Hair-Pulling Hooliganism

If you watched the above clip, you won't be surprised to hear that Elizabeth Lambert has been in the news a little bit lately. This happened two weeks ago now, and so has just about blown over. It was big enough to make it beyond the sports world, though, showing up on The Today Show, among other "news" outlets. The most interesting aspect of the event, to me, is Ms. Lambert's apology. After taking full responsibility for letting her "emotions get the best of" her, Lambert went on to claim that "this is in no way indicative of [her] character or the soccer player that [she is]."

She has, in consecutive sentences it seems, attempted to take responsibility AND to shirk it! Tony Kornheiser, a sportswriter from my childhood in Washington, DC, and a co-host of Pardon the Interruption, a sports-talk show on ESPN, wasn't buying Lambert's claim for even a minute. "Not who she is!?" he exclaimed. "It's EXACTLY who she is. It's just not who she wants to be!" Hallelujah! This is an insight that we've discussed before as it relates to David Hasselhoff, Mel Gibson, Michael Richards and others. Are the racist/violent/abusive acts they commit when they're "out of control" indicative of who they are, or not? As others have quoted before me, the Biblical argument seems to be that "the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" (Jeremiah 17:9), and that, therefore, the "out of control" us is the REAL us, and the sanitized, ready-for-public-consumption us is the cover-up.

Jesus: More Socialist than Obama?

I watch The Colbert Report every single evening. It might be the most consistently funny show on television right now. Colbert's constant accusations that Obama is a socialist were, for some reason, ringing especially loudly in my ears this week. Luckily for me, the question of whether or not Obama is a socialist is not that important to me. But what about Jesus? Whas Jesus a socialist? A couple of weeks ago, I went to a clergy conference where the main speaker was Dr. Walter Brueggemann, a noted Old Testament scholar. In his talks, he took what has come to be a popular idea in New Testament studies (that Jesus was a political radical, having come to set himself against The Empire, both as it existed in his day and as it exists now) and applied it to the Old Testament. He claimed that the Old Testament was written after the Babylonian exile as a religious treatise against Empire (in whatever form it takes) and Empire's influence over our lives.

Now that we don't have something as easily identifiable as The Holy Roman Empire to think of when we think of "Empire," Brueggemann and others would have us look at the "military-industrial complex" or "Western consumerism" as the Empires against which Jesus would have us rebel. Brueggemann's thesis, along with Colbert's rants, have got me thinking: Was Jesus a socialist? Was he interested in creating a socialist world?

Consider this classic description of the early church, shortly after Jesus' ministry on earth:

They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved. (Acts 2: 42-47)

Sounds like socialism, right? The believers "had everything in common," and "gave to anyone as he had need." I asked Dr. Brueggemann at the conference if this "Christianity as anti-Empire" message posited a Jesus who was a politically dissident leader, and if so, did that have any effect on the definition of "the Gospel." He saw through me instantly, and knew I was asking about the Atonement. He told me, and the assembly, that the Gospel is Jesus' announcement that there's a new government in town: no longer the "Evil Empire" but a Christ-led government which cares for the poor, meek, and downtrodden rather than rewards the obedient consumer.

All well and good, you might think. But isn't it a gross overestimation of human nature? Why is it that socialist governments in the actual world always turn into socialist...dictatorships? Well, it seems to me that once people get into a place where they have enough power to put a socialist agenda into place, they start to think to themselves, "Well, I'll keep a few extra things for myself. I deserve it!" A typical home is pictured to the left! You can see the slippery slope from there.

So, in the end, I'll claim Jesus as a theoretical socialist. I'm a socialist too, if not for my view of human nature, which keeps my support of socialism to the theoretical level, and not the practical one.

The Id of Andre Agassi

"Why?" the sports pundits wail. "Why have you done this to us!" Andre Agassi's recent admissions, in his book Open, that he took crystal meth for a year during his professional tennis career, lost matches on purpose, hated tennis, wore a wig during major tournaments, and, perhaps most importantly, didn't wear underwear for the last ten years of his career, have rocked the sports world. Many pro tennis players, such as Martina Navratilova, Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, and Marat Safin (most recently) have been critical of Agassi, mostly for the drugs and tanking. It is, however, the outcry from sportswriters and talkers that interests me most.

Mostly, they seem saddened by the fact that Agassi has sullied his amazing reinvention of himself. Early Agassi was a classic me-first athlete who dared to challenge the all-white dress code at Wimbledon. Then, Agassi bottomed out (due, we know now, to a crystal meth addiction) and his world ranking fell off the table. In a true humanist dream, though, Agassi came back. Hair shaved (or wig removed) and focus restored, he climbed back to the top of the tennis world, and retired as one of the most popular athletes in the world. If this sounds like an exaggeration, you're underestimating tennis' international popularity.

