Recently in politics/culture Category

Very interesting interview on NPR with Barna Research's David Kinnaman on why so many young people are dropping out of the institutional Church. Give a listen!





Here are a few paragraphs from the interview:

MARTIN: What are the young people telling you about? Whether they're taking a break, a temporary break or dropping out altogether, what are they telling you about why?

KINNAMEN: What we really boil it down to - you know, each person that we interviewed had very specific experiences and challenges and the church was, in some way, inadequate in their mind to that. And yet, when we looked at it from a broad perspective, the way I would conclude this is that we're living in a more complicated age, more complicated questions about marriage and the diversity of this generation, the technology used in social media

And, in a nutshell, what we learned is that churches aren't really giving them an answer to these complicated questions that they're facing, these lifestyle issues and challenges that they're facing. And it's not really a deep or thoughtful or challenging response that most churches are providing to them.

MARTIN: And are you finding this phenomenon across what people consider liberal and conservative churches or do you find it concentrated in one side or the other?

KINNAMEN: Well, one of the surprises for me was I figured that we would see some differences between young Catholics, for instance, and young Protestants and young mainline versus young evangelicals. But I think the overriding theme was that this generation, in so many ways, is post-institutional, regardless of their traditions. So many similarities in their reasons and their reactions to the church and to Christianity.

Some of the things that were different was I think many churches that deal well with complexity didn't give a sufficient amount of conviction or commitment required of the young people that they work with. And then, conversely, those that had a strong degree of commitment and sort of emotional connection with the church didn't deal well with the complexity. So it was sort of a double-edged sword for many of these churches.

Much of this is coming from this much viewed recent YouTube video:

Here are a some additional information -

• Six Reasons Young Christians Leave Church (The Barna Group)
• Five Myths about Young Adult Church Dropouts (The Barna Group)

"The dining scene hints at the fact that many youth and young adults today have a relationship with technology and social media that is core to their formation. With this access to the Internet and, through it, the world, their worldview is significantly different than that of previous generations"

This is an important article and commentary by Adam K. Copeland that anyone... everyone... who has a desire to impact the lives of emerging generations should read!

Read the whole thing here:

Smartphones, Smart Pastors, Smart Church 

It isn't a matter of just employing technology, but understanding how emerging generations are integrating with changing technology. Current technology, in and of itself, is always passe among emerging generations.

I made a Facebook post a while ago about the passe nature of the World Wide Web among younger people with respect to APPS on smartphones and tablets and how they are usurping the Web. I believing that in the coming decade everything will change, again. As today's emerging generation moves into their 20's and 30's, they will access information and engage their social networks not from the World Wide Web, but they will interact with the world and get their information through APPS rather than the WWW.

Anyway, way back when I started our new campus ministry at Bowling Green State Univ., (Dunamis Outreach, part of Chi Alpha Campus Ministries) we were a part of a new church in Bowling Green, "Dayspring Church" (we had four hundred attending on Sundays in just four years). Well, I came across Dayspring's APP on iTunes.

So, were are we with respect to emerging culture?

Check out their APP on iTunes:

http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/dayspring-church/id476240885?mt=8

I think this is rather humorous!  Not that I'm taking sides, mind you, although I certainly do have an opinion.  So, give a look, and realize what most of the world must think of us as average citizens in what is supposed to be the "greatest country on earth."

For some reason, Yahoo! doesn't allow this video to be embedded.

http://news.yahoo.com/video#video=27797158

Dan Pearce writes this piece on his blog, "sdl." It is worth reading!  It is about, after all is said and done, how we live out the calling of Jesus Christ - how we are and are not living up to the example and commands of Jesus. Here are a couple paragraphs to give you a taste.

"Why is it that sometimes the most Christlike people are they who have no religion at all?

"I have known a lot of people in my life, and I can tell you this... Some of the ones who understood love better than anyone else were those who the rest of the world had long before measured as lost or gone. Some of the people who were able to look at the dirtiest, the poorest, the gays, the straights, the drug users, those in recovery, the basest of sinners, and those who were just... plain... different...

"They were able to look at them all and only see strength. Beauty. Potential. Hope.

"And if we boil it down, isn't that what love actually is?

"Don't get me wrong. I know a lot of incredible Christians, too. I know some incredible Buddhists and Muslims and Hindus and Jews. I know a lot of amazing people, devout in their various religions, who truly love the people around them.

"I also know some atheist, agnostic, or religionless people who are absolutely hateful of believers. They loathe their religious counterparts. They love only those who believe (or don't believe) the same things they do.

"In truth, having a religion doesn't make a person love or not love others. It doesn't make a person accept or not accept others. It doesn't make a person befriend or not befriend others.

"Being without a religion doesn't make somebody do or be any of that either.

"No, what makes somebody love, accept, and befriend their fellow man is letting go of a need to be better than others.

"Nothing else.

"I know there are many here who believe that living a homosexual life is a sin.

"Okay.

"But, what does that have to do with love?

"I repeat... what does that have to do with love?

"Come on. Don't we understand? Don't we get it? To put our arm around someone who is gay, someone who has an addiction, somebody who lives a different lifestyle, someone who is not what we think they should be... doing that has nothing to do with enabling them or accepting what they do as okay by us. It has nothing to do with encouraging them in their practice of what you or I might feel or believe is wrong vs right.

"It has everything to do with being a good human being. A good person. A good friend.

"That's all....

"My request today is simple. Today. Tomorrow. Next week. Find somebody, anybody, that's different than you. Somebody that has made you feel ill-will or even [gulp...] hateful. Somebody whose life decisions have made you uncomfortable. Somebody who practices a different religion than you do. Somebody who has been lost to addiction. Somebody with a criminal past. Somebody who dresses "below" you. Somebody with disabilities. Somebody who lives an alternative lifestyle. Somebody without a home.

"Somebody that you, until now, would always avoid, always look down on, and always be disgusted by.

"Reach your arm out and put it around them.

"And then, tell them they're all right. Tell them they have a friend. Tell them you love them.

"If you or I wanna make a change in this world, that's where we're gonna be able to do it. That's where we'll start.

"Every. Single. Time.

"Because what you'll find, and I promise you this, is that the more you put your arm around those that you might naturally look down on, the more you will love yourself. And the more you love yourself, the less need you'll ever have to find fault or be better than others.  And the less we all find fault or have a need to be better than others, the quicker this world becomes a far better place to live.

"And don't we all want to live in a better world? Don't we all want our kids to grow up in a better, less hateful, more beautiful "world?

"I know I do."

Read all of the post.

Think on such things - try to come into the idea that the Way of Jesus Christ is so contrary to this American culture of ours! It matters not how much the left or right or liberal or conservative or Roman Catholic or Evangelical or Anglican or Protestant or Independent wants us all to believe that THEY (their group, their belief system, their denomination, their church) have it all exactly right and so lovingly warn everyone else that if they don't get on board they are going straight to the Lake of Burning Fire for all eternity -crispy critters.

We are blind. Why? Because we are fallible, because we see in part, because we know in part, and because we will not know fully until we get on to the other side.  Why, then do we have to pretend that we or I or s/he or us are exactly right?

The following quote by Henry Kissinger in his recent book, "On China," relates to the reasons for the profound one year change from near-war animosity between China & the U.S. to both governments preparing for Nixon's historic first visit to Mao's China. This is the "It" that begins the quote.  What lessons can we learn for our dealings with the prevalent proclivities we find in our antagonistic and animosity filled culture and the Church's engagement with it?

"It did so by sidestepping the rhetoric of two decades & staying focused on the fundamental strategic objective of a geopolitical dialogue leading to a recasting of the Cold War international order." (On China, Kissinger; p. 234).

Is such a reordering possible in our two-decades old U.S. Culture War that has perverted our governmental processes and the Christian Faith in the U.S.? 

What should we sidestep? How do we do it?  What remains of the enduring "strategic objective" of the Church - for those who claim Christ who desire to find a way beyond the hubris, the anger, the bitterness, the spitefulness, the willful ignorance, the vengeful attitudes and actions that subsume so much of what is the Body of Christ, today?

