Movie Review - Passengers

The last few blog posts have been pretty heavy. So I thought with this one I would return to my first love of writing movie reviews. This goes out to Sierra who is frightened of space movies.

I saw “Passengers” with my wife on Christmas Eve - thus fulfilling an age-old tradition in my family of going to see a big movie on Christmas Day or Eve. I had been wanting to see it since I first caught a trailer of it. I (unlike Sierra) love space movies. Some of my favorite movies of all time are centered on space including “Apollo 13,” “Gravity,” and, of course, “Armageddon.” And I guess those "Star Wars" films are alright too.

Without giving too much away, “Passengers” isn't all that much about space. The overarching plot is much more interesting. Of course space is there threatening the characters and heightening the drama, but much more is happening. “Passengers” ends up being a pretty fascinating story about desperation, desire, and disaster.

The synopsis is that there are 5,000 people in hibernation aboard a space ship headed to a new planet “Homestead 2.” There they will make a new life for themselves. The journey is to take around 120 years. A malfunction results in two passengers waking up before it is time - roughly 90 years before it’s time. And hilarity ensues! Just kidding. Actually, shit gets real in a hurry, especially as further malfunctions occur.

I loved the acting and the actors in the movie. I haven’t seen Chris Pratt in much, but I have liked him in what I’ve seen him in. And he seems made for this kind of role. He handles the range of emotions really well, and he doesn’t overact or overreach. I’ve seen Jennifer Lawrence in almost everything she’s done, and I’m continually impressed by her. She basically can’t miss. The camera loves her, and her acting is almost always spot on. Pratt and Lawrence have great chemistry in this, and the inevitable love story is pretty catching. Michael Sheen is the third of four mains and plays a cyborg bartender. He is perfect in this, and his character balances this odd role of saint and Satan. I couldn’t help but think of “The Shining” when I saw him. All at once he is comforting and terrifying. And when the ships starts failing, he flips in an epic way. Laurence Fishburne is the last main, and plays one of the crew who also is awakened early. Again, stellar actor and great job.

It likely goes without saying, but the effects and design of the movie are captivating. It’s not quite on the level of “Gravity,” but nothing I’ve seen so far is. The filmmakers do some pretty interesting things with zero gravity. Hint: don’t go swimming when you might lose gravitational pressure.

The only parts of the movie I didn’t enjoy centered around the lack of information about the company populating the new planet and hints of malfeasance there. Although, there is enough lack of help to make the viewer believe Comcast is behind it all. I was also amazed and maybe a little saddened that Andy Garcia has the shortest cameo in the history of film. Literally don’t blink if you are looking for him. I’ll be fascinated to know if there is more to the story there - except I don’t care because I’ve never like him.

I had a pretty cumbersome rating system, so now I will introduce a new one. Because I literally can’t go to a movie without getting popcorn, I will base all future reviews on buckets of popcorn - from 1 to 5 - 5 being “The Godfather” and 1 being anything with James Franco in it (kidding, but only barely). And yeah, I’m going to be a pretty tough grader - but I will give “Passengers” 3.5 Buckets. It's a great holiday movie to check out on the big screen, and it will lead to some conversations that might be less than comfortable. But hey it's Christmas, and we're all in misery!

Who Decides If There is Room in the Inn?

This morning I read an article from Nicholas Kristof entitled “Am I a Christian, Pastor Timothy Keller?” Articles like this generally bother me because what they cover is so small. Many people in the comments section (which I generally try to avoid like grim death) pointed out that Kristof was asking Keller to define what makes one a Christian. But, because Keller is of a particular Christian “camp” his definition should not speak for all or even many Christians. There were even pastors who said according to Keller’s definition they would not make the cut. I guess technically I wouldn’t either, and that for me is the bigger issue. It’s not that I’m all that concerned with someone not considering me a Christian (even though I am a pastor - so maybe it should concern me if people don't consider me a Christian), but that people and pastors feel empowered to make the call to begin with bothers me deeply. I’ve hinted at my arrogance as recently as the last thing I wrote on this blog, but I can count on one hand the times I’ve thought or said someone is going to hell - and all those times were over a decade ago (when I believed in hell and still thought those who put the Bible together believed in it as well).

