(Warning: Mad Men spoiler alerts ahead—if you aren’t caught up on the last few weeks of Season 3, and don’t want to be, don’t read this post!)
“Don, open the drawer or I will.” ....holy $%@&!
This is 2 weeks late in coming but let’s talk about Episode 11 of Mad Men’s third season; it’s the one we’ve all been waiting for, right? Betty confronts Don about his past, evidence of which was kept in a shoebox in a locked drawer in his desk, and Don comes clean and tells her everything, everything! (Well, not about the school teacher sleeping in his car, but everything else.) Don’s face has never been so stricken and I, for one, thought he was going to bolt for the door. Incredibly, he stays, Betty pours him a drink, and he tells the truth.
Out of their conversation comes some of the best Mockingbird fodder I’ve ever seen on TV. As he starts to explain, Betty asks, “What would you do if you were me? Would you love you?” and Don replies, “I was surprised you ever loved me.” This is something profound that we never knew before, Don Draper feels unlovable. He goes through it all, the prostitute mother, the stepmother, and finally breaks talking about his brother Adam who committed suicide after coming to find Don and being turned away. In tears, he says, “He wanted to be part of my life. I couldn’t risk all this.”
What we have here is the transformation of a man, by the truth about who he really is coming to light and his wife not giving up on him. We see it the next morning, when he sees the old photos lying where he left them the night before, and lets them stay there. When he walks down stairs and kisses his children and puts his hand behind Betty’s head and looks into her eyes. When he calls the school teacher and breaks off the affair. When Calrton asks him during Halloween, “And who are you supposed to be [dressed up as]?” Don has the contented (and scared?) look of a man who is no longer hiding. This is transformation!
Sure, it’s also Mad Men…Betty’s losing it by the day and I’m not holding out for a complete Gospel metaphor all the way through to the finale this weekend. But what made this episode so thrilling was that Mad Men got real: we all feel like Don. We all have that one thing (or many!) that makes us unlovable, that we know if people ever found out about, we’d just die. But what we all long for is for those things to come to light, and to not die. To be free from our past, from things we’ve done, and still be loved.
1. A stunning and sad cover story in this month's Journal of the American Bar Association, entitled A Death in the Office, which reports on the recent suicide of 59 year-old attorney Mark Levy. By all accounts a passionate, "relentlessly upbeat" and highly successful appellate lawyer, his death came a week after learning that he was being let go from the firm Kilpatrick Stockton. Not surprisingly, the article gives a heartbreaking spin on the familiar themes truths of identity and achievement - "justification by works" writ tragically large (ht Ron Flowers). The quotes from a colleague at the end are particularly salient:
“[Levy] was a very proud person whose self-image was very tied to his profession. So to the extent he suffered from depression, I always perceived it as around his failure to achieve all as an appellate lawyer he had hoped to achieve.”
The lesson this lawyer says he takes from Levy’s death is that “none of us should have our self-worth tied up in our professional existence as lawyers. It is a fool’s errand to do that because it is a profession that is very hard on people even when they are succeeding.”
2. On a related note, the recent NY Times editorial "Chronicle Of A Death We Can't Accept" is worth a read. Author Thomas Long gives a thoughtful critique of the state of modern funerals (ht Victor Hanson):
Today, our death rituals have become downsized, inwardly directed, static and, as a result, spiritually and culturally impoverished. We tend now to recognize our dead only for their partial passions and whims. They were Mets fans, good for laughs at the office, pleasant companions on the links. At upbeat, open-mike “celebrations of life,” former coaches, neighbors and relatives amuse us with stories and naïvely declare that the dead, who are usually nowhere to be seen and have nowhere to go, will nevertheless live always in our memories. Funerals, which once made confident public pilgrimage through town to the graveyard, now tread lightly across the tiny tableau of our psyches.
For the first time in history, the actual presence of the dead at their own funerals has become optional, even undesirable, lest the body break the illusion of a cloudless celebration, spoil the meditative mood and reveal the truths about grief, life and death that our thinned-out ceremonies cannot bear.
3. A pretty shocking article over at Bloomberg about two high-profile London businessmen who have recently invoked Christianity as a defense of the banking system (from church pulpits no less! ht SMZ). Goldman Sachs executive Brian Griffiths went so far as to say, “the injunction of Jesus to love others as ourselves is an endorsement of self-interest”. Say what you will about the merits/ethics of modern-day capitalism, but the poor judgment displayed in that statement is astounding.
4. For an utterly ingenious compilation of elephant jokes, go here (come the grapes!).
5. TV: If like myself you've been lamenting the decline of 30 Rock since its second season, be sure to read the thoughtful analysis over at The A/V Club. While you're over there, you may as well check out their less-than-favorable take on Anne Rice's latest, post-conversion book, Angel Time. Or their write-up on what sounds like a contender for the most-Mbird-friendly-movie-of-the-year, Richard Kelly's The Box.
The first couple episodes of the 4th season of Friday Night Lights have been some of that show's best ever! [If you haven't found a way around the directTV issue, you aren't trying hard enough.]
6. As a follow-up to JDK's inspired All The Romery People post - the official and very respectful (though slightly headache-inducing) response to which was published here - check out this piece over at Christianity Today about the recent goings-on at the InterVarsity Christian fellowship at George Washington University. CT also reports that Nigeria is the Christian movie capital of the world (ht AZ).
7. Finally, everyone's favorite new design mag LoftLife just published an article about everyone's favorite indie-rock heroes Wilco (and their loft) written by our very own Caroline Henley!
Halloween was last week. I've never been that excited about Halloween myself, owing probably to the incident in my youth, when, having to go to the bathroom while trick-or-treating far from my home, I was shocked to be refused entrance to house after house. "May I please use your bathroom?" I'd beg in my best "I'm a cute suburban white kid with good grammar and it's barely dark out here -- what could go wrong?" voice. I eventually had to run home in mortal fear of peeing my pants -- the scariest Halloween ever.
What has interested me about Halloween is its intersection with culture, and especially Christianity. Growing up in the church, I've seen churches attempt to do all kinds of things with Halloween, from ignoring it completely to throwing elaborate competing "Harvest Festivals." My favorite Christian/Halloween story comes out of Eden Christian Academy of Pittsburgh, PA (slogan: Pretending People are Perfect since 1983). A dear friend worked as a teacher there, and experienced this first-hand. Presented with the problem of what to do about Halloween one year, the faculty went back and forth: Use it as a teaching moment to communicate about the occult? Embrace what has become a harmless evening of candy-getting rather than a celebration of pagan ritual? Of course not. So afraid were they of dealing with the Halloween "problem," they did the least productive thing they could have: They cancelled school.
Why is it that Christians are so afraid of Halloween? Well, it all comes from Eden's slogan, which I conveniently made up to suit my purposes. In real life, Eden doesn't seem to have a pithy slogan, but has an 8 point statement of faith. The "problem" with Halloween, though, is a seeming fear that a "bad" thing will corrupt "good" kids. I don't know about you, but I was a kid, and Halloween was the least questionable thing we were up to. It's not just Christians, either. Check out this list of rules for costumes at a Halloween parade at Riverside Drive School
in Los Angeles:
They should not depict gangs or horror characters, or be scary
Masks are allowed only during the parade
Costumes may not demean any race, religion, nationality, handicapped condition, or gender
No fake fingernails
No weapons, even fake ones
Shoes must be worn
Some of this is pretty standard P.C. stuff, but what costumes are left? In a school district in Illinois, students are being encouraged to dress up as historical characters or delicious food items rather than vampires or zombies. I am not making this up! A lot of this information can be found in a funny AV Club article. The writer of the article ends with this warning to parents: "Most kids can tell the difference between reality and dress-up -- and if they can't Halloween is the perfect time to learn. Your children have all their lives to become lame fraidy-cats. Why make them start now?"
When it comes to Christians and Halloween, if we can admit that we are not perfect beings trying by any means to avoid corruption, maybe we can dress up like Freddy Kruegger and get some fun-sized Kit Kats. If we believe, as Eden Christian Academy claims to, that our righteousness is sourced in Jesus Christ and not in ourselves, we don't have to worry so much about the possible corruption that bobbing for apples and trick or treating might cause...We can do the zombie dance and just have fun!
