KEEPER: "Why We Need More 'Chaplains' and Fewer Leaders"

Why We Need More 'Chaplains' and Fewer Leaders
What's a pastor for?
Mark Galli | posted 12/01/2011 10:41AM


In my email recently came another list of suggestions on how to tell if your church is healthy. The warning signs of a sick church were lack of outreach ministries, increasing dropout rate, church conflict, little corporate prayer, and finally, the pastor has become a chaplain.

It's becoming increasingly common to infer that when a pastor becomes a "chaplain," the church is in trouble. A few years ago, one website encouraging "innovative" ministry listed five types of pastors that a church might call: Catalytic, Cultivator, Conflict-Quelling, Chaplain, and Catatonic. The page clarified that "each of these types carries positives and negatives," but it seemed clear that the further one went down the list, the more problematic was the pastor. At the top of the list were Catalytic pastors, who are "gifted in the prophetic and tend to be charismatic leaders. These pastors have lots of energy and are focused on the mission of the church … that is, reaching the community for Jesus Christ. In the 'right' church, they'll grow it without a doubt."

A Chaplain pastor, on the other hand, was mired near the bottom. A Chaplain pastor is "wired for peace, harmony, and pastoral care. This is the type of pastor that has been produced by seminaries for several decades, though a few … a very few … seminaries are retooling. Chaplain pastors eschew change and value status quo. They don't want to stir the waters; rather, they want to bring healing to hurting souls." And if that weren't bad enough, "Chaplain pastors don't grow churches. In fact, a Chaplain pastor will hasten a congregation's demise because they tend to focus on those within the congregation rather than in bringing new converts to Jesus Christ."

The assumptions here are all too common, I'm afraid. So we hear in many quarters that pastors should be leaders, catalysts, and entrepreneurs, and the repeated slam about pastors who are mere chaplains.
* * *

This, of course, inadvertently denigrates every clergyperson who is literally a chaplain—in hospitals, in the military, and elsewhere, as if these ministers are second-class clergy. If they were real ministers, they'd be growing a megachurch. Instead, they are only good enough to "bring healing to hurting souls."

We find ourselves in an odd period of church history when many people have become so used to large, impersonal institutions that they want that in their church as well. Thus the attraction of megachurches, where people can blend in and not be seen if they want. Many thought leaders who ponder church life naturally end up championing massive institutions and denigrating (inadvertently, to be sure) the healing of hurting souls. And this in a community whose theology is supposedly grounded in the universal and cosmic love of God who gives attention to each of us as individuals.

There may be something else going on as well. A chaplain is a minister in the service of another. A chaplain at a hospital or in the military is clearly not the highest ranking member of the institution, clearly not the person in charge of running things. The chaplain's job is defined by service—service to the institution's needs and goals, service to the individuals who come for spiritual help. The chaplain prays for people in distress, administers sacraments to those in need, leads worship for those desperate for God. In short, the chaplain is at the beck and call of those who are hurting for God. He's not his own man. She is not her own woman. There's no mistaking a chaplain for an entrepreneurial leader, a catalyst for growth. No, the chaplain is unmistakably a servant.

In an increasingly secular, capitalist culture, it's understandable that so many clergy are fascinated with the idea that they can be leaders and entrepreneurs. These are the people our culture admires most—those like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or whoever has made a ton of money and a practical difference. I can appreciate this. When I was a pastor, I felt I gained more credibility with my church board—composed of mostly business people—when I could wax eloquent about the church's "decadal growth" and the need to "target a young demographic" and create "revenue models" that would "ensure long-term stability" for the church.

Such is the culture we live in, where successful business people seem to enjoy really important work, and pastors, if they are not careful, will be chaplains, mere servants.
* * *

It's interesting to note how much time and energy our Lord spent on "healing hurting souls." Take this typical summary in Matthew's gospel: "So his fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought him all the sick, those afflicted with various diseases and pains, those oppressed by demons, epileptics, and paralytics, and he healed them" (4:24, ESV). When Matthew wanted to sum up what Jesus did over and over, time and again with people, this is the sort of thing he said: "He healed them."

It's also interesting to note the way Jesus framed how his disciples should think about their ministries: "And Jesus called them to him and said to them, 'You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles like to be seen as "leaders," "entrepreneurs," "catalysts for growth," and their great ones exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many' " (Mark 10:42-45).

Okay, I paraphrased a bit. But I'm not convinced the paraphrase is false to the sense of Jesus' words. In any case, it seems clear that Jesus was a chaplain of souls, and that he encouraged his disciples to think of themselves in the same way.

One wonders where we got our other ideas about the pastorate. For centuries, the pastorate was thought to be about "the cure of souls"—souls being understood not as the spiritual part of us, but as the fullness of our humanity. The pastor has traditionally been thought of as one who does ministry in the midst of a people who are sick and dying, and who administers in word and sacrament, in Scripture and in prayer, the healing balm of the Lord.

So who told us that the pastor is primarily a leader/entrepreneur/change agent and anything but a curer of souls? And why do we believe them?
* * *

The good chaplain-pastor recognizes that the ministry of healing hurting souls has many dimensions. Take King David's chaplain, Nathan. It's clear that Nathan is at the beck and call of his king, and that he sees himself as a spiritual presence to comfort and affirm his patron. At one point, he tells David, "Go, do all that is in your heart, for the Lord is with you" (2 Sam. 7:3). But he also knew that if he was truly going to serve his king, he was going to have to challenge him from time to time—like when he confronted David about his adultery.

But note how pastoral even that conversation is: Nathan tells David that he has "despised the word of the Lord," and David admits, "I have sinned against the Lord." Nathan is acting as a chaplain, to heal the sinful soul of his king (2 Sam. 12).

o say that a pastor is first and foremost a chaplain—someone who is the Lord's means of healing—is not to suggest that his or her role is primarily therapeutic. It includes therapy-like moments, for example, in helping parishioners deal with their ordinary fears and worries. But it is fundamentally about the healing of souls—helping men and women, boys and girls, to become right with God, and therefore, right with others.

This will happen in a variety of ways, as the pastor leads worship and hears confession and simply spends time with the congregation. This happens even when presiding over those functions we tend to think are perfunctory. When the pastor is present, you see, people get this intuitive reminder that God is present. That often puts people on their best behavior—sometimes annoyingly so! But when the pastor communicates in word and deed the graciousness of God, the pastor's presence can be a great comfort to people. For it is by grace that we are healed.

Eugene Peterson put it this way in The Contemplative Pastor: "The primary language of the cure of souls … is conversation and prayer. Being a pastor means learning to use language in which personal uniqueness is enhanced and individual sanctity recognized and respected. It is a language that is unhurried, unforced, unexcited—the leisurely language of friends and lovers, which is also the language of prayer."

I've been a parishioner in many churches over many years. In each church, the pastor has been tempted, as I was, to become the great leader, to shape himself in our culture's image of success. To be sure, the modern pastor does have to "run a church"; he or she is, in fact, the head of an institution that has prosaic institutional needs. I've been thankful when my pastor carries out these institutional responsibilities with efficiency and joy.

But the times I remember most, the times when my troubled soul has been most deeply affected and moved—outside of preaching and receiving the sacraments—have been when my pastor acted like a chaplain. When he pulled me aside in the narthex, put his arm around me, and prayed with me about some matter. When he visited me in the hospital. When in unhurried conversation I felt less alone, because I knew in a deeper way that God was present.

Some say that pastoral moments like these are like germs, and if we let such moments take over, they'll make the church sick. I beg to differ. During such moments, the church is never more healthy.

Mark Galli is senior managing editor of Christianity Today, and author of Chaos and Grace: Discovering the Liberating Work of the Holy Spirit (Baker). He also blogs at www.markgalli.com.

Unfortunately, We're Not all Christians

Just read this, from the Salt Lake Tribune: 

We’re all Christians
First published Oct 22 2011 01:01AM
Updated Oct 22, 2011 01:01AM

Some Evangelical Christians are noising it about that Mitt Romney’s Mormonism is a new and frightening cult, far removed from traditional Christianity.

In fact, Mormons represent a tradition that was present in the beginning of the Christian faith. Mormons believe in a separation of the personalities of God the Father and the Son, while most Catholics and Protestants believe they are one and the same.

