Recently Cut the Chatter has been rather dry, and I would apologize but I'm not sorry. The authors have been spending a lot of time having those real-life experiences that makes Cut the Chatter such a joy to read, such as grilling steaks, test-tasting the new Exterminator drink, busting it on a skimboard, playing flag football on the beach, and reminding Anne Kendrick that while blogging isn't stupid, she most certainly is. So expect that amateur journalism that seems so professional from Chris and myself, and check back this week as CTC will be hitting you hard on all kinds of subjects.
And now, a moment of YouTube zen:
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Monday, March 19, 2007
Reclaiming a Christian Perspective on Abortion Issues
I've hesitated every other time I've thought about touching this subject, charged as it is. I've drafted a few ideas on the subject, but most of these were incoherent. I've been concerned that some very dear friends of mine might take offense at my alternative approach to this subject, and in the interest of not starting anything I have not posted my thoughts on the subject of abortion. Today, however, a group called Justice For All set up incredibly large tri-fold panels on the field in front of Cater Hall on campus. I'm guessing each panel had an area of something like 600 square feet.
These panels were filled with images of mangled, bloodied fetuses and aborted children.
I laughed when a mere thirty feet in front of these panels were tiny signs that said "Warning: Graphic Images Ahead!" I laugh sometimes to keep from vandalism or outright rage that would lead me to my first felony charge.
The title of this entry might suggest that I'm dissatisfied with current Christian perspectives on the issue of abortion. I am, and I spent an hour along with a friend of mine arguing against displays like this one with one of the men volunteering at the event. Unfortunately, I don't yet possess the intellectual fortitude to be able to figure out a good starting point for this informal essay.
Before I go into the essay itself, I want to point out that I am approaching this issue as a believer, asserting Christian theology and faith. I think it would be of practical benefit to discuss some political ideas towards the end, and finally conclude by affirming my beliefs in case, through my own inability to write, I make important aspects of my faith unclear in the body of this text.
Plainly speaking, Christians have ceased to be Christians on this issue. They have played fast-and-loose with the idea that life is sacred. They have divorced the pro-life message from the gospel. They have become "of the world," instead of independent operators within that world. Finally, they have fundamentally ignored the power of our religion's ability to change the world, opting for a political solution that really comes up to be no solution at all.
Life is sacred. The pro-life movement hinges on this principle, which it affirms to the nth degree. I agree wholly. God's first description of humanity is that it is made in his own image. Indeed, this is a huge part of the foundation for Christian ethics. My problem with the pro-life movment is not that it agrees with this idea, but that it seems to go against this idea in practice. Functionally, the life of a baby is worth more than the life of its mother, if it's mother would abort it. No pro-lifer would ever suggest that this was the case, but you can't help but notice it in the way most of them talk. Every human being is made in the image of God, even women who have had abortions. In these grotesque posters of death, no such message is found. Instead, women who have had abortions are made to appear like major contributors to a second Holocaust. If Christians are going to hope to change practices of abortion, they must hold equally high the image of God for both the unborn baby and its mother.
This is not the practice, unfortunately, to the detriment of the movement itself. There is no mention of the gospel or forgiveness in these posters. Instead, activists seem to hope that the posters will stop you with their negativity at least long enough for them to give you a message of forgiveness. When I talked to one individual today, he did not bring up the gospel until I brought up forgiveness because of Christ's sacrifice. A girl who has had an abortion does not see the gospel. She sees that she has sinned and has no hope. What kind of love is this? Not Christian love! It is program-driven social engineering that takes the moral high ground from the beginning. Pro-lifers are moral, pro-choicers are baby-killers. Unfortunately, this is leading off with the wrong foot, especially if one person is passing by and doesn't have the option of talking to a representative for the group. Women who have had abortions should not be made to go take their test without hope or love. At no point has God left us without hope! Even as he addressed Adam and Eve after their great sin, he promised a Savior! Indeed, can we call ourselves Christians if we leave others without hope? I dare say we cannot.
Christians using these practices, you might correctly guess, have become "of the world." We live in a world where popular appeals are made on the basis of emotion and psychology. When was the last time you saw an advertisement that appealed to your intellect? I've been watching the NCAA tournament, and I can't remember seeing any kind intellectual appeal apart from a Sam Adams special talking about how they brew their beers. The Christian life is not a life of emotional moralism, though. We are not supposed to leave our brains out of important matters. This failure to engage intellectually is most easily seen when a person accuses a pro-choice person of being a murderer or a killer. The rhetoric sounds cute, and Scripturally this is true. Unfortunately, the pro-choice individual doesn't see things in those terms. It's not as if they see their actions as particularly murderous. Furthermore, it's not like they actually enjoyed it. I'm guessing that 99% of women who have abortions don't become pregnant just so they can snuff out the life of a child. That is what Christian engagement is all about. It's about empathizing with the culture and then preaching the Gospel to that culture. It is not about throwing around hateful words and obscene images. Indeed, a Christian should believe that the only thing separating the non-believer from himself or herself is Christ and Christ alone. Furthermore, especially in Calvinist theology, we should not distance our sin from that of others, whether they believe or not. God is a God of our minds as well as our hearts, and we should look more into intelligent approaches to solving this important issue instead of emotional and moralizing, yet ultimately shallow rhetoric.
I don't know where to point the finger on this last one. I wonder if it has anything to do with the whole "it's a relationship, it isn't a religion," but that phrase does seem a likely culprit. Christians have forgotten Christ's bride, the church. Furthermore, they believe that the real way to change the world is through political activity. Unfortunatly, people are into doing their own thing. As a historian, and I'm pulling the weight of my education on this one, I quite honestly think that no real difference will be made if the government makes abortion illegal or not. The Christian message does not need a government-approved stamp to make the power of our religion as potent as it is. If we actually loved women who had abortions, and the women who considered having a child out of wedlock, they might actually consider having those children. Christianity doesn't need government approval for the church to provide a system of gospel-based support for sinners of all kinds, including Christians themselves! If as many politically-minded pro-lifers invested the same amount of resources and time as they did in loving and supporting a community, what a difference we would see! That is where the real numbers of abortion will go down.
I'm now turning to address some of the political issues I have with the movement, and most of these come from a friend of mine who I will credit if he wants me to do so.
One of the big arguments is that women have abortions because it is convenient to have them because of Roe v. Wade or whatever. Take away the basis for convenience, aborition becomes inconvenient, voila, no abortion! What simple ignorance. This is America, folks. And besides, when did people start thinking that raising a kid was convenient? I'm not a female, but physically speaking I don't think that I would much enjoy giving birth, either. Abortion will always be more convenient than that.
How do we overcome that convenience? By incentives, or comparable alternatives that, when coupled with moral incentives, become more attractive than abortion. The Justice For All group had a freedom of speech board. I took out a marker and wrote "Remind me of how many chidren you've adopted again?" Heavy on the sarcasm, I know. Because we all know that these guys don't adopt kids. Of course they don't. They don't use their funds to make that kind of a difference. They're just raising hell while actually doing nothing to help any kind of demand for adopted children. My friend suggested that true pro-lifers would picket outside abortion clinics, offering to pay all the medical bills of the pregnancy, and then take a kid to raise up in a proper home. This doesn't even have to be a political solution. People can start doing this now, instead of merely adding fuel to the fire of this debate.
I will remain ever-convinced as both a Christian and a historian that a mere law will not discourage women from having abortions. What we need to do is change the culture. How do we do this? By loving our neighbors! It really is as easy as Jesus said, at least in terms of words. And that's why this pro-life movement, in its current incarnation is doomed. It's not that it's doing too much, it's that it's doing to little. The pro-life movement in its current form would succeed if an amendment was made banning abortion. But that lacks any real substance until we start spending our lives for others' sakes. This is the demand of Scripture. It is the example of Christ. And we run from it because it asks too much of us, but when we find that we are stretched too thin, we simply need to ask more from God, who gives generously to all who ask him.
We do not need a law to start living like this now. How wonderful would it be if we never made a law banning abortion, because Christians had come so far in caring for others in so many ways that a law would be a mere afterthought to a reality that held high the image of God in humanity?
