Podcasts are down for a bit.  They’ll be back.

I’ve decided, for fun, to paraphrase the Bible in a very rough, probably quite bad, iambic perameter (a la something like “Paradise Lost).  Leave a comment and tell me what you think (don’t be too harsh! it was just for fun and I’ve never written in the form before, and it’s first draft!):

Jay Bakker and I had an exchange on Twitter.  He talks about it here: http://www.revolutionnyc.com/god-crushed-in-haiti/

My response:

I mean, number 1, why get all outta sorts ’cause someone says “impactful?”  And, number 2, Pirate Christian gets the win, ’cause it certainly is a pot/kettle situation.

FTW.

Aside from how cool a band name that would make, gonna talk a bit about this new “Haiti’s earthquake is God’s judgment” deal going on w/ Pat Robertson.

First off, I think it’s utterly contemptible we even have to talk about it. There’s really only one reason I feel ok talking about it, but I’m not gonna disclose why that is.

Ok.

So, there’s this earthquake in Haiti. Then Pat Robertson, apparently, is like, “This is God’s judgment or wrath because the people of Haiti entered into a pact with Satan.”

I’m on Twitter @ work (because I can’t get on Facebook anymore, and I need some sort of social networking outlet), and I see tons of the emergent types posting about Haiti. Then, as this Pat Robertson stuff comes out, more and more of the trends go toward Robertson, and less is said about Haiti.

And eventually, folks like Tony Jones (infamous emergent author, speaker, production manager, etc.) are saying “let’s make this PatRobertsonDoesNotSpeakForGod thing a trend on Twitter!” And that quick, it all quickly takes the focus off the events in Haiti.

People started repeating slogans like: “Pat Robertson does not speak for God.” “Pat Robertson does not speak for Jesus.” “Jesus would have handled it differently!” etc.

And all that brought these points to mind, regarding the Robertson fiasco:

1. While it may be true that Pat Robertson does not speak for God, neither does Jay Bakker (who was one of the folks posting that Twitter trend). To me, Pat Robertson speaks for God at least as much as Jay Bakker or Tony Jones does. That’s what bothers me about these folks. They make equally shocking claims on the liberal theological side as Robertson and company do on the more “conservative” side, yet they get real rigid in responses to Robertson’s statements. So in the end you have: “Gays can be Christians!” (Jay Bakker doesn’t speak for God!) and “Haiti is God’s judgment!” (Pat Robertson doesn’t speak for God). It’s just a frighteningly funny circle of who does and who doesn’t speak for God. Not saying that some conclusion can’t be reached (perhaps neither speak for God?), it’s just a little funny.

2. “Jesus would’ve handled it differently!” That may be the case, but I’m still not sure he would’ve handled it in the way that Baker, Jones and crew would expect. In fact, we have an example in the gospels about Jesus’ reaction and response to a calamity. When Pilate kills Galileans and mingles their blood with the sacrifices, they ask Jesus what’s up with that, and his answer is noticeable: first, he doesn’t address the disaster at all, but instead turns the question back on them and says, “Unless you repent, the same is gonna happen to you.” Wow. What if we said that in response to people asking us about the Haiti incident? “What do you think, as a Christian, about the Haiti earthquake?” “Well, unless you repent, the same may happen to you.” Isn’t that closer to Robertson’s statement than the emerging liberals?

3. Is the earthquake a judgment from God? This is what people are blasting Pat for right now. But my response is not instant repulsion. My only response is, that I doubt Pat Robertson has the authority to make such a certain claim. But, unless you deny the validity of the Bible, many times God uses other nations to chastise Israel (which resulted in the death and enslavement of many). This is the same God who was so repentant over the sinfulness of man that he flooded the earth, and saved only Noah and his family from the total destruction. So, unless you hold that these stories are symbols, metaphors, etc. and stop there, then we do serve a God who has at times used natural, earthly, physical things as judgments. So I’m not repulsed by Robertson’s statement. I’m not sure that he has the authority to say something like that, and you can’t just go around saying that about every disaster.

