11.30.04
Posted in culture at 12:19 pm by
In real life, I don’t wield the sharp tounge I do on my blog. I’ve always needed to slow down, think about things before I vocalize. I’m relatively shitty in a fast paced argument. I usually think of brilliant counterpoints…about a week late. Sometimes, though, that isn’t such a bad thing.
It really is a skill that keeps me out of more trouble. When I talk to folks, I try to think first and talk later. It happened this weekend with Jen’s step-brother. He’s a really nice guy. He’s also just about as fundamentalist as you can get. Just when he thinks he’s reached the pinnicle of conservatism, there’s always another step, another ledge more conservative than the last, where for to climb.
He talked this weekend about how wonderful Rick Warren was. I held my tounge. What a great thing George W. Bush was. I held my tounge. It all led me to wonder, though, what makes people conservative or liberal. This young man, who works as a ministry team member in his church, would just never dream of anything else. Being Christian means becoming as conservative as humanly possible to him.
I think he’s terribly wrong. He doesn’t know it, but he thinks I’m terribly wrong. Sometimes, letting love of others trump the love of argument is difficult. But, I think in this case it was worthwhile. The thing is, this guy is a person first to me. I like that. He’s real, he’s got a life–messed up in someplaces, but a life nonetheless. It’s just not worth ruining family gatherings to argue about politics, society, or religion.
I think it’s easy to forget that. I get all up in arms when Falwell goes on the news and talks smack about gays or women. You know, it probably doesn’t phase Falwell one iota that Brandon at Bad Christian thinks he’s full of shit. It’s rather a wasted argument. He’s not mainstream, and he never will be, no matter how he tries to sell that he is mainstream.
Sometimes liberal christians use the same arguments against wingnuts that wingnuts use against us. That argument (in either direction) goes a little like this:
Wingnut or Liberal: You’re saying all these things that are wrong, you’re turning people away from the true faith!
The other person: No I’m not.
W or L: Yes you are, and I’m telling Jesus and he’s gonna come and kick your ass.
I would submit–realizing that this is potentially a critique on myself–that the thing that turns people off from Christianity is probably in part the conservative wingnut, but also it is in part the fact that the aforementioned argument exists. The fact that we can’t really all live together.
From a communication/persuasion perspective, people rarely change their minds when they center around a pole. That is, the leftist lefty and the conservative righty aren’t budging. It’s the folks in the middle who move around. Falwell will say what Falwell will say, as will Osteen, Robertson, Wilkinson, Rick Warren, et al. ad infinitum.
Maybe Christians just need to say what they need to say. Contrasting that with what some view as idiots and others view as leaders say, often just isn’t helpful. I’d rather carry on the dialogue with places that have lots of folks who are intentional about being thoughtful, but are more moderate in their treatment of society.
Again, raw thoughts. Not many answers. Just sick of problems…and I wish there were more love going around.
Permalink
11.29.04
Posted in culture at 10:08 pm by
Tim at Baalam’s Ass posted a response to my doubting post and the comments therein. Tim was quite careful to respectfully share his opinions on our discussion. For that, I’m grateful, and hopeful that I–and others who may choose to comment here–will be as respectful as he.
Tim raises fundamental questions about doubts, doubting, and the doubting faithful. Tim cites this problem with the ‘doubting faithful’:
Here’s the problem with the doubting faithful: it far too often degenerates into “I doubt that Paul wrote such-and-such a book,” with the subtext, “…because I don’t agree with what he says here.” The doubt usually relates to some issue of women or homosexuals, if not to the much more serious issues of Christology that are raised.
Now, this quote, Tim says (and I believe him) isn’t aimed at me. However, it does take aim at people who like me take liberal views on homosexuality or women. The problem with the above quote is that it assumes a subtext. I believe that Tim, here, too simply writes off liberal views. Tim assumes that liberals don’t believe the Bible as is contextually and culturally accurate. It seems to me that Tim is using doubt as a scapegoat to explain an illogical set of liberal beliefs. To me, that’s not doubt, that’s just disagreement as to the real meaning of scripture in its cultural context. We can argue all the day long about that…but it’s not doubt that causes it.
