Misplaced

August 29, 2008 at 2:54 am (Church, Culture, Entertainment, Opinions, Purpose, Thinking, Worship)
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

It’s as if they have lost something.

They filled the stadium in Denver, some 80,000 of them, and lights danced on their faces and they listened to the music of popular musicians, and they held their signs, and showed their smiles, and their exuberance flowed through the screens of televisions, and it was almost infectious.

The stage was built to mirror the architecture of ancient wisdom and democracy, and the stage, the blue stage, looked like the color of the world’s most famous office.  And then he appeared.

He walked into the moment, into the charge, and the stadium with the thousands erupted into a climactic and communal experience.  They have come to see their deliverer.

They would not stop their applause, their emotions overflowing, and he stood there, with what seemed to be a look of almost sheer terror, as though this notion, this idea, this race, was almost too big, even for him.  And the grandiosity of the stage, and the thousands of people, made him look so very, very small, and I had the passing thought that this great idea to stage him in such a large venue with such common and enduring symbolism should have been given more thought.

But that is all pomp.  There are plenty political statements to be made.  And he made them, without shame.  This deliverer decided to use his stage, and his moment, to use biting words, attackful words, that played to the crowd, and the more he delivered his diatribe, the louder the voices became. 

And I feel sorry for each of them.

For the entertainers, who were needed to help fill the oversized arena, and for their songs, their petty, momentous songs. 

For the politicians who were asked to speak, needing and craving the high of the moment. 

For his one-time political rivals, who wished the stage bore their name instead. 

And for the people who felt the need to venerate a mere man.

That’s all he really is.  Place his record aside.  Place his issues aside.  Forget his agendas.  Forget even the controversies.  He is just a man.  A man in a seemingly excitable moment.  But he is just a man.  He cannot solve the myriad of problems his followers endure.  And surely, no man can solve the problems of some three hundred million people.

And to what does this lend any conventional thought?  We are known as a nation where most hold some type of belief in God, with some type of guided and consistent morality.  At least that is our learned reputation.  But this idea that we can put all thoughts of faith to the side to almost worship one man – this smacks at the core of who we think we really are.

These people, these 80,000 strong have gathered together, amidst the lights and the sounds and the exuberance, to place this man and his ideals above all else.  And when they go to their places of worship, and offer their sacrifices of time and money and praise, I can only imagine how God must feel to know that these people may have so misplaced their faith – that these people have taken a part of their dependence on God, and placed it on the shoulders of just a man.

How will God accept their songs?  What does he think when he hears them offer prayers for this one man to save their troubled country?  Once, God saved a great and large group of people from oppression, only to hear their cries to be returned to slavery.  And God met their demands and complaints with a generation of wondering and purging for the very people he liberated.
____________________

So as these people, these 80,000, wash themselves in this contemporary moment, beneath the lights and the celebration and the hope they now place into the hands of just one man, and as their fascination grows with the cacophony of applause and emotion, I can only spend time in prayer, that in some way, they can find the only one that can really save them.

2 Comments

Arise

August 27, 2008 at 3:48 pm (Church, Culture, Opinions, Persecution, Purpose, Teaching, Theology, Thinking)
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

I am no archaeologist.

I teach a course on world civilization at the local college.  The first chapter of the textbook is the chapter of evolution, or, better said, a commentary on the discovery of skeletal remains of beings that closely resemble humans.  The challenge, in teaching the first few days of this course, is to counteract what the text holds to be indisputable truth:  that we are the product of survivalist evolution.  Actually, it is all intelligent conjecture, but none of it can be absolutely proven.  The first city in the history of the world was the city of Jericho (or the site of Catal Huyuk, but not all of that has been revealed as of yet), and Jericho was bound together in the form of a community around 10,000 BC.  But, there are artifacts of humanity found prior even to this date.  The archaeological discoveries of these artifacts present a myriad of questions, none of which I really want to address here.  But they are very, very interesting.

So, when stories come across the wire that not only discuss the latest, or most prominent archaeology discoveries, I can’t help but read them.  And when those discoveries intersect archaeology and religion, the read, and the find, becomes much more interesting.