This idea of physical distinction between the two deities goes back to the early Christian church’s Arian wing, which was a quite large minority segment of Christianity. At times, Arians were the established or preferred denomination of Roman and Byzantine emperors and their realms.

When politically motivated church people wag tongues and shake fingers today at Mormons, making them seem like second-class citizens, they display a degree of ignorance of this history. They also act like religious bullies, lording it over a minority just because they can. This invites the question, are they truly Christian?

Kim Shinkoskey
Woods Cross

This is my response:

Wow. Arius was twice deemed a heretic, first by the First Council of Nicea in 325, and then again by the First Council of Constantinople in 381. How very postmodern of this writer to think that just because Arianism was a "marginalized" view that it should be approved. By this reasoning, the LDS should abandon their views and embrace the RLDS/CofC understanding of the Trinity as three persons in one substance, their refusal to baptize the dead, and their conviction that men do not become gods. The CofC is, after all, a minority compared to the LDS! 

That said, I think it is quite possible that we will see our Mormon friends at the great feast...it's just that I don't think they are justified in saying that they represent traditional, orthodox Christianity.

For more information about the differences between the LDS and RLDS/Cof C, look here

Creativity's letter to Christianity, and a response from a forgotten lover

The following is A letter to Christianity from Creativity" found at Matthew Paul Turner's blog, "Jesus needs new PR."

Hi Christianity,

It’s me, Creativity. Listen, I got your text message last week. I also heard from Social Media that you really wanted to talk to me. And according to Statistics, you need me. I’d like to see you again, but honestly, I’m torn about whether or not I want to work with you again.

Now, I’d be lying if I said that I didn’t miss you sometimes. You’re sort of like Tom Cruise–completely nuts, yet intriguing enough to still want to watch you on Oprah.

Now, regarding your text message, of course I remember the good times working together.

We had lots of fun back then. I remember fondly the day I hooked you up with Michelangelo. Gosh, you absolutely loved what Mitch dabbed on the ceiling of The Sistine Chapel. And you just about walked on water when you saw his painting of The Last Judgment. Sure, we had a mishap or two. Yes, David’s penis should have been circumcised; still, that sculpture is one of the most magnificent erections the world has ever seen.

Oh, and your God loved what I was able to whip up through Bach, Mozart, and Handel. But honestly, back then, finding good musical talent among God’s people was easy, like looking for homely Jehovah’s Witnesses. Still, I helped you discover the cream of God’s musical crop.

And then there was Rembrandt who often made you look brilliant. And of course, Da Vinci! He was a pain in the ass to work with, but when we were able to get him to stop wasting his time on science, the art was usually well worth the wait.

Heck, Christianity, in our heyday, you and I were unstoppable. People called us the Abraham and Sarah of the Modern Times! Yes, you were angrier back then. And I didn’t like the fact that you killed people. But ironically, you were much easier to work with. Fighting wars, governing nations, and roasting heathens over an open fire kept you preoccupied and out of my hair. And back then, I knew what you wanted from me. Even though I didn’t always agree with your politics and theologies, and yes, you were sexist and racist and utterly hypocritical, but I did what you asked me to do: I looked for new ways to tell the stories of God. And I did it well.

Let’s face it; the art I helped you create is pretty much one of the very few redeeming qualities of your reign across Europe. And much of it is still appreciated today.

But then the Puritans happened. And while they loved you, they also wanted Freedom. And as much as you promote Freedom, let’s be honest, you don’t like her all that much. Surprisingly, Freedom has done wonders for me. She’s pretty, talented, mostly fantastic, really. And flexible, which is very hot. I think she might have a drug problem, but she doesn’t interfere with my work, so I love her. But it seems that, ever since Freedom and I became friends, my relationship with you has been a bumpy mess. You basically walked out on me during the late 19th century. Do you remember why?! Because I wouldn’t help you sell your “rapture” idea. I don’t create sensationalized fear, Christianity-well, I don’t unless it’s a horror flick or science fiction or something produced by JJ Abrams. Besides, we’d already spent centuries–long, dark, and ugly ones–promoting your whole “God/fear” thing. I’m over it, and so is everybody else.

At best, our relationship has been bumpy since the late 1950s. And we’ve gone our separate ways a few times. You spent years revitalizing fundamentalism. And I spent time in London discovering the Beatles. Both of us have made our mistakes: You started whoring around with the Republican Party and you told Michael W. Smith he could sing. But to be fair, I made the mistake of loving heroin and thinking that Elizabeth Shue had talent.

Now, that’s not to say we haven’t experienced a couple moments of Pentecostal glory. We wrote a few decent songs together. Switchfoot was fun. But I take no responsibility for Chris Tomlin. And I’ve enjoyed working on a few books with you. In my mind, Joel Osteen is one of the best fiction writers out there. If only he knew it!

But if the rumors are true, that you are indeed interested in working with me again, I’m interested. But I must be blunt, things will need to be different. So before you write back, please consider the following list of ideals.

1) Building a healthy and productive relationship with me begins with this: Give me a good story to tell, preferably a true one, and one that doesn’t conclude with a sales pitch. I’m not Capitalism; I don’t do sales, at least, not the kind that come with eternal damnation. I tell stories. I present truth. I entertain.

2) If you want me to be brilliant and imaginative and to do it on a ministry budget, then trust me. Give me the freedom to tell the stories that you want told. I don’t work well when I’m stressed, paranoid, and fear-filled.

3) When the morality police come to you and complain about my work, I expect you to grow a pair and support me once in a while. I will not create my best work if you continually fall prey to the one person who throws a fit about what I do. No, I don’t want you to cut off their heads. I want you to stop letting them cut off mine.

4) I don’t do Amish fiction, bald eagles, or Michelle Bachmann.

5) The truth is sometimes ugly. When you leave out the ugly parts of a story, it ceases to be the truth. Let me tell the truth.

6) Most importantly, you must learn to say no to Kirk Cameron.

Here’s the thing, Christianity: Putting roadblocks up in front of me doesn’t simply prevent me from being my best at presenting you, it actually leaves me empty. Offering me guidelines and hints and direction is fine, but mandating how I tell a story or paint a picture has never been your gift and it only stifles mine.

Look forward to hearing back,

Creativity

This is the response from Creativity's forgotten lover:

Dear Creativity…

You seem to have amnesia…that was no one night stand we had together! We went together for nearly 1500 YEARS! Have you forgotten us?!!!??? We know that modernism and nominalism split right brain from left, head from heart, faith from reason, earth from heaven, fact from value, and all other sorts of nasty either/ors. But we never were part of that scene. Please, please, don’t ignore us. We loved you, and we continue to love you. Let us together inspire Christianity once again.

–Love,

Hagia Sophia,Sant’Appolinare Nuovo, San Vitale, the Byzantine mosaics and icons, the Romanesque Cathedrals, the Gothic cathedrals, innumerable illuminated manuscripts, Utrecht Psalter, the Dagulf Psalter, Gregorian Chant, Stained Glass artists of Chartres,etc., Dante, Cimabue, Duccio, Giotto, the Wilton Diptych,The Limbourg brothers, Gillaume de Machaut, Francesco Landini (and other Christian artists of late antiquity and the Middle Ages)

Why evangelicals reject reason, or, Catholics have an easier time

A friend pointed out this article from the New York Times:

The Evangelical Rejection of Reason
By KARL W. GIBERSON and RANDALL J. STEPHENS
Published: October 17, 2011


THE Republican presidential field has become a showcase of evangelical anti-intellectualism. Herman Cain, Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann deny that climate change is real and caused by humans. Mr. Perry and Mrs. Bachmann dismiss evolution as an unproven theory. The two candidates who espouse the greatest support for science, Mitt Romney and Jon M. Huntsman Jr., happen to be Mormons, a faith regarded with mistrust by many Christians.


The rejection of science seems to be part of a politically monolithic red-state fundamentalism, textbook evidence of an unyielding ignorance on the part of the religious. As one fundamentalist slogan puts it, “The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it.” But evangelical Christianity need not be defined by the simplistic theology, cultural isolationism and stubborn anti-intellectualism that most of the Republican candidates have embraced.


Like other evangelicals, we accept the centrality of faith in Jesus Christ and look to the Bible as our sacred book, though we find it hard to recognize our religious tradition in the mainstream evangelical conversation. Evangelicalism at its best seeks a biblically grounded expression of Christianity that is intellectually engaged, humble and forward-looking. In contrast, fundamentalism is literalistic, overconfident and reactionary.