I don’t get the certainty of saying this person or group is in and that one is out. Sure I can appreciate some basic boundaries. If you don’t believe anything about Jesus at all, it’s probably hard to call yourself a Christian. Although at the moment I’m not willing to say you would not be with God in eternity (my way of talking about heaven - cause that’s not really in the Bible either - at least not the way we generally consider it). And that’s mostly where the rub is for me - the business of the afterlife. Keller didn’t make major pronouncements in this area, but I’ve heard countless others speak with certainty about who is heaven or hell bound. Most notably the Westboro Baptist quacks who now seem to “believe” those who wear shorts will burn in hell. I guess maybe at least they won’t be as hot wearing shorts and all.

I go to a few things to help remind me that I’m not alone in being slow or nonexistent with these answers. One of my professors in divinity school when asked about such things would often say “That ain’t my job!” He meant it’s not his (or our) job to decide who is in and who is out when the final trumpet sounds. That’s completely and totally up to God. So perhaps we should let God be God. Which leads to something pretty meaningful to me: Jesus actually talking about this.

In the Gospel According to John, Jesus has an exchange with Peter after the resurrection. Peter seems to be questioning Jesus on the acceptability of someone being on the inside with Jesus. It goes like this: “Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; he was the one who had reclined next to Jesus at the supper and had said, ‘Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?’ When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, ‘Lord, what about him?’ Jesus said to him, ‘If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!’” (John 21:20-22). The prevailing belief is that the “beloved disciple” is John (unless you are Dan Brown, and then it’s obviously Mary Magdalene). So Peter has a problem with John following Jesus. And Jesus’ response is perfect: “What’s it to you?!” I love that. Once again, it’s really not your concern who is in and who is out. Jesus will settle all that. What should we do? Following seems like a good idea. And if we focus on that, we will have enough work for this life and probably the next.

Let's Stay Together

In these hours before Christmas Day I start to ruminate. Reflecting is my routine before I enter the “year in review” portion of my brain festivities. I take stock of where things are in several areas: How is it with my soul (traditional Wesleyan question)? What’s my outlook on the world? Am I growing in my faith (whatever that means) and going on to perfection (being made perfect in love - not having the whitest teeth and best head of hair, as I already have damn fine hair)?

To say this year has been a mixed bag doesn’t quite cover it. I’ve truly experienced joy like none other at the birth of our first child (a masculine child). Also, the Cubs won the World Series. And while I’m in the process of falling out of love with sports (more on that soon), that was and is a big deal to me - especially since my newborn son got to watch the team from the north side win it all.

But there have been all these other things this year. And yes, the election shocked and, in many ways, appalled me. I am not going to get into winners and losers in this post except to say that my overall feeling is that America is losing more and more. As a society, America is losing or has lost any sense of being able to disagree and still remain united. Those with whom I disagree must be idiots, morons, or worse - subhuman. The demonization is rampant and the arrogance is overwhelming. And trust me, I write this with full recognition that I’m one of the most arrogant people I know.

Being able to disagree respectfully is a hallmark of maturity. I haven’t possessed this kind of maturity for long. Even just a few years ago, I wanted to verbally eviscerate those who disagreed with me. During the 2008 election I was invited to a kind of debate. I was to support/defend Barack Obama and the other person invited (who actually had political aspirations) was to do the same for John McCain. It’s fascinating to me now that I even did this, but I behaved childishly. Even though a few people told me that I changed their minds, I realized my dismissal of “the other side” was petty and wrong. It lacked the respect that competition requires.

But when I look at where things are now, it’s so beyond the pale it’s astonishing. The vitriol and downright hatred of “those people” is indefensible. It’s clear that many politicians have no interest in having anything to do with those who disagree with them. They cater to their base endlessly. I don’t believe that they believe most of what they say, but they know what plays and what pays. And perhaps what pisses me off more than anything is that they are never, ever wrong.

This last part offends me so deeply because I feel so many Christians have bought it lock, stock, and barrel. Fundamentalism continues to dominate the Christian landscape in terms of exposure. So a faith that teaches questions, doubts, and curiosities is worthless. People, want answers and the simpler the better. That’s just not where I am, but my own denomination continues to fracture over an inability to disagree while remaining united. This concerns me so much because the last time the Methodists were this divided (it seems to me) was just before The Civil War. The denomination was quite influential then, and its inability to hold together over beliefs about slavery tore at the nation as well. When the denomination split into northern and southern factions, a religious body gave tacit permission if not approval for the country to follow suit. And there are wounds from this that have never healed.

