Various & Sundry: in which quite a few people make very good points

Hello! I'm back. And we have much to discuss. But at the moment, here's a few odds and endy things I wanted to share.

What do you say to a person who asks if suicide is a legitimate option for someone "who genuinely is tired and doesn't want to continue"? I thought this was a terrific answer.

I've never really thought much one way or the other about Libertarianism, but Lance Mannion sure has and has the rant to prove it. "You don’t have to believe in no government," he writes, "but if you aren’t at least trying to take yourself off the grid and off the dole, then I’ve got to conclude that your professed libertarianism is just a high-fallutin’, long-winded, and, usually, very boring way to complain about your taxes." He may have a point.

I've started following the blog Our Valued Customers which reports on snippets of conversation from a comic book store.

He may have a point, too.

Ta-nehisi Coates also has a mighty good rant going with his post on The Selective Amnesia of Post-War Europe, which is not quite the stuck-in-the-past post you might think it is. (Or maybe I'm just particularly close to it, having recently finished the post-war-set Bernie Gunther mystery A Quiet Flame, which I'll get around to reviewing one of these days.) This was the key quote for me: "'The past' is whatever contributes to a society's moral debts. 'Heritage' is everything else." Say it with me now: He may have a point.

Although this article is ostensibly about the dangers of playing it safe, it's also an excellent example of keeping the long view in order to foster change in an organization. The writer, who encourages organizations to take risks, also (I think) learned the important lesson: Change happens in mysterious ways.

In a fit of self-promotion, and because I'm pleased with how it turned out, I'd like to pass on a blog post I wrote on 4 reasons youth hate confirmation classes. You'd hate them too.

Go, Red Sox! Check out this amazing Red Sox Bento Box lunch, with an apple carved into a baseball:

Finally, seeing as it's almost noon, I recommend the essay On Lying In Bed by G.K. Chesterton. Is it immoral to lie about in the morning? "Instead of being regarded, as it ought to be, as a matter of personal convenience and adjustment, it has come to be regarded by many as if it were a part of essential morals to get up early in the morning. It is upon the whole part of practical wisdom; but there is nothing good about it or bad about its opposite." He most certainly has a point.

And did I mention? Go Red Sox!

Easter sermon, close to how I remember giving it, abridged and without special effects

A long time ago I heard a sermon about how you can't keep God in a box. I'd heard dozens of "God in a box" sermons in my time and in my mind I was saying, "yeah, yeah, you can't keep God in a box blahblahblah" as the preacher held up a small white box to demonstrate.

Then the preacher came out of the pulpit. This was a little disturbing. It was all very well to talk about how you can't keep God in a box as long as everyone was staying in the right place, but when the preacher left the pulpit, I couldn't help feeling a little nervous.

She came to the center, holding up the box and talking about how you can't keep God in a box when all of a sudden, she threw the box to the floor and it shattered.

And my first, completely unbidden though was, "That was a nice box!"*

It hadn't occurred to me before that even the nicest box is still a box. And God doesn't fit in a box.

Let's think of this in terms of Jesus, who didn't fit into the nice boxes of law or purity or race and gender relations. He healed people on the Sabbath. He touched lepers. He and his disciples didn't practice ritual cleaning. He talked to women -- including a Samaritan woman and a Syro-Phoenician woman. He went to dinner with tax collectors. And he suggested God did all of those things too.

This kind of behavior was so disturbing that they literally nailed him down to keep him in his place. And then, once he was dead, they bound him up in cloths and put him in a tomb with a stone blocking the entrance. Talk about a box.

But the story of Easter is you cannot keep God in a box. God will break open the box no matter what you do.

There are two ways this applies to us today. First of all, we need to examine what kind of boxes we try to keep God in. They may be nice boxes, but they are boxes all the same. Author Anne Lamott quotes a friend who has a great way of summing this up: "You know you've made God in your own image when God hates all the same people you do."

The second is this: What kind of box are you in?

A few weeks ago, I got to hear Brene Brown talk to a group of church leaders and she said something I thought was very interesting. She asked us what we thought was the biggest barrier to belonging. After our guesses, she told us that her research indicates the biggest barrier to belonging is fitting in, that fitting in requires you to assess and adapt. It's all about being in the right box.

In contrast, what really leads to belonging is showing up and being seen, and isn't that what we hear today in the story of the Resurrection? Jesus shows up and is seen, after everyone's best effort to force him to fit in.

You don't need to fit in either. You already belong.

Easter is about the breaking of boxes. God does not fit in a box. Jesus will not stay in a box. And you are free from the boxes that hold you as well.**

*yes, I did in fact do all of these things during the sermon. My "box" was unfortunately very clearly a flower pot, but, you know, it got the point across. I had placed a piece of marble I'd found in the garden of the house where I was staying on the floor in the center aisle of the church and disguised it with Easter lilies. The altar guild member in me was upset when I realized I had placed most of the lilies with the sales tags facing out. After saying "That was a nice box!" I also added that the second thought that may be running through their minds was "Who is going to clean this up?" I told them I would. The Altar Guild still took care of most of the cleanup, but I did do the vacuuming at the end.

**I practiced the closing sentence over and over and over again, and still messed it up! This isn't it exactly either. I can't remember the exact words I'd prepared. But they were pretty good -- better than this version anyway. Too bad I couldn't remember them in the moment!

Infusion Rerun: Martin Luther King on preaching

This entry was originally posted January 17, 2011.

I still remember listening to tapes of MLK's sermons while driving across country. It was the first time I'd heard anything beyond the I Have a Dream or I've Been to the Mountaintop speeches.

It was so amazing to hear that voice again, saying things I had never heard him say before. As I listened to King's sermons, I felt like I was following him from church to church, hearing him tell some of the same stories and make the same points, but hearing new things, too. He definitely got better as he went along: his delivery was more polished and his message became deeper and more urgent, but without anxiety. More broken, too, in some ways, as you shall see.