Fundamentalism appeals to evangelicals who have become convinced that their country has been overrun by a vast secular conspiracy; denial is the simplest and most attractive response to change. They have been scarred by the elimination of prayer in schools; the removal of nativity scenes from public places; the increasing legitimacy of abortion and homosexuality; the persistence of pornography and drug abuse; and acceptance of other religions and of atheism.


In response, many evangelicals created what amounts to a “parallel culture,” nurtured by church, Sunday school, summer camps and colleges, as well as publishing houses, broadcasting networks, music festivals and counseling groups. Among evangelical leaders, Ken Ham, David Barton and James C. Dobson have been particularly effective orchestrators — and beneficiaries — of this subculture.


Mr. Ham built his organization, Answers in Genesis, on the premise that biblical truth trumps all other knowledge. His Creation Museum, in Petersburg, Ky., contrasts “God’s Word,” timeless and eternal, with the fleeting notions of “human reason.” This is how he knows that the earth is 10,000 years old, that humans and dinosaurs lived together, and that women are subordinate to men. Evangelicals who disagree, like Francis S. Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health, are excoriated on the group’s Web site. (In a recent blog post, Mr. Ham called us “wolves” in sheep’s clothing, masquerading as Christians while secretly trying to destroy faith in the Bible.)


Mr. Barton heads an organization called WallBuilders, dedicated to the proposition that the founders were evangelicals who intended America to be a Christian nation. He has emerged as a highly influential Republican leader, a favorite of Mr. Perry, Mrs. Bachmann and members of the Tea Party. Though his education consists of a B.A. in religious education from Oral Roberts University and his scholarly blunders have drawn criticism from evangelical historians like John Fea, Mr. Barton has seen his version of history reflected in everything from the Republican Party platform to the social science curriculum in Texas.


Mr. Dobson, through his group Focus on the Family, has insisted for decades that homosexuality is a choice and that gay people could “pray away” their unnatural and sinful orientation. A defender of spanking children and of traditional roles for the sexes, he has accused the American Psychological Association, which in 2000 disavowed reparative therapy to “cure” homosexuality, of caving in to gay pressure.


Charismatic leaders like these project a winsome personal testimony as brothers in Christ. Their audiences number in the tens of millions. They pepper their presentations with so many Bible verses that their messages appear to be straight out of Scripture; to many, they seem like prophets, anointed by God.


But in fact their rejection of knowledge amounts to what the evangelical historian Mark A. Noll, in his 1994 book, “The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind,” described as an “intellectual disaster.” He called on evangelicals to repent for their neglect of the mind, decrying the abandonment of the intellectual heritage of the Protestant Reformation. “The scandal of the evangelical mind,” he wrote, “is that there is not much of an evangelical mind.”


There are signs of change. Within the evangelical world, tensions have emerged between those who deny secular knowledge, and those who have kept up with it and integrated it with their faith. Almost all evangelical colleges employ faculty members with degrees from major research universities — a conduit for knowledge from the larger world. We find students arriving on campus tired of the culture-war approach to faith in which they were raised, and more interested in promoting social justice than opposing gay marriage.


Scholars like Dr. Collins and Mr. Noll, and publications like Books & Culture, Sojourners and The Christian Century, offer an alternative to the self-anointed leaders. They recognize that the Bible does not condemn evolution and says next to nothing about gay marriage. They understand that Christian theology can incorporate Darwin’s insights and flourish in a pluralistic society.


Americans have always trusted in God, and even today atheism is little more than a quiet voice on the margins. Faith, working calmly in the lives of Americans from George Washington to Barack Obama, has motivated some of America’s finest moments. But when the faith of so many Americans becomes an occasion to embrace discredited, ridiculous and even dangerous ideas, we must not be afraid to speak out, even if it means criticizing fellow Christians.


Karl W. Giberson is a former professor of physics, and Randall J. Stephens is an associate professor of history, both at Eastern Nazarene College. They are the authors of “The Anointed: Evangelical Truth in a Secular Age.”

Here's my response, after reading the above article: 

Mark Noll wrote "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind" in 1995. Things haven't changed much, have they?

Protestantism has always had a complicated relationship with the mind. Recall Luther's 1569 Table Talk: “Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but—more frequently than not—struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.” Then there's this little gem: "Reason is the Devil's greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil's appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom ... Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism... She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets."
Martin Luther, Erlangen Edition v. 16, pp. 142-148. Also,

Calvinists have a more difficult time articulating their nuanced attitude toward the mind, because they hold differing interpretations of the extent and the degree to which man has been corrupted by original sin. See this . Furthermore, it is harder to hold a balance between faith and reason when one stresses the "sensus divinitatus" as the means of knowing God, and denies argument and disputation a role in that process. Ultimately, for Calvinists, faith is "beyond reason;" See this. For those whose Calvinism is more loosely held, or more remote (for example, many Baptists and non-denominational types) a "faith beyond reason" can easily slip into being a "faith AGAINST reason."

No doubt, Catholics have had their share of Jacopone da Todi's, mystics, and holy tortillas...but they've never been able to completely repudiate the "both-and" orientation of Thomas Aquinas toward faith and reason. I know many Catholics who are infuriated by American Catholic politicians, whose spiritual formation reflects more of Protestant nominalism/modernism/anti-intellectualism than their own tradition. But at least they can appeal to their tradition, which is not anti-intellectual, in criticizing those politicians. I envy them.

Jonathan Sacks on the Tenth Anniversary of 9/11

Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sack's response to the tenth anniversary of 9/11: Let's rebuild the West's moral authority

TWO things have haunted me since 9/11. The first is the pain, the grief, the lives lost and families devastated, the sheer barbaric ingenuity of evil. The scar in our humanity is still unhealed.

The second is our failure to understand what Osama bin Laden was saying about the West. We did not hear the message then. I'm not sure we hear it now.

After the shock and grief subsided, two theories began to be heard. Firstly, this was an event of epoch-changing magnitude. The terms of international politics had been transformed. The Cold War was over. Another war had begun. The enemy was not the Soviet Union and communism. It was radical, political Islam.

The second was the opposite: 9/11 was terrifying and terrible but it changed nothing because acts of terror never do. The most important thing is not to overreact. Terror may bring dividends in local conflicts but it never succeeds in its larger political aims.

There is something to be said for both theories. But there is a third: why did al-Qa'ida attack the US? Because it believed it could. Because it thought the US was past its prime, no longer as lean and hungry as it believed it was.

Robert McNamara said the first rule in politics is to understand your enemy's psychology. As I struggled to understand 9/11 I began to suspect the answer lay in the events of 1989. That is when the narratives of the West and the rest began seriously to diverge.

In the West, 1989 was seen as the collapse of communism, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the implosion of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. The Western narrative was triumphalist. It saw those events as heralding the victory of its values without a shot being fired. The free market and liberal democratic politics had won for the simplest of reasons. They delivered, while communism did not. They would now spread across the world. It was, said Francis Fukuyama, the beginning of the end of history.

There was, though, another narrative that said the Soviet Union collapsed not because of the triumph of liberal democracy but because of the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan earlier that year. It had invaded in 1979 and was forced to withdraw, not because of superpower politics but because of the determined resistance of a small group of highly motivated religious warriors, the mujaheddin and their helpers. That, historically, is the event that captured the imagination of bin Laden. According to this account, the humiliating retreat of the Soviet Army set in motion a series of internal crises that resulted in the fall of a great power. If one of the world's two superpowers was vulnerable to asymmetric warfare -- the war of the few against the many -- why not the other, America itself? What 1989 represented was not the end of history but the end of a history dominated by the twin superpowers of communist Russia and capitalist America. Both were vulnerable because both were overripe and about to fall from the tree. Much excitement was felt in the West by the failure of communism. Less attention was paid to what Daniel Bell called the cultural contradictions of capitalism.

Throughout this period there were voices that few seemed to be listening to. The philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre in his 1981 masterwork After Virtue argued that the moral discourse of the West had broken down.

The "Enlightenment project" of a purely rational ethic had failed -- not because there was no such thing, but because there were too many. They clashed inconclusively and people were left with a sense that morality is whatever you think it is.