More fundamentally I see the difference between Tim and I to be evidenced in this statement:
The gulf between those who accept what can be proven and live with what cannot (”Let God be true and every man a liar”) and those who question what can be proven and deny what cannot could not be wider.
The fundamental disagreement we have, I think, is evidenced here. Tim thinks things can be proven (or so it would seem from the above quote.) I do not. It’s really as simple as that. It’s not that I believe that there’s no truth, hardly. I just don’t believe that we can, with any real confidence, believe that we’re seeing the truth with 20/20 vision.
You see, I don’t think it’s wise to make any snap decisions about things which are at best fuzzy. I think we can be reasonably confident about a number of things. I count among those things that there was once a man called Jesus, who claimed to be God. I believe–though others may disagree–that that man died and rose again, literally. Of course, little of this can be empirically proven.
Proving the details that are even fuzzier, seems to me to be a colossal waste of time. If I believe that Jesus walked this earth, said he was God, and rose from the dead, you know, I don’t know much for sure…but I’m going to be a follower of that man.
Doubts, to me, don’t have value. No matter their content. They just are, it’s how we deal with those doubts, whether we accept them as part of life and seek answers with the hopes of coming closer to that answer that is a measure of a woman’s diligence.
Permalink
Posted in culture at 11:31 am by
I’d like to share something that Jen and I are doing this year. I probably should’ve posted something about this prior to the biggest shopping day of the year (a holiday that I consider purely evil) the Friday after Thanksgiving.
Not that it’s evil to shop. Far from it. Many people do it quite wisely. They spend their money on reputable businesses that give back to the community. And then there are people like most of my family, in-laws and blood alike. They probably went out to Walmart this past weekend and spent a wad of money on things. All to a corporation that will not give back to the community and will only reward its workers with slave wages and deplorable conditions. I love my family. I do…it’s just that they–like MANY others don’t really think about consumerism as it relates to sin.
I love my wife. There are lots of reasons, but this time I have one reason in particular. In the car, on the way up north this past Friday (we were driving rather than shopping on the devil’s holiday,) Jen had a marvelous idea.
Rather than getting people more new ’stuff’ that we don’t really have the money for, we’ll be raiding our closets, attic, and entertainment center this year. Sure, you can call us cheap, but regifting that all that ’stuff’ we have that just sits around collecting dust seems like stewardship to me. Rather than going to the store and buying whatever crap we can afford–which on a grad student salary ain’t much–didn’t seem wise when we have nice things at home that habitually go unused.
This year we’re regifting or making gifts. I mean, we’ve got two VCR/DVD combination players. There’s no reason we need two. We’ve got a nice digital answering machine…but no phone service (we use cell phones.) So instead of taking a home equity line of credit to do Christmas this year, we’re giving away some stuff that is really nice…it’s just that we don’t use it.
We’ll probably make some little gift tags that explain why the gifts we give aren’t packaged like you’d find them at the store…because we’ve recycled the original boxes in most cases. The gifts we’ll give this year have stories attached to each of them. Stories we’ll be able to share with their new owners. Hopefully, those new owners will be able to write stories with those gifts, too. And, when they, like we, feel that the item has outgrown its usefulness we give it away, rather than letting it collect dust.
Really, that’s my hope for all of you, too. I hope I’ve caught you before your mad rush to sacrifice your credit card on the Walmart altar. At least think about regifting. Give gifts with history, gifts with love. Most of all, think before you buy, “Do I have anything better at home that I could give, instead of blowing my money on another gift.”
Don’t be fooled. We’ll likely make it to the store this year and purchase some gifts. But, in truth, those aren’t the ones we’re excited about. We’re excited about those gifts that lie unused in our basement junk-rooms. Gifts that will hopefully find use again.
Permalink
11.28.04
Posted in culture at 10:55 pm by
Greg asked that very question in the comments of my last post. A fair question if I ever heard one. I haven’t really been posting as much as I would like. Here’s a rundown of why.
1) Thanksgiving with the in-laws. The in-laws are wonderful people. However, they live about 47 miles past anything resembling the internet. It’s a 4 hour drive to get up there and when you’re ‘up there’ you’re really ‘up there’ if you know what I mean. So that’s one reason. Celebration with family.