This morning I thought it would be interesting to find out what King had to say about the ministry of preaching itself. And the King Papers Project turned up a treasure trove, let me tell you.

Take, for example, this outline King wrote for his first semester preaching course when he was a student at Crozer Theological Seminary in 1948. Prepare to be shocked by King's atrocious spelling and grammar, and blown away by how consistent his thinking is with what he eventually did.

Oh, heck, I'm just going to copy the whole last part:

I fell that preaching is one of the most vital needs of our society, if it is used correctly. There is a great paradox in preaching, on the one hand it may be very helpful and on the other it may be very pernicious. It is my opinion that sincerity is not enough for the preaching ministry. The minister must be both sincere and intelligent. To often do our ministers possess the former but not the latter. This, I think, is a serious problem facing the ministry.

I think that preaching should grow out of the experiences of the people. Therefore, I as a minister must know the problems of the people that I am pastoring. To often do educated minister leave the people lost in the fog of theological abstractions, rather than presenting that theology in the light of the people’s experiences. It is my conviction that the minister must somehow take profound theological and philosophical views and place them in a concrete framework. I must forever make the complex, the simple.

Above all I see the preaching ministry as a duel process. On the one hand I must attempt to change the soul of individuals so that their societies may be changed. On the other I must attempt to change the societies so that the individual soul will have a change. Therefore, I must be concerned about unemployment, slumms, and economic insecurity. I am a profound advocator of the socal gospel.

One year later, notes on Preaching Problems That I Have Encountered. Problem number 1: "Difficulty in preaching on special days that appear in the Christian year." Oh, honey. I hear ya. But you're going to see much bigger difficulties than that.

Which leads us to his sermon delivered June 5, 1966: Guidelines for a Constructive Church. Beautiful, and still relevant, and much of it has to do with the ministry of preaching.

We remember King as a great orator and a great social activist, but it seems pretty clear from this sermon that in King's mind, those two things are married together: preaching is social activism. It's that "duel process" (I kind of like the misspelling, there) of changing souls and changing the world. And as I mentioned last week, words have a funny way of going out there and doing things, more than you might imagine.

I read this sermon and I hear 20 years worth of dueling, and it has taken its toll. When King talks about the broken-hearted, I am sure he includes himself among them.

I encourage you to read the whole thing, or listen to it. Here is a smattering, a far better way to end this entry than anything I could say.

And Sunday after Sunday, week after week, people come to God’s church with broken hearts. (Yes, sir) They need a word of hope. And the church has an answer—if it doesn't, it isn't a church. (Yes) The church must say in substance that broken-heartedness is a fact of life. Don’t try to escape when you come to that experience. Don't try to repress it. Don't end up in cynicism. Don't get mean when you come to that experience. (Make it plain) The church must say to men and woman that Good Friday (Yes, sir) is a fact of life. The church must say to people that failure is a fact of life...

But what religion does say is this: that if you have faith in God, (Yes) that God has the power (Yes, sir) to give you a kind of inner equilibrium through your pain. So let not your heart be troubled. (No, sir) "If ye believe in God, ye believe also in me." Another voice rings out, "Come unto me, all ye that labor (Yes, sir, Yes) and are heavy laden." As if to say, "Come unto me, all ye that are burdened down. Come unto me, all ye that are frustrated. Come unto me, all ye with clouds of anxiety floating in your mental skies. Come unto me, all ye that are broke down. (Yes, sir) Come unto me, all ye that are heartbroken. (Yes) Come unto me, all ye that are laden with heavy ladens, and I will give you rest." And the rest that God gives (Yes) is the rest that passeth all understanding. (Yes it does) The world doesn't understand that kind of rest, because it’s a rest that makes it possible (Yes) for you to stand up amid outer storms, and yet you maintain inner calm. (Yes) If the church is true to its guidelines, (Yes) it heals the broken-hearted.

Secondly, when the church is true to its guidelines, it sets out to preach deliverance (Yes, sir) to them that are captive. (Yes, sir) This is the role of the church: to free people. This merely means to free those who are slaves. Now if you notice some churches, they never read this part. Some churches aren't concerned about freeing anybody. Some white churches (Make it plain) face the fact Sunday after Sunday that their members are slaves to prejudice, (Yes, sir) slaves to fear. You got a third of them, or a half of them or more, slaves to their prejudices. (Yes, sir) And the preacher does nothing to free them from their prejudice so often. (Make it plain, Yes) Then you have another group sitting up there who would really like to do something about racial injustice, but they are afraid of social, political, and economic reprisals, (Make it plain) so they end up silent. And the preacher never says anything to lift their souls and free them from that fear. (Make it plain) And so they end up captive. You know this often happens in the Negro church. (Yeah) You know, there are some Negro preachers that have never opened their mouths about the freedom movement. And not only have they not opened their mouths, they haven’t done anything about it. And every now and then you get a few members: (Make it plain) "They talk too much about civil rights in that church." (That’s right) I was talking with a preacher the other day and he said a few of his members were saying that. I said, "Don't pay any attention to them. (Make it plain) Because number one, the members didn't anoint you to preach. (Yeah) And any preacher who allows members to tell him what to preach isn't much of a preacher." (Amen)

...

And then the church, if it is true to its guidelines, must preach the acceptable year of the Lord. (Yes, sir, Make it plain) You know the acceptable year of the Lord is the year that is acceptable to God because it fulfills the demands of his kingdom. Some people reading this passage feel that it’s talking about some period beyond history, (Make it plain) but I say to you this morning that the acceptable year of the Lord can be this year. (Yes) And the church is called to preach it.

...

These are our guidelines, and if we will only follow the guidelines, we will be ready for God’s kingdom, (Yes) we will be doing what God’s church is called to do. We won’t be a little social club. (Make it plain) We won’t be a little entertainment center. But we’ll be about the serious business (Yes) of bringing God’s kingdom to this earth.

