Lifelong Slavery

The other night after dinner the wife and I read some Bible stories to our toddler. She enjoys this greatly. Is it the stories? Directed attention from both parents? The simple pleasure of all 4 of us being snuggled up on the couch? Probably a little bit of them all. One story that she specifically requested was the healing of Jairus' daughter (there is a picture from the story on the cover). Now the Jesus Storybook Bible is incredibly well illustrated (with real non-nordic skinned people! Y'know, the kind that live(d) in Palestine!), and well written. Word choices are very astutely selected and each story is given a brief epilogue weaving it into the overall narrative of the Bible. Highly recommended if you're looking for a toddler Bible. And really, who isn't? Back to Jairus' daughter. If you aren't aware: Jairus' daughter dies. Jesus doesn't get to her in time while she is just deathly ill. This brings up a dillema for parents-of-the-two-year-olds reading said story, namely me. Do I read it? I mean, do I tell my sweet, innocent (in a sense), toddler about a girl like her who goes to bed never to wake up? Do I want to terrorize her dreams with such thoughts?

On the one hand, I feel I must be faithful to the text. If I start editing it, where will my opinion about suitability end and the authority of this text begin? This point I'll call the Santa Claus Point. Because really, you start removing death, and what's next? Santa Claus. That's what. Inventing shit out of whole cloth. In case you were wondering, we don't "do" Santa. He's a "silly guy" to my daughter and I'm sure we'll have fun with that again in 8 months. Regardless, when does the Bible stop being the Bible?

On the other hand, I have to consider the innocence of my child with respect to death. She has heard the term and sees that the flowers we have on the table die fairly quickly. She knows there is a place in the backyard where we leave the flowers after they have expired. (Don't worry, the imagery is not lost on me; Psalm 103:15-16). The emotional upheaval of plants dying is enough to persuade me that rushing maturity and awareness of self-mortality should be avoided. Furthermore, a verse came to mind this morning, that Jesus will " deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery" (Heb. 2:15.) Are you interested in kicking off the lifelong slavery? I mean, this is true for everybody once they become aware of their own impending death. Until that point they are free - at least in conscience. They live in the garden of Eden, ready to fall at any time, but in comfortable conditions (they are too ignorant to notice sin everywhere as of yet). There are only 2 states where one can feel this free, ignorance and redemption - and who knows how long, if ever, it will be for the latter? For pity's sake I would extend the former for some time. I suppose a counter argument would be that subconsciously she may know (already) that she is condemned to die, and due to her inherent sinfulness she's already churning with fear and guilt which motivate her ways. To you, St. Augustine, I say: thanks. You're right. But it remains that this matter still flies below the radar of consciousness for a little while. Enjoy it while it lasts?

On the third hand (think Athanasius and Arsenius), there is the damage I may do to the promise of the Gospel. By blunting the power of death and making it only "very very sick" or "extremely ill" I weaken the power of Jesus. If Jesus raises people from the dead, than by removing death I make him smaller as only "healer of the sick." This promise of Jesus, as he who gives life to the dead (John 14:19) is quite precious to me, to the point that I wish to tattoo it on my body. Perhaps soon?

So what did I do the other night? I said Jairus' daughter was very very sick. At least for one more night I'll be able to sleep knowing that she can sleep. Reality, with all it's beauty and tragedy, will rush over us all soon enough, I'm sure. It always does.

Rougher than a Cob

On Saturday I went for a ride here in Southern Indiana. The weather was quite good. In fact, it was the first good weather day of 2010. Sunny and 48-52 F during my time on the road.



I rolled an out-and-back from Newburgh up to Boonville (the Warrick County Courthouse, at the center of Boonville, is pictured above) and then on to Folsomville, through Gentryville to the Lincoln boyhood memorial.


View Larger Map

I was definitely out of place to the people by the roadside. I doubt many of them see cyclists often, since this really was out in the sticks. But the roads were good (aside from a 1 mile section of gravel) and the hills were plentiful.



After checking out Lincoln State Park ever so briefly, I stopped at the gas station in Gentryville to top off my bottles and ask directions for a non-gravel route. The old boy at the counter couldn't suggest another way except the 2 lane 50-60mph highways. I told him the way I had come up, past the Colonel Jones home, but that I didn't appreciate the large rock gravel sections, nor the loose dirt climbs (think 'cross sand pit climbs). He agreed, stating: "Yeah, that road past the Jones house turns rougher than a cob."