Agassi was a poster boy for our pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps ideal. And then, post-retirement, his philanthropic work is unparalleled. And now, people are seeing all of this as undermined by the admissions in Open. "Wait," pundits seem to be asking, "Could Andre Agassi be...a bad person?" They are angered for having loved someone who may not have deserved it.

The biggest question coming up on the sports talk shows, and I saw it again on Mike and Mike (on ESPN 2) this morning, seems to be: Why jeopardize your standing and perception by admitting to stuff that you've, to date, gotten away with? Why not just keep it bottled up? If you had to let it out, why not hire a shrink? Why spill it on us? Sigmund Freud, as you might imagine, is pounding on the inside of his coffin, reminding us of what he said about the human psyche.

It is Agassi's id, the animal center, that caused him to act out during his life. It is his super-ego that has judged him harshly for it. When Rick Reilly interviewed Agassi, and talked about losing matches on purpose, he asked Andre, "how do you justify that?" Reilly played into the human expectation: we self-justify. That's the job we give ourselves. Our super-ego judges us, and we self-justify. Agassi, in a moment of true self-actualization, said, "I don't." Agassi found that he had to admit his true nature to the world, so that people would know who he really is. He knows that his huge amount of philanthropic work, wonderful as it is, is simply covering up the true Andre Agassi. If he's to be loved, he knows that he needs to be loved for who he really is, not just for who he appeared to be. The truth of his life was holding him hostage...for years. The truth of his life, let out, has set him free (John 8:32).

Thoughts on Halloween Lameness

Halloween was last week. I've never been that excited about Halloween myself, owing probably to the incident in my youth, when, having to go to the bathroom while trick-or-treating far from my home, I was shocked to be refused entrance to house after house. "May I please use your bathroom?" I'd beg in my best "I'm a cute suburban white kid with good grammar and it's barely dark out here -- what could go wrong?" voice. I eventually had to run home in mortal fear of peeing my pants -- the scariest Halloween ever.

What has interested me about Halloween is its intersection with culture, and especially Christianity. Growing up in the church, I've seen churches attempt to do all kinds of things with Halloween, from ignoring it completely to throwing elaborate competing "Harvest Festivals." My

favorite Christian/Halloween story comes out of Eden Christian Academy of Pittsburgh, PA (slogan: Pretending People are Perfect since 1983). A dear friend worked as a teacher there, and experienced this first-hand. Presented with the problem of what to do about Halloween one year, the faculty went back and forth: Use it as a teaching moment to communicate about the occult? Embrace what has become a harmless evening of candy-getting rather than a celebration of pagan ritual? Of course not. So afraid were they of dealing with the Halloween "problem," they did the least productive thing they could have: They cancelled school.

Why is it that Christians are so afraid of Halloween? Well, it all comes from Eden's slogan, which I conveniently made up to suit my purposes. In real life, Eden doesn't seem to have a pithy slogan, but has an 8 point statement of faith. The "problem" with Halloween, though, is a seeming fear that a "bad" thing will corrupt "good" kids. I don't know about you, but I was a kid, and Halloween was the least questionable thing we were up to. It's not just Christians, either. Check out this list of rules for costumes at a Halloween parade at Riverside Drive School

in Los Angeles:

• They should not depict gangs or horror characters, or be scary
• Masks are allowed only during the parade
• Costumes may not demean any race, religion, nationality, handicapped condition, or gender
• No fake fingernails
• No weapons, even fake ones
• Shoes must be worn

Some of this is pretty standard P.C. stuff, but what costumes are left? In a school district in Illinois, students are being encouraged to dress up as historical characters or delicious food items rather than vampires or zombies. I am not making this up! A lot of this information can be found in a funny AV Club article. The writer of the article ends with this warning to parents: "Most kids can tell the difference between reality and dress-up -- and if they can't Halloween is the perfect time to learn. Your children have all their lives to become lame fraidy-cats. Why make them start now?"

When it comes to Christians and Halloween, if we can admit that we are not perfect beings trying by any means to avoid corruption, maybe we can dress up like Freddy Kruegger and get some fun-sized Kit Kats. If we believe, as Eden Christian Academy claims to, that our righteousness is sourced in Jesus Christ and not in ourselves, we don't have to worry so much about the possible corruption that bobbing for apples and trick or treating might cause...We can do the zombie dance and just have fun!