When I was in seminary (2002-2005), Gene Robinson was consecrated the new Bishop of the Diocese of New Hampshire. I don't believe this was any kind of "political move" or a decision by the diocese for reasons of political-correctness, but the people of the diocese voting for a priest they knew, had faith in, and considered to be faithful to the Gospel. The fact that he was gay and had a partner didn't keep them from voting for him. There are, of course, lots of opinions about him, the diocese, and act of consecrating him a bishop in The Episcopal Church.  A whole lot has happened since then.

One aspect of the outcome has been the leaving of many Episcopalians to other Christian bodies and the creation of the Anglican Church of North America - a place where disaffected Episcopalians could flee and where some of the other "Continuing Anglican" bodies could affiliate. The hope was/is that this new church would replace the Episcopal Church as the official Anglican Provencal institution. This hasn't happened. IMHO, many of the actions taken by the four dioceses, the parishes, clergy, and people who left the Episcopal Church and their motivation proves to be very American, but not very Anglican.

One such new institution is the Anglican Mission in America (AMiA). This group actually left the Episcopal Church earlier, over women's ordination, I think.  They ended up being under the authority of the Anglican Church in Rwanda.  The Rwandan Church consecrated new bishops to oversee this new church institution.  The Rev. Church Murphy, former Episcopalian, was one of these new bishops.  He now leads/led this group of churches.

So, now, some things have happened between the House of Bishops of the Rwandan Church and now-bishop Murphy that raises the ire of Murphy and some others in the AMiA.  The Primate of Rwanda went about disciplining Murphy, which, of course, Murphy didn't like.  An ultimative was give to Murphy and the consequences for non-compliance were spelled out. A couple days ago, Murphy and the other AMiA American bishops affiliated with the Rwandan Church have announced that they are splitting with the Rwandan Church. Who knows what will finally play out, but it seems that Murphy and company may end up creating yet another Protestant denomination in the U.S. - another sect.

This is the reality, when we think about what we truly have, how we live, and how we think with regard to the vast majority of people in the world.  One doesn't have to be at Zuccatti Park to participate in the protest.

"A church split builds self-righteousness into the fabric of every new splinter group., whose only reason for existence is that they decide they are more moral and pure than other brethren. This explains my childhood, and perhaps a lot about America, too.

"The United States is a country with a national character of a newly formed church splinter group. This is not surprising. Our country started as a church splinter group. The Puritans left England because they believed they were more enlightened than members of the Church of England, and they were eager to form a perfect earthly community following a pure theology. They also had every intention of some day returning to England, once they had proved that something close to heaven on earth could work, and reforming their "heretical" fellow citizens.

"America still sees itself as essential and as destiny's instrument. And each splinter group within our culture - left, right, conservative, liberal, religious, secular - sees itself as morally, even "theologically," superior to it's rivals. It is not just about politics. It is about being better than one's evil opponent. We don't just disagree, we demonize the 'other.' And we don't compromise."

Frank Schaeffer, "Crazy for God;" pp 30-31

Interesting, and short, article on cultural changes that we need to pay attention to, particularly if we care about emerging generations and their interest in and involvement in their own spiritual lives and our worshiping communities.  Here are a couple paragraphs...

Five cultural shifts that should affect the way we do church

"It's probably good that most churches aren't all wrapped up in the latest fads. We don't have the cash to keep up with most of it, and if we do, we're probably better off spending that money on feeding the homeless rather than making sure the youth room has the newest flat-screen TV...

"But there are cultural shifts that congregations and church leaders need to track and respond to sensibly. Here are five of them."

Read it all here

By: Carol Howard Merritt on the Duke Divinity School blog, "Call & Response blog"

I contend that a primary reason for the withering of the Church within the public mind is resultant of the Church - liberal and conservative - capitulating to the zeitgeist. When we simply mirror the prevailing culture or system whether political, economic, philosophical, whatever, we lose our significance, our voice, our purpose, our justifiable reason to be noticed.

"It must not be supposed that the Church considers this the fulfillment of its mission [providing good, wholesome opportunities for entertainment, diversion, and leisure in Christian fellowship to help provide for the natural desires and for the benefit of the people]. It is but one of the attempts of the Church to serve the real needs of the community. The real mission of the Church is never lost sight of, that is, to bring individuals into the Kingdom of God and to make them realize their personal relationship with Jesus Christ as their Saviour. The Episcopal Church is not apprehensive of the effect of its social emphasis because it has its foundation most firmly rooted and does not distrust its people.  It believes that social service is a natural outcome of its fundamental principles. Its whole structure is comprehensive and not exclusive.

"The Church's message truly presents vision of that greater democracy for which the righteous nations of the earth are yearning. It is a democracy whose fundamentals are justice, righteousness and the abundant spirit of service that will secure for the people what no form of economic democracy will ever achieve. For nations seeking national and social salvation from the ills that afflict them, as well as for individuals, Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. The Gospel of Christ is the only national Character of Liberty that can guarantee national salvation, the only power equal to the task of exalting a nation.  The Church presents this Gospel."

George Parkin Atwater, "The Episcopal Church: Its Message for Men Today," 1950, pp. 167-168. (Originally published in 1917)
-------------------------------------------

I think we all too often let everything else usurp the "Real Mission." Frankly, the real mission isn't politically-correct and is disconcerting to many, yet life to so many others.  If we, as the Church, are a unique organization offering real and honest alternatives (not just for the sake of offering alternatives, for then we are resigning our responsibility), then there must be something alternative about us.

If the "Kingdom of God" is a real thing, it must be evident in the lives of those who claim to be citizens of such a Kingdom. If the image of such a Kingdom is not evident in the lives of the citizens of the Kingdom, then what use is it as a real alternative? It isn't, and that's why far too many people - particularly younger people - no longer consider the Church or Christianity as viable for or pertinent to their own lives.  We too often give up our real mission for the sake of expediency or popularity. As a result, all too often those who claim to be citizens of the Kingdom of God no longer reflect the high values of the Kingdom. Too often, we are usurped by socio-political ideology whether conservative or liberal, the lust for power, and greed (among lots of other things).

The way to realize such an alternative for the good is not easy, is not particularly popular, and as such is ignored, ridiculed, and rejected by many.  Yet, the real mission of the Church is to call people to this Kingdom recognizing that we are imperfect, but our own imperfection does not change the way for realization of the Kingdom. Here, we proclaim, is the path to the Kingdom of God, born by the work of Jesus Christ, already realized by multitudes from the vast array of cultures and peoples over centuries - we proclaim this truth to all who wish to follow.  We are on our way and extend the invitation to all who wish to join us.

Is it real, this Kingdom, this life? Only our experiences within it and the image of God revealed through us by way of such experiences will tell.

I've spent time with people in Zuccotti Park. I walked along with the marchers from the Park to Washington Square.

I hear and see religious leaders marching, making pronouncements, building a golden calf. Do we have anything unique to say to a frustrated society other than jumping on yet another bandwagon?

Does Jesus really love an unemployed person more than a corporate CEO? Or, does Jesus wish both to reconciliation and transformation for the benefit of their own souls and society.

Do we honesty believe that Jesus is superficial enough to proclaim that he loves the fallible, humanly created Socialist economic system more than the fallible, humanly created Capitalist economic system or visa-versa? Or, might Jesus rather wish that no matter what economic system a society decides, that the people leading and inhabiting that system live such lives that the image of God is evident, regardless?  Yet, this requires a way of ordering our lives, with Jesus at the center of our personal perception, that many people have a hard time accepting. (There is nothing new under the sun.)

If we have nothing more to say to society than what people hear on Fox News or MSMBC, then no wonder fewer and fewer people find anything compelling in the Church.

What we proclaim and assert may not be what people wish to hear - that which scratches their itching ears - but we do have a unique message, if only we are secure enough and confident enough to say so.