Great scary movie no one has ever seen: Ravenous, 1999 (Antonia Bird)
From an article in The New Yorker about the murderous streak in American history:
Long ago, Beccaria (Cesare Beccaria, the Italian author of 1764's "On Crimes and Punishment") pointed out the meaningfulness of the correspondence, over time, between crime and punishment, between one kind of violence and another. If the history of murder contains a lesson, Beccaria believed, it was this: “The countries and times most notorious for severity of punishment have always been those in which the bloodiest and most inhumane of deeds were committed.”
Rom 5.20: "The law was added so that the trespass might increase".
“I believe that everyone in his (or her) life has the moment when he is open to Divine Grace. It’s there, of course, for the asking all the time, but human lives are so planned that usually there’s a particular time -- sometimes, like Hubert, on his deathbed -- when all resistance is down and Grace can come flooding in."
A revealing post over at the NY Times freakonomics blog, where Stephen Dubner writes (ht JD):
"The same person who might flip you off while ensconced in his or her car would almost certainly never do the same while passing you on a sidewalk. A parallel observation: I’ve often found that people who can be exceedingly nasty via e-mail or blog are often fairly civil once you get together face-to-face."
He then reprints a priceless letter from reader (and traffic cop) William Mack:
Over the years as a traffic officer and police officer, I have developed several theories on humanity. I have no statistical data to base this on, for this is just one man’s opinion. People, in general, are selfish. I think that, more often than not, people act based on how they are affected. I know that is very generalized and probably a little mean, but I think that people act based upon how they are directly affected. If they are, they care, sometimes too much. If not, they don’t [care], sometimes not at all. For example, during one particularly hot day in July in the early morning hours, an elderly female wandered onto the freeway and was struck by a vehicle traveling over 60 miles per hour.
As you can imagine, she was killed instantly. The freeway was quickly shut down (at 6 a.m.) and the accident reconstruction began (which is procedural and not my nor my supervisor’s decision). This usually takes between two and four hours. You would not believe the number of people, who, because they were forced to exit the freeway after hours in gridlock, felt it prudent and necessary to yell obscenities at the lowly police officer. As if it was my fault. All this while he is standing next to a blood-soaked white sheet. Those particular individuals had absolutely no remorse for the person lying dead on the freeway, nor for any of the other people stuck in traffic, nor for the poor cops who were out there in 110-degree weather!
Mack concludes by asking, "what is it with people and driving that makes them show their true nature?" I couldn't help but chuckle when some commenter wisely (but let's face it - kind of obnoxiously) offered, "Romans 3:10; 5:12".
I saw this last night over on Marginal Revolution - a financial blog I read from time to time and thought I'd post it. Made me think about the book On Being a Theologian of the Cross. One of the complaints I often hear when talking about a "Low Anthropology" or expecting people to behave in selfish and self-seeking ways (as our default) vs. assuming that people are inherently "good" is that I'm too pessimistic. Granted my hope is in something much greater, more real and more hopeful than "ethics," but how it often plays out on the ground (particularly with Americans) is not being "optimistic enough." Thought this study was intriguing.....
I have yet to read this study but I found the summary intriguing:
Bad moods can actually be good for you, with an Australian study finding that being sad makes people less gullible, improves their ability to judge others and also boosts memory.
The study, authored by psychology professor Joseph Forgas at the University of New South Wales, showed that people in a negative mood were more critical of, and paid more attention to, their surroundings than happier people, who were more likely to believe anything they were told.
"Whereas positive mood seems to promote creativity, flexibility, cooperation, and reliance on mental shortcuts, negative moods trigger more attentive, careful thinking paying greater attention to the external world," Forgas wrote.
"Our research suggests that sadness ... promotes information processing strategies best suited to dealing with more demanding situations."
Furthermore:
The study also found that sad people were better at stating their case through written arguments, which Forgas said showed that a "mildly negative mood may actually promote a more concrete, accommodative and ultimately more successful communication style."
I had the pleasure of hearing Bp. Fitz Allison deliver a home run of a sermon on All Saints Day this past week at my church here in the lowcountry of South Carolina (St. John's Parish, Johns Island). When I sat down in the pew and noticed the appointed readings for the day, I wondered how in world was Bp. Allison going to handle such pointed texts, and I wondered if he was going to tone down his approach. What he delivered from the pulpit was a pure gem and a true testimony to the Gospel message - leaving no stop unpulled!
I am a person who is always a week behind on TV. So I just watched last weeks Amazing Race and this episode had a great scene about how the law just destroys people. Check it out..
Shhh...Don't tell the folks at Biblica and Zondervan, but they've been working for Satan.
This according to the folks at the Amazing Grace Baptist Church in Canton, NC, which held a book burning on Halloween night and burned, among other things, the NIV traslation of the Bible.
But the NIV was not the only translation used as firewood. Also on the pyre were the RSV, NKJV, TLB, NASB, ESV, NEV, NRSV, ASV, NWT, Good News for Modern Man, The Evidence Bible, The Message Bible, The Green Bible, "and etc."
While I love my NIV and would be hard pressed to part with it, I could definately get into burning some John Shelby Spong, or watching the image of Joel Osteen's smile fade as the dustcovers of his books crumple in the flames. I actually might roast marshmallows over that fire!
But seriously, their list of desirable combustibles is pretty amazing from the standpoint of Mockingbird mentors and heroes: George Carey? C.S. Lewis?
So my curiosity is piqued, and I hope you'll share: in considering this exhaustive list of so-called satanic books, how many of these books do you currently have in your home? My count is up to 11 at this point, and a few of those I probably should have burned already. Not because they're satanic, but because they were just awful to read!
Almost ten years ago, Canongate Books published a series of single books from the Bible with prefaces from some unlikely people. Bono did the Psalms, Doris Lessing took Ecclesiastes, and Australian post-punk/goth singer-songwriter Nick Cave introduced Mark. I hadn't gotten around to reading Cave's piece until recently. For those with only a passing familiarity with Cave, a musician known primarily for the dark and violent content of his lyrics, the choice seemed odd. But anyone who had been listening closely knew that Cave's music had long been soaked in Biblical language and ideas (his recent, critically acclaimed record Dig!!! Lazarus Dig!!! was a concept album about - you guessed it - Lazarus, the best line of which comes in "Hold On To Yourself" where Cave asks, "Does Jesus only love a man who loses?"). While definitely unrelenting in its intensity and not for the remotely faint of heart, I recommend his music, esp from The Boatman's Call record onward, where his obsession with Christ and all things theological comes more clearly into focus. A few excerpts from the aforementioned introduction:
One day, I met an Anglican vicar and he suggested that I give the Old Testament a rest and read Mark instead. I hadn't read the New Testament at that stage because the New Testament was about Jesus Christ and the Christ I remembered from my choirboy days was that wet, all-loving, etiolated individual that the church proselytised. I spent my pre-teen years singing in the Wangaratta Cathedral Choir and even at that age I recall thinking what a wishy-washy affair the whole thing was. The Anglican Church: it was the decaf of worship and Jesus was their Lord.
"Why Mark?", I asked. "Because it's short", he replied. I was willing to give anything a go, so I took the vicar's advice and read it and the Gospel of Mark just swept me up.
Here, I am reminded of that picture of Christ, painted by Holman Hunt, where He appears, robed and handsome, a lantern in His hand, knocking on a door: the door to our hearts, presumably. The light is dim and buttery in the engulfing darkness. Christ came to me in this way, lumen Christi, with a dim light, a sad light, but light enough. Out of all the New Testament writings - from the Gospels, through the Acts and the complex, driven letters of Paul to the chilling, sickening Revelation - it is Mark's Gospel that has truly held me.
