I call THAT real…

This is officially my new favorite country song.  And I haven’t listened to much country lately.  I used to listen almost exclusively to country, but more and more I find that it is only parroting the worst aspects of other popular forms of music like rock & hip-hop.  Being a big Johnny Cash fan, I know country has always had elements of drug use and sexuality.  I’m not sure if I’ve gotten more sensitive to this stuff or if it is more and more pervasive.  Either way, I just don’t have much patience for it anymore.  I think the music you listen to shapes you.  It’s not about “not being stained” or thinking that everything secular is dirty.  For me, I guess, it’s about what keeps me focused on God and the man God has called me to be.  It seems to me that country today is just as likely to celebrate very ungodly lifestyles as any other kind of music, and I just don’t need to fill my head with that on a regular basis.

But, James Wesley just gave me a reason to celebrate country music again.  Given all the reality TV on CMT (isn’t it owned by MTV, also a fine purveyor of “reality” trash?), it will be a miracle if this gets much air time.  But man we need to hear this message:

500 Channels and there ain’t much on tonight
But reality shows about some folks so called lives
A pretty girl cries cause she don’t get a rose
But she’ll find love next year on her own show
And they call that real

Real, is the hand you hold 57 years
Real, is a band of gold trembling with fear
And it’s the first long tear down an old man’s face
Watching his angel slipping away
His heart so broke, it’s never gonna heal
I call that real

Where I live, housewives don’t act like that
And the survivors are farmers in John Deere hats
Our Amazing race is beating the check
Praying that the bank ain’t ran it through yet

Real, like too much rain falling from the sky
Real, like the drought that came around here last July
It’s the damn old weevils and the market and the weeds
The prayer they prayed when they plant the seeds
And the chance they take to bring us our next meal
I call that real

Real, like a job you lose ‘cause it moves to Mexico
Like a momma and a baby with no safe place to go
Like a little dream house with a big old foreclosed sign
Like a flag draped coffin and a 21 gun goodbye
I call that real

This hit me especially this morning because Snooki visited nearby recently (on a Sunday! Surely there should be a law…) to a packed Barnes & Noble.  As a society, we are idolatrously glorifying the lives of people who literally contribute nothing to society.  Moreover, the  lifestyles celebrated in “reality” shows have nothing to do with how 99.9% of people actually live.

I serve a congregation of wonderful people.  None of us are perfect.  Some of us have lost children; some have had cancer; some of us have suffered from mental illness.  We’ve lost jobs.  We’ve raised good kids.  We’ve had arguments, but found healing.  We’ve worked hard, even for bad people, and continued to serve each other in retirement.  I love these people.  I love how real they are.

So please, media, stop trying to sell me something that is fundamentally sinful, wrong, malformed, and galactically unreal.  Thank you James Wesley (awesome last name BTW) for a country song I can celebrate once more.

On Loving Luke Timothy Johnson

I just remembered why I love LTJ (cue awesome nickname) so much.  There are many reasons, of course.  His wit.  His unapologetic Catholicism (I mean really, how often do you meet a Catholic who isn’t apologizing for it?).  His teaching at a Methodist seminary (Candler at Emory).  His great little book The Creed, which I read for my theology class and still love.

But the main reason I love LTJ: this lecture, in which he skewers the Jesus Seminar.  Like many religion undergrads over the last 20 years or so, I was presented Jesus Seminar scholarship as if it was the latest and (by definition) greatest take on Jesus.  I smelled a rat but I couldn’t articulate it until Johnson ripped them a new one in a loving, scholarly, Christian way.  I first encountered that lecture early in seminary and I still love it.

On my viewing tonight, I noticed something that hadn’t struck me before: LTJ has serious issues with N.T. Wright’s scholarship.  This I did not know.  My own primary interest is not NT studies, and while I like N.T. Wright (and got to see him speak last year!) I can’t claim to have read any of his substantial works.

The debate seems to involve the nature of the historical discipline.  In this lecture, given at the National Cathedral a while back, Johnson indicates that he finds the Jesus Seminar less offensive than Wright.  While the Jesus seminar may be doing poor history, he says, the good Bishop does not “rise to the level of history.”  Interesting.  If only I had more time to read!

Watch the video and leave your thoughts below!

P.S. I almost forgot – LTJ’s Teaching Company courses are great too!

Somewhere in the world something important is happening

…and the local news tonight tells me about Oprah’s newly discovered half-sister and gives me a preview of the next American Idol.

 

Just a quick thought: do we get the news we deserve?  I’m beginning to think that CS Lewis had the right idea by avoiding the daily news.