The unemployed, the poor, the wealthy are all in need to redemption and reconciliation. Evil and good are found in all groups of people and in all systems.  This should be our beginning point, rather than jumping on bandwagons that promote social, political, or economic ideologies.

On Thursday, October 6th, John Mertz (priest-in-charge of the Greenpoint parish) went down to Zuccotti Park (Liberty Park) to see what was going on at the Occupy Wall Street protest site.  John wanted to attend the second of two daily "General Assembly" meetings where organization is arrived at and announcements and decisions are made.

I was, frankly, quite impressed with what I say and experienced.  Yes, of course, there are the fringe people, but for the most part these where normal young folks who for perhaps the first time where engaging in the democratic process.  Being trained as a Social Studies teacher and seeing all the young people at the site, well, this whole affair is thrilling (just like the Tea Party phenomena is thrilling, but with a different perspective).

I was impressed with the organizers at the General Assembly.  Their calm, reason, and organizational skills were apparent.  I "spirit" of the whole thing was, in fact, respectful, even with a decided point of view expressed freely.  They are very conscious of the neighbors (the babies that have to go to sleep), the businesses in the area, the sanitation issues, and of their relationship with the police (they are civil servants who are part of the 99%... they are not the enemy).  These people know what they are doing.

Yet, there are those who are provocateurs.  There are anarchists.  There are the glommers-on who have no real interest in the cause (as undefined as it is), but only want to stir up trouble.  These people are present, and they are ready.  The struggle will be for the organizers how to mitigate these people so that they do not spoil the whole enterprise.

John and I both wore clericals. I was surprised at the expression of desire among many people that the clergy get involved and that the Church (whatever church) make a statement. This is a nod to whatever residual authority the Church may still hold within the younger demographic of American society.  Gen Y is so very different than the Baby-Boomers, yet they can at times look very similiar.  This is a problem for the Baby Boomers - they see Gen Y and think that they are like themselves.  This is clearly seen who Baby-Boomer commentators write or speak about how this protest is like the 1960's or the aging hippies in Zuccotti Park. 

Here is the thing:  As a Christian, I am compelled to regard both sides as having the need to redemption and in the need of reconciliation.  Neither side is all evil or all virtuous! 

No social, political, or economic systems will achieve what most people are seeking.  All the "systems" are temporal and fallible - they look great on paper but don't work in real life.  All systems presume something about the human creature that is invalid.  From the start, then, the systems that look great on paper do not work when the rubber-hits-the-road. 

So, what I will say will not please anyone, frankly.  Capitalism and Socialism are neutral systems - both can work or not depending on the people who lead and the people who inhabit the system.  As a Christian, I focus on the people and not so much the system (even though I have my own opinions on what system seems to work best based on data as much as possible).

The Church needs to understand that we don't simply jump on a bandwagon... we offer an alternative that begins with Jesus Christ.  That, frankly, is the problem within a society that is increasingly post-Christian and demands that everything be considered and treated equally without critical evaluation and where any opinion anyone holds must be esteemed as valid.  It is also a problem for those in the Church - particularity the leadership - who are so insecure that they are afraid to proclaim anything that might bring about opposition or ridicule or condescension.

I've been a Mac aficionado since the early days.  I used an Apple II when I was in college.  Then, my roommate Nick, who in 1984 worked for an educational entity that enabled him to buy the very first Macintosh at educational pricing, brought one home.  We were all amazed.  The product lived up to the commercial hype.



Harkening back a little further, to, say, the 1960's and the computer of the visionary film "2001."




I was in charge of technology support for Undergraduate Studies at Kent State at the change into a new millennium.  I was the Y2K guy.  And, well yes, I do like my Macintosh best.

Steve Jobs, who was not perfect by any means, not a prophet and all that, was a visionary.  He was capable to understanding what was needed and how to do it.  I do think he will be remembered as one of the greats!  Rest in peace, Steve Jobs.

When Scripture and the liturgies were first presented in the language of the people, and for our Church that occurred with the Church in England broke with Rome and the first 1549 Book of Common Prayer, it was vigorously opposed by the Roman Church authorities because of the presumed loss of control of the Church over the people.  There were legitimate concerns that the common folk, who were by in large uneducated, would not understand the intent and meaning of Scripture (determined by the Church, of course).  Yet, much of the opposition to Scripture and liturgies in the vernacular had to do with control.

When the people do not have access to Scripture, the worship of the Church, and the Church's documents in a language they understand, they by default are subservient to the hierarchs.

Considering the Church's current drive to go further down the path of full-liturgy bulletins, projection or display of hymns/songs, liturgies, and prayers overhead, even if justified by making it easier for new people or suffering from the assumption that books are passé, what actually ends up happening is the dumbing down of the people.  Perhaps, what actually happens is the making of the people subservient to the priestly cast! Does this end up being an issue of control?

If people are able to read Scripture for themselves, they are empowered!  If people are introduced to, taught how to use, and encouraged to engage with the Book of Common Prayer (BCP), for themselves, even if in the pews on Sunday morning, they are empowered!  They learn for themselves the liturgies, the prayers, the theology that is actually espoused and maintained in the BCP.  They are able to then hold accountable the clergy cast who find it far too interesting and edgy to play around with time-honed and tested liturgies for the sake of being novel or out of their own boredom.

In the parish I've been a part of, a several years ago a bishop was conducting his episcopal visit.  The bishop was in the pulpit preaching when on of the matrons of the parish stood up, in the midst of him speaking, and said, "Bishop, that is not the teaching of the Catholic Church."  She challenged some "edgy," novel teaching he was espousing.  He stopped, turned around, exited the pulpit, and his sermon ended then and there.  If this woman had not been taught the Faith, if she did not engage with the BCP regularly, if she did not know Scripture for herself, she would not be able to hold accountable those who are supposed to guard the Faith.  She was empowered!  She challenged the hierarchy when they deviated.

Change will always occur, and there is nothing intrinsically wrong with change.  There is nothing wrong with LCD screens projecting everything.  Yet, the reasons for change whether in theology, use of technology, or praxis are very important.  The more we encourage, teach, and bring people to engage for themselves Scripture, the Book of Common Prayer, and the documents that inform our faith and life in Christ, the more empowered the people are to take control of their own faith and life in Christ.

My desire is to work myself out of a job, our of a position, out of a place of a determining authority by teaching people to think for themselves, to know their own texts (whether a physical book in the pew, on an iPad, or whatever).  In so doing, I provide for them the knowledge and ability to know for themselves.  There are specific acts and responsibilities that are given to me by virtue of my priesthood and will only be done by a priest, yet the more I enable people to be independent (in the context of community) in their thinking the more able they are to live a full Christian life.

I've come to believe that doing it all for the people ends in the impoverishment of the people, a dumbing down of the people, and a renewed control of the clergy cast over the people. My experience tells me that people are more attracted to a way of living the Faith when they know as much as they can, not in an deluded attempt by the clergy cast to make them feel welcome by doing it all for them.

The new 2011 Beloit College Mindset List for the new freshmen class of 2015 is now out.

"This year's entering college class of 2015 was born just as the Internet took everyone onto the information highway and as Amazon began its relentless flow of books and everything else into their lives.  Members of this year's freshman class, most of them born in 1993, are the first generation to grow up taking the word "online" for granted and for whom crossing the digital divide has redefined research, original sources and access to information, changing the central experiences and methods in their lives. They have come of age as women assumed command of U.S. Navy ships, altar girls served routinely at Catholic Mass, and when everything from parents analyzing childhood maladies to their breaking up with boyfriends and girlfriends, sometimes quite publicly, have been accomplished on the Internet."

The whole list is below the jump.

Related articles

• Ferris Bueller's Kid Goes To College (outsidethebeltway.com)
• Class of 2015: So young, Ferris could be their dad (today.msnbc.msn.com)
• What's older than these freshmen? (boston.com)

This is a great little video by Gungor.... has a should very similar to Sufjan.  Hum.