It seems that I can hear the God of the universe smiling and speaking to this church, saying, "You are a great church (Glory to God) because I was hungry and ye fed me. You are a great church because I was naked and ye clothed me. You are a great church because I was sick and ye visited me. You are a great church because I was in prison and ye gave me consolation by visiting me." (Yes, sir) And this is the church that’s going to save this world. "The spirit of the Lord is upon me (Yes) because he has anointed me to heal the broken-hearted, to set at liberty them that are captive, (Amen) and to preach the acceptable year of the Lord."

Golden Globes as Preaching Seminar

If I were teaching a preaching class, I think I would bring in videos of the acceptance speeches given by Anne Hathaway and Jennifer Lawrence at the Golden Globes last night as an opportunity for discussion.

Why these two and not Jodie Foster's speech? Or Daniel Day Lewis? Well, for one, I think these two women are an apples-to-apples comparison. Foster is doing something completely different. And for another, these two have both strengths and flaws, great for discussion. Daniel Day-Lewis offered something damn near perfect, imo, and therefore not nearly so interesting to talk about. Except to say, "Here's why this is so good. We can aspire to these characteristics."

I'd also do these two because I've seen some pretty strong reactions to each (including my own) and I'd want to explore that subjective reaction a little more deeply. There's definitely one I "like" and one I "don't like," which may or may not have anything to do with what these women say or do.

I'd have people watch both speeches once with the sound off, and discuss that. And then I'd have them watch the speeches again with the words. It's too easy to get caught up in the words, but I think there's a lot to be learned from mere presence.

So I'm not teaching a class, but since you're here, what do you think?

Watching with the sound off:

• What was the overall impression you got from each woman through her facial expressions? Gestures? What message did you receive?
• Which one made you feel more comfortable as you watched her? Why? If you felt uncomfortable, can you pinpoint at what moment you felt uncomfortable? 
• What overall emotional impression(s) did they give? What emotions did you read?

Watching with sound:

• What was the overall impression you got from each woman through what she said?
• What parts of the message jarred you?
• At what points did you feel each woman best connected with her audience? At what points did she seem disconnected? What made the difference?
• What overall emotional impression(s) did they give? What emotions did you read?

And finally, the key questions:

• Which one did you like best? Why? And what does that say about what is important to you in communication?

Sorry these embedded videos don't work, but do watch them, if you wish. I'll put my reactions below:

Realizing that my reactions now are colored by my initial reactions yesterday, here are my thoughts, bearing in mind these are very much my personal and subjective impressions:

Anne Hathaway: reads to me as trying hard to appear humble. Very girlish. She cannot seem to settle on eye contact or looking down. Her hand gestures are large and somewhat stiff, leaving me with the strange impression that she is both very rehearsed and yet uncomfortable. Lots of tension in her neck. Her emotions seem to be fighting with one another as she seeks to control her genuine excitement. The joke about the "blunt object" fell flat as a "li'l ol' me!" piece of schtick. Due to her success, I don't think she can do a "li'l ol' me" any more. If I were to give her advice, I'd tell her to quit trying to be the Nice Girl. It's not coming off right for me. Also: quit touching your hair.

Jennifer Lawrence: Seems genuinely happy and relaxed, which makes her read as genuine, though I suspect her speech was just as rehearsed and studied as Anne Hathaway's. I liked the joke about "I beat Meryl!" which sounded like reverence and not a put-down, though I can see how it might be understood differently - which is a lesson right there. The extremism of the Harvey Weinstein line along with her deadpan delivery made the joke both obvious and very funny. The reversal of thanking her brothers for being mean makes the joke work. She's got great comic chops. If I were to give her advice, I'd say that when you need to say, "All jokes aside," it's a clue that something might not be working quite right. But I thought it was terrific.

All of which says to me what's important to me in communication is good humor and authenticity -- or at least a very good facsimile thereof.

Oh, and by the by: Tina Fey and Amy Poehler! Kick-ass job. I know they're waiting for my call.

The conventions of rhetoric: Bill Clinton's seductive speech

Leaving aside politics for a moment as best I can (probably "not very"), I wanted to talk a little bit about the rhetoric being used at the two political conventions before the last speeches tonight, in hopes of keeping an eye/ear out for them.

I wish I were an expert at rhetoric instead of merely an interested observer, and a fairly ill-informed one at that. But let me explain that what I mean by rhetoric is the classic dictionary definition: the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing.

In fact, I think saying "inflammatory rhetoric" or "divisive rhetoric" is an inaccurate use of the word. Mostly, I'm interested in what makes speeches (and sermons) persuasive. If all you're able to do is confirm the previously held beliefs of your listeners, you are not good at rhetoric. Good rhetoric changes people's minds, or at least opens them to new perspectives.

That's what I found so compelling about Bill Clinton's speech last night. It was designed to persuade. It was, dare I say, seductive.

If you look at the transcript, you'll see how he pulled listeners in deeper and deeper, and how very geared this was towards Republicans and undecideds.

He starts by talking about how grateful he was to Eisenhower, Reagan, and both Presidents Bush. He told listeners that Democrats are not always right ("nobody's right all the time and a broken clock is right twice a day"). He explained how Republicans devour their own who disagree with them. And he showed how Obama included Republicans--and former competitors--in his cabinet. That "Heck, he even included Hillary" line? That's an implicit, "Boy, do I understand that you didn't get the person you wanted to be president." All of this sets him up in the listener's ears as a friend and ally, not foe. It softens the listener up to receive the arguments that follow.

[an aside: look at how often he says "grateful" at the beginning of the speech. That is a modest word, putting him in the one-down position, a receiver of good things.]

His next move is to point out the good things about the Republicans and what they said at the previous week's convention:

They looked good, they sounded good. They convinced me that they all love their families and their children, and we're grateful they've been born in America, and all -- really, I'm not being -- they did. And this is important. They convinced me they were honorable people who believe what they've said and they're going to keep every commitment they've made.