And so division grows today. If you disagree, don’t stay together. Divorce. Leave the church you are in and head to a new one - or even better, start a new one. Yes, sometimes these things are necessary, but doing so out of convenience has become a problem. While you are at it, mock those with whom you disagree and call them names. After all, they don’t really matter. If they really mattered, they would know everything you know. They would be just like you. Everyone in the world would look, think, and act the same. This is what God wants, right?

Funny thing to remember this time of year for us Christians in North America: God wasn’t born here. Of all the options given God, God chose to be born in the Middle East. Jesus’ skin tone likely wasn’t nearly as white as my son’s (I know - most companies and many churches still can’t grasp this - but there it is). From the beginning, Jesus was radically different than anything the world expected. There are those who disagreed with him so much that they had him killed. For them, there was no other way. You are wrong, and you must die. I spend lots of time praying that people of the faith that bears Jesus’ name would reflect on that story and realize that hating and demonizing those with whom we disagree turns us into Jesus’ killers. It makes us literally anti-Christ. It ensures that we will remain far from the purposes God has to restore and renew creation.

So, in the spirit of Christmas, as others have taught it to me, I plan to give myself the gift of less anger and more understanding. I hope to model and teach what I have been taught about disagreeing respectfully and staying together despite differences. I pray this will bring joy to the world, peace on earth, and goodwill to all. I can’t imagine hatred and division will accomplish these things, so let’s give peace a chance.

Wee Care Too

I enjoy the clever use of words. I’m even a fan of most puns and turns of phrase. But I’ve never gotten the intentional naming of things (especially businesses) in a way that tries to get a laugh or appear clever. To me it just comes across as desperation. 



I noticed a few years ago several restaurants were obsessed with using “too” instead of “2” or “two.” Like, “The Melting Pot Too” would be a thing. Obviously that’s not a thing because “The Melting Pot” isn’t really into naming different locations anything other than the initial brand name. But this was mainly with local restaurants that spun off into another location and thought they would be clever. You know what, just don’t. Be bold and call your second restaurant the same name as the first. Worried that people will be confused? So what if they are? Even if they get the locations mixed up they will still be eating at one of your two restaurants. You literally can’t lose! It absolutely worked for Chili’s, and that should be the basis of every decision you make as a restauranteur.

This is so embarrassing. The one restaurant I picked as my
example for all others to follow did the very thing I advise
against. Cruel irony...or just extremely poor decision making. 

Also, I passed a daycare today that was “Wee Care.” Stop it. There’s immediately a zero percent chance I’m bringing my kid to your place if that kind of marketing and branding is what you’re going to teach him. I realize it’s got to be pretty hard to name a daycare, because you need to sound really friendly and at the same time respectable. There’s probably no way to do better than something like “Harry Potter’s Daycare” but then a lawsuit will likely follow. So I can’t help you. It’s at least one reason I am not running a daycare - the naming is so impossible. Come to think of it, just go with St. Sebastian’s Daycare or even Center for Children. Who is St. Sebastian? Doesn’t matter. Are you affiliated with some sort of religious group? Maybe, does that appeal to you? If not, then “No way” is the answer. It’s completely the best way to go.

To sum up. When naming establishments - whether of the food and beverage variety or those that feature lawn care, the molding of young minds, or stores of furniture - just say what the place is or pick a completely random but unassailably cool-sounding name. Again, nothing clever is needed. Just “St. Sebastian’s Store of Furniture” please.

I Don't Know Pete Wilson

This is Pete Wilson.

I’m writing the post that probably every pastor like me is writing or thinking about writing if they have any idea who Pete Wilson is and what just happened. To be honest and fair, I really don’t know who Pete Wilson is. I hadn’t heard his name until a few days ago when I heard he resigned from Crosspoint Church. I knew that was a big deal. One reason I knew this was because one of the local news channels tweeted about it. Think you are an important and influential pastor/regular human? If you quit your job would the local news tweet about it? That’s a hard “no” in my case. So that was one reason I knew it was a big deal. Another reason I knew this was a big deal is that Crosspoint is a big church. It’s a really big church - even a megachurch with multiple sites, one of which is three miles from my house. I knew it was close, but it’s exactly three miles. I confirmed it on Google Maps. I’m pretty tech-savvy. Something I just read said that 7,000 people attend their services. That’s a lot of people - more than the gospels report Jesus feeding in a massive feeding miracle (although it’s argued they were only counting the men - which is dumb cause why wouldn’t you want the biggest number possible? - it’s dumb for other reasons too). 

