Absolutely Unacceptable Bumper Sticker

I was walking into work and saw one of these on the back of a car.

Unacceptable.

Now, let's get on the same page.  It will surprise exactly none of you to know that I didn't vote for Obama.  I'm an independent Libertarian who hates big government and that doesn't jive with Obama's ideas at all - but that doesn't mean that I hate the guy.  I don't have a personal problem with Democrats, and I don't treat them like they are enemies.  Can a believer honestly justify promoting such a personal hateful message.

This sort of attack against individuals through Christian iconography is disconcerting.  Why is the Christian fish eating the President?  That's horrifying.  I can only imagine how I would feel if I saw a bumper sticker that showed Kali eating me while holding me in a large hot dog bun with her eight arms.

Those are utensils.

Come to think of, is there any religion that brings their deities into modern politics so casually as do Christians?  Why don't I see pictures of  Kali or Native American spirits attacking their political opponents on bumper stickers?  Heck, even the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't subject to such pedestrian activities as voting.  Perhaps we should ask ourselves how respectful it is to consider the grandness of God and then to devalue that grandness by associating it with our own political agendas.  Using Jesus as a weapon to attack your political enemies is a discredit to His glory.

If you're going to muck about in hateful and degrading political arguments then don't try to drag Jesus along with you.  He told you to love people - and when you love people you always reflect Him.

[Photo Credit] 

Book Review: 'Kinda Christianity' by Zachary Bartels

This week, I received a copy of Zach Bartel's book, Kinda Christianity.  It's a cynically humerus discussion of the Emergent Church movement that is sure to offend some and to make many others laugh.  But, that's not to say it doesn't bring up some really good points.

Zach's style is rather biting.  The book is modeled as a satirical "guide" explaining how to be the leader of an emergent style church.  It includes useful tips such as shopping at Urban Outfitters and the requirement to buy all electronics at the Mac store - or else.  Starbucks is to be your new home - as long as you aren't seen there with a Bible - and no discussions of theology are allowed.

Concerning the layout of an emergent church he gives the following advice:

It's important that your church not look anything like a church, and in fact should not even be called a church (see also: names of things). It should look more like an abandoned meat-packing plant, complete with lots of exposed brick and ductwork. Big steel doors are nice.

He constantly advocates devotion to Bono as well as "Anyone Else Who Makes You Feel Bad About Being White and Affluent."

The cover of the book is a clever parody of A New Kind of Christianity by Brian D. McLaren.

The weakness of this book is also its strength; not everyone will appreciate the biting humor with which Bartels exposes the problems the Emergent movement.  Some might even feel insulted.  (Of course, that might be because they never learned to laugh at themselves.)  I liked this book more and more as I read through the chapters, and I think his description of Emergent church leaders as young white hipsters maintaining a post-modern image to be a spot on.  (Likewise, your welcome to laugh at me for sitting in the same pew in my Southern Baptist church ever since I joined.)

So, this approach is debatable, and the highly cynical style takes some getting used to at first.  But I really think that Bartels has written a good discussion of the problems of the Emergent church movement in an entertaining format.  It might get under your skin if you are an Emergent type yourself, but the discussion points are worth consideration.  You can purchase it here for a very low price.

Confessions of a Disappointed LOST Fanatic [Contains Spoilers]

I've been in love with the show LOST ever since I got to the fourth episode and saw John Locke walking around.  That sealed it - I was in for the long haul and would watch this show until the end.

I have not often been this disappointed.

Bear in mind, I'm a pretty easygoing fan.  I don't mind if things are not perfect, and I don't need every little thing answered.  But I do need the show to make some sense - and LOST doesn't.  We have been watching for six years hoping to understand the fascinating mysteries we've been shown.  How do phantasms appear on (and off) The Island?  How are people's lives controlled by The Island no matter where they are in the world?  Certain characters show special abilities or interesting back stories only to be shoved off of the series and replaced with new mysteries that would also leave us wondering.  Like I said, I'm not one of those fans who wants to know where each character was born and why the stage lighting was off in a certain scene - I just want to understand the mysteries that were featured on the show.  Imagine if Sherlock Holmes wandered off from Moriarty's trail and never went back - it wouldn't be unreasonable to wonder what became of the arch-villain.

