My wife and I were lamenting once again how Christmas is screwed up. The hobby stores like JoAnn, Michael's, and Hobby Lobby all put their Christmas stuff out for sale even before Halloween. And traditionally Christmas season doesn't even start till Christmas Day! There are supposed to be twelve days of celebration starting on December 25. Of course, there's no historical basis for this; it just goes back to the AD 300s. I guess I should say there's no biblical basis for it.
Then I realized.
Liberals have been taking over Christmas for the last generation or two. Just like how liberals are saying there aren't six literal days of creation. They're trying to undermine the historical faith. Now they want to take the historical Christmas and turn it into some liberal, tree hugging (literally as they try to wrestle that giant pine onto their SUV the day after Thanksgiving!) unholyday. They're taking the twelve days and turning them into two whole months! I'm calling this perversion the Day-Age Theory of Christmas. They sing about the Twelve Days of Christmas, but in their hearts and lives they make each day of Christmas into like five days or an age.
As for me and my house, we're sticking with the twelve literal days of Christmas.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Sunday, December 20, 2009
The Moral Muslim
I'm reading "The Missional Leader" by Roxburgh and Romanuk for a class. I hated the book as I saw it leering at me from the top of the To Read stack. But quickly upon opening it I realized these guys are doing good stuff. They put their fingers on the general malaise in the church, and they point a human, non-guaranteed-success way forward. The content is applicable to other areas, but it is presented to deal with church leadership.
One idea they mentioned in passing finally unlocked something I've been working on for a long time.
The American church has long been about being moral. There's decent reason for that. Leading a moral life at its basic level can lead to health. But we've heaped layers of bad stuff on morality. Control. Superiority. Judgmentalism. Easy methods of being judgmental.
Morality has long been our "good news." When we present the gospel, what is the first reaction? "Well, I could never be that good," or "I still wanna have some fun." We always insist that being a Christian isn't about being good, but this visceral critique from outsiders is actually spot on.
The American Christian game: Be moral. We're better than you.
Now judgment is coming upon us. Christians are having an identity crisis (if they let themselves think at all) because they look at moral Muslims. They're beating us at our own game! We're still within the infancy of this realization. There are several possible responses. We can redouble our moral efforts to win the old game. We could change teams and become Muslims because they have more discipline and they're going to win the championship. We could go pluralist and ask who set up this stupid league in the first place. We could go play fantasy moralism and take the best aspects of each team to try win in our own made up league. (While parts of this are appealing, it only compounds the problem.)
Or we could become Christians. The gospel is something more like God's Spirit coming to live among us, recreating us. Jesus, the creative speech act of God, breathed on his disciples, the mud of society, as the Creator breathed on Adam, the dust of the earth. Jesus constituted a new humanity here. (Thanks to Missional Leader for some of this.) And he didn't say, "Go out into the world and be moral." That would be on par with saying, "Go be that old rotting carcass that you all hate." He told them to announce the good news that the Spirit is now among us, animating this new creation.
If Christians want to be distinctive, the tellers of the real metanarrative, they're going to have to go this direction. For the time has finally come that the world is becoming aware that there is a new superstar in the moral league (though with many of the same failings as the church). We have a unique story. We have to tell it.
One idea they mentioned in passing finally unlocked something I've been working on for a long time.
The American church has long been about being moral. There's decent reason for that. Leading a moral life at its basic level can lead to health. But we've heaped layers of bad stuff on morality. Control. Superiority. Judgmentalism. Easy methods of being judgmental.
Morality has long been our "good news." When we present the gospel, what is the first reaction? "Well, I could never be that good," or "I still wanna have some fun." We always insist that being a Christian isn't about being good, but this visceral critique from outsiders is actually spot on.
The American Christian game: Be moral. We're better than you.