Note the "really, I'm not being..."  First of all, if you saw it, that little phrase came across as (and I think it was) an unscripted remark--responding to the reaction of the crowd at that moment. (Update: That whole thing about how they love their families was ad libbed.) That's a good public speaker: able to take in the crowd's reactions and incorporate it into the moment. Secondly, what's the word after "being"? Sarcastic? Disingenuous? Dishonest? That, my friends, is a brilliant public speaker who can in the instant leave the perfect gap for listeners to fill in.

Note too how he repeated his point in new words: "They convinced me" and again with the positive take-away "they were honorable people who believe what they've said and they're going to keep every commitment they've made."

HERE IS THE KEY TURNING POINT IN THE SPEECH--do you remember what he said next? Here it is:

"We've just got to make sure the American people know what those commitments are."

That is the turn. He's made nice, he's gotten people to believe he is a fair actor, he has been reasonable, grateful, friendly, and sincere. And now he is going to spend a great deal of time unpacking the policies set forth during the Republican convention.

Note the "we." It's not "I've got to make sure." He has seduced you, hasn't he? He's brought you right in next to him. Up until this moment it was "I want to nominate," "I'm grateful," "Did you watch the convention? I did." And now it's "We" and you're right there next to him.

I won't go through the rest, though it's also fascinating. But for anyone in a public speaking role, please note how much time Clinton spent getting the crowd on his side--and that the crowd includes people who detest him. You can't just make your case and expect people to agree with you. Woo them, people. Use your words.

If you teach someone to think critically, maybe they'll understand that "fish" is a metaphor

Found on Facebook. Of course.

Oh for God's sake.

Nice use of the singular they, however, as she damns with the faintest of praise.

Monday Morning Preacher: Cheesy Preacher Voice

Oh dear oh dear. A decent sermon dreadfully undermined by Cheesy Preacher Voice.

I hope that does not sound cruel.

Let me start by confessing to you that I used to write poetry. A lot of poetry. I was an English major with a Creative Writing emphasis, and the Creative Writing emphasized poetry. Mostly very bad poetry, I can say with a great deal of confidence and a measure of chagrin. But as an English major with a Creative Writing emphasis, emphasizing poetry, I did a Senior Reading to which friends and family were invited. Before my Senior Reading, a friend of mine said, with an anxious tone, "You're not going to use a Cheesy Poet Voice, are you?" Well, I did my best.

And so I am highly attuned to the Cheesy Preacher Voice: a voice with - pregnant - pauses and...dramatically hushed tones. It's a voice that says, to me, anyway, "I am trying to sound like a preacher now." Much like the Cheesy Poet Voice is a voice of a person who is trying to sound like a poet.

Cheesy Preacher Voice, I believe, is spread virally. One preacher uses the Cheesy Preacher Voice where it is heard by an aspiring preacher who catches it and passes it on. And on. And on. Because that's what everyone now believes a preacher is supposed to sound like.

I wish I could figure out a way to stop the contagion from spreading. I wish there were a pill to prevent the unwanted pregnant pause. I wish people would stop trying to use a certain speaking style to sound preacherly and instead simply believe that if you're preaching, you're a preacher. You've really got nothing to prove. Just preach.

Monday afternoon preacher

So I went to a church yesterday where in the course of a very short sermon, the priest managed to use the words penultimate, declamation, and denouement.  To his credit, it was clear that these were his words; he wasn't reading from a manuscript. It sounded like he wasn't saying them to impress; he was using them because they are terrific words that perfectly captured what he was trying to say and are words he naturally uses. They are words that I love myself.

On the other hand--come on! Penultimate? Denouement?! Really? You couldn't use "next to last" or "conclusion"--or even "ending"? As a general rule, I think it's a mistake to use $5 words in most homilies, and then only when it's the absolute best, most perfectest word available. But that's me.  What do you think?

Various & Sundry: the "What is WRONG with people?" edition

As I look over what I've compiled during the week, things seem mostly to have taken a fairly serious turn. Nothing wrong with that, but if you want  something lighthearted, skip to the video at the end.

Trayvon Martin. Can there be a more appalling tale out there? Ta-Nehisi Coates has been posting something daily about what's being said and done, but I think the most...I don't know if "helpful" is the right word, but illuminating, perhaps, was this larger picture piece of the Stand Your Ground law that allows people to use lethal force when feeling--feeling--threatened. Trayvon Martin is not the only person to be killed because of this law. Unbelievable.

Again going to a larger picture, the Kony2012 video inspired Teju Cole's reflections on the White Savior Industrial Complex, which is very much worth your read.  Here's the key take-away:

What innocent heroes don't always understand is that they play a useful role for people who have much more cynical motives. The White Savior Industrial Complex is a valve for releasing the unbearable pressures that build in a system built on pillage. We can participate in the economic destruction of Haiti over long years, but when the earthquake strikes it feels good to send $10 each to the rescue fund. I have no opposition, in principle, to such donations (I frequently make them myself), but we must do such things only with awareness of what else is involved. If we are going to interfere in the lives of others, a little due diligence is a minimum requirement.

Preach it.

I haven't had much to say about rhetoric recently, though I've been thinking about it.  I was struck by this article that talks about how changing the rhetoric on the "War on Islam" changed the narrative.  Am I happy about our current military engagements? By no means.  But I still think Saletan has a point when he says,

Bin Laden wanted a religious war. Bush and Obama refused to let him have it. At the end of his life, isolated by left-wing drone strikes and marked for death by PC commandos, this was Bin Laden’s chief lament. And that, Sen. Santorum, is why you don’t call it a war on radical Islam: because choosing your words carefully is part of winning the war.