His minatory warning was: "The barbarians are not waiting beyond the frontiers; they have already been governing us for quite some time." That was a scary thing to hear from one of the world's great philosophers. I soon began to hear it from other leading intellectuals also, such as Philip Rieff, Christopher Lasch and Robert Bellah.

That is what I heard in the echoes of 9/11: that all great civilisations eventually decline, and when they begin to do so they are vulnerable. That is what bin Laden believed about the West and so did some of the West's own greatest minds.

If so, then 9/11 belongs to a wider series of phenomena affecting the West: the disintegration of the family, the demise of authority, the build-up of personal debt, the collapse of financial institutions, the downgrading of the American economy, the continuing failure of some European economies, the loss of a sense of honour, loyalty and integrity.

These are all signs of the arteriosclerosis of a culture, a civilisation grown old. Whenever Me takes precedence over We, and pleasure today over viability tomorrow, a society is in trouble. If so, then the enemy is not radical Islam, it is us and our, by now unsustainable, self-indulgence.

The West has expended much energy and courage fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq abroad and defeating terror at home. It has spent far less, if any, in renewing its own morality and the institutions -- families, communities, ethical codes, standards in public life -- where it is created and sustained. But if I am right, this is the West's greatest weakness in the eyes of its enemies as well as its friends. The only way to save the world is to begin with ourselves. Our burden after 9/11 is to renew the moral disciplines of freedom. Some say it can't be done. They are wrong: it can and must. Surely we owe the dead no less.

Lord Sacks is the Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth.

The worst day in history was not 9/11

"It was shattering to admit that we had lost the theological means to distinguish between the United States and the kingdom of God. The criminals who perpetrated 9/11 and the flag-waving boosters of our almost exclusively martial response were of one mind: that the nonviolent way of Jesus is stupid. All of us preachers share the shame; when our people felt very vulnerable, they reached for the flag, not the Cross.

September 11 has changed me. I'm going to preach as never before about Christ crucified as the answer to the question of what's wrong with the world. I have also resolved to relentlessly reiterate from the pulpit that the worst day in history was not a Tuesday in New York, but a Friday in Jerusalem when a consortium of clergy and politicians colluded to run the world on our own terms by crucifying God's own Son.
--William Willimon, Christianity Today, "How Evangelical Leaders Have Changed Since 9/11"

Choose this day whom you will serve: Ayn Rand or.Jesus?

Christians Must Choose: Ayn Rand or Jesus

GOP leaders and conservative pundits have brought upon themselves a crisis of values. Many who for years have been the loudest voices invoking the language of faith and moral values are now praising the atheist philosopher Ayn Rand whose teachings stand in direct contradiction to the Bible. Rand advocates a law of selfishness over love and commands her followers to think only of themselves, not others. She said her followers had to choose between Jesus and her teachings.

GOP leaders want to argue that they are defending Christian principles. But, at the same time, Rep. Paul Ryan (author of the GOP budget) is posting facebook videos praising Rand’s morality and saying hers is the “kind of thinking that is sorely needed right now.” Simply put, Paul Ryan can’t have it both ways, and neither can Christians. As conservative evangelical icon Chuck Colson recently stated, Christians can not support Rand’s philosophy and Christ’s teachings. The choice is simple: Ayn Rand or Jesus Christ. We must choose one and forsake the other.

Look here for the links below:

Ayn Rand: The GOP’s Favorite Bonkers Demagogue- The Daily Beast

Is Ayn Rand A Political Liability?- The New Republic

Heightening The Republican Contradictions- The Daily Beast

Paul Ryan’s Ayn Rand Problem- Time

Budget Battle Pits Atheist Ayn Rand vs. Jesus- Religion News Service

Column: You can’t reconcile Ayn Rand and Jesus- USA Today

Letters: We have strayed too far from Christian values- East Valley Tribune

Ayn Rand, the GOP and Libertarian’s Foundation, and Jesus- Unsettled Christianity

The GOP Must Decide: Ayn Rand or Jesus- Huffington Post

Choosing Ayn Rand or Jesus- The American Spectator

Must Christian Voters Choose Between Ayn Rand and Jesus?- The Atlantic

Ayn Rand ‘Atheists’ vs. Liberal Christians; A Battle of Dogma- The Examiner

Rand Paul, other Republicans can’t have it both ways on Ayn Rand – Courier-Journal

Ayn Rand: The GOP’s Godless Philospher – Time

St. Justin Martyr

 Today is the feast day of St. Justin Martyr (ca. 100-ca. 166),  the patron saint of philosophers. James Keifer gives a brief biography here, while the Orthodox Church of America gives a fuller discussion here.

The son of a Greek couple in Samaria, Justin went on to become the first gentile Christian apologist. As a young man searching for truth, he encountered representatives of various schools of philosophy: Stoics, Cynics, a greedy Peripatetic, Pythagoreans  who insisted he first study music, astronomy and gometry, and finally Platonists.  But one day, he met an old man on the seashore who told him about Christ: the Logos, the Way, the Truth, the Life.
Justin came to faith, was baptized at age 30 and thereafter became a sort of intellectual missionary to pagans.  Justin wrote agianst Marcion, and rejected gnosticism and sophistry. He composed two Apologies, one to Emperor Antonius Pius and one to the Roman senate. He debated Rabbi Trypho in Ephesus. His Assyrian pupil,  Tatian, went on to compose the first harmony of the gospels.

Justin's genius was to see the gospel as the "true philosophy." In the question of the relation of faith and reason, Justin stands firmly in the middle. Pagan thought is unable to save us; but Christians do not have to reject all pagan thought. Reason is necessary, but not sufficient. All truth is God's truth.  Faith in Jesus Christ takes us on to the complete Truth we long for, but does not contradict the truth that is given to us through  natural revelation. 

St. Justin is honored by both Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians. The latter remember him in song:

Troparion (Tone 4)

O Justin, teacher of divine knowledge,
You shone with the radiance of true philosophy.
You were wisely armed against the enemy.
Confessing the truth you contended alongside the martyrs,
With them, ever entreat Christ our God to save our souls!

Kontakion (Tone 2)

The whole Church of God is adorned with the wisdom of your divine words, O Justin;
The world is enlightened by the radiance of your life.
By the shedding of your blood, you have received a crown.
As you stand before Christ with the angels, pray unceasingly for us all!

Evangelicals and Memorial Day

(This is what I wrote to my uncle, who is a deacon in the Catholic church, as a preface to the article below.)

I don't know what it is like for Catholics, but this is a real problem for lots of us who are evangelicals. Many of us celebrate the civic year instead of the Church Year: Mother's Day, Memorial Day, Father's Day, Fourth of July, Labor Day, Veteran's Day, Harvest Festival (the evangelical alternative for Halloween.) We also do not have a formal liturgy, like the Catholics or Orthodox, which would prescribe the texts and practices for our worship. Thus we often mistake our own concerns for those of the Spirit. All this can tempt us to put country before God.

Finally, because Protestants tend to have a more individualistic understanding of their faith, when De Young uses the word "church" below, it might be a worthwhile exercise to substitute "any particular Christian..."

Thinking Theologically About Memorial Day


Posted By Kevin DeYoung On May 26, 2011 @ 5:26 am

This is post probably has something to make everyone unhappy. But here goes.

With Memorial Day on Monday (in the U.S.) and, no doubt, a number of patriotic services scheduled for this Sunday, I want to offer a few theses on patriotism and the church. Each of these points could be substantially expanded and beg more detailed defense and explanation, but since this is a blog and not a term paper, I’ll try to keep this under 1500 words.

1. Being a Christian does not remove ethnic and national identities.

In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free (Gal. 3:28), but this does not mean men cease to be male or Jews ceases to be Jewish. The worshiping throng gathered around the throne is not a bland mess of Esperanto Christians in matching khaki pants and white polos. God makes us one in Christ, but that oneness does not mean we can no longer recognize tribes, tongues, nations, and peoples in heaven. If you don’t have to renounce being an American in heaven, you shouldn’t have to pretend you aren’t one now.

2. Patriotism, like other earthly “prides,” can be a virtue or vice.

Most people love their families. Many people love their schools, their home, and their sports teams. All of these loves can be appropriate. In making us for himself, God did mean to eradicate all other loves. Instead he wants those loves to be purer and in right proportion to our ultimate Love. Adam and Eve should have loved the Garden. God didn’t intend for them to be so “spiritual” that they were blind to the goodness around them. In the same way, where there is good in our country or family it is right to have affection and display affection for those good things.

