As everyone in the world with exposure to the media knows by now, Michael Jackson is dead. You will not find me shedding any tears for a number of reasons. The first is that I did not know him, and I find it curious that so very many people in America do seem to feel that they know celebrities to the point where they grieve their passing as if a close friend or relative had died. I believe that is symptomatic of a host of things, among them our isolation and loneliness, our lack of social skills, and the Cult of Celebrity wherein we worship celebrities as if they were gods. If you doubt that, consider one impudent clergy candidate from a sister denomination who took me to task publicly not once but twice for a tweet I sent upon hearing of his death that said that with his passing little boys everywhere could rest easily. If it were only this particular fool who had reacted I would say it was an anomaly, but one other woman removed me from her contact list - and that woman had seemed to be rational.
I am not saying that to be rational you have to agree with me. I am saying that Michael Jackson was, for me, three things: A brilliant musical talent, a tragic example of what can happen when financial success and fame come upon the chronically unstable, and a pedophile child abuser who should have permanently lost custody of his child when he dangled him outside of a hotel room window for the benefit of the press. He was, in my opinion, both a tragic and a reprehensible human being. Now he has died, and we see what happened in the case of countless celebrities who died at an age the culture considers "too young" happening again - he is being canonized by the masses, and it makes me want to puke.
People die. That is the reality of life, and nobody gets a pass. As a culture we need to consider that, pray about it, meditate on it, and come to accept death as a natural part of life and not some frightening enemy. My wife's best friend, a vital woman who worked as a forensic nurse - caring for those whom the Michael Jacksons of the world caused to need her services - died last January at 51 of a particularly aggressive cancer. Helen will be missed, and has been and continues to be remembered and honored by her community and friends. This is the kind of loving, service filled life that should be honored by all people while the Michael Jacksons of the world are seen for what they were - sick, twisted individuals - and perhaps pitied, but not worshiped and deified.
I will not miss Michael Jackson, nor do I miss Elvis, James Dean, Marilyn Monroe, or any of the scores of others who have been deified solely by virtue of their dying before society has arbitrarily decided it was time. May they rest in peace, and may God have mercy on them. Michael is going to need it.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
The Wisconsin Council of Churches - The Finest Hypocrites I Know!
I was so pleased to get another email from the Wisconsin Council of Churches (WCC) last week. I actually only get their emails so that I can be constantly reminded of what a bunch of elitist, racist, classist bunch of hypocrites they are. Why do I say that? I say that because their conferences are always priced way beyond the means of any but the mid to upper socioeconomic classes. That way they can keep those pesky people of color and those pesky urban ministries from showing up at their events - after all, they are SO untidy. "Those people" might remind the WCC that they are living a delusion when they say they are an interfaith body - because interfaith implies that ALL faith communities and churches are potentially working together. When weekend conferences run in the range of $350-$650 and up, it isn't too hard to figure out whom they are not interested in hearing from. Add to that the reality that they tend to hold their conferences at least an hour away from Milwaukee (the largest urban area in Wisconsin) and the picture gets completed rather quickly.
This time they have outdone themselves. Last week I received an invitation that read, in part"
"You're invited to a very unique conference later this summer: The Earth Speaks: Hunger, Our Spiritual Challenge, to be held at the Conference Point Center August 16th-17th.With the deteriorating economic situation, food pantries throughout Wisconsin and the Midwest are reporting a dramatic growth in need for emergency food, particularly at the end of each month. And this growth is not just due to the dire economic circumstances facing low income families, but also to the rising number in the middle class who are losing their jobs.
"This August the interfaith community will gather at Conference Point Center, on the shores of Lake Geneva, to take a close look at the conditions which are causing hunger, both locally and abroad....
"We'll have workshops looking at the religious community's response to hunger, and we'll have an opportunity to reflect on what needs to be done back home to address the systemic issues which are contributing to food insecurity. "
For those of you who don't know, Lake Geneva is a beautiful lake and resort city located about an hour southwest of Milwaukee and about the same distance northwest of the Chicago metro area. It is where the "beautiful people" go to vacation. I absolutely love to visit Lake Geneva. It is beautiful, it has many charming shops and restaurants, and it is a very nice get away. It is also very expensive. If you are choosing to spend your money there on a vacation I have no problem with that - in fact, I encourage it.
