Wednesday, September 26, 2007
A quick observation
I am beginning to read the latest book by one of my favorite authors, Frederick Forsythe. The book is THE AFGHAN. On pages 107-108 we are reading of the past history of the hero, who is a member of Britain’s SAS fighting the IRA.
The rules of engagement were strict. The IRA men had to fire first, and they had to fire at the SAS. IF they threw down their guns at the challenge, they had to be taken prisoner. Before firing, both SAS and Paras had to be immensely careful. It is a recent tradition of British politicians and lawyers that Britains enemies have civil rights but her soldiers do not.This sounds horribly familiar in the context of the current Iraqi conflict. If you want to see what the liberals have in store for the US in ten to twenty years, just look at Great Britain.
Monday, September 24, 2007
In a nutshell....
Today in WSJ Opinion Journal comes this powerful little essay on the 50th anniversary of the integration of schools in Little Rock, Arkansas.
......the cause of the politically correct suppression of difference today.
Fifty years ago today, riot-trained troops from the 101st Airborne Division escorted nine black students through the doors of Central High School in Little Rock. Just 48 hours earlier, President Eisenhower deployed--in a single day--1,000 troops to restore order and to reassert federal authority in Arkansas's capital city.Read the whole thing.
...
On this 50th anniversary of Eisenhower's troop deployment, the significance of the Little Rock crisis--its place in history--is much clearer. I believe it was the beginning of a profoundly different America.
...
But the deeper historical importance of the Little Rock crisis follows from the simple fact that it was televised.
...
So Americans watched by the millions and, in this watching, saw something that would change the country fundamentally. Every day for weeks they saw white people so consumed with racial hatred that they looked bestial and subhuman. When white racism was a confident power, it could look like propriety itself, like good manners. But here, in its insecurity, it was grotesque and shocking. Worse, it was there for the entire world to see, and so it broke through the national denial. The Little Rock crisis revealed the evil at the core of segregation, and it launched the stigmatization of white Americans as racists that persists to this day. After Little Rock whites stood permanently accused. They would have to prove a negative--that they were not racist--in order to claim decency. And this need to forever beg one's innocence is the very essence of white guilt.
...
But Americans have not been particularly good at integrating this kind of accountability. We are a nation with a powerful investment in the idea of our own fundamental innocence.
...thus, redemption became more and more entrenched as a national mandate.
By the mid-1960s this mandate had already given us a new illiberal liberalism--a busybody, interventionist liberalism that was more bent on erecting an American redemption than ensuring freedom.
......the cause of the politically correct suppression of difference today.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Sunday Notes – 9/16/2007
What makes a church
This is the first of several notes resulting from attending a seminar on church building. I thought the seminar was to be about construction and finance. It was also about what is necessary in the church to allow it to grow. I had many of my preconceptions altered about the nature and purposes of a church.
When most of us say the word church, we have in our minds an image of a building, typically what we went to as we were raised, what we currently attend, or, if we are unchurched, so to speak, some iconic image that says, “this is a church.” WRONG. The building is a tool. It is not the end; it is not the definition.
Ask most people what the purpose of a church is and they will say, “to worship.” Wrong again. The purpose of a church is its mission, and if it has no clear mission, it will die. To fulfill its mission the church must use whatever does the job within its moral boundaries. When many people in a congregation want to build a new church or change the current church, what they want is something for them – not something for the outside world. Again, WRONG! If you want your church to grow, you have to build to attract the outside, not comfort the inside.
What was emphasized was that the church building shapes the church’s effectiveness in its ministries. This implies that the physical building can interfere with the purpose of the church or one or more of its ministries. I often thought that the growth of the fundamental Christian faiths was due to the theology or details of the beliefs. Actually, once most people are assured there is a God, that He forgives, and that they can get to Heaven, they are little concerned with the details of the theology. A church is defined first by its mission and SECOND by its theology.
What crosses my mind is that a church is where:
1. You can feel close to God – though that can occur in non-church environments.
2. You can feel comfortable with your surrounding persons.
3. You feel safe and secure
4. You want to give back some of what you received
5. If you walked in, you could have a conversation with God
6. The worship service makes you feel good.
There are three important things to note in what is listed above:
1. no mention of the building
2. no mention of a particular liturgy
3. (a subset of #1, no mention of a sanctuary.
Truth in blogging time: I am a liturgical and physical conservative. I LIKE having the old chants, the old hymns, the old liturgies. I like having a defined sanctuary. Any time I am in the church and can sneak away, I go and kneel in front of the altar and pray. My particular need would be met with a simple side-chapel.
