An Excellent Article

"Our American Babylon"

The article traces the history of ideas in the theology of American politics to elucidate on both the past failures and resulting impoverishment (the author is Catholic) ecclesiologically as well as to plot a more traditional understanding for the political mission of the Church, which keeps in tension the transcendent vision and hope of Christians as while as their contextualized condition within the world. It's long, but well worth the read.

"the Queen reigns, but she does not rule"

Jesus is Lord. It was the first documented creed of the newly formed Christian community. Still the question remains, as to what exactly does this truth mean?

One track in answering recognizes that we live in a world in which being a Christian entails practicing a kingdom politics. Some British citizens in grappling with the current role of the monarchy in British politics have pithily coined the phrase which is the title of this post. It is a de facto assessment, which seems to share uncomfortable insights with the rule of YHWH over His people today, beyond the rule over all creation. This is reflected most readily if not on the lips of Christians then in our religious praxis.

The point is though it should not be the case, at least if not in the world then in the lives of those who identify with the Christian religion.

The state employs both coercive measures and ideological ones to ensure compliance ¹, to make the reality of such rule a fact. We instinctively recognize this type of power and politics. God's rule though is both more hidden and mysterious. The church's ideological methods seem both ineffective and insufficient for dealing with both modern Western experience and the even more problematic issue of our sinful historic existence. The criteria for this judgment being its fruits. It's people fluctuate between legalism and antinomianism, oblivious to the freedom of the resurrection. That is the freedom to be a certain kind of human and deliverance from the power of sin here and now. The church's betrayal of its revelations has left it ill-equipped in its ministry to the people, who too are not without fault.

A consequence has been what is politically tantamount to disloyalty and unfaithfulness to the crown by the people. We are not subjects to God as we even are to say the American republic (and make no mistake we are subjects to the government and not citizens of the United States of America.). This post is leaving much unexplored and left to flesh out even what is stated; however, as long as we are de facto loyal to our contemporary understandings over and beyond our God, we are in essence rejecting the rule of YHWH replacing it with objects and powers of influence and ideas which will instead guide us in this world. As long as autonomy is the descriptive paradigm for our lives, the church will necessarily proclaim the false truth against reality that Jesus reigns but does not rule.

We do not get points for sincere intentions or vain attempts at propitiation. All branches face rejection and abandonment as punishment for their disloyalty to their Lord and His word. We are to live on this earth carrying out our Lord's will as in heaven for as long as the thin veil separating the two exists. Despite YHWH's absence, we are still charged with politicking in a fashion representative as His emissaries.

An Evening of Millennial Discussion

In terms of the question, why is this debate on millennialism important? I don't know, except perhaps as a tie in in some vague sense to our own lives in the theo-drama (see here and here for a brief usage of that concept). Eschatology I could better explain the relevance of to practicing Christians; however, this is a good introduction an aspect of the debate. The first 45 minutes contains introductions to the speakers and the topic of eschatology; afterwards, is the discussion of millennialism. It's a free-for-all discussion with representatives from the three major camps, so enjoy. Note though, the premillennialist here is a classic or historic premillennialist and not a dispensational premillennialist, which is probably the one position most familiar to the general public but is unrepresented here at this table.



Thanks to Kev for turning me on to it.

Creationism with Ricky Gervais

A few words from St. Augustine in A Literal Interpretation of Genesis to justify the theological tag:

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are.

That was what? Over 1,500 years ago? Christians are generally, obviously ahead of the curve.

Need to update this

Haven't done it in a while. Been very uninspired. As for news though, being sober this Sunday, I decided to get on some boards. Got my first negative props on the new derek webb board, probably for vulgarity. I'm happy about that. Told the joke to Curtis and he laughed. It actually was appropriate, though someone else thought I was being unnecessarily so.

George Carlin on Religion and God

Travis turned me on to this act. My less religious subscribers will probably appreciate it (and some of the more so too).

Surprised by Hope

But Easter week itself out not to be the time when all the clergy sigh with relief and go on holiday. It ought to be an eight-day festival, with champagne served after morning prayer or even before, with lots of alleluias and extra hymns and spectacular anthems...

In particular, if Lent is a time to give things up, Easter ought to be a time to take things up. Champagne for breakfast again - well, of course. Christian holiness was never meant to be merely negative. (256, 257).

Can I get an "Amen!" for the bishop‽ Don't call me an alcoholic, but believe it or not the emphasis was mine. No, champagne is not exactly my style, but I can respect that others would wish to celebrate/worship in a different way than say a shot of whiskey. Differences are good.

We should be celebrating, and if we were serving wine at breakfast, might not a few more people be excited about Sunday mornings? Might not prayers be more interesting? I'm not talking about in a gimmicky way, or insincere fashion. Start talking about alcohol and you got my attention though. True, all worship is not about excitement and enjoying oneself and each other (fellowship?), but some of it seems it is supposed to be.

I'm just saying, if we celebrated more, as in actually celebrated, we'd have an easier job convincing ourselves and others that we are indeed a celebratory people. And if we did it, we might have to hurt our heads less trying to understand the meaning behind how our non-celebratory practices are in fact really celebratory. We might have a visual aid of shalom.

At least get some descent shit for the Eucharist! Seriously, it shouldn't be a chore every Sunday for me to have to give myself the suck it up Josh and drink the wine you pathetic American rather than the grape juice speech. Sheesh!

English tip

*gasp* Joshua is finally giving one.

I've been reading a lot of testimonies lately of people who've shed their "repressed" past lately, and a common term keeps popping up: conservative.

Now, it comes as no surprise that I'm not a fan of the conservative; however, I'm thinking they're mistaking it perhaps with a synonym, like say... a prude.

E.g.:

I used to be a lot more prudish about one night stands, but then I gave it a swirl.

I hold to the conservative opinion that marriage is between members of differing sexes.

Capisci?

They're two different words mind you, not presicely interchangeable. One deals with the old order of things; one deals with being inappropriately appropriate (hyper-appropriate) and naively innocent.

Brief religious reflections.

Ascension Day

Ah, I remember the day the West celebrated it last year well. It was May 1st, my father's and Julie Selviege's birthday. Woke up in a chapel to the Vaud militia firing at the Targets. Aigle's police marching band going through the streets. I needed rescue so I hitchhiked to Lausanne where I met Vincent, and we proceeded to purchase a 3 l column of le Péché Originel (the Original Sin) at les Brasseurs. There we were interrupted from our continuous toasts of "Santé!" by police sirens as their quarantined an alley way off to contain the anarchist march celebrating the 40th anniversary of May of '68. After much deliberation, we decided to continue drinking our wonderful concoction and discuss pretentious historical events and philosophical concepts. Afterwards though, a goth near the cuckoo clock by the fountain who was ranting something ever so dramatically, was kind enough to inform us that the anarchist after bombing the McDonald's had all been rounded up minutes before. We did the obvious think and went to the train station and picked up wine and cheese to make some fondue over the stove top (both being too cheap to own a proper set). We drank ourselves in oblivion.

Yesterday though, is when the East celebrates this special day. Times have changed for me (though this years May 1st was a relapse). Yesterday, I helped a hitchhiker who had been couchsurfing on his way as he continued his journey. I've tried to live out some of my new morals with two other couchsurfers, who in the past I might of told off. I prayed for my friends. Yesterday was lived in hope, not the dreaded nihilism of my past, despite the tension with some of the realities I've brought upon myself. I've had these bizarre though responsible urges.