I must ask - what in the world is the WCC thinking? What kind of an abject idiot plans a meeting about hunger and poverty in the lap of luxury? I will grant you that this is one of their more affordable conferences at $130 (for Sunday evening through Monday morning), but it is still in a place that is hard for less wealthy pastors and parishes to get to and is about as white as a freshly bleached bed sheet. God forbid the clergy of Wisconsin should get their hands dirty by holding a conference about hunger in an affordable place in an urban area where it might include representatives from food pantries that are struggling in the face of decreased supply and increased demand. No, no, no - they would much rather have talking heads from the national offices of food programs. That's much more edifying than having someone who just might be working with folks in the towns they serve. Oh, I forgot - nobody who goes to these things really works with the hungry in any significant way anyway.
I am so silly. I forgot that the real purpose of this is to comfort the complacent and delude them into thinking that attending a conference makes an impact - silly me! They even invited a Rabbi and a Muslim woman! How broad minded! Now they can feel so very enlightened without ever having to endure any African American, Hispanic, or poor folk. How special!
In truth, this is representative of everything that is wrong with the Institutional Church - and every reason to return to Primitive Christianity. Those who support this kind of out of touch, self deluded, feel good nonsense are an example of the worst in middle class pseudo-Christianity and are largely responsible for the very accurate perception that the Institutional Church is irrelevant and effete. Even worse is that criticisms such as this fall on deaf ears and tend to be written off as the product of a lack of intellectual acumen or ignorance. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Needless to say, I haven't received a response from the WCC to my email expressing my concern over this conference. I sent it after I received my invitation to Lake Geneva. The WCC needs to take note what when you bury your head in the sand you lose the right to complain when someone kicks you in the behind. I suppose they are safe from that, though, because they are mostly ignored by anyone actually serving the people they cogitate about. They will keep on fiddling while Rome burns and feel very good about themselves, a prime example of mental auto-eroticism.
This time they have outdone themselves. Last week I received an invitation that read, in part"
"You're invited to a very unique conference later this summer: The Earth Speaks: Hunger, Our Spiritual Challenge, to be held at the Conference Point Center August 16th-17th.With the deteriorating economic situation, food pantries throughout Wisconsin and the Midwest are reporting a dramatic growth in need for emergency food, particularly at the end of each month. And this growth is not just due to the dire economic circumstances facing low income families, but also to the rising number in the middle class who are losing their jobs.
"This August the interfaith community will gather at Conference Point Center, on the shores of Lake Geneva, to take a close look at the conditions which are causing hunger, both locally and abroad....
"We'll have workshops looking at the religious community's response to hunger, and we'll have an opportunity to reflect on what needs to be done back home to address the systemic issues which are contributing to food insecurity. "
For those of you who don't know, Lake Geneva is a beautiful lake and resort city located about an hour southwest of Milwaukee and about the same distance northwest of the Chicago metro area. It is where the "beautiful people" go to vacation. I absolutely love to visit Lake Geneva. It is beautiful, it has many charming shops and restaurants, and it is a very nice get away. It is also very expensive. If you are choosing to spend your money there on a vacation I have no problem with that - in fact, I encourage it.
I must ask - what in the world is the WCC thinking? What kind of an abject idiot plans a meeting about hunger and poverty in the lap of luxury? I will grant you that this is one of their more affordable conferences at $130 (for Sunday evening through Monday morning), but it is still in a place that is hard for less wealthy pastors and parishes to get to and is about as white as a freshly bleached bed sheet. God forbid the clergy of Wisconsin should get their hands dirty by holding a conference about hunger in an affordable place in an urban area where it might include representatives from food pantries that are struggling in the face of decreased supply and increased demand. No, no, no - they would much rather have talking heads from the national offices of food programs. That's much more edifying than having someone who just might be working with folks in the towns they serve. Oh, I forgot - nobody who goes to these things really works with the hungry in any significant way anyway.