---------------
Even His disciples, who we would hope would absorb some of Christ's brilliance, seem to be in a perpetual fog of misunderstanding, following Christ from scene to scene with little or no comprehension of what is going on. So much of the frustration and anger that seems at times almost to consume Christ is directed at His disciples and it is against their persistent ignorance that Christ's isolation seems at its most complete. It is Christ's divine inspiration, versus the dull rationalism of those around Him, that gives Mark's narrative its tension, its drive. The gulf of misunderstanding is so vast that His friends 'lay hold of Him' thinking,'He is beside himself' (3:21). The Scribes and Pharisees, with their monotonous insistence on the Law, provide the perfect springboard for Christ's luminous words. Even those Christ heals betray Him as they run to the town to report the doings of the miraculous healer, after Christ has insisted that they tell noone. Christ disowns His own mother for her lack of understanding. Throughout Mark, Christ is in deep conflict with the world. He is trying to save, and the sense of aloneness that surrounds Him is at times unbearably intense. Christ's last howl from the cross is to a God He believes has forsaken Him: "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani"
The rite of baptism - the dying of one's old self to be born anew - like so many of the events in Christ's life is already flavoured metaphorically by Christ's death and it is His death on the cross that is such a powerful and haunting force, especially in Mark. His preoccupation with it is all the more obvious, if only because of the brevity with which Mark deals with the events of His life. It seems that virtually everything that Christ does in Mark's narrative is in some way a preparation for His death - His frustration with His disciples and His fear that they have not comprehended the full significance of His actions; the constant taunting of the church officials; the stirring up of the crowds; His miracle-making so that witnesses will remember the extent of His divine power. Clearly, Mark is concerned primarily with the death of Christ to such an extent that Christ appears consumed by His imminent demise, thoroughly shaped by His death.
The Christ that emerges from Mark, tramping through the haphazard events of His life, had a ringing intensity about him that I could not resist. Christ spoke to me through His isolation, through the burden of His death, through His rage at the mundane, through His sorrow. Christ, it seemed to me was the victim of humanity's lack of imagination, was hammered to the cross with the nails of creative vapidity.
To read more about Cave's unique take on Christianity, check out his 2003 interview on Salon.com, "The Resurrection of Nick Cave". And for few sample videos, look no further:
1. A very interesting blog post over at the NY Times entitled, "Kierkegaard, Despair and Depression", the final paragraph of which is really something (ht Jeff Dean):
Each of us is subject to the weather of our own moods. Clearly, Kierkegaard thought that the darkling sky of his inner life was very much due to his father’s morbidity. But the issue of spiritual health looms up with regard to the way that we relate to our emotional lives. Again, for Kierkegaard, despair is not a feeling, but an attitude, a posture towards ourselves. The man who did not become Caesar, the applicant refused by medical school, all experience profound disappointment. But the spiritual travails only begin when that chagrin consumes the awareness that we are something more than our emotions and projects. Does the depressive identify himself completely with his melancholy? Has the never ending blizzard of inexplicable sad thoughts caused him to give up on himself, and to see his suffering as a kind of fever without significance? If so, Kierkegaard would bid him to consider a spiritual consultation on his despair, to go along with his trip to the mental health clinic.
2. A jarring and tragic piece in USA Today (that's right) about suicidal pastors. Read it and weep, truly. A few choice portions (ht J. Stamper):
Those who counsel pastors say Christian culture, especially Southern evangelicalism, creates the perfect environment for depression. Pastors suffer in silence, unwilling or unable to seek help or even talk about it.
A pastor is like "a 24-hour ER" who is supposed to be available to any congregant at any time, said Steve Scoggin, president of CareNet, a network of 21 pastoral counseling centers in North Carolina. "We create an environment that makes it hard to admit our humanity."
Rodney Powe, worship pastor at the church, said he only now understands depression is a mental illness. Christians who don't experience depression trivialize it, he said. "We just say, "Come on, get over it. We have the hope of Christ and the Holy Spirit."'
Stanford, who studies how the Christian community deals with mental illness, said depression in Christian culture carries "a double stigmatization." Society still places a stigma on mental illness, but Christians make it worse, he said, by "over-spiritualizing" depression and other disorders — dismissing them as a lack of faith or a sign of weakness.
3. Poor Andre Agassi! In case you haven't seen the headlines about his new autobiography, the book begins:
I run quickly through the basic facts. My name is Andre Agassi. My wife’s name is Stefanie Graf. We have two children, a son and daughter, five and three. We live in Las Vegas but currently reside in a suite at the Four Seasons hotel in New York City, because I’m playing in the 2006 US Open. My last US Open. In fact my last tournament ever. I play tennis for a living, even though I hate tennis, hate it with a dark and secret passion, and always have.
As this last piece of identity falls into place, I slide to my knees and wait. In a whisper I say: Please let this be over.
It goes on from there. Be sure to read the portion about his relationship with his father. It sadly doubles as a profound illustration of the fruit of the law, i.e. his hatred of tennis did not come from nowhere... He's still my favorite player.
4. A very interesting and not altogether unsympathetic review of the new Rick Warren biography over at Slate. The final paragraph is particularly telling:
One does not have to be an evangelical to realize that a world of ruthless calculators living for no higher purpose is as shallow as a world in which religious faith allows no room for individual self-development. Rick Warren, Sheler's book makes clear, has found a message that reconciles profit and high purpose, faith and individual effort, and offers a form of humility that, at its best, galvanizes without aggrandizing. It may not be how I, or others, would balance the relationship between individual striving and a life of meaning, but it is plainly a formula uncannily well-timed for our disoriented, driven moment.
5. The New Yorker printed a wonderful and in-depth profile of Wes Anderson this week. You can find it here. 26 days and counting!
6. Finally, in leaked music news, Weezer's Raditude sounds exactly as the title would have you believe (i.e. utterly infectious teen-pop thrown off-kilter because it's made by guys who have not been teens for a long time). Another predictably unpredictable move from Rivers and co, I would be lying if I didn't report that it's had me pumping my fist all week. In the ranks of terribly-titled-yet-totally-great-driving-themed songs, their "Tripping Down The Freeway" is second only to The Beach Boys "Honking Down The Highway".
Meanwhile, Strokes' singer Julian Casablancas' Oscar Wilde-inspired solo record "Phrazes For The Young" is even better than I had hoped. His lyrics have always been underrated, and they really get a chance to shine here. At eight tracks, it's a bit short, which would be a bummer if every single one weren't top-notch. Highly recommended.
Also, everything that needs to be said about Bob Dylan's fantastic Christmas In The Heart has been said over at mardecortesbaja (back up on Sunday). "Hark the hee-rald angels see-ing!""
8. Finally, if for any reason you missed this week's Mbird e-newsletter - which contains some pretty exciting details about upcoming events - read it here. You can sign up for our email list in the sidebar.
This has been a tough week to be a Scientologist. From the public renunciation by one of its senior members--screenwriter Paul Haggis---, to the interview-gone-wrong viral sensation by its spokesperson Tommy Davis, it seems that the Psychlos are carrying the day; however, Scientology has weathered many storms in its relatively brief existence and there is no reason to think that these will be any different. Since we here at Mockingbird are fascinated by all things celebrity and theological, the intersection of the two that is Scientology holds a special place in our Mockinghearts. A good friend of ours who is living and teaching in Vienna, Jeff Stockett, shares our fascination and sent us this take on Scientology that has some great insights into how Law/Gospel themes--self-creation, identity, hope, etc--are working within this intriguing religion. . .enjoy, and always remember your Happy Premises:)
In the case of the CoS it’s also worth noting that the group continues to actively work to PREVENT the spread of much of its higher teachings (specifically its cosmogonical beliefs) within the public domain, mostly through fierce litigation.For comparison purposes, this would be like Christians trying to stop the spread of the Creation account as it’s presented in Genesis.Thanks in large part to a series of tubes called the Internets (or Interwebs, to the layperson) this information is still readily available for public scrutiny (I recommend you listen here for L. Ron Hubbard’s account, and then view here for a visual interpretation:)
To exist and thrive despite these notable handicaps is impressive, and it really makes the CoS all the more intriguing to study.But how does this group continue to flourish amidst the viral spread of stories about galactic smackdowns, alien genocide, and a pestilence of ancient parasitical/reincarnated souls (also known as “thetans”)?I would suggest a few things:
1)Scientology appeals to the human desire to connect.This is nothing new among religions.Human beings are intrinsically built for community and relationship, and as a species we have a general desire to gain insight/understanding about our environment and surroundings.The teachings of Scientology provide a way for individuals to evaluate and connect with the world around them in a way that is explainable and measurable.