I guess the “why wouldn’t you want the biggest number possible?” is what started me writing this post, and what I’m guessing will cause lots of other people like me to write the exact same post - only way better. You see I don’t know Pete Wilson at all, and I don’t know exactly why he resigned. But he claims he was “empty,” “tired,” and “not okay.” I know those feelings, and I have a sneaking suspicion his feelings come from the same place as mine. There’s a pressure in certain branches of the Christian Church to get the biggest number possible. Pastors who have lots of people in seats/pews are seen as effective. Those who don’t just plain suck. We all know this isn’t really true, but often the pressure remains. Some pastors are asked to turn in weekly statistics that only measure the number of people who show up to things. This is all of course happening as increasing evidence tells us that fewer people are attending religious services overall due to more competition for their time and increasing work, family, and financial pressures.

I'm not saying it’s not a great goal to have more people involved with what you are doing if what you are doing is a wonderful thing. Anyone would be a fool to say, “I want fewer people involved in this amazing thing that is transforming the world.” But I have become enamored with the idea of “healthy growth.” Such growth focuses on the health of an organization as well as the health of its leaders. For instance, I don’t necessarily agree that it is healthy for a group to double in size in a year. It would depend on a number of factors about the group and what costs come at such an increase in size. And maybe this is where the rub is for me: we rarely talk about the cost of growth in my church circles. So we aren’t strategic and wise as we grow and people can get hurt in the process. 

Again, I don’t know Pete Wilson from Brian Wilson (although, I do know Brian Wilson because I’ve seen him on TV), but I can imagine many details of his story. He likely put everything he had into what he did. He was successful in attracting people to a new mission and idea of what church can be like. Growth occurred and that gets intoxicating, so he wanted more and more. He was probably surrounded by lots of people who supported him but maybe not that many who would get in his face and stand up to him (this could be a reach, but stay with me). And because everything he was doing was so good, maybe he didn’t stop regularly enough to count the cost on him and his soul and those he loves most. It’s possible that he also neglected self care and Sabbath (other essentials to healthy growth). And then he woke up and said, “Enough with this.” I admire his courage, honesty, and vulnerability in stepping down - especially when it’s clear by what I’ve heard that many people tried to talk him out of it. And what happens next with Crosspoint Church will be interesting to see. I pray for the best and for God’s spirit of guidance in this season of change. I pray above all for a healthy approach for all involved because while Jesus attracted some large crowds and called many followers, not everyone chose to go after him, and he didn’t seem obsessed with making sure everyone did. He didn’t chase after the rich young ruler and say, “Nevermind! You don’t have to sell everything you own and give the money to the poor. Just please come follow me cause I really need the numbers!” He realized there were sheep of other flocks that God would care for in other ways. But all who did follow him were offered healing and wholeness, and all of us would do well to put these things first in our leading and following. 

I don’t know Pete Wilson, but I hope he finds peace and healing. I believe God wants this peace and healing - or shalom - and will bring this for all creation. So the pressure doesn’t need to be on Pete or any of us to do anything other than receive and share this peace. And if we do this, we are doing enough.

Eating with Enemies

In my last post, “Why Jesus Loves a Potluck,” I mentioned that those opposing Jesus find fault with the fact that he eats with pretty much anyone. Their anger is palpable in the accusation against him: “This fellow welcomes sinners and eats with them” (Luke 15:2, NRSV). I want to explore this notion of sharing a meal with unlikely dining partners and what this might look like and lead to in our lives.

As I often do, I will start with a story. I was serving as a youth director my sophomore year of college. I had been on the job only a month or so and had little clue what I was doing. A youth director I admired mentioned occasionally going to eat lunch with my students at school. Not only would I get to visit with my students and meet their friends, but also the teachers and administrators at the school would learn who I am and that I am a partner with them in caring for youth. One day I made my way to the school, and as I entered the cafeteria, tangible memories of middle school flooded back to me. At that time, who I ate lunch with felt like a life or death matter. The tables were more exclusive than any country club, and trying to break in to a different table (of course one of higher social standing) was a fool’s errand. But now I was in college. I had a pretty decent car. I would be welcomed with open arms at any table - especially that of my students, right? At first, not so much, because I was still a stranger and an outsider.