Another time, I may (or may not) have something to say about how we use the word "war" to score rhetorical points--the War on Women vs. the War on Religion being a prime example. But while I'm pondering that, I am also still incredulous about Rachel Held Evans' report that her publisher wouldn't let her use the word...vagina in her book "because we have to sell it to Christian bookstores, which apparently have a thing against vaginas." This and more astonishing info in her post on Scattered Thoughts on my Life in the Christian "Industry".  Infuriating! The vagina is a body part! Not a dirty word, for God's sake!

OK, I'm calmer now.

All that being said, I am glad to report that baseball season is coming, and that right soon. So with all that is wrong with the world, please just take a moment to enjoy this nifty bat trick.



And remember it's spring. So that's good.

What's wrong with raising awareness?

I'm sorry, but you're just going to have to put up with this Kony 2012 obsession of mine for a bit longer.

As I've been reading various posts responding to the Kony 2012 campaign, one response comes up over and over again in the comments: "At least they're raising awareness, and that's a good thing. No one else has ever gotten anyone to pay any attention to the situation in Northern Uganda, so quit your armchair quibbling!"

So what's wrong with raising awareness?

And the answer is of course there is nothing inherently wrong with raising awareness, just as there is nothing inherently wrong with chocolate pie.  (mmm...chocolate pie...)  But not all awareness-raising is created equal.  Raising awareness, like eating a chocolate pie, requires both discipline and discernment.   And if you don't have any discipline or discernment, well, people are going to feed you all kinds of stuff.  (You've read/seen The Help, haven't you?)

There are three ways I can think of that "raising awareness" can be misused: when information is presented out of context, out of proportion, or as an end in itself--or a combination of the three.  A quick look at each.

1. Out of context  No one can give the full context for a complex situation, and certainly not when they're trying to catch our eye when we're thinking about other things.  It would be wonderful to believe that each and every awareness-raising organization is doing its utmost to present a persuasive yet accurate picture of the whole situation.  But when an organization is appealing for our time, money, or action, it is often in their interests to leave out complicating details.  

2. Out of proportion  Of course an organization that's focused on a cause that is the most important thing to them is going to want you to make that your most important cause too.  But watch out when there is an insistent urgency.  Watch out for the word "now."  Organizations want you to care about their cause; that is their job.  But just because they say something is the most important thing to be done this very instant doesn't mean it is.

3. An end in itself  I worry about organizations or movements (I'm looking at you, Occupy Wall Street) that only want to raise awareness.  OK, so I'm aware; now what? Are they done now? Or will they not be satisfied until they are absolutely sure that everyone, everywhere knows--and wears the right color ribbon to prove it (I'm looking at you, Susan G. Komen).  If the cause is important, then something in the world needs to change.  What an organization chooses to do is important.  Awareness is not enough.

But I don't blame any organization for doing the best to promote its cause however it can.  It is incumbent upon us as potential supporters to do due diligence: to find out more, to learn about the cause, to discover what the organization actually hopes to accomplish, and to discern whether that meshes with our own hopes and goals for a better world. 

An important cause deserves to be taken seriously.  If you really don't know anything about it--and refuse to listen to anyone other than the organization who does--then I need to ask, how aware are you?

Strong reaction

I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm a Christian, but you don't need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there's something wrong in this country when presidential candidates can disparage those serving in the military and tell outright lies about our nation and its president.

As a voter, I will do my part to work against slander and falsehood. And I'll fight against attacks on our religious heritage that twists religion into a platform for fear and hatred.

I'm an American citizen, and I approved this message.

Here's the ad I'm reacting to:

Various & Sundry, October 7

Anyone who has read this blog for a while knows of my adoration of The Bloggess. I spent much of last night watching the developing story of The Bloggess's pwning of a PR firm--my my my.  I'm sure the PR firm was glad to see the debacle featured on Business Insider this morning. Killer line expertly deployed: "Please stand by for a demonstration of relevancy." Oh man! AWESOME!

Also awesome? This memo Gov. Jerry Brown sent to the legislature:

(h/t Passive Aggressive Notes)

In light of the controversy over the name of Rick Perry's family hunting grounds, I thought Ta-Nehisi Coates, as usual, offered light where many provided only heat. His thoughts on racism are, in my opinion, very important and get at something very deep. I cannot encourage you enough to read these posts.  On the same topic, I thought The Daily Show's take on the controversy was fantastic.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Amazing Racism - Geographical Bigotry
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

In the ongoing story about Uganda Little League, there's now a feature film about it, called Opposite Field. I've signed up to receive updates about it; the video is a killer. I hope the film turns out well.
 


ESPN Feature Opposite Field from Jay Shapiro on Vimeo.

In the meantime, go Milwaukee! Go Cards!

Various and Sundry, July 8

Whew! It seems like I've spent most of the day on various forms of public transportation, but now I have a chance to set forth a few tidbits for your thinking pleasure. The theme for the week seems to be "outrage."

Roger Ebert was understandably outraged to find that there's an "intermediate level" version of the Great Gatsby being offered to students. As he writes,

"There is no purpose in "reading" The Great Gatsby unless you actually read it. Fitzgerald's novel is not about a story. It is about how the story is told. Its poetry, its message, its evocation of Gatsby's lost American dream, is expressed in Fitzgerald's style--in the precise words he chose to write what some consider the great American novel. Unless you have read them, you have not read the book at all. You have been imprisoned in an educational system that cheats and insults you by inflicting a barbaric dumbing-down process. You are left with the impression of having read a book, and may never feel you need return for a closer look."

Preach it, brother.

Over at Beauty Tips for Ministers, PeaceBang offered advice for a minister interviewing for a job. The church had asked her to take public transportation from the airport to a spot a few blocks from the church and the interviewee wondered how she could get from said stop to the church without getting extra glowy. PeaceBang's advice: That's why God invented taxis. She goes on:

"Do you think any of the people on the search committee would actually take public transportation with their luggage to an important, potentially life-changing interview? Of course they wouldn’t. I think they’re being rude and inhospitable and you should not hesitate to tell the truth of how you got there. If they want you to be on your best game right away upon your arrival they should jolly well send someone to fetch you at the airport. And so right away, dear heart, I wonder about the church’s spirit of generosity and fairness. A first meet-and-greet is no time to “experience city life.” That’s pure bull pucks and I’d be the first to say so to whoever came up with that sad excuse to leave you on your own to find your way to them."