I am so silly. I forgot that the real purpose of this is to comfort the complacent and delude them into thinking that attending a conference makes an impact - silly me! They even invited a Rabbi and a Muslim woman! How broad minded! Now they can feel so very enlightened without ever having to endure any African American, Hispanic, or poor folk. How special!
In truth, this is representative of everything that is wrong with the Institutional Church - and every reason to return to Primitive Christianity. Those who support this kind of out of touch, self deluded, feel good nonsense are an example of the worst in middle class pseudo-Christianity and are largely responsible for the very accurate perception that the Institutional Church is irrelevant and effete. Even worse is that criticisms such as this fall on deaf ears and tend to be written off as the product of a lack of intellectual acumen or ignorance. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Needless to say, I haven't received a response from the WCC to my email expressing my concern over this conference. I sent it after I received my invitation to Lake Geneva. The WCC needs to take note what when you bury your head in the sand you lose the right to complain when someone kicks you in the behind. I suppose they are safe from that, though, because they are mostly ignored by anyone actually serving the people they cogitate about. They will keep on fiddling while Rome burns and feel very good about themselves, a prime example of mental auto-eroticism.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
The Church as Social Service Agency
There is a popular misconception that the Church is a sort of social service agency. The concept probably started back during the depression, when the Salvation Army would feed people if they first listened to a sermon (that isn't really charity in my mind, but that's another issue for another time). It has been continued unwittingly by the fine tradition of churches offering food pantries, free meals, clothing banks and other similar services. There isn't anything wrong with any of those programs - in fact, they are fine examples of direct social justice work. The problem is that people have generalized from those programs and have decided that the Church is a full time social service agency with unlimited cash at her disposal. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
We've had a gentleman stopping by the church several times over the past week. The details of his story aren't terribly important, except that there were some obvious contradictions in his story that made me suspicious of his sincerity. We have a policy here that we do not offer financial assistance beyond bus fare and/or a McDonald's coupon - and then only once a month to any one individual. In the course of this gentleman visiting us over several days he expressed some notions which I suspect may be fairly prevalent.
He was looking for housing, claiming that his wife had left him a few weeks ago and that he had a friend who would put him up in a few days once he got back to town. He said he couldn't stay in the shelters because he had an assault charge in his past, and so he was looking for money ($50 a night) to stay in a hotel until his friend returned. At first his friend was to return last Thursday, then was delayed until Saturday, and finally when he stopped in yesterday he explained (no surprise here) that his friend was still delayed.
I allowed this gentleman to use our phone on three occasions, the last one being yesterday. As he called around looking for money, he became increasingly annoyed that he wasn't getting the response he sought from churches. Never mind that he had no relationship with these churches, that he is from another town about 30 minutes west of here, that he admitted he hadn't attended his home church for many years and so couldn't avail himself of their assistance, that he was offered food from several churches and refused it - he was absolutely fixated on the notion that churches have money laying around in abundance just waiting for someone to come ask for it and seemed to believe it was the "Christian" thing to do. He also told me he walked the main streets in the area looking for "Christian" bumper stickers or "fish" signs. Upon finding one he would enter the nearest store and seek out the mark...er, Christian...and hit them up for money for his hotel. Finally, yesterday, he became belligerent with a woman on the phone and I asked him to leave.
I don't want to dismiss the problems that folks encounter, nor do I wish to disparage the homeless. I want to say quite clearly that local parishes (for the most part) have programs through which they do outreach. These are vital, important ministries to which these churches devote substantial funds. For security reasons, churches do not leave cash on site. For reasons of doing effective ministry, churches do not distribute cash - it is the least effective way to help people.
What's the moral of the story? Church is about community. If you want to avail yourself of the help of a community, be a part of that community before you need the help. If you need a referral to an appropriate social service agency, your local church may well be able to help - but we aren't the social service agency. The work of God should not be confused with an ATM machine.
