progressive involvement

And then we wonder why we're all neurotic

 

Lectionary blogging: John 10: 1-10

Very truly, I tell you, anyone who does not enter the sheepfold by the gate but climbs in by another way is a thief and a bandit. ²The one who enters by the gate is the shepherd of the sheep. ³The gatekeeper opens the gate for him, and the sheep hear his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. ⁴When he has brought out all his own, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him because they know his voice. ⁵They will not follow a stranger, but they will run from him because they do not know the voice of strangers.’ ⁶Jesus used this figure of speech with them, but they did not understand what he was saying to them.

7 So again Jesus said to them, ‘Very truly, I tell you, I am the gate for the sheep. ⁸All who came before me are thieves and bandits; but the sheep did not listen to them. ⁹I am the gate. Whoever enters by me will be saved, and will come in and go out and find pasture. ¹⁰The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.

Translation:  "Truly, truly I say to you, the one not entering through the door into the yard of the sheep, but ascends up some other way is a thief and a robber.  But the one entering in through the door is shepherd of the sheep.  To him, the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.  When he might throw out all his own, he goes before them, and his sheep follow because they have known his voice.  But they will surely not follow a stranger but will flee from him because they have not known the voice of strangers."  Jesus spoke this proverb to them, but they did not know what he was saying to them.

Then again Jesus said, "Truly, truly I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.  All that came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them.  I am the door.  If someone might enter through me, that one will be saved.  And that one will go in and out and find pasture.  The thief does not come except that they might steal and kill and destroy.  I came so that they might have life, and they might have abundance."

He slew the dragon

In my lifetime, there has been an effort to delegitimate every Democratic President.  Kennedy was called a traitor and undermined by his own military.  Clinton was called a communist, and was said to be murdering people right and left while importing drugs from South America--a real Arkansas Scarface.

Kennedy had to face down the Soviets, with nuclear war on the line, in order to be legitimated as president in the eyes of a certain portion of the public.  His opponents finally recognized Clinton as president in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing.

In President Obama's case, it's been the "birthers," the agenda of which is to assert that Barack Obama is not really an American, not really one of us.  This would now seem to be out-dated.  He just took out our number one national villain.  You don't get more "one of us" than that.

Psychologically, this gets into mythological territory.  It's not surprising that the President is enjoying a notable boost in his popularity, which, the pundits hasten to assure us, will be short-lived.  That may indeed be so.  After St. George slew the dragon, he urged the townspeople to honor the clergy and help the poor--then he rode on.  One thing for sure though:  He damn sure slew the dragon.

Nietszche was way smarter, and his eyes carried at least a flicker of human kindness

Ayn Rand, heroine of the Cong. Paul Ryan, Alan Greenspan, and the House GOP, preached the anti-Christian philosophy known as "objectivism," the main tenet of which is looking out for your own self and to hell with everybody else.  As she herself put it:  

"The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below him, but gets nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time. The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all their brains." 

The plutocrat only gets his "material payment" from the underlings at his feet, but the poor dear doesn't get any love.  His wonderful self "trickles down" on those of us who live in "hopeless ineptitude," but we do nothing to show our appreciation.  If it wasn't for our "betters," why, my heavens, we'd be eating food with our hands and blowing our nose on our neckties.

Of Christianity, she once said:  

"What is correct is that I do regard the cross as the symbol of the sacrifice of the ideal to the nonideal...Christ, in terms of the Christian philosophy, is the human ideal. He personifies that which men should strive to emulate. Yet, according to the Christian mythology, he died on the cross not for his own sins but for the sins of the nonideal people. [...] And it is in the name of that symbol that men are asked to sacrifice themselves for their inferiors. That is precisely how the symbolism is used. That is torture.

Yes, Jesus died for the sins of the "nonideal."  He sacrificed himself for "inferiors."  (This is progress of a sort.  At other times, she called us "nonideal" people "parasites" and "lice.")  

Gore Vidal had her number:  "She has a great attraction for simple people who are puzzled by organized society, who object to paying taxes, who dislike the welfare state, who feel guilt at the thought of the suffering of others but who would like to harden their hearts."  

The movie adaptation of her abysmally-written book, Atlas Shrugged, debuted this past weekend.  Box office receipts were disappointing.  Perhaps us underlings were unaware that a young Alan Greenspan defended this stultifying tome in a letter to the New York Times, writing:

"'Atlas Shrugged' is a celebration of life and happiness. Justice is unrelenting. Creative individuals and undeviating purpose and rationality achieve joy and fulfillment. Parasites who persistently avoid either purpose or reason perish as they should."

 

People haven't known this?

News alert:  Psychiatrists don't do therapy; they dish pills.  This has been true for quite some time.  

Most of the research shows that a combination of talk therapy and pill therapy is the most effective.  As it happens, psychologists and social workers are often more widely trained in therapeutic technique anyway.   You go to a psychologist or social worker for talk therapy, and to determine if medication is indicated in your case.  If it is determined that this might be a helpful approach, you go to a psychiatrist.