Here is an interesting article in Newsweek - "How To Raise a Global Kid" (now found on The Daily Beast website) concerning what parents who can afford such things are doing with their children and their kid's education to make sure that they are more than adequately prepared for the future.  With Asia in the ascendence and the West, including the USA, in the process of decline, if not crumbling, they see the necessity in educating their children to be "global kids."

First of all, among those who are considered "movers and shakers" outside of our crass political spheres there is the recognition that the West - Europe and the USA as the predominate entities - will not be able to resurrect out of our decline.  Therefore, was people enmeshed in the "world economy" and of means, they are assuring a global oligarchy that extends beyond geo-political boundaries.  What does this foretell concerning the vast majority of young people and their education in U.S. schools?  What does this foretell concerning the U.S.'s ability to actually solve the fundamental and profound problems we are facing (let alone the E.U. Euro and debt issues)?

While I sincerely hope that we are able to squarely face our problems, right now I sadly doubt we have the will within our collective minds and believe that we no longer have politicians who will make the very tough decisions to avoid collapse of our derived "empire."  Worryingly, I think we have to hit bottom before anything is truly done.

This bodes not well for emerging generations.  Those who have the means and who have parents savvy enough to know what is going on in the broad, world scheme will come through as "global kids" who will inhabit the global oligarchy. That means the center of power will no longer be the West. I don't want this to be fear-mongering, but I just don't see the leadership necessary to deal with the issues.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/07/17/american-kids-immersed-in-chinese-asian-education.html

In an article from the Telegraph (England) entitle, Flee to Mars if America commits worst error since 1931, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard writes about the U.S. fiscal mess and Congress' dysfunction.

A couple pertinent paragraphs:

Yes, there is such a concept as an "expansionary fiscal contraction", as in Ireland (1980s), Denmark (1990s), arguably Canada (1990s), and the UK after both 1932 and 1993, but in every successful case this was accompanied by monetary loosening. That card has already been played this time.

Should America instead opt to evade these fiscal cuts by actually defaulting on debts accumulated by self-indulgent baby boomers, I would also like to flee Mars because such an outcome might be even worse.

Those who choose to breach America's sacred bond to creditors across the world in this squalid way, in circumstances short of war or extenuating distress, deserve our contempt. Be they accursed forever if they stoop so low.

Politically speaking in an observatory way, this is fascinating to watch. This is not reality TV, however, where we can edit out way out of the unpleasantness.  We are forced to live with and in the dysfunction. It makes the whole situation a little more dire.

I haven't thought all that much about the ending of the Space Shuttle program - I mean I really have, but I don't dwell on the subject.  I'm having an emotional, visceral reaction.  I've always been so enamored with the future, technology, and space exploration.  The first launch in 1981 was an exciting event.

I wonder why the United States could not have or develop a replacement launch system to take the Shuttles place.  Now, we are at the mercy of the Russians to get any of our people into space.  Perhaps this is just a lull, but the decimation of the space industry that is resulting is not good for the future of our space program.

I also understand that the monies allocated to NASA could be better spent creating new systems for deep space exploration - by be in a glorified bus business.  I understand that.  Yet, at this point in time I don't believe that our situation is a result of a well planned out program.  I simply fear that with all of other national problems, the U.S. space exploration program may well be hampered, permanently.

We shall see, but for now there is no longer a means to get our guys into space.

"Because in fact, we are slipping back fast into something like the ancient world.  We are slipping back towards a world of narrow tunnel vision of religions and superstitious practice, a world where lots and lots of people have their lords and god, their practices and their mysticisms, that do not really relate to each other.  We are slipping away from the idea that there might be a faith that would bring all human beings together. We are slipping back socially and internationally into the assumption that there really are such differences in human beings that we can forget about God's universal righteousness."

Dr. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, during Bible studies delivered at the 13th meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council, Nottingham 2005

Kenda Creasy Dean in her new-ish book, Almost Christian: What the Faith of Our Teenagers Is Telling the American Church, describes the primary "faith" of American teenagers as "Therapeutic, Moralistic, Deism" rather than a form of the enduring Christian Faith.  This description of the faith-system (as much as it can be a formal "system" at this point) comes out of the results and analysis of the National Study of Youth and Religion project.

Both with Rowan and Kenda, these are pictures of where we are culturally, particularly among the emerging generations, and what is to come within the culture and within our individual lives as believers or not.  How are we ready?

Sparkhous

 

There is an interesting review of Henry Kissinger's new book, On China, in this past week's edition of Newsweek, entitled, "Dr. K's RX for China."  (Accessed 5/31/2011)  (NYT's Book Review)

"The Old Testament does communicate to us and it was written for us, and for all humankind. But it was not written to us. It was written to Israel. It is God's revelation of himself to Israel and secondarily through Israel to everyone else. As obvious as this is, we must be aware of the implications of that simple statement. Since it was written to Israel, it is in a language that most of us do not understand, and therefore it requires translation. But the language is not the only aspect that needs to be translated. Language assumes a culture, operates in a culture, serves a culture, and is designed to communicate into the framework of a culture. Consequently, when we read a text written in another language and addressed to another culture, we must translate the culture as well as the language if we hope to understand the text fully." [Italic emphasis the author's, Bold emphasis mine]

The Lost World of Genesis One, John H. Walton (Donners Grove: Intervarsity Press; 2009, p. 9)

I think, also, that when we consider passing on the Faith to new generations we must consider how best to translate the Faith, as well as the lessons of Scripture, to that new generation.  We have to understand the emerging culture in which these new generations reside - and the emerging culture is not the same as ours, the adults who are making the decisions.

So much effort by the Religious Right has gone to trying to prove that this country of ours is God's divine creation and holds a special place in His heart and in His plans - akin to the way the Hebrew Nation was/is considered within the spectrum of the Hebrew Scriptures. This causes so much twisting of history and the writings of our Founders. This also fuels the demand that the geo-political and sociopolitical world of Neo-Conservative is actually what Christianity is all about. As I have often said, this harms the cause of Christ in the United States.

Here is a book that may well bring perspective to such claims by the Religious Right.  Christianity Today has a review of "Was America Founded as a Christian Nation? A Historical Introduction" by John Fea (Westminster John Knox Press, 2011)

Fea also sketches a helpful history of the Christian nation narrative, showing how feuding factions--northern abolitionists and southern slaveholders, fundamentalists and Social Gospellers, contemporary conservatives and progressives--have defined and appropriated America's contested religious heritage.

In presenting the past disinterestedly, Fea rebukes the habit of "cherry-picking from the past as a means of promoting a political or cultural agenda in the present." Washington's Farewell Address doesn't validate the Religious Right's blueprint for society, any more than Jefferson's bowdlerized Bible validates the Left's alternative.

Read the entire article, here.

Very good opinion piece by David Brooks in the New York Times.  He uses the new musical, "The Book of Mormon," as his backdrop. This notion of speeding away from anything that distinguishes us or makes us peculiar or diminishes the rigors of the Faith will in the end result in nothing but decline and a faith that has little real impact on the world, particularly for the cause of Christ. 

A couple paragraphs:

The only problem with "The Book of Mormon" (you realize when thinking about it later) is that its theme is not quite true. Vague, uplifting, nondoctrinal religiosity doesn't actually last. The religions that grow, succor and motivate people to perform heroic acts of service are usually theologically rigorous, arduous in practice and definite in their convictions about what is True and False.

That's because people are not gods. No matter how special some individuals may think they are, they don't have the ability to understand the world on their own, establish rules of good conduct on their own, impose the highest standards of conduct on their own, or avoid the temptations of laziness on their own.

The religions that thrive have exactly what "The Book of Mormon" ridicules: communal theologies, doctrines and codes of conduct rooted in claims of absolute truth.

Rigorous theology provides believers with a map of reality. These maps may seem dry and schematic -- most maps do compared with reality -- but they contain the accumulated wisdom of thousands of co-believers who through the centuries have faced similar journeys and trials.

Rigorous theology allows believers to examine the world intellectually as well as emotionally. Many people want to understand the eternal logic of the universe, using reason and logic to wrestle with concrete assertions and teachings.