2)Scientology desires to help individuals confront past (and sometimes present) negative experiences and situations, which is a naturally appealing proposition.The CoS promotes the idea that through L. Ron Hubbard’s self-help counseling technique (called Dianetics or “auditing”(see below) one can come to grips with and move on from past traumas (called “engrams”).This idea of self-improvement is key, in my mind, to much of Scientology’s draw.In Scientology YOU are the one in control, and as you learn to siphon off these troublesome past experiences you become a stronger, freer, and more “Clear” being.For Scientologists, the goal is literally to create a new and better reality, which can only be achieved through the identification and elimination of these engrams.This concept, in principle, isn’t foreign among religions either, as using religion as a path to re-birth or enlightenment is an idea that has been around for centuries.
3)Scientology is naturally exclusive, in that the ability to progress within the community is attached closely to financial means.Much like a country club, not everyone has the resources to invest in Scientology, which limits high-ranking membership to the affluent and privileged.I’d venture to guess that this makes the CoS an appealing option to folks who DO have significant financial means, since they have the opportunity to join what one might consider an elite/celebrity community (it’s worth noting that L. Ron Hubbard developed an aggressive campaign specifically targeting celebrities for membership back in the 1950’s).
Essentially, the CoS has a pre-fabricated series of levels that one can reach by completing CoS courses.In this way, an individual’s progression through the ranks of the CoS is similar to how one obtains an academic degree: you pay your tuition, study the course materials, demonstrate subject mastery, and then are allowed to proceed to the next course.In that regard, the CoS appears to operate much like an educational institute, only without the ability to provide an accredited degree of any kind.This concept becomes particularly confounding when one considers that the cost of some individual courses can be in tens of thousands of dollars (coincidentally, the commercial success of the CoS led to the loss of its non-profit status in the U.S. (it was reinstated by the IRS in 1993) and has prevented it from being recognized as a religious body in many other parts of the world).
4)Scientologists have a built-in means by which to gauge their progress and success within the CoS.Success is dictated by each individual, and generally is restricted only by financial means (as noted above).The existence of measurable levels of achievement is contrary to many other faiths, and serves as an additional draw as it offers prestige, status, and measurable outcomes that an individual can control.(this is a picture of the Scientology "Celebrity Center" in LA)
5)Scientology incorporates the idea that one can secure “secret knowledge” about reality by progressing through the faith (not too dissimilar from Gnosticism or Buddhism).Again, much of the “higher level” teachings are held in strict confidence until one reaches a certain level/rank within the CoS.This makes obtaining that information more desirable for individuals.
One last note: my personal intrigue with the Church of Scientology is generated not from the organization’s religious precepts, but because I am a bona fide science fiction nerd.Regardless, Scientology remains an engaging and fascinating area of study.If you have additional thoughts about why what Scientology has to offer is appealing, please feel free to share.Here are a few snippets from Tom Cruise regarding the organization’s appeal:
*Auditing is a one-on-one session with a Scientology counselor.It bears a superficial similarity to “confession” or pastoral counseling, but the auditor does not dispense forgiveness or advice the way a pastor or priest might do.Instead, the auditor’s task is to help the person discover and understand engrams, and their limiting effects, for themselves.Most auditing requires the use of an “E-meter,” a device that measures minute changes in electrical resistance through the body when a person holds electrodes (metal “cans”), and a small current is passed through them.Scientology asserts that watching for changes in the E-meter’s display helps locate engrams.Once an area of concern has been identified, the auditor asks the individual specific questions about it, in order to help them eliminate the engram, and uses the E-meter to confirm that the engram’s “charge” has been dissipated and the engram has in fact been cleared.
1. I'm Sorry - Hall & Oates 2. Meat City - John Lennon 3. Soily - Wings 4. Sowing The Seeds Of Love - Tears For Fears 5. 11th Dimension - Julian Casablancas 6. Last Dance - The Raveonettes 7. Two Weeks - Grizzly Bear 8. Jesus Christ - Big Star 9. Big Star Baby - Mojave 3 10. King Of Kings - Echo And The Bunnymen 11. Low Life Kingdom - Ben Gibbard and Jay Farrar 12. What A Friend - The Magills 13. Underdog (Save Me) - Turin Brakes 14. I'll Be Back - The Beatles 15. Someday I'll Be Forgiven For This - Justin Townes Earle 16. I and Love and You - The Avett Brothers 17. Caroline Goodbye - Colin Blunstone 18. There Will Never Be Any Peace (Until God Is Seated At The Conference Table) - The Chi-Lites
As someone who is "big-boned", I have been interested in the plethora of reality television shows that all revolve around heavy people. There is the one that is truly inspiring, The Biggest Looser, as well as many others that seem to be more like exploitation projects: Dance Your Ass Off and More to Love. Either way, I love to watch them all with a bowl of ice cream. This Spring, ABC is looking to continue the trend with a new reality television show revolving around America’s “fattest” city, Huntington W.VA. The show entitled “Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution” will host British Celeb Chef Jamie Oliver, many of you will know him as the Naked Chef, as he seeks to get an entire town to stop eating deep fried food and switch to more organic foods. (The most popular restaurant in Huntington is the Hillbilly Hotdog where they serve a fifteen pound hamburger).
A number of news agencies have picked up the story because evidently the town, which was initially thrilled with the idea, is not as excited as they once were with the diet plan...I can totally relate. Surprise, Surprise, many of the local town bureaucrats, parents, and teenagers don’t like being told that they are over weight and have failed as a community. The good citizens claim that the show will give their town a negative image, and not only affect tourism but people’s desire to move to Huntington W.VA. While that all may be true, I think Alex Witchell of the NYT nails the real reason for pushback when he writes with regards to the town’s response, “The reason the world is still waiting for the Messiah is that most people don’t actually want one, no matter how many fresh fruits and vegetables he’s carrying.”
That statement leads to two very interesting observations in light of the human condition and its interaction with the real Messiah, Jesus Christ. The first is everybody knows what they should be doing, the problem is no one is doing it; they are incapable of doing it, and they hate being told to do it (Romans 7). Second, this is exactly why nobody wants a messiah, ignorance is bliss. We don’t want our short comings and failures pointed out. We like living with the idea that everything is just fine and I am o.k. in the warm caress of the Hillbilly Hotdog or whatever your version of that is. However, unlike Jamie Christ, Jesus Christ doesn’t beckon us to clean up and get fit. Rather, through his cross he not only demonstrates our failures, but dies for and forgives them.
Just couldn't wait until Friday to post this amusing review of This Is It. From TIME magazine of all places, the Mbird-worthy passages of which include (major ht Jeff Dean):
Death and resurrection. That's the scenario not just for gods but for pop stars who earn fans' ardor with an electrifying presence and their sympathy with very public private lives of addiction and misbehavior. The stars' talent makes them unique; their transgressions make them human... It took death to restore [Michael Jackson's] standing as one-of-a-kind entertainer — to bring him back to life.
But full redemption, not to mention true resurrection, requires a personal appearance. And on the 125th day he rose from the dead, at least on screen, with Michael Jackson's This Is It, a docu-musical record of the star's rehearsals for his comeback London concert series that was to begin in July.
Michael's stalwart buddy Elizabeth Taylor, who attended an early screening last week, effusively tweeted that This Is It was "the single most brilliant piece of filmmaking I have ever seen."
For a modern entertainer who dies before his time, immortality is measured in residuals — the money from commemorative projects like this. Michael Jackson will have no resurrection — in the end, that was that — but the movie does earn him a redemptive legacy. It proves that, at the end, he was still a thriller. Fans and doubters alike can look at the gentle, driven singer-dancer at the center of this up-close document and say admiringly, This was him.