The International Herald Tribune recently published a report on the discovery, or re-discovery, of an artifact that not only intersects archaeology and faith, but uncovers the idea resurrection outside of the biblical text.  This artifact is a tablet, referred to in some books as Gabriel’s Revelation, and was found near the Dead Sea, and presents the idea of messianic resurrection. 

The suggestion that arises from this tablet is that the idea of a messianic resurrection is not unique to Christianity, or, even to Jesus, and that this story may have held some prevalence in Jewish circles before, and during, the life of Jesus himself. 

In other words, it was either a common story, or a common belief, not original to the presentation of this idea given by Jesus.

David Jeselsohn and Gabriel's Revelation

To be fair, the tablet literally has the words (in Aramaic) “in three days,” followed by the word “live.”  The archangel Gabriel is giving this prophetic word, and is speaking to someone identified only as the “prince of princes.”  These lines, combined with Gabriel’s message in the Old Testament book of Daniel, seem to indicate that these two people were meant to be one in the same. 

This idea is combined with a story of which Josephus details, of a man named Simon, killed by Herodian officials.  The theory is pushed that this tablet was written to, or by, Simon’s followers.

But this is just a theory, and there is nothing in the text that refers to anyone named Simon.  It is, however, fairly accepted that the table dates from the first century, B.C., just a few decades before the birth of Christ.  And given the devastating political situation of the Jewish people, the people of God, controlled and oppressed (again) by the hands of foreigners, it is theologically assumed that the Jewish people longed for another deliverer, such as Moses himself delivered the chosen from the hands of foreigners.

The idea of the tablet, anyway, constitutes the shedding of blood for salvation and repentance.  This idea, found in the story of the bible, from the first story of humanity, through the story of Christ, is an idea of atonement, or the idea that the sinful will die, if there is no acceptable offering as a substitute.  With lines that speak of bloodshed offering pathways to justice, and that this prince will live in three days (if it is translated correctly) it is no surprise that the story this tablet records sounds very, very familiar.

The controversy, then, is whether or not the sacrifice of a great leader will lead to the salvation of the Jewish people from the hands of oppression, or was he really to be a savior to all of humanity? 

The idea presented in the tablet is not very different from the mission of Christ, in its purest form.  The idea of sacrifice, not only itemized in the biblical texts, was the central message of Christ.  A leader should offer himself on behalf of his beloved.  And the very life and death of Christ is presented as the atonement that did lead to salvation.  But, the story continues with a resurrection that was, and is, the very triumph of perfection over the decay of flesh and morality. 

After all, a sacrifice that just dies prompts the idea of necessary and continuous sacrifice – because people never really stop sinning, and consistently require atonement.  But a sacrifice that defies natural law, and rises to live and breath and sustain itself also defies the need of constant atonement.

And whether that idea was a political thought of oppressed Jews in the years before the birth of Christ, really, is irrelevant.  Of course people were looking for a perfect sacrifice, and the perfect Savior.

They still do.

1 Comment

Films

August 21, 2008 at 2:07 pm (Church, Culture, Entertainment, Opinions, Purpose, Theology, Thinking)
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Relevant listed, in their July/August 2008 issue, their list of the ten most spiritually significant films of the last decade. 

I can say that I am not surprised by the broadness of their choices, but I am surprised by the choices themselves.  This is how they introduce the films:

Film at it’s worst can be a pretty bleak medium.  With Hollywood churning out formulaic comedies, sappy dramas and brainless action, it can be hard to find the bright spots.  However, some films seem to transcend entertainment and speak to deep truths.  Here’s our look at the 10 most spiritually significant films of the last decade.

I want to share their choices with you, and ask if this is a complete list, or are there films which hold no place here.

These are in no particular order.