Throughout our lives, the decisions about who we share a meal with shape us in powerful ways. We may scoff at the scribes and Pharisees for making such a big deal about Jesus’ lunch partners, but when I turn the mirror back on myself, I must confess that I typically eat with friends, colleagues, and people I already know and like much more than I share food with strangers and those I find it difficult to be around.

Psalm 23 includes a line that has often puzzled me: “You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies” (Psalm 23:5, NRSV). The “you” is referring to God. So, in this incredibly beloved passage there is a line about God sitting us down for a meal with our enemies. How often do we ignore this line and the scene it invokes? It reminds me of one of my favorite Seinfeld episodes. Jerry is given a suit by hack comedian Kenny Bania (who Jerry of course cannot stand). Bania suggests that perhaps Jerry could take him to lunch as a gesture for the suit. Jerry hates the very idea of this, but gives in. When they first go for lunch, Bania isn’t all that hungry and only orders soup. Jerry insists, “That’s the meal!” because he can’t imagine having to eat with Bania ever again.

So who is your Kenny Bania? Who can you not imagine sharing a meal with? In our increasingly divided world, we often hate the very idea of someone else so much that we actually dehumanize them. We make them our enemy and say things like, “I wouldn’t pour water on them if they were on fire.” Especially as the US prepares for a presidential election - one that has already gone off the rails in contention and mudslinging - we who follow Jesus would do well to remember that he ate with those who seemed to have nothing in common with him, even his enemies, even those who would betray him and hand him over to death.

Honestly, I can’t imagine eating with certain people, and by certain people I mean Donald Trump. And yet when I have felt that about other people and have been forced to eat with them, I find that they are actually human. We may disagree about everything, and yet there is something that happens through sharing food together. The word “companion” literally means “with bread.” A companion is simply someone you share bread with. Who might God be calling you to share bread with as we seek reconciliation and newness of life?

Why Jesus Loves a Potluck

Recently I did some writing for wesleymen.org around the subject of food (yes, quite possibly my favorite subject). You are welcome to read the posts there, but I thought I'd include them on the blog as well. Enjoy!

Why Jesus Loves a Potluck

I recently attended a worship service with a group of students from the campus ministry I serve. The students were leading music for the service. After the service I assumed we would all go out for lunch. After all, sharing food together is crucial in our campus ministry. When the service concluded we were invited to a potluck lunch at the church. I expected my students to decline politely. Our city has endless options for food, and I thought they would want to take advantage of being treated to something they might not otherwise eat. How wrong I was! They quickly accepted the invitation to the potluck and raved about the homemade options. Their enthusiasm made me ponder Jesus’ feelings about a potluck meal as well as connections between a potluck and the call to feed the hungry. I concluded that Jesus loves the practice of potlucks and wants us to follow the principles of a potluck as we seek to share good food with others. 

It is clear to me that Jesus loves a potluck because Jesus appears to love any act of sharing food with others. The story that first comes to mind is that of feeding a mass of people with a few loaves of bread and fish (Matthew 14:13-21 and 15:32-39, Mark 6:30-44 and 8:1-10, Luke 9:10-17, John 6:1-14). But this instance is only scratching the surface. Jesus is seen in the gospels constantly eating with others. He boldly invites himself to a meal at Zacchaeus’ house (Luke 19:1-10). One of the charges leveled against Jesus is that he “welcomes sinners and eats with them” (Luke 15:2). Yes, it seems he will eat with anyone. In his final act before his death he shared a meal with his closest friends (Matthew 26:17-30, Mark 14:12-25, Luke 22:7-23, John 13:1-20). After the resurrection, he is still eating with others (Luke 24:13-43, John 21:9-14). It is clear through Jesus’ actions that he feels there is something holy about sharing food together. 

If sharing food together is truly an act of holiness it makes sense to include two principles of a potluck: bring your best and welcome everyone. The epic potlucks I have attended were like a competition on The Food Network. Each person or family brought their best dish. Many people would share food from a recipe that had been in their family for generations. I believe this is a model for how we should share food with others. Often I see those who are hungry receive cheap, and frankly bad food. This is both inhospitable and unhealthy. When we share food with others we should offer something we ourselves want to eat. In fact, I am a firm believer in actually eating the food we share with our neighbors (which hopefully includes everyone - because it does in Jesus’ case). It strikes me that Jesus does not call us simply to distribute food. Rather, when possible, I believe Jesus wants us to share in the meal together, because the act of sharing food together leads us to experience the sustenance of God together. 

