate a person who, I might add, was created in the image of God (in my opinion.) Inappropriate use. (Check a few posts back to note what were probably several inappropriate uses of this particular derogative…I openly and sheepishly claim self-hypocricy here.)
But, as Hugo points out, there are other words that are commonly used and seen as far less derogative (though probably still seen as less than kosher for use in worship) that are far MORE harmful. The term “pussy” for example has undergone a seriously negative semantic shift. (Bear in mind that this is but one of many examples of a negative semantic shif for words that are associated with the feminine.) This term however is most often applied to a man who people wish to derogate. To make him “less male” to erode from his power, and the way that this is done to utilize a feminine word…because–the conventional wisdom says–women are less powerful than men.
It’s my pet peeve that in the phrase “f***ing pu**y” that the word “f***ing” would be the most offensive word of the phrase, when, in fact, if you think of all the implications of using the term “pu**y” it is probably much more derogative than the word “f***ing,” which simply serves as an amplifier in this case.
I’m not sure, of course, on all this and as always I’d welcome your thoughts–though I do reserve the right to disagree. I’ve really only given a cursory treatment here to the concept of the negative semantic shift of female linked words…as such, I haven’t really done the concept justice. What do you think?
Permalink
09.20.04
Posted in culture at 12:44 pm by
I know I promised no more blogging on election year politics. I’m not sure this really breaks the promise though. The folks down at votergasm.org (this is not a pornographic site, but I still don’t really see the value in linking to it–and I probably wouldn’t surf it at work) have come up with a plan to get voters out in droves.
The idea is you make a pledge at the citizen, patriot, or american hero level. Here’s what’s required for each level:
Citizen:
I pledge to withhold sex from non-voters for the week following the election.
Patriot:
I pledge to have sex with a voter on election night and withhold sex from non-voters for the week following the election.
American Hero:
I pledge to have sex with a voter on election night and withhold sex from non-voters for the next four years.
Humorous, no? Troubling, yes? The most concerning part of the whole shebang is that there are suggestions of election night parties where supposedly there will be a lot of “pledge fulfilling” going on.
Of course this site is intended to be satirical. Good satire or not I leave up to you. I guess what I don’t understand is what the point is. Is this a satirical attempt to get voters to register to vote, or is it a sarcastic jab at organizations like “Rock the Vote?” It’s hard to tell.
Michigan State University’s State News–also known as “The Snooze” around these parts–seemingly missed the whole “satirical” aspect of votergasm.org when they printed up a blurb on the front page of their paper telling students about the different levels of pledges they could feasibly take.
This is the biggest problem with satire, people don’t get it. I simply cannot fathom how some folks miss it…and boy when they do, things get messed up quickly. Rumor has it the frats are already ordering kegs and stacking up cases of condoms for election night.
All thanks to the interaction of votergasm.org and stupid people. Hurray for America! Although, I guess there is an upside, if you’re hard up for a good time, Michigan State should be a happening place on the evening of Tuesday, November 8th. Just remember to wear your, “I voted” sticker.
Permalink
09.19.04
Posted in culture at 2:36 pm by
I went to church. You were all dying to know if I would after my last little rampage, admit it. Well, I’ll admit, I was curious if I’d go myself. But, I went. Why? Well, partially because I know that one or two of you–for whatever sick reasons–actually look forward to reading these. But there were other reasons as well, I really hate to give up on something…and no matter how hard I try or how much I criticize, I’m not a cynic. I believe that our church can move forward.
The easiest move would just be to leave, of course. I could find me one of those accepting, thoughtful, academic type churches. They’re out there, you know. Places where I’d be happier. Lots of people have found those places and they wonder, why Brandon, would you choose to go to a place that you really don’t like sometimes? It’s a fair question. My answer is that there’s work to do here. I could find one of those better churches, though, indubitably there’d be other challenges there as well. So, here I am, back again from another Sunday service.