  • O Brother, Where Art Thou?  Chosen because the skepticism of the character, Everett, is replaced eventually in the film by a very real God.
  • The Big Kahuna.  Chosen because of the character Phil, and his lifestyle, which exemplifies Christ better than the character, Bob, who is a born-again Christian. 
  • American History X.  Chosen because it shows that “no one is beyond redemption.  Even long-seated hatred can be overcome.”
  • Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.  Chosen because they believe the film shows that pain does have a purpose.
  • American Beauty.  In their words, “It’s a story about the beauty of life, even when it seems mundane.  [It] shows us that the things for which we should be most grateful are often the things we overlook.”
  • Crash.  Chosen because it shows “the gritty reality of the hatred and prejudices that can live in all of us.  [The film] … defuses our preconceived notions by humanizing everyone involved.”
  • The Green Mile.  Chosen because, they believe, of these ten, it is the most overtly spiritual, and the story which never questions the intervention of God.
  • No Country for Old Men.  Chosen because they believe there is a hidden message in this film, one that says “good people must carry the spark of human kindness even when all around is dark.”
  • The Diving Bell and the Butterfly.  It is a true story, and it “gives us a look at what makes us human.  We are more than the sum of our parts.”
  • The Royal Tenenbaums.  The story shows that “any of us can change, even when we’ve spent our entire lives being selfish.”
    __________

There were an obvious two or three that I thought, maybe, should not have been chosen.  But nevertheless, it is their list. 

And though I’ve never used this as a forum, I’m a little curious.  Are there any films that should be worth a mention?  Or should some of these have never been considered? 

If you have some time, share your opinions.

Leave a Comment

Harmony

August 11, 2008 at 5:36 pm (Art, Culture, Entertainment, Music, Opinions, Purpose, Worship)
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

I’m not sure, but maybe, just maybe, the world is getting a good taste of music without instruments.

A cappella music can be good.  When it’s done right, anyway.

My speakers have often been filled with music by the group Acappella.  The group found their stride almost twenty years ago, with four singers bringing a variety of musical genres, and the music was good.  The group, in that incarnation, was racially diverse, and created a sound that, in their later incarnations, was, and is, difficult to reproduce.  One singer brought solid, vocal technique, and that combined with another who brought pure, gutteral, gospel sounds, along with another who had a soft, smooth, rhythm and blues sound, and the final singer who brought a slick rock voice … when those four voices and styles combined, the sound was amazing.  The music those four guys recorded is still some of my favorite, and still relevant, and still pretty good listening.  

My musical tastes have gravitated to other areas, but I am stil moved by tight harmonies and their ability to evoke powerful emotions.  Contemporary musical groups such as Rockapella and Take 6 and Naturally 7 all have showcased vocalists with intriguing and invigorating vocal arrangements, and have found ways to incorporate instrumental sounds into their music.

A recent article on a cappella music, then, captured my attention a bit.  Though the article is a fairly difficult-to-read book review, one statement jumped from the page:

For me, and for most of the former singers I know, a cappella offered fellowship.

The author of the piece, Nina Sten Rastogi, is dissecting the book Pitch Perfect, and, by doing so, she tries to address what the attraction is to a cappella singing, and she brings considerable statistics to her argument, citing that there are some 18,000 singers in college a cappella groups in America. 

And it seems, to her anyway, that fellowship is that attraction.  A cappella singing brings people together, in a very unique and cooperative community.

Here is the final paragraph of her article:

And while no one would ever claim that a cappella approaches high art … there are pleasures to be found in the music itself.  If you’ve ever sung around a campfire or joined a … round of Livin’ on a Prayer, you know what I’m talking about:  Singing with other people is fun, even if you’re not very good.  What many people don’t realize is that, for singers, there’s an extra, physical dimension to that pleasure.  Belting out a clean high C is like shooting a slam-dunk or executing a crisp pirouette — there’s an exhilaration that comes from feeling your body reach its limits.  Singing with a group — especially if you’re lucky enough to have some true musicians in the mix, as I was — is as gratifying as playing on a sports team.  Plus, there’s always the thrill of stepping out in public and having lots of people look at you.  It never gets old.

Singing without instruments means a reliance on the tones and harmonies of the voices, and that means taking leads and cues from those with whom you are singing.  You can sing to a band, or with one, and I’ve done both, and, in a sense, there is something magical when musicans, good musicians, make great music together.  But there is something altogether different when the music is made with just a few voices. 

It’s fellowship.  And I tend to think she’s right.

2 Comments

Right

August 6, 2008 at 12:15 am (Culture, Opinions, Purpose, Theology, Thinking)
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Efficiency.

Time is money.  Money is time.

