What Was Your Resolution?

He had another a few weeks ago I really liked too.

Happy New Year everybody. The sky is black outside, the weather is bone chilly.

Quasi-Followup to the Hind's Post

James KA Smith posted an excellent article by surprisingly Mark Lilla: "The President and the Passions".

Of course engaging emotions is something easier said than done. But as Smith points out:

The proper response to this is not to lapse into the rationalist whine about people being governed by their passions and keep hoping they'll be be "rational" like us (we're not). Rather, the point is to harness, direct, and channel the passions. Indeed, if you just paint the passions as "irrational," you've already lost.

Ron Paul on WikiLeaks

Small Change

Ran across the first quote on Leithart's blog.

“Social networks are particularly effective at increasing motivation,” Aaker and Smith write. But that’s not true. Social networks are effective at increasing participation—by lessening the level of motivation that participation requires.... A spokesperson for the Save Darfur Coalition told Newsweek, “We wouldn’t necessarily gauge someone’s value to the advocacy movement based on what they’ve given. This is a powerful mechanism to engage this critical population. They inform their community, attend events, volunteer. It’s not something you can measure by looking at a ledger.” In other words, Facebook activism succeeds not by motivating people to make a real sacrifice but by motivating them to do the things that people do when they are not motivated enough to make a real sacrifice. We are a long way from the lunch counters of Greensboro (source).

Gladwell goes on to point out:

[I]t is simply a form of organizing which favors the weak-tie connections that give us access to information over the strong-tie connections that help us persevere in the face of danger. It shifts our energies from organizations that promote strategic and disciplined activity and toward those which promote resilience and adaptability. It makes it easier for activists to express themselves, and harder for that expression to have any impact.

For Gladwell, activism that effectively challenges the status quo has both a heirarchical organizational structure and social relations formed with a strong bond between members. He believed that the civil rights movement was provided both by the black church, enabling it to become paradigmatic for societal transformation.

Gladwell point is not to deny social networking possibilities for change, but take them for what they are and damper some of the more unbounded interpretations with realism. He's also not providing an anatamy for activism, but he's pointing to some interesting aspects.

Lawsuit ideas

It seems to me in this age where the principles of fairness and equity are spoken on the lips of those without the slightest clue as to their meaning, that if it is a copyright infringement to use the names of companies for such purposes as advertising (assuming it's not of the aforementioned company), then perhaps some brilliant lawyer will get it in their heads to sue over the use of our the people's, the actual objective persons of the world, names. After-all, it seems only fair. The first task of course would be to copyright some name, assuming it is possible and then sue the first internet corporation or solicitor to customize it in their propaganda. Before we know it there will be sign-up sheets and suing class-action style. Alas, I have a litigious dream where even a birth certificate could ensure no insidious act is protected when they spit out our names without even a thought, after-all it's automated now, for the pure purpose of scamming and manipulating us for a quick buck.

(Untitled Post)

Stolen from Zinn

Anti-Americanism

"Simply compare [William] James and Henry Adams, his contemporary. Adams embodied the American who despaired of his own country and was ruined by Europe. James was built up by Europe, and believed in America" (Rosenstock-Huessy).

Wow. What a brilliant insight. Not into Adams or James, I have no clue about that, but into two enduring types that still embody those we know and love (hopefully) today.

Rules or Relationship?

Ultimately the Bible is not a book of rules. There most certainly are rules in the Bible, but their purpose is not to show us how good we are... because of course, none of us is good enough to be okay with God; only Jesus can fix our relationship with God. Rather, the instructions and commands and rules in the Bible, especially ones like this one in Hebrews, describe how life works best. For example...

*Raises eyebrow*. I always thought there were rules in relationships. In fact, the only relationships where there are not are the relationships of imaginative projections of our fantasies. Alas, the Bible is a testament to humanity and Israel's unfaithfulness to the commands and callings of God with severe warnings to the Church. The rules serve many purposes, not least of which is to show us how to be faithful in our relationship. So while rules w/out relationship might get us nowhere, relationship w/out rules gets us a bag on the doorstep and a note saying "Have a good life".

I'm serious about that imaginative projection. Relationships take place in real world interaction; otherwise it's all in one's mind, despite what one may believe.

It's not like I'm personally comfortable with rules. In fact it's precisely my uncomfortableness which accentuates my awareness of their existence. It's my own violation of implicit ones which creates the need for "talks" where explicit ones are laid out.

In her post Rules or Relationship on the issue of Sabbatarianism, my friend Renea wrote that "we lose ourselves, largely because we lose sight of God, we forget to be with him."

The chief historical temptation has been to forget God. It is in forgetting God that we become unfaithful. The question is not though of us losing ourselves but of us "mirroring" the surrounding culture. Israel was judged for its lack of distinctiveness as the people of God by appropriating the practices of its anti-shalom neighbors.

We've found ourselves in a bizarre time, when being religious is looked down upon while being somehow nebulously "spiritual" is good and respected. If the Church has been called though to be a holy people, then we are called to participate in the life of that Church. This means being religious.