Sometimes, groups within the Church (whether the larger Church universal or this Church, as in the Episcopal/Anglican Church), come to feel as if they are sitting by themselves in the midst of a wilderness.  Sometimes, the reasons for such feelings (or realities) are do to geography and location, sometimes are because of sociopolitical or theological issues of disagreement, sometimes they are because the greater organization just doesn't get what the groups are doing and to one degree or another ostracizes the various groups.

What can be done? There are a lot of things that can be done, but one of the "solutions" that is almost always and only destructive is separation. When a Church or parish or family or even friends separate, failure has already occurred.  We can attempt to clean up the mess by giving all kinds of justifications for why the separation, the split, is good or profitable or better than the alternative.  Well, we can try to spin the separation all we want, but we have already failed.

Within this new kind of ministry, the Imago Dei Initiative, outside the walls of current experiences of "church," it is too easy for people to attempt to force us into already established modes of operation and definition that are no longer working very well. These modes of operation and definition are tending to fail in these days because the center of gravity - the very purpose for the existence of Church - has been overwhelmed if not usurped by the prevailing culture. As the whelming continues and as we continue to lose members and lose the interest of growing percentages of the population as a result, we like to lob bombs of accusation against those "godless liberals" or those "fundamentalist conservatives" and spin, spin, spin how it is all those other peoples' fault.  But, the very act of conceiving of and wanting to throw bombs is, again, already a sign of failure.

Is it true - I mean truly true - that new wine cannot be poured into old wine skins? I want to think (believe) that there is a way, with God's help. I wonder - more than wonder at this point and suspect not. Not much of what I witness and experience leads me to believe that it is possible.  Where, then, does that leave "new wine" kind of Christian communities and ministries within the greater structures of the Church (and I'm specifically thinking about Episcopal/Anglican Churches)?

All I can say at this point is that we are called to be faithful. I content that that to which we are to be faithful firstly is God and the restorative, reconciling relationship made possible again through Jesus the Christ. We are able to do this by the enabling of the Comforter, the Holy Spirit. I find it quite true that we can take confidence in the "enduring Christian Tradition," and for us that enduring Tradition is in the Anglican form. 
 
I say "enduring" because it helps us jump out of the never-ending, swirling, swirling eddy of chaos that we find ourselves as we continually lob bombs and accusations about theology and politics and piety and all the rest.  That which is "enduring" is not bound by ideas that call themselves conservative or liberal.  It is apolitical, or should be.  For me, and for what I envision for the Imago Dei Initiative, "enduring" is that which has survived through 2,000 years of persecution, trial and tribulation, through countless cultures and languages.  That which has survived and continues to thrive is "enduring Christianity."

Our call to ourselves and to others is to begin to experience anew the Tradition - those aspects of the Faith that have gravity and traction in the tactile world which help people to experience their Christian faith as consequential. We call people with intention and persistence to give themselves to the practice of the enduring Christian Spiritual Disciplines.  These habits are simple and straightforward - the study of Scripture, the practice of prayer, the fellowship of believers, the worship of Almighty God transcendent and eminent, and the giving of ourselves for good works.
 
A problem we often run into is that we take up perhaps one or two of these and end up - even with only two - practicing them halfheartedly. Our busy world works against such discipline. When we do this, we end up experiencing a profoundly diminished form of the Christian faith. This is where much of American Christianity finds itself. All aspects of the Disciplines are important equally and need to be held in right balance, which means that as Christians our lives will by necessity look quite different from most other peoples' lives.

How do we avoid throwing bombs, becoming disillusioned, ending up angry, being ostracized? How do we avoid separation and splitting up? Commit to the development of the Disciplines. Love God with our entire being. Love our neighbors as ourselves. Profoundly difficult stuff to do, but with God's help we are able. Find like-mined people for support, encouragement, and accountability.

We want to find and bring together these kinds of people - these like-minded people who desire to be the imago Dei, the imago of God, where we work, play, study, help others, and have fun. The fields are ripe for harvest.  People everywhere are seeking God and the significance found in a restorative relationship with God. In the emerging culture, it will be this kind of witness by consequential Christians that will make a difference.

This is how and what we want to be.  God help us.

(Photo: The Coptic Christian chapel at Bethany-beyond-the-Jordan. @Copyrite 2011 by Bob Griffith, all rights reserved)

The Christian Science Monitor published an opinion piece online March 24th, 2011. The piece is by Jonathan Merritt and entitled,"Evangelical shift on gays: Why 'clobber scriptures' are losing ground."

I've been watching this shift over the last 20 odd years. I'm still amazed at the length certain anti-homosexual groups go to attempt to reinforce their positions, even while the arguments they use are constantly changing over time because their arguments of justification loose their persuasive force as the blanket exaggerations or misinformation of gay people become all too clear.  It does them no good nor their argument when what they say no longer seems to line up with what more and more people are experiencing in their day-to-day lives.

They've lost the emerging generations, already. In Barna Group's research project that resulted in the book "unChristian," one of their primary findings suggests that emerging young people find Christianity in the U.S. to be profoundly anti-homosexual, and it doesn't jib well with their own beliefs or experiences.

(Now, I will say that much depends on how one defines "homosexual" or how one believes homosexuals think or act in the aggregate. The primarily Religious Right anti-homosexual groups try to persuade people that most all homosexuals are sex-crazed alcoholics who will just as soon molest your young son as have a coke at the corner dinner. Spreading this kind of misinformation is simply baring false-witness against a whole class of people, whether one believes those people need saving, healing, or death or not.  As a Christian, I will say that much of what is presented as normative in the urban gay subculture by certain gay interests - hedonism - isn't the kind of life that is conducive to our own personal best interests.  But, the gay people involved in living their lives in such a way are no different than what I witnessed in my 20-years working in higher education with students who happen to be in the straight Greek system - unabashed hedonists.)

Back to the issue at hand and speaking of "clobber passages"... I've particularly noticed how Bible publishers have been dealing with the issue.  As might be known, the term "homosexual" never appeared in an English Bible until the mid-to-late 1950's - that's approximate 450 years without such a term in English Bibles. Over the years, as their arguments against all forms of homosexual relationships continue to gain less traction, the anti-homosexual groups attempt to reinforce their position by becoming even more specific and detailed in their demand of and translation of Scripture to attempt to bolster their failing arguments. 

For example, the length that the English Standard Bible goes to attempt to make specifically clear that the obscure Greek words found in I Corinthians 6:9 are absolutely about homosexuals, but not just homosexuals, but about men, and not just men, but in the footnote pertaining the to two Greek words, men who are the passive AND the active partners AND both giving consent.  The ESV translates the Greek words, "nor men who practice homosexuality," with the footnote clarifying the mean with, "The two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts." 

The King James version translates the words this way, "...nor effeminate, or abusers of themselves with mankind."  The New International Version translates the words this way, "...nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders."  The New American Standard Version translates the words this way, "...nor effeminate, nor homosexuals," with the footnote specifying, "I.e., effeminate by perversion."  (How is one "effeminate by perversion?")The New Revised Standard Version translates the words this way, "males prostitutes, sodomites..." 

The truth is, whether it supports a socio-political position or agenda or not (conservative or liberal), we simply do not know what Paul meant.  Yet, in order to tow the anti-homosexual line, Bible publishers cave into the demand by anti-gay Religious Right organizations to take a anti-gay stand in the translation of these words. (I Tim. 1:10, is another example) I've witnessed big campaigns that demand the Bible publishers publish the translation even more specific, as we witness in the EVS. 

After all, we have to make the Bible absolutely specific in order to keep ignorant people from being deceived by Satan (through the liberal Bible "scholars") trying to make homosexuality not a sin, make in normal and celebrated in the public mind, when we know that the end of this will be death and the end of Western Civilization by the punishing judgement of God.  Right?  You see why the anti-gay zealots have to exert a great deal of pressure on the Bible publishers to be absolutely specific that God condemns in no uncertain terms everything homosexual, whether we know the Greek words used by Paul actually mean "homosexuals" or not.

