Letters from Kamp Krusty

Viola Hasn't Been Shut Up Yet

Most preachers don't listen to sermons.  They give them.

Ask one sometime.  He might listen to a podcast or read a book to learn, which is certainly a wonderful thing, and now that you think about it, well, you could just do that, too, right?

No, not really.  Then, someone might say, you'd be acting as a spiritual "free agent", be spurning "solid biblical preaching", and resisting true authority.  So why does it apply to you, but not them...?   That's a thorny one.

On second thought, maybe you shouldn't ask.  Bottom line, for a lot of us, as we've grown up:  Attend The Thing, sit down, listen to the presentation, go through the flow-chart, and now you're truly under authority.

Frank Viola doesn't buy it.  In his new book, Reimagining Church, he makes it clear:  He doesn't believe in "spiritual covering".  He doesn't think there's a special class of person, the clergy-person.  He doesn't think the way we conceive of "authority" -- in any kind of hierarchical, up-and-down terms -- is prescribed at all in scripture.  He says we not only read our modern understandings back into the scripture, many translations, themselves, do the same.  The KJV, for example, "Anglicanizes" the original text, to retro-fit the status quo.

Of course, there are perfectly legitimate scriptural objections.  How can Viola say elders aren't "in charge" of the church?  How can he say "spiritual covering" isn't a requirement?  How can he say there is no office of "pastor"?  Viola defends his case biblically, and takes on the anticipated what-about-this-verse-arguments.   For those who care -- even disagree -- it's fascinating.

Is he convincing?  Well, yes.  Or, very likely, no -- if you're heavily invested in the status quo.  This should be obvious:  You're simply more likely to be convinced "there is no office of pastor"...if you're not currently holding the office of pastor.  We're human.  We all operate that way.

Oh, there will be others who will hate this, too, including the managers of mega-church bookstores who, in an exceptional case, didn't find space recently for a bestselling book from a mainstream Christian publisher.  That was Viola's last one.

The discomfort with, and dismissal of, Viola and his book will extend well beyond the "traditional" church, too.  He rightly points out that many in the "emergent" movement will talk about doing away with sacred cows, and "re-imagining" the church, but will not -- no matter what -- do away the paid pastor-speaker-guy and Sunday attractional-worship-event-thing once a week.  No matter what, regardless of scriptural warrant. 

Funny how we often "emerge" into the same thing, just in a hipper locale.

Did I mention a lot of people who aren't going to like this book? 

Conscientious people care about authority.  People with good hearts desire it.  (Ironically, since we quit "going to church", we're now encountering FAR more authority in very real and uncomfy and maturing ways, but that's another post.)  We all know the world's idea of authority, the corporate idea, the military one, the western one -- but what does authority look like, in the Kingdom of God? 

And -- get this -- if the Kingdom authority looks drastically different from the way we conceive of it, would the people currently in "office" in churches welcome this change?

What if people weren't given offices, but just became influencers simply because of the way they showed spiritual maturity through serving people?

While Frank Viola is more soft-spoken and circumspect in this book than his last, will that win friends?  

By stressing that a living Jesus is not just theoretically, but actually, truly, in practice, for reals, not in just in motto, to be each church's Leader, will Viola actually be threatening to people who think he's taking the Jesus thing to far?

Will people who criticized Viola, in his previous book, for not offering a "positive solution", another way of "doing church", be thrilled to see him here unpack it?

Is our commitment to our own ideas of authority so strong that people will reject Viola's scriptural arguments without actually engaging them?

Will people still equate critique of the-way-we've-always-done-it with heresy?

Will Viola get hate mail?

And what's with all my rhetorical questions, all of a sudden?

And Now? She Just Lays There

Here's a for-real obit, found this week in the Vallejo (CA) Times-Herald.

My guess:  This sort of thing is rarely written, and often thought.

Dolores Aguilar
1929 - Aug. 7, 2008 Dolores Aguilar, born in 1929 in New Mexico, left us on August 7, 2008. She will be met in the afterlife by her husband, Raymond, her son, Paul Jr., and daughter, Ruby. She is survived by her daughters Marietta, Mitzi, Stella, Beatrice, Virginia and Ramona, and son Billy; grandchildren, Donnelle, Joe, Mitzie, Maria, Mario, Marty, Tynette, Tania, Leta, Alexandria, Tommy, Billy, Mathew, Raymond, Kenny, Javier, Lisa, Ashlie and Michael; great-grandchildren, Brendan, Joseph, Karissa, Jacob, Delaney, Shawn, Cienna, Bailey, Christian, Andre Jr., Andrea, Keith, Saeed, Nujaymah, Salma, Merissa, Emily, Jayci, Isabella, Samantha and Emily. I apologize if I missed anyone. Dolores had no hobbies, made no contribution to society and rarely shared a kind word or deed in her life. I speak for the majority of her family when I say her presence will not be missed by many, very few tears will be shed and there will be no lamenting over her passing. Her family will remember Dolores and amongst ourselves we will remember her in our own way, which were mostly sad and troubling times throughout the years. We may have some fond memories of her and perhaps we will think of those times too. But I truly believe at the end of the day ALL of us will really only miss what we never had, a good and kind mother, grandmother and great-grandmother. I hope she is finally at peace with herself. As for the rest of us left behind, I hope this is the beginning of a time of healing and learning to be a family again. There will be no service, no prayers and no closure for the family she spent a lifetime tearing apart. We cannot come together in the end to see to it that her grandchildren and great-grandchildren can say their goodbyes. So I say here for all of us, GOOD BYE, MOM.