Thoughts on Scientology

The following is a substantive repost from the popular Mockingbird Blog. This week has been a rough one for Scientologists, who suffered a bitter public renunciation from a higher-up and a bit of a meltdown by their official spokesman in front of Martin Bashir on "Nightline." Jeff Stockett offers the following reasons for the popularity of Scientology, despite what might be considered the crazy creation story. See the bottom of the post for video of the meltdown. Here are the reasons:

1) Scientology appeals to the human desire to connect. This is nothing new among religions. Human beings are intrinsically built for community and relationship, and as a species we have a general desire to gaininsight/understanding about our environment and surroundings. The teachings of Scientology provide a way for individuals to evaluate and connect with the world around them in a way that is explainable and measurable.

2) Scientology desires to help individuals confront past (and sometimes present) negative experiences and situations, which is a naturally appealing proposition. The CoS promotes the idea that through L. Ron Hubbard’s self-help counseling technique (called Dianetics or “auditing”(see below) one can come to grips with and move on from past traumas (called “engrams”). This idea of self-improvement is key, in my mind, to much of Scientology’s draw. In Scientology YOU are the one in control, and as you learn to siphon off these troublesome past experiences you become a stronger, freer, and more “Clear” being. For Scientologists, the goal is literally to create a new and better reality, which can only be achieved through the identification and elimination of these engrams. This concept, in principle, isn’t foreign among religions either, as using religion as a path to re-birth or enlightenment is an idea that has been around for centuries.

3) Scientology is naturally exclusive, in that the ability to progress within the community is attached closely to financial means. Much like a country club, not everyone has the resources to invest in Scientology, which limits high-ranking membership to the affluent and privileged. I’d venture to guess that this makes the CoS an appealing option to folks who DO have significant financial means, since they have the opportunity to join what one might consider an elite/celebrity community (it’s worth noting that L. Ron Hubbard developed an aggressive campaign specifically targeting celebrities for membership back in the 1950’s).

Essentially, the CoS has a pre-fabricated series of levels that one can reach by completing CoS courses. In this way, an individual’s progression through the ranks of the CoS is similar to how one obtains an academic degree: you pay your tuition, study the course materials, demonstrate subject mastery, and then are allowed to proceed to the next course. In that regard, the CoS appears to operate much like an educational institute, only without the ability to provide an accredited degree of any kind. This concept becomes particularly confounding when one considers that the cost of some individual courses can be in tens of thousands of dollars (coincidentally, the commercial success of the CoS led to the loss of its non-profit status in the U.S. (it was reinstated the IRS in 1993) and has prevented it from being recognized as a religious body in many other parts of the world).

4) Scientologists have a built-in means by which to gauge their progress and success within the CoS. Success is dictated by each individual, and generally is restricted only by financial means (as noted above). The existence of measurable levels of achievement is contrary to many other faiths, and serves as an additional draw as it offers prestige, status, and measurable outcomes that an individual can control.(this is a picture of the Scientology "Celebrity Center" in LA)

5) Scientology incorporates the idea that one can secure “secret knowledge” about reality by progressing through the faith (not too dissimilar from Gnosticism or Buddhism). Again, much of the “higher level” teachings are held in strict confidence until one reaches a certain level/rank within the CoS. This makes obtaining that information more desirable for individuals.

Thanks, Jeff, for the great points.

Certainly, the structure of Scientology seems antithetical to the Gospel. Jesus didn't come to change sinners into righteous people (i.e. to clear away their Thetans) but to GIVE them his righteousness. All at once, once and for all. No program, no Celebrity Centre membership fee.

Here is the video I promised you earlier:

Thoughts on Good News

Can the news be that good if no one wants to hear it? I often find myself chuckling derisively at the preaching in churches that I see on television. "Ha!" I'll snort. "What an offensive message. No one's going to like that very much!" Then, as you might imagine, the camera pans around to reveal the masses hanging on the preacher's every word. I have no masses. Don't get me wrong, I love my congregation, and we're growing, but we didn't have to buy an arena from an NBA team, like Joel Osteen and Lakewood Church in Houston did. Why is it that preaching that some of us might consider to be bad news is so appealing to so many listeners? The answer, of course, is to be found at the core of the recent Treehouse of Horror XX.

Can you believe that this is The Simpsons' twentieth season? Astounding. In any event, each year, The Simpsons produces a Halloween episode that is required viewing, even if you're not a fan of the show itself. The Halloween special is a cultural phenomenon. This year, the episode included a vignette in which Krustyburger (the chain owned by the town's children's television star) sells what turns out to be an "infected" hamgburger. Through a production process that would have the FDA and the EPA carrying pitchforks and torches, Krustyburger puts a burger out that turns the citizens of Springfield into...of course: Zombies. Favorite line from the episode? Bartender Moe, as he's being carried off by four zombies: "If I were you, I'd wash me before I eat me."