We've got more than a few gearheads here at Mockingbird, and I thought that the following post from autoblog was a wonderful illustration of St. Paul's words that "where there is no law, neither is there violation" (Rom 4.15).
When the Utah DOT raised the speed limit on two pieces of I-15 from 75 mph to 80 mph, it discovered that driving habits didn't change. When the limit was 75 mph, the Utah DoT found that drivers were going between 81 and 85 mph. And now that the maximum limit is 80 mph, it has found that drivers are going between 83 and 85 mph.
You can look at that as less speeding, as the UDoT has, or simply the fact that people didn't automatically start going 10 mph over the limit, having found a speed that satisfies 85% of them. This shouldn't be that surprising – even when Montana had stretches of highway with unlimited speeds, it was only a few folks, mostly out-of-staters, that raced at max velocity. And most folks on unlimited sections of the Autobahn aren't even going 150 mph.
According to the Deseret News, a UDoT official said that accidents haven't increased, either, nor did they expect an increase in fender benders. What he said has increased, though, is speed differential, which we don't quite understand. Apparently, the difference between the fastest and slowest vehicles has widened. We can only imagine he was speaking of the 2 mph difference between the slightly higher lower average speed of 83 mph vs the 81 mph from before. Even though one Utah legislator wasn't happy about the increased limit, saying speed kills, the proof appears to be... well, not necessarily.
For an illustration of 1Co 3.13-15, check out this post.
Now my charms are all o'erthrown, And what strength I have's mine own, Which is most faint: now, 'tis true, I must be here confined by you, Or sent to Naples. Let me not, Since I have my dukedom got And pardon'd the deceiver, dwell In this bare island by your spell; But release me from my bands With the help of your good hands: Gentle breath of yours my sails Must fill, or else my project fails, Which was to please. Now I want Spirits to enforce, art to enchant, And my ending is despair, Unless I be relieved by prayer, Which pierces so that it assaults Mercy itself and frees all faults. As you from crimes would pardon'd be, Let your indulgence set me free.
We are proud to announce that our keynote speaker will be Dr. Rod Rosenbladt. All other details are still being finalized. Pre-registration opens in the new year. We hope you can make it!
As the World Series is set to begin, the biggest story in baseball isn't the Phillies quest for a repeat title or the resurgence of A-Rod and the Yankees, but it's the return of Mark McGwire to baseball as a hitting coach for the St. Louis Cardinals. As expected, many fans are crying foul. Next to Barry Bonds, McGwire is public enemy number two in MLB's steroid era. News of McGwire's illegal doping first came to light in Jose Canseco's book "Juiced." While McGwire has never failed a drug test, Canseco's accusation confirmed the widespread suspicions that it was steroids that contributed to his rapid weight gain and 70 home runs. But unlike other players like Alex Rodriguez, Andy Pettitte, and Jason Giambi, McGwire has never admitted to taking steroids. Even worse, he has blatently side-stepped the issue when he has been asked about his steroid use and not proclaimed his innocence.
It is this silence that has aroused criticism of the Cardinal's hiring of McGwire to be their hitting coach. The lead FBI investigator Greg Stejskal had this to say: "It's basically rewarding a guy who hasn't stood up and taken a stand against this stuff. There's been no mea culpa, and instead he became a recluse. It reminds me of a passage from Proverbs: 'The wicked flee where no man pursueth.'"
The public outrage over Mark McGwire can be traced to both McGwire's alledged steroid abuse and his refusal to come-clean and repent. The Cardinals have hired a coach who hasn't "taken responsibility" for his actions. They have shown him grace. The Cardinals have willingly suffered the cost of this public relations nightmare by giving an abandoned transgressor like Mark McGwire new life through a job that allows him to do what he loves.
The Christian understanding of grace is not forgiveness to those who have made amends of their sin or those who properly prepared themselves for grace. But Christian grace is the forgiveness of the wicked (Romans 5:6-10). God does not demand any inclination toward God or movement of our will as a precondition of grace, but freely forgives. Jesus died for all his disciples who abandoned him in the hour of his need (Mark 15:40). As Luther said, "On the part of man, however, nothing precedes grace except indisposition and even rebellion against grace."
Mark McGwire may be a vile, heartless cheater who destroyed baseball (allegedly), but I hope that he makes a great hitting coach.
1. On the off chance that you didn't see William McGurn's powerful editorial in last week's Wall Street Journal, "God vs. Science isn't the issue", here's a few lines from it:
Here's the problem: Almost no one really believes [that human beings do not possess some form of "special dignity" in comparison to other life forms]. Not, at least, when it comes to how we behave. And the dichotomy between scientific theory and human action may itself have something to tell us about truth.
Many Americans who are indifferent to faith will confess they find themselves challenged as they try to raise good and decent children without the religious confidence their parents had. The result may not be a return to religion but a healthy agnosticism about agnosticism itself.
2. Renowned/infamous underground comic artist R.Crumb published his long-awaited The Book Of Genesis Illustrated last week. Not a huge Crumb fan myself, but this project has my interest for obvious reasons. A particularly priceless portion of the review in the Washington Post (ht PW):
Crumb himself has written: "I am constantly disgusted by reality, horrified and afraid. I cling desperately to the few things that give me some solace, that make me feel good. For me to be human is, for the most part, to hate what I am. When I suddenly realize I am one of them, I want to scream in horror."
Not unlike the God of Genesis beholding the depravity of his children, even his greatest servants. Abraham pimps his wife, Sarah, Jacob cheats his brother, Esau.
3. Anyone interested in the free will/obesity/health care discussion would do well to read Daniel Engber's highly insightful (and often irritatingly smug) assessment over at Slate. The latest installment, "Is Chris Christie too fat to win an election in New Jersey?" contained a number of gems about identity and self-righteousness and the bound will (ht J. Stamper). The final two paragraphs read:
A couple of months ago, I asked [Esther Rothblum, editor of the Fat Studies Reader] why she thought the fat rights movement aroused so much ire from across the political spectrum. Thin people tend to think they've controlled their weight through hard work and strength of character, she said. That makes the idea of size acceptance seem like a personal affront to anyone who's not severely obese. If we're all OK with being fat, then there's no pride in being thin.
So what does this mean for Chris Christie? Most of the country is overweight or obese, according to government standards, yet there's no constituency for a fat politician. Conservatives see excess weight as a sign of moral failing or a breach of personal responsibility. Liberals sneer at the bloated American lifestyle, even while imagining the war on obesity as a fight for social justice. A size-blind culture is clearly a long way off. Until we get there, it's the thin candidates who will be throwing their weight around.
For us, “telling the truth” had so much become telling the church and each other how you need to change and be more radical. But now we saw that the greatest truth was telling and showing each other how much God loves us. Our paradigm for daily life had shifted to John’s mantra, “Caring for each other, forgiving each other, and keeping the dishes washed. We are forgiven. All the rest is details.”
6. Here in NYC, Christ Church's ministry conference kicks off tomorrow night (10/27) at 6pm with a talk on Thomas Cranmer from Mbird favorite Dr. Ashley Null. Highly recommended! For more details, go here.
Regular readers of our blog will, no doubt, be familiar with the deep thoughts of our favorite philosopher-hunter, David Browder. Recently, he forwarded me a discussion that he had been havingwith one of our heroes, Dr. Mark Mattes, who gave these addresses at our first-ever Mockingbird conference in 2008 and is the author of the MUST-READThe Role of Justification in Contemporary Theology. They thought that their conversation may be of interest to us here on the blog, and were they ever right. We're hoping that this will be a regular feature here, but in good reformation-theological form, we're just happy to receive what we've been given and then pass it on to you:) Enjoy!
Mark: Do we need someone to start us off? How about this? I submit that we (at least as old beings) resist grace and we use religion in some way or another to do just that. Our concern for our "potentiality" while good when the intent is to help others can and often does work as just another defense to keep us in our self-righteousness. This is a little abstract, but I'm just throwing it out there for conversation.