The night ended though with a return. I had planned to take our couchsurfer to hear John Fullbright. I pmed Jairus about a cover charge, and the result was the purchase of a bottle of Old Crow. I bought our guest a two beers, and proceeded after drinking jug wine to hammer that Old Crow. I could care less that I was in the presence that night of three beautiful women plus a few other friends and at another friends concert. I just thought of the alcohol. I ended up locking Jairus' keys in his car, which ended up not being a problem cause it took AAA which I had 15 minutes to get there, and we didn't even leave 'til 45 minutes after the show. I hit on the bar tender, who incidentally we know each other and the last time I saw her, she had been working on a Marx speech I had helped her with.

So the night ended with failure, but I feel hope. And that's a good thing. I woke up today at 7:30 with a hang over and less than 3 hours sleep. Helped a friend move to her new apartment only a few blocks away. Got what I deserved. Anyways, it was enjoyable and encouraging. It's always great to see the Spitler adults (unlike Megan) who I think bring out the more mature side of myself.

I was gonna write something theological, and I might later. But tomorrow is when the West celebrates Pentecost. I'll wait for when the East does in 9 days. But these events do have some significance beyond their impact on us.

P.S. UGA in the women's softball tournament in OKC, beat both Mizzou and Michigan today, getting them in the semi-finals. They also set the record for home runs. Going to both celebrate with them and Megan who just moved, and I'm going to see how not getting shit-faced works out. Despite the couchsurfers definitely being in the mood for celebration. We "might" go hear Big G (Garrett does blues) perform tonight at the jazz lab.

The Book of Common Prayers

I've become increasingly fascinated with this text and have found myself incorporating it into my religious practice with greater frequency.

The text, to the surprise of my roommate, is not a book of prayers. There is a collection in our copy, mainly in a section titled "Prayers and Thanksgiving"; however, it is merely 35 pages and doesn't appear until p. 810.

The full title to Curtis' copy is The Book of Common Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments, And Other Rights and Ceremonies of the Church Together with The Psalter or Psalms of David According to the Use of the Episcopal Church as ratified in 1979. The short title is The Book of Common Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments, And Other Rights and Ceremonies of the Church, which shortened further is The Book of Common Prayers.

A prayer book primarily contains detailed written accounts of the liturgical services of a practicing community (which often involves the prayers used in specific services in the ecclesiastical calender or on special occasions). This copy though also has a lectionary, Church calender, Catechism with prefaced outlining of its purpose, and transliterations of various monumental Christian documents (e.g. Definition of the Union of the Divine and Human Natures in the Person of Christ from the Council of Chalcedon and the Athanasius Creed). Others will have things like a concise collection of canticles.

I think the text is a remarkable resource for Christians, particularly those struggling with prayer. It definitely has more utility in a high liturgically structured worship service, but that doesn't imply it excludes other value.

Approval

What drives I wonder the blogs that require approval for comments. I can get some of the various reasons for people not wanting to have a comment section at all, plus there are probably more. And I can understand if someone has had say spam requiring approval. But otherwise, isn't it just about wanting to control what people say on one's blog? Is what other people have to say really that bad?

Random thoughts this morning with my head spinning around.

Shabbat

The notion of the Shabbat finds its presence textually early on in Genesis. This was most likely written after the practice had already originated within Hebraic lifestyles. Indeed the Shabbat easily could of been codified within the law prior to the time of composition of the Genesis text. I interpret it to have been revealed by God to Moses; others will disagree and see it as a more natural anthropological development, without this being a practice radically out-of-sync with the past reality and contradicting it (and arguably today's as well). The weekly cycle was most likely borrowed from the surrounding peoples of ANE. The "rest" though was a counter-cultural adaptation.

So in this light, I'm interpreting the Israeli practice as offering a subtle critique of the surrounding pagan religious practices, in line with a radically other religious intuitive worldview, as opposed to an evolutionary religious development or offshoot. The lead in detailing the significance of the differences between the Israelites and other ANE cultures was spearheaded by Jewish scholarship such as Yehezkel Kaufmann and Nahum Sarna whose research have usurped the antiquated ones handed down from the Enlightenment within academia despite their strength within popular theology (of the non-theistic variety). Contemporary scholarship will often interpret today the Genesis as a polemical text, although not reducing this aspect to one of primacy. (see Greg Laughery's take).

Please note, when I'm using the term counter-cultural, I'm not referencing something which is reactionary by any stretch of the imagination. Rather it is more akin to Ricœur's "appropriate and critique" approach. Although not on this topic, when I'm using the term, I'm more likely to have progressives and postmoderns on board than I am with the vast majority of the American Church. This is due in part to a mutual recognition that the world is not as should be, as well as the realization that we are both responsible for our various crises and we must begin to do something about this. Where a Christian understanding parts company, is that it focuses centrally that our relation with YHWH is central to this. Where there is agreement with the pomos, is that human efforts to remedy the situation should be met with suspicion and cynicism. We still recognize though that it is through human efforts. This does not result in despair, but an extreme questioning of the values which proliferate our cultural hegemony ("the way things are"), which Christians are largely lagging in this activity.

Please forgive me for the lengths I'm going to provide a backdrop for what I'm about to say in regards to the Shabbat. I'm very thankful for Peter's post "Sabbath and Empire", which is a commentary on the practice of Shabbat in light of both a protest for social justice and act of defiance against abuses by our social authorities and economic order. In other words, Leithart is suggesting that the Shabbat was about practitioners following YHWH's will over the decrees of the all governments which has significance due to it being a day in which we refuse to organize our life around securing our prosperity and the entailing effect of hurting our fellow humans. In regards to what I first am suggesting, that God is sovereign over and beyond all earthly institutions and practices. As to the second part, that in the course of our attempts to acquire wealth, we are both focusing our lives often times around the desire for greed and participating in a system which is not loving to our fellow humans. In this regard, even our purchasing practices have unseen consequences which have since been well documented and affect people on the other side of the globe.

Marx has a brilliant explanation of this dynamic in his explanation of commodity fetishism. Again, while progressives and pomos may not be hip with this peculiar Jewish and Christian expression, there are many underlying points of agreement as they focus upon the question of what it means to be fully human. I'm not wanting though to belabor the social justice point. I will later address the Church's "Constantianism", or our complicity with the world.

Now I'm wanting to situate it in the larger redemptive work of YHWH. When I suggest emphatically that we must do something about it, I mean precisely that we must follow Jesus. We have not been left to figure out how to fix the world, indeed a constant Biblical theme is that we can't. Theologians call acting otherwise the sin of presumption. God fixes and redeems the world, and as his people we are to follow Him on this count. I believe an implication of this is collaborating with others on specific point, often outside of the church, and this entails political collaboration as well.