Today we find ourselves desperately struggling with the consequential inconveniences this might place upon us. Framing the issue in a legalistic/antinomian context allows some to provide a solution for avoiding these tendencies. My concern is that this is a miscatagorization of the problem. The problem is the question itself needs repentance of. What working out our faith(fulness) means for us today is not that we need to contemporize our faith and practices for "new realities" but need to sanctify contemporary culture.

Legalism is as much a perversion as an accommodating lifestyle. The solution is not for oneself to individually negotiate the tension in the name of not forgetting God. The solution is to remember the Lord your God who has called the Church to honor him and carry out his will. The diversity is not how one's religion plays out in one's personal life; the diversity is in how our personal lives play out in the life of the Church. Looking for the other solution is tantamount to reassurances that all God really cares about is cheap rhetoric and finding our own personal way to live a good life or worse, care that only that we believe a handful of doctrines.

While these ritualistic practices are no longer prescribed and regulated by the Law; they do somehow magically find themselves implemented by faith-communities. While the life prescribed and regulated by the Law might be the shadow, participating in the life of the Church is the foretaste.

The question is not if one is being good or bad Christian, it's if one is meaningfully Christian at all. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. Without participation in the gift of Jesus within the church, "Christian" becomes just another label we use for self-description, albeit increasingly unpopular as we distance ourselves from from others for whom claim this label. Once "Christian" was a derogatory name for those believers practicing in the church of Antioch. If we're going to be applying labels, perhaps a more fitting one for these wishing to disassociate from Jesus' corporate body is a Christianist, a more purely ideological identification for believing in Christianism. If this sounds ludicrous, what is it about what it describes that makes sense?

This response ignores a lot of legitimate questions. What it's designed to do though is shift the theological impetus back to "Christ Resurrected" and "Repent, for the KoG is near".

And for the record I presently rarely go to church on Sundays.

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Wow, that's even more foreboding than "approval"; where's the "Have a nice day!" follow-up, I feel robbed! I'm expecting at least the courtesy of "why don't you see yourself out?"

Obviously, this is a pet-peeve of mine. On principle, that was my first and last comment on that friend's blog. Of course, my resolve is that of a smoker trying to quit, so if the mood strikes it doesn't take much overwhelming to reneg on posting again. But what's the deal? Surely we're not that big of control-freaks? Or that contemptuous of other's remarks? This friend might not always listen to what others say (who does?), but she always hears them out. And sure, she can be overly superficial with image (again, who isn't?), but if anything frequent comments are fashionable, assuming it's not just folks bickering at one another, no? The level of discourse is what it is on comments, but isn't some life to the conversation better than none?

I mean, come on, there's another human being on the other side of that console. Obviously, I have some personal issues to work out. Many of you have seen me rant on hierarchy, openness, space for speaking up. I personally might be a "little" sensitive and overreact to hints of odious practices like modding. But really, what is the point?

As for anti-spam, it seems a little quick on the drawl, no? What about captchas? Sure they're hardly foolproof or anything like that, but to start off with having messages approved?

I'm working on some ideas for understanding it and wanna hear your feedback. In the mean time, gonna experiment with valedictions like "What's your take?" and "thoughts?" to see if that has any affect on fostering some discussions so this blog isn't as monological (monological just sounds like something one wouldn't want to be characterized as, no?).

Reposting This, Sorry.

Fascinating RSA vid, but long.

Main points:

A) Older folks are more likely to text than a younger generation. It's not a generational thing. (I don't know how he arrived at that. It sounded though like % of messages. Unrelated though, Pew had a recent report on % of American English-speaking users of various features recently. Notably 18-29 86% v 30-49 72% texted.).

B) Abbreviating is not new. Folks have always had fun with words like CS Lewis (It's cool was the primary response for abbreviating. Cyrstal's response was that you had to know what you were doing for it to be cool. This point though was tied to the one below regarding inability to spell.). He cited rebuses as an example.

C) Texting improves language skills. Coventry University apparently have done a number of studies on the issue. A news report.

D) Folks are reading, even if not novels. Texting requires a high literacy rate.

E) Kids don't abbreviate in test, except rarely. Why? They'll be marked for it. Examiners and kids seem to say this, despite the news.

F) The texting genre is creative. Including poetry contest w/ an 86 year-old grandma winning of the awards. There's in east Asia, text serial novels.

G) Twitter sentences vary in length. Some are 25-30 words long.

H) Twitter is in a state of flux, so it's hard to generalize. Initially, the prompt was apparently to "What are you doing?" to in Nov "What's happening?". Reflects an inward to external shift. Apparently, responses have shifted from the stereotypical insipid blah (I'm cleaning my ear canal; I'm drinking beer) to responding with information exchange in real time. Twitter is fastest news source medium.

Q&A:

A) There is a danger as we become more brief and succinct, there is a danger of an inability to read for sustained periods and longer pieces.

However, it's too soon to generalize. A) It's too soon. 20 years is impossible to change cognitive functions. B) a response is to now manage the technology.