Election '08: Krusty Fails the Hip Test

Man, I wish I could be cool.  I try hard.  I've done all the "cool" and "hip" stuff, that you're "supposed" to do to be "in", like playing the slide-whistle, collecting stamp mint sets, going for the "slam" a lot during ping-pong -- all that stuff.

But I'm not cool.  Like, ever.

Further evidence:  As much as I want to be one of these hip evangelicals I keep reading about, I won't be voting for Barack Obama. 

Believe me, I'd like to.  A) He's a black guy -- did you know that?, and B) He's from Illinois, like I am, and C) I don't like anyone else running, and then there's D) If the evangelical culture tells me to zig, well, I'd rather zag, thanks.

I won't be zagging here.  You see, Obama's arguments on abortion are patently illogical, anti-science, morally reprehensible, and there you have it. 

The cool thing to do here is say, "Well, that's simplistic. There are so many other issues!" -- as though the acknowledgment of a hierarchy of issues is simplism. 

He denies human rights to millions of vulnerable children -- wups, let's use the Latin for child here to maintain the veneer -- fetuses, and so I won't press the Obama button. 

(Wish I were Warren:  "Yes, we can know when life begins, Mr. Obama.  That argument's ended quite awhile ago.  And yes, even if you're still unsure -- Is that a human in the bushes, or an animal?  I'll shoot first! -- we still might summon the will to protect those born alive.  Too bad you didn't, and you remain one of the very, very few, even among pro-choicers, who won't.")   

No offense, Obama-supporters.  I know the compelling arguments (But...Iraq, But...Bush sucks, But...presidents don't really matter on this issue, But...Sojourners says what about global warming, But...it's just so complicated, etc.) and I might agree with you on many things.  But this is a non-starter. 

I lose cool points...again.  I know, I know:  Me and Pat Robertson, in lock-step, and so on, and it's time we matured past this issue, and so forth, and me and James Dobson, and religious right doesn't speak for eveyrone, and what about social justice and etc.  I know.  I hear you.  Again.  Loud and clear.

And you're right -- it's not the only issue, not even close. 

It's just the most basic one. 

Big-Time Interview with Big-Time Musician Brandon Heath

Here's today's interview with Brandon Heath, who's in town to promote his new CD.

I'd never met him before today.  He's apparently pretty big-time, because he shows up whenever the heck he feels like it.

I'm Paying People to Pretend to Be My Friends

Friends were telling me about a "book" of "faces" on the "web".  It's not a literal book.  It's more of a "website".

I signed up on it and now my face is there.  I'd like you to register as a "friend" on this internet page. 

This is because if you do, it will boost my overall number of "friends".  This is good, because when people see how many "friends" I have on my internet page, they will think I have a lot of friends, and am popular, and hence worthy of respect.  This, in turn, will temporarily boost my self-esteem, releasing endorphins and emboldening me to attempt feats that will ultimately fail, resulting in character-growth and spiritual maturity.

That's what's in it for me.  And for you? 

Material possessions that will bring amusement.  

I'm going to randomly draw from my "friends" list, and award a person two (2) Nintendo Wii consoles.  I'll do this at the end of September.  I'm offering TWO because a) I'm not paying for them, and b) it should encourage you to recruit still more poser "friends" for my page, in hopes that they will give you one of the Wiis if you win.

This is NOT unseemly.  I'm not requesting you do something undignified or of ill repute.  I'm merely asking you to feign human attachment, forging a temporary and shallow emotional connection, in exchange for the promise of goods.

The Logistics of Being Awesome

Think about it.  It's a good question:

How is it possible to successfully be "The Pastor" to more than 4,000 people? 

I mean, really?  How can one man do that?

A:  An awesome helicopter!

I'm Fixin' to Start Posting Again. Starting Tomorrow. Seriously.

An Actual Moment from the Radio Show

It was a slow news day.  We were talking about "Things you THINK make you look cool, but really don't."

I Love Batman and All Related Batman Products and/or Services

(UPDATE:  I now stand accused, by a Batman fan, of "hate speech" for my essay on culture and the new movie.  I'm not kidding.)

Me?  I LOVE Batman.  A LOT.  And, along with Batman, every movie about Batman, too.  This is because movies about Batman feature lots of Batman.