It may seem as if I am unsympathetic with the aims of pro-life activists. It's not that I'm unsympathetic, it just seems like they miss a lot of points. I do think abortion is wrong. I think it is sinful, just like so many things we do without realizing it. I have probably sinned by what I've said in this very posting. But we don't need to be pointing fingers or calling people murderers; we need to look to Christ who was murdered for our salvation. That is our starting point, because that is where we learn to love.
These panels were filled with images of mangled, bloodied fetuses and aborted children.
I laughed when a mere thirty feet in front of these panels were tiny signs that said "Warning: Graphic Images Ahead!" I laugh sometimes to keep from vandalism or outright rage that would lead me to my first felony charge.
The title of this entry might suggest that I'm dissatisfied with current Christian perspectives on the issue of abortion. I am, and I spent an hour along with a friend of mine arguing against displays like this one with one of the men volunteering at the event. Unfortunately, I don't yet possess the intellectual fortitude to be able to figure out a good starting point for this informal essay.
Before I go into the essay itself, I want to point out that I am approaching this issue as a believer, asserting Christian theology and faith. I think it would be of practical benefit to discuss some political ideas towards the end, and finally conclude by affirming my beliefs in case, through my own inability to write, I make important aspects of my faith unclear in the body of this text.
Plainly speaking, Christians have ceased to be Christians on this issue. They have played fast-and-loose with the idea that life is sacred. They have divorced the pro-life message from the gospel. They have become "of the world," instead of independent operators within that world. Finally, they have fundamentally ignored the power of our religion's ability to change the world, opting for a political solution that really comes up to be no solution at all.
Life is sacred. The pro-life movement hinges on this principle, which it affirms to the nth degree. I agree wholly. God's first description of humanity is that it is made in his own image. Indeed, this is a huge part of the foundation for Christian ethics. My problem with the pro-life movment is not that it agrees with this idea, but that it seems to go against this idea in practice. Functionally, the life of a baby is worth more than the life of its mother, if it's mother would abort it. No pro-lifer would ever suggest that this was the case, but you can't help but notice it in the way most of them talk. Every human being is made in the image of God, even women who have had abortions. In these grotesque posters of death, no such message is found. Instead, women who have had abortions are made to appear like major contributors to a second Holocaust. If Christians are going to hope to change practices of abortion, they must hold equally high the image of God for both the unborn baby and its mother.
This is not the practice, unfortunately, to the detriment of the movement itself. There is no mention of the gospel or forgiveness in these posters. Instead, activists seem to hope that the posters will stop you with their negativity at least long enough for them to give you a message of forgiveness. When I talked to one individual today, he did not bring up the gospel until I brought up forgiveness because of Christ's sacrifice. A girl who has had an abortion does not see the gospel. She sees that she has sinned and has no hope. What kind of love is this? Not Christian love! It is program-driven social engineering that takes the moral high ground from the beginning. Pro-lifers are moral, pro-choicers are baby-killers. Unfortunately, this is leading off with the wrong foot, especially if one person is passing by and doesn't have the option of talking to a representative for the group. Women who have had abortions should not be made to go take their test without hope or love. At no point has God left us without hope! Even as he addressed Adam and Eve after their great sin, he promised a Savior! Indeed, can we call ourselves Christians if we leave others without hope? I dare say we cannot.
Christians using these practices, you might correctly guess, have become "of the world." We live in a world where popular appeals are made on the basis of emotion and psychology. When was the last time you saw an advertisement that appealed to your intellect? I've been watching the NCAA tournament, and I can't remember seeing any kind intellectual appeal apart from a Sam Adams special talking about how they brew their beers. The Christian life is not a life of emotional moralism, though. We are not supposed to leave our brains out of important matters. This failure to engage intellectually is most easily seen when a person accuses a pro-choice person of being a murderer or a killer. The rhetoric sounds cute, and Scripturally this is true. Unfortunately, the pro-choice individual doesn't see things in those terms. It's not as if they see their actions as particularly murderous. Furthermore, it's not like they actually enjoyed it. I'm guessing that 99% of women who have abortions don't become pregnant just so they can snuff out the life of a child. That is what Christian engagement is all about. It's about empathizing with the culture and then preaching the Gospel to that culture. It is not about throwing around hateful words and obscene images. Indeed, a Christian should believe that the only thing separating the non-believer from himself or herself is Christ and Christ alone. Furthermore, especially in Calvinist theology, we should not distance our sin from that of others, whether they believe or not. God is a God of our minds as well as our hearts, and we should look more into intelligent approaches to solving this important issue instead of emotional and moralizing, yet ultimately shallow rhetoric.
I don't know where to point the finger on this last one. I wonder if it has anything to do with the whole "it's a relationship, it isn't a religion," but that phrase does seem a likely culprit. Christians have forgotten Christ's bride, the church. Furthermore, they believe that the real way to change the world is through political activity. Unfortunatly, people are into doing their own thing. As a historian, and I'm pulling the weight of my education on this one, I quite honestly think that no real difference will be made if the government makes abortion illegal or not. The Christian message does not need a government-approved stamp to make the power of our religion as potent as it is. If we actually loved women who had abortions, and the women who considered having a child out of wedlock, they might actually consider having those children. Christianity doesn't need government approval for the church to provide a system of gospel-based support for sinners of all kinds, including Christians themselves! If as many politically-minded pro-lifers invested the same amount of resources and time as they did in loving and supporting a community, what a difference we would see! That is where the real numbers of abortion will go down.
I'm now turning to address some of the political issues I have with the movement, and most of these come from a friend of mine who I will credit if he wants me to do so.
One of the big arguments is that women have abortions because it is convenient to have them because of Roe v. Wade or whatever. Take away the basis for convenience, aborition becomes inconvenient, voila, no abortion! What simple ignorance. This is America, folks. And besides, when did people start thinking that raising a kid was convenient? I'm not a female, but physically speaking I don't think that I would much enjoy giving birth, either. Abortion will always be more convenient than that.
How do we overcome that convenience? By incentives, or comparable alternatives that, when coupled with moral incentives, become more attractive than abortion. The Justice For All group had a freedom of speech board. I took out a marker and wrote "Remind me of how many chidren you've adopted again?" Heavy on the sarcasm, I know. Because we all know that these guys don't adopt kids. Of course they don't. They don't use their funds to make that kind of a difference. They're just raising hell while actually doing nothing to help any kind of demand for adopted children. My friend suggested that true pro-lifers would picket outside abortion clinics, offering to pay all the medical bills of the pregnancy, and then take a kid to raise up in a proper home. This doesn't even have to be a political solution. People can start doing this now, instead of merely adding fuel to the fire of this debate.
I will remain ever-convinced as both a Christian and a historian that a mere law will not discourage women from having abortions. What we need to do is change the culture. How do we do this? By loving our neighbors! It really is as easy as Jesus said, at least in terms of words. And that's why this pro-life movement, in its current incarnation is doomed. It's not that it's doing too much, it's that it's doing to little. The pro-life movement in its current form would succeed if an amendment was made banning abortion. But that lacks any real substance until we start spending our lives for others' sakes. This is the demand of Scripture. It is the example of Christ. And we run from it because it asks too much of us, but when we find that we are stretched too thin, we simply need to ask more from God, who gives generously to all who ask him.
We do not need a law to start living like this now. How wonderful would it be if we never made a law banning abortion, because Christians had come so far in caring for others in so many ways that a law would be a mere afterthought to a reality that held high the image of God in humanity?
It may seem as if I am unsympathetic with the aims of pro-life activists. It's not that I'm unsympathetic, it just seems like they miss a lot of points. I do think abortion is wrong. I think it is sinful, just like so many things we do without realizing it. I have probably sinned by what I've said in this very posting. But we don't need to be pointing fingers or calling people murderers; we need to look to Christ who was murdered for our salvation. That is our starting point, because that is where we learn to love.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
I am pleased to report that in a pool of over fifty, both contributing authors of Cut the Chatter are in the top 20 as far as tournament bracket perfomance goes, with Mr. Pope holding first place exclusively. Mr. Burdeshaw's Sweet Sixteen has taken a bit of a bruising, but give the excellence delivered to loyal readers, we won't expect him to be down for too long.