Now that phrase was new to me. I didn't let on to the shop keep, just nodded in agreement and thanked him for the figs I had purchased. After getting back to my in-laws, my father-in-law informed me of the meaning. Without being too coarse... in rural areas, perhaps even still, corn cobs were stacked in outhouses as a hygiene tool - post bowel movement. This of course should be a phrase taken up by cyclists given the unique care requirements of such sensitive parts given long bouts next to chamois. Anyway, I can tell you, if you take Lincoln trail road from Folsomville to Gentryville, it is rougher than a cob.

Ready for summer

As I withdrew my daughter from her bath this evening I looked up to notice three washcloths hanging from the rack. One yellow, one white, and one green. Of course my next thought (beyond wrestling a soaking-wet 2 yr old out of the tub - county fairs, you've got nothing on me) was: "where is the polka dot washcloth?"

Avatar

Shel and I saw Avatar the other night, in 3D no less. We both enjoyed the visual effects and the dreamlike backdrop despite the predictable plot. 2 things really intrigued me about the film . First that a film would be released (like a wild animal?) in a country engaged in 2 wars wherein a very US military-corporate marriage is the main bad guy. Secondly, the story largely revovles around 2 trees, the "hometree" and a "spirit tree" (I forgot the exact names). I don't mean to give away the plot, so I won't, but these 2 trees are central to the story.

The reason the trees were so interesting is that the Bible is a story of 3 trees. Most of us know about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and that is the first tree of the narative. The second tree comes long afterward in the gospels, and cursed is anyone who hangs on a tree - the cross of Golgotha. Fortunately the story does not end there but with a final tree in the city of God. This tree is called the tree of life, yielding fruit every month and it's leaves are for the healing of the nations.

Not a fan of cats...

the musical or the snotty domestic nuisance...thanks Johan VanSummeren.
(The cat survived just fine.)

Jim and Casper Go to Church - Review

I read this little book published by the Barna group. Not too impressed by it, but some insights were helpful. In the main, don't be a jerk to other people. Here's my review for class:

Jim Henderson and Matt Casper, a pentecostal minister and copy-writing atheist respectively, visit 12 churches in about 2 months to get an outsider's view of church events. Jim serves as Matt's guide through a broad yet unrepresentative collection of “evangelical1” churches. Matt's insights move from the petty to the incisive as a thoughtful atheist shares his piece. Jim endeavors to remain objective and is largely successful, however he does let his slip show in the selection of churches as well as his comments regarding certain theological issues, ministry practices, and in the case of the pentecostal churches they visit - everything, as he openly admits in a “warning: loss of objectivity” tag. The book lives up to its goal in that it provides a platform for an outside voice to give honest critique of church activities and a frank dialogue to be carried out on paper.
The main critique of the book is in the premise motivating the venture. This premise can be illustrated by the answer to the following question: For whom is the Sunday morning church service? There are at least two answers, perhaps more, but in the main one can answer: for Christians; otherwise one could answer: for everybody (and anybody) who would like to come. The authors/publishers are of the latter persuasion while this reviewer is of the former. While Henderson does begin to address this in his epilogue, by then 150+ pages have been written on the observations of the pair critiquing church services. Consider if one were to take an aspiring bow-hunter to an ice-cream making seminar. Obviously the two subjects do not necessarily overlap and should the bow-hunter object to the befouling of his scent with sugar and eggs and the like, we are not likely to change the recipe for ice cream because of his concerns – valid as they may be for bow hunting deer. The absurdity of this scenario is present for the 'church is for christians crowd' in this text.
If one were to admit that the primary purpose of a church service is not the assimilation of outsiders into the community, but for the building up, training, and encouraging of the members, than many of the critiques of the book ring hollow as they are out of context. The surprising thing about the dialogue is that as Casper finds so many elements foreign to himself, one is left wondering why he does not explicitly say - “Oh, yeah, that's because I don't belong here.” Perhaps this sounds unduly harsh but while he should not be discriminated against while entering these church meetings, he should feel the part of the alien as these churches are groups of people (supposedly) united by belief and experience of which he shares neither. There are a few moments in the book where this realization comes to the fore but mainly in a small “house church” (a gathering of 15 people in a house to “do church”) in San Diego. Ironically this is his home town and he is personal friends with many of the people in attendance. Quite the scene for dissociation.
Furthermore, if one were to admit that the church service is intended for Christians, not the general public, the sermon takes on a different role. Throughout the book, the reader is left wondering – What is the purpose of the sermon? With so much emphasis built into the order of worship (which was startlingly consistent between the spectrum of churches visited) with the sermon the supposed climax, to what end are those words spoken? Many of the comments in the text focused on the presentation, emotional manipulation, ethical dilemmas, and biblical references of these sermons. Little thought is given to the purpose of them until Henderson's epilogue. In one instance, at “The Bridge” in Portland, OR – the church mentioned that this reviewer is most eager to visit after reading the book, the “sermon” was given in such a way as to allow continued conversation and interaction in and with the congregation, such that 'dialogue' rather than 'monologue' would be the best description. The crux of the matter regarding sermons does come in Henderson's epilogue when he says:
“...my basic question for pastors and Christians of all kinds: Are we in the preaching business or the people-changing business?”
Sadly, Henderson does not realize the false dichotomy he presents, and although he has served in “ministry” for three decades, does not understand the fundamental means of ministry to God's people – the preaching of the Gospel. His statement above offers that preaching and “changing people” (presumably for the better) are two different things. Perhaps they overlap but not necessarily or directly. But one must ask: How shall I change people? If people need changing, which must be an assumption of Henderson, how can I or anyone else change them? Perhaps one could coerce them through fear, bribery, intimidation, etc? Obviously that would not produce the changes desired – to love God and neighbor, seeking first God's Kingdom. But this desired end requires a change of the heart, of the inner motivations of a person, and who can change the desires of a persons heart? Clearly applying some law or social code external to people will not change them. Neither will teaching, as educated sinners will emerge from ignorant sinners. Henderson believes that by serving people the experience of being loved will change them to follow Jesus. While this is half true it suffers as the sole means of ministry. While Jesus did serve those around him, he also preached2, which is something Henderson specifically misses3. Have they not read what Paul wrote in Romans 1:16-17?
“For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, The righteous shall live by faith.”
Surely both serving others and preaching this life changing Gospel is necessary in the ministry of the Church? Surely a maturation of perspective is allowed in 2000 years since Christ, whereby culturally specific forms may be employed – just as they were employed then? It is here, puzzling over the usefulness of the endeavor that Henderson and Casper leave this reviewer. Perhaps that was part of the point.