Of course, we can turn patriotism into an idol, just like family can be an idol. But being proud of your country (or proud to be an American or a Canadian or a Russian or whatever) is not inherently worse than being proud of your kids or proud to be a Smith or a Jones or a Dostoevsky. I find it strange that while it is fashionable to love your city, be proud of your city, and talk about transforming your city, it is, for some of the same people, quite gauche to love your country, be proud of your country, and talk about transforming your country.

3. Allegiance to God and allegiance to your country are not inherently incompatible.

Sometimes Christians talk like you should have no loyalty for your country, as if love for your country was always a bad thing. To be sure, this must never be ultimate loyalty. We must always obey God rather than men. But most Christians have understood the fifth commandment to be about honoring not only your parents but all those in authority over you.

Moreover, Jesus shows its possible to honor God and honor Caesar. This is especially clear if you know some of the Jewish history. The tax in question in Mark 12 is about the poll tax or census tax. It was first instituted in AD 6, not too many years before Jesus’ ministry. When it was established a man by the name of Judas of Galilee led a revolt. According to Josephus, “He called his fellow countrymen cowards for being willing to pay tribute to the Romans and for putting up with mortal masters in place of God.” Like the Zealots, he believed allegiance to God and allegiance to any earthly government were fundamentally incompatible. As far as they were concerned if God was your king, you couldn’t have an earthly king.

But Jesus completely disagreed. By telling the people to “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” he was saying there are duties to government that do not infringe on your ultimate duty to God. It’s possible to honor lesser authorities in good conscience because they have been instituted by a greater authority.

If you read all that the New Testament says about governing authorities in places like Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2, you see that the normal situation is one of compatible loyalties. The church is not the state and the state is not God, but this does not mean the church must always be against the state. In general, then, it’s possible to be a good Christian and a good American, or a good Ghanaian or a good Korean. Patriotism is not bad. Singing your national anthem and getting choked up is not bad. Allegiance to God and allegiance to your country do not have to be at odds.

4. God’s people are not tied to any one nation.

When Jesus says “go ahead and give to Caesar what belongs to him” he is effectively saying, “you can support nations that do not formally worship the one true God.” Or to put it a different way: true religion is not bound with only one country. This means–as we see in Revelation 7 and Isaiah 49 and Psalm 87 and Matthew 28 and Acts 1and a hundred other places–the Church will be transcultural and transnational.

While American churches are in America, they must never be only American churches. We must keep in mind (and when applicable, explicitly state) that our congregations are filled with brothers and sisters from all over the world. Likewise, we must work hard to help people see that Christianity is not just a Western religion or American religion. Christianity started in the Middle East and quickly spread to North Africa, and parts of Asia and Europe. The Church was always meant to be international. Today there are more Anglicans in church in Nigeria than in England, more Presbyterians in South Korea than in the United States. The promise to Abraham way back in Genesis is that through his family God would bless the whole world. Christianity is not tied to just one certain nation. Following Christ is not an ethnic thing. You can be from any country and worship Jesus.

5. All this leads to one final point: while patriotism can be good, the church is not a good place for patriotism.

We should pray for service men and women in our congregations. We should pray for the President. We should pray for the just cause to triumph over the evil one. We are not moral relativists. We do not believe just because all people are sinners and all nations are sinful that no person or no nation can be more righteous or more wicked than another. God may be on America’s side in some (not all) her endeavors.

But please think twice before putting on a Star Spangled gala in church this Sunday. I love to hear the national anthem and “God Bless America” and “My Country, Tis of Thee,” but not in church where the nations gather to worship the King of all peoples. I love to see the presentation of colors and salute our veterans, but these would be better at the Memorial Day parade or during a time of remembrance at the cemetery. Earthly worship should reflect the on-going worship in heaven. And while there are many Americans singing glorious songs to Jesus there, they are not singing songs about the glories of America. We must hold to the traditions of the Apostles in our worship, not the traditions of American history. The church should not ask of her people what is not required in Scripture. So how can we ask the Koreans and Chinese and Mexicans and South Africans in our churches to pledge allegiance to a flag that is not theirs? Are we gathered under the banner of Christ or another banner? Is the church of Jesus Christ–our Jewish Lord and Savior–for those draped in the red, white, and blue or for those washed in the blood of the Lamb?

In some parts of the church, every hint of patriotism makes you a jingoistic idolater. You are allowed to love every country except your own. But in other parts of the church, true religion blends too comfortably into civil religion. You are allowed to worship in our services as long as you love America as much as we do. I don’t claim to have arrived at the golden mean, but I imagine many churches could stand to think more carefully about their theology of God and country. Churches should be glad to have their members celebrate Memorial Day with gusto this Monday. We should be less sanguine about celebrating it with pomp and circumstance on Sunday.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The comments are worth reading just as much as the article...

Meditation for Good Friday: Invisible Hands Don't Bleed

Adam Smith wrote about the invisible hand of the market, created by the conjunction of the forces of self-interest, competition, and supply and demand.  However, some Christians seem to view the invisible hand as the very hand of God.  Others are idolatrous in a different way: they worship the invisible hand instead of God, trusting it to miraculously produce a better world for all. Jim Wallis' comments at the 2009 World Economic Forum in Davos are as relevant today as they were then:

We have trusted in “the invisible hand” to make everything turn out all right, believing that it wasn’t necessary for us to bring virtue to bear on our decisions. But things haven’t turned out all right and the invisible hand has let go of some things, such as “the common good.” The common good hasn’t been very common in our economic decision-making for some time now. And things have spun out of control....


...Gandhi’s seven deadly social sins seem an accurate diagnosis for some of the causes of this crisis:  “politics without principle, wealth without work, commerce without morality, pleasure without conscience, education without character, science without humanity, and worship without sacrifice.”

On Friday, we will remember the Lamb of God, who was not an invisible hand, but the very Word and Image of God, incarnate.  He took on the sins of individuals, and societies, sacrificing Himself to redeem us, and forgiving us for trusting and worshipping false gods. An invisible hand doesn't itself bleed; it  bleeds others. However, Christ's hands bled, bled for our greed and pride and envy.

After His resurrection, his hands still bore the marks of that sacrifice. He invites us to be transformed: to replace our self-interest with love for God and neighbor; to quit competing and find agreement and cooperation through His Spirit; to trust him to supply our needs.

When I survey the wondrous cross

On which the Prince of glory died,

My richest gain I count but loss,

And pour contempt on all my pride.

Forbid it, Lord, that I should boast,

Save in the death of Christ my God!

All the vain things that charm me most,

I sacrifice them to His blood.

See from His head, His hands, His feet,

Sorrow and love flow mingled down!

Did e’er such love and sorrow meet,

Or thorns compose so rich a crown?

His dying crimson, like a robe,

Spreads o’er His body on the tree;

Then I am dead to all the globe,

And all the globe is dead to me.

Were the whole realm of nature mine,

That were a present far too small;

Love so amazing, so divine,

Demands my soul, my life, my all.

Americans see Christianity, capitalism clash

By Nicole Neroulias

Are Christianity and capitalism a marriage made in heaven, as some conservatives believe, or more of a strained relationship in need of some serious couples' counseling?

A new poll released Thursday found that more Americans (44 %) see the free market system at odds with Christian values than those who don't (36 %), whether they are white evangelicals, mainline Protestants, Catholics or minority Christians.

But in other demographic breakdowns, several categories lean the other way: Republicans and Tea Party members, college graduates and members of high-income households view the systems as more compatible than not.

The poll, conducted by Public Religion Research Institute in partnership with Religion News Service, found that although conservative Christians and evangelicals tend to want their clergy to speak out on issues like abortion and homosexuality, they also tend to hold left-of-center views on some economic issues.

"Throughout the Bible, we see numerous passages about being our brother's keeper, welcoming the stranger, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and healing the sick," said Andrew Walsh, author of Religion, Economics and Public Policy and a religion professor at Culver-Stockton College.

"The idea that we are autonomous individuals competing for limited resources without concern for the welfare of others is a philosophy that is totally alien to the Bible, and in my view, antithetical to genuine Christianity."

