the parish

President Carter, Part One

The Oklahoma Gazette has the first story featuring my interview with President Carter. There will be at least one more following the event. I have a bunch of material I haven't used yet, so I'll post whatever doesn't get used after the stories run. He was incredibly gracious; he gave me 19 minutes, which is four minutes more than the Oklahoman got! Take that, evil empire! I am off to bask in the glow of journalism nirvana.

Free Irony of the Day

Chris Anderson, the Internet wunderkind, visionary, and author of The Long Tail, an insightful book about how the Internet opens up niche marketing and sales opportunities, has release his new book, Free: The Future of a Radical Price. I was in Border's this morning looking in vain for a book about lemming journalism because of the recent ECUSA debacle wherein every major news outlet got the story dead, stinking wrong, when I noticed Anderson's new book. After reading the dust jacket and thinking, "Meh, another visionary book with no practical application in the real world...", I turned it over and noticed the price. Free! Kidding. It was $26.99. Hey, Chris, maybe practice what you preach? I know we need visionaries to lead us forward, but I'm weary, in the wake of the newspaper death dance, of hearing about how information wants to be free. Information doesn't want shit. It has no wants. People want it to be free, except those of us called writers who actually have to compile the stuff.

Oklahoma Safer, More Liberal than Alabama...if you're a nude nymph.

Just when I thought we were the reddest state in the country without competition, Alabama, the home to a loony 10 Commandments judge, among other right fringe crazies, has outdone Oklahoma in--I hate to use the term--puritanism. The poor Puritans get an undeserved bad reputation thanks to the misuse of that word; these are folks who liked beer and dancing after all, so they're worlds ahead of Baptists and Pentecostals. However, the word is now the appropriate way to describe people who are obsessive about human sexuality and the naked human form. Enter Alabama's liquor control agency as prime example number one.

Here is the offensive image!

You can see how the prurient bastards at Hahn Family Wines misuse the word "family" in their name, so as to move this filth onto store shelves where it can be seen by sensitive youngsters who just happen to be in the wine section of grocery stores or in liquor stores. I mean, look at that creepy breast. There isn't even a nipple. No wonder they're protecting children from it. Who wants their kids to think that nippleless nude nymphs are the norm? (Sorry, had to do it.)

Seriously, I feel a little better about Oklahoma today. We actually have these bottles on the shelves of our liquor stores. Of course, we can't sell wine anywhere else but liquor stores, so I'm not saying that our group of conservative nitwits in the State House or Senate won't go after this sort of pornography should Oklahoma ever pass a law allowing the sale of "high-point" beer, wine, and liquor in grocery stores. Odds are, our puritans will call for plain brown wrapping on all nude or semi-nude, illustrated, non-titillating, cartoonish advertising. That way, no one would ever be tempted to masturbate to a cartoon nude nymph on a wine bottle.

Finding an Unseen God, Sort of

There is a kind of analysis that looks for minor points with which to disagree and misses the larger point. I discourage my students from it, and I will do my best to avoid it when talking about Alicia Britt Chole's mess of a memoir/reflection Finding an Unseen God from Bethany House Publishing. The book suffers from an attempt to tell a story in a non-linear fashion, as the chronology of Chole's (show-lee) spiritual journey from atheism to Christianity is interrupted with reflections about atheism, theism, belief, etc. The straight story-telling portions are good, if dripping with sentimentality and purple prose, especially the portions about her father's greatness and her brief, teenage depression. The reflections from a former atheist are a great example of what is wrong with Christian books written by former anythings.

Chole stopped being an atheist at about 18, certainly a time in life when the accumulated wisdom of almost two decades of metaphysical research would make you most capable of deciding that atheism won't stand up to scrutiny. (More on that in a bit.) But Chole has a different reason for abandoning her 18-year old atheism: she met God. Or rather, God came to her when she wasn't even looking for him. You have to wait 'til the end of the book to get the whole story, but let me give you the synopsis of the story and the larger point, as I understand it. Nominally Catholic mother, unbelieving if agnostic father, good early life, troubled adolescence, suicidal thoughts, depression, jobless father, mean kids, misunderstood, two persistent Christian girls, small church on the verge of a split, old pews, old music, God, God, God, love, love, love, no longer atheist, abandon all critical thinking that she allegedly developed as a devout atheist. The larger point: you can find God, or rather he'll find you, if you just want to, or rather if he wants to, and, oh, atheists are intellectually dishonest because the burden of proof is on them.

Chole has a graduate degree, and without looking it up, I'll assume it's not in philosophy or theology. Her thinking sounds too much like Josh McDowell meets Ravi Zacharias (both of whom she references), which is to say it's sloppy, biased, uncritical, conflates categories, and convinces those who already believe that they have good reason to believe. I was inclined to be charitable about this book despite her insistence that Buddhists be classified as theists, as well as anyone else who confessed even a nominal belief in any god or godlike reality. (Has she never heard of deism, taoism, monism?) Then I got to page 68.