 

::sigh::

The Sad State of Journalism: NBC Sports Skewers Dana White and His “UFC Tree Fort”

Just read an ::ahem:: “article” over on the NBC Sports site dubiously titled “Dana White Doesn’t Want Icky Girls In His UFC Tree Fort.” If you don’t know who Dana White is, well, you aren’t even a casual MMA fan.  The foul-mouthed Bostonian (are there any other kinds?) is President and part-owner of the UFC, and the man most responsible for turning around not only his corporation but the entire sport.  He’s not polished, but he is smart, and I like his product.  He has flaws.  These are readily viewable with a simple Google search.  But that is no excuse for this.  The author, Rick Chandler, concludes his short piece – based on a ONE WORD answer White gave to the ever-invasive cameras of TMZ – with the following scintillating analysis:

OK, I think we get the picture. We now take you to the scene of another 6-year-old mentality, via Calvin & Hobbes, already in progress:

Calvin: Our top-secret club, G.R.O.S.S.– Get Rid Of Slimy girlS!
Susie: Slimy girls?!
Calvin: I know that’s redundant, but otherwise it doesn’t spell anything.

Of course, the head of the UFC must be a misogynistic, immature dolt.  Many people, ignorant of the sport, would say the same about us fans.  But this is ridiculous.

The primary reason that the UFC does not have a women’s division (and likely won’t for quite some time) is a relatively low number of female fighters.  The UFC is the major-league, marquee MMA organization.  They will never have a women’s division until there are enough high-quality female fighters (in a particular weight class) to justify its creation in the top-shelf promotion.  This same logic applies to why there will not be (also for a long, long time) a super-heavyweight (265 lbs. +) division: very few – if any -  high-quality fighters in that bracket.

But I didn’t need to tell you all that.  Hopefully, all you needed to see was the title of this article to know that this was a pathetic excuse for sports journalism.  To run to the opposite extreme, where is Ariel Helwani when I need him?

P.S. Sue, if you read this, feel free to correct me!  Aside from college newspaper experience (ha!) I am no expert in this field.  But as a fan, I was offended by this hack piece.

Is Obamacare Constitutional?

 

Whether you lean left or right, Uncommon Knowledge is a good source for debate over contemporary policy.  It’s hard to come by intelligent discussion in today’s media environment, on either side, and with that in mind the Hoover Institution does us all a favor with these interviews.

Their newest interlocutors are legal professors Richard Epstein and John Yoo.  Props also to Peter Robinson, the host, whom I find very enjoyable.  He’s not an ideologue, but rather a well-read and articulate interviewer.  Check out the first part of the interview here.

Seems especially pertinent since the house repealed Obamacare today.

Rethinking Christ & Culture, Again

In contemporary theological conversation, H. R. Niebuhr’s Christ and Culture is both loved and hated, adored and despised.  Admirers will tell you it is a theological “classic” that deserves a reading by each successive generation, while detractors will (and I’ve seen them do it!) spew venom and the mere mention of the title.  For those unfamiliar, in this work Niebuhr gives a typology of Christian responses to culture.  Thus, he argues, throughout the course of time, the ship of the church has navigated its way through the world with 5 identifiable responses/reactions to its surrounding culture:

Christ against Culture. For the exclusive Christian, history is the story of a rising church or Christian culture and a dying pagan civilization.

Christ of Culture. For the cultural Christian, history is the story of the Spirit’s encounter with nature.

Christ above Culture. For the synthesist, history is a period of preparation under law, reason, gospel, and church for an ultimate communion of the soul with God.

Christ and Culture in Paradox. For the dualist, history is the time of struggle between faith and unbelief, a period between the giving of the promise of life and its fulfillment.

Christ Transforming Culture. For the conversionist, history is the story of God’s mighty deeds and humanity’s response to them. Conversionists live somewhat less “between the times” and somewhat more in the divine “now” than do the followers listed above. Eternity, to the conversionist, focuses less on the action of God before time or life with God after time, and more on the presence of God in time. Hence the conversionist is more concerned with the divine possibility of a present renewal than with conservation of what has been given in creation or preparing for what will be given in a final redemption.

Props to Wikipedia for the descriptions above.  In the ensuing decades since the publication (1951) of his book, Niebuhr has been the subject of sustained critique for various reasons.  Some claim that his vision of “culture”, always a nebulous term, is undefined and unhelpful in the Yale professor’s telling.  Others say that it was an insidious work because it obviously favored the last model, ‘Transformation’, to the detriment of the others.  Thus, Yoder writes, “Behind this posture of humble nonnormative objectivity, it will become clear to any careful reader that Niebuhr has so organized his presentation as to indicate a definite preference for ‘transformation.’. . . ‘Transformation’ takes into itself all the values of its predecessor types and corrects most of their shortcomings.”