So what has occurred in me is a fulfillment of the realization that not all liturgies are suitable for all worshippers. God doesn’t need to kiss my butt with a chapel or liturgy that I like, He has me on board. Now that I am on board, I am to bring in others, not sit and rest on my sanctity. And what will bring in others is not necessarily what brought or kept me in. Times have changed. This means that the building requirements, the liturgy requirements, the service requirements, have changed.
So we have to reconsider what makes, for any religious group, a church.
What defines the future of the church
Churches can either grow or die. It is rare that they can achieve a permanent stability, replacing lost members by internal growth or people coming in from the outside. If it is attractive to outsiders it will grow, and if it is not, it will eventually die.
Growth comes from two sources, youth and new families. If youth feel comfortable at church and bring their friends who also feel comfortable, eventually the families of the youth will follow. This is an outstanding trait of the dynamic churches—they provide for their youth. The second source of growth is couples with babies or very young children. They want to bring their children up within a church environment, just as they had been.
The churches that provide a place for youth to come and hang out, party, and play games will keep their own youth, and will attract their friends because it is fun to go there. If you can add a youth service that appeals to their senses and gives them an experience of wonder, they will become believers. When churches did not have to compete against TV, video games, and various hang outs, it was easier to retain their youth—there was no where else to go, and parents maintained stricter controls over their coming and going. Where the model once was conversion then fellowship, it is now fellowship then conversion. Remember, the message does not have to change, only the delivery method. When youth feels cared for they respond by caring in return and by remaining in the church.
Young couples have needs that come from the conflicting demands of child-rearing and jobs. One of the most important of those is day care and pre-school. Churches that provide a day-care and preschool, will attract parents because the fact that it is church-related gives it a stronger recommendation than secular day care. All dynamic churches provide day-care and pre-school and as they grow, they often build grade schools. Again, because it reassures parents that the values important to them will be taught.
The major hurdle in creating a growing church is that the people in control of the money are not the youth and new parents – they are the older parishioners who want to feel comfortable and want the church to reflect their wants. They often are wedded to the church as being the building itself, or the items in the building that they can point to and say, “so and so made this” or “this is from the very first opening” or other similar statements. It is not that this is unimportant, but how important is it to the mission of the church? Often there is no defined mission in such circumstances. Older parishioners don’t see the need to give youth priority, or to go to the extensive effort to create an approved day care or pre-school. They don’t want the change that this will require.
But the choice is very simple, change or eventually close the doors.
This is the first of several notes resulting from attending a seminar on church building. I thought the seminar was to be about construction and finance. It was also about what is necessary in the church to allow it to grow. I had many of my preconceptions altered about the nature and purposes of a church.
When most of us say the word church, we have in our minds an image of a building, typically what we went to as we were raised, what we currently attend, or, if we are unchurched, so to speak, some iconic image that says, “this is a church.” WRONG. The building is a tool. It is not the end; it is not the definition.
Ask most people what the purpose of a church is and they will say, “to worship.” Wrong again. The purpose of a church is its mission, and if it has no clear mission, it will die. To fulfill its mission the church must use whatever does the job within its moral boundaries. When many people in a congregation want to build a new church or change the current church, what they want is something for them – not something for the outside world. Again, WRONG! If you want your church to grow, you have to build to attract the outside, not comfort the inside.
What was emphasized was that the church building shapes the church’s effectiveness in its ministries. This implies that the physical building can interfere with the purpose of the church or one or more of its ministries. I often thought that the growth of the fundamental Christian faiths was due to the theology or details of the beliefs. Actually, once most people are assured there is a God, that He forgives, and that they can get to Heaven, they are little concerned with the details of the theology. A church is defined first by its mission and SECOND by its theology.
What crosses my mind is that a church is where:
1. You can feel close to God – though that can occur in non-church environments.
2. You can feel comfortable with your surrounding persons.
3. You feel safe and secure
4. You want to give back some of what you received
5. If you walked in, you could have a conversation with God
6. The worship service makes you feel good.
There are three important things to note in what is listed above:
1. no mention of the building
2. no mention of a particular liturgy
3. (a subset of #1, no mention of a sanctuary.
Truth in blogging time: I am a liturgical and physical conservative. I LIKE having the old chants, the old hymns, the old liturgies. I like having a defined sanctuary. Any time I am in the church and can sneak away, I go and kneel in front of the altar and pray. My particular need would be met with a simple side-chapel.
So what has occurred in me is a fulfillment of the realization that not all liturgies are suitable for all worshippers. God doesn’t need to kiss my butt with a chapel or liturgy that I like, He has me on board. Now that I am on board, I am to bring in others, not sit and rest on my sanctity. And what will bring in others is not necessarily what brought or kept me in. Times have changed. This means that the building requirements, the liturgy requirements, the service requirements, have changed.