We’re starting a wonderful series of sermons. It’s about becoming transformational in the kingdom of God. How wonderful. This is something I truly care about. Our pastor, though rarely a captivating speaker, was good this morning. He delivered his points well. I didn’t like the worship, but you’ve heard my tack on that before. I won’t bore you with the same old details. (There were two women–microphones turned down to almost to the point that there voices were inaudible–standing WAY off to the side of the podium. Men in the middle, playing ALL the instruments–come to think of it the only thing I’ve ever seen a woman play is a tambourine.) So much for not mentioning worship, eh?
Okay, this week we had a drama. You’ve doubtlessly seen the dramatized version of Carman’s “The Champion” where Jesus comes in in a boxing/WWF costume and kicks the ever living shit out of Satan. Whenever I see that dramatized version I have a hard time telling if the Holy Spirit is moving or I’m so uncomfortable that my skin feels like it’s physically moving around on my body. I’ve felt both–the Holy Spirit and my skin crawling because of discomfort–they’re really very similar sensations.
So, you’ve all seen that skit. Well, this was kindof like that, except exponentially tackier. In fact, this skit was the “Hooters” of tacky. (Another attempt at the one-ups-personship of Just Pat at our metaphor game.) There was an angel (I think Gabriel made an appearance)and Satan squaring off about whether or not a young woman should finish work for her co-workers, or watch a pay-per-view event featuring “Triple H” and “Chris Jericho.” They wresteled, I’ll let you guess who won, the angel or Satan.
This, of course, became an audience participation event. I was expected to cheer on Gabriel from the audience. Actors waived up the crowd–this met our crowd with mixed reviews. Some folks actually did cheer the good guy on, and booed Satan. Others, like me, sat in our seats, not quite sure that this akward spectacle could really truly be happening right there in front of us. I fidgeted uncontrollably. Then, just as soon as it all started the fictional announcer of this bout declared it over. He added a tidbit about spiritual warfare and we were off to the sermon (which had nothing to do with spiritual warfare, and yes, I still have ideological whiplash.)
My problem isn’t with having a drama. I like good dramas. Particularly ones that prime a congregation to be ready to interact with the message, or with the worship at a deeper level. This one was none of these things. I guess my biggest problem isn’t really the concept of the drama at all–though it plays a role. My biggest problem was that I was told last week to go out and invite all my unchurched friends to my church.
Now if my unchurched friends were largely 5th or 6th grade boys, this drama would’ve kicked ass. Here’s the deal though, pre-teen adolescent boys make up only a small percentage of the audience on a given Sunday morning. Had I invited a friend from grad school to come on out and check out church this morning they would’ve heard an awesome sermon, but they would’ve also seen that drama. Which would’ve they remembered? I don’t know, but I have a sneaking suspicion.
But maybe it’s not fair for me to hold my community up as a representative example of who our church is trying to attract. Let’s take the community it’s located in for example. You all can imagine the scene if I say, yuppieville. If you’ve seen the movie American Pie or any of its successors you are probably farmiliar with the types of families that our church seeks to reach out to. Not likely the kinds of families that sit around and watch Wrestling on wednesday nights for family bonding.
The sermon, though, was pretty good. So what’s a guy to do? You all know I’ll keep going. Just Pat challenged in a comment whether I would be a “thrower awayer” or a person who bucks the system. She is right, I’ve always bucked the system I’ve always done the hard thing. So a little clarification. In my last post I mentioned that I can understand how people feel when they’re ready to take their last step through the church’s doors. I didn’t say I would.
But, on a deeper level, answering the questions of how best to respond to these tough challenges appropriately continues to be tough work. For now, I’ll probably keep y’all as my sounding board. After all, one needs to be able to feel free to flesh out ideas so that one can truly understand the things they say! You all are therapeudic in that sense.
Please do also keep in mind my friends, that you are a sounding board. That, as Greg once said over at his blog the parish, “you’re getting the bitchiest version of me, here.” This is quite true of myself as well. I’ll certainly keep y’all posted as to updates (and weekly rantings.) I ask you all to know, and hope, and pray (if you’re the prayin’ type) that beyond these frustrations there are also actions afoot…it’s just that some of the me that you see here is still trying to figure out just what he thinks about the way things are in this crazy messed up world.