I think the salvific term for redemption here is sanctification; the sanctification of the earth, our relations with others and self with a focus upon YHWH is a Christian understanding of the significance of our practices. So what we're considering is as NT Wright put it in Surprised by Hope, "How will we humans contribute to that renewal of creation and to the fresh projects that the creator God will launch in his new world. (185)" This is what humans are called to participate in, and as there is a focus upon God as the primary savior, we further ask "the question of how God is going to redeem and renew his creation through human beings and how is he going to rescue those humans themselves as part of the process but not as the point of it all. (185)" We are not called to sit on our asses, but are an important medium through which God's light shines in the world. Moreover, we are not the end-all-be-all of the process, but a means. We are called to be "fellow laborers" with God who will see the fruition of the work of ourselves and others in this world. "The 'reward' is organically connected to the activity, not some kind of arbirary pat on the back, otherwise unrelated to the work that was done" (162). NT Wright does not understand this as "in heaven", but on earth, of which our work, the Shabbat included here, has both a foretasting effect and an eternal ones following the Resurrection and glorification.

So how does Shabbat figure into YHWH's redemptive work? Again, Shabbat means rest, and we are informed that it was primarily instituted for the sake of humans. This again is part of the tradition stemming from the Genesis polemic against the pagan view that humans were created in order to carry out the work and duties of the gods. Elohim does not need humans for such purposes, but did partially create humans for their own unique work purposes. So, we do not do Elohim's work. Rather humans were created to enjoy the world (and paradise), not endless and futile toil. The rest is a cessation from work, from vain toil as the pagans who were looking out at reality suggested. And people more eloquent than I can hopefully articulate this better. It similarly provides an alternative to the nihilism of naturalism.

While in this rest though, we are in a sense working still. What we are working for is Shalom. I'll post more of this notion in detail in the commentary on the first chapter of Not the Way It's Supposed to Be. For now let it suffice to say that we are working towards something that is more in accordance with what it means to be fully human with the Shabbat practice. This includes looking forward to glimpses of beauty, the satisfaction of acting justly, the joys of neighborliness and having a good time, and the satiation of a healthy spiritual life that only God can provide.

There seems as with most of the laws, to be an instructive and reminding element within them. This instructive alludes to not only how God's people are to conduct themselves within the present, but point to a future fulfillment, which I understand to be already with Jesus having ushered in His kingdom and not yet. In the Mosaic understanding though, beyond detailed restrictions and regulations concerning commerce, there is even an extension to both animals and the earth in its practice. As viceregents for God, the humans were to properly rule all of creation, with the Israelites purportedly being exemplars in this respect. The entire created order is to rest from the continued havoc that we wreak upon the face of the earth. More can and will be stated in regards to the Shabbat's revelatory instructive insights into God's work, particularly in regards to the eschatological duality of already and not yet.

More importantly than the negative sanctifying aspects, are the positive aspects. In that we return to a focus upon YHWH. We stop with our projects, and allow YHWH's word and gifts to transform us. We have a time where we corporately go about carrying out our spiritual obligations. This is an important implication, that we are to collectively as God's people, not individually practice Shabbat. It is a communal practice, which again stands at odds with our cultural assumptions. We individually are to participate in the people of God in following His will. Extenuating circumstances may demand a private practice. This seems an exception, not normative. While exceptions inform our understanding, it's absurd to allow them to determine the understanding. And please note, many churches offer things like the Eucharist throughout the week. If one's circumstances don't allow this, then perhaps it is time to move to a church which will allow for a more fuller participation in the Kingdom of God.

I don't want to suggest that there is something magical or mystical in reorienting our focus upon YHWH. We are commanded to do this throughout the week, not exclusively on Sundays, and I don't really know what is transpiring in this practice. I do know that whatever we focus our mental energies on often times becomes the focus of our lives. E.g. people who focus exclusively on money often view others humans as either in abstract terms that correspond to that viewpoint. People who focus on sex often view those of the other gender (assuming they're straight) as potential partners. Often it is gravitated towards what other new people (strangers) will offer them in their encounter. This is in contrast both to the humanistic project which attempts to see others as human beings (and therefore critique our normal ways as dehumanizing) and the Christian project which attempts to see others as the image of God (no matter how one is currently understanding that notion.). Both are intricately linked to the question of what it means to be fully human. If we take a break on Sundays, and reorient our view toward God, the project is not to become more moralistic (or moral). The reorienting of our focus on God allows at least a check on our typical viewpoint, and better yet a shifting of perspective towards a more Christian viewpoint of others (as replete with failures as this may be.)..

Please don't idealize the Shabbat. Some do have the joy of it being a blessing and break. For many going to church is a headache/chore. My advice, suck it up and take it for what it is. I'll post later in relation to Sabbatarianism, but one thing that is pathetic is that this notion of rest has been coupled with convenience, or that what is convienent is a guide for reasonably fullfilling this requirement. It is not. People will rationalize excuses based on exceptions. They're not. The Shabbat is supposed to challenge us, not merely provide us with all that false religion has promised. Moreover, even with as little exposure as I've had to the American Church, even I've been hit by heavy rhetoric on the issue. Passionate rhetoric designed to ignite the youth with winning the world for Christ and dreaming big (brain-washing) or burden down adults with guilt. We should have joyful rhetoric, but also sober-minded.

Staples of the Piper-Knicely household

For Rebekah:

Our Selections

1. The Cline 2007 Los Carneros Viognier
   
   pronounced (vee-oh-nyay)
   
   I'm holding this wine in my hand right now, as it's the only white wine staple around the house. The back label says, "loaded with peaches, apricots, floral and citrus notes. Perfect as an aperitif, this wine pairs exceptionally well with lobster in a ginger-butter sauce and richly prepared seafood." The wine is from the Sonoma Valley I discover the wine from the article "Asian Spice" in the OKGazette by Greg Horton. It said:
   

   The spicier the food, the softer the wine needs to be, but a slight tannic backbone can keep the wine from being overpowered by too much heat. When the food gets Thai hot, it's time to change to white, and Fleischfresser has two suggestions: Viognier and Riesling.
   
   "We want people to try some Viognier," he said. "The varietal seems to be growing in popularity, and wines like Cline Viognier help."
   
   The Cline Viognier features apricot and peach in a full-bodied, fruit forward wine with balanced acidity.

   Incidentally, I hear from unreliable sources that this wine was supposed to be the new chardoney back in the 80's, but Americans couldn't pronounce it so it flopped.
   
   Price tag: $ 12-$13
   
   
   
   
2. Xplorador 2007 Concha y Toro Malbec
   
   It's got a bouquet of almond and blackberries. Rich in tannins, it has a good acidity which makes your tongue sorta water. Dry, but could be a little more so. The Concha y Toro Vineyard is in the Mendoza Valley. The wine taste to me like to it is a Malbec worth 1.5x its price, which is why we buy it. Incidentally, they seemed to of switched at our discount liquor store to the 2008 with a new label. Great generic table wine.
   
   Price tag: $5-$6
   
   
3. Pinocchio 2007 Nero d'Avola
   
   I don't know too much, but it's good. It's got an IGT designation, which means it's considered good. The vineyard has apparently only been around for 7 years, which I don't know the name of. The producers are Dievole, a quality name in Italian wines. Did I mention it's good?
   
   I gave a glass to Ben Harbuck from the previous night, to which he responded it's one of the best wines he's ever tasted. The grape variety Nero d'Avola or the "Black of Avola" is pronounced "neh-roe dah-voe-lah" (think a think Italian accent) and is "generally" a more full bodied like a Syrah but can be done differently. In this case, treat it as a stronger wine. You can easily put it up with your London broil, to which it would complement nicely. It's more versatile than that though.
   