It's not necessarily the world's worst system, but you do wonder why anyone would want to become a psychiatrist.  Who would want to spend each and every day managing 1000 med checks?

Lectionary blogging: Matthew 6: 24-34

²⁴“No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.

²⁵“Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? ²⁶Look at the birds of the air; they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? ²⁷And can any of you by worrying add a single hour to your span of life? ²⁸And why do you worry about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin, ²⁹yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not clothed like one of these. ³⁰But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you—you of little faith? ³¹Therefore do not worry, saying, ‘What will we eat?’ or ‘What will we drink?’ or ‘What will we wear?’ ³²For it is the Gentiles who strive for all these things; and indeed your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. ³³But strive first for the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. ³⁴“So do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring worries of its own. Today’s trouble is enough for today.

Translation:  No one is able to serve two masters, for that one will hate the one and love the other, or one he will hold to one and the other he will despise.  You are not able to serve God and wealth.  For this reason, I say to you, do not be anxious for your life, what you might eat and what you might drink, nor what you might put on your body.  Is not life more than meat, and the body of clothing?  Behold the birds of heaven, that they neither sow nor reap into barns, and your heavenly Father feeds them.  Are you not of more value than they?  Which of you, worrying, is able to add to his stature one cubit?  

And why worry about clothes?  Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow.  They toil not nor spin.  But I say to you that not Solomon in all his glory is clothed like one of these.  But if God so clothes the grass of the field, alive today, (and) tomorrow cast into the oven, how much more you, people of little trust?  

Therefore do not be anxious, saying, "What might we eat?" or "What might we drink?" or "What might we wear?"  For all these things, the gentiles desire.  For your heavenly Father knows that you need quite all of these.  But seek first the kingdom, and its justice, and all these things will be added to you.  Therefore, do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will have its own cares.  Sufficient to the day the evil of it.

 

Why most evangelism is counter-productive

My observation is that a lot of what is done under the heading of “mission” is actually rather ill-conceived, just splurting out what people inside a Christian ghetto think people outside it need to hear, without any proper attention to what the big wide world is actually like. Theology, in that kind of context, tends to get distorted: it tends to be either defensive or aggressive, or both. It seems to be something like a theological grenade just lobbed out there in the hopes that it will hit some ill-defined target. But it doesn’t seem to include listening, or conversation, or the willingness to allow “outsiders” to contribute to theology. And it nearly always ends up being bad theology.

This excerpt from a post by Maggi Dawn gets at the heart of why most Christian evangelism is poorly-conceived, counter-productive, and, not to put too fine a point on it, just plain awful.  

When people hear the word "evangelism," they generally think of people who come knocking on your door, or those whose tradition encourages "witnessing" to others so that they might be "converted" to thinking like they do.  The former category are almost always Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons, the latter almost always those from conservative theological traditions who emphasize "converting" others to their way of thinking.

Yes, the New Testament does encourage witness, especially the fourth gospel.  In the first century, however, the Christian witness took place in a diverse and fluid intellectual world.  Christians had to be pretty sharp to compete in this "marketplace of ideas."  Which they were.  The early history of Christianity is studded with the names of great theologians in dialog with the intellectual currents of their times.  

This didn't last long, unfortunately.  Imperial Christianity abandoned the free exchange of ideas in the fourth century, and, for the next 1000 years or so, Christian evangelism basically amounted to forcing conquered peoples to get baptized.

Nowadays, we manipulate people with a lighter touch.  Today's evangelism usually combines sentimental piety with fear of hell.  ("If you died today, would you go to heaven or hell?")  If this gets a person through the door--which, increasingly, it does not--then follows the rest of the fundamentalist package:  inerrant Bible, distrust of science, rejection of reason, and the propagation of legalistic moralisms, usually limited to, and obsessively-focused upon, sexuality.

This package is increasingly rejected.  In fact, this all-too-typical approach now turns off way more people than it turns on.  Yet, in response to this hostile reception, fundamentalists seem to have no other alternatives.  If you haven't been converted, it's because you simply didn't hear them, at which point they say the exact same thing over again, only louder this time.   

This kind of theology cannot compete in our current "marketplace of ideas."  The reason is because it rejects that marketplace in the first place.  Its not interested in dialog, but rather dominance.  Its not interested in the experience of people in the modern world, only their submission to a worldview that seems not only at odds with the modern world, but reality itself.  (Talking snakes?  Dinosaurs on the ark?) 

One can appreciate the New Testament emphasis on "witness" while at the same time being appalled at its contemporary manifestations.  One alternate approach that combines intellectual heft with respect for the real-life experience of people is Paul Tillich's "method of correlation."  

The "method of correlation" seeks dialog between the faith and the world.  It doesn't assume it has all the answers, but seeks, rather, to understand the plight of people as they try to negotiate their lives through the confusing thicket of modern existence.  It seeks understanding rather than dominance, which means it treats people with respect and takes the modern world seriously.