P.S. I just realized that I never really described what I mean by “a tale of two churches.” I’d like to explain the title, but it really is another blog entry unto itself so I’ll just leave this one off like this….to be continued…
Permalink
09.18.04
Posted in culture at 11:04 pm by
**Disclaimer: I think that it is only fair to warn here that I’ll be using several explitives. Normally, I’m fairly–though not exclusively–verbally reserved. I’m cutting that tie to propriety this evening. Oh tongue, be loosed to sing thy heart’s words.**
Fuck. I just am not sure I can go back to church. There’s a fine line that a couple walks when they begin dating. Eventually, fights happen, disagreements occur. This is par for the course. At some point though, one or both parties make a decision to either carry on through a sometimes hardship, or they decide that their differences are too much to surmount. Tonight, my wife said it best, “I’m just not sure any solution we could come up with could ever be bigger than the problems we face.”
I pray that this isn’t the beginning of the end of our relationship with the church we’ve been at for the past year and half. We’ve grown to love some things about it. The people, some of them anyway, are fantastic. But some are not.
Tonight we learned that our worship leader has began engaging in the practice of “grading” worship volunteers (folks who volunteer to go up in front of church and lead praise songs.) He has an “A” team, a “B” team, a “C” team, and a “D” team. Recently, he took the opportunity to kick some of the folks off of the “A” team because they hadn’t the skills necessary to pay the bills.
Holy fucktards, Batman! Hardly have I words to say. I cannot, simply cannot, wrap my mind around a reality in which it is simply okay to treat human beings like this. For shit sake, what scripture passage can one translate to read: “And thou shalt make only nice sounding music when one plays at the praisegasm that is Sunday morning. All those who makest music offensive to your worship leaders ears must be stricken to the reject pile of voluntary musicians.”
I get the point, so don’t lecture me on offering one’s best for God. I’ve already given that lecture. This clearly cannot be the problem. If it were we would be structuring our worship in a meaningful and intentional fashion. The only reason I can think of to do something like this would be so that folks in the congregation would not be destracted by the worship leaders…but, if that was really the goal, why put all the bad singers on one team? Why allow folks who are overly emotional and make distracting praise gestures (like the woman who jumps up and down in whilest having a praisegasm and her bra doesn’t support quite enough…suffice it to say it looks like we’re having jello.) Why does our worship leader make offhand comments aloud for the whole congregation to hear–and hopefully laugh at–DURING THE MOTHERFUCKING SERMON if he’s so fucking concerned about my worship experience being a truly authentic and uninterrupted?
My friends, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist. Our worship leader isn’t at all concerned with my worship experience. He couldn’t give a flying fucking shit if I am in a worshipful mood, or not on Sunday morning. I simply cannot think of any comprehensive or cogent reason for behaving this way toward people who volunteered for worship leadership. It is simply egomaniacal.
You guessed it, our worship boy has touched a nerve, I’ve been on the receiving end of just such an attack. I was a volunteer, not because I wanted to particularly or because I am a fantastic worship helper (having a worship leader is a messed up concept that I’d love to take my hacks at but now is not the time or place.) I was a volunteer because we needed one. Probably like those poor people at my church.
Those poor people who responded to our worship “leader” (that’s what I’ll call him because that’s how he sees himself and in effect what he is) when he asked for help leading worship. They thought, “Hey, wouldn’t it be great to serve God by leading worship.” I seriously doubt that any of these folks said to themselves one Sunday morning, “You know, I haven’t been ridiculed enough about my voice/ability to play guitar/etc. I think I’ll sign up for some voluntary ridicule.” No fucking way.