   Price tag: $13-$14
   
   
   
4. Montes 2007 Colchagua Valley Malbec
   
   I actually told Curtis not to buy this wine again, but he told me that he knew he liked it and knew it was good. And he's right, it is a good wine, but I'm not sure you can't get a better wine for the price. Still, Curt likes it and it is a part of the wines we regularly keep in stock.
   
   "Every so slightly sweet, and mild, but still had a great flavor" is how he describes it. It's got plenty of soft tannins, and goes good with meats and heavy sauces. With a solid structure, the Chilean wine probably has high wine ratings if one cares about such things. The flavor is oaky and plummy; the color is splendid. It was rated a best buy at our shop which was why I originally picked it up. I lost my notes for it, but if I remember right the legs are a little runny.
   
   Price tag: $8-$9
   
5. Trivento 2007 Mendoza Malbec
   
   This Argentinean wine has a great flavor, with even hints of coffee! It's primarily though got the oak cherrish taste. I love it. So does Curtis, unfortunately with the Montes war, I can't get him to just settle with this instead of the Montes so we can move on.
   
   Price tag: $7-$8
   
   

My Fantasy
Copain 2006 Kiser "En Haut" Pinot Noir

Trustworthy people tell me that it is badass. Price tag: $52.

Garret Potter

This gent was featured in Austin's film One Nation Under God, who they apparently met in Portland via Rachel Kerns.


Without introduction.

Spoken word is a performative rhythmic art form, typically rejecting formalized structures in favor of what is seen as more impassioned, personalized forms viewed as more capable of evoking the holistic being of contemporary persons.



I'll be emailing him soon. which will hopefully result in an email interview.

Playing for Change

Apparently, you can purchase the cd/dvd package at Starbucks, at least the one I hit up in Houston. If anyone with money wants to tell me about the vid, please do!

Playing for Change

Some of you might of seen the video that Carl Olson posted "Stand By Me", which then distributed amongst my circles quicker than chlamydia at a drunken orgy.

It's a clip from a film, Playing for Change: Peace Through Music. Still trying to find out if it's been released and part of a cd/dvd package or is going to be. In fact, its wiki entry was deleted for this very reason.

Playing for Change seems to of started out with two guys traveling around the world recording primarily street artist with studio-quality equipment. They seem to have formed sponsored some charity performances with some of the musicians as well and have invested in helping communities with humanitarian projects.

As Mark Johnson explains in one video:

Playing for Change was born out of the idea that we have to inspire each other to come together as a human race and that music is the best way to do this...

the belief that we can do a lot more for this world if we work together, than we ever can apart.

The music is not going to bring about unification, or transcend our differences. I've seen and have participated in fetishizing music personally. Don't get me wrong, music is an important part of our human experience and is extremely powerful and transformative. The philosophy confuses though divisive surface issues for an underlying orientation to one another which is at stake.

We use anything and everything to pit ourselves against one another, including music. And sound-byte documentation of the potential and hope for music isn't a realistic response to this situation. This obviously doesn't mean we should mire ourselves in cynicism either, and that either/or seems to be what many people flip back-and-forth on. This project is doing amazing things, collaborating with organizations helping refugee relief to African arts development. Mark Johnson is producing and orchestrating something beautiful. And their project is a worthwhile project. Let's not get melodramatic though and attach a false sense of hope to it. Inspirational definitely, indeed music can allow us to see what it means to be more fully human and commit to that endeavor. That's doesn't then equate to world peace. I'm willing to bet humanity has probably been making music for longer than governments, the mentioned religious divisions, etc have existed. We need to look the underlying spirit of such sentiments and our problems, especially the nihilistic ones, in the face.

Thus far it seems they've posted 4 other similar music vids online.

• "War/No More Trouble"
  
  
• "One Love"
  
  
• "Don't Worry"
  
  
• "Chanda Mama" (Looks like they finished this one after I started the post. Thank you phone interruptions.)

They've also included a few live projects and a few missional ones. They're doing some kind of web episodes, but I've found they're easier to download on Vimeo or facebook than the main site.

The music is amazing, fusing different instrumentation and performative styles together. It's unique and highly eclectic. Despite distances around the world, the performers are having the opportunity to come together in the music, which will I'm guessing soon be more explicitly commented on in reference to the mission stance of the organization. The ones produced thus far have been uplifting and urge bonding together, lyrically and musically. As you notice musicians with headphones I believe they're hearing a base line and some other instrument (Roger Ridley?) with which they're rhythmically playing along with, hence the ability to play in unison though they're miles apart and have never met the other musicians or played with them. It started with Roger Ridley (here's him playing "Bring It On Home"), and asking if they could record his version of "Stand By Me".

Since then though, some of the musicians have been touring with each other as previously stated:


A Joni Mitchel cover by them.

PBS coverage

Not the Way It's Supposed To Be

Introduction

Précis

Plantinga began by illustrating the way annoyances, regrets, and miseries have impacted our lives, before he hit upon what he saw as the primary cause of suffering: sin. The author justified this insight with two reasons; the first reason was that sin corrupts the core of our being and character, and the second was that it underlined many of the other misseries, e.g. loneliness, restlessness, estrangement, shame and meaninglessness. Cornelius understood the relationship between sin and misery as one of give and take, or mutually affecting each other in a cyclical fashion. This was seen regardless of whether the sin was intentional or involuntarily. Even with metaphysical evils, while not morally evil, the actual event of suffering is also in part compounded by our past choices or responsive ones. Plantinga argues that the gospel narratives go to great lengths to explaining the efforts God took to defeat sin and addressing the urgency with which humanity too needs to address the issue. He explained that sin was structurally presented though the ideas of lawlessness or faithlessness and a plethora of metaphors. Before the author ended on a note about how the book could explore the issue, Cornelius stated that sin was a negative not positive force, and that it should be discussed against the backdrop of creation and redemption. The tone was more concrete than the preface, and the writing more heuristic.

Commentary

We're still in the intro, so there's obviously not that much to comment on. I do appreciate how he's going at lengths not to collapse some phenomenological distinctions, as well not oversimplify the issues that he's addressing. He's still introducing themes and concepts here that he's going to unpack later on in a multifaceted manner; however, he does state some noteworthy things which should cause us to pay attention and ruminate on rather than allow to slide by.

One was when he was addressing natural disasters, he made the statement, "Many accidents are, in retrospect, both accidental and predictable" (Plantinga 4). He then gives some examples, some of which I agree with and some I'm taking pause to ask if we agree? Yes, when climbing in nature, one should respect it and not party above the tree-line during the afternoon, and doing otherwise is not only at one's own risk, but is tantamount to stupidity. So he's implicitly laying out a relationship to the natural order that includes moral virtues like respect. He mentions shortcuts that constructors and inspectors take in the functioning of their jobs which can afterwards have "unexpected" repercussions during natural events. He also mentions though "greedy condominium development in known hurricane alleys or flood plains" (Plantinga 4). Are they merely thoughtlessly endangering humans in order to quickly turn a profit? I'm sure Plantinga would agree, but what of the complicit consumers driving the demand? Are they actually driving the demand with advertisements and brochures proliferating like bunnies, or are the developers also manipulating our desires? What struck me as odd though is not these questions, but the disregard for questions pertaining to nature attributed to the developers (which was obviously a caricature), without really questioning the assumption of whether these questions were legit. In other words, how much should our consideration for possible natural events prudently factor in, and do they deserve the characterization of sinful? Yes, he's right here that human control does factor in, but might not attributing it to human evil be a categorical mistake?