David: Here we go (along those lines): In the movie The Passion of Ayn Rand (at the end), one of Rand's disillusioned old lovers asked an older Rand where love fits in her objectivist philosophy. Her response was that love consisted in reaching one's full potential. As you know, becoming master of one's own domain was the highest priority for her. In the very next scene, the director shows Ayn Rand's tombstone in a graveyard. Could you give your reaction to this in terms of what it means for people living life and interacting with God?
Mark: David, "The Passion of Ayn Rand" sounds like a "must-see" movie. Love assists her to reach her full potential? Next scene: tombstone. Whether the director intended it or not, this to me sounds like a commentary on "the wages of sin is death." I would think love would be the least likely place to look for the development or realization of self-potential, because real love entails a letting go of oneself. I love my child really and truly only when I love him in God and give him over to God. If every time I seek my self-development or my ego when my child is up to bat at little league,then I'm really hurting my son. He picks up that he's just an appendage of my ego, and that doesn't do anything positivefor him. No doubt, many parents do this, but isn't this just a symptom of sin? Doesn't one's child really belong to God and not to oneself? Only by letting him learn from his mistakes and triumphs do I succeed as a parent.
Love, if it is genuine, really has very little or nothing to do with me. Unless of course I am a "love addict" and simply use another to have any sense of self or identity. But such "love addiction" is no love but only a semblance of it.A love addict doesn't trust that God's love is sufficient for him or her. He or she is addicted to the biochemistry of love as an antidote to pain. (And, the researchers now say that such love biochemistry is good for about a year and a half!) The addiction can never free one of such pain, however.If faith allows another (God) to be there for me (Eberhard Jüngel) and thus allows me to live outside myself in God (in the word), then similarly love too is a living outside of myself in genuine concern for my neighbor (not to control them in any way) and ultimately living outside ourselves in our love for God, lost in "wonder, love, and praise" as Charles Wesley so magnificently and somewhat mystically put it. Or as Luther put it in The Freedom of the Christian (1520), faith receives the Christ become incarnate for us in order to serve us, and such faith naturally and spontaneously issues in love in which (or even so that) we can serve others.
If I really love, the story is no longer about me. I'm not on center stage. Instead, I'm there for someone else, and I allow someone else to be there for me. This truth, I think, can help a marriage. No doubt a teenager with a crush or in a relationship might very well feel that love is all about himself or herself, his or her feelings, due to a heightened biochemical awakening. This is all natural, and developmentally, it's normal for the teen to be somewhat narcissistic and self-centered.
But, genuine, mature love-akin to that of our master Jesus Christ-really is unconcerned for self. In my relationships, the narrative isn't about me. It's about us. Ultimately it's about where God is leading us to become who he wants us to be-free to be and free to serve where and when that service is needed. As a mentioned at our recent conference, I'm convinced that nature as it comes from the hand of God and were it to be unsullied by original sin is geared towards an altruism. God's law as accusing and destroying brings an end to our being-curved-in-on-ourselves (which is nature for Ayn Rand but corrupt nature for us!) so that grace might liberate this nature, and allow creation to be as God intends it. Be aware: the social sciences don't study human nature as such, but only human nature as sullied and polluted by original sin.
David: it sounds like love (which seems like an all-encompassing idea) has two different meanings in Christianity and the world of Aristotle (Ayn Rand was a self-proclaimed Aristotelian, of course). Is there a common thread between the natural man's potential-based emphasis and potential-basedChristianity?
Mark: I find your comparison between secular Ayn Rand and many "born-again" Christians, with respect to love, insightful. I would think the common thread is me, myself, and I. For many Christians, Christ simply helps us fulfill our potential. In many respects, one could ask them: Is Jesus Christ really necessary for your salvation and life? Or is he a supplement? With respect to self and others, though, they really are on a continuum with a secular philosopher such as Rand. But the truth, as I see it, is: Love doesn't justify. Faith does. And, when you love, it demands that you die, hardly fulfilling any kind of potential, but opening me up to where others are.
Ask anyone who has ever run out of a locker room before a game and they will tell you that there is usually some sort of slogan or inspirational message hanging near the door that is supposed to get you all fired up and ready. Would that this quote from Luther were hanging in the vestries of our churches in a similar way:
“If you preach faith [and assurance] people become lax…But if you do not preach faith, hearts become frightened and dejected…Do as you please. Nothing seems to help. Yet faith in Christ should be preached, no matter what happens. I would much rather hear people say of me that I preach too sweetly…than not preach faith in Christ at all, for then there be no help for timid, frightenedconsciences…Therefore I should like to have the message of faith in Christ not forgotten but generally known. It is so sweet a message, full of sheer joy, comfort, mercy and grace. I must confess that I myself have as yet not fully grasped it. We shall have to let it happen that some turn the message into an occasion for security and presumption; others…slander us…and say [that by preaching so much of Christ] we make people lazy and thus keep them from perfection. Christ himself had to hear that he was a friend of publicans and sinners…We shall not fare any better.”
Martin Luther Ascension Day sermon of 1534: WA 37, pp 394-395
Can the news be that good if no one wants to hear it? I often find myself chuckling derisively at the preaching in churches that I see on television. "Ha!" I'll snort. "What an offensive message. No one's going to like that very much!" Then, as you might imagine, the camera pans around to reveal the masses hanging on the preacher's every word. I have no masses. Don't get me wrong, I love my congregation, and we're growing, but we didn't have to buy an arena from an NBA team, like Joel Osteen and Lakewood Church in Houston did. Why is it that preaching that some of us might consider to be bad news is so appealing to so many listeners? The answer, of course, is to be found at the core of the recent Treehouse of Horror XX.
Can you believe that this is The Simpsons' twentieth season? Astounding. In any event, each year, The Simpsons produces a Halloween episode that is required viewing, even if you're not a fan of the show itself. The Halloween special is a cultural phenomenon. This year, the episode included a vignette in which Krustyburger (the chain owned by the town's children's television star) sells what turns out to be an "infected" hamgburger. Through a production process that would have the FDA and the EPA carrying pitchforks and torches, Krustyburger puts a burger out that turns the citizens of Springfield into...of course: Zombies. Favorite line from the episode? Bartender Moe, as he's being carried off by four zombies: "If I were you, I'd wash me before I eat me."
Even after the alarm is raised people continue to eat the burgers! Finally, days after the plague starts, Bart can stand his burger-jones no longer, and risks life and limb to navigate a sea of zombies to get his hands on what appears to be the last remaining Krustyburger. He bites.
What could compel Bart to do this? To act in such a counter-intuitive way? This convention is well known in slasher film: "No group of nubile teens has ever returned from that campground alive!" "Oh, I'm sure we'll be fine." Or, "This house, built on an ancient Indian burial ground has phantasmagorical blood pouring down the walls, and the realtor, a crusty old woman with one eye and a goiter, told us not to stay here." "I'm sure it's nothing to worry about." Bart's been given information that can save his life: Don't eat that burger. He does anyway. And Christians? What's with them? Why the resistance to the good news? In the end, Bart's hunger gets the best of him. His need for a burger overrides the logic of avoiding zombie-ism. For Christians, our need to contribute, our need to self-justify, and our need to be active overrides the logic of accepting what appears to be the best option: A free gift for which we much do nothing and which requires no response.
In As Good As It Gets, Jack Nicholson gives Helen Hunt medical care she can't afford for her son. When he tells her that no thanks are required, that it's a free gift and he doesn't want to read her thank-you letter, she becomes angry. People want to contribute. People need to self-justify. People desire to be active. So when we've got Good News (no contribution necessary...justification already accomplished...no activity required...) no one wants to hear it.
In place of my usual "Great movie no one has ever seen," and in honor of this being Mockingbird at the TV...here are my two favorite TV commercials of all time:
There is a very interesting article in this week's New York Times Magazine about Pandora, the free internet music service that creates custom playlists based on your personal music preferences. I am a huge Pandora fan.