There’s just three random things that are going through my mind right now. Probably shoddily thrown together because I’m writing this and watching Dog Bounty Hunter at the same time.

Oh well.

Take it as it is

“I see myself as an intelligent, sensitive human being, with the soul of a clown, which forces me to blow it at the most important moments.” – Jim Morrison

I’ve always felt that this quote by Jim Morrison aptly described me. 

I’m a pot-stirrer.  I’ve tried to fix this in times past, but I’m not even so sure it’s something that should be fixed.  Maybe that’s just who I am.  But I’ve noticed that, although I may take my faith very seriously, I’m able to laugh about a whole lot that other folks can’t really laugh at, and often times I’ll say things just to stir the pot, or point out something that I think is inconsistent.

But I end up blowing it, a lot of the time. At the moment, the most important moment, as Morrison says, I’ll end up saying something or cracking a joke which “forces me to blow it.”

Do I sabotage myself?  I’m not sure. 

But sometimes it makes me look like a hypocrite.

Take this Pat Robertson business.  I could care less about what Pat Robertson has to say about something.  But it’s everywhere I look.  And everyone’s so disgusted and pissed that he could even think that an earthquake could be the result of a judgment of God.

But then I think, wasn’t a worldwide food in Genesis a result of a judgment of God?  To think that earthly calamities are above God’s realm of communication is kind of like the first step on a long road of biblical denial. 

But anyway, I make strong claims, and then folks assume I agree with Pat Robertson.  But when I say that I don’t agree with him, they must assume that I agree with his “opponents” on the issue.

And I don’t agree with them either. 

I don’t know.

I think I’m just going to keep making statements to which people reply “I don’t get what your saying.”

And I’ll blow it.

I find it ironic how so many folks jump on board when it comes to caring about a natural disaster (i.e. the situation in Haiti, right now), and then get so enormously distracted.  First, I see on my Twitter about how everyone has these links and blogs and ideas about ways to send money to Haiti to help out, or to do something else in order to pitch in.

Then Pat Robertson says something about God being responsible for it, and all of a sudden, Haiti and the earthquake are lost among Christians stepping up to make sure we’re not mistaken for the likes of Pat Robertson.

We Christians are so damn concerned about our image….our image… that we care more about Twitter trending topics like #PatRobertsonDoesntSpeakForMe than we are about helping out in the situation.

Do you think the countless dust-covered, bloody people in Haiti care right now about what Pat Robertson’s saying?  C’mon, this guy’s been spouting this kind of stuff for years: every time something bad happens, folks like him are gonna chime in. Have you not noticed the pattern yet?

Just laugh it at, or whatever you want to do, and then go about your way.

If you really care about all those suffering people, my dear, emerging, caring Christian, stop fussing over how you look in the moral mirror, shut up about Pat Robertson, and do something.

When folks asked Jesus about a recent disaster, his only reply was “Unless you change your way of life, you’ll all end up like that!” You’ll likewise perish.

So, his response wasn’t so compassionate as you may like it to be, either.

Consider these things.  And shut up about Pat Robertson.

Saw Avatar a few weeks ago.  A visually enjoyable movie, and a pretty on par story.  By “on par,” I mean “average.”  It’s not stellar.

I didn’t want to see the film, initially. I thought there was too much Eastern influence (I hate, hate, hate anime and manga, and all things like that, so blue people with pointy ears just don’t size up, in my book). But when I found out it was in 3D I decided to check it out.  And it was somewhat enjoyable.  The marine in charge, the old guy: I’ve liked him since “Gods and Generals” and “Gettysburg.”  So it wasn’t all bad.