So we have to reconsider what makes, for any religious group, a church.
What defines the future of the church
Churches can either grow or die. It is rare that they can achieve a permanent stability, replacing lost members by internal growth or people coming in from the outside. If it is attractive to outsiders it will grow, and if it is not, it will eventually die.
Growth comes from two sources, youth and new families. If youth feel comfortable at church and bring their friends who also feel comfortable, eventually the families of the youth will follow. This is an outstanding trait of the dynamic churches—they provide for their youth. The second source of growth is couples with babies or very young children. They want to bring their children up within a church environment, just as they had been.
The churches that provide a place for youth to come and hang out, party, and play games will keep their own youth, and will attract their friends because it is fun to go there. If you can add a youth service that appeals to their senses and gives them an experience of wonder, they will become believers. When churches did not have to compete against TV, video games, and various hang outs, it was easier to retain their youth—there was no where else to go, and parents maintained stricter controls over their coming and going. Where the model once was conversion then fellowship, it is now fellowship then conversion. Remember, the message does not have to change, only the delivery method. When youth feels cared for they respond by caring in return and by remaining in the church.
Young couples have needs that come from the conflicting demands of child-rearing and jobs. One of the most important of those is day care and pre-school. Churches that provide a day-care and preschool, will attract parents because the fact that it is church-related gives it a stronger recommendation than secular day care. All dynamic churches provide day-care and pre-school and as they grow, they often build grade schools. Again, because it reassures parents that the values important to them will be taught.
The major hurdle in creating a growing church is that the people in control of the money are not the youth and new parents – they are the older parishioners who want to feel comfortable and want the church to reflect their wants. They often are wedded to the church as being the building itself, or the items in the building that they can point to and say, “so and so made this” or “this is from the very first opening” or other similar statements. It is not that this is unimportant, but how important is it to the mission of the church? Often there is no defined mission in such circumstances. Older parishioners don’t see the need to give youth priority, or to go to the extensive effort to create an approved day care or pre-school. They don’t want the change that this will require.
But the choice is very simple, change or eventually close the doors.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
This confirms one of my major theses....
From the Jewish World Review comes this highly disturbing article on what is taught in both schools of social work and education. Here are a few quotes:
....public education is corrupt.
...The NAS [National Association of Scholars] has just released a six-month study of social work education, examining the ten largest programs at public universities for which information was available. The report, "The Scandal of Social Work," says these programs "have lost sight of the difference between instruction and indoctrination to a scandalous extent. They have, for the most part, adopted an official ideological line, closing off debate on many questions that serious students of public policy would admit to be open to the play of contending viewpoints."Go read the whole thing.
Nine of the ten programs, the NAS reports, require students to accept the ideology-saturated NASW code of ethics to get a degree in social work. The University of Central Florida says students "must comply" with the code of ethics if they wish to remain in school. Failure to accept the code constitutes "academic misconduct" in the University of Michigan program and "can result in disciplinary action" at the University of Minnesota — Twin Cities.
...
The NAS called on government agencies at the federal, state and local level "to cease requiring that social workers hold degrees from CSWE accredited programs in order to be hired." By associating themselves with the ideological tests in the CSWE standards and NASW code, "such agencies violate constitutionally protected freedoms of speech and religious conscience."
...
At schools of education, the buzzword "dispositions" carries the message of politicized advocacy. Ed schools once required aspiring teachers to display only competence and knowledge. Then the amorphous criterion of "dispositions" appeared, referring vaguely to habits and attitudes that teachers must have. The National Council for Accreditation of Teachers of English (NCATE) said education departments could "include some measure of a candidate's commitment to social justice" — in effect ruling that public school teachers could be evaluated on their perceptions of what social justice requires.
This opened a door to reject candidates on the basis of thoughts and beliefs. It also allowed ed schools to infer bad character from a political stance that the schools opposed. At Washington State University, where the college of education tried to expel a conservative student, the dean was asked whether Justice Antonin Scalia could pass a dispositions test at her school. "I don't know how to answer that," she replied.
....public education is corrupt.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
I always have known I was one......
Friday, September 07, 2007
Go read it--the best said that I have read
So, after my statement of fewer, longer posts, I go link-whoring. So much for idealism, which incidentally is the topic of this little gem. In this little essay we have encapsulated one of the fundamental problems in today's society--the behavior of our off-spring and the causes.
Go read it and enjoy....or get angry if you are a permissive parent.
Go read it and enjoy....or get angry if you are a permissive parent.