Preach it, sister! The comments also are worth a read. Many of them say in one way or another, "Run away! Run away!"

In rhetorical news (not really "news," I suppose), I liked this post about the various ways people use "Straw Man" arguments. The authors talk about how straw man arguments are actually a failure of dialogue, which I'd never considered before. Unlike other logical fallacies, "straw-manning involves the misrepresentation of an interlocutor’s view; consequently, Straw Man fallacies involve more than one person. When we commit a straw man fallacy, we fail to live up to the responsibilities of the exchange of reasons."

I have to say my favorite obituary this week was the life of romance novelist Emma Blair who "was, in reality, Iain Blair, a burly 6ft 3in Glaswegian actor with a 60-a-day habit and a fondness for a good pint."

But as an A's fan, I also appreciated the obit for Dick Williams who coached the A's to their 1972 and 1973 World Series wins.

“'This team was basically 25 versions of me, Williams said in his 1990 memoir, No More Mr. Nice Guy, written with Bill Plaschke. 'They didn’t care about their appearance (we looked like damn hippies) or their deportment (we fought like sailors),' he recalled, adding that they didn’t care about 'anything but winning.'”

Finally, a friend of mine posted this video on Facebook that captures the experience of Trader Joe's perfectly.

Various & Sundry, May 27: Rhetoric, charity, social media, zombies

The week has flown by! I have been marking things of interest right and left, and I'll be curious to see if any themes emerge.

Let's see...Under the heading of rhetoric, two items:

Andrew Sullivan draws attention to this post explaining the erroneous use of the argument of "purpose" (e.g. "The purpose of marriage is..."). The author points out: "No thing has a purpose; people have a purpose for things. It’s an easy and honest trap door if you find yourself in a rhetorical corner." So the next time you hear "the purpose of" argument, you know there's an agenda.

The always awesome Ta-Nehisi Coates goes a little crazy in this post on the first paragraph of Moby Dick. "This is the greatest paragraph in any work of fiction, at any point, in all of history. And not just human history, but galactic and extra-terrestrial history too." He goes on to prove it.

Under the heading of charity and international aid, two items:

A rather painful read on why that fair trade coffee may not be so fair. Something at least to consider as we mark World Fair Trade Day tomorrow. (h/t The Lead)

Katherine Wertheim, guest blogging at Good Intentions are Not Enough, gives advice on how to research how charities spend their money and some warning signs that a charity is fishy.

Under the topic of Social Media, two things:

I loved this rant about "social media 'experts'". If you're thinking you need to hire someone to do your social media, read this first! Or if you want a summary, here it is:

Social media is just another facet of marketing and customer service. Say it with me. Repeat it until you know it by heart. Bind it as a sign upon your hands and upon thy gates. Social media, by itself, will not help you.

Amen, amen!

Although apparently, you can still use social media when you're dead. Obit Mag highlights a trend of adding a QR code to gravestones. Not as big as that, but you get the idea.

Also from Obit Mag, this Advance Obituary for the NY Mets 2011 season. "The cause of death was yet another botched save opportunity by its Scotch-tape-and-spit bullpen exacerbated by offensive anemia."

FINALLY (whew!) in the Garden and Zombie departments, Michelle Z. pointed me to the "highly addictive" game Plants vs. Zombies.

A mob of fun-loving zombies is about to invade your home. Use your arsenal of 49 zombie-zapping plants — peashooters, wall-nuts, cherry bombs and more — to mulchify 26 types of zombies before they break down your door.

Sounds like my kind of game!

Various and Sundry, January 14

It's been a tough week, news-wise, hasn't it? I'm still trying to absorb what's going on and make sense of it.

I though Michael Chabon's reflection on the President's speech Wednesday was very good, very helpful--for me, anyway. Responding to the President's goal "to make sure this country lives up to our children's expectations," he said

To attempt to live up to your children's expectations—to hew to the ideals you espouse and the morals that you lay down for them—is to guarantee a life of constant failure, a failure equivalent with parenthood itself. Surely this is something that the father of Malia and Sasha Obama knows all too well. Choking up at one point, imagining the Taylor-Greens' loss, it seemed to me, in terms of his own unimaginable bereavement, Obama was figuring himself (extraordinarily, I think) not as the Great Father but, more messily and searchingly, as an imperfectly lowercase father, "shaken from [his] routines ... forced to look inward," struggling in the wake of calamity to reclaim and to strive to measure up to a set of principles the burden of whose observance falls so unevenly on the narrow shoulders of the young. He was, at that moment, talking directly to me.

Lovely, is it not?

I was also moved by this transcript describing Rep. Giffords opening her eyes for the first time after being shot.

In the realm of rhetoric, I liked this reflection by Conor Friedersdorf on Tone vs. Substance.

The strongest case against these people isn’t that their rhetoric inspires political violence. It’s that they frequently utter indefensible nonsense...They’re in a tough spot these days partly because it’s impossible for them to mount the defense of their rhetoric that is true: “I am a frivolous person, and I don’t choose my words based on their meaning...Don’t you see that this is all a big game? This is how politics works. Stop pretending you’re not in on the joke.”

In the "correlation is not causation" department, I got a kick out of this graph showing how the rate of assault has decreased dramatically since the release of Grand Theft Auto. The accompanying article does not, however, suggest GTA as a means of reducing assault. It does say we should stop and give thanks for the improvement of the quality of life (overall) that this graph suggests.

Meanwhile, Tunisia...wow. The President has stepped down. The revolution apparently will be televised. The link above includes live video footage. Here's a brief video from the BBC:



Prayers for Tunisia continue.