The Madness that is March
We all know what time it is, it's tourney time. Now, as all of your brackets begin to fall apart, you ask yourself "Why the hell did I pick Duke to win against Virginia Commonwealth?" I'll tell you why, because Duke is Duke. You would expect that this Coack K led dynasty could handle a simple 10 seed and move on. Nope, they blew it. I personally hate them. Any good that Duke has ever brought to this earth went down the drain in their first-round loss to Duke. I could write about it for hours, but I'll move on.
This week of the year is always crazy. One week of school is left until we all head to our Spring Break destination, undoubtedly leaving most of us with several test this week. With tests coming, Spring Break plans being finalized, St. Patty's parties going strong, and the Masters just around the corner, one can't help but wonder "Will North Carolina win it all?" This brings me to my next point; North Carolina will win it all. Tyler Hanborough is my hero. Not really, but you get the point. You see, Tyler is currently playing with a facemask to cover his broken nose. His scoring is down, assists are down, and rebounding remains consistent. Now, how did Tyler's nose get broken in the first place? The answer is simple: Duke players are assholes. Gerald Henderson was suspended one game for his flagrant elbow to Hansborough's nose. We all know the intensity of the rivalry of UNC and Duke. In their last meeting, UNC was winning comfortably with only seconds remaining in the game. Hansbourough, still in the game and still playing hard (like true champs always do) when Satan/Devery Henderson got pissed and tried to take out TH. This is so typical of Duke. Do I have more examples? No. Just trust me. As I write this, TH has taken off his mask and once again regained his dominant form. What's the point of this blog? I simply wish to inform you that UNC is the team to beat. Screw you, Duke. GO TARHEELS!!
This week of the year is always crazy. One week of school is left until we all head to our Spring Break destination, undoubtedly leaving most of us with several test this week. With tests coming, Spring Break plans being finalized, St. Patty's parties going strong, and the Masters just around the corner, one can't help but wonder "Will North Carolina win it all?" This brings me to my next point; North Carolina will win it all. Tyler Hanborough is my hero. Not really, but you get the point. You see, Tyler is currently playing with a facemask to cover his broken nose. His scoring is down, assists are down, and rebounding remains consistent. Now, how did Tyler's nose get broken in the first place? The answer is simple: Duke players are assholes. Gerald Henderson was suspended one game for his flagrant elbow to Hansborough's nose. We all know the intensity of the rivalry of UNC and Duke. In their last meeting, UNC was winning comfortably with only seconds remaining in the game. Hansbourough, still in the game and still playing hard (like true champs always do) when Satan/Devery Henderson got pissed and tried to take out TH. This is so typical of Duke. Do I have more examples? No. Just trust me. As I write this, TH has taken off his mask and once again regained his dominant form. What's the point of this blog? I simply wish to inform you that UNC is the team to beat. Screw you, Duke. GO TARHEELS!!
Good rules for dating.
The Bible can be pretty silent on principles of dating as such. Some believe it points exclusively towards a kind of physically ascetic courtship. Others think that biblical principles of marriage can steer us in the right direction for what dating should be, what kinds of demands people can make on each other in such relationships, etc.
But let's be honest, we bring a lot of cultural sentiments to the floor when we date people. For example, some of the ideas I will be discussing shortly come from the character Rob Fleming in High Fidelity, a book by Nick Hornby and a movie starring John Cusack in the lead role (with the last name being changed to Gordon to sound less, well, bobbyish). I don't think that this is a bad thing, since we're all individuals with different preferences and attitudes. I'm not suggesting the following advice is authoritative or anything, but it is something that, as I apply it more often, has only helped me in my search for, well, whate'er.
I don't believe in dating people for who they might become. I believe in dating people who they are.
This is a common sentiment, which has inspired the following thoughts which might not be so universal as the previous statement.
I don't believe in dating people for what they're music library might contain in the future. I believe in dating people for the music library they have right now. If I am hanging out a girl and she starts playing some music, I am hoping that it will be a little more intellectually and emotionally involved than Kelly Clarkson or something like that. If I hear a couple of Nickelback songs (a band I consider guilty of international terrorism, being that they are Canadian), I'm going to lose it, unless the girl keeps that stuff around to remind her how far she's come in her music collection.
If I'm scrolling through some girl's music library, I am going to hope to see lots of Radiohead, Wilco, Sufjan, The Clash, and Johnny Cash. Additionally, albums from the Arcade Fire, the Shins, Margot & the Nuclear So and Sos, Pedro the Lion, Of Montreal, the Hold Steady, Simon & Garfunkel, etc. The list goes on. A few bands will get a girl instant mega-respect, since they are relatively unknown compared to previous heavyweights, like Twothirtyeight. And if she doesn't have any Bob Dylan, that is going to be a serious relationship (possibly even friendship) issue.
Futhermore, I don't believe in dating people for what their bookshelves look like now. I believe in dating people for their present bookshelves. I'm not such a stickler on this one, since historians don't have the literary street cred of an English major. For example, most people can recognize War and Peace or something like that, but I'm pretty sure most won't identify with my woes of reading Return for Diversity or growing enjoyment in my current read, E.L. Doctorow's The Book of Daniel. People might see my Kafka collection at get a little disturbed.
So I'm not such a tough guy on that. It would be nice to see a few books saved from world literature courses and a few other books read during a lazy summer on a porch. Again there are some power-hitters in this category, and were I to find a Flannery O'Conner collection with the pages greased from someone's thumb, with sentences underlined and favorite passages bracketed . . . I mean, be still, my freaking heart.
Finally, and this is harder to account for, films are important. I can even tolerate chick-flicks in this category, although they are definitely not artistic. But there's something to be said for the cheap emotional ride, especially if the girl is decent enough to admit it. But I'd like to hear that she's watched some good films in her time, like Magnolia, or Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Star Wars is absolutely non-negotiable. If she hasn't seen it, she certainly won't be seeing much more of me until she fixes that problem.
I advocate a holistic approach to using this principle. For example, a music devotee might not have an extensive book collection, but if she's got a nice film collection or movie ticket stubs scattered around, that's a good indication that she's probably on the right track. Similarly, her music collection might need some attention, but that's because she can't really listen to music when she's picking books from a shelf sagging under the weight of much fine literature.
I suppose you could relate it to this quote from Rob Gordon, in High Fidelity. "Books, records, films -- these things matter. Call me shallow, but it's the damn truth."
You'd think that I was all about dating some kind of liberal arts girl who would be down with all this stuff, which is potentially true, but it's often said that you should date outside your discipline. This seems bizarre to me, but I have heard it from plenty of otherwise legitimate sources, so I probably should regard it as sound.
But as far as I'm concerned, good taste in music, literature, and film is not limited to the people wearing thrift store shirts, smoking cigarettes outside, whining about how they can no longer smoke cigarettes inside, with overflowing messenger bags. Good taste should not be a liberal arts distinctive.
Although I think I have an idea as to why it happens that way. Liberal arts guys and girls are just not going to date business or CoSaM girls or guys who don't listen to good music, watch good films, or read good books. These are the kind of people that write bad poetry that gives off the vibe of thinking that it's actually good poetry. These are the kind of people, when, if religious, still listen to shoddy Christian (non-Sufjan, non-Pedro) music, or think that Jesus is there to be your buddy-buddy.
Couple that with the "date outside your discipline, because it doesn't work inside your discipline" principle, and you see why CoLA kids have such good taste. We've got to have it, because like Goethe's young Werther, our sorrows of unsatisfaction abound. Follow? Maybe?
Then maybe I should abandon this principle. Maybe that self-evident problem is enough reason to abandon such a strict concept.
Maybe I should just get some coffee.
But let's be honest, we bring a lot of cultural sentiments to the floor when we date people. For example, some of the ideas I will be discussing shortly come from the character Rob Fleming in High Fidelity, a book by Nick Hornby and a movie starring John Cusack in the lead role (with the last name being changed to Gordon to sound less, well, bobbyish). I don't think that this is a bad thing, since we're all individuals with different preferences and attitudes. I'm not suggesting the following advice is authoritative or anything, but it is something that, as I apply it more often, has only helped me in my search for, well, whate'er.