Saturday, September 01, 2007
The Beatitudes--the great mis-interpretation
Yesterday, in The Lutheran, there was mention of the pacifistic orientation of the Beatitudes. The context was in a discussion of the war in Iraq, a discussion which made no mention of the willingness of jihadists to kill anybody not a believer as they believed. Further comment on the article itself is outside the purpose of this post.
Both the Beatitudes and the phrase "turn the other cheek" are used to justify total pacifism in the face of bare, brutal aggression. From my reading of Jesus and his works and teachings, it is a gross distortion. The man who cleansed the Temple was not a pacifist. For that matter the martyrs of history were not necessarily pacifists going unprotesting to the slaughter, but rather the totally defenseless herded regardless of their efforts.
So let's start with the Beatitudes themselves. The appear in both Matthew and Luke, and I will use the New International Version to illustrate. (Sometime in the future I will do a full study of these verses. The post here is a preliminary note.)
The verses that would lead to a possible pacifist interpretation are:
5 Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.
11 Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.
First of all, verse eleven is clarified by verse 12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven.... It says that if you are persecuted because of belief in Jesus you will be rewarded in heaven. It does not say that if you want a reward in heaven you have to be persecuted. Much of the New Testament seems to be interpreted in such a transactional manner. It is almost a version of neo-Phariseeism where prescribed behavior will bring guaranteed rewards. Sorry that is a form of magic or attempting to manipulate God.
Now let us look at verse 9. It says peacemakers are blessed, but it does not say anything about how, when, or under what conditions peacemaking should be approached. I seriously doubt that peace to Jesus was defined as the absence of active violence. Peace meant true living together harmoniously. Something that is not to be found simply by not fighting. It is possible that General George Patton could be called a peacemaker because by fully defeating his enemy, he assured that there would be no fighting later.
Verse 5 is the most interesting and the most difficult. What is meant by "meek"? We facily interpret it as mild-mannered, non-combative, and non-confrontational. But is that what is meant? This post will only speculate that meek in this sense is those who do not puff themselves up, but simply do their work without concern for credit or glory. This will be an area for much further research.
In summary, I have tried to indicate that the common interpretation of the Beatitudes is quite wrong and leads to an anti-life position where might makes right rather than right making right. I cannot reconcile abject surrender to "I come so you might have life and you might have it more abundantly."
Both the Beatitudes and the phrase "turn the other cheek" are used to justify total pacifism in the face of bare, brutal aggression. From my reading of Jesus and his works and teachings, it is a gross distortion. The man who cleansed the Temple was not a pacifist. For that matter the martyrs of history were not necessarily pacifists going unprotesting to the slaughter, but rather the totally defenseless herded regardless of their efforts.
So let's start with the Beatitudes themselves. The appear in both Matthew and Luke, and I will use the New International Version to illustrate. (Sometime in the future I will do a full study of these verses. The post here is a preliminary note.)
Matthew 5:1-5:12A general parsing of the Matthewan version relates to showing that the spiritually down-trodden are to receive a reward in heaven. The Lucan version relates more to the materially down-trodden. It is the Matthewan version that is most often quoted, so we will deal with it for now.
1 Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him,
2 and he began to teach them, saying:
3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness.
7 Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.
10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.
12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
Luke 6:20-6:26
20 Looking at his disciples, he said: “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.
21 Blessed are you who hunger now, for you will be satisfied.
22 Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man.
23 Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their fathers treated the prophets.
24 But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort.
25 Woe to you who are well fed now, for you will go hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep.
26 Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for that is how their fathers treated the false prophets.
The verses that would lead to a possible pacifist interpretation are:
5 Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.
11 Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.
First of all, verse eleven is clarified by verse 12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven.... It says that if you are persecuted because of belief in Jesus you will be rewarded in heaven. It does not say that if you want a reward in heaven you have to be persecuted. Much of the New Testament seems to be interpreted in such a transactional manner. It is almost a version of neo-Phariseeism where prescribed behavior will bring guaranteed rewards. Sorry that is a form of magic or attempting to manipulate God.
Now let us look at verse 9. It says peacemakers are blessed, but it does not say anything about how, when, or under what conditions peacemaking should be approached. I seriously doubt that peace to Jesus was defined as the absence of active violence. Peace meant true living together harmoniously. Something that is not to be found simply by not fighting. It is possible that General George Patton could be called a peacemaker because by fully defeating his enemy, he assured that there would be no fighting later.
Verse 5 is the most interesting and the most difficult. What is meant by "meek"? We facily interpret it as mild-mannered, non-combative, and non-confrontational. But is that what is meant? This post will only speculate that meek in this sense is those who do not puff themselves up, but simply do their work without concern for credit or glory. This will be an area for much further research.