We have our theories.  In the absence of actual reveals fans are providing theories to answer these big questions, but the theories are all different because the show simply didn't bother to answer the questions it raised or even give us enough hints so we could draw our own conclusions.  Instead, the finale was just a pulpit for the personal philosophical views of the producers.  They couldn't be bothered to tell the story, because they had an agenda to pursue.

The real purpose of this show has become a religious one.  As the show was wrapping up and giving us its dramatic ending, the main character was wandering around in a church rectory in front of a stained glass window that contained symbols from many religions (like those "coexist" bumper stickers).  As a discussion of life, death, and ascension (or, "moving on") took place I realized that I had been waiting all this time for the producers to promote their Universalist religion; like a kid who has been dragged to church, I rolled my eyes and waited for the sermon to end.  (It's pretty bad when a Southern Baptist like me accuses you of being preachy.  I've never thought pop-culture should be used to ambush those you with to proselytize.)

This concept of spiritually "moving on" through our life's work is not a new development for LOST.  In the season five finale, the mysterious entity Jacob is reading Flannery O'Connor's All That Rises Must Converge.  This references an old theory about human consciousness and ascension, but is also a statement that rings true with the Universalist agenda and the hope that all of our "heavens" are the same.  In season 4, it was proposed by one character that those who had gotten off of The Island were in a place like Heaven - this was an early attempt to prepare us for the end when this turns out to be true.  And in season 1, The Island is a strong symbol of purgatory as each character "moved on" from their old ways and started over with a new life.

I can handle this.  Like I said, I'm a reasonable fan, and I can get over this boring stuff in order to get to the good part.  So I kept waiting for something else to happen - waiting for some reveal that would make sense of the show.  And I kept waiting.  And then the credits rolled.

And that was it.  There are no answers to the questions that have been raised.  No resolution at all.  Moriarty has stomped off to commit another crime and Sherlock Holmes is off somewhere reading Socrates.  This is because the producers want us to see their message and want us to know that The Island doesn't matter, none of it matters, because we will someday "move on" from this - so we might as well go ahead and leave the mystery behind.

But the metaphysical ascension of the characters isn't very interesting - the Island is.  So, why didn't they solve the mysteries that we care so much about?  Did the producers raise so many questions just so we would all pack in and watch their religious message at the end? 

I think they did - and that's pretty lame.

Who Really Founded the United States?

My friend Brian Franklin teaches American History at A&M University and wrote an insightful and helpful post, yesterday, about our founding fathers.

Were the founders a group of conservative Baptists who set up the constitution with the Bible in mind?  Or where they deists who cared not for religion?  The answer to those questions depends greatly on who you ask.

Historians know that the answer is not so simple.  Is today's congress Christian?  Many of them are.  Many of them are not.  The answer requires us to appreciate the complexity of the members of congress and the many viewpoints there.  It is the same for any group we study in history.

However, I'm certain that the founding fathers were football fans who would have supported the Dallas Cowboys.  See those five guys standing before Congress? That's the country's first offensive line. Notice how football never caught on in England.

Since most of  us are not U.S. historians, Brian offers some advice for discussing these important men.  Here's my favorite:

...The "Founders" were a diverse group of people, with a diverse set of beliefs on everything.
- The Constitution did not fall out of heaven already complete, with everyone in perfect agreement on its divine origin. It was forged through days of debates, and scores of compromises. No single man at the Constitutional Convention got exactly what he wanted. What every man did get was a document of compromise that they could all settle with, even if they didn't agree with everything in it.

Every historian knows that variety is present in every group we study.  Great variety leaps out at us from the pages of history and out of the work of archaeologists to show us that diversity of thought is no modern trend.  This applies to the founders of our country, so when we discuss them we do them a disservice to assume that they were all the same.

This might weaken your talking points.  You may not be able to say that churches should run the country because the founders were all believers.  Likewise, it is foolish to say that the founders were all atheists who hated religion.  Neither of these viewpoints holds up to historical scrutiny, and, as such, Brian's advice is simply not to bring up the founding fathers in these conversations.

But I've rambled long enough about a field I don't study.  Brian's post is helpful, so go and read the whole thing.