Most interesting, for Mockingbirds, is how the absence of judgment (i.e. law) in Pandora creates the space for love (of music) to flourish. Pandora's entire system depends on a group of music experts evaluating songs in the most objective, least judgmental way possible, which often leads to unexpected musical connections for listeners, as is recounted in the following humorous anecdote:
Westergren (Pandora's founder) likes to tell a story about a Pandora user who wrote in to complain that he started a station based on the music of Sarah McLachlan, and the service served up a Celine Dion song. “I wrote back and said, ‘Was the music just wrong?’ Because we sometimes have data errors,” he recounts. “He said, ‘Well, no, it was the right sort of thing — but it was Celine Dion.’ I said, ‘Well, was it the set, did it not flow in the set?’ He said, ‘No, it kind of worked — but it’s Celine Dion.’ We had a couple more back-and-forths, and finally his last e-mail to me was: ‘Oh, my God, I like Celine Dion.’ ”
This particular listener would have never realized the horrifying, liberating truth that he likes Celine Dion if Pandora had rated music based on taste, which is, by definition, judgmental. As the author writes:
What Pandora’s system largely ignores is, in a word, taste. The way that Gasser or Westergren might put this is that it minimizes the influence of other people’s taste. Music-liking becomes a matter decided by the listener, and the intrinsic elements of what is heard. Early on, Westergren actually pushed for the idea that Pandora would not even reveal who the artist was until the listener asked. He thought maybe that structure would give users a kind of permission to evaluate music without even the most minimal cultural baggage. “We’re so insecure about our tastes,” he says.
Simply put, the absence of judgment in Pandora creates the freedom for people to discover what they actually love, rather than what they're supposed to. As a pastor myself, I see my role in the spiritual formation of my congregation as fostering the type of non-judgmental, gospel-induced freedom that allows for love and creativity to blossom. I may have my ideas of what "living by the Spirit" looks like, my own personal "taste", but imposing this on others will invariably quench the movement of the Spirit in their own lives.
Of course, whether or not liking Celine Dion could be called a fruit of the Spirit is another question...
In Oxford on October 15, 1555, Anglican Bishops Hugh Latimer and Nicholas Ridley were burned as Protestant heretics under the reign of Queen Mary. Shortly before they were murdered, Ridley said to Latimer, “Play the man, Master Ridley; we shall this day light such a candle, by God’s grace, in England, as I trust shall never be put out.” And although this candle has indeed burned for over 450 years, many believe that this week’s Papal decision to allow for disaffected Anglicans to enter full communion with the Roman church, may reduce it to, at best, a smoldering wick.
“Under the plan,” writes Ruth Gledhill of the TimesUK, “the Pope will issue an apostolic constitution, a form of papal decree, that will lead to the creation of “personalordinariates” for Anglicans who convert to Rome. These will provide a legal framework to allow Anglicans to enter full communion with the Catholic Church while preserving distinctive elements of their Anglican identity, such as liturgy. Clergy will have to be retrained and re-ordained, since Rome regards Anglican orders as “absolutely null and utterly void”, but they will be granted their own seminaries to train future priests for the new ordinariate.”
How magnanimous:)
Although there have always been Anglican clergy who were sympathetic to Roman Catholic theology, it is only since the mid 19th century with the appearance of the Oxford Movement, that there has been a recognized stream within Anglicanism that has self-consciously considered itself more Roman than Protestant. And even though the patron saint of this movement, John Henry Newman, found it impossible to remain an Anglican and uphold his oath to the 39 Articles after trying to interpret them through the lens of Roman Catholic theology, many Anglicans from his day on have nevertheless opted for an uneasy Anglo-Catholic limbo; ironically, the Pope’s decreee allows for suspension of this limbo. Anglo-Catholics, it would seem, can now have their transubstantiation and eat it too:)
Now of course, we’ll quickly see objections made and reasons why comfortable Anglo-Catholics won’t “swim the Tiber,” as they say, issues like church governance, dogmas regarding the Blessed Virgin Mary and the nature of Holy Orders, but as important as these issues are, no reformer would have considered them church-dividing issues. None. Sure, what you think about Mary is important, and who among us likes to think that their ordination is invalid, but the historic fact remains that had the fundamental issue of the nature of Justification--the way God and humanity are related--been agreed upon, then these issues could have been resolved without splitting the church. The initial break and the continued reason for the divided church can be seen in the clear and unapologetic disagreement over what Luther called the articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae--the article upon which the church stands or falls--the doctrine of Justification by Grace alone through Faith alone.
For many years, my standard response to the (oft posed) question, “Why aren’t you a Catholic?” was always that I wasn’t comfortable with the “fact” that the Pope had a solid gold bathroom. The sophistication and thoughtfulness of this response belied my genuine ignorance about Catholic doctrine and practice, because all I knew is that, really, they thought that the Pope could fly. Essentially, I viewed Catholicism—not unlike my own faith at the time—more as a social phenomenon than a theological category. I basked in this ignorance until the summer of 2001 whenI was given a copy of First Things, and my life was turned upside down. In April 2002, I’ll never forget reading How I Became the Catholic I Was, by the late (great) Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, and being genuinely struck by the fact that many of my objections to Catholicism were, at best, misunderstandings and, at worst, completely wrong.
My introduction to First Things coincided with the rise of the movement called “Evangelicals and Catholics Together," and slowly, my objections to Roman Catholicism began to come down. Due, in addition, in no small part to having met during that time one of the most winsome and articulate defenders of Catholicism I had known, I was on my way to either swallowing the whole loaf and going Roman, or at least coming as close as possible by joining the more-socially-acceptable but consigned to limbo Anglo-Catholic fold. Then, one glorious and life-changing day, I heard the doctrine of Justification explained in historic law/gospel form, my heart was strangely warmed and well, now I know why I can never be the Catholic I almost was.
This understanding--that the very heart of the Gospel is protected by a clear articulation of the doctrine of Justification by Grace alone through Faith alone--was the catalyst for both the Continental and English Reformations, fidelity to it is why the early Anglican Protestants were martyred andit remains, IMNSHO, the only reason to not go to Rome.
Now, the arguments concerning the division between the Roman Catholics and the various Protestant groups over the doctrine of Justification are many, long and well-documented; nevertheless, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Reformed, Baptists, 7th Day Adventists, and 1st through 6th Day Adventists have always been defined in some way against the condemnations of the Roman Catholic Council of Trent and its condemnations of the “Protestant heresies.” This council, according to the encyclopedia Brittanica, “clarified virtually every doctrine contested by the Protestants.” With the clarifications came the requisite anathamas—or curses—from the Roman Church, among which are the following:
Canon 12: "If any one shall say that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy pardoning sins for Christ's sake, or that it is that confidence alone by which we are justified ... let him be anathema"
Canon 4: “If anyone says that man’s free will moved and aroused by God, by assenting to God’s call and action, in no way cooperates toward disposing and preparing itself to obtain the grace of justification. . . let him be anathema”
Canon 5: “If anyone says that after the sin of Adam man’s free will was lost and destroyed. . . let him be anathema.” (Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, tr. H.J Schroeder)
And before anyone is tempted to think that the aforementioned “anyone(s)” referred only to the more hot-headed Calvinists or Lutherans, or that Anglicans were somehow the reasonable (well dressed) via media between Rome and Geneva--the "catholic lite" idea--let us compare these canons to the 39 Articles, which are a collection of theological statements based on the theology of Thomas Cranmer that all Anglican clergy (at least in the Church of England, including yours truly) since 1571 must affirm as part of their ordination vows. (for a good summary of Cranmer’s thoughts on Justification, see this interview with our hero, Canon Dr. Ashley Null)
Article XI: Of the Justification of Man
We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings: Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.
The last paragraph of the aforementioned homily is :
Hitherto have we heard what we are of our selves: very sinful, wretched, and damnable. Again, wee have heard how that of our selves, and by our selves, wee are not able either to think a good thought, or work a good deed, so that wee can find in our selves no hope of salvation, but rather whatsoever maketh unto our destruction. Again, we have heard the tender kindness and great mercy of GOD the Father towards us, and how beneficial he is to us for Christ’s sake, without our merits or deserts, even of his own sheer mercy & tender goodness. . .