The findings add a new wrinkle to national debates over the size and role of government, and raise questions about the impact of the Tea Party's cut-the-budget pressure on the GOP and its traditional base of religious conservatives.

The poll found stronger religious distinctions over the question of businesses acting ethically without government regulation, and whether faith leaders should speak out about economic concerns such as the budget deficit and the minimum wage.

White evangelicals (44 %) are more likely than other Christians or the general population to believe that unregulated businesses would still behave ethically, and they place a higher priority on religious leaders speaking out about social issues over economic concerns.

Minority Christians, in contrast, believe clergy should be vocal about both areas — particularly on the economic issue of home foreclosures, which 76 % considered important, compared to 46 % of the general population.

"Minority Christians have a deep theological tradition of connecting faith and economic justice, and we see that link in the survey," said Robert P. Jones, CEO of Public Religion Research Institute. "Because minorities in the U.S. generally continue to have lower incomes than whites, economic issues are also more salient in these congregations."

In other findings:

•Half of women believe that capitalism and Christian values are at odds, compared to 37 % of men.

•A majority (53 %) of Democrats believe capitalism and Christian values are at odds, compared to 37 % of Republicans and 41 % of independents. A majority (56 %) of Tea Party members say capitalism is consistent with Christian values.

•Nearly half (46 %) of Americans with household incomes of $100,000 a year or more believe that capitalism is consistent with Christian values, compared to just 23 % of those with household incomes of $30,000 a year or less.

• Most Americans (61 %) disagree that businesses would act ethically on their own without regulation from the government. White evangelicals (44 %) are more likely than Catholics (36 %), white mainline (33 %) or minority Christians (34 %) to say unregulated businesses would act ethically.

"The most idolatrous claim of the Christian right is that the invisible hand of the free market ... is none other than the hand of God," Walsh said, "and any attempt to regulate the free market, according to this theology, belies a lack of faith in God."


The Rev. Jennifer Butler, executive director of the Washington-based group Faith in Public Life, said the fact that religious values seem to trump political or class differences can help groups like hers advocate for the poor.

And in ongoing debates in Washington over the budget and cuts to domestic spending, that means "making the wealthiest Americans and corporations pay their fair share in taxes" she said.

"People of faith have a unique ability to show political leaders that the economy is a moral issue," she said. "Even some members of Congress are beginning to echo our argument that protecting the most vulnerable as we get out of debt is a moral duty."

The PRRI/RNS Religion News Poll was based on telephone interviews of 1,010 U.S. adults between April 14 and 17. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

The Wages of Nominalism...

"For as (a man) thinks within himself, so he is." --Proverbs 23:7 (NASB)


Heather Havrilesky's review of the film, Limitless, questions the culture's current obsession with individualism, overachievement, egocentricism. She asks, "Who's to blame for this state of affairs?" Christians give a fuller answer than she does.  Before there were helicopter parents and tiger moms, before Reaganomics, Oprah and Sedona sweatlodges, there was the Fall: "For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened." (Rom. 1:21).

Paul goes on to discuss how God gave humans over to the sinful desires of their hearts. I wonder if Paul would agree that He gave us over to sinful ideas? The history of philosophy is scattered with all kinds of futile thinking. In my opinion, one of  the most deadly is a way of looking at the world called "Nominalism."   If one's ethic is a result of one's metaphysic, then perhaps the egoism that Havrilesky decries can be traced back to this intellectual error.

John 15:
9 “As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. 10 If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commands and remain in his love. 11 I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. 12 My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. 14 You are my friends if you do what I command. 15 I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. 16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you. 17 This is my command: Love each other.

In the end, we are faced with a simple choice: through Jesus Christ, to be friends with God and all His creatures; or to be alone. Sartre was wrong: Hell is not other people, hell is Sola Self.





'Limitless,' Oprah, and Charlie Sheen: The Scary Side of Super-Sized Ambition
By Heather Havrilesky
Mar 18 2011, 10:35 AM
 The new Bradley Cooper film, about a power-obsessed writer-turned-Wall-Street-trader, raises the question: Has individualism gone too far?

Do we want too much? Now that blind ambition no longer carries the slightest taint and the term "sell-out" holds no meaning, now that earnest young men sing not of love but of "want(ing) to be a billionaire so frickin' bad," now that narcissistic outbursts and trips to rehab are tantamount to self-promotion, now that, on blogs and Facebook and Twitter, millions of self-branding voices cry out and are never silenced, now that reaching for the stars is encountered less, by young people, as euphemism than high-priority action item, it may be time to question, at long last, the reigning ethos of super-sized individualism.

This perspective manifests itself dramatically in the movie Limitless, where all-consuming ambition is depicted as a supreme blessing from on high, even as it seems to erase every trace of soul and human connection in those who are thusly blessed. A blocked writer named Eddie (Bradley Cooper) discovers a miracle drug that has him decluttering his apartment, then his life, and finally, using his drug-induced high-speed analysis to game the stock market. You'd imagine that such a twist would be a bit harder to cheer on in the wake of the financial meltdown than it was back in 2001 when Alan Glynn's entertaining novel, The Dark Fields, (on which the movie was based) was first published. Not so. As massive wealth transforms Eddie's life into a predictably dizzying merry-go-round of cheering on gigantic stock gains, clinking champagne glasses, jetting around the world, and impressing key members of the plutocracy, members of the audience are enlisted as cheering spectators to his meteoric rise.

What's notable about Limitless is not the manner in which Eddie uses and abuses his wealth (a tale as old as Midas), but the fact that Eddie treats the aggressive pursuit of excess as the only logical object of his new-found productivity. After finishing his novel in four days, aided by a drug-induced lightning-fast mind, he abruptly drops his interest in literature (borrring!) for the much more alluring and romantic life of... the day trader? Yes, instead of longing for creative self-expression or thirsting for spiritual freedom, what Eddie wants, most of all, is don a pin-striped suit and haunt somnambulant lunch joints in the financial district. In other words, even though we may roll out the piety in discussions of Bernie Madoff, Goldman Sachs, or Kenneth Lay, we still suspect that they're the smartest—and the luckiest—guys in the room. Joining the ranks of tech executives, professional athletes, oil moguls, and Wall Street high rollers at the depraved craps table of our culture and our economy is presumed to be a wet dream shared by the global populace.

Strange, that this fantastical film, which basks in excess and corruption without any major repercussions for our hero, plays less like a cinematic fable than a realistic snapshot of the times. With hand-wringing over the Great Recession finally subsiding a bit—even if the sickness that incited the economic collapse is far from cured—it's clear that the greatest American hero is not the honor-bound civic leader or the inspired artist or the thoughtful spiritual guide, but the self-serving entrepreneurial conquistador.

Tales of extreme overachievement dominated the Best Picture category at this year's Oscars, featuring strivers aggressively pursuing victory at the expense of friends, family, life, and limb, from The Social Network to The Fighter to 127 Hours to The King's Speech. "I was perfect," says Natalie Portman's ballerina character in Black Swan, secure that all of her suffering and sacrifice was worth it. Even the isolated and the doomed—Zuckerberg in his lonely perch at the top, Wahlberg's boxer hiding out with his girlfriend across town, the future king battling his own words in a drafty London apartment—are presented as odd sorts of modern victors.

Even when ambition is explored through the lens of exaggeration, parody, farce, or noir, it's still digested as inspiring, from the vainglorious proclamations of Lady Gaga to the semi-delusional chattering of Bravo's tireless self-branding reality stars. Television is filthy with high-capitalist morality plays, from Mad Men to Breaking Bad to Boardwalk Empire, but the tragic characters therein are more often than not encountered as heroes. Raw drive is touted as the special sauce that makes the world go 'round on every reality show in existence, from Survivor, to Top Chef to even non-competitive experiments in self-branding like Bethenny Ever After and The Rachel Zoe Project. Warrior-speak is so much the common lexicon of reality TV that each on-camera confession could stand in for any other: She wants to win at all costs. He's not going to give up, no matter what. She doesn't care who has to eat dirt along the way. The parlance of high school football coaches and insurance salesman has become the native tongue of cable TV.