2) I’ve also been finishing a few papers for my classes. In true grad-student style, I’ve pretty much devoted my first semester this year to you, my reading public. This was, of course, wonderful. However, it’s now time to pay the piper and hammer out some papers, the ones I’ve been putting off all semester. I’d inform you of the content of these papers, but in truth, they’re really boring. Suffice it to say I’m developing an experimental design and working that into a feasible experiment…I’ve fallen asleep while typing. That should pretty much say it all.
3) I actually planned on blogging this afternoon but interestingly, on our 4 hour drive home–which happened to be through snow and ice,–we witnessed a rollover accident. We weren’t involved, but we did witness a vehicle skid out, cross three lanes of traffic, and roll over in the ditch. We stopped. I was the first one on the scene. The woman driving was fine, thank God. I wasn’t so lucky. I tripped while I was running to see if she was alright, I think I got whiplash.
4) I probably overestimate the ‘fun’ Jen and I have when we go up north. We don’t really. It’s actually quite boring. So, in an effort to quell the ‘up north thanksgiving blues’ Jen and I decided to drag the in-laws out to the bookstore. It was raining, so something inside seemed wise. I found a book about homebrewing. I read this book, pretty much cover to cover. I got hooked, again. You see, I’ve always been about a half a minute away from starting my own homebrew hobby. This weekend, I’ve quelled that urge as well. Just about as soon as Jen and I got unpacked from our trip this weekend, I was on the internet finding the closest homebrew shop. Luckily, it wasn’t far away, and it was open on Sunday. Beautiful.
We went and purchased me a deluxe homebrew starter kit. (Grandma Joyce had this weekend given both Jen and I a ‘christmas money’ cheque…I think she’ll be thrilled to hear that I spent mine on beer making equippment.) Now, those of you who know me also know that I have the patience of a third grader…who has to pee. I couldn’t just HAVE a homebrew kit, and enough malt barley (extract and crushed), hops, and yeast to make beer…and then NOT make beer. So…at about 8:00 tonight I threw my new 20 quart stock pot on the stove and started making my very first homebrew.
American Amber. Should be spectacular. Come if you like, it should be ready to drink in about 4 weeks, give or take a week.
And that, my friends, is where I’ve been. I’ve got some thoughts kicking around for posts that I’m absolutely itching to get down onto ‘cyberpaper’ so stay tuned. I think it’ll be a good week. And, of course, I’ll keep you posted on the status of ‘our beer.’
Toodles,
Brandon
Permalink
11.24.04
Posted in culture at 5:57 pm by
Here’s a quick funny in honor of the biggest bar night of the year:
Permalink
Posted in culture at 12:37 am by
If one is to google the phrase “bad christian”–which I do as a mostly benign act of pure narcissism from time to time–these are the results. Unfortunately, I didn’t make the first page (though I did make the second before the pagebreak.)
The website that DID manage to make google’s bad christian wall of shame are the fools…oops folks–Freudian slip–down at Worldview Weekend. I can’t say for sure that my posts about the silliness these yahoos engage in had anything at all to do with their placement at the top of google’s ‘bad christian search,’ but what poetic justice if it did.
By the way, if you haven’t heard of the term google bomb, 1) you’ve been hiding under a rock in cyberspace and 2) it’s a term that describes an act done by people–often bloggers–as an act of non-violent info-terrorism.
Basically, as I understand it, what happens is someone gets the idea to start posting the same words…for example “Worldview Weekend.” And, they set those words up to link to another page. This, for example links the phrase “Worldview Weekend” to my thoughts on their worldview test for dummies.
Most normal folks don’t think much of this. However, google’s spyderbots–at least the unthoughtful ones–surf on through, see some text, read the link, and make the assumption that the two are related. In the above case, Google might get the idea that the phrase “Worldview Weekend” is somehow linked with my Bad Christian litmus test. Usually this works best when lots of folks participate in such silliness by coming together to make the phrases in question and the non-traditional pages they link to a pattern. (Not that I’m suggesting that y’all start linking these Worldview Weekend folks to me…although…it would be fodder for some discussion around these parts.)