But there, I think, is the rub.  Many of Niebuhr’s critics, in my view, are those whose views have been most marginalized (or exposed by?) his work.  Thus, those usually raising the loudest ruckus against Christ and Culture are those who feel dismissed by it.  These would include Yoder, his protege’ Hauerwas, and all of their theological fanboys (of which there are many, at least in the blogosphere).  A more reasoned and helpful reading of Christ & Culture recognizes its shortcomings but still finds value in the discussion.  This, I think, is supplied by Geoffrey Wainwright in the opening chapter of his massive co-edited volume The Oxford History of Christian Worship.  His background in ecumenical discussion and interest in liturgy and missiology shines through brilliantly here:

“Rather than taking [Niebuhr's] five “typical” attitudes as fixed and divergent stances of the Christian faith toward all human culture, it may be more appropriate to see them as indicating the possibility of, and need for, a discriminating attention on the part of Christians toward every human culture at all times and in all places.  Whereas a particular cultural configuration may appear as predominantly positive or negative in relation to the saving purposes of God, it is likely that most cultures will contain some elements to be affirmed; some to negated, resisted, and even fought; some to be purified and elevated; some to be held provisionally in tension; and some to be transformed.  The liturgy can function not only to sift but also to inspire a surrounding public culture.” (The Oxford History of Christian Worship [Oxford: Oxford University Press 2006], 17)

Such a nuanced take on Niebuhr’s work is, unfortunately, rather novel these days.  Those who critique it have good reason, on occasion; unfortunately, just as frequently as they have cause to critique it, they throw the baby out with the bathwater and seek to make it anathema for contemporary readers.  This is a shame.  Wainwright has given us a measured and helpful response that will hopefully keep Christ & Culture part of our discourse for decades to come.

Note: The Yoder quote comes from Gathje’s article found at:

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2641

Dare We Read Hans Urs Von Balthasar? (Or, Who’s Gettin’ to Heaven?)

Hoping to finish up Dare We Hope? from the great Catholic theologian Hans Urs Von Balthasar tonight.  I first encountered his ideas in seminary, and a recent bible study on the Revelation of John inspired me to finally take this off the shelf.  The question guiding the Swiss Catholic’s tome is a daunting one: from the Biblical and other evidence, do we have any grounds to hope (not claim!) that all might be saved?  Citing the RC Catechism, he points out that official dogma has never held that anyone is absolutely in hell right now.  Might it be that, as so many biblical texts imply (or claim directly), Jesus might achieve his stated goal of “drawing all men” to himself?

For anyone who has struggled with the question of salvation, particularly its scope, Von Balthasar is a welcome read.  Far from liberal claims that God would “surely” not damn anyone (because God, like liberal theologians, views all judgments as passe’), Dare We Hope insists in on nothing more than the what the title suggests: if we truly love our neighbors and wish for them their highest good, we can, and should, dare to hope that they will be saved…as well as ourselves.

I leave you with a succinct statement, from his Short Discourse On Hell (attached to Dare We Hope? as a response to his critics):

The question, to which no final answer is given or can be given is this: Will he who refuses [salvation] now refuse it to the last?  To this there are two possible answers: the first says simply “Yes”…the second says: I do not know, but I think it permissible to hope (on the basis of…Scripture) that the light of divine love will ultimately be able to penetrate every human darkness and refusal. (Dare We Hope “That All Men Be Saved” with A Short Discourse On Hell [San Francisco: Ignatius Press 1988], 178)

Obama Endorses American Exceptionalism(?)

Has the President been reading National Review?  The day after a column by Rich Lowry defended the oft-debated notion of American Exceptionalism, Obama seemed to endorse precisely the core tenets of the doctrine.  The Weekly Standard points it out thusly:

The day after Rich’s column appeared, on January 1, President Obama asserted in his weekly address that “we’ve had the good fortune to grow up in the greatest nation on Earth.” Then, in case anyone missed it, Obama repeated eight sentences later that he’s confident we can “do what it takes to make sure America remains in the 21st century what it was the 20th: the greatest country in the world.”

Has anyone on the multiculturally-inclined left caught on to this? Surely some of Obama’s cultured sycophants will not stand for this.  For the time being, as the Weekly Standard concludes,

…we look forward to denunciations from the usual enlightened quarters of this vulgar expression of American chauvinism and boastful claim of American exceptionalism by an American president.

 

Note: For my leftist friends, National Review and Weekly Standard are both conservative magazines.  Clicking on the links in this blog may cause your liberal friends to disown you.