We've had a gentleman stopping by the church several times over the past week. The details of his story aren't terribly important, except that there were some obvious contradictions in his story that made me suspicious of his sincerity. We have a policy here that we do not offer financial assistance beyond bus fare and/or a McDonald's coupon - and then only once a month to any one individual. In the course of this gentleman visiting us over several days he expressed some notions which I suspect may be fairly prevalent.
He was looking for housing, claiming that his wife had left him a few weeks ago and that he had a friend who would put him up in a few days once he got back to town. He said he couldn't stay in the shelters because he had an assault charge in his past, and so he was looking for money ($50 a night) to stay in a hotel until his friend returned. At first his friend was to return last Thursday, then was delayed until Saturday, and finally when he stopped in yesterday he explained (no surprise here) that his friend was still delayed.
I allowed this gentleman to use our phone on three occasions, the last one being yesterday. As he called around looking for money, he became increasingly annoyed that he wasn't getting the response he sought from churches. Never mind that he had no relationship with these churches, that he is from another town about 30 minutes west of here, that he admitted he hadn't attended his home church for many years and so couldn't avail himself of their assistance, that he was offered food from several churches and refused it - he was absolutely fixated on the notion that churches have money laying around in abundance just waiting for someone to come ask for it and seemed to believe it was the "Christian" thing to do. He also told me he walked the main streets in the area looking for "Christian" bumper stickers or "fish" signs. Upon finding one he would enter the nearest store and seek out the mark...er, Christian...and hit them up for money for his hotel. Finally, yesterday, he became belligerent with a woman on the phone and I asked him to leave.
I don't want to dismiss the problems that folks encounter, nor do I wish to disparage the homeless. I want to say quite clearly that local parishes (for the most part) have programs through which they do outreach. These are vital, important ministries to which these churches devote substantial funds. For security reasons, churches do not leave cash on site. For reasons of doing effective ministry, churches do not distribute cash - it is the least effective way to help people.
What's the moral of the story? Church is about community. If you want to avail yourself of the help of a community, be a part of that community before you need the help. If you need a referral to an appropriate social service agency, your local church may well be able to help - but we aren't the social service agency. The work of God should not be confused with an ATM machine.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
A Primitive Christian
I believe that "a primitive Christian" perhaps describes me best. I also very much enjoy that the title allows me to poke a bit of fun at myself as I try to describe to what it is I feel called.
Many Christians get very exercised by things like the Creeds. I think that's fine if you want to get exercised about such things, but I simply cannot. If you can get exercised about the "virgin birth", I think that's wonderful. I cannot, because I recognize that just about every other religion that sprung up around the time that the Bible was written contained a virgin birth myth. It was the authors' way of indicating someone special was being born. I know Christians who would claim that Jesus' birth was, in fact, a virgin birth and all the other claims to virgin births are, in fact, false. I suppose that could be, but I feel compelled to point out that those decisions are made by folks who are rather biased, to say the least! For me, there is nothing about Jesus that changes if his mother wasn't a virgin, because I believe that God can sanctify human beings in any of a number of ways and that the absence of a hymen does not affect
God somewhat the way Kryptonite affects Superman. In fact, I can do without most if not all of the doctrine the Institutional Church has piled on to Jesus.
Primitive Christianity, the first three or four hundred years or so, has a lot to say for itself. Perhaps its biggest appeal is that very little was officially defined or declared back then. People were closer chronologically to the Jesus experience, and diversity was tolerated rather than extinguished. Anyone with even a passing understanding of statistics knows that everything that has been defined as doctrine or declared dogma since that time has at best a 50% chance of being true - even less when there have been more than one alternative to choose from.
I believe the Church of the future may well be found in a return to the past - not the past that the Vatican and others are trying to return to, a past when the Institution had power - but the past of early Christianity when what was central was the experience of Jesus.
There isn't any time to waste!