Even after the alarm is raised people continue to eat the burgers! Finally, days after the plague starts, Bart can stand his burger-jones no longer, and risks life and limb to navigate a sea of zombies to get his hands on what appears to be the last remaining Krustyburger. He bites.

What could compel Bart to do this? To act in such a counterintuitive way? This convention is well known in slasher film: "No group of nubile teens has ever returned from that campground alive!" "Oh, I'm sure we'll be fine." Or, "This house, built on an ancient Indian burial ground has phantasmagorical blood pouring down the walls, and the realtor, a crusty old woman with one eye and a goiter, told us not to stay here." "I'm sure it's nothing to worry about." Bart's been given information that can save his life: Don't eat that burger. He does anyway. And Christians? What's with them? Why the resistance to the good news? In the end, Bart's hunger gets the best of him. His need for a burger overrides the logic of avoiding zombie-ism. For Christians, our need to contribute, our need to self-justify, and our need to be active overrides the logic of accepting what appears to be the best option: A free gift for which we much do nothing and which requires no response.

In As Good As It Gets, Jack Nicholson give Helen Hunt medical care she can't afford for her son. When he tells her that no thanks are required, that it's a free gift and he doesn't want to read her thank-you letter, she becomes angry. People want to contribute. People need to self-justify. People desire to be active. So when we've got Good News (no contribution necessary...justification already accomplished...no activity required...) no one wants to hear it.

Thoughts on Proofs for God...and Barbarella

Something that has come to my mind a lot recently, whether it's been through conversations I've had, articles I've read, or watching Richard Dawkins on The Colbert Report. People seem very interested in the idea that God may (or may not) actually exist! Scientists (like Dawkins, a biologist) and mathematicians, like John Allen Paulos (pictured right...and looking AWESOME) seem caught up in an almost-Christian evangelical fervor: the message they have come to preach is that there is no God, and they preach their gospel on the same street corners and from the same soap boxes from which we preach our Gospel.

In fairness to Paulos, I should separate his work from that of Dawkins and the like-minded Christopher Hitchens, who seem to be angered by the fact that so many people claim to believe in God. To their mind, "God" is a mass delusion perpetrated on humanity by those who would wish to subdue it. Paulos, on the other hand, has written a very light-hearted book that I actually recommend. It's called Irreligion, and refutes (to the extent that one can refute such things) the common logical arguments for the existence of God. Maybe the most common argument for the existence of God is the so-called "Argument from Complexity." It goes like this: Look at the world, how complex and beautiful it is! This cannot have been the product of random chance. Therefore, there must be a Creator who is ultimately complex, and that Creator is God." Paulos simply asks, "If the creator is so complex, must not he have had a creator? If there is a cause, that cause must have a cause."

I only bring up Paulos' book and his arguments because I have found such arguments fascinating. I have never felt that my faith was challenged by arguments against the existence of God, something I never felt I could (or had to) prove. I'm reminded of the story of Jesus' interaction with the woman at the well in John 4. After a profound interaction with Jesus, the woman goes back to her town and tells the people there, "Come see a man who told me everything I ever did." This woman felt herself so profoundly described by Jesus that she was willing to stake her life on the things that he said. I feel the same way.

Jesus (and the Biblical writers) so accurately describe and diagnose my life, down to the fact that I so often do the very thing I wish I wouldn't do, and vice versa, that I naturally put credence to their other words, including their descriptions and assertions of the existence of God. In the end, though, I'm not too naive to admit that I need God to exist. The need I feel to strive (the Army's "Be all you can be") must come from somewhere! Of course, this is not a rhetorically strong argument. It is undeniable, though, that despite the need to be all I can be, I feel that I am not. I need the God described by Jesus and the Bible, who sent an envoy to me, to be all I could have been, in my place.

Ted Turner famously called Christianity "a crutch." I think it's funny...Christianity never claimed to be anything else. That's the thing that Dawkins, Hitchens, and Paulos don't understand. They're convinced that humanity just needs to be told to throw the crutch away. "You can walk," they say. "Stop letting this 'God' nonsense hold you back!" Their vision of humankind is one of strength, self-sufficiency, and power. They don't have an answer for people's weaknesses, insufficiencies, and fear. These are the people Christianity speaks to. If Ted Turner claims that Christianity is a crutch, Christ affirmed it! It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. Christianity is not for the strong and wise, but for the weak and foolish, like you and me. After all, we all have our crutches...right Ted?