Article X: Of Free-Will
The condition of Man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith, and calling upon God: Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will.
Clearly, the anathema’s of the Council of Trent were intended to cover the “protestant heresies” of the Anglican church and it is only by the most dubious logic and almost complete devaluing of language itself that people have been able to reconcile the two (for instance, see Cardinal Newman’s (in)famous “Track 90” on Justification).
As for me, I’m glad that the Pope has made this decree, because now, perhaps, people will have to really examine the reasons that they are either Anglican or Catholic, and, in turn, they will hopefully be brought back face to face with what we here believe to be this “most wholesome doctrine” of Justification by Faith. And while it is my hope, and my life's work for that matter, that Ridley and Latimer's candle of the Anglican Church and its proclamation of the Gospel continues to shine, I am nevertheless comforted by God's promise in Christ that, "a smoldering wick he will not extinguish," and will remain steadfast and secure--despite the anathemas--resting wholly and completely with “confidence in the divine mercy pardoning sins for Christ's sake." Thanks be to God.
Does self help actually help? Apparently not as much as the self-help industry would like to think. Recent research published in Psychological Science shows that repeating positive statements about oneself, which is a common self-help strategy, doesn't always increase self esteem.
Researchers asked people to repeat positive statements about themselves, such as "I am a lovable person". They found that people who had low self esteem to begin with actually felt worse about themselves afterwards. (People with high self esteem felt just marginally better after repeating these statements.) In a second study, one group of people was asked to think only about a positive self statement, while another group was asked to think about the positive self statement as well as times when the statement was true and untrue (e.g., the statement might be "I am lovable", and they were asked to think about times when they felt lovable _and_ times when they were not lovable). Interestingly, when people who had low self esteem thought about times when the statement was true _and_ times when statement was not true, they actually had better mood, slightly higher self-esteem, and were happier than people who only thought of the positive statement.
The authors of the study wrote: "positive self-statements have more impact on people with low self-esteem than on people with high self-esteem, and that the impact on people with low self-esteem is negative [...] positive self-statements are especially likely to backfire for the very people they are meant to benefit: people with low self-esteem." What struck me about this study was how much positive self statements and their relationship to the person resemble the Law. It's not a perfect parallel, and the study was not written (nor is it intended to be read) as an illustration of the Law. But just as positive self-statements (which are supposed to increase self esteem) backfire with people who need it the most, the Law (which is supposed increase obedience) also backfire on people who need to, but are not obeying the Law.
(Article citation: Wood, J. V., Perunovic, W. Q. E., & Lee, J. W. (2009). Positive self-statements: Power for some, peril for others. Psychological Science, 20, 860-866.)
Last month brought the long-awaited release of Keep An Eye On The Sky, a boxed set collecting the music 70s power-pop pioneers Big Star. I recently heard the short-lived Memphis group referred to as "the greatest American cult rock band this side of The Velvet Underground". Which basically means their influence is inversely proportionate to their popularity/commercial success. I happen to greatly prefer them to The Velvets and would consider the tragic British band Badfinger a more appropriate reference point. Musically, at least. Unlike Badfinger, the closest Big Star ever got to having a hit was when one of their lesser songs was resurrected (and poorly covered) to serve as the non-Cheap Trick portion of the That 70s Show theme - you know, "Hanging out! Down the street!..."
What doesn't seem to get much attention, and what the boxed set makes painfully clear, is how, well, Christian their records are. It's remarkable - arguably the "hippest" American band of the 70s (certainly the one that indie rockers love to name-drop the most) made music that, esp on their first record, bordered on proto-Christian rock. Much of this was due to the influence of the overtly religious Chris Bell, co-leader of the band and a man who in recent years has become something of a poster boy for starving indie artistry. And indeed, if his songs are anything to go by, the guy was tortured.
But first, the Christianity: a few sample lyrics of Bell's song "My Life Is Right" off Big Star's debut #1 Record, "Once I walked a lonely road/I had no one to share my load/But then you came and showed the way/And now I hope you're here to stay/You give me life". Borderline mega-church stuff, if it weren't for all the chiming power chords and gorgeous Beatle-esque production. Which isn't to say his songs aren't sincere or heartfelt - in fact, if they were any more so, they'd be unlistenable. Bell left after the first record, but not before contributing a couple of (amazing) songs to their live set, the titles alone of which tell the story: "I Got Kinda Lost" and "There Was A Light".
As is often the case, Bell's talent came with its fair share of personal demons. Drug addiction and clinical depression being chief among them. Unfortunately (and tragically), his songs betray a faith that is semi-Pelagian to the max and incapable of offering him the comfort or deliverance or just plain good news that he seemed to be longing for. The song "Try Again", also from #1 Record, paints a sad albeit honest picture of where that kind of theology leads:
Lord I've been trying to be what I shouldLord I've been trying to do what I could But each time it gets a little harder I feel the pain But I'll try again
Lord I've been trying to be understood And Lord I've been trying to do as you would But each time it gets a little harder I feel the pain But I'll try again
The other great talent in the band was Alex Chilton, the one-time singer for teen sensations The Box Tops ("The Letter") and not without troubles of his own. In fact, the third and final Big Star album is commonly recognized as the most fascinating example of artistic self-sabotage put to record. Wonderful and beautiful songs, obscured by strangeness and drug-addled disintegration (and maybe a little outsider psychosis). I highly recommend it, both as a musical curiosity/triumph and a tour-de-force of human conflictedness. Oddly enough, the record contains the band's best and most explicit burst of Christianity, the stunning "Jesus Christ" - this time via Chilton, who was by all accounts a pretty non-religious guy. The song comes from out of nowhere, beginning with a nonsensical prelude before launching into lyrics poached from a number of Protestant hymns. Some say it's half-serious, some say it's completely earnest - all agree that the song is in keeping with the off-beat tone of Third. Regardless, it's probably my favorite rock song about Jesus, and definitely my favorite Christmas one:
Angels from the realms of glory Stars shone bright above Royal David's city Was bathed in the light of love
Jesus Christ was born today Jesus Christ was born
Lo, they did rejoice Fine and pure of voice And the wrong shall fail And the right prevail
Theologically, we're dealing with a descriptive, God-centered tune if ever there was one, almost the polar opposite of Bell's anguished first-person prayers. I cannot help but wish the two approaches could have met somehow. Instead, the disconnect is simply another dimension of the tragedy that characterized Big Star, quite possibly the greatest self-destructive and highly neurotic Southern anglo-pop band the world has never known. Keep an eye on the sky!
Thirteen Favorite Big Star Songs 1. The Ballad Of El Goodo 2. September Gurls 3. Jesus Christ 4. I Am The Cosmos - Chris Bell solo 5. Thirteen 6. Stroke It Noel 7. O, Dana 8. Back Of A Car 9. I'm In Love With A Girl 10. O My Soul 11. Holocaust 12. My Life Is Right 13. Give Me Another Chance
"But sir, if you do not give your heart to Jesus, you cannot be saved."- The young pastor
"You are right, my boy. And it is just as true that, if you think you are saved because you give Jesus your heart, you will not be saved. You see, my boy," he continued reassuringly, as he continued to look at the young pastor's face, in which uncertainty and resentment were shown in a struggle for the upper hand, "it is one thing to choose Jesus as one's Lord and Savior, to give him one's heart and commit oneself to him, and that he now accepts one into his little flock; it is a very different thing to believe on him as a Redeemer of sinners, of whom one is chief. One does not choose a Redeemer for oneself, you understand, nor give one's heart to him. The heart is a rusty old can on a junk heap. A fine birthday gift, indeed! But a wonderful Lord passes by, and has mercy on the wretched tin can, sticks his walking cane through it, and rescues it from the junk pile and takes it home with him. That is how it is" -The Rector
Some of this is pretty standard P.C. stuff, but what costumes are left? In a school district in Illinois, students are being encouraged to dress up as historical characters or delicious food items rather than vampires or zombies. I am not making this up! A lot of this information can be found in a funny 
Posts