Monday Morning Preacher: Words matter

I spent much of the weekend following both the news and the debate about the shootings in Arizona. Especially the debate about "Did inflammatory rhetoric play a role in this event?"

As a friend of mine said, does it matter? Shooting people in the head is wrong. Inflammatory rhetoric is also wrong. Even if no one ever gets shot, it would still be wrong. It may be that in God's eyes, one is not worse than the other. I believe Jesus said something about this:

"You have heard it said to those of ancient times, 'You shall not murder'; and 'whoever murders shall be liable to judgment.' But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say, 'You fool,' you will be liable to the hell of fire."

Matthew 5:21-22

I'm writing about this in my usual slot about preaching because I know first-hand that things you say can be turned into actions in ways you do not expect. I have had people come up to me weeks after a sermon and say that they've quit a job because of something I've said. They decided to put a student through school because of something I said. They have changed their lives because of what I said. And that's just the ones who told me.

For the most part, I have no idea how they came to the conclusion to do what they did based on what I said. It's likely that the step was percolating for the long time and something I said put the last piece in place. But one thing I do know: I never intended for my words to be taken as a call to the particular step that is made. But the step was taken nonetheless, and people credit my words as a motivating force.

This does not mean my words are responsible for the resulting action. It does mean I'm responsible for the words. Words are an action. They go out and do things. Once they leave us, they are no longer under our control. Especially in this day and age when we can make our words available for all to see with incredible ease, when they can travel around the world in an instant, when what is spoken or written cannot be erased, we must be mindful.

Monday...afternoon preacher: Talking Politics

I talked about both Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the DREAM act in my sermon on Sunday. I don't normally talk about political hot button issues for a number of reasons: one, because I rarely know enough to say anything interesting or helpful; and two, because it tends to exclude those who disagree. It creates this "us" and "them" situation. I think it's especially bad to assume that everyone in the room must agree with one particular political position and to preach as if we are all insiders--the "good guys."

When I do mention politics, I try to acknowledge there are different views. But more importantly, I try to find a way to apply whatever is the principle at the core of the political situation to all of us. In this case, with the DREAM act, I said that my sense was that people didn't want to vote for it because they were afraid it would send the message that the U.S. rewards illegal or bad behavior; and that was exactly the pressure that Joseph was facing. If he married Mary, would he be tacitly endorsing immorality? And the deeper point for the congregation (myself included) is that when we face choices that don't quite set well with the rules, what is the deeper principle or law or morality that we are out to demonstrate? Compassion? Forgiveness? Love?

One of the things that drives me crazy is self-righteous political grandstanding from the pulpit. Too often I feel we let ourselves off the hook by preaching against "them"--those fools who can't see the plain truth and right course. For me, it always needs to come back to us, those hearing the words, and what we are supposed to do out there in the world.

What do you think?

Monday morning preacher: Let me entertain you

At the risk of obsessing over something that no one even remembers any more, let’s revisit that NY Times editorial that blames clergy burnout on those lousy, lazy congregations we’ve got these days (never mind that at no point since Constantine has there been less reason for Americans to bestir themselves to get to church—but I digress in a convolutedly doubly-negative manner).

In the editorial, G. Jeffrey MacDonald writes:

The pastoral vocation is to help people grow spiritually, resist their lowest impulses and adopt higher, more compassionate ways. But churchgoers increasingly want pastors to soothe and entertain them....

I have faced similar pressures myself. In the early 2000s, the advisory committee of my small congregation in Massachusetts told me to keep my sermons to 10 minutes, tell funny stories and leave people feeling great about themselves. The unspoken message in such instructions is clear: give us the comforting, amusing fare we want or we’ll get our spiritual leadership from someone else.

Congregations that make such demands seem not to realize that most clergy don’t sign up to be soothsayers or entertainers.

Ah, yes. Entertainment. That vile seducer. What truly faithful Christian would settle for the milk and pablum of entertainment when the true and virtuous meat of doctrine is so much more nourishing? Take it away, Augustine:

But yes, there is a certain similarity between feeding and learning; so because so many people are fussy and fastidious, even those foodstuffs without which life cannot be supported need their pickles and spices.

One thing MacDonald seems to miss is that sound teaching and entertainment are not mutually exclusive. Yes, there are sermons that are fluff and no substance. But there are also sermons that are substantial and unpalatable, sermons that you sit through thinking, “I'm sure this is good for me” while praying for it to end.

courtesy of The Ongoing Adventures of ASBO Jesus

I would feel more sympathy with MacDonald if I got the sense that he had been pressured into not preaching the gospel. I do not know about the circumstances or pressures he faced, but the reason I react so strongly is because I sense that he was asked only to preach sermons that people wanted to listen to--not because their itching ears wanted a new doctrine, but because they would have liked some pickles and spices to liven up their weekly fare.

There is nothing in itself morally virtuous about an un-entertaining sermon. And there is nothing in itself morally wrong with a sermon that entertains. Jesus certainly knew that. So did theological superstar Augustine. Entertainment in preaching is hardly new. And when you want to get your point across, it can sure be helpful.

July snarkfest continues! Today's topic: SEXISM

Because I haven't been snarky enough this week, let's talk about sexism for a moment, shall we?

There's been a bit of a kerfuffle around The Daily Show hiring only its second female correspondent since 2001. An article on Jezebel claims that "it's a boys' club where women's contributions are often ignored and dismissed." In response, the women who work on The Daily Show posted an open letter saying, "while it may cause a big stir to seize on the bitter rantings of ex-employees and ignore what current staff say about working at The Daily Show, it's not fair. It's not fair to us, it's not fair to Jon, it's not fair to our wonderful male colleagues, and it's especially not fair to the young women who want to have a career in comedy but are scared they may get swallowed up in what people label as a 'boy's club.'"