Crazy business slogans.  I remember my college job, working at a distribution center for Wal-Mart, stacking freight in the back of hot, hot, trailers, and getting a taste of the harder side of life.  The freight came from a long line of conveyor belts, to those of us on the receiving end, and then we took the freight, each and every box, and placed it in a tetris-like pattern, from floor to ceiling, from the back of the trailer to the front.  I got quite good, and quite fast. 

I also remember that our managers, in an effort to cut costs, told us to make sure our rolls of tape didn’t get caught in the trailer before the door was shut and tagged.  Little things, like saving rolls of tape, eventually saved the company money.  Lots of money.  If each employee who filled and stacked frieght on trailers, at every distribution center in America, would take an extra moment to ensure their roll of tape was still on the deck and not in the trailer, then Wal-Mart could potentially save thousands of dollars. 

The receiving store never sent the rolls back.  They weren’t even put to good use, and, more than likely, those little rolls of tape were just thrown away.

And I remember, then, being asked the impossible.  We were given sheets that told us how many boxes of freight we would be required to stack in an hour, and how big of a percentage of the frieght our trailer would hold in that particular shift.  And, man, that frieght came from the line at lightning speeds.  I remember having to fill up to 13% of the total shift of freight, all for one trailer.  And being asked to save a roll of tape was an offense.  I mean, really, how much did they really expect from us?  120-degree-heat in a smelly, dirty trailer, working at break-neck speeds … and they expected us to be watchful of our little rolls of tape. 

Come on.

But I have thought of that small bit of advice that I received on my midnight shift.  And it was very perceptive, and very wise.  Sometimes, most glaring problems have the simplest solutions.

Earlier this month, it was reported that UPS, the freight-shipping company, has found one of those very simple solutions.  They have discovered what it takes to be the most efficient, with both their fuel-costs, and the expedient delivery of packages.  Managing a fleet of thousands of trucks, as well as planes, and millions of packages is obviously complex, so they needed to discover a simple solution for their most obvious problems.

And their solution? 

They make only right turns.

Early on, local UPS managers would drive around their cities and map routes to various locales that could only be done making right turns.  Now, with greater technology, they combine computer models with experienced drives, and find routes that take them from their local hub, to their various drop points, and then back to their hub, all by making right-hand turns.  This very simple solution has saved them money, and saved them time, all by eliminating left turns.

They have proof, too, that they made the … ahem … right decision, for two very good reasons.  One, right-turn-only routes save fuel and reduce emissions, because they minimize the time trucks spend idiling.  And two, they believe their choice of right-turn-only routes are safer, because their drivers never need to cross traffic.  

And they are offering the wisdom of their decision for free, by believing that if the ordinary, common driver made only right turns in their daily routes, then they, too, would reap the benefits of right turns. 

Even more interesting is that they claim their drivers find it difficult to make left turns when they are off-duty, for they have made so many right turns in their lives, that turning any other direction is now difficult. 
__________

It’s pretty amazing how making that right turn can best get you where you need to go.

And how making that right turn is usually the best decision.

And how making a right turn can really, truly, change your life.

Leave a Comment

Image

August 4, 2008 at 4:04 pm (Art, Church, Culture, Entertainment, Opinions, Persecution, Thinking, Worship)
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Che Guevara has become a symbol, albeit tainted, of revolutionary change, in our modern era.

As a supporter and partner to Fidel Castro, Guevara assisted Castro and his revolutionary forces in the coup of the pro-American leader of Cuba, Fulgencio Batista, in 1959, and further solidified the ties with, what was then, Communist Russia.  That resulting relationship led to what has become known as the Cuban Missile Crisis, which was a nuclear stand-off between Russia and America, over the placement of destructive missleson the Cuban islands.  That crisis was just three years after the Castro revolution, and the ending of that crisis left Cuba without real international support when Russia agreed to withdraw the ballistic missiles.  The treaty that ended the crisis also promised that America would remove missiles placed in Turkey, and that it would not invade Cuba.  It is no surprise, then, that since Castro’s revolution, America has frozen and terminated ties with Cuba. 

Guevara left Cuba shortly thereafter, travelling to Africa, to ignite further revolutionary change, against governments that were supported by America.  He was killed in Bolivia in 1967.