I don't believe in dating people for who they might become. I believe in dating people who they are.
This is a common sentiment, which has inspired the following thoughts which might not be so universal as the previous statement.
I don't believe in dating people for what they're music library might contain in the future. I believe in dating people for the music library they have right now. If I am hanging out a girl and she starts playing some music, I am hoping that it will be a little more intellectually and emotionally involved than Kelly Clarkson or something like that. If I hear a couple of Nickelback songs (a band I consider guilty of international terrorism, being that they are Canadian), I'm going to lose it, unless the girl keeps that stuff around to remind her how far she's come in her music collection.
If I'm scrolling through some girl's music library, I am going to hope to see lots of Radiohead, Wilco, Sufjan, The Clash, and Johnny Cash. Additionally, albums from the Arcade Fire, the Shins, Margot & the Nuclear So and Sos, Pedro the Lion, Of Montreal, the Hold Steady, Simon & Garfunkel, etc. The list goes on. A few bands will get a girl instant mega-respect, since they are relatively unknown compared to previous heavyweights, like Twothirtyeight. And if she doesn't have any Bob Dylan, that is going to be a serious relationship (possibly even friendship) issue.
Futhermore, I don't believe in dating people for what their bookshelves look like now. I believe in dating people for their present bookshelves. I'm not such a stickler on this one, since historians don't have the literary street cred of an English major. For example, most people can recognize War and Peace or something like that, but I'm pretty sure most won't identify with my woes of reading Return for Diversity or growing enjoyment in my current read, E.L. Doctorow's The Book of Daniel. People might see my Kafka collection at get a little disturbed.
So I'm not such a tough guy on that. It would be nice to see a few books saved from world literature courses and a few other books read during a lazy summer on a porch. Again there are some power-hitters in this category, and were I to find a Flannery O'Conner collection with the pages greased from someone's thumb, with sentences underlined and favorite passages bracketed . . . I mean, be still, my freaking heart.
Finally, and this is harder to account for, films are important. I can even tolerate chick-flicks in this category, although they are definitely not artistic. But there's something to be said for the cheap emotional ride, especially if the girl is decent enough to admit it. But I'd like to hear that she's watched some good films in her time, like Magnolia, or Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Star Wars is absolutely non-negotiable. If she hasn't seen it, she certainly won't be seeing much more of me until she fixes that problem.
I advocate a holistic approach to using this principle. For example, a music devotee might not have an extensive book collection, but if she's got a nice film collection or movie ticket stubs scattered around, that's a good indication that she's probably on the right track. Similarly, her music collection might need some attention, but that's because she can't really listen to music when she's picking books from a shelf sagging under the weight of much fine literature.
I suppose you could relate it to this quote from Rob Gordon, in High Fidelity. "Books, records, films -- these things matter. Call me shallow, but it's the damn truth."
You'd think that I was all about dating some kind of liberal arts girl who would be down with all this stuff, which is potentially true, but it's often said that you should date outside your discipline. This seems bizarre to me, but I have heard it from plenty of otherwise legitimate sources, so I probably should regard it as sound.
But as far as I'm concerned, good taste in music, literature, and film is not limited to the people wearing thrift store shirts, smoking cigarettes outside, whining about how they can no longer smoke cigarettes inside, with overflowing messenger bags. Good taste should not be a liberal arts distinctive.
Although I think I have an idea as to why it happens that way. Liberal arts guys and girls are just not going to date business or CoSaM girls or guys who don't listen to good music, watch good films, or read good books. These are the kind of people that write bad poetry that gives off the vibe of thinking that it's actually good poetry. These are the kind of people, when, if religious, still listen to shoddy Christian (non-Sufjan, non-Pedro) music, or think that Jesus is there to be your buddy-buddy.
Couple that with the "date outside your discipline, because it doesn't work inside your discipline" principle, and you see why CoLA kids have such good taste. We've got to have it, because like Goethe's young Werther, our sorrows of unsatisfaction abound. Follow? Maybe?
Then maybe I should abandon this principle. Maybe that self-evident problem is enough reason to abandon such a strict concept.
Maybe I should just get some coffee.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
If ever we were chatter-ing
It's pretty exciting to think of the productivity that will come from this blog with the addition of Burdeshaw. I'm probably blogging at the same time as Chris, which is pretty fascinating.
I've gotten away from some of the other focus points of Cut the Chatter, Red 2, and that's because this blog has had a worldview focus. Tonight isn't really that much different, because I want to address an issue that came up about a week ago at my fellowship group. I promise I'll get back to topics on music and perhaps sports, now that March Madness is starting up.
One of the questions in our study asked for our perspective on justification. The question asked us how we would respond to the claim that justification meant that God treated us "just as if we've never sinned."
Anyone in the group could easily recall my reaction to the statement, as if it was high heresy or something. I suppose it's my SBC roots or something that leads me to hate this phrase, which at least on the surface level seems harmless enough. But if we take a hard look at this phrase, we begin to see some of the problems in current Christian thinking that, if left unaddressed, could lead to some serious theological complications.
"Just as if I'd never sinned." It's hard enough to pick a starting point with what's wrong, so I'll start at the beginning of Genesis. Adam was our federal head. Adam represented all of humanity in his actions and as a result, his sin is our sin. Furthermore, our nature has fallen and become corrupted. This corrupted nature and original sin is more than enough to condemn us, because we are by nature enemies of God. Being natural enemies, we could never progress outside of that original scheme without some form of divine intervention. This phrase, "Just as if I'd never sinned," ignores all this, focusing only on actual sin, or perhaps our sinful actions. But you can't ignore our sinful nature, inherited from Adam who spoke for us all (and do you really think you would have done much different if you were in his shoes? Didn't think so).
This idea is patently unamerican, since we pride individuality and personal responsibility. But if we won't have Adam, as Paul tells us in Romans 5, we can't have Christ. We ignore original sin at our own peril. If we focus on our actual sin alone, all we have to distrust is the past, which leaves us some confidence in ourselves. Yet are totally fallen, in body and soul as the Confession says, and we must learn to distrust our whole selves so that we can cry out with Paul in Romans 7 to the Lord and Savior who will deliver us from even ourselves.
Thanksfully, in our Savior's sacrifice we do not find merely and evening out of the tables. Jerry may have broken even and been in a great equilibrium in the world of Seinfeld, but really, all that does for us is leave us where we started. We begin to grasp the graciousness of God when we have not only our sins taken away, but Christ's righteousness creditted to our accounts. That grace becomes so amazing. God sees Christ's blood covering us and welcomes us as his children. Why in the world should this happen? It seems like it would have been enough to leave us even.
But God went further and gave us a right standing before God. "JustasifI'dneversinned" ignores this, suggesting that all God did was make us even. The statement says far too little, ignoring the truth that has caused Christians to pen poetry and sent musicians tuning their instruments.
The statement goes further, ignoring God's omniscience in that particular area. Additionally, when Christ returns and our faith is rewarded with sight, we will see his stricken body that bears the scars and wounds that finally convinced Thomas of the resurrection. Do we think God somehow can't see what his Son endured? Do we think that God actually pretends the wounds of sin are not indelibly on his Son's body? And yet this wounds are not merely wounds of sin, they are the proofs of grace.
The problem I have with JustasifI'dneversinnedism is that it really doesn't preach the Gospel. It's just a quip that we can easily memorize to propogate the shallow understanding of the Gospel in the South. When we try to make the Gospel simpler, we actually make it tougher to understand. It's already so simple to begin with. "Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead."
If we could really learn what it means to believe those words, as Han Solo said, sometimes we might even amaze ourselves.
I've gotten away from some of the other focus points of Cut the Chatter, Red 2, and that's because this blog has had a worldview focus. Tonight isn't really that much different, because I want to address an issue that came up about a week ago at my fellowship group. I promise I'll get back to topics on music and perhaps sports, now that March Madness is starting up.