I think Michael Main tried this a few months back linking the word untrustworthy to a bank or some other financial institution who had treated him poorly. I don’t know if it worked…but I kind of hope it did. That sort of thing works wonders for my warped sense of justice.
UPDATE: I just rechecked the google listing. I’m almost positive now that my little google-bomb did, in fact, do the voodoo that it should do so well. The page that Google points to is the same that I pointed to in my ‘bad christian litmus test’ link. Oh my, what a day.
Permalink
11.23.04
Posted in faith at 4:01 pm by
Really less than a minute after I complained of ‘blogwriters block’ I was bemused to find that I was being linked to. Generally, when I find that folks are linking to something I’ve written, it means I have fodder for a new post. This time is no different. It seems that some out there are not so comfortable with doubts as I…or even some of you. This post over at Philosophical Poetry had this to say:
Brandon, I support your right and your responsibility to examine what has been given you, but you need to have your mind focused a little better on the author and finisher of our faith, Christ Jesus.
On Paul:
Peter (who is pretty clearly established as foremost of Christ’s disciples, a pillar of the early Church) writes of Paul, setting Paul’s letters on the same level as other Scripture, i.e. the Old Testament.
Andrew, Andrew, Andrew (or, whoever the hell you are.) Why do Christians do this? And, by this I mean make a jackass of yourself. I need to ‘have my mind focused a little better on the author and finisher’ of my faith, Christ Jesus? So, I have doubts. That makes me a bad christian?
Back to the ‘focus your mind a little better comment.’ So, what if I did focus my mind a little better? What if everything didn’t instantly become clear? Am I fucked? Screwed? Going to hell? Just because I didn’t swallow your pill.
Paul saw Jesus on the road to Damascus, you say. I buy it. I just don’t think that does much for Paul as an intellectual source. 90 seconds with Jesus, a blinding light, and wham…instant genius. He can write spiritual truth with almost omnicient maturity. Doesn’t seem very plausible to me.
Funny that you mention Peter as a reference for elevating Paul’s writing to the level of scripture. Christian tradition holds that in the early church those two had it out for each other. Not that this disproves your point, I just find it interesting. I think you’d better examine the cultural context of this verse that you cite though:
2 Peter 3.15-16:
15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
So to follow your logic, anyone who has a doubt about anything in scripture is according to the passage you cite going ‘to their own destruction.’ This passage that you ironically use to extinguish all doubt is intended to encourage folks to lives of faith. Which leads to the fundamental question, ‘what is faith?’ You, Andrew, probably think faith is something that is in your head. I, however, disagree. Faith, I think is something that we’re called to…even when it isn’t present in our heads. Faith is something that is etched into your very soul, I believe. That passage is about making faith a lifestyle. The really ironic thing is that you’ve twisted a passage of scripture to accuse me of twisting a passage of scripture.
We’ve now come full circle. That’s just twisted. I just wanted a place to doubt out loud for a minute, without a shit-storm of backlash. A place to faithfully doubt in safety. I guess that place is only an imagination.
Permalink
Posted in culture at 3:27 pm by
I’ve been writing like mad. It just hasn’t been on my blog. I’ve been working on two papers for school. Both of them of the ‘brutal’ variety. I need a break.
The worst thing is…I’ve got ‘blogwriters block.’
any ideas?
Permalink
11.19.04
Posted in faith at 10:10 am by
I’m sure you all have some doubts. I don’t mean the ‘I don’t know if I can do it..’ kinds of doubts, though, I’m sure you have those, too. I mean those foundational religious doubts that creep up from time to time. I’d like to tell you about my latest whopper.
It all sort of centers around the Bible. We’re supposed to read the Bible in context, right? The old testament is there to record a history of a faithful God, to give us a law (which is impossible to live up to,) and to prophesy the end of the oppression of that law. The new testament is written as a story of a fulfillment of that law and to give us guidlines as to how to live a Christian life–and concurrently, what to expect in that life. There are tons of things, even important things, my brief synapse of scripture doesn’t cover, but let’s go with it for now.