The problem, as the opinion piece details, these kinds of arguments are no longer persuading the emerging generations.  It isn't that the fags are winning in the deceiving of young, impressionable minds (although there is some truth in the assertion that the pro-gay message has more traction than the anti-gay message), but that the justifications and "proofs" for the anti-gay arguments are being shown to be fallacious.

I want to be clear, as a Christian and as a priest in this Church, our role and goal is not simply to affirm different groups of people, including homosexual people.  Our goal is always and for everyone - everyone - the cause of Christ for salvation, reconciliation, and restoration calling us into such a life that we become free of so much within our world that binds us, deadens us, enslaves us, deceives us, and causes our lives to be separated from God and estranged form one another.  This means that I call homosexual people as another other people into the reconciling relationship with God through Jesus Christ.  This will transform us and cause us to be different - not tied up in knots by giving ourselves to the hedonistic culture.  This does not mean, however, that homosexuals stop being homosexual.  Gay or straight, we are called to be with God according to God's ways and not simply according to the dictates of the prevailing culture or our own proclivities.

The anti-gay Religious Right will not win in their quest and crusade, because their positions cannot be sustained according to the truth that we know.  Yet, they will become even more demanding and stringent as they lose influence, as their arguments fail.  Unless, of course, as we are witnessing, people change their positions.  This has already happened for the majority of younger people.

I recently read an essay by Elizabeth Drescher on the "rd Magazine" website entitled "Turn Off, Slow Down, Drop In: The Digital Generation Reinvents the Sabbath"

I love this paragraph:

At the other end of the spectrum, fantasies that the application of new technologies to traditional practices will, in themselves, enrich life in general and spirituality in particular are no less misguided. Take a recent blog post on the U.S. Congregational Life Survey, which shared with italicized surprise the utterly unremarkable finding that "use of visual projection equipment in worship is not related to church growth." No kidding? Survey says: a dull video or lame music is just dull as a preacher blah-blah-blah-ing on in person with no relational interest in or connection to the people to whom they are blab-casting. So, too, an engaging, interactive minister who genuinely connects to people and encourages their connection to one another is going to be compelling face-to-face and in technologically-enabled engagements (see, for example, @texasbishop, @MeredithGould, @jaweedkaleem).  [emphasis mine]

For some reason, and this gets to some of the other stuff in the article and in the life of the Church in general (particularly the Mainline denominations and more particularly the Episcopal Church, of which I am a priest), we think we must manage God.  After all, if we don't manage God everything will just fall apart and we will devolve into nothingness. (Yeah, and how is that going for us?)

The Episcopal Church is in crisis because we are a dying institution (has little to do with the gay-issue or the conservatives leaving the Church - although it has a whole lot to do with it... irony).  So many people are rushing to do triage and to save this venerable national treasure, but the ways and means they are trying to save it are little more than the same old things that have been going on for the last 40 years that have gotten us into the mess to begin with.  They dress up these tired old ways and means in hipster clothing or Emergent garb thinking that things like PowerPoint presentations, bad rock-ish music, hip-cool candles and flashy lights, casting off vestments, or better yet taking out pews, sidelining the Prayer Book, explaining away Scripture, or outlawing Rite I language will magically make the Church all rad (yes, I know) so that streams of young people will suddenly fill the empty spaces. What they end up doing is just another form of blab-casting. 

What we so often forget is that Jesus is the one that builds the Church, and if we so manage affairs of the Church according to trendy culture dictates that Jesus is nicely tucked away out of site, well, we have already failed.

There are streams of young people filling churches. Just not our churches.  Around where I live (Brooklyn, NY), within an 1/2-hour walk I can take you to at least 5 churches that are in the hundreds of members each and are made up almost exclusively with those under, say, 32 years of age.  They beg for people over 40 to come to their churches.  St. Paul's, where I serve, has a very close relationship with a few of these churches.  You know what they are doing in their services?  Old Hymns song out of hymnals. Traditional liturgies (they are rediscovering the significance of liturgy).  We use Rite I at St. Paul's for our principle liturgy (Rite II other times - we aren't protesting anything), but when we talk about changing to Rite II, it is the 20-somethings  who have been coming in greater numbers over the last 5 years who protest the loudest.

This is why my work in the Imago Dei Society/Initiative isn't focused on being trendy, but on understanding emerging generations and emerging culture to find out not how to become like them, but to discover how to translate the Faith to them in ways they can understand, form them into consequential Christians, and learn how to receive, living into and pass on the enduring Tradition in its Anglican form. This doesn't play too well when those attempting triage are bent on re-hashing the latest hip-cool thing the culture throws at us (even when all the evidence shows that what younger people are looking for is something substantially different from all that hype and manipulation). 

From a short article in Newsweek (Feb. 14th edition, pg. 6) dealing with e-books and the future of print books into the future.

"The Future of the Book" - from James Billington, librarian of Congress:

"The new immigrants don't shoot the old inhabitants when they come in. Our technology tends to supplement rather than supplant.  How you read is not as important as: will you read? And will you read something that's a book - the sustained train of thought of one person speaking to another? Search techniques are embedded in e-books that invite people to dabble rather than follow a full train of thought. This is part of a general cultural problem." (emphasis mine)

What impact might this "dabbling" have on the "train of thought" of the Gospel? What impact might this development have on already short attention spans?  How might this impact our engagement with knowledge, that requires sustained and perhaps linear processes? How might this change teaching and learning?

I believe this is an important idea or consequence to investigate.

I was looking through Flickr.com this morning.  I'm in the process of uploading my Israel/Jordan photographs to my account.  I noticed a couple photographs from people I follow and ended up on this guys website.  "Mer" is his moniker, perhaps his real name... I'm not sure.  Anyway, one post on his blog caught my attention.  It is entitled, "Anthony's computer is giving him diverticulitis."  The post is presented as a conversation - whether actual or as commentary I don't know - between I suspect Mer and Anthony.

"I don't know my best interest."

"It appears that way."

"No I need someone to come into my life....someone maybe hired that comes in and protects me from this culture."

"What?"

"That person would put me on a cultural diet."

"I'm sorry?"

"I would have to go into texting or cable news deprivation for months. That person would demand me to use a land line for a prescribed amount of time. Putting a lap band around my laptop use."

"Slapping mobile devices out of your hand."

"This person would come into my life and begin cutting away at the obesity of distraction."

"Sounds like textration."

"I need this. I love this sort of socialist counselor. I have ran amok. Gorged myself on the hedonistic part of the culture and come away with diseases. All because I like a big bowl of societal High Fructose Corn Syrup."

"Sounds like it includes table spoons of dramatic."

"It is me. I wasn't built for this society. As a kid I sat with my on internet; my imagination. Using Army men as play station. I should be 90 already and getting ready to die soon. This disdain for life is coming too early. I just need prescriptions of hand written letters, socializing without cellphones and news deprivation."

"OK. Your point?"

"I can't do it alone. Somebody has to come in. I need a trainer."

"You think you could find someone online?"

Consider the article in this week's Newsweek entitled, "The Science of Making Decisions," or "Brain Freeze," concerning what the constant barrage of input into our brains does to our brains and our ability to make good decisions:

"The Twitterization of our culture has revolutionized our lives, but with an unintended consequence--our overloaded brains freeze when we have to make decisions."

There are diminishing returns to the constantly plugged in society.

So, Mer's post concerning Anthony's statement, or conflict with himself - does this present a coming state of mind of many of us?  Everything I read tells me that we need to give our brains a rest.  By doing so, we are able to assimilate, contemplate, and make much more wise and satisfying decisions.

What happens when immediate trumps wise?

I just read a great blog post entitled "Tuscon: Liturgies of Anger" by David+ from "As kthe Priest."  It deals with the recent shootings in Tucson, Arizona, and the role vitriolic political and Culture War rhetoric plays in the escalation of violence. While many extreme-minded people on the Right tend to down play their role in all this (and people of the more extreme left are not exempt, either - it takes two to tango, after all), the author brings into the discussion a very interesting idea.