Not surprisingly, the Oprah Winfrey Network, which launched this year on New Year's Day, represents the most colorful and dramatic reflection of this nationwide will to power. An uneasy mix of individualism and enlightenment is offered on every show, from the motivational platitudes spouted by the aspiring talk show hosts of Your OWN Show to the exacting standards and relentless drive of Oprah herself in Oprah: Behind The Scenes. But nothing typifies Oprah's embrace of the creation myths of celebrities more than Oprah Presents Master Class, which presents first-person narratives of success by everyone from Diane Sawyer to Jay-Z. The show relishes a peculiar "I pulled myself up by my bootstraps" and "I had to believe in myself—and so should you!" mélange, blending self-actualization and capitalism into a queasy cocktail that goes down smoothly, thanks to the simple syrup of Oprah's "You go girl!" ideology.

And while egocentric implosions were commodified long before Charlie Sheen cranked his delusions of grandeur up to 11, it's notable how swiftly the star's sociopathic flameout has been translated into a multi-tiered product launch—including a t-shirt line and a not-so-magical, death-of-mystery tour called the "Violent Torpedo of Truth." (We get the "violent" part, anyway.) Sure, it's a familiar story: Man loses job. Man lets loose grandiose, nonsensical tirade. Man is besieged by army of marketing yes men who set big, stupid wheels in motion overnight. How else to keep the Cristal and the high-priced hookers flowing? But has there ever been a time when merely grabbing the public's attention, largely for negative reasons, translated so rapidly into a merchandising blitzkrieg?

But it doesn't take star status to broadcast your aspirations to the world. The average Joe's focus on international success has never been quite so well documented as it is today. On Facebook and Twitter, on blogs and author websites and work profiles, individuals lay out their agonizingly detailed goals for the future with reckless abandon, taking pains to document every ego reward along the way. One author recalls the "transcendent moment" when she learned that Eat Pray Love author Elizabeth Gilbert wrote to tell her that her book was "destined to be deeply loved." "I still feel intoxicated by her words," the author gushed. Another author recently tweeted, "Yay! Just found out my paperback hit the bestseller lists in Boston, Denver, & SF. That's a happy Monday!" It's enough to make you nostalgic for the days when patting oneself on the back and other forms of self-stroking were reserved for sticky private rooms, far from the public gaze. Even the self-proclaimed enlightened elite don't seem to recognize the value of shame. One social media guru recently tweeted, "I have never, in my life, lived more honestly than I am living today." Please, consider living a little less honestly.

Who's to blame for this state of affairs? Some point to the toxic overindulgence of helicopter parents, who pumped up their children's egos without exposing them to the hardships of an unscheduled afternoon with nothing but to do but make mud pies in the backyard. Others conjure the overachievement culture incited by Tiger Moms (and dads), who create children whose Suzuki scales are as impressive as their panic attacks and acid reflux. But the concept that a rising GNP lifts all heavily-mortgaged boats founds its roots in Reaganomics, and extreme ambition hasn't loosened its death-grip on our culture since. Considering the economic rollercoaster ride of the last few decades, the obvious lack of long-term job security in this country, and the fact that, according the Economic Policy Institute, during the past 20 years, 56 percent of all income growth went to the top 1 percent of households, it's impossible for most Americans, whether working or middle class or even upper middle class, not to fixate somewhat unhealthily on finding true, lasting financial peace of mind. Instead of giving in to learned helplessness (the most logical choice, really), we cling more tightly to the myth of upwardly mobile miracles, telling ourselves pretty success stories in order to keep hope alive.

Ultimately, Limitless takes the precise shape that you'd expect from a powerless person's fantasy of power. The moral of the story seems to be that, with a few shortcuts and some help from important people, money, status, and happiness can be yours, with no emotional cost to pay on the back end. But as our world spirals closer to the moronic self-involvement of Mike Judge's Idiocracy mixed with the commercialized nightmare of David Foster Wallace's Infinite Jest, what's lost, beyond simple good taste, is our connection to our own desires. After soaking in so many real-life tales of success and parables of excess like Limitless, it's easy to lose sight of the joys of working steadily toward a goal without undue fixation on the monetary rewards or prestige it might bequeath. Savoring the means over the ends, relishing the challenges, the wrinkles, the obstacles involved in your craft: the rewards of a dedication to something beyond the ego may be a difficult message to impart, but it's a message that needs to find its way back into our fables, our creation myths, our journalism, and into the stories we tell ourselves.

"Sunday Morning"

LOST: Jacob as Michael; MIB as Samael

NOTE: I have updated my views, after the seeing the May 11 broadcast, "Across the Sea."

Lost is on again tonight. I've decided that Jacob is a figure of the archangel Michael, and MIB is a figure of the archangel Samael. Here's why:

MICHAEL: (from Wikipedia and Lostpedia)

(Hebrew: is an archangel in Hebrew, Christian and Islamic tradition. He is viewed as the field commander of the Army of God. ... Michael is also described(in the book of Daniel) as the advocate of Israel and "great prince who stands up for the children of your [Daniel's] people".

The Talmudic tradition rendered Michael's name as meaning "Who is like El?" ("Who is like God?"). As a question, it is understood as being rhetorical, implying the answer, "No one is like God."

Beth: This would fit, because Jacob is unable to forgive sins or resurrect Isabella. According to the Lospedia article on Jacob, he "appears to command a great respect among the Others who look to him as a leader who is both adored and feared. Both Mikhail and Ben referred to Jacob as a "great", "brilliant", and "magnificent" man. Jacob has also been referred to as "powerful" and "unforgiving." ("Two for the Road") Occasionally members of the Others have been seen to invoke Jacob's name as an excuse for carrying out certain actions. Jacob is sometimes referred to as "Him."

According to rabbinic Jewish tradition, Michael acted as the advocate of Israel, and sometimes had to fight with the princes of the other nations (cf. Daniel 10:13) and particularly with the angel Samael, Israel's accuser. Michael's enmity with Samael dates from the time when the latter was thrown down from heaven. Samael took hold of the wings of Michael, whom he wished to bring down with him in his fall; but Michael was saved by God (Midrash Pirke R. El. xxvi.).

Beth: "Michael's enmity with Samael dates from the time when the latter was thrown down from heaven." Ab aeterno, no?

According to one source, it was Michael who wrestled with Jacob and who afterward blessed him (Targum pseudo-Jonathan to Genesis xxxii. 25; Pirke R. El. xxxvii.).

Beth: Jacob and Richard wrestled on the beach

He is accepted in lore as well as being the special patron of Adam. Supposedly he was the first angel in all of the heavens to bow down before humanity.

Beth: Jacob watches over the young Sawyer and Kate; as well as Locke and Jack.

In the Epistle of Jude St Michael disputes with the Devil over the body of Moses.[ In the Book of Revelation "...there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. The great dragon was hurled down - that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him."

The motif of Michael and the dragon appears in Michael's fight with Samael in Assumptio Mosis, x.). This legend is not found in Jewish sources except insofar as Samael or Satan is called in the Kabbalah "the primitive serpent".

Beth: MIB as Samael, a dragon or serpent...rather like Smokie; Jacob as Michael, the dragon slayer.

Still more famous are the legends of the springs which St. Michael is said to have drawn from the rock at Colossae (Chonae, on the Lycus). Church tradition tells that the pagans directed a stream against the sanctuary of St. Michael to destroy it, but the custodian of the shrine, named Archippus, prayed to St. Michael, and the archangel appeared and split the rock, opening up a new bed to divert the stream, and forever sanctified the waters which came from the gorge. The Orthodox Church believes that this apparition took place about the middle of the first century and celebrates a feast in commemoration of it on September 6[17] as the "Miracle of the Archangel Michael at Chonae."[18] The Monastery of the Miracle in the Moscow Kremlin, where the Russian Tsars were baptized, was dedicated to the Feast of the Miracle at Chonae (Kona). Hot springs at Pythia in Bithynia and elsewhere in Asia Minor were also dedicated to St Michael.

At Constantinople likewise, Saint Michael was a great heavenly physician. His principal sanctuary, the "Michaelion", was at Sosthenion, some fifty miles south of Constantinople.

Beth: Jacob heals Locke after his fall; he seems to have healed Ilana. In the flashback presented in "Ab Aeterno", Ilana quickly goes from injured and heavily bandaged to unbandaged, apparently healed and sitting upright in bed, implying Jacob healed her between scenes
..
Another famous church was within the walls of [Constantinople] , at the baths of Arcadius; '

St Michael is reputed to have caused a healing spring to flow in the first century at Colossae, and his churches were frequently visited by the sick and lame.