I don't say that such an approach will "work" if by "work" you mean herding more people through the Christian chute.  Barnum and Bailey hucksterism can do that quite well all by itself.  (Manipulation of feelings "works" to an extent, even as it annoys and repels countless others.)

The "method of correlation" asserts the good news of the Christian faith in a world that, as Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote, is now "come of age."  People no longer look to religious authorities or institutions to understand the world.  They make their own determinations, thank you very much, which means that the church will need to get much sharper and much more relevant in its proclamation.  (Bonhoeffer also said, incidentally, that religionists would use all their "clerical tricks" to keep people in a "religious consciousness," i.e. dependent on religion.)  

Christian evangelism is not about tacking another coon skin on the wall.  In fact, it's not even really about talking.  When Jesus talks about the mission of the church in the four gospels, it's much more about doing than it is about speaking.  Trust in Christ is advanced when his people treat others with dignity, and not as mere objects to be emotionally manipulated.    Or, as St. Francis so succinctly put it, "Always preach the gospel.  If necessary, use words." 

 

One-termer

Gov. Christie (R-NJ) made it back to New Jersey from his Disneyland vacation yesterday.  He knew a storm was coming before he left, it hit while he was gone, and he didn't come back until just now.  Meanwhile, since the lieutenant governor was also off somewhere, it was left to State Senate President Stephen Sweeney (D) to coordinate the emergency response.

What did Christie do upon his return?  Brag about the state's response, with which he had nothing to do, and trash local mayors for whining.

When asked about mayors who said they were forced to divert their resources to unplowed state roads instead of clearing local roads Christie said, "I know who these mayors are and they should buck up and take responsibility for the fact that they didn't do their job."

Asked about his trip to Disneyland, Christie said his most important job was as "husband and father," and that his wife had told him to not "even think about" canceling the trip.  It's not like calling out the National Guard is his job.  Oh wait, it is.

As a practical matter, would his presence have made any difference?  Probably not.  Personally speaking, I'm not one who thinks mayors should be out driving snow plows, or that governors should be out helping stalled motorists.  

That said, there is a certain political "atmospheric" at work here, and Christie's actions lies on the wrong side of it.  New Jerseyians were breaking their backs trying to shovel out, while their governor was basking in the Florida sun.

We were in France in 2003 when the heat wave hit and flooded French hospitals and contributed to the deaths of around 14000 people.  The French weren't upset that the President and the Health Minister were out of the country.  It was August.  Most French politicians are on vacation in August.  The Health Minister got fired, however, for not returning to the country when it was obvious that a major health care crisis was at hand.

Dud week

Not that that's a bad thing.  The week after Christmas reminds me somewhat of Gary Jennings' book, Aztec, wherein he says that the ancient Aztecs had a week they didn't know what to do with on their calendar, so there was about five days or so in which nothing much happened while they waited around to get their calendar right again.  

That feels something like the week after Christmas to me.  Most of the big shots are on vacation so the news is all about year end stories--the best movies, the biggest events of the year, or, in this case, the decade.  

The Aztecs "nothing week" had a dark mood to it--you didn't want to initiate anything during this period because it might be bad luck.  We get a hint of that with our year-end "necrology," i.e. remembrances of those who have died during the year.  

The difference between the day before Christmas and the day after reminds me of Robert Kagan writing about the difference between Nogales, AZ and Nogales, Mexico.  Rarely on this globe, he says, do you see a greater difference in wealth and poverty in such a short space than you do when you go across the border from Nogales, AZ to Nogales, Mexico.

The week after Christmas is like that too.  Before, it's all talk and events, conversations and song.  The day after, it's quiet--literally--as a church mouse.  If there were one here today, I could hear him scurrying along the wall.  The phone doesn't ring.  Nobody stops by.  (While I don't want to think the people are sick of seeing me, I'm sure they can use a break.)

Personally speaking, I love Christmas with all its grandeur and hoohah, and I also love the day and week after Christmas, with its stillness and quietness, bringing things back into proportion.  This is what Isaac Newton called "an equal and opposite reaction," and what J.S. Bach called "counterpoint."

The difference between John Kerry and John McCain

See "Two Losers" by Kay at BalloonJuice.  Snippet:

After John Kerry lost to George W. Bush, he returned to the Senate and simply did his job there, and he's continued to do his job there.

Kerry lost, big, on climate change this year and he still rallied and led on START, rather than booking time on cable shows to bitch.

Kerry didn't subject the country to two years of bitter griping, temper tantrums and petulant demands. Kerry didn't pursue purely personal vendettas against whole groups of voters who (allegedly) "betrayed" him. Kerry didn't flip-flop on each and every policy position he has ever held. He voted and votes the same way he always did. John McCain, remarkably, considering what we were told about him, has done all those awful things since his loss in 2008.

In the 2004 Presidential election, political media and pundits portrayed John Kerry as an elitist, foppish, slightly silly "flip-flopper" who lacked character and core convictions. The same political media and pundits lovingly and carefully nurtured the fairy tale that John McCain is a rock-ribbed, Country First, straight-shooter. Events since tell a radically different story.