For those of us in liturgical Churches, we well understand the role and effect of the liturgy within and upon people - their thoughts, their lives, their dispositions, their sense of selves and their place in the world, etc.  The repeated rhythms and foci of liturgies have a transformative effect on and in peoples' lives. The words of Scripture, prayers, confessions, and reflections get into us, and we believe the Holy Spirit uses all these aspects of liturgy to change us to better reflect the imago of God and to be made evermore into the image of Christ.

If we understand the transformative role of the liturgies and the repeated forms, then we also know that the continual drone of vitriol, character assassination, etc., has a deleterious effect on our culture and upon the thinking and acting of ordinary people - all of us. To deny such a thing is to deny the understanding of Madison Ave. and all the ad-men/women who pump out billions of dollars of advertisements to get us to buy products, to change our minds on certain causes, and to vote for certain people.

Living within a society that champions free-speech is one thing, but engaging in false witness, in manipulative speech designed to denigrate and vilify one's opponent, designed to tear down responsible trust in our government (particulalrly the courst), etc., will only result in this kind of thing. These are the actions of frustrated people who know that their positions have become unaccepted and unbelieved by the majority of people.  Their arguments are not persuasive for the majority of citizens, and then suddenly the end justifies whatever means they can devise to win.

I've been saying for a few years now that if we continue on down of our current political and Culture War path, a representative democracy will not be possible.  This is the kind of outcome that we allow! If we don't stand up and demand civility among our elected officials and demand to stop those who strive to manipulate the process and populace when their arguments to persuade the rest of us of the rightness of their cause fail them, then we deserve what we get.

By the way, a former seminary-mate of mine one year behind my class, The Rev. Cn. Amy Coultas, is one of the contributing priests.

Increasingly, this is our reality...



via: Nick

"We have come with some confidence to believe that a significant part of Christianity in the United States is actually only tenuously Christian in any sense that it is seriously connected to the actual historical Christian tradition... It is not so much that U.S. Christianity is being secularized.  Rather, more subtly, Christianity is either degenerating into a pathetic version of itself or, more significantly, Christianity is actively being colonized and displaced by quite a different religious faith."

-Christian Smith with Melinda Denten; quote from: Almost Christian: what the faith of our teenagers is telling the American Church, by Kendra Creasy Dean (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010; p.3)

I'm very interested in reading this book.  The quote above fits very well with what I have been observing and experiencing over the last decade, at least.  Much of the "Christianity" I witness from both the supposed "Left" and "Right" are combining into something that is only vaguely recognizable as Christianity when couched within the historic tradition of the Faith.

I believe this is one of many reasons, albeit a more prominent reason, for the distrust and poor image the U.S. Church in general has among younger people.  I believe this is one reason for the decline in the success of the Church in the U.S. to truthfully engage the emerging culture and emerging generations in ways that resonate with them - ways that actually smack of Jesus' example and his teachings.

Here are excerpts from the opening page from Kendra Dean, the author:

"Let me save you some trouble.  Here is the gist of what you are about to read: American young people are, theoretically, fine with religious faith - but it does not concern them very much, and it is not durable enough to survive long after they graduate from high school.

"One more thing: we're responsible.

"...the religiosity of American teenagers must be read as a reflection of their parents' religious devotion (or lack thereof) and, by extension, that of their congregations. Teenagers themselves consistently demonstrate an openness to religion, but few of them are deeply committed to one."

What in the world are we doing with this ancient faith in these days that makes this faith that has endured 2,000 years of trial, persecution, within a multitude of cultures and languages, so "not durable" among our young? 

I agree with Dean, but we have to face squarely that we (those who are currently leading or moving into leadership) are failing the One-Who-Came-to-Gives-Us-Life-to-the-Full among the young.  I don't blame them; the fault is ours - "by our fault, by our own fault, by our most grievous fault."

Is it really the case that we would rather justify our own selves (all of our pet and "insightful" theories) while our actions speak volumes of faithlessness, neglect, polarization, hubris, greed, hypocrisy?  I think so.  Read the results of Barna's research in their book, "unChristian."

We've got to end this. Lord, make speed to help us!

Regrettably, Newsweek (which I've subscribed to since high school - I'm a news geek) isn't posting online its most recent edition (which I received by mail on Tuesday). If it did, I would link the most recent "Scope" article by Lisa Miller. She writes about what is motivating the Religious Right leading up to the 2012 elections (already?).

Miller suggests that what is motivating Evangelical Christians in the USA of the Religious Right stripe is not the culture-war issues as in the last general election, like abortion or gay-marriage, but what is motivating them for the upcoming election "is a vision of America as God's own special country and a belief that free-market capitalism is crucial to its flourishing," according to Tony Campolo.


A quote by Tony Compolo from the article:

"The marriage between evangelicalism and patriotic nationalism is so strong... that anybody who is raising questions about loyalty to the old laissez-faire capitalist system - by, say, supporting bailouts - is unpatriotic, un-American, and, by association, non-Christian." This is a shame for the cause of Christ in the USA!"

This is a sad day for Christianity and the Cause of Christ in the United States.  We reduce the enduring and life-giving Gospel of to political and/or economic ideologies that are nothing more than the creations of Man, not God!  The Church and the Gospel are defamed and trivialized to the point of being nothing more than a reflection of the latest cultural trend. 

With respect to the Gospel and an eternal perspective there is no such thing as "American Exceptionalism."  There may well be exceptional things that have come out of the United States during its history, but that does not mean there is such a thing as a divinely established "American Exceptionalism."  A word for those who believe such a thing may be hubris or perhaps vainglory. 

We wouldn't be what we are today if it were not for the exceptional nature of the English contribution to world history.  Yet, I don't hear of an English Exceptionalism (of course, the colonized peoples of the world would certainly make exception to such a claim).

A little humility, please, and the acknowledgment that this culture is anything but Christian - as least as Scripture and the authors of it describe this thing called the life in Christ.  (All of this coming from a person, me, who truly believes that many very positive and creative things coming out of the United States have been valuable contributions to the world's well being, reflected in such things as American ingenuity and out of the Protestant Work Ethic, and from one who tends to be more philosophically conservative - which is different than the present neo-Conservative idiocy.)

So, there you go.

The funny thing is, this list of supposed contradictions in the Bible support the notion that there is little difference between fundie Christians and fundie atheists.  Both are so desperate to prove or disprove God that they distort and manipulate for their own ends Scripture that was never intended to be used or understood in such ways.  The graphic is fantastic, but the "scholarship" is more than questionable - certainly not reasonable.

See "Contradictions in the Bible" from "Project Reason."  See here for an example list.  I don't think this chart and the examples given are very reasonable - not that there are not issues in the consistency of Scripture, but most of these imagined contradictions simply do not hold up when one spends a bit of time actually investigating what is going on in the text and context.  Yet, fundamentalist atheists are as blinded by their determination to disprove as are fundamentalist religious people of whatever religion to prove.  Both come to no good end, I'm afraid.

Form the blog, Blatant Careerist, comes this article by Ryan Healy entitled, "Twentysomething: Why I don't want Life/Work Balance," on attitudes concerning work/life blending, older people, liking one's career, and the like.

He writes:

I wholeheartedly believe that my life has a purpose. My purpose is to be successful, genuinely happy and to make a difference in this world somewhere along the way. Not a single one of these values can take a backseat to another. The balance doesn't work, we already know this. I don't want to choose. I want a blended life...

The lines between work and life have been blurred for years. I have decided to embrace this fact and work on the best blend for my life. Whether this means working hours that fit around my schedule or being paid for results rather than the amount of hours worked, I'm not sure. I will leave that question to the management consultants and human resource experts. In the meantime my peers and I will keep searching for this blended life, while everyone else continues to run in circles failing to achieve their so-called balance.

His attitude on enjoying work is positive and he doesn't seem to so easily compartmentalize his life.  Plus, his comment on the reality of those who try to find balance in life and work are true, for the most part.  Really, that comment is a commentary on the failure of most to find such a balance and there are many reasons for this.  It does not, of course, negative the healthy benefits of balance in life! Yet...