In response, another writer, at the end of a fair analysis of the sexist forces at work in the world (of The Daily Show, comedy, and everywhere), made a huge gaffe as she ended by saying, "if you respond to suggestions that your hiring practices may be sexist with a letter signed by all the women on your staff dismissing these claims out of hand, then your hiring practices are almost certainly sexist." Thus hurting her own arguments by claiming that the ladies can't be trusted to speak for themselves or their own experience.

All this for me personally is a backdrop to a) my recent ranting about Elizabeth Cady Stanton & co.; b) the current debate before the Church of England about whether and in what manner women can be bishops; c) the recent "mitregate" debacle; and d) my own hunt for work in the church. So I'm glad for The Daily Show issue to be able to explore this at a one-step remove. Because, the truth is, it's complicated. Here are my vague thoughts about what might be more productive in addressing any sexism at The Daily Show--or perhaps the church.

1) Get your data in order

You know about me and data. I love data. Data is helpful. One of the things that's hardest for me to grapple with when considering sexism is the question: Is this real or am I imagining things? Hard data can help with that. Jezebel didn't do a bad job getting their facts. I think they weakened their argument, however, when they went for personality, saying, "The host and executive producer's onscreen persona is lovable mensch, but one former executive on the show tells us 'there's a huge discrepancy between the Jon Stewart who goes on TV every night and the Jon Stewart who runs The Daily Show with joyless rage.'" That just opened them right up to the "disgruntled employee" line. Much harder to argue with "only one female correspondent since 2001" or "this year alone, the show’s roster of guests has featured 63 men, but only 13 women."

2) It may be counterproductive to tell someone they're sexist.

One of the things that I find problematic in the critique of The Daily Show is that what they seem to want to conclude is "Jon Stewart is sexist and should stop being sexist." To which the women of The Daily Show say, "Jon Stewart is the opposite of sexist." So that didn't get anybody anywhere except to get women arguing amongst themselves about who's right about who's sexist. And if he is or if he isn't, what has changed? Of course, their goal may be getting readers and sparking debate rather than actually changing The Daily Show, in which case, mission accomplished! But if that wasn't what they were after...

3) Figure out the goals

One thing that might have changed this debate would have been for Jezebel to figure out what actual, measurable result they would like to see. It's one thing to say an organization is a boy's club; it's another to say, "By 2015, we would like to see that 50 percent of the employees of The Daily Show are women, with at least 1/3 of the on-air personalities and 1/3 of the guests being women." It's more fun to tear people down, but it seems to me more practical to find goals and move toward them.

4) Humor is a powerful tool

Weapon, even, I'd like to say. I don't want to give the impression that this is all about being nice and saying please and working within the system. But one way in which the Jezebel piece lost (rhetorically) to the letter from the women of The Daily Show is that the letter was funny, leaving readers with the impression that those complaining about The Daily Show weren't hired because they weren't funny, which is a problem for a comedienne. Remember that "joyless rage" quote above? Compare it with how the women at TDS describe Jon Stewart:

But what's he really like? Well, for a sexist prick, he can be quite charming. He's also generous, humble, genuine, compassionate, fair, supportive, exacting, stubborn, goofy, hands-on, driven, occasionally infuriating, ethical, down-to-earth and--a lot of people don't know this--surprisingly funny (for a guy brimming with “joyless rage”). How else to describe him? What's the word that means the opposite of sexist? That one.

(emphasis mine)

If you can laugh at your opposition and find ways for others to laugh at them too, they are hugely defanged.

5) Do NOT undermine other women!

I still cannot believe that writer suggested that Stewart had the women who work for him write a letter on his behalf. Way to ruin your credibility, there! They may be wrong, but suggesting that these women were somehow brainwashed into writing a supportive letter--it just boggles the mind. Women can certainly disagree, but to suggest that the disagreement is because of The Menfolk suggests your argument has no merit.

OK, I have a lot more thinking to do about this, and this is incredibly long and yet still very incomplete. Your thoughts and comments, as always, most welcome. More snark, no doubt, next week.

Monday morning preacher: Amen and other sign-offs

Technically, one is not supposed to end a sermon with Amen. "Clyde Grubbs notes that saying amen is appropriate at the end of the sermon if the last part of the sermon is a prayer. But without a prayer, the amen has lost its context and I would give it the boot," writes the Boy in the Bands.

The problem is that, as an oral/aural form, listeners need something to cue this is the end, and one thing I don't remember ever learning was that I needed to develop a sign-off. You know, like "And that's the way it is," or "Good night and good luck" or "You stay classy, San Diego." All we were told was, "Don't say 'Amen.'"

So all lot of us ended up fresh out of seminary, preaching our sermons and then simply walking away from the pulpit when we'd finished our prepared text. It feels really awful--at least to me, kind of clunking at the end. So I end up saying Amen because I've never thought about how to get out of the sermon aside from sitting down.

I think you need a ritual ending to signal the close of certain kinds of ritualized speech. A "God bless you, and God bless the United States of America" kind of a thing. (Also a ritual beginning which, in most Episcopal churches I know, is "Please be seated.")

I did learn about this in storytelling classes that I took some time ago--once upon a time, even--that listeners need ritual beginnings and endings to enter and exit the story. There's "And they all lived happily ever after," of course, but there's a lot more: "And if they have not died, they are living there to this very day," for example. My favorite is Jackie Torrence's, "And that's the end of that." (I love this list of endings--and note it includes "Amen.")

Yesterday, the preacher at the church I attended ended with, "I speak to you in the name of the Savior," which, even though I had never heard her preach before, I knew was the cue to say Amen. So there are other ways to end it!

I would feel a bit nervous about claiming that I speak in the name of the Savior. I'm going to have to work on a good closing line. In the meantime, I'm sticking with Amen, prayer or no prayer. It's quick, to the point, and signals closing in a way that people understand. Although I confess I'm tempted by, "You stay classy, Saint Swithin's," or whatever the name of the church may be.

And that's the end of that.