The Bible was written for a 2000 year old culture. How can we ever begin to know how it should be overlayed onto our current culture? I’ve no clue. Really. None. Take Paul for example. He wrote letters to the early church. I don’t think he intended to send every message that he sent to every church. The messages he wrote were church specific. Written to a Church in a particular cultural context.
The message I see being sent by the church today doesn’t really even closely resemble the message of Christ (i.e. the sermon on the mount, etc.) Are we really to trust the writings of men? We trust Paul with our faith sometimes. And, here’s my doubt in fully unobscured form: Paul never knew Christ. He saw a vision, yes. Perhaps he witnessed a stoning (and I’m not sure if that was the stoning of Christ or not–I can’t remember). Paul, when he wrote his letters, though a wise man, wasn’t a Christian as long as I. He was probably going on some portion of the current gospel, as well as an oral tradition. Although (and correct me if I’m wrong) I think that many of Paul’s letters predate the gospels. How can I trust his writings?
Sometimes, I feel like the only words of scripture that I trust are the ones that pop up in red letters. But, even those came about many years after the life of Christ. Everything is subject to interpretation.
I think the Church has forgotten the gospel message, the good news. Good news has become a euphemism for shoving a conversion message down the throat of anybody within earshot. That’s not good news. In that case, the good news would be me selling earplugs.
I’m not arguing that the ‘holy scriptures’ are worthless. Not hardly. I’m just saying I have some doubts. I’m not looking for a bevy of folks to come in with logic, exegesis, or eisegesis, or anything else and sweep me back into more firmly ‘Christian’ ground. I just want to know I’m not nuts, or a heretic, or any combination of the two.
I’m just a dude, trying to figure it out. What’s the message, the Church has got me really confused. I just want to hear the one cohesive message of the gospel. What is it? Is it “for God so loved the world that he gave his only son…”, is it, “Love God and your neighbor as yourself…”, is it love? Is it all three? If so, how do they fit together?
More questions than answers today.
Permalink
11.18.04
Posted in culture at 10:22 am by
I’m just as disappointed about another four years under BushCo (thanks to Mainsheet for the name) as the next person, but for crying out loud, why in the name of all that is good and right are we already looking forward to 2008?
The Clinton Library opening has sent some reverberation through the grapevine of a possible Clinton bid for the whitehouse in 2008. Hillary this time. I do love Hillary Clinton. Do I think she’s a good choice for a democratic nominee for president? An emphatic “meh” is my answer. Truth is I don’t care. I’m a little troubled that this has gotten so much press lately. I don’t mind that people talk about who will follow 43…but for crying out loud…he only won reappointment a few weeks ago! He hasn’t even been sworn in for a second term.
It’s not just the democrats though. Republicans have been cawing about a possible Cheney resignation toward the end of the second term. This would allow a potential nominee to get a little steam in the run up to the election. I’m not that old, but, I certainly don’t remember this being commonplace. Doesn’t that move seem like cheating to anyone else?
I think democrats should stop worrying about who they are going to get to fix the ‘mess’ in 2008, and focus on trying to stop the mess from being as messy as it could be. Already, we’ve seen a rash of resignations and reappointments. These reappointments have not surprised me. If anything they’ve proven to me that in this second term the President is going to work at all costs to move HIS agenda. Folks who haven’t seen eye to eye with the President in the past have moved on: Colin Powell, John Ashcroft. The President has appointed his cronies, his best friends and confidants to take over.
The administration is becoming univisioned. That’s great if you think Bush is taking us in the right direction, not so much if, like me, you think he isn’t.
So what should democrats do? First of all stop talking about what they’ll do in the next presidential election. There are enough centrist republicans in the congress to block a neo-conservative agenda from taking hold. Democrats should be partnering with folks like Arlen Specter and John McCain to make some attempt to block overly conservative supreme court justices, etc.
It’s like dems have conceeded not just the election, but the next four years. In fact, it seems to me that the people who are talking about blocking a radical agenda are those centrist republican…and lord knows I’d hate to have to turn into one of those.
I wonder if it would help if I could start re-campaigning for McCain in 2000? I may just start.
Permalink
« Previous entries ·