Perhaps, though, he would never have been as famous had it not been for this image, taken at a memorial service for maybe one hundred Cubans, who had died in the explosion of a Belgian ship carrying munitions:

Che Guevara, taken by Alberto Korda

This picture, taken by Alberto Korda, has become iconic, and representative, in the last sixty years, of revolutionary desire.  It has been called, by some, the most recognized photograph of the twentieth century, and maybe the most reproduced, since Korda never sought royalties for it’s reproduction.

The picture was further stylized by Jim Fitzpatrick, a sympathizer.  In an interview with the BBC in October, 2007, he stated that he wanted this image to “breed like rabbits.”  He was upset and distraught that this man, so highly respected for his revolutionary zeal, was never given so much as a memorial. 

Che Guevara, by Jim Fitzpatrick

Trisha Ziff, who, at the time of the 2007 BBC interview, was the curator of a traveling exhibit of Che’s images.  She stated in the interview that, “Che Guevara has become a brand. And the brand’s logo is the image, which represents change. It has becomes the icon of the outside thinker, at whatever level – whether it is anti-war, pro-green or anti-globalisation.”

All of that may be true.  Isabel Hilton, in an article which appeared in the New Statesmen, on October 8, 2007, wrote that Che took upon himself the sins of the world and the causes of the oppressed, and because of that, and because of his death at a relatively young age, he has come to represent a modern Messiah.  She continues to say that, “To this assorted list, as to oppressed peoples elsewhere, Che has little to offer as a guide to making revolution. What he does have is the messianic image of sacrifice for the sins–or sufferings–of others. Regardless of his failures and contradictions, or the obsolescence of his methods and ideology, the potency of that image, with its symbolic, religious quality, continues to inspire.”

This iconography was so powerful that in 1999, the Church of England used the template of Fitzpatrick’s Che to encourage people to attend church. 

Jesus as Che, 1999

The ad campaign was intended to bring more people to church on Easter Sunday, in 1999.  It invoked a wave of controversy as well, seemingly placing Christ in the revolutionary mindset of what modern revolutionaries look like.  It also prompted those within the Church of England to defend their ad campaign.

The original image has also inspired modern artist Shepard Fairey to design a poster for one of our current presidential candidates.

This image has catapulted Fairey to the national stage, especially when the story broke earlier this year Che’s image was found at one of the campaign headquarters in Houston, Texas.  And though the campaign denounced that particular action, they have not denounced, per se, the reproduction of this image.

So Che now, after half of a century, represents change in its purest form.  And maybe he has become something of a brand.  But the frightening thing is that Che himself, removed from the image and the campaigns, represented change that was distinctly against America, and the imperialism that Guevara and Castro both believed existed, in Cuba, and elsewhere. 

There are, I think, a few problems using his image in any other capacity.

Using it for Christ poses a rather large problem.  Christ was not a revolutionary against the Roman government, and nothing really supports that, particularly when Christ makes a statement to his critics, telling them to give to Caesar whatever belongs to Caesar.  If anything, Christ was a revolutionary against Judaic law, which, though ruled the Jewish people, was rather insignificant on the world stage.  But even if you make the argument that he was a revolutionary against the Judaic law, then he would be a rather insignificant revolutionary at that.  His true revolutionary stance, when viewed theologically, was that he spurred personal revolutions against human tendencies, and human fraility, and the freedom he offers is not really freedom from any government, or any law, and to reduce him and his image to that really dilutes the central message of his story.

On the other front, using Che’s image for a presidential candidate again poses another problem altogether.  Guevara was the physical representation of someone who abhors America, by validating revolutionary forces that were reactionaries against supported American governments in the various represented countries.  To be fair, no presidential candidate authorized this image to be made.  But not condemning the image is, in a way, validating it.

Guevara’s image, by itself, is powerful, even if one is unfamiliar with it’s historical surroundings.  It evokes something in us that wants us to know more about this man, and about his situation.  And though the core beliefs of Guevara, beliefs of change and revolution, are, at their foundations, admirable, those beliefs are worth a second look, particularly when his image is used to support the most famous man whom has ever lived, and maybe the most famous man alive today.

Leave a Comment