He made the comment briefly that "the main human trouble is desperately difficult to fix, even for God, and that sin is the longest-running of human emergences" (Plantinga 5). This also caught my attention, sin is hard to remedy "even for God." I'm not sure how well that gels with my conceptions of Him, so it challenges me to rethink both the severity of sin and ask if my conceptions in this regard of God might not be trite?

One quote though I loved was that "People also suffer boredom, what Walker Percy called 'the self being stuffed with itself.'" (Plantinga 2). I see it all around me, and is a common plight with those whom I love. I wanna share two of my favorite paragraphs of all time from the intro to Theology of Hope:

Thus despair, too, presupposes hope. 'What we do not long for, can be the object neither of our hope nor of our despair' (Augustine). The pain of despair surely lies in the fact that a hope is there, but no way opens up towards its fulfillment. Thus the kindled hope turns against the one who hopes and consumes him. 'Living means burying hopes', says Fontane in one of his novels, and it is these 'dead hopes' that he portrays in it. Our hopes are bereft of faith and confidence. Hence despair would seek to preserve the soul from disappointments. 'Hope as a rule makes many a fool.' Hence we try to remain on the solid ground of reality, 'to think clearly and not hope any more' (Camus), and yet in adopting this so-called realism dictated by the facts we fall victim to the worst of all utopias - the utopia of the status quo, as R. Musil has called this kind of realism.

The despairing surrender of hope does not even need to have a desperate appearance. it can also be the mere tacit absence of meaning, prospects, future and purpose. It can wear the face of smiling resignation: bonjour tristesse!All that remains is a certain smile on the part of those who have tried out the full range of their possibilities and found nothing in them that could give cause for hope. All that remains is a taedium vitae a life that has little further interest in itself. Of all the attitudes produced by the decay of a non-eschatological, bourgeois Christianity, and then consequently found in a no longer Christian world, there is hardly any which is so general as acedia, tristesse, the cultivation and dandling manipulation of faded hopes. But where hope does not find its way to the source of new, unknown possibilities, there the trifling, ironical play with the existing possibilities ends in boredom, or in outbreaks of absurdity. (Moltmann 1993, 23-24)

Obviously, this is a place where someone like Plantinga and Wright can be brought into conversation with one another. Although Plantinga is not here treating boredom as sin, it's directly related to the notion of hope and seems to spawn on a lot of Christian's obsessive behavior with insignificant time-occupying activities due to their impoverished understanding and self-absorption. Like sin, despair is a leaching drive. The tie to being self-absorbed though, beyond the outward difficulties of boredom, is a negligence on the part of contemporaries to be sincerely committed to and interested in the other, whether God, people, or the created order. It's counter-intuitive, especially to a society that has reached a degree of decadence which is unnatural historically, and to explain that we would need to look at the modern social development since the Renaissance and Enlightenment. It gets back to some of the comments pertaining to modernity noted in the earlier post.

Beyond the boredom hinting to the possibility that we weren't created in such a way, it raises questions as to why we aren't more vulnerable to others. One such reason is pain and fear of others; another is a rejection of meaningful givens which either aren't recognized by autonomously free individuals or are only very partially grasped. This includes a concept of sin. It also God's redemptive work in the world and the role God's people play. The focus in Christian circles can often instead by on either what God has done for them personally, and vain attempts to convince themselves and others of this idolatrous focus and false reality either through legalism and a concentration on doing or not doing certain things or through attempting to grapple with the hollowness and emptiness that they experience and to which the American church answers sound meaningless. It can also result in other Christian circles in abandoning even hope of resolution and a coming to terms with just "living life" no matter what it "throws their way".

Although my treatment of the text is a little pretentious, in that what interests me is of both a personal and intellectual flavor, I relate predominately publicly via the scholastic. And the text does lend itself easily to other perspectives, but not to the degree I'm portraying it. Let me allow the author to use his own words to describe what he's trying to do:

My project in this book is to show these things, to discuss them, to look at them from several angles, and to sharpen the profile of sin by comparing it with a couple of its conceptual neighbors. In short the project is to present the nature and dynamics of sin...

The plan may look pretty academic, but the treatment will be only partly so. Or let me put it a little differently: this study has a traditional theological table setting, but the food comes not only from the Bible and St. Augustine but also from books on crime and addictions, from books by Garry Wills and William Manchester and Daniel Akst, from Newsweek, the movies, and NBC's Today show. The book is about sin, but a lot of the paragraphs are about sins. (Plantinga 5,6)

On this note, Plantinga does a brilliant job in my opinion.

Anti-Evangelical clichés

Count how many you use:

1. "Shove the gospel down one's throat." (Feel free to substitute one for people.).
   
   
2. "I think the only agenda should be to love one another." (Basically while this one has many forms, the usage of only/just and "love one another".).
   
   
3. Describing the church as "not a social club" and existing for the exclusive benefit of "non-members" or the "world".
   
   
4. "Who would Jesus kill?" ("Hate/bomb" works as well.)
   
   
5. "All the money they spend on gaudy million-dollar building projects, new sound systems, and projectors could be going to feed the poor."
   
   
6. "They go to church on Sunday, get forgiven, and the rest of the week they're like everybody else." The "Sunday morning bench warmers," who come "so they can sleep better at night," but really "Christianity isn't about looking or acting a certain way!"
   
   
7. "fundies", "the Rapture Ready", or those "holy rollers". "fun-daMENTALists".
   
   
8. "All that matters is that one's heart is right with God", "I'm not a part of an 'organized religion'", or "I'm spiritual, not religious."
   
   
9. "Christianity promotes hate, bigotry, sexism, and homophobia." Or a more academically conscious one..."American Christianity is consumeristic, materialistic, and individualistic."
   
   
10. "The god I worship wouldn't send someone to hell just for not accepting Christ."
    
    
11. "Don't have the right to tell anyone else what to believe(/think)."
    
    
12. "Nuke gay whales for Jesus!"
    
    
13. "Christians are judgmental(/intolerant)."
    
    
14. "3 chords, 7 words, repeated 11 times" or "7/11".
    
    
15. They "want to impose their own particular version of Christianity on everyone else."
    
    
16. "Christians ain't nothin' but a bunch of fuckin' hypocrites!" (Despite its place on the list, this was actually the second one I came up with.).
    
    
17. "Bash someone over the head with a Bible." Or you've described another Christian as a "Bible-thumper" or an activity as "Bible-thumping". Or you've made a comment about someone carrying a "Big, Black Book."
    
    
18. Christians are "nothing more than tools of the Republican Party."
    
    
19. "Last time I walked into a Christian bookstore, it looked like the self-help section of Barnes & Noble."
    
    
20. "I'm so sick of hearing cheap Christian clichés!" ().

So how did you fare?

0-4: You might be an Evangelical. L'Abri counseling advised.

5-9 : You might need to critically evaluate if others are making a valid critique on your religious practice and whether it lines up with the Scriptures. Unless of course, you are not a Christian or are a seeker and it contains little relevance to your life, hence the sparsity of relevant clichés.

10 - 14: You might be healthily holding in tension keeping one distinct from the religious status quo while not sliding into having created a reactionary identity. While far from complacent, you understand the need for encouragingly helping an important section of God's church to submit themselves to God's redeeming grace.