He then cited though some educational junk regarding managing starting with teachers and kids being appreciative for the guidance/advice.

For younger people the technology is central and the book is peripheral, as opposed to an older paradigm of book central and alternative peripheral. One managing strategy is to put the book into the technology (i.e. iPad, kindle).

B) Inculcating students into an appropriateness model for English, vs. right/wrong, black/white (think grammar-spelling nazis and literary conservatives). One way is comparing language and translating various formats of information(text <-> essay). So learning what is and isn't appropriate w/ communicating the information for the specific formats.
_____

Real Americans

Progressives (such as myself) are very pleased with ourselves (obvious, no?). Perhaps no more so than with our brilliant analysis of conservative language, where we go to great lengths to unveil the meaning concealed by their self-referential rhetoric, e.g. "real Americans" = WASP. And yes, there are moments when some nut-job ever-so proudly makes our case for us, for instance with arguments that immigrants aren't welcomed as they don't internalize "our" values.

At the end of the day though, it misses the mark on the complexity ensuing us. Point of hypocrisy, when we fill our ears with the pleasure of our own voice in our decidedly very witty interpretation, pertaining to "Americans". Inevitably, how is this portrayed and what's underwriting it?

Really this just goes back to soccer and thoughts of the tea-party. Beyond finding his depiction of American's insulting, it comes down to him trying too hard, as his "American's don't get it" actually places him in the world's minority where most non-American fans are a little less fanatical and quick to paint some of soccer's imperfections as "beautiful". Fans don't cheer for ties, aren't appreciative of simulations, and hardly sympathize with FIFA's drama/controversy infatuation. And while American taste in blockbusters might be a little gimmicky, mostly it's underwritten by a solid, if safe, narrative. After-all, American's don't like tension & unpredictability in movies? We all just like chick-flicks and unoriginal/unimaginative Hollywood remakes? What is he saying? Or they don't like novel, pretentious crap w/ a hipster stamp-of-approval?

If anything, there seems to be a predictive correlation between different progressive's interpretations whether they're playing at self-appointed advocates or subcultural clichés.

Really though, this is just me pissed about Germany's loss. Damn you Paul!

Rethinking News: You're Hurting America

"Who is the Walter Cronkite of this Generation?" - Steve Rosenbaum

Playing for What?

Gonna try a Leithartish type post. We'll see.

James K.A. Smith, in his post "Playing for What?", bemoans the impoverished state of sports which true spirit is self-determining and true practice is its own enjoyment. Today though these are steadily being encroached upon by the "athletic-entertainment complex which has instrumentalized sport for all sorts of misbegotten ends". Emblematic of this shift for Smith are the Nike World Cup Soccer commercials, which fetishize by enrapturing the viewer in the meaning of external trappings to participants who succeed.

For a sport self-proclaiming its pride in showcasing a specific skill set, it seems at its highest level of competition to be continuously haunted by accusations lending credence to this interpretation, all the while shamefully trying to enshroud itself in pretensions of honest play. Yet as the tournament progress fans will continually be disgusted by simulations on the field and a governing body reveling in scandals and controversies, mediated only by their desire for ever escalating sponsorships.

Yea, there's no Leithart like the real thing. Sorry.

!@#$%^& %^&*!

Not gonna talk about the US game. Planning on giving a detailed overview of why the US is a second-class team later. However, I will say this, despite my dreams of being in RSA right being dashed as I'm stateside, it's nice to know most of my friends haven't changed. I've been on facebook a little bit since June 11. Okay, more in the last few weeks than since Carla and Faith talked me into opening an account in like '07(?), but that's not the point. The point is things haven't changed and I'm relieved that approximately half my friends still root for US's downfall, especially for what can be considered a moral victory for Africa. Lots of games still to go, hopefully Germany will send England packing. None of the walls have holes in them. The sun will rise tomorrow. It's a good thing I'm not overly dramatic. An amusing tidbit from a friend of mine:

Any sport where grown men sit around drinking beer to watch younger men plow into each other, catch balls, and constantly hug, slap and make physical contact with each other is just as "gay" really. American football seems to be the worst however. Fat geezers cheering for college boys with almost militant hate for anyone who tries to oppose them as if to help protect their beloved players from being owned, raped, or destroyed by the opponents. Ah...sports.

And congratulations Ghana, you deserved that win!

A Theory in Process

More than myself have noticed probably all the "Go England!" chants coming from our northern neighbors. Now, I'm as guilty as the next for rooting for teams based on my political temperament, on the other hand most Americans don't seem to be. So...

I think all this is merely the "coy friend wanna-be more strategy to attract the attention of their desire". Moreover, this crap is getting old. Seriously, Canada ought just reopen negotiations to join the EU. Is it really out of the realm of possibility?

Came across this article while looking for something for this post: "I've found a perfect new member for the EU. If only it were in Europe".

Away from politics-disguised-as-sports talk and back to sport-sport talk, where's Canada's team again? That's right, they didn't qualify.

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.

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.

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.