As is often the case, my students taught me something that day at church. A fancy meal out is all well and good, but a potluck is holy because the best food is shared with everyone as we meet Jesus together in the breaking of bread.

On Being Relevant

Recently a close friend asked me my thoughts on the idea of relevancy, particularly as it relates to the Church. Here's what I shared. Toward the end I quote someone directly and it contains a "saucy" word, so if that bothers you please don't read that part. 

When I hear of a group, particularly a church, seeking to be “relevant” I typically ask, “In whose eyes are you wishing to be relevant?” My gut inclination is that many groups do not have well-reasoned responses to this question. They desire some kind of general relevancy. In other words, these groups don’t want to be ignored or forgotten. Unfortunately, those who can articulate a sense of this relevancy they crave do so in a competitive sense. They wish to capture attention the way this or that other church does. It quickly becomes akin to keeping up with the Joneses and little more. 

The overarching concern I have is that relevance is rarely measured in God’s eyes. Of course, God does not call any person or group (that I have found) in Scripture to be relevant. Rather persons and groups are called to be holy and faithful. Relevancy doesn’t seem to be on the radar for God, probably because any kind of relevancy that matters to God is understood through God creating and calling God’s children. By creating humans, God is saying, “You matter to me always.” If we want to say this makes us relevant to God, then sure, I suppose that’s fair. But we must also follow this to say there is nothing we can do or not do to be more or less relevant to God. God created us and loves us, full stop.

However, it is clear that we have insecurity about God’s love. We often feel we have to earn God’s love, and that if we have done something wrong (which we most certainly have), then God must love us less. I think there is also an assumption that if a certain group or church seems to be displaying more fruit, then perhaps God loves them more or they are more relevant. This is incorrect, but it’s a pervasive belief. We measure ourselves against others. Israel did this regularly and found herself lacking. Despite being called by God to be a holy nation (set apart for God’s purposes) Israel constantly felt small, weak, and insecure when compared to other nations. Perhaps the clearest example of this is Israel’s desire for a king. Through this request Israel specifically says, “We want to be like the other nations” (1 Samuel 8:5). Essentially they are saying, “We want to be relevant.” Samuel delineates for the people what their request will bring, and it’s not particularly good news (1 Samuel 8:10-18). Nevertheless, the people will not relent and ask again for a king in other to be like other nations (1 Samuel 8:19-20). Yahweh gives them what they request, and although there are some bright moments, Israel’s monarchy is mostly a disaster. In retrospect, kings are blamed for the nation’s journey into utter faithlessness, the nation’s fall to the other nations it desired to copy, and destruction/diaspora. 

One would hope that Israel had learned its lesson by the time Jesus appears. And yet, we see more of the same. Jesus is often asked by those who oppose him, “Why aren’t you like everyone else? Other teachers do this, why do you not?” In Mark 2, Jesus calls Levi, the tax collector. Others grumble and question why Jesus eats with tax collectors and sinners. Jesus responds, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I have come to call not the righteous but sinners” (Mark 2:17). Jesus chooses to spend the bulk of his time with those who are irrelevant, at least in the eyes of that culture. 

The pursuit of relevance is not the pursuit of discipleship. Emptying oneself and serving others is what God asks of us time and again. We are not to do this for any other reason beyond God’s call of love on our lives, because we ourselves are to point with our lives to God rather than using God to point out to others how important we are. One of my mentors in faith is theologian Stanley Hauerwas. A few years ago, as he was working on a theological memoir, he shared words very close to these: “Everyone wants to be relevant. Fuck being relevant. Your life just isn’t that interesting.” I am forced to agree. Of course I would love to think that I had new insight on God’s love. And I would quickly put myself in the place of God if I did not surround myself with a community to remind me time and again that I am created and loved by God - but I am most certainly not God. By creating, loving, and calling us, we are as relevant to God as we need to be. Anything else is seeking to make ourselves more interesting and captivating than God. And the word for this is “idolatry.”

Ben Folds

A couple weeks ago one of my students started talking with me about Ben Folds. I’m pretty sure we had discussed him before as our music leader last year was a big fan. At various times Ben’s music has held the top place in my listening catalog. When I first heard his songs, I knew something different was happening. I don’t use the word “raw” much because I sound so lame when I do, but that’s one of the best words I can use to describe his music for me. The raw feeling is especially present in concert. As he bashes the piano - bordering sometimes on abuse - and transforms the crowd into a horn section, you feel that he can evoke creativity on a level unlike what you normally experience. Even for a deeply cynical person like me, his music and shows are simply moving. 