Now judgment is coming upon us. Christians are having an identity crisis (if they let themselves think at all) because they look at moral Muslims. They're beating us at our own game! We're still within the infancy of this realization. There are several possible responses. We can redouble our moral efforts to win the old game. We could change teams and become Muslims because they have more discipline and they're going to win the championship. We could go pluralist and ask who set up this stupid league in the first place. We could go play fantasy moralism and take the best aspects of each team to try win in our own made up league. (While parts of this are appealing, it only compounds the problem.)
Or we could become Christians. The gospel is something more like God's Spirit coming to live among us, recreating us. Jesus, the creative speech act of God, breathed on his disciples, the mud of society, as the Creator breathed on Adam, the dust of the earth. Jesus constituted a new humanity here. (Thanks to Missional Leader for some of this.) And he didn't say, "Go out into the world and be moral." That would be on par with saying, "Go be that old rotting carcass that you all hate." He told them to announce the good news that the Spirit is now among us, animating this new creation.
If Christians want to be distinctive, the tellers of the real metanarrative, they're going to have to go this direction. For the time has finally come that the world is becoming aware that there is a new superstar in the moral league (though with many of the same failings as the church). We have a unique story. We have to tell it.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Meditation
Read the following as a Scriptural meditation. Post a comment if you see anything awry.
We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our souls. For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.
We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our souls. For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Shut-ins eighty years from now
Given the popularity of certain children's footwear today, I wonder if eighty years from now they'll have to change Meals on Wheels to Wheeling Mealies.
Diapers
I realized a couple of weeks ago that changing diapers is a sacrament, or it's at least sacramental. In the Middle Ages there were big discussions about what constituted a sacrament, and some listed up to thirty-five sacraments. I'm not sure if changing diapers was one of them.
There's something about taking part in something so mundane and repetitive that makes me think of the major Protestant sacraments involving bread and wine and water. We all take food and water regularly to survive. As a natural consequence, we also poop. Praise the Lord for potty-training, but short of that, something needs to be done to help our baby survive. On a long enough timeline, an unchanged diaper is dangerous, just like lack of food and water.
If water is sacramental symbolizing our need for spiritual cleansing, and if bread and wine is symbolic pointing to our need for spiritual nourishment from God, I think changing a diaper symbolizes interminably repetitive service in the midst of the crap of life. These physical acts are necessary to physical survival, but they also mediate a spiritual realization of our utter dependence on God and one another.
Perhaps as I continue in the faithfulness of diaper changing, my bold assertion about how we should serve others will truly sink in.
There's something about taking part in something so mundane and repetitive that makes me think of the major Protestant sacraments involving bread and wine and water. We all take food and water regularly to survive. As a natural consequence, we also poop. Praise the Lord for potty-training, but short of that, something needs to be done to help our baby survive. On a long enough timeline, an unchanged diaper is dangerous, just like lack of food and water.
If water is sacramental symbolizing our need for spiritual cleansing, and if bread and wine is symbolic pointing to our need for spiritual nourishment from God, I think changing a diaper symbolizes interminably repetitive service in the midst of the crap of life. These physical acts are necessary to physical survival, but they also mediate a spiritual realization of our utter dependence on God and one another.
Perhaps as I continue in the faithfulness of diaper changing, my bold assertion about how we should serve others will truly sink in.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Holy smokes, JK!
As I was looking up a word in the dictionary, a strangely familiar word beckoned me. I didn't have much mental context for it, so of course I had to click on it. The word was "witenagemot." It's a ruling council with which an Anglo-Saxon king would consult.
In the Harry Potter series, this was easily morphed into Wizengamot, the ruling council of wizards and witches. More proof that JK Rowling is a philologist par excellence.
Hilariously, I was looking up the word "witch doctor" when I stumbled across that gem.
In the Harry Potter series, this was easily morphed into Wizengamot, the ruling council of wizards and witches. More proof that JK Rowling is a philologist par excellence.
Hilariously, I was looking up the word "witch doctor" when I stumbled across that gem.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
350
I happened upon Speaking of Faith as I was running errands this evening. Every time I've heard the show (on NPR) I've been intrigued. Krista Tippett was interviewing Bill McKibben about climate change. His personal journey led him to somewhat accidentally become an activist in this field.