Here’s my thing, though: When are we going to stop glorifying primitive stick throwing cultures just because they’re primitive stick-throwing cultures, and when are we going to stop demonizing industrial cultures just because they’re industrial cultures?  On one level, even though I did enjoy the movie, I was sick of seeing yet another movie with traditional “Industry Bad, Loincloths Good” themes.

Just because this culture worships trees and doesn’t have spaceships, they’re seen as inherently better, and more wholesome than more advanced civilizations.  Just because you wear a leather loincloth and have a bow instead of a gun does not make you inherently more “in tune” with nature. 

I read a news piece where the Vatican was saying some of the same things, especially that the movie seemed to glorify some kind of environmental neo-paganism, which I can see.  There’s a scene in the movie where they’re swaying back and forth before a big tree to try and bring some woman back to life.  Extreme example of pagan nature religions.  2 things:  1. people who really do worship trees in real life, aren’t as glamorous as they are in 3D on an alien planet, and 2. when these people worship trees in real life, nothing happens.

I read in a report that some people were even depressed and (gasp! really?!) suicidal after watching Avatar, because the images were so beautiful that folks are feeling a lack in their lives after seeing it.  I think that’s glorifying creation a little too much.  What I don’t understand is, there’s a LOT of beautiful things on this earth: I’m sure you’ve seen pretty pictures on slide shows at work of waterfalls and islands and such. 

Well, right now, we’re all way too lazy to take advantage of what we do have.  What if the folks who are depressed about this fantasy land actually did have floating mountains and tame flying birds and trees that lit up – - would they actually go out and see them? I mean, you do understand that when Blue Guy climbs to the top of the floating mountains, he was really out of breath, right? So, unless you’re marine-fit, I doubt you’d take advantage of those floating mountains…. You’d be too out of shape. 

So if you’re down about how we don’t have memory-trees and floating mountains, I suggest you go, I don’t know, see a waterfall or something.  Or you can just trash our planet on a forum somewhere and finish your Cheetos and lament that we’re not blue-skinned, 8 foot tall savages.

But yeah, those themes are questionable.

Here’s what I would’ve liked to have seen:  some kind of redemption of the industrial folks.  The human protagonist getting his own legs back and living as a full, whole, human being.  Some kind of spirituality beyond oneness-trees.

My wife and I are going through the Bible together, starting at the beginning.  As we’re doing this, I thought it would be interesting to post any questions or reflections here.  I started doing this a while back, but here I’ll be including both mine and my wife’s reflections. 

We don’t hold back: if we find something striking, beautiful, ugly, senseless, etc.  no matter what, we let ourselves reflect and ask questions.

Sunday we read the first 11 chapters of Genesis together.

Right off the bat, we felt like the tone of the Creation stories vary from the initial 7-day creation to the more specific creation of mankind and the placing of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden.  I do know that most folks maintain today that these are two separate Creation myths, and you can clearly see the distinction. 

–

Is the serpent really a talking snake? Did the original authors and tellers of the story of Eden see it completely as metaphor?  I don’t think so, because part of the curse after the eating of the fruit is that the snake will crawl around on its belly.  Now I think we can glean some metaphorical images out of the whole scenario, but I think that, at its original conception, the story treated the snake as a real, live, talking snake.

–

We were struck at the imagery of God regretting he had made mankind and deciding to flood the earth and kill every living creature.  First off, we’re so flooded today (no pun intended) with images of God’s temporal omnipotence that we cannot see any sensible way where he would regret something.  Now we can say that this is just a human view imposed on God for our own understanding. But again, like the deal with the snake, I think at the time, God’s omnipotence may have been less of a concept than it is today: I think the people of that time really thought God got mad and regretted creating mankind.

Is this possible? Can God really regret something? I think that if God truly, truly regrets, and feels things like regret and remorse in the way that we do, then it opens up new doors onto the nature of who God is. But, being that we Christians usually hold that God knows and even ordains the future, such a God couldn’t really be taken by surprise in order to experience regret, could He?