Many Christians get very exercised by things like the Creeds. I think that's fine if you want to get exercised about such things, but I simply cannot. If you can get exercised about the "virgin birth", I think that's wonderful. I cannot, because I recognize that just about every other religion that sprung up around the time that the Bible was written contained a virgin birth myth. It was the authors' way of indicating someone special was being born. I know Christians who would claim that Jesus' birth was, in fact, a virgin birth and all the other claims to virgin births are, in fact, false. I suppose that could be, but I feel compelled to point out that those decisions are made by folks who are rather biased, to say the least! For me, there is nothing about Jesus that changes if his mother wasn't a virgin, because I believe that God can sanctify human beings in any of a number of ways and that the absence of a hymen does not affect
God somewhat the way Kryptonite affects Superman. In fact, I can do without most if not all of the doctrine the Institutional Church has piled on to Jesus.
Primitive Christianity, the first three or four hundred years or so, has a lot to say for itself. Perhaps its biggest appeal is that very little was officially defined or declared back then. People were closer chronologically to the Jesus experience, and diversity was tolerated rather than extinguished. Anyone with even a passing understanding of statistics knows that everything that has been defined as doctrine or declared dogma since that time has at best a 50% chance of being true - even less when there have been more than one alternative to choose from.
I believe the Church of the future may well be found in a return to the past - not the past that the Vatican and others are trying to return to, a past when the Institution had power - but the past of early Christianity when what was central was the experience of Jesus.
There isn't any time to waste!
Friday, June 5, 2009
Apologetics = Trying to Prop Up the Dubious
It's always struck me as rather odd that there is a field within Christianity called "apologetics." Perhaps the clearest definition of apologetics is, "The branch of theology that is concerned with defending or proving the truth of Christian doctrines." I think of it more as trying to prop up the dubious.
After all, if something is true should that truth be not hard to see? Certainly there are some things where that is not the case. One that springs to mind is scientific truths. There is nothing about truths in physics that is at all self-evident to me. Shouldn't theology be different? Why do we need a whole "department" that spends all its time defending declared truth? May I suggest it's because such "truths" are really little more than WAGs (wild-assed guesses)?
If a truth is a truth it doesn't need anyone to defend it. Gravity is a truth. If you don't believe it, jump off a bridge and I promise you will be convinced. There are certain things in the spiritual arena that are relatively easy to verify and/or experience as well. The truth is that apologetics isn't concerned with truth at all, but rather with propping up arguments and theories. Why do these things need propping up? The need propping up because in what they declare they go too far. They go to far because those who propose them are essentially insecure. In the name of honesty, apologetics should be called "argumentation."
From my point of view, the very need for argumentation is proof positive that people are over stepping their boundaries in what they declare about God. They have this need based primarily in insecurity to define God until they feel God becomes benign, manageable, weak - in short, until God is no longer God. Unwilling to tolerate any dissent or questioning, they establish the science of quarreling to cover up their insecurity - but it is a thin veil at best. Wouldn't truth, and ultimately God, be much better served by learning to live in mystery? Wouldn't an all-knowing, all-loving God want us to be honest? Do you really believe that when we come to stand at the gates of heaven (metaphorically speaking, of course) God is going to give us a special medal for lying (or, if you prefer, stretching the truth) about our understanding of things spiritual? Does that make any sense at all?
Of course it doesn't - but then there have always been a majority of Christians who have found it far more important to be loud than to be sensible.
After all, if something is true should that truth be not hard to see? Certainly there are some things where that is not the case. One that springs to mind is scientific truths. There is nothing about truths in physics that is at all self-evident to me. Shouldn't theology be different? Why do we need a whole "department" that spends all its time defending declared truth? May I suggest it's because such "truths" are really little more than WAGs (wild-assed guesses)?
If a truth is a truth it doesn't need anyone to defend it. Gravity is a truth. If you don't believe it, jump off a bridge and I promise you will be convinced. There are certain things in the spiritual arena that are relatively easy to verify and/or experience as well. The truth is that apologetics isn't concerned with truth at all, but rather with propping up arguments and theories. Why do these things need propping up? The need propping up because in what they declare they go too far. They go to far because those who propose them are essentially insecure. In the name of honesty, apologetics should be called "argumentation."