One of the questions in our study asked for our perspective on justification. The question asked us how we would respond to the claim that justification meant that God treated us "just as if we've never sinned."
Anyone in the group could easily recall my reaction to the statement, as if it was high heresy or something. I suppose it's my SBC roots or something that leads me to hate this phrase, which at least on the surface level seems harmless enough. But if we take a hard look at this phrase, we begin to see some of the problems in current Christian thinking that, if left unaddressed, could lead to some serious theological complications.
"Just as if I'd never sinned." It's hard enough to pick a starting point with what's wrong, so I'll start at the beginning of Genesis. Adam was our federal head. Adam represented all of humanity in his actions and as a result, his sin is our sin. Furthermore, our nature has fallen and become corrupted. This corrupted nature and original sin is more than enough to condemn us, because we are by nature enemies of God. Being natural enemies, we could never progress outside of that original scheme without some form of divine intervention. This phrase, "Just as if I'd never sinned," ignores all this, focusing only on actual sin, or perhaps our sinful actions. But you can't ignore our sinful nature, inherited from Adam who spoke for us all (and do you really think you would have done much different if you were in his shoes? Didn't think so).
This idea is patently unamerican, since we pride individuality and personal responsibility. But if we won't have Adam, as Paul tells us in Romans 5, we can't have Christ. We ignore original sin at our own peril. If we focus on our actual sin alone, all we have to distrust is the past, which leaves us some confidence in ourselves. Yet are totally fallen, in body and soul as the Confession says, and we must learn to distrust our whole selves so that we can cry out with Paul in Romans 7 to the Lord and Savior who will deliver us from even ourselves.
Thanksfully, in our Savior's sacrifice we do not find merely and evening out of the tables. Jerry may have broken even and been in a great equilibrium in the world of Seinfeld, but really, all that does for us is leave us where we started. We begin to grasp the graciousness of God when we have not only our sins taken away, but Christ's righteousness creditted to our accounts. That grace becomes so amazing. God sees Christ's blood covering us and welcomes us as his children. Why in the world should this happen? It seems like it would have been enough to leave us even.
But God went further and gave us a right standing before God. "JustasifI'dneversinned" ignores this, suggesting that all God did was make us even. The statement says far too little, ignoring the truth that has caused Christians to pen poetry and sent musicians tuning their instruments.
The statement goes further, ignoring God's omniscience in that particular area. Additionally, when Christ returns and our faith is rewarded with sight, we will see his stricken body that bears the scars and wounds that finally convinced Thomas of the resurrection. Do we think God somehow can't see what his Son endured? Do we think that God actually pretends the wounds of sin are not indelibly on his Son's body? And yet this wounds are not merely wounds of sin, they are the proofs of grace.
The problem I have with JustasifI'dneversinnedism is that it really doesn't preach the Gospel. It's just a quip that we can easily memorize to propogate the shallow understanding of the Gospel in the South. When we try to make the Gospel simpler, we actually make it tougher to understand. It's already so simple to begin with. "Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead."
If we could really learn what it means to believe those words, as Han Solo said, sometimes we might even amaze ourselves.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Let me tell you a little about myself...
Anyone who has been keeping up with Pope's blog may have read that Chris Burdeshaw will be co-authoring with him. Well, word on the street is true, Chris Burdeshaw has signed on to "Cut the chatter, Red 2." Now, not meaning to go third-person on you, let me introduce myself. My name is Chris Burdeshaw, I'm from Perry GA, and I'm studying Horticulture here at Auburn University. You'll quickly notice that Pope and myself are two very different people. I'll be writing on everything from sports to hunting to women to politics to music. Pope will undoubtedly take a different approach, though we may lurk into each other's territory every once in a while. That's the agenda of the "co-author" theory. Pope doesn't do sports...except soccer. We differ on music tastes, and on several political topics. We did, however, have quite an enlightening conversation over lunch last week over that other species we know as "women." Anyhow, so now you know where we're heading here. I hope to boost the ratings of this blog over time. Feel free to criticize my writings, or maybe throw a compliment. All comments are welcome. My first true post will be up shortly. Later
SXSW
Right now over one thousand bands are descending on Austin, TX's downtown for the music festival known as SXSW. For Philistines, this means South by Southwest.
One year from now, I will walk down the street to hear some fantastic music.
Six months from now, Austin City Limits will throw its festival. Rumored acts include heavyweights like Radiohead, Wilco, Sufjan Stevens, The Hold Steady, The Arcade Fire, Ryan Adams, Buddy Guy, Neil Young, Bob Dylan, Death Cab for Cutie, and Belle and Sebastien, not to mention lesser known acts like Midlake, the Good the Bad and the Queen, and others.
In one year, I am going to be even more of a music snob than I can be sometimes now. Some people might think all of this music euphoria is a waste of time. I call it...engaging culture.
One year from now, I will walk down the street to hear some fantastic music.
Six months from now, Austin City Limits will throw its festival. Rumored acts include heavyweights like Radiohead, Wilco, Sufjan Stevens, The Hold Steady, The Arcade Fire, Ryan Adams, Buddy Guy, Neil Young, Bob Dylan, Death Cab for Cutie, and Belle and Sebastien, not to mention lesser known acts like Midlake, the Good the Bad and the Queen, and others.
In one year, I am going to be even more of a music snob than I can be sometimes now. Some people might think all of this music euphoria is a waste of time. I call it...engaging culture.
Monday, March 12, 2007
That Racist South
Racism and the South. To anyone from the North or West, the two are inextricably and exclusively linked. The brutal history of the South from slavery to the ostensible end of segregation is continually rubbed in the face of the Southerner. Most people who blast the South for its racism probably don’t know about events like the Newark, Chicago, Detroit, or Watts riots. That, or they might not care.
As much as I might seem like a critic of my birthplace, I do love the South. And for anyone from the South, it’s hard not to rant defensively about the various hypocrisies of the North or the West. It’s easy for us to point at the racial problems of other regions. I hope that no one thinks that I’m doing that.
When people bash a region for this or for that instance of racism, we show how insensitive we are to the real issues. When Northerners point out the horrible deaths of Cheney, Goodman, and Schwerner, or the cowardly assassination of Medgar Evers, or the Anniston bus burning, they aren’t honoring the men who died for their beliefs. They are using those gruesome events as springboards for anti-Southern propaganda.
I don’t bring up the race riots of Newark or Watts without hesitation. Black men and women died at the hands of racist cops in the North and the West. Recently, police officers in Queens, New York shot and killed a groom for what might be call ambiguous circumstances. Rodney King was beaten to near-death in L.A. and portions of the city erupted in riots.
These events are just as horrendous as those in the South, but most Northerners or Westerners don’t seem to consider them in anti-Southern tirades.
The point is that racism is not a regional issue. Racism is a national problem that we haven’t begun to address. We don’t take seriously the truth that Christ breaks down barriers. Churches that are actually integrated across the black-white divide (should we even think about it as a divide?) are a rarity indeed.
What’s needed is not finger-pointing here or there. It does no good to point fingers and say “Well, you’re racist too!” It’s such a non-statement. We must continually preach to ourselves that all human beings, no matter their skin tone, or their economic situation, are made in the image of God.
Yet I am quick to point out that we can’t have a hope in what we can do. Nothing will be perfect until Christ returns to claim his Bride. Some might say that I’m giving Christians a great reason to be lazy about this issue and so many others.
God’s religion, to quote from Horatius Bonar, does not end in forgiveness. It begins with it. And I think that this is a similar situation. Christ’s resurrection and future return does not obscure the need to reach out to others regardless of so many differences. Rather, they establish our need and equip us with a well-founded assurance that one day, things will be different. Christ invites us to participate in establishing his kingdom, however insignificant it will seem compared to the full coming of it. It is a Christian duty, but more importantly, it is an invitation to be part of what can only be described as an adventure.
As much as I might seem like a critic of my birthplace, I do love the South. And for anyone from the South, it’s hard not to rant defensively about the various hypocrisies of the North or the West. It’s easy for us to point at the racial problems of other regions. I hope that no one thinks that I’m doing that.