15 - 19: You might need to critically evaluate, assuming you consider yourself a Christian, if you are truly loving the Church as Jesus calls us to. May I recommend some of Derek Webb's music if you haven't tried any out thus far?

20 : Like me, you might have serious problems with the American church which might be indicative of more than merely their issues. Counseling advisable.

I could do a pithy little commentary on the call for solidarity and the divisiveness evident today. Might even follow it up with questioning the sincerity of anti-Evangelicals' so called love, as reflected in attitudes, depictions, and the demonstrable consequences of their basic orientation to not only another human being, but their Christian brethren to whom all are to be known by their "love one for another." But finishing off with a discussion about working towards healing and speculating on the issues of pain which still need to be addressed might be over the top. Words matter, and the tongue is an dangerous member of our body if left unchecked.

Trapeze Swinger

A quick post to add some regularity.

Mal sent me this via pm on facebook:



It is definitely worth listening all the way through, and possibly even reading the lyrics. They're not super-deep, and if the song ever became popular, the catchy of the words and melody are vulnerable enough to easily be parodied for purposes of mocking its fans. Still, it's a beautiful song on many fronts. Curtis while listening to it, started looking at covers and different versions, and stumbled upon this:



We didn't get through it. We stopped when he substituted the word "forget" for "fuck". Curtis' response was emphatic, with comments like "Dick," and "He get's the lamo card," and a slew of others insults.

A basic piece of advice, if you won't say the word fuck, then don't cover a song which does. Especially when the word is being used to make a point. It's not substitutable. The cover musician didn't merely change a song taking artistic, creative license, he bastardized it. "Fuck the man" is the slogan, or "stick it" to them. It was making a point in the song, and the texture of the phrase was intentionally supposed to be contrasted with "eloquent graffiti". Altering it by "Evangelicalizing" it transformed the part into an Evangelical wussified expression which the original phrasing was supposed to be speaking to at one level.

I'm not a fan of copying a song by replicating it both musically and lyrically. That's lazy in my opinion, and if a song is worth covering, it deserves creative contributions which should in some way allow the song to reinvent itself and grow. This isn't relative though, and anything does not simply go. There was a lack of faithfulness to this song, which is characteristic of many Christians' "contributions" to our culture. It reflects poorly not only on what they set their hand to, but also upon themselves. If one can't do something right (not perfect mind you), don't try to do it at all.

P.S. Curtis just said, "I'm just not a fan of substituting lyrics for an euphamisim that isn't more clever or wittier than the original." He says he ripped that off of me, but I don't remember saying anything of the sorts, but it captured what is trying to be said.

Love song to Islamic Fundamentalists (from a jew)

This song just gives me warm tingles all over.

Open Creationist

So Curtis and I are officially Open Creationist now. I'm enthusiastically one more so than him, but who's not up for a little irony?

So what's an Open Creationist? As TolkienFan has explained:

It's a rather simple position. Originally founded as Apathetic Creationism, the idea behind the position is that those who hold the view don't really concern themselves much with protology. The Open Creationist holds that it was indeed God who created all things, but they express openness (or in my case, apathy) towards exactly how long it took or how it was done. The OC holds to the idea that Christian Soteriology (an issue such as those at AiG connect with protology) can be properly maintained regardless of protological view. Hence, they don't really concern themselves much with the debate and remain open (or in my case, apathetic). As you can see, it's a very simple position with very few tenets.(Source)

Research lead me to conclude that the movement found at least initial public exposure on this thread, including acquiring its current name.

Now, obviously this belief is compatible with a number of other doctrines, including: Theistic Evolution, Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, and Intelligent Design. It seems incompatible though with a wide variety of viewpoints which would be agnostic or deny the notion of a Creator.

The question you need to ask yourself is, do you really care?

If not, sign up!

Not the Way It's Supposed to Be

Preface

Précis

Plantinga explicitly pointed out in the first sentence that his project was an attempt to recreate a consciousness of an age old theme: that of sin. He began by sketching out the flippancy with which we address the issue, in contrast to the seriousness in which it was once dealt with, not without fault in its inappropriate tone or hypocritical self-righteous air, yet taken seriously nonetheless. The author wrote that people possessed both an understanding and shared communal outlook in regards to it. Plantinga noted its contemporary loss of poignancy, to which he raised the question of the purpose of a more serious treatment. He outlined two major themes of informing and reminding people as its very nature he saw requiring continual diligence. The author then notes the difficulties of such an endeavor (informing), laying it in part on the shift in our cultural backdrop. Despite this, Cornelius explained its cultural relevancy, that being the hope offered through a diagnosis of sin in the ails which engrossing us. He explained though the need for our rearticulation of this traditional theme to be responsive to contemporary problems unique to our situation. He wrote that moreover, this rearticulating was not merely for Christian audiences, but rather for society as a whole, who would then share in the value of a common understanding and awareness of a Christian outlook, even while rejecting particular features. After Plantinga mapped out a gap in our treatment, due to the inaccessibility of some tomes, fragmentary and specialized coverage, and the increasing infrequency of exposure in church institutions, he reasserted his purpose of providing an avenue of revitalizing this doctrine so that it would once again be capable of profound personal confrontation/engagement. Written slightly melodramatically and with an air of nostalgia, the preface was regardless rhetorically well-written, introducing some thematic elements of the book.

Commentary

We are in really fucked up times. Seriously. This post is coming this late cause a friend called me up, drunk, wanting to know if I would come out and talk. We talked for two hours until two at night. And what was the one word which never ushered out of either of our mouths? Sin. It wasn't from me being scared of what he might think if I brought it up or its inappropriateness to the conversation. We just had no common basis on this point for which to bring it up. This is despite amongst other things us talking a great length on the topic of sexual infatuation, a general loss of consideration for him by others, loneliness and anxiety about a lack of intimacy, and the stresses of life at age 21. Anger at religion and the bs he experienced growing up and how he had been brainwashed negatively was also a theme. I mainly listened and tried to be there for him (with frozen barefeet). Amongst other things, tried taking the time to explain to him, that when some women say they're raped, they aren't kidding. That what he's telling me is "women know what's going on and should expect", I had to gently explain leaves one of my friends crying hours everyday. We talked about a lot of things that I'm not going to share, but it left me filling empathetically frustrated. He would say things like, "I fully trust you man," to which I would respond, "No, you don't, and I don't full trust you. You trust me a lot, more than most, but at some level you're afraid I'm gonna reject you." He would agree. He would frequently say, "Freud is a genius!" to which I eventually suggested, "Freud is full of shit, but I once thought that too." Still, he knows the reality of disillusioned ideals and expectations of others and life. He knows it all too well and is heading for cynicism. He's drunk too often. People seem to oscillate between burying their heads in the sand of wishful thinking with false dogmatism and coping by conforming themselves with "straight-thinking", emulating debase practices, and accepting as the way-things-are this decadent social order we've constructed, this below-the-bar standard for what it means to be human. People should have certain expectations of others, and have not only a right but a duty to demand it of others.

What the hell? We know a lot of our ideas are bankrupt, reality shouts that at us! Our incredulity to the hope of promise is overwhelming.

Meanwhile I'm on another site, where an interlocutor is arguing against an "understand-first" culture, to which I agree is bs, but not the desire to listen and understand. I agree in other words that we suck at it. This concern with compromising "speaking the truth" to the point where we neglect a theology of suffering, and people are suffering even if it's partially self-inflicted, to which the truth can actually effectively break us out of, is a religious abuse of the gospel. The two are not necessarily opposed to one another. But how to wisely go about them being intertwined?