It has also been interesting to observe his musical journey. I first knew of his music as “Ben Folds Five,” even though now I can’t actually remember if there were four other musicians accompanying him. Then he went solo in the way of Paul McCartney (as legend has it) playing all the instruments himself. Lately he has been exploring new dimensions of a capella music. Admittedly, I haven’t consumed as much of his new music, but that’s on me. I think now that I am feeling a kind of renaissance for his stuff, maybe I should check more out. Now for the separating of sheep and goats.

“Brick” - I can’t even come close to saying I hate this song, because that would be pretty absurd, even for me. I will say I’m not a huge fan. I appreciate it on lots of levels, especially the visceral story (which I believe is true). I’m sure there are not too many other songs about getting an abortion and the aftereffects. At the moment, I can’t think of any. As such “Brick” represents something rather groundbreaking. There are things we don’t talk about. It follows then that we would certainly not sing about such things. And yet I think that’s the heart of the song - the feeling someone has about something they don’t think they can talk about and must hide completely. And perhaps the most healing thing that can happen comes through art and music. So yes, on those levels, I actually love the song. But I think it was so overplayed (not Ben’s fault) I started changing the station. I will also admit the snobbery of feeling like it’s the only or favorite song for people who don’t know much of his music. And yes, I judge them - quite harshly - and the song takes some of that. Musically it is pretty basic, and that’s fine. I don’t have to have complex, but it almost feels like more of a formula to me, and once I heard more of what he can do, it started sinking on my list. 

“Still Fighting It” - Yeah, I absolutely love this song. I feel like it is drastically overlooked. I realize it is interesting that I am counterbalancing a song that shares about an abortion with a song about having a child. That could certainly be someone’s agenda, but it isn’t mine. I also don’t think I love this song anymore as someone on the way to being a dad - but it is possible that I love it more today. The truth is that as soon as I heard “I am a bird wearing a brown polyester shirt” I was hooked. Also I have had my share of roast beef combos in my life, so I felt the song was completely for me. The song feels like a journey, both the music and the lyrics. Again, it shares a kind of raw truth: It is hard and it does suck (in some ways) to grow up. And in some ways I think we are all always fighting it - certainly some more than others. But who among us wouldn’t want to return to a mandated nap time if we could?

Let's Twist!

It’s time for another installment of something no one asked for. 

So here goes the music review. 

“Twist and Shout” - Various Artists - I hate this song. Okay, so hate is probably way too strong in this case, but I really don’t like this song. And what’s maybe most perplexing is that it connects with lots of things I love. I love “The Beatles,” and while their version is a cover that more or less stole all the attention away from the song’s original artists, it’s still not for me. Even though I do like the fact that in one of most well-known live performances John has almost completely lost his voice and is just squawking the lyrics. I also love “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.” It’s one of my favorite movies. It is set in my favorite American city of Chicago. And yet, I hate the scene where Ferris sings this song. It’s so ludicrous and over the top (the entire rest of the movie is completely plausible up to this point). To be fair, I also hate Ferris singing “Danke Shoen” (and perhaps at some point I will post my feelings about this song - but you can probably guess). I probably hate this song because it tends to necessitate a huge dancing crowd at wedding receptions, and this is more or less my hell. I hate dancing. I can’t dance. I don’t want to dance, really ever. I will do it because I love my wife, and we have worked out an agreement. But I legitimately learned how to play instruments so I could be in bands and never have to dance. So please, let me do that thing. 

“Twistin’ the Night Away” - Sam Cooke, et. al. - I love this song. This song, released just a year after “Twist and Shout” was written, eclipses its cousin in seemingly every category. It is not call and response (which simply dumbs down a song). Also, instead of telling (or screaming at me) to dance and instructing me how to dance, this song starts with “Let me tell you ‘bout a place.” It invites the listener into this reality instead of forcing it on her or him. I’m also going to show my cards and admit that I think Sam Cooke is a musical genius and one who is quite underrated. Of course The Beatles were also genius, and I have at least one friend who thinks they were underrated, but still. Perhaps the best accolade I can give this song is that it actually makes me want to think about possibly dancing…at some point. 