"Forgive my drama, but Copernicus and Galileo did not therefore each go to the majority and proclaim, 'I have an announcement: The sun is the center of our solar system. From henceforth, my minority hypothesis is true until you, the overwhelming majority of humankind, can either prove that the earth is the center or that the sun is not.' These scientists knew that the burden of proof—especially for theories that are in contradiction to what most of the world believes—rests upon the theory's champion, the relative newcomer."

Lest you wallow in confusion about this categorical nightmare, let me give you the background before I give you her solution. Atheism is the newcomer. Since God's existence cannot be proven by Christians (theists), the burden of proof still rests on the relative newcomer, the atheist, not the ones who have been "right" for so long. If you can swallow that egregious sophistry, try this.

"Some may object and state that examples like this are in the realm of science whereas the Atheism-Theism discussion is not. I disagree. Science, philosophy, and religion dance together; their movements influence one another."

I literally nearly threw the book across the room. That is the most willfully ignorant nonsense I've ever heard, or she's been a theist for so long that she has forgotten how to think categorically, something she should have learned as a seasoned atheist. (Hard not to mock her at this point. Sorry.) It doesn't make two shits if science and philosophy dance together (whatever the hell that means), Ms. Chole. When you make a claim about an entity that exists at the center of reality that can't be seen, experienced in a measurable fashion (other than your post-depression catharsis...err...epiphany), or relied upon to provide accurate information about what he/she expects, you are in the realm of metaphysics, not science. Now, as long as you talk about how God makes you feel loved and accepted, great. The problem is, as I mention to my students with excruciating frequency, that those personal convictions eventually enter the polling booth where they influence public policy. At that point, whatever claim you make about your god and his dusty book needs to be verifiable, otherwise you have no good reason to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry.

Chole attempts to explain that she checked on the Bible's reliability by reading Evidence that Demands a Verdict. The mind reels. Well, after reading that deep, thorough, scholarly text, why not read something from another perspective. Another weakness of the theist position: the insistence on reading what other theists say about atheists or bible critics, not reading the primary sources.

Finally, Chole offers a four-step system for verifying that her faith is better than pluralism (please note that truthful propositions are not part of the process).

• Consistent at its core. She really means the founder, not the book or the epistemology
• Livable, and not just quotable. Applies to all faiths, I think.
• Sustainable through life-size pain. Theodicy. She discusses personal pain, not natural evil, and again, applies to nearly every faith group I've experienced.
• Transferable to others. She means across cultures. Again....

Congratulations on defeating the monster of pluralism! Wait. Never mind. This book is truly a mess, and mainly because the larger point leaves 98 percent of the world wondering why they didn't get God's love at a clapboard church in BFE. At the end of the Unseen God, he's still pretty inscrutable. This is a great book for Bible studies at evangelical churches where easy answers to difficult questions abound.

Mark Sanford "Apologizes" in a...umm...Newspaper Column

You may have seen this already, but Mark Sanford, the philandering family values governor of South Carolina and member of The Family used The State, a local newspaper, to write his apology to the state for his King David-like indiscretion. Setting aside the comical notion that a "hand written note" is an appropriate form of apology, my concern in this is that politicians like Sanford use religion to exclude people with whom they disagree and then use it to excuse themselves, calling up the tropes of grace and forgiveness. The whining and self-pity in this "apology" are palpable and completely ridiculous, especially in light of The State's other story about how Sanford's team has handled this matter. This is a prime example of the necessity of clearly demarcated lines of separation. When the idea of forgiveness, a wonderful concept for theology and interpersonal relationships, is extended into the political arena to cover dereliction of duty, misuse of funds, and lying to the press, the wall has been breached in ways that serve religious egoists but do a disservice to the public trust. You'll notice I didn't mention sex in that list. I don't care what he does with other consenting adults, but the dereliction of duty and lying about his whereabouts are good reasons for his resignation, his "apology" notwithstanding.

The Message (apologies to Eugene Peterson)

If you're not following the hip part of the Christian blogosphere (I hate that word.), the part that includes coffee-drinking, bescarved, Toms-wearing, kinder, young evangelicals, then you may be unaware that Derek Webb has pissed off the fundies and the socially backward again. Derek Webb, once upon a time a member of Christian soft rock/pseudo-folk band Caedmon's Call, has a new song and video called What Matters More. You can see the video and read the "explicit" lyrics here. The song is very much a post-Radiohead, electronic mix, with some guy channeling Jonny Greenwood, and it is perhaps the best thing Webb has done, at least sonically. Then there are the lyrics.