Ah, I'm ranting not commenting.

The book is full of examples that I'm glossing over but which really help in illustrating what he's talking about. My favorite though was:

[S]chool teachers no longer say anything as pointed as "Stop it, please! You're disturbing the class!" For these are judgmental words. Instead, to a strong-armed youth who is rattling classroom windows with his tennis ball, educationally correct teachers put a sequence of caring questions: "What are you doing? Why are you doing it? How does this make you feel?"

Do we honestly believe people are going to take that crap seriously? Wake up to the real world! Making people feel immensely "cared for" in some segmented window of their existence doesn't seriously impact people's lives, it makes the "caring" people tools.

I heard a phrase in a lecture on relativism that is relevant, we've in our attempts to be loving "cut the vocal cords" of what a Biblical message has to say to ourselves and society. We forfeited our calling to be culturally subversive on both conservative and liberal fronts, participating in God's redemptive work of righting the wrongs of this world. We rather willingly participate in muddling things further, focusing on a shallow self-fulfilling of our mediocre lives. Through our bankrupt doctrines of sin, we've undercut our abilities to address social and individual injustices, settling for the pretense of concern or smugly complacent in self-absorption or both.

He's also in this part explaining the need for the books focus, commenting:

Books on sin today must meet concerns and untie knots that did not worry Augustine and Calvin. They were not worried about the flattening of human majesty in modern naturalism or of human corruption in Enlightenment humanism. They did not wonder at the Californian tendency to conflate salvation and self-esteem. Nor did they meet a widespread cultural assumption that the proper place to inquire about the root causes of human evil is a department of psychology or sociology....

Modernity has shaped the human, and even the Christian, understanding of sin in important ways, some of them welcome and some not, and any restatement of the Christian understanding of sin must pay attention to these shapings.

Modernity briefly generally refers to in most context (this included) the 19th and 20th centuries, with the advent of industrialization. There are also certain political allusions entailed, as well as a trust in science. The term though is frequently employed with a focus on huge totalizing narratives or ideologies with themes of human progress or emancipation. Modernity is typically viewed paradoxically as providing both benefits and losses, for instance technology, medicine, and human rights but a weakening of community, a loss of meaning and narcissism, and a preoccupation with instrumentality. I'll explain more later.

Again, the topic needs understanding, not just a check-list of things we know about. This understanding entails its application in reality, a reality that has shifted over time. This lack of understanding I would suggest is why impoverished Evangelicals who repeat well-rehearsed lines, seem out-of-touch with God's work.

What's devastating about [our loss of consciousness of sin and self-deception] is that when we lack an ear for wrong notes in our lives, we cannot play right ones or even recognize them in the performances of others. Eventually we make ourselves religiously so unmusical that we miss both the exposition and the recapitulation of the main themes God plays in human life. The music of creation and the still greater music of grace whistle right through our skulls, causing no catch of breath and leaving no residue. Moral beauty begins to bore us. The idea that the human race needs a Savior sounds quaint.

So the broader goal of this study is to renew our memory of the integrity of creation and to sharpen our eye for the beauty of grace.

A great blog post, on this subject.

I for one look forward with anticipation to the predicted collapse of Evangelicalism, a post-God church bastardizing religious faithfulness.

Brief speed-through update:

1. Father is out of hospital.

2. Dreaming of eating whole onions and calling myself an asshole 3x last night.

3. In a new band, the worst of OKC, called the Horribles, short for Hores (sp? it sounded right at the time).

4. It's raining and not a moment too soon.

5. I drink too much coffee. Oh wait, most of you guys probably already knew that. What's an update... hm... I drink too much?

6. Dog chase. At least 11 people; 3 cars.

7. Neighbor, "Is that some kinda Jewish puzzle?" Previous night, I "might" be a "little" intoxicated after working on it for like half an hour. "Dude, I used to be smart, at one time I had an x IQ! Guess I've burnt a few brain cells since then!" Housemate: "Dude, you're not going to be able to figure out this puzzle, want me to show you?" "NO! And don't put it together or I'll know!" "You're not going to be able to put it together..." *pause* "okay, you might be able to then" (in polite voice and he respectfully left it undone.) Tonight, after five minutes, "Ignore what I said the previous night, I "might" of been a "little" drunk, childs play." Tossed it to him. He laughed.

8. I'm finally writing back Jenn Miori. Now only L'Abri people are due thank you letters. (At least in terms of formally owed.).

One Nation Under God

Some of you guys may know Austin Meek, for those who don't, this is his and three of his friends upcoming movie that they made during the road trip through the U.S.



Needless to say, I'll be viewing it, and hope you guys will to. Here is a link to their site. It should come out sometime this spring, but they're a bunch of good ol' boys at Texas A&M and Baylor so don't expect too much in the on time department.

SEC reps get grilled!

I stole this from Mike's blog. It's amazing to see an elected official... doing their job? Or at least doing a damn good job of pretending. Also has great entertainment value for those not interested in politics, especially America's.

Anti-Folk

Most of any one who has read this blog has heard me rave at some point over the years regarding the music genre known as anti-folk. Welp today I'm gonna BS, as usual about a subject I don't know much about but love to discuss. Most of you are familiar with some of the singles from this genre such as "Loser" and "Satan Gave Me A Taco" by Beck, "Anyone Else But You" by the Moldy Peaches thanks to the movie Juno, and "Samson" and "Oedipus" by Regina Spektor. Some names you might not (or might, what the hell do I know) may be Jeffrey Lewis and the Creeping Brains, Billy Bragg, and Ani Difranco.

The genre is generally a fusion of folk and punk, with other forms such as classical and rock having their influence. The albums themselves have little coherency even within themselves switching between post-punk and folkish/country styles. They are however highly experimental and eccentric and raw. The anti-folk scene though in the Lower East Side of NYC when Lach got the boot from Folk venues cause he was too punkish. Naturally, he started something new, and others joined in that scene. It's the artist who played in this scene that are associated with this form.

The lyrics "tend" to be contained within a voice of a defeat and anguish. Except the overtly punk ones. Some are even playful or whiney or both. Again, the genre tends defy any general characteristics, which is part of the beauty of it. One of my favorite quotes is by Jeffrey Lewis who said in an interview, "I think it’s a cool title (anti-folk). The fact that no one knows what it means, including me, makes it kind of mysterious and more interesting than saying that you’re a singer/songwriter or that you play indie rock." The lyrics content tends to vary greatly amongst artist, while they share a form of anti-pretentiousness and enjoyment through making fun of themselves (and others who take themselves too seriously, like many folk snobs, another dimension of "anti"-folk). Often times the songs are political or satirical or plain social commentary. Some nonsensically fun. Introspective ones have a strong presence as well. Again, oftentimes all within a single album giving them a disjunctive feeling. The textures of the words themselves and the imagery varies greatly, but are never simplistic and highly engaging in my opinion.

Most of the albums are produced via independent record labels, Rough Trade being by far the main one, but not necessarily. Many of these artist have also left the scene and explored other genres, like Beck obviously. As mentioned, it started as getting rejected by the Folk community. I don't know for sure, but... "anti-folk," coincidence? As it's so closely associated to a scene, my guess is that rather than trying to consciously compose music within a genre, it was more groups of like-minded people with similar taste indirectly influencing one another for the similarities in styles. This helps explain the continuities yet differences.