When people bash a region for this or for that instance of racism, we show how insensitive we are to the real issues. When Northerners point out the horrible deaths of Cheney, Goodman, and Schwerner, or the cowardly assassination of Medgar Evers, or the Anniston bus burning, they aren’t honoring the men who died for their beliefs. They are using those gruesome events as springboards for anti-Southern propaganda.
I don’t bring up the race riots of Newark or Watts without hesitation. Black men and women died at the hands of racist cops in the North and the West. Recently, police officers in Queens, New York shot and killed a groom for what might be call ambiguous circumstances. Rodney King was beaten to near-death in L.A. and portions of the city erupted in riots.
These events are just as horrendous as those in the South, but most Northerners or Westerners don’t seem to consider them in anti-Southern tirades.
The point is that racism is not a regional issue. Racism is a national problem that we haven’t begun to address. We don’t take seriously the truth that Christ breaks down barriers. Churches that are actually integrated across the black-white divide (should we even think about it as a divide?) are a rarity indeed.
What’s needed is not finger-pointing here or there. It does no good to point fingers and say “Well, you’re racist too!” It’s such a non-statement. We must continually preach to ourselves that all human beings, no matter their skin tone, or their economic situation, are made in the image of God.
Yet I am quick to point out that we can’t have a hope in what we can do. Nothing will be perfect until Christ returns to claim his Bride. Some might say that I’m giving Christians a great reason to be lazy about this issue and so many others.
God’s religion, to quote from Horatius Bonar, does not end in forgiveness. It begins with it. And I think that this is a similar situation. Christ’s resurrection and future return does not obscure the need to reach out to others regardless of so many differences. Rather, they establish our need and equip us with a well-founded assurance that one day, things will be different. Christ invites us to participate in establishing his kingdom, however insignificant it will seem compared to the full coming of it. It is a Christian duty, but more importantly, it is an invitation to be part of what can only be described as an adventure.
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Historical Revisionism, etc. (mostly rambling)
This is a topic I've wanted to discuss for some time, and I feel like now that I've accepted a graduate position at University of Texas at Austin, I've at least got some credibility to talk about the subject of historical revisionism.
I went to East Hill Christian School, and one of the school's objectives was to bring out the truth of Scripture in every class. Now, if you've ever talked to me about high school, you know that I am not that impressed with the teachers' fulfillment of this goal, although there certainly were individual teachers that met and exceeded the challenge. But these teachers were few and far between.
The Scripture presented in the class had the appearance of a reactionary, arch-conservative textbook. As a result, in my history class, "revisionism" was comparable with the f-word. Traditional, and arguably mythological stories were told about America, its allies, and its enemies. Any historian challenging the supposed Christian foundations of America, or perhaps the justification of the Revolutionary War (or any of America's combat engagements), or seriously looking at the failure of the American dream were, to put it mildy, hellbound.
The problem with anti-revisionism should be obvious to most people, and I feel like people with a serious Christian worldview should see its flaws in spades. The problem is, at least in the South as far as I've experienced it, Christians seem to cling to myths about our national heritage, at the expense of our Christian faith. A Christian who disagrees with historical revisionism disagrees with either basic theology or Abraham Kuyper's statement that everything belongs to Christ.
And it is mournfully to the shame of Christians that the perspectives on history held by some professors are far more biblical than those of most Christians (who, to be frank, really don't know much about history at all).
The first problem with this kind of historic traditionalism is its plain ignorance. It assumes that a particular historical period has been defined beyond question. Particular forms of physics have not been completely fleshed out. Some forms of science are often turned on their heads. To bring the example closer to home, other areas of liberal arts are constantly in flux. Philosophers are moving all around from empiricism to skepticism and everywhere in between. Many are embracing normativity. Theism is no longer barred from discussion. Literary critics, alternatively, are continuing to ask new and difficult questions concerning the texts they study. But far be it for historians to ask tough questions about how we interpret the past. The belief inherent in the view that history has been written is that, in some measure, we have arrived. That is one thought that should never be permitted to run through a Christian's head (concerning any belief) while he is alive. In the fields of academia and faith, the statement is, if anything, ignorant.
Critiques of historical revision probably shouldn't be limited to ignorance. The past is not merely assumed to be wholly true, it is glorified. This is at the same time dishonest and idolatrous. These critics of historical revision usually have some incredible bias to their ridiculous comments, and sinful men are held up as the reason for our existence (as in, they saved us from this evil nation). For example, it's typical to think of Ronald Reagan as one of the great men who felled communism. This is a wonderfully stupid statement, and the people who typically make it aren't actually educated on communism, how it came to power, important differences in alternate ideaologies (Stalinism, normalization, reform communism, etc). Other events which would put our nation, or our favorite figure, in a negative light are downplayed. We don't look at some of the alternate ideas about the American Revolution, because we like the idea of a brutal, oppressive British government (instead of the one that was actually taxing Americans much less than the citizens of England proper).
Historical periods become ideals in themselves. Most people are romantics, hell, I am. Although you'd figure that as a historian I would be pining to live in some other decade or century, I'm not. I haven't said "I just wish I lived in . . . " in years. This is a rejection of God's will, really. God has you living where you are, and when you are, for a wonderful reason. This also ties back into simple ignorance of the past. When people tell me that they wished they lived in a particular time period, I usually smile at them, tell them something splendidly horrific about that time period, and go on my way. Other periods of history would not make any more sense to you than your current period, and you need to be content where God has placed you.
The result of this ignorance, dishonesty, and idolatry, is that we begin to find hope in our Americanness, or in our nation, or in our region. I am not for a moment suggesting that we should hate anything about ourselves that relates to enjoying our nation for what it is, or that we should be indifferent to where we were born, but I am arguing that we no longer find hope in America. We never should have, and if we do, we should stop. Our hope is in the risen Christ, and not in anything about America, the South, or even Auburn University.
These are some common ideas I find running in the minds of those who would think that history is done, or that our current histories are 100% accurate. But these ideologies run contrary to so much of Scripture. Original histories are flawed, just as their writers were flawed. Those histories can mythologize the past as effectively as any romantic. They sometimes ignore pertinent historical issues. And all too often, we are clinging to historical or political perspectives over and against Scripture, when even the greatest of these perspectives should be made to submit to every word of Scripture. And only after we submit our perspectives to Scripture will we find that they are truly established.
I realize that I haven't actually talked about anything historical, at least in any detail. I will go into one aspect of Modern European history that has seen some revision lately. Scholarship on Nazi Germany has shifted from an interpretation of "special path" to "heightened experience." To explain. We traditionally think that the horrors of concentration camps and National Socialism could only happen in Germany alone, because of its perceived tradition of anti-semitism, militarism, or what not. The Treaty of Versailles put Germany in an particular position where Nazism had to come about there and not anywhere else.
But is that really true? It isn't, to be honest. Marshal Petain of Vichy France actually embraced Nazi ideals and set up concentration camps in a handful of French provinces. The same thing happened in Poland, on a much larger scale.
In America, there were plenty of red and Catholic scares. The second KKK was alive and kicking. The Supreme Court actually legalized the sterilization of individuals under the same beliefs in eugenics that Nazis shared. Could that have happened here? With a few more aggravations, certainly.
It's scary to think that we are not very far from doing something horrendously evil, but even scarier that we could so eagerly support something like that. While there were plenty of resisters to Nazi policies, many Germans embraced the regime. The regime was attractive. If you doubt it, just watch this propaganda video from the 1942 Christmas in Germany. You see images of Germans making gifts for soldiers on the front, you watch as children visit the war wounded in hospitals. You see German families enjoy Christmas at home, while the director montages pictures of German soldiers at the front receiving the gifts. You can't help but be partially won over by the storyline of the propaganda...national unity, people caring for each other in times of need.
When you boil it down, you don't want to find hope in where you live. You want to find hope in Scripture, and in the Christ that to whom Scripture points. In the meantime, open your mind up to the possibilities that history hasn't been exhausted, and take it easy on the people trying to figure out what really went on at one point.