Beth: this reminds me of the spring at the Temple...

In art, St Michael is represented as an angelic warrior, fully armed with helmet, sword, and shield (often the shield bears the Latin inscription: "Quis ut Deus?"), standing over the dragon, whom he sometimes pierces with a lance. He also holds a pair of scales in which he weighs the souls of the departed (cf. Rock, "The Church of Our Fathers", III, 160), or the Book of Life, to show that he takes part in the judgment. Michelangelo depicted this scene on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

In Greek folklore, St Michael also assumed the god Hermes' role as the psychopomp who leads souls to Hades, and in the role of weigher of souls on Judgment Day

Beth: Jacob gave Sayid a sword with which to slay MIB; he has scales in his cave.

As with all angels' iconography, his wings represent swiftness, his sword means authority or power, and his white raiment stands for his enlightenment.[25] In the Renaissance period, he is shown as young, strong, and handsome, and is most often depicted as a proud, handsome angel in white or magnificent armor or a splendid coat of mail and equipped with sword, shield and spear.

Beth: Jacob always wears white, and he is young and strong,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

SAMAEL: (from Wikipedia and Lostpedia)


Samael is an important archangel in Talmudic and post-Talmudic lore, a figure who is accuser, seducer and destroyer, and has been regarded as both good and evil. It is said that he was the guardian angel of Esau...

Beth: This would fit the Jacob/Esau relationship between Jacob and MIB. MIB as "smokie" is also an accuser (demanding, in the form of Yemi, that Eko confess his sins) and a destroyer (he killes Eko, Montand, and others). He "seduces" Claire into believing and is attempting to "seduce" Kate. He seduces Richard into believing the island is hell by taking the form of Isabella. and He is an accuser, claiming that Jacob has trapped him on the island, and want wants to keep the Losties under his finger as well.

Also called Sammael and Samil, he is considered in legend both a member of the heavenly host (with often grim and destructive duties) and a fallen angel, equatable with satan and the chief of the evil spirits. One of Samael's greatest roles in Jewish lore is that of the Angel of Death. In this capacity he is a fallen angel but nevertheless remains one of the Lord's servants.

Well, MIB certainly brings death and destruction: Lostpedia lists 10 individuals, in addition to the crew of the Black Rock and all the inhabitants of the Temple. And indirectly, he kills Jacob and Nikki.

According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, Prince of the demons, and an important figure both in Talmudic and in post-Talmudic literature, where he appears as accuser, seducer, and destroyer. His name is etymologized as = "the venom of God," since he is identical with the angel of death (Targ. Yer. to Gen. iii. 6; see also Death, Angel of), who slays men with a drop of poison Read more: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=106&letter=S#ixzz0jguc9h0L Some people think it was MIB who took the shape of the Medusa spider that paralyzed Nikki, "who slays with a drop of poison."

...Samael is Esau's guardian angel, and in the Sayings of Rabbi Eliezer, he is charged with being the one who tempted Eve,

Jacob is constantly tempting people: Ben, Richard, Sawyer.

Brace yourself for ugly babies?

Millinerd has a provocative link about church architecture.


A sermon "zinger" used to encourage church plants instead of resuscitating old churches goes like this: "It is easier to have a baby than to raise the dead!" Jesus, however, did only the latter. Evangelism is a bit more complicated than the sound bite conveys, simply because people are. Whether they are consciously aware of it or not, many non-Christians are seeking a deeper, ecclesial reality in their life, not a gospel that caters to their present one. If non-Christians go to church, or back to church, a significant percentage of them want it to look, architecturally, like a traditional church. If you doubt this assertion, look into Lifeway's recent survey that shows it to be true.....

But, some might ask, Isn't the pragmatic modern style of architecture more conducive to pragmatic evangelicalism? Not by a longshot. In An Architecture of Immanence, Mark Torgerson demonstrated the alliance of Protestant liberalism (to which evangelicalism is traditionally opposed) and architectural modernism. His diligently researched book concludes that flat, immanent modern architecture is uniquely suited to mid-century liberal Protestant denial of the supernatural, both of which (he seems to subtly imply) have been outmoded. Before evangelicals build in the modern, pragmatic style, therefore, they might want to consider whether or not the architecture they worship in will be counteracting the sermons preached therein for decades to come. It is impossible for architecture to be neutral.

Still, I'm not too hopeful about the possibilities for an evangelical recovery of traditional architecture. Having spurned the superior resources of Christendom, evangelicals have great difficulty detaching themselves from the dominant culture, and architecture is no exception. In addition, our economic downturn will do much to regenerate that ancient argument (John 12:5) against extravagance in worship, as if the poor were not ministered to by beauty as well. God, needless to say, does not require exquisite buildings, and "wherever two or three or gathered" still, of course, holds true. But as the "easier to have a baby than raise the dead!" dictum catches on, we best brace ourselves for Chick-fil-A church plants (available on Sundays!), or some really ugly babies.

Wright on Christianity and genocide

Bradley Wright is associate professor of sociology at the University of Connecticut. After receiving tenure, Brad switched his academic focus from crime to religion in order to research American Christianity. He received his PhD in sociology from the University of Wisconsin, the topranked sociology graduate program in the country.

I look forward to reading his upcoming book, Christians are Hate-Filled Hypocrites....and Other Lies You've Been Told which will be available in July.

Here he counters the critics in his blog post:

Enough of the Inquisition! Christianity and genocide

Some time ago, I was having lunch with a good friend. The conversation turned to Christianity, and he asked me what I thought of it. I mumbled though my sandwich some generally affirmative answer, and he responded with utter conviction: "But what about the Inquisition?" In his mind, this Christian-based atrocity (which executed three to thirty thousand people) constituted sure proof against the validity of Christianity.

Ugh... This fellow is a good friend, and he's very bright, but what a knuckleheaded thing to say.

The logic of this church-morality argument goes like this: The Christian Church should be perfect, and the Christian faith is invalid if the church displays a grievous moral failure, which it has done many, many times. This argument is inconsistent with Christian beliefs, let alone common sense, both of which hold that the Church is not perfect.

This argument is not apostasy, it's bad social science.

If one wanted to judge Christianity by participation in atrocities, one should compare the Church's participation in atrocities versus that of other religious and secular institutions. As data for this comparison, here's a list of the worst genocides of the last 100 years:

China (1960s, 1970s), 30 million dead
USSR (1920s, 1930s, 1940s), 2 0 million dead
Germany (1930s, 1940s), 11.4 million dead
Japan (1930s, 1940s), 10 million dead
Pakistan (1970s), 3.1 million dead
Sudan (1960s, present day), 2.8 million dead
Nigeria (1960s), 2 million dead
Afghanistan (1980s), 1.8 million dead
Cambodia (1970s), 1.7 million dead
Turkey (1910s, 1920s), 1.5 million dead
Indonesia (1970s, 1980s), 1.2 million dead
Rwanda (1990s), 1 million dead
India (1940s), 1 million dead
(Source: Barbara Harff, National Geographic, Jan 2006, p. 30)

Okay, I don't think that counting up atrocities is a useful way to judge religions, but if one is going to do so, at least do it accurately. From the above list, it appears that most of these terrible atrocities have been committed by governments or institutions rooted in belief systems other than Christianity. By the logic of this argument, then, Christianity is supported.

Can tithing trigger an IRS audit?

Apparently so...


5 tax moves that may trigger an audit

by Kelly Phillips Erb

Disproportionately high charitable deductions. Charitable deductions are one of the most common deductions claimed on a personal income tax return. In fact, more than 90% of taxpayers who opt to itemize claim charitable deductions.

But just because everyone takes the deduction doesn't mean the IRS won't take a second look. The IRS will review returns that include charitable donations that appear disproportionately high as a percentage of income.

What qualifies as high? Taxpayers who claim the charitable deduction donate, on average, about 3% of their income. Anything above that may start raising some eyebrows.

So if you start climbing too far above that number, you might turn some heads. Does that mean taxpayers who donate more are automatically in trouble? Of course not. Many taxpayers routinely donate higher percentages due to religious or other charitable reasons. Just be sure and document your donations properly -- and make sure the values of non-cash donations make sense.