The alternative or difference given to our society by the teachings of Christ present the concept of Sabbath rest - a time apart. This in no way negates life/work blending, but the possibility of self-expansion and intentional self-reflection in realms and ways not generally supported by our culture any longer (aside from just giving our brains a rest).

I wonder if there will be substantial change when family, particularly children, come into play?  I know that many childless couples relationships are far less "traditional" in terms of communication, time spent together, work and life, etc.  Yet, kids have a way of changing one profoundly and one's view, attitudes, and actions on all manner of things.  If extended adolescents is really what is going on here, when Ryan and others really do enter into adulthood (and, of course, that whole statement is up for grabs) will all this change?  Will he end up taking on more of an attitude of the "older people" who value their "home time" that he is so careful not to interrupt?

Here is an article from the New York Times by Marci Alborher entitled, "Blurring by Choice and Passion," in the "Small Business" section on job shifting.  She begins by writing about growing up and the blurring that seemed to take place between the life and work of her parents, who owned a string of shore-side motels along the Jersey shore.

She then writes about her shift in careers from being a lawyer (as a protest against her parents' blurred lifestyle) to being a journalist, and finds that she has returned to the "blended" or "blurred" work/life lifestyle.  As she writes, as a blurring or blending takes place, it has a lot to do with how much you enjoy your work - seems obvious.

She writes:

"But somehow, I have found my way back to a life with few boundaries. And I rarely complain about it. Whether you see yourself as a workaholic or as someone who merely blurs the line between work and play has lot to do with whether you like your work... Could it be that blurring and blending are the new work/life balance? ...In addition to entrepreneurs like my parents, blurring is rampant among those who fashion a career out of a passion..."

Yet, I wonder how an effect balance is reached and kept that mitigates against burnout or obsession?  It can be hard to keep oneself balanced, at least that is what I find in my own life.

Yes, my work and life are just about completely blurred and blended.  Perhaps that is the nature of being a priest, where the passion for God's people and Kingdom is blatant.  I find recognizing (really recognizing, not just knowing about) that place of healthy work/life balance and staying there is really tough. That became painfully clear during my self-evaluations during my recent CREDO experience.

I just finished watching a video from 60-Minutes on the Millennial generation and their life/work habits and attitudes, entitled, "The Millennials Are Coming." From this video piece, it could be argued that the whole generation (in the aggregate, of course) has developed a work/life blurring/blending lifestyle.  I wonder what the percentage might be among the whole population of those who are actually able to do this sort of thing?  Consider, also, that this video what shot before the economic downturn.  I wonder what might be said, now?  Extended adolescents and moving back home with the parents may only be compounded.

But, I want to pick up on this idea of life/work blurring and blending.  I'm wondering how this might transfer over to our efforts in finding new ways of translating the enduring Faith to emerging generations and the emerging culture.  The concept of blurring life and faith - one's everyday life experiences with the reality of one's faith/religious life - might be something to consider and expand. If this kind of concept caught on, there might be fewer attempts to compartmentalize one's life, thus alienating huge parts of one's life - actions, thoughts, and beliefs - from what goes on any given "Sunday morning." The reality of the Life in Christ, the ability to live out as fully as possible Christ with us, should reflect a complete blending and blurring of life/faith.

If the trend of life-work blurring and blending is the new norm, will it be easier to convey the life-faith blurring and blending that really is a better understanding of the Christian life?  After all, such passion certainly is a descriptive of those whose lives reflect the image of God in profound ways.  To be the imago Dei, how could there not be a blurring and blending of life, work, faith, play, relationships, and all else that we encounter?

The CBS, 60-Minutes video from 2007:

Well, this election cycle is now over, except for the changes that have to be realized in the next few months.

I voted.  I did my civic duty, but this election cycle sucked.  I found myself voting not so much for who I wanted, but voting against what I thought to be terrible prospects.  This isn't a good rationale for voting!

Here is one of the problems in the American psyche that we have to face and deal with. Many of the founding ideals of the American Republic sat squarely on the notion that the common citizen is the best locus for control and for fulfilling the Declaration of Independence's call for the "pursuit of happiness."  What we have done, which in some ways is the triumph of "liberal" dogma that the government best holds our individual futures and is the solution to our common problems, is to give over to the government the responsibilities to make us happy, not just guarantee a free and even playing field for each person to pursue happiness.  We have given over to the government many of our rights, freedoms, and perogatives, so that government will play the role of Nannie to our collectively childish whims. We don't want the responsibility for our own happiness; we don't want the responsibility for our own jobs, we don't want to deal with the consequences of our own laziness or short-sightedness or irresponsibility concerning money, health, or the common good.

One of the triumphs of the "conservative" dogma is the hyper-individualism that has driven us so far away from notions of the common good that in our hyper-individualism we have fallen out of the practice of looking out of the good of one another.  We forget what it means to be part of a community, so that when we face hard times we no longer have others to rely upon for help, support, and encouragement, which then simply drives us out of fear, necessity, or ignorance into the waiting arms of a governmental bureaucracy needing to justify itself and its growth. We look to government for social salvation because we no longer know how to rely on one another or that social salvation rests with each of us, together.  Well, perhaps we don't really want to help our neighbors anyway, since in a selfish compulsion we try to accumulate things or money or a sense of personal security in an attempt to protect ourselves, as individuals, from the harshness of the real world.

(What also needs to be acknowledged is that the founders generally believed that the "citizenry" consisted of white, male, landowners. They were, after all, the ones who were allowed to vote. They were expected to be educated enough to know the issues and be less susceptible to manipulation or deception. They owned land so they had a true vested interest in the success of the whole enterprise, it was assumed. I wonder, sometimes and particularly after this election cycle, if perhaps there were elements of truth in their thinking, at least concerning education and vested interest - not concerning participation based on sex or race.) 

By the way, we are not guarenteed "happiness," just the freedom to "pursue" happiness - this is a big difference.  We've also gotten this mixed up.  Now, we demand of the government in whatever form that it guarantee our happiness, our jobs, our success, our health!  This is impossible and cannot be the responsibility of the government, at what ever level.  Yet, because as a society we have for the most part abandoned individual responsibility for our own actions and prosperity, we now make these untenable demands of our government.  When the government doesn't deliver, immediately, then we are convinced by certain groups that benefit from chaos, mistrust, and mismanagement that the government in power, or the party in power, is not listening, is not doing "for the people," is not fulfilling its responsibility to us.  It was never the government's responsibility in the first place, and we are near idiots to try to place such expectations on the government.  We will always be let down if we try, and we will then act irrationally as a citizenry and an electorate, as we are now doing.

It we expect the government to take care of everything so that we don't have to think, exert effort, or take responsibility for ourselves, then we will never find happiness and will probably have the freedom to pursue happiness withdrawn by a "Nannie" government that believes it is acting for our own good.  Kind of like the computer AI in the remake movie, "I, Robot."

Government can and does do many good things.  Yet, for the balances of power to work and for the form of government to work as was envisioned by the founders, we the people must be informed, motivated, active, concerned for the common good, and willing to see the best in even our opponents - in other words, compromise for the good of the whole. I fear that too many of us in the country are now unwilling to do this any longer.  "I want mine, I want it now, and the government better give it to me!" is the attitude that comes across the strongest in many quarters.  Some may be motivated, but not informed (and think that is just fine because they naively trust the good sounding people striving for power).  Some may be motivated, even informed, but act from only their individual greed.  It goes on and on.

I do fear for the democracy and the continued integrity of the Republic.  Nothing guarantees the unending continuance of our form of government, the geo-political entity known as the United States of American, or the continued success of this grand experiment in "self-government."  We will not fall from forces outside our borders, but we may well fall from within.

There is a new Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life reports on new survey results, "U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey."  It doesn't look very pretty, frankly.

How much do you know about religion?  Click and take the 15-question survey.  I got 14 out of 15, scoring quite high.  I should have - there might be a little problem if I didn't!