I do think there may have been a flood in the geographical area of the Bible at that time.  It’s possible.  It’s even possible that there was an extremely large, perhaps, earth-covering flood.  I really don’t know.

But I what I surmise happened is, there was a disastrous flood, that stamped itself into the minds of the people at that time, and various stories cropped up, the story of Noah being one of them.  And then folks started trying to figure out why the flood happened.  And they came up with: God was angry about something.

Happens often enough.

That’s my take on the Noah Story right now.

The same kind of retro-active story telling (creating stories to talk about events that have happened) is also present, I think, in the story of Noah’s sons and their father’s nakedness.

I don’t think any kind of nakedness today can amount to cursing your child and all of his descendants, no matter what he walked in, and walked out, on.

Instead, I think that at the time of the story, the Canaanites, or Caananites, however you spell it, were viewed by the Hebrews as low-lifes.  So they create this story about how and why these people are so worthless.

Another Retro-Story.

Alright.  I believe I can see the Tower of Babel in the distance.

Until next time.

First off, I think Deepak Chopra gives me my Wendy’s breakfast order every morning. 

Well.  Probably not THE Deepak Chopra.  But this guy looks just like him. 

*  *   *

The myriad disagreements between Christians struck me this morning during my drive through the cold drizzle of this gray Saturday.  

This was probably because I passed my old Lutheran church.  They’ve been going through some drama because of the “gay issue” in their denomination.  Apparently the ELCA has approved the ordination of gay bishops.  Although I’m not too sure.  I’m no longer in the loop on such things, so that’s not gospel truth.  But at any rate, there has been some controversy in that denomination over the “gay question.” 

The church that I belonged to was in complete and total opposition to its denomination’s choice to favor gay ordination or whatnot.  So the huge sign for the church outside received a wide black box right over the word “Lutheran,” so that when you drove by, you’d see “St. Timothy [BLACK BOX] Church.”  

After a while, they removed the black box, and instead, put a little banner under the word “Lutheran” that said “Reclaiming the Name!” 

Now, even that banner is gone.  So they’re just back to plain old Lutheran.  I’m sure their positions on the matter are the same, but they’ve, for whatever reason, decided to remove the banner and black box. 

As I passed that church on the way to work today, I thought about how many things there are that Christians disagree on, and how that disagreement, on each and every side, is firmly rooted in that side’s view of Christ.

We’re all so convinced about what Jesus was all about. 

You say you follow Jesus. 

Which one? 

There are so many.

There’s Orthodox Jesus, Catholic Jesus, Calvinist Jesus, Emergent Jesus, Bono Jesus, Che Jesus, Obama Jesus, Bush Jesus, TBN Jesus, Christian Identity Jesus, Black Baptist Jesus, Anglican Jesus…

Each Jesus has so many points of agreement with another.  But there’s also a lot of disagreement.

There’s a Jesus today who extends not only open arms, but fully affirming and accepting arms, to practicing homosexuals today.  The Jesus who does this has very sincere and authentic followers.

There’s also a Jesus who is quite convinced that homosexuals are hell-bound and are walking displays of the reality of sin in this world. 

There’s even a Jesus who disapproves of consuming any amount of alcohol, even a glass of wine with dinner. 

And then there’s a Jesus who is an avid beer afficianado, who whole-heartedly approves of a good German brew.

Without ignoring what all these Jesus’ have in common, you can’t deny the differences. 

You can’t deny that the church as a whole may be hopelessly shattered, divided by very important doctrinal differences.

Which Jesus do you follow?

“The one from the Bible,” you say.

Well, funny thing about that….

There are just as many Bibles as there are Jesus’.  And each one is backed up by tradition and the commentary of that tradition’s scholars or elders.

I don’t really see where the Christian church has ever had much agreement or unity.  It probably began seeing divisions right after the time of Paul (if not during). 

And I have no idea which Jesus it is that I follow.