For a minute I almost tested those waters again. I almost said, hey, I can play guitar and sing and would be willing to…but I knew deep down what would happen. Now what, though? Folks have broken hearts becase their worship isn’t good enough. Shroud it in daisies all you fucking like, but that’s what the message is. “You’re not good enough to worship with us.” I don’t care if that’s not what you said, or not what you meant, oh great worship leader, that’s what they heard.
But these aren’t God’s words! God pleads with me and these other folks, “Don’t fucking listen to that asshole! He’s being a dickhead. I love the sound of your worship, his ears are not my ears–he hears your vocal chords, I hear your soul. Fuckin’ “a”, Brandon, if you stop letting your soul sing out, who the hell do I have to listen to? Jackass up there with the overpriced taylor guitar, with his eyes closed just enough to look closed but open enough to make sure that all eyes in the audience are trained directly on him? I don’t like the sound of his soul…I mean, sometimes it’s okay, but you and your friends Brandon, your souls sing a beautiful tune.” Those are my God’s words, or at least the way I imagine them. (By the way for all you scripture nazis, that was a paraphrase of scripture…not a translation.)
This, though, is where I am. I’ve been raised in the Church, I’ve learned to love the Church and worship. And now I’ve learned to hate both. When did the Church stop pursuing Christ? Why is it dead? The church, dead? Surely hyperbole this, Brandon? Perhaps. But perhaps it’s less hyperbole that we’d all love to believe. At any rate, I never thought I’d come to this point. I never believed that I could be in a place to leave the organized Church in its traditional expression.
I now know what it feels like to be in that place, to really be ready to stride out those doors for the last time. I know what it feels like because I’m there. Now my question is this: “What’s a transformational optimist to do?”
I don’t know if I’ll be in the pew tomorrow, I’d love to want to and I really want to love to go. Tonight, however, I do not. I’ll keep you posted (as is standard) to my progress.
Permalink
09.17.04
Posted in fun at 11:33 pm by
Our company actually made a comment about how clean our house was. I call this a smashing success. My dear wife was busy working late this evening and it felt really good to me to have her come home to a clean house. I hope good enough that I may do it again. Jen was late because she was assisting a student who had been hurt in a car accident a few weeks ago. For the sake of anonymity (not that any of you know where my wife works–or if you did you wouldn’t know the student) we’ll call this student Ron.
Ron shattered his arm. Compile this with the fact that Ron is already a person with a disability, that puts Ron at a disadvantage. Ron has all the right in the world to be pissed off at God. He wears a cast that weighs 15 pounds, has difficulty moving around, and is now homebound. Oh, and he’s 18 years old. If any of you remember what it’s like to be 18–it sucks, even without being stuck at home with your parents. Here’s the miracle. Ron is the happiest guy I know–hyperbole, yes, but narrowly.
I just don’t get it. God takes the time to give me a silver lined life wrapped in twenties and to top it all off, he made me a white male. It just doesn’t get any better than that. The world is mine for the taking. Still, I get cranky when my waiter shows up 4 minutes later than expected. Normally, my wife is the most instrumental in making sure I live in a clean house, and that I’m well fed. You know, when it comes right down to it, I don’t really do all that much for myself. Yet, I still find time to bitch.
Okay, new thought. We played Settlers of Catan with our guests tonight. Fun game. I kicked everyone’s ass. (This thrills me particularly tonight because I preempted this game with the announcement that I would be handing everyone their ass–to follow through on this is an accomplishment of the highest order.) If you’ve never played, order yourselves a copy–it’s a truly fantastic experience (of course, you’ll need to round up 3 other players in addition to yourselves.)
You know, I am a fortunate person. Kicking ass at a board game, having nice things, it all adds up. I don’t feel guilty for being fortunate. I don’t think that that’s the appropriate response. In fact, I would go so far as to say that guilt is the WRONG response to blessing. The appropriate response is gratitude, gratitude that motivates service.
I suppose that’s the feeling that I have right now. I’m overwhelmed–not just whelmed but overwhelmed–with gratitude. That gratitude not only motivates but requires my service. Time for a transformational optimist to go to work.
Permalink
« Previous entries ·