Amusing Ourselves to Death - Review

I read Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death this past weekend. Wow. Perspective altering. Here's my first stab at a review/report/schwatever if you're interested:

Riveting, necessary, and incisive are all words that could qualify Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death, and yet fall short of this superb work.
Neil Postman's thesis is that the medium of communication enables and constrains the message it carries, so much so that one could say “the medium is the message.” Postman examines how information and meaning are conveyed, received, and understood via different forms of media and reviews a history of typographic, telegraphic, photographic, and videographic media. Within each medium he surveys the status of public discourse and describes its strengths and weaknesses, clearly favoring the “Age of Typography” and the necessary life of the mind with its rigorous rationality. The emphasis of the text is as the subtitle suggests on “public discourse in the age of show business,” where the groundwork of the epistemology of print in the early chapters exposes the banal amusements of television. Postman shows how the television is the ultimate expression of the tripartite sins of telegraphy - the irrelevance, impotence, and incoherence of information and their associated thoughts – and thus the natural end of the design of the medium is solely entertainment. The sinister turn is that the medium itself is inherently trivializing yet enticing – who would turn away endless or limitless pleasure? So much is this threat present that all forms of serious and important matter in society have been trivialized by television (Postman provides examples from politics, law, education, and religion to name a few,) as the whole of the culture is subsumed in the mire of thoughtless (dis-)engagement. It is from this precipice of unconscious cerebral death through entertainment that Postman hopes to retrieve us. Tragically, the only restoration apparent to him is through the system of education which is already embracing this cancer as of the 1980's, and in this reviewer's time has accepted it whole hog.
The power of Postman's work in “pulling back the curtain,” as it were, on our culture is almost too much to move beyond. For the reviewer's generation, the obvious analogue is found (shamefully) in the film: The Matrix. Wherein the main character is shown that his entire experience has been contrived and that reality, as it actually exists is something quite different from his current understanding of the world due to some technology (seemingly) beyond his control.
This example highlights how the book is valuable for the student of culture and the student of communicating cross-culturally. First, as an examination of American culture at different moments, under varying dominant media, one can see how cultures operate in the marketplace of ideas. The implications of different media are explored and the reader is opened to the possibility of such examinations being applicable to other aspects of culture. The second immediate value for students of culture was alluded to above, but explicitly is that: Americans are confronted with American culture. This occasion of a critical view of one's own culture provides one a necessary step towards understanding that everyone, everywhere, is enculturated. Everyone is both empowered and encumbered by their own individual and community experience thus affecting how they perceive truth: both in physical and spiritual reality. Here the body blow is felt that television shapes our understanding of the world, and once confronted with this reality, one can begin to think critically about what shapes reality in adjacent cultures.
A possible critique of Postman's work is that it prizes the relics of the modernist era neglecting future advancement of human thought and work. Postman's prize is rationality as expressed in the age of typography, whereas postmoderns find this intellectual utopia inadequate.