Hate This Song/Love This Song

So I have a new idea that might actually get me writing again (everyone breathes a collective sigh of relief). Music is one of the most important things in my life. I know lots of people say that, but they are all liars. I mean it for serious. Several years ago I realized that the way I feel about music is pretty akin to the way I feel about people. I like at least a few songs from all genres. Granted, I’m just not huge on reggae, but I can groove to a few of those tunes. So I don’t think you can just write off a genre completely. You really have to take things one song at a time and see if it’s a song for you or not. Maybe it’s not for you right now, but years later it’s magic. Could also be the other way around.

Thus begins a new experiment of sharing songs I love and hate. Here the metaphor needs to end because I don’t really think we should hate any people or person. Sure if someone kills everyone in your family you are going to hate that person. God, I think, knows this is the case. Look at the Psalms. But I’m not going to condone or encourage hate. I am going to say that I hate certain songs. And yeah, that’s pretty strong, and some people really hate the word hate. My apologies in advance. I’m going to try and balance things by also sharing a song I love. Sometimes genres might match up and stuff like that. We’ll just see where it all goes. I welcome thoughts and even requests to weigh in on songs. Let’s break the internet!

“Lean On Me” by Bill Withers - I hate this song. I’m not even really sure why. I just kind of always have. Musically I don’t think it’s much. And I must confess that my feelings for it have been vastly influenced by hearing it used at church camps or certain rallies. Things went to white-hot hate when people started doing the “five, short, elbow” thing. That’s truly horrible and makes no sense as he is not saying “knee” or “knead.” Come on people, you’re better than that. I think it was used once at the end of an episode of “The Simpsons,” and that’s the closest I’ve come to liking it. But no, it’s just not for me.

“Stand By Me” by Ben E. King - I love this song. See what I did there? In the same way that I’ve just never been a fan of “Lean on Me” I loved this song the first time I heard it. I am fairly certain I first heard it being played by my brother’s junior high band (Tigrett Junior High Thunderbolts). Like a marching band, but I don’t think they were marching. Probably it was at a football game or something? Anyway, it was amazing, and I didn’t even know the words which I think are deeply moving and somehow resist being cliche. The way the song builds is perfect. Everything fits, and nothing is wasted. To me, it is a perfect song.

My Greatest Temptation

My small group is focusing on call narratives in Matthew 4 and Mark 1. As the product of a great divinity school, I always like to read the portions of Scripture before and after a text to get a better sense of the context - especially as the stories were assembled.

Matthew 4 begins with Jesus' encounter with the tempter in the wilderness. I have heard many fascinating lectures and sermons on this passage and the idea of Jesus' temptation. It is interesting to note that the text says, "Jesus was led up by the Spirit..." and what implications this notion holds. I always enjoy hearing different preachers and scholars discuss the three temptations and what each one symbolizes. However, considering that this passage immediately precedes the start of Jesus' ministry in Matthew and the call of disciples, I noticed something I haven't heard discussed much. Perhaps the greatest temptation undergirding all the temptations mentioned in the passage is in fact my greatest temptation: flying solo.

By "flying solo" I mean trying to do everything by yourself - not seeking or asking for help - and believing that you are in fact meant to accomplish whatever it is you are to accomplish alone. This is in fact the temptation that I struggle with most. I am a perfectionist and a control freak. All throughout my time in school I loathed group work. My general response, either silently or aloud, was, "What do you mean I have to work with these morons who don't have any idea what they are doing?!" I was obviously extremely popular.

I am learning that much of my wailing and gnashing of teeth around working with others boils down to trust. I simply do not trust others enough. I do not trust myself enough to be okay with the results if they are less than stellar (and of course I have a ridiculously large ego to imagine that the results will be stellar if I control everything). And yet God trusts us. In the Old Testament, God worked in many ways through individuals, but those individuals who succeeded always had help both from God and others. And God primarily worked through Israel as a whole by choosing a people (not one person) to accomplish God's purposes for the world. This story is one of continued failure, forgiveness, and further extending of trust. In the incarnation, God trusts that the mission of love and restoration of all creation is worth the greatest risk of all - rejection by that which you love most. And we did reject God, and we do reject God, and we will reject God. Yet God continues to risk it all by not giving up on us, I believe, ever.

I think God in Jesus had endless options. Jesus did not need the tempter to give him power. Jesus had all power already. But instead of flying solo, Jesus called disciples. He assembled a team. They were lousy at most things, and yet, through them God changed the entire course of the world. Not bad if you ask me. Maybe I can learn something from this. Perhaps we all can.