That stuff I wrote down there about how "The Dark Night" was not a lasting, profound artistic statement?  I was just kidding about that.  No -- "joking"!  Like "The Joker"!

Yeah, "The Joker" -- one of THE best, most well-developed, fascinating characters in the history of literature, drama, or film.  Better than Hamlet, and just below, you know, Batman.  (Blessed be he.)

Yeah...I was joking.  No way am I going to question, for a moment, a movie featuring the guy on your lunchbox.  This is serious, artsy stuff we're talking about here, with bonus cape.

I did appreciate the two-pronged critique of my critique:

1)  How could Brant have expected deep meaning from a comic book flick?  What a doof.

and

2)  How could Brant have missed all the deep meaning in this excellent, profound movie?  What a doof.

I will repeat after me:  I hereby promise (I hereby promise) never to take Batman (never to take Batman) or any other caped superhero show that people pay to see for amusement, less than seriously, except when I should really take it seriously, which is when it so beautifully illustrates the human condition on an awesome fat-tire motorcycle-thing.  (fat tire motorcycle-thing.)

One guy on some forum called me a "hyper-fundie" (not kidding!) for not enjoying this masterwork.  Another hated my post, saying it seemed more about the culture than about Batman.  Well...yeah.  It's my blog.  I can talk culture if I want.  Just so happens nobody else wants.  No problem.  I remember this from seventh grade. 

Anyway, I think we can all agree that THIS is an awesome video.  Probably. 

HT to Bill Kinnon and his equally funny and insightful son, Liam.

.

The Long, Dark Knight of the Soul

At one level, this movie is a bunch of violent, purposeless noise.

But there is a second deeper level.  At that level, "The Dark Knight" is a discourse on the nature of evil.

And then... there is a third, still deeper, final level. 

At that final level, this movie is a bunch of violent, purposeless noise.

---------------------

People are buying scalped tickets this weekend for $100 apiece.  The critics say it's brilliant.  You've likely heard them, speaking in uniform voice, extolling the profundity of this very, very important movie.  The hype has been unmatched.  It's the best of its genre -- ever.  Thoroughly engrossing, thoroughly entertaining, thoroughly -- you know -- important. 

So it's interesting to watch people emerge into the light of day in the hot Florida sun, looking for their cars in the crowded lots.  They look kinda...bored.  Like they did when they walked in.  Almost like they didn't just see 2.5 hours of non-stop explosions, ear-crushing destruction, screams, bleeding, shotgun blasts, and brutal torture scenes. 

Let the record show that in the waning days of western civilization, when we were artistically spent, the going rate for 2.5 hours of defibrillation was $9.  Anything -- anything! -- to get our hearts pumping again, if for a short time, before exiting to find where we put the Accord.

This movie is well-made, of course.  To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, "People who enjoy that sort of thing will certainly enjoy that sort of thing." 

"The Dark Knight" is that sort of thing.  Death, mayhem, horrifying chaos -- wrapped in ooh-that's-deep philosophizing that will prompt many an essay from high school sophomores.  Too bad it, ultimately, means nothing.

Granted, my experience was colored somewhat.  Carolyn and I were sitting next to a three-year-old, who was treated to a happy-time-with-dad buffet of burnt flesh, maniacal laughing, and corpses.  It's only PG-13, you know, which just means parents need show guidance, as they guide those they are to protect into their seats in dark, stranger-filled blood shows.  Where would we be without parental guidance?

---------------------

Focus on the Family gives this movie 2-and-a-half stars for "family friendliness".  For what family, the Mansons? 

Will kids say they liked it, though?  Will the junior high boys like it?  Here's an experiement: Ask a group of junior high boys for movies they say that were NOT awesome.  I've done it.  There follows a long silence.  This is because they are fools. 

---------------------

"The Dark Knight" is cultural rigormortis.  It's what happens when we are done, and we are done.  Jacques Barzun had it right, when he wrote a history of western culture up through the 1990s, and said, certainly, that our age is defined by boredom.  We are excited by nothing, really, but maybe for a moment here, or a moment there, we can try to be turned on.  Sex can do it (or fake sex, much more likely) but brutal violence can work, too, if for a short time. 

Our culture is lying on the table, and "The Dark Knight" is just another jolt before the flatline resumes.

At least give us this:  Our mass-market (which included me, yesterday) is willing to pay for it, but also demands some sense that it was all, ultimately, high-minded, that it was making some statement, that it was horrific, yes, but redemptive, blah blah blah.  Expect many hip Christian types to write as much, because 1) That's the essence of being hip, and 2) Who doesn't like Batman? 

But it's not redemptive...unless...

Unless we can emerge in the sunlight, after ALL THAT HYPE for this masterwork, this penultimate expression, this marvel-ous creation, saying, "Really?  That's as good as it gets?" 

Then we walk out into the sun, and decide it's infinitely more interesting than what we just paid to see.