From my point of view, the very need for argumentation is proof positive that people are over stepping their boundaries in what they declare about God. They have this need based primarily in insecurity to define God until they feel God becomes benign, manageable, weak - in short, until God is no longer God. Unwilling to tolerate any dissent or questioning, they establish the science of quarreling to cover up their insecurity - but it is a thin veil at best. Wouldn't truth, and ultimately God, be much better served by learning to live in mystery? Wouldn't an all-knowing, all-loving God want us to be honest? Do you really believe that when we come to stand at the gates of heaven (metaphorically speaking, of course) God is going to give us a special medal for lying (or, if you prefer, stretching the truth) about our understanding of things spiritual? Does that make any sense at all?
Of course it doesn't - but then there have always been a majority of Christians who have found it far more important to be loud than to be sensible.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Alleged Pro-Lifers, You Can't Walk Away From This
I have debated for several days before writing this, but it has to be said. Those who self-identify as pro-life and engage in the rhetoric of that movement share responsibility for creating a cult in which the murder of a physician who is performing a legal procedure not only occurs but is even thought of, no matter how twisted the killer actually may be.
Don't you see that when you lose your loaded words and stand with your pornographic posters of aborted fetuses that your words and actions can so easily be misinterpreted by someone who will believe that he (or she) is acting on God's will in committing murder? Are you so blind? Do you not understand your own spin and its effect on people?
Do you not realize that if the money spent on your protests had been spent on birth control and real sex education (the kind that goes way beyond abstinence only) the reality is that the perceived need for abortion would be almost non-existent? Are you so blinded by the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church that you are content to create the environment in which murder can be twisted into "an eye for an eye"? What about you Protestants? Why aren't you promoting birth control and adequate education? Do you really need a place to vent your anger so badly that is doesn't matter to you if people murder in God's Name?
And you hypocrites, chief among them Fr. Frank Pavone, who said: "I join with those voices, as I always have done, that declare that the end never justifies the means, and that violence has no place in the effort to end abortion", allow me to enlighten you. You created the environment in which this is acceptable. You can try to walk away from it now, but it's too late.
The time is long past when we start to hold people accountable for their rhetoric. I am an absolute proponent of free speech, but I also am an absolute proponent of the notion that each of us are responsible for our the impact of our speech. If you are really pro-life (and to be quite honest most folks who identify as pro-life are anything but, they are really only pro-fetus) then you need to reexamine your rhetoric. At the front of it must be firm instructions to your followers - every time you speak - that violence is not acceptable. You must educate your followers, you must stop the spin, you must stop the hatred.
You see, you have become what you claim to abhor: Murderers.
Don't you see that when you lose your loaded words and stand with your pornographic posters of aborted fetuses that your words and actions can so easily be misinterpreted by someone who will believe that he (or she) is acting on God's will in committing murder? Are you so blind? Do you not understand your own spin and its effect on people?
Do you not realize that if the money spent on your protests had been spent on birth control and real sex education (the kind that goes way beyond abstinence only) the reality is that the perceived need for abortion would be almost non-existent? Are you so blinded by the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church that you are content to create the environment in which murder can be twisted into "an eye for an eye"? What about you Protestants? Why aren't you promoting birth control and adequate education? Do you really need a place to vent your anger so badly that is doesn't matter to you if people murder in God's Name?
And you hypocrites, chief among them Fr. Frank Pavone, who said: "I join with those voices, as I always have done, that declare that the end never justifies the means, and that violence has no place in the effort to end abortion", allow me to enlighten you. You created the environment in which this is acceptable. You can try to walk away from it now, but it's too late.
The time is long past when we start to hold people accountable for their rhetoric. I am an absolute proponent of free speech, but I also am an absolute proponent of the notion that each of us are responsible for our the impact of our speech. If you are really pro-life (and to be quite honest most folks who identify as pro-life are anything but, they are really only pro-fetus) then you need to reexamine your rhetoric. At the front of it must be firm instructions to your followers - every time you speak - that violence is not acceptable. You must educate your followers, you must stop the spin, you must stop the hatred.
You see, you have become what you claim to abhor: Murderers.
A Reminder
Just a reminder that I do not publish unsigned comments to any of my blogs. If you have the courage to sign it, I welcome all comments. If you don't, then I must assume what you have to say means very little to you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