Webb tries to comisserate with non-Christians in the song's first stanza, taking Christians to task for not following the Golden Rule and caricaturing gays and other opponents. The stanza that has some parts of the church angry includes this line: "Meanwhile we sit just like we don't give a shit About 50,000 people who are dyin'today." Now, aside from the fact that he simply stole the idea from Tony Campolo, who worked this schtick at least 20 years ago, the lyrics are just goofy. Webb has always had a penchant for bizarre turns of phrase, a habit that makes his music too self-serious, as if Webb is well aware that thousands of young Christian beatniks think of him as a musical prophet. To his credit, Webb has used the prophet's mantle to rail against the people of God, not the sinners who have yet to call out for our salvation. But it's a game that has grown too tired and too cliche.

Message music is okay in small doses. This is why "secular" music will always consistently outsell Christian music and why Christian music will find it nearly impossible to find wide acceptance on non-Christian radio. (I don't think it's an issue of mediocrity. If it was, Miley Cyrus wouldn't be a star.) With rare exceptions, non-Christian artists don't think of their role as a ministry or a calling. They don't weigh their lyrics down with messages about who ought to do what or believe what. Green Day managed a few message songs on American Idiot, and that is consistent with the role of punk music. But Green Day didn't become the biggest punk band in the world singing about politics all the time: they managed the occasional hymn to masturbation and teen angst as well. Music is expressive and only occasionally proscriptive. Webb should keep that in mind.

Secondary to that, Webb had to know his song was going to provoke a controversy because of his use of "shit." Now, I don't give a shit about profanity. Doesn't trouble me in the least. I'm even pretty sure that all the prohibitions in the Bible about corrupt communication have to do with things like gossip, slander, lying, and caricaturing, not profanity. Webb laments that the church is ignoring people who are starving because they are chasing after the wind in the form of petty grievances. And to show how angry he is about it, he creates one of these teapot tempests. And that is supposed to help how? Any Christian artist who has been around the business more than an hour knows you can't use profanity in Christian music. There simply is no pay-off. Whatever cause you hoped to advance will be lost in the shitstorm of vanguard traditionalists arguing with the terminally hip counterculturalists about whether or not to use sin to draw attention to the cause de jour. Webb knows his song will increase interest in his music, but unless he's the dumbest musician on earth, he also had to know it wouldn't help his cause. Congratulations, Derek. Self-promoting, wild-eyed, faux righteousness just murdered one of your best pieces of work.

Prepare to be Saved (Only Applies to the Currently Unsaved)

Books & Culture newsletter sent out an ad yesterday for a new book The Diversity Culture, by Matthew Raley. The blurb attached to the newsletter said:

A new culture has emerged. It preaches spiritual openness, moral flexibility, and social diversity—and it's making evangelicals feel uncomfortable. Threatened. Excluded.

Analyzing contemporary media, historical sources, and Scripture, author Matthew Raley looks at the cultural barriers of society and how they can be breached, so readers can understand—and approach—cosmopolitan peers on their own terms. Incisive and indispensable, The Diversity Culture challenges believers to cross socioeconomic, ethical, and ideological dividing lines to heal human relationships in the name of Christ.

Now, if like me, you're behind one of those unbreached lines—and to be frank, I'm probably a thicker line than some: a theologically trained unbeliever—you can probably rest easy. It's not like this book is directed at Ravi Zacharias, a favorite apologist to the intellectual unsaved (although his arguments are laughable, and he still believes you can argue metaphysics and your words will have epistemic content...) No, the book is directed at regular Christians, those who are afraid to cross the socioeconomic, ethical, and ideological dividing lines. This book will apparently prepare them to talk to people like me, and some of you. Okay, maybe not me, and probably not Dr. Dobson either, but Leighton is nice. Cheek is too. So let's say half and half.

I am curious what the blurb means by "cosmopolitan peers" and "understand and approach...on their own terms." I don't really have a list of terms under which someone must approach me. Don't be a dick is kind of a big one, but other than that, I actually still talk to Christians. Why are the barriers only one way? Why does the author believe Christians have to be trained to talk to me? Does he have so little confidence in their ability to make friends? Or is it because he wants them to understand and approach us so as to get us saved? Yeah. I'm going with that one. Here's an excerpt from a helpful review from the CBD website for the book:

In it he explores a Christ-centered model Christians can use to interact with the growing numbers of postmodernists at large in our culture. Integrating examples from modern media that exemplify the thought processes of the diversity culture, examples from Jesus’ life as related to us in scripture as he reached out to the Samaritan woman at the well, and a fictional interaction between a woman who represents the collective concerns of modern un-believers and a Christian seeking to move into relational conversation with this woman, Raley explores his premise at a brisk pace. Raley’s lively writing brings the cultural backdrop of New Testament times into sharp focus and brings the scriptural narrative of Jesus’ encounters with unbelievers into sharp focus. Diving for pearls he seeks out principles for relational communication and the techniques that Jesus used to pierce the hardened hearts of his listeners. Of course, Jesus had a distinct advantage that we do not – He is God and knew just what to say — but as always we can learn from Him in all that He does.