I've been on the somewhat concerned side about climate change for a while. Some of those close to me have said, "Oh it's just a natural cycle." Others have said the now infamous, "It's all going to burn anyway." May God grant that this self-fulfilling prophecy doesn't come true.
My position has been, yes, climate always changes on a long enough scale. But humans have never caused an ice age. My major concern is whether we're causing the climate to change. If we are, we must stop! If it's other "natural" causes, so be it.
Bill McKibben gave the clearest perspective I've heard on the matter. He's not an alarmist, but he's sounding a very loud alarm. For millennia the count of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been 275 ppm +/- 10. This started to climb shortly after the industrial revolution when coal became the fuel du jour. With coal, gas, and oil burning becoming ubiquitous, we have now reached about 390 ppm. A couple of years ago, scientists using pluriform models calculated that our Earth can sustain a maximum of 350 ppm. According to McKibben, we're in desperate shape.
However, all is not lost. He likens this to a visit to the doctor. A doctor might tell you, "You need to watch what you eat or you're going to have trouble down the road." That's where we were 50 years ago. Now the doctor is saying, "I'm surprised you haven't had a heart attack. Stop your bad habits now, or you're dead!"
McKibben is campaigning to get people to live more neighborly. That's what I love about his climate approach. He doesn't think we need more technology per se, though that will help. Fundamentally we must change our lifestyles or, for instance, hundreds of millions of people will die from dengue fever. With a small increase in temperature, the dengue bearing mosquito is becoming far more prevalent. And it's an all-day mosquito, so netting won't help. Four percent of the world's population accounts for 25 percent of the carbon emissions. And that says America isn't being very neighborly if we're helping to inflict debilitating diseases on folks in Bangladesh who ride their bikes everywhere.
This has already gone long and there are several other fascinating ideas to share. Listen to Bill McKibben on Speaking of Faith or at Q, and he mentions how we've flipped the script in Job. That was the thing I set out to write about! But he tells it well. McKibben's website is www.350.org.
I've been on the somewhat concerned side about climate change for a while. Some of those close to me have said, "Oh it's just a natural cycle." Others have said the now infamous, "It's all going to burn anyway." May God grant that this self-fulfilling prophecy doesn't come true.
My position has been, yes, climate always changes on a long enough scale. But humans have never caused an ice age. My major concern is whether we're causing the climate to change. If we are, we must stop! If it's other "natural" causes, so be it.
Bill McKibben gave the clearest perspective I've heard on the matter. He's not an alarmist, but he's sounding a very loud alarm. For millennia the count of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been 275 ppm +/- 10. This started to climb shortly after the industrial revolution when coal became the fuel du jour. With coal, gas, and oil burning becoming ubiquitous, we have now reached about 390 ppm. A couple of years ago, scientists using pluriform models calculated that our Earth can sustain a maximum of 350 ppm. According to McKibben, we're in desperate shape.
However, all is not lost. He likens this to a visit to the doctor. A doctor might tell you, "You need to watch what you eat or you're going to have trouble down the road." That's where we were 50 years ago. Now the doctor is saying, "I'm surprised you haven't had a heart attack. Stop your bad habits now, or you're dead!"
McKibben is campaigning to get people to live more neighborly. That's what I love about his climate approach. He doesn't think we need more technology per se, though that will help. Fundamentally we must change our lifestyles or, for instance, hundreds of millions of people will die from dengue fever. With a small increase in temperature, the dengue bearing mosquito is becoming far more prevalent. And it's an all-day mosquito, so netting won't help. Four percent of the world's population accounts for 25 percent of the carbon emissions. And that says America isn't being very neighborly if we're helping to inflict debilitating diseases on folks in Bangladesh who ride their bikes everywhere.
This has already gone long and there are several other fascinating ideas to share. Listen to Bill McKibben on Speaking of Faith or at Q, and he mentions how we've flipped the script in Job. That was the thing I set out to write about! But he tells it well. McKibben's website is www.350.org.