So, how 'bout a little less words and a lot more music?



A live recording from a song off the album The Moldy Peaches


From the album Mellow Gold



From the album Dilate

Sober Since Sunday

Actually I was sober Saturday too, which was part of the problem. The night before (Friday), Curt and I had gone to McNellies after pre-gaming. He recognized a friend of his, John Doe. So we went over, and three hours later, we and the women folk had hardly said anything as we listened to stories between John Doe and a friend about water balloons and who was fucking who (especially when they were involved) and all sorts of miscellaneous douche-bag things that I'm positive you have to take classes and do practice drills in order to adequately perform in such manners. Don't get me wrong, they were nice enough. It was a waste of a perfectly good night though, and we should have left and gone and visited his hipster friend Seth. Next night, we went back...

At first everything was good, I particularly enjoyed hanging with Shane. Made a new friend at the bar, I was just smoking minding my own business. The guy over at the other end had done a friendly but insecure head nod that I didn't think anything of. All of a sudden "Time to Pretend" came on, and he got up. He asked, "WHO IS THIS?" Without blinking or turning my eyes from the London Porter tap, I reply Management. All of a sudden he banged his hand on the table startling me, his friend, and the bartender. He's like, who is this? I mumble, "Management or MGMT." He then proceeds to tell him how relieved he was cause he heard it on the radio for 6 months when his alarm clock goes off, had even called the radio station and couldn't figure it out. He was glowing like... well I don't know but he was glowing all get out. Told the bartender his hand hurt, and she replied he probably shouldn't have hit the counter so hard (he actually wasn't drunk at all).

Anyways, things were going well, we eventually left our group to go hang out with Annie and Marie, who never showed up. I had had two beers at this point over well an hour. Annie shows up and is immediately immersed in her favorite subject, herself. I listened and over the next half-hour tried to engage politely, but she was oblivious to my existence. At one point I dismissed myself to go to the rest room, and decided it was time to leave. I was planning on walking back and checking out the time and politely excusing myself. Got back and it was 9:30. Shit, I had been there only 30 minutes, and it felt like hours. Already having an extreme bias against her as a person, I decided to revert to my natural asshole-self to salvage my time. I then proceed to spend the next hour engaging more proactively by throwing out incessant jabs. Curtis acted like he didn't notice. Annie was oblivious to most of them. (I did find out later that even he thought it was amusing when she was trying to explain to me that she was intelligent cause she could bs and that they're essentially the same thing.). When she did, she seemed to give me the benefit of the doubt that I actually wasn't attacking her. It actually wasn't that hard, since she basically dismisses me as a drunken idiot. Okay, so she's right on with that assessment, except while not less than also not just that. Moreover, she seems to be incredibly un-self-aware and overcompensates for her insecurities with a shallow facade of having a higher opinion of herself that she wants to convince you of. Over the next hour I went home. I felt like myself, full of hatred and disgust and proud of myself. I had enjoyed attacking her thoroughly; it had not been the boring event I dreaded. As the night progressed though, I felt horrible about who I was reverting to. The next day I went to church and repented. Curtis and I talked a little about it, he was surprised she picked up on them as little as she did. He was also shocked I could act like that sober. I told him there's a lot about me he doesn't know.

Something clicked though, and I haven't been drinking for some reason, and been reading a lot more and deeply pondering some directions... like what it means to be more fully human.

New folk music...

One of the benefits of living with someone new is the cultural exchange of one of civilization's greatest gifts, music. Living with Curtis is no exception, and two folk bands in particular have caught my attention: Sherree Chamberlain and The Tobasco Donkeys.

The Tobasco Donkeys are a fun cover-band. They only do a bluegrassy, folk style, but their songs can be originally from other genres, especially blues. They all were staff at Philmont. They have some free downloads from their rejects on their site.

Here's an example of a song they might do:

Here’s another song for all you ladies
Well, I’d much rather have a bug in my ear,
Then a porcupine stuck to my face.
Well, I’d much rather have a frog in my throat,
Than a dog makin’ love to my leg.

A girl asked you home to meet momma and daddy
She says she thinks you’re nice. Ya, right!
Well, there’s trouble ahead, you’ll wish you were dead
If you don’t take this friendly advice,

* CHORUS *
Don’t pet the dog
Don’t pet him whatever you do
‘Cause he ain’t been fixed, and he knows some tricks
That’ll sure make a fool out of you. Ya, you!

* CHORUS * second stanza
Don’t pet the dog
He gets you confused with romance
Just leave him alone, or the next thing you know
He’ll be askin’ your ankle to dance.

Well, you say it’s OK, try to push him away
You ask, “What’s his name? Does he sit up and beg?”
Well, you try to stay cool, but you look like a fool
With a dog makin’ love to your leg.

* CHORUS *

* CHORUS * second stanza

Everybody now
Don’t pet the dog.

I don't have the dl for Sherree Chamberlain yet. She's a local Oklahoman, went to school with Curt. In comparison to The Tobasco Donkeys, much more melodious music though. Some of the singing reminds me of Norah Jones, some Regina Spector, but it still is better quality music than Norah Jones. Some of her songs have a spiritual theme, so if you do check her out, be wary. Apparently her new stuff is less so, and more folky. Here is her myspace page which has some music to sample on. I'll probably go to two of her shows in March.

"Of course, the shalomic dreams of the Hebrew prophets are visionary: the literal coursing of Chardonnay through mountain streambeds is not an essential feature of everybody's picture of an ideal world." - Cornelius Plantinga, Jr. from Not the Way It's Supposed to Be: A Breviary of Sin

My response? Fuck hell it's not.

The next day.

We had two couchsurfers over, and my thoughts were running, oh shit we don't have alcohol, what if they want some? So being the good host, did a quick drive and grabbed a handle of gin. Then ran to the store and bought some tonic and other necessary groceries. As I got out of my car, they were pulling in. Perfect timing. While as they were still in the car, I heard Michelle yelling how great it was going to be to get out. I shook Ian's hand, went to shake Michelle's but she was going for the hug. I shook it, and then we hugged. It was obvious they were hipsters, and not a moment too soon if you ask me. I needed to have a good time, and these were people I actually fit in with (I had spent the last week in a college town with L'Abriers.).

Not going to bore you with the details. But they left at 2 the next afternoon. Curtis stumbled in, "so did you realize that Michelle crawled in bed with me?"

"No, I didn't."

"Yea, she was in there for five minutes or more. She started kissing my face."

"HA."

Later...he's trying to make a pizza. Smoke comes flaming from the oven. "Oops, sorry bout that. I had tried baking those globe chips last night," (fresh potato chips and blue cheese. a delight I discovered in Athens with Joy and her friends) "but forgot about them. Must of spilt the oil when I took them out."

A few minutes later... "Did you throw up in this drawer?"

"Me? No. But Michelle had said something about Ian having gotten sick last night, and he was definitely hungover today."

"YOU DON'T REMEMBER?! You guys must of been sloshed, if instead of going for the sink, Ian goes for the drawer, and none of you guys remember."

We had between the three of us: 1 handle of Vodka and 1/2 handle of gin. We had tons of fun.

Good times, although as Modest Mouse would put it, "are killing me."