Now I don't know Jennifer from Canada. She seems nice. Her review is thoughtful, organized, and without obvious typos, so she's probably above average in intelligence. Yay, Jennifer. However, I do want to know what it means that there are postmodernists at large? Were they previously housed in the same facility and have now made their way past the fences (oh, there is truly a metaphor there, dear church)? It's also helpful that Jennifer realizes that Jesus being God makes him know exactly what to say, and that Christians in these conversations won't. I hope they listen to her about that second part. The first part is iffy. Also, please tell me what a postmodernist is. Since philosophers who espouse this stuff can't agree on what it is, isn't it a bit hard to say what a creature called a postmodernist looks like or believes? Are there not postmodernists in the church? (I thought N.T. Wright was one until yesterday. And since Tony Jones accepts LGBT partnerships, he probably is one, assuming acceptance of homosexuality is part of postmodernity.) To help clarify what she means, Jennifer adds:

In his segments exploring hot topics for folks hailing from the diversity culture, Raley delves into a variety of topics that typically and invariably make evangelicals either tremble or rage: transgendered toddlers, same-sex marriage, and so on, encouraging believers to offer real help and guidance from scripture rather than drawing battle lines.

Jennifer, where does the Bible give advice on transgendered toddlers? I suspect the most dedicated Berean would fail to find such a reference. Please note the two issues: transgendered toddlers, same-sex marriage, and so on. If this were an IQ test, I'd say, please complete the list with the next most obvious hot-button issue, just like 1, 3, 5, 7... I swear to Ahura Mazda I didn't even know transgendered toddlers were hot-button issues. I saw a Law & Order episode about it once. Was it perhaps ripped from today's headlines?

The real problem here is that I can't conceive of a group of people who are so muddle-brained about interpersonal relationships that they can't say "Hi. What's your name?" to the local barista or bartender. If there is an expectation of friendship, that will take some time. Friendship always does. If the goal is to get them saved, then friendship is secondary at best to proselytizing. Spare me and others like me the time it's going to take to sort out whether you want to be friends or get me saved. Just give me the tract—cause that's exactly what your "friendship" is if you have an ulterior motive—and move on. Second, if Christians have grown up in a culture (church) that has so fundamentally misinformed them about what the world is like, that would be the fault of the church, and the cure is systemic, just like the problem. My suspicion, based on teaching college students every year, is that young people have absorbed their culture far better and are far more comfortable with being "postmoderns" than crisis culture book writers realize. If you're trying to train people over 50 to communicate to the "postmodern culture," you're tilting windmills. They either live and breathe in that culture, or their best chance is just casual, polite acquaintances with denizens of that scary culture. Culture is (at least) language and semiotics, and only people who grow up in a particular culture or immerse themselves in it communicate correctly within it.

The book seems so wrong-headed (or the advertising for it) that it's as if all the criticisms of church as culture by Newbigin never happened. What are you converting them from? What are you converting them to? Why is conversion necessary? What does it look like? What does it look like in a particular subculture: Asian teens at the mall, skating Crackers at the park, urban youth, college students from the Northeast or South or Pacific Northwest? Single-Agains? Professional? Working class? The church is still under the delightfully old misconception that they can take Americans, lump them into a category (postmodern, in this case) and then convert them to a foreign culture (church) based on a system or a way of talking or a series of correct answers to questions no one outside the church gives a shit about. Sigh. The woman at the well as communication model? If it happened, it was 2000 years ago. Things might have changed a bit since then... "A fictional interaction between a woman who represents the collective concerns of modern unbelievers..." All of them? What are my concerns? I'm sure they are exactly the same as the 15-year old mother on the northeast side of Oklahoma City who just dropped out of school. Or the Pakistani man who just bought a grocery store on the edge of downtown. If this thinking weren't so goddamned stupid, it would be funny.

Yay, Episcopalians?

There is some debate as to just what occurred today at the ECUSA's convention. Some are saying the Bishops allowed the creation of liturgies for the blessing of same sex unions in states where it is legal. Others are saying that the language does not go so far as the creation of liturgies. The once venerable New York Times has the story. The fallout can't be predicted with any accuracy yet, but it appears the ECUSA will be hard-pressed to remain part of the Anglican Communion. Bishop N.T. Wright wrote a very forceful response in a British paper. For those conservatives out there who think of Wright as a liberal, postmodern, compromiser, this will probably make you cheer.

The funniest thing I've seen since Babs ate a junebug last night...

Thanks to John Cheek for passing this along. Best line: "...you're not the father of post-structuralism."

Guns in Church

This is just good stuff from Sightings. Good analysis. Good journalism. Even-handed. Sober.