Unwelcome
I heard some talk yesterday about where the government may send detainees from Guantanamo Bay in an effort to close the detention facility as soon as possible. In homage to thisisindexed.com, I've done my own index size card, but without the authentic lines and scrawling.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Excuses
Ever avoiding blame, I have to say my lack of posting centers on work. I've been working a lot lately. Oh, and my classes have kept me hopping. Oh, and Evadel was born three weeks ago. Then I ask myself, why am I looking for something to blame about not posting to my blog? No excuses necessary, I suppose. I am taking time off from work to enjoy wife and daughter, so perhaps I'll return with more regularity.
Publishing
A friend sent me this blog post titled The End of Book Publishing As We Know It and asked my thoughts about it.
My stream of consciousness back to him:
This is an interesting post. I think I generally agree with him. The best we can say about this sort of seachange is "I dunno." But I have noticed that I'm not very motivated to read a book on the Kindle, even though it's quite impressive. I'm still a book guy for the moment. But if the ebook format improves, I might convert.
I was waiting for his thoughts on the people who will still deal in paper books. I love his analogy with candles. There is something romantic about a paper book relative to an ebook. [insert rant about gnosticism and electric things like lights and ebooks here]
The salvation for publishers at the moment is that we can publish electronically for free (without doing all the added value he's talking about—yet). We can lower print runs to not get hosed with inventories while we wait for the economy to recover. And for the type of books where we know the key audience wants a print book, we can do smaller print runs print on demand at a somewhat higher cost, but still make margin because those mavens will pay for the slightly more expensive book.
It's funny to look at this in historical perspective. I know that the manager/publisher/abbot of the local scriptorium was pissed when the printing press started cutting into their workloads. Every merchant who has ever dealt in the technology that's becoming obsolete has cried that it's unfair (or at least been tempted to). The papyrus guys were a bit bent out of shape when vellum became practical. Then we discovered wood pulp paper and put those guys out of business. The merchants/publishers who thrive will be the ones who say, "Let's try our hand at the new thing." It's either that or go ahead and waste away into oblivion. If we try and still fail, that's okay because we were going to fail anyway. And it's better to have a good attitude about it, saying change is inevitable, and more rapid in this modern world. However as you teach, history is not inevitable, and we get a chance to help write it with innovative ideas of our own. We're not merely at the mercy of "those change forces" like technology.
My stream of consciousness back to him:
This is an interesting post. I think I generally agree with him. The best we can say about this sort of seachange is "I dunno." But I have noticed that I'm not very motivated to read a book on the Kindle, even though it's quite impressive. I'm still a book guy for the moment. But if the ebook format improves, I might convert.
I was waiting for his thoughts on the people who will still deal in paper books. I love his analogy with candles. There is something romantic about a paper book relative to an ebook. [insert rant about gnosticism and electric things like lights and ebooks here]
The salvation for publishers at the moment is that we can publish electronically for free (without doing all the added value he's talking about—yet). We can lower print runs to not get hosed with inventories while we wait for the economy to recover. And for the type of books where we know the key audience wants a print book, we can do smaller print runs print on demand at a somewhat higher cost, but still make margin because those mavens will pay for the slightly more expensive book.
It's funny to look at this in historical perspective. I know that the manager/publisher/abbot of the local scriptorium was pissed when the printing press started cutting into their workloads. Every merchant who has ever dealt in the technology that's becoming obsolete has cried that it's unfair (or at least been tempted to). The papyrus guys were a bit bent out of shape when vellum became practical. Then we discovered wood pulp paper and put those guys out of business. The merchants/publishers who thrive will be the ones who say, "Let's try our hand at the new thing." It's either that or go ahead and waste away into oblivion. If we try and still fail, that's okay because we were going to fail anyway. And it's better to have a good attitude about it, saying change is inevitable, and more rapid in this modern world. However as you teach, history is not inevitable, and we get a chance to help write it with innovative ideas of our own. We're not merely at the mercy of "those change forces" like technology.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)