I went to East Hill Christian School, and one of the school's objectives was to bring out the truth of Scripture in every class. Now, if you've ever talked to me about high school, you know that I am not that impressed with the teachers' fulfillment of this goal, although there certainly were individual teachers that met and exceeded the challenge. But these teachers were few and far between.
The Scripture presented in the class had the appearance of a reactionary, arch-conservative textbook. As a result, in my history class, "revisionism" was comparable with the f-word. Traditional, and arguably mythological stories were told about America, its allies, and its enemies. Any historian challenging the supposed Christian foundations of America, or perhaps the justification of the Revolutionary War (or any of America's combat engagements), or seriously looking at the failure of the American dream were, to put it mildy, hellbound.
The problem with anti-revisionism should be obvious to most people, and I feel like people with a serious Christian worldview should see its flaws in spades. The problem is, at least in the South as far as I've experienced it, Christians seem to cling to myths about our national heritage, at the expense of our Christian faith. A Christian who disagrees with historical revisionism disagrees with either basic theology or Abraham Kuyper's statement that everything belongs to Christ.
And it is mournfully to the shame of Christians that the perspectives on history held by some professors are far more biblical than those of most Christians (who, to be frank, really don't know much about history at all).
The first problem with this kind of historic traditionalism is its plain ignorance. It assumes that a particular historical period has been defined beyond question. Particular forms of physics have not been completely fleshed out. Some forms of science are often turned on their heads. To bring the example closer to home, other areas of liberal arts are constantly in flux. Philosophers are moving all around from empiricism to skepticism and everywhere in between. Many are embracing normativity. Theism is no longer barred from discussion. Literary critics, alternatively, are continuing to ask new and difficult questions concerning the texts they study. But far be it for historians to ask tough questions about how we interpret the past. The belief inherent in the view that history has been written is that, in some measure, we have arrived. That is one thought that should never be permitted to run through a Christian's head (concerning any belief) while he is alive. In the fields of academia and faith, the statement is, if anything, ignorant.
Critiques of historical revision probably shouldn't be limited to ignorance. The past is not merely assumed to be wholly true, it is glorified. This is at the same time dishonest and idolatrous. These critics of historical revision usually have some incredible bias to their ridiculous comments, and sinful men are held up as the reason for our existence (as in, they saved us from this evil nation). For example, it's typical to think of Ronald Reagan as one of the great men who felled communism. This is a wonderfully stupid statement, and the people who typically make it aren't actually educated on communism, how it came to power, important differences in alternate ideaologies (Stalinism, normalization, reform communism, etc). Other events which would put our nation, or our favorite figure, in a negative light are downplayed. We don't look at some of the alternate ideas about the American Revolution, because we like the idea of a brutal, oppressive British government (instead of the one that was actually taxing Americans much less than the citizens of England proper).
Historical periods become ideals in themselves. Most people are romantics, hell, I am. Although you'd figure that as a historian I would be pining to live in some other decade or century, I'm not. I haven't said "I just wish I lived in . . . " in years. This is a rejection of God's will, really. God has you living where you are, and when you are, for a wonderful reason. This also ties back into simple ignorance of the past. When people tell me that they wished they lived in a particular time period, I usually smile at them, tell them something splendidly horrific about that time period, and go on my way. Other periods of history would not make any more sense to you than your current period, and you need to be content where God has placed you.
The result of this ignorance, dishonesty, and idolatry, is that we begin to find hope in our Americanness, or in our nation, or in our region. I am not for a moment suggesting that we should hate anything about ourselves that relates to enjoying our nation for what it is, or that we should be indifferent to where we were born, but I am arguing that we no longer find hope in America. We never should have, and if we do, we should stop. Our hope is in the risen Christ, and not in anything about America, the South, or even Auburn University.
These are some common ideas I find running in the minds of those who would think that history is done, or that our current histories are 100% accurate. But these ideologies run contrary to so much of Scripture. Original histories are flawed, just as their writers were flawed. Those histories can mythologize the past as effectively as any romantic. They sometimes ignore pertinent historical issues. And all too often, we are clinging to historical or political perspectives over and against Scripture, when even the greatest of these perspectives should be made to submit to every word of Scripture. And only after we submit our perspectives to Scripture will we find that they are truly established.
I realize that I haven't actually talked about anything historical, at least in any detail. I will go into one aspect of Modern European history that has seen some revision lately. Scholarship on Nazi Germany has shifted from an interpretation of "special path" to "heightened experience." To explain. We traditionally think that the horrors of concentration camps and National Socialism could only happen in Germany alone, because of its perceived tradition of anti-semitism, militarism, or what not. The Treaty of Versailles put Germany in an particular position where Nazism had to come about there and not anywhere else.
But is that really true? It isn't, to be honest. Marshal Petain of Vichy France actually embraced Nazi ideals and set up concentration camps in a handful of French provinces. The same thing happened in Poland, on a much larger scale.
In America, there were plenty of red and Catholic scares. The second KKK was alive and kicking. The Supreme Court actually legalized the sterilization of individuals under the same beliefs in eugenics that Nazis shared. Could that have happened here? With a few more aggravations, certainly.
It's scary to think that we are not very far from doing something horrendously evil, but even scarier that we could so eagerly support something like that. While there were plenty of resisters to Nazi policies, many Germans embraced the regime. The regime was attractive. If you doubt it, just watch this propaganda video from the 1942 Christmas in Germany. You see images of Germans making gifts for soldiers on the front, you watch as children visit the war wounded in hospitals. You see German families enjoy Christmas at home, while the director montages pictures of German soldiers at the front receiving the gifts. You can't help but be partially won over by the storyline of the propaganda...national unity, people caring for each other in times of need.
When you boil it down, you don't want to find hope in where you live. You want to find hope in Scripture, and in the Christ that to whom Scripture points. In the meantime, open your mind up to the possibilities that history hasn't been exhausted, and take it easy on the people trying to figure out what really went on at one point.
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
By the way, Mr. Burdeshaw is not just the "sports guy."
It's just that when I ask myself the question, "What could other guys talk about much more intelligently than I can?" the answer is always sports (or women. Of course sports. Anyone who knows me knows I don't know anything about popular sports in America. I like soccer. I like watching it. Do I know what an option is? No. Of course not.
It's just that when I ask myself the question, "What could other guys talk about much more intelligently than I can?" the answer is always sports (or women. Of course sports. Anyone who knows me knows I don't know anything about popular sports in America. I like soccer. I like watching it. Do I know what an option is? No. Of course not.
Battle of the Bands: Rosie Thomas vs. Patty Griffin
Believe me, I'm aware of the foolishness of putting Rosie Thomas up against Patty Griffin. But as far as I'm concerned, this is an American blog, and Americans are all for upsets. If you don't like these David and Goliath situations, you're not American, and you're probably not a good Christian either. But Rosie isn't so innocent as David, humbly searching for the perfect stones in a brooke near the battlefield. Ms. Thomas brings the ever-reluctant indie superstar Sufjan Stevens to the fight (he appears on the whole album), in effect ditching her slingshot for a bazooka.
Rosie Thomas has had her album, These Friends of Mine, available in advance on eMusic. After hearing her great single ("Much Farther to Go") on Pitchfork, I hopped on over the eMusic to gather up the rest of the album, which will be released next Tuesday, March 13. Thomas' single is sitting at 23 listens, sitting at the fifth-ranked most played song of 2007 according to iTunes. Rosie plucks at her guitar, singing in a soft voice that is gentle yet self-assured. By the second verse, Sufjan has begun to harmonize (and in doing so provides a wonderful foil for the quiet confidence of Thomas), and by the chorus, he has unleashed his banjo. The result is an eminently enjoyable single that asks you to be content in the frustration, trouble, and heartbreak of daily life.
At the risk of sounding a little to Pitchforkish (that is to say, like an asshole), Rosie Thomas does have much farther to go, at least musically. The album is unbalanced, yet eerily everything sounds the same (with notable exceptions, like "Much Farther to Go"). I literally get drowsy listening to this album, which is not exactly something that I like in a folk album. The lyrics don't gel with the music, which seems to be this one-size-fits-all type of song. Thomas can't seem to think outside the box of heartbreak, which is absolutely necessary for a good folk album. Folk music, like the blues (and R&B), is at once depressing and uplifting. No one feels depressed after listening to "What Becomes of the Brokenhearted." Instead, they affirm their feelings of desperation and rejection while declaring that they will overcome that stands in their way.