In summary, I have tried to indicate that the common interpretation of the Beatitudes is quite wrong and leads to an anti-life position where might makes right rather than right making right. I cannot reconcile abject surrender to "I come so you might have life and you might have it more abundantly."
The Play's the Thing: PC meets artistic expression
Almost two years into the drama program, I have hit my first major obstacle: political correctness as expressed by the ministers of the church. I had chosen to do a comedy this Fall called "Seven Nuns South of the Border." It was a quite funny play, the funniest I had ever read, and none of the humor was the least malicious. It involved a convent being transported from South Bend, Indiana, to Mexico, by St Joseph in order for a painting to be returned to the church in Mexico. The cast consisted of eight women as nuns, four men, one a Mexican boy, one a Jesuit priest, and two Americans, and 10 other women, all Mexican.
I had cast the play, and started production planning and had scheduled the rehearsals. Today I received an email from the minister of lay services that said she had serious concerns. She did not consider it appropriate for Lutherans and Caucasians to be presenting a play about Roman Catholic nuns and Mexicans. There was also mention of sexual innuendos, but those would have been easily taken care of by making all references to a fighting cock references to a rooster.
The moral to the story, is that the producer/director is in the position of always having prior restraint applied to his/her efforts. The only insurance is to get a sign-off by the appropriate authorities prior to starting production. (My own view is this the equivalent of a protection racket.) This will of necessity create major constraints on artistic choices, especially comedy. It is almost impossible to have comedy, other than sitcoms which I do not do, without being politically incorrect.
My pastor left me a voice mail saying he wanted to talk about his concerns tomorrow. Since he must already know I have decided not to produce the play, I would guess he feels the need to justify himself. It does not make any difference--he is the leader and has the say-so. I hope he doesn't think he will convince me he is right or that I should accept it gladly. Neither of those would ever happen.
I had cast the play, and started production planning and had scheduled the rehearsals. Today I received an email from the minister of lay services that said she had serious concerns. She did not consider it appropriate for Lutherans and Caucasians to be presenting a play about Roman Catholic nuns and Mexicans. There was also mention of sexual innuendos, but those would have been easily taken care of by making all references to a fighting cock references to a rooster.
The moral to the story, is that the producer/director is in the position of always having prior restraint applied to his/her efforts. The only insurance is to get a sign-off by the appropriate authorities prior to starting production. (My own view is this the equivalent of a protection racket.) This will of necessity create major constraints on artistic choices, especially comedy. It is almost impossible to have comedy, other than sitcoms which I do not do, without being politically incorrect.
My pastor left me a voice mail saying he wanted to talk about his concerns tomorrow. Since he must already know I have decided not to produce the play, I would guess he feels the need to justify himself. It does not make any difference--he is the leader and has the say-so. I hope he doesn't think he will convince me he is right or that I should accept it gladly. Neither of those would ever happen.
Labels: drama
The Play's the thing: Drama ministry description
The orientation for this series of posts is the small parish, organization, or school drama program. My purpose is to share my experiences with anyone else in my same or similar situation. A few weeks ago I presented the following as a temple talk at my church. It had as its purpose to bring in further support and interest in both potential cast members and production staff. I cannot say as I increased the unasked volunteer support, but perhaps created more interest in the productions once done.
... Good drama entertains and provides new insights to our lives. It confirms and challenges our beliefs, values, and behavior.
The Drama Ministry’s mission is to produce high quality religious and secular plays for both the members of RLC and the surrounding community. We also plan to create workshops to help improve dramatic skills. The Drama Ministry is self-financed with fund-raising events, free-will offerings, and donations.
Our program includes the production of the Living Last Supper every Lent and starting this year there will be another religious production preceding it, to provide a full evening’s enjoyment. Every Fall we produce a full-length secular or religious play. In addition there has been discussion of musicals in the future.
The production of a play first of all requires a good script. We have commercial sources for scripts but we also currently have two scripts written by members of RLC, a skit and a one-act play. One of our goals is to have an RLC Drama Festival in which plays written, produced, and performed by RLC members are presented. So we are always interested in scripts produced by RLC members.
A play must be staged, which includes the design and construction of lighting, sound, and sets, and the creation of costumes. This asks for a broad range of talents and anyone with an interest in this area is welcome. It also includes the production and direction, and we welcome anyone willing to try this as well.
We are always looking for new actors and actresses, and we never memorize parts. None of us have that kind of time. We read our plays, and those who saw “The Moon Is Down” last year realize that no one was aware that all the cast had script books in their hands.
Finally, every production needs an audience, and there is no training necessary for this role. ...
Labels: drama