Listen to Rosie's single, "Much Farther to Go."
Patty Griffin, as we might expect, is much more volatile, which makes for a great album. She opens her Children Running Through mournfully, hoping that her lost love will one day remember her. Lest we think that this album is a passive album of loss, Patty begins strumming with such ferocity on "I'm Getting Ready" that we get the idea that she is going to kick some man out of the picture before she finishes the title in the chorus, telling us "I'm getting ready to let you go!"
Patty's album is full of depth and variety. I'm no Patty scholar, but critics seem to be suggesting that this album is perhaps her most experimental. Well then, hats off to Ms. Griffin, who exudes confidence in each individual song on the album. She often sets down her guitar to play her piano, and she brings out rich feelings on "Burgundy Shoes" and "Someone Else's Tomorrow." On the latter, Patty invites us, even as younger listeners, to meditate on what it might be like to grow old. Memories fade, and people made of flesh and blood today will soon be ghastly shells of their formers shells.
The song ends without hope, leaving space for something more important that just human memory, or perhaps even the people who are responsible for the memories themselves. Memories provide us with a mere record of something that happened, and occasionally they will give us a hint of emotional excitement, or perhaps sorrow. Even a reunion with the characters of the memory will not suffice. Even that memory will fade. What might answer Patty's question? What might she be pointing us to? I think she is pointing, intentionally or not, to a final and lasting reunion with family members passed on and friends long gone, and to a world without end.
Patty comes away with the W after this Battle of the Bands. It's not that Rosie doesn't stand for something. Rosie seems to be pointing us in the right direction, but Patty is pointing to human experience with her every muscle flexing in the effort, and one can't help but admire both her energy and accuracy.
Rosie Thomas has had her album, These Friends of Mine, available in advance on eMusic. After hearing her great single ("Much Farther to Go") on Pitchfork, I hopped on over the eMusic to gather up the rest of the album, which will be released next Tuesday, March 13. Thomas' single is sitting at 23 listens, sitting at the fifth-ranked most played song of 2007 according to iTunes. Rosie plucks at her guitar, singing in a soft voice that is gentle yet self-assured. By the second verse, Sufjan has begun to harmonize (and in doing so provides a wonderful foil for the quiet confidence of Thomas), and by the chorus, he has unleashed his banjo. The result is an eminently enjoyable single that asks you to be content in the frustration, trouble, and heartbreak of daily life.
At the risk of sounding a little to Pitchforkish (that is to say, like an asshole), Rosie Thomas does have much farther to go, at least musically. The album is unbalanced, yet eerily everything sounds the same (with notable exceptions, like "Much Farther to Go"). I literally get drowsy listening to this album, which is not exactly something that I like in a folk album. The lyrics don't gel with the music, which seems to be this one-size-fits-all type of song. Thomas can't seem to think outside the box of heartbreak, which is absolutely necessary for a good folk album. Folk music, like the blues (and R&B), is at once depressing and uplifting. No one feels depressed after listening to "What Becomes of the Brokenhearted." Instead, they affirm their feelings of desperation and rejection while declaring that they will overcome that stands in their way.
Listen to Rosie's single, "Much Farther to Go."
Patty Griffin, as we might expect, is much more volatile, which makes for a great album. She opens her Children Running Through mournfully, hoping that her lost love will one day remember her. Lest we think that this album is a passive album of loss, Patty begins strumming with such ferocity on "I'm Getting Ready" that we get the idea that she is going to kick some man out of the picture before she finishes the title in the chorus, telling us "I'm getting ready to let you go!"
Patty's album is full of depth and variety. I'm no Patty scholar, but critics seem to be suggesting that this album is perhaps her most experimental. Well then, hats off to Ms. Griffin, who exudes confidence in each individual song on the album. She often sets down her guitar to play her piano, and she brings out rich feelings on "Burgundy Shoes" and "Someone Else's Tomorrow." On the latter, Patty invites us, even as younger listeners, to meditate on what it might be like to grow old. Memories fade, and people made of flesh and blood today will soon be ghastly shells of their formers shells.
The song ends without hope, leaving space for something more important that just human memory, or perhaps even the people who are responsible for the memories themselves. Memories provide us with a mere record of something that happened, and occasionally they will give us a hint of emotional excitement, or perhaps sorrow. Even a reunion with the characters of the memory will not suffice. Even that memory will fade. What might answer Patty's question? What might she be pointing us to? I think she is pointing, intentionally or not, to a final and lasting reunion with family members passed on and friends long gone, and to a world without end.
Patty comes away with the W after this Battle of the Bands. It's not that Rosie doesn't stand for something. Rosie seems to be pointing us in the right direction, but Patty is pointing to human experience with her every muscle flexing in the effort, and one can't help but admire both her energy and accuracy.
Great things come in twos. For example, who could imagine Blondie in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly without Tuco? Or perhaps the Green Hornet without Cato (Bruce Lee, people!)? Would Red 5 have been able to fire those proton torpedoes and start a chain reaction that would blow up the first Death Star without a little help from Red 2? You're a dolt if you think so.
That said, I am proud to introduce to the painfully small Cut the Chatter audience a second author for this blog. Hopefully the range of topics covered will double with this new writer. I have covered topics from music to manliness to worldviews, and I think it is a disservice to our readership to not cover more topics. I'm pretty sure the new author, who will incidentally have as much creative control as myself, will be able to cover sports much more easily than myself. This new blogger will be in Auburn at least one year after me, and so we'll be able to cover collegiate sports from two locations (Auburn and Austin), although I doubt I'll be lifting high the Big 12 (is that what it's called?) over the SEC.
Just to demostrate the knowledge of our new author, he informed me today that there is no such thing as a 64th seed in the upcoming NCAA MBB tournament. I mean, whatever. That's cool.
This new author, ladies, but mostly gentlemen, is Auburn's own Chris Burdeshaw.
Mr. Burdeshaw to the left, myself, to the right. We didn't know at the time of the photo that we'd be doing this wonderful thing together. Photo used without permission, but of course we're assuming she wouldn't mind, of Allison Wilder.
Please give Chris your best Cut the Chatter welcome. All, like, two of you.
My musical suggestion to you is that, if you haven't already, listen to London Calling by the Clash. It's ranked quite highly on Rolling Stones' list of top albums, not that you should listen to the album for that reason alone. It's truly a fantastic album. I'm just sad it didn't come out this year, because I'd love to give it a top album of the year status.
That said, I am proud to introduce to the painfully small Cut the Chatter audience a second author for this blog. Hopefully the range of topics covered will double with this new writer. I have covered topics from music to manliness to worldviews, and I think it is a disservice to our readership to not cover more topics. I'm pretty sure the new author, who will incidentally have as much creative control as myself, will be able to cover sports much more easily than myself. This new blogger will be in Auburn at least one year after me, and so we'll be able to cover collegiate sports from two locations (Auburn and Austin), although I doubt I'll be lifting high the Big 12 (is that what it's called?) over the SEC.
Just to demostrate the knowledge of our new author, he informed me today that there is no such thing as a 64th seed in the upcoming NCAA MBB tournament. I mean, whatever. That's cool.
This new author, ladies, but mostly gentlemen, is Auburn's own Chris Burdeshaw.
Mr. Burdeshaw to the left, myself, to the right. We didn't know at the time of the photo that we'd be doing this wonderful thing together. Photo used without permission, but of course we're assuming she wouldn't mind, of Allison Wilder.
Please give Chris your best Cut the Chatter welcome. All, like, two of you.
My musical suggestion to you is that, if you haven't already, listen to London Calling by the Clash. It's ranked quite highly on Rolling Stones' list of top albums, not that you should listen to the album for that reason alone. It's truly a fantastic album. I'm just sad it didn't come out this year, because I'd love to give it a top album of the year status.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)