Inappropriate Conversations

Album reviews are not a regular part of Inappropriate Conversations, despite the large number of musicians I've identified as Different Drummers, so this is unusual. Then again, so is the album: "Demonic! The Residents Live in Oslo!" "Demons Dance Alone" is my favorite work by the experimental/alternative band The Residents. Written in the aftermath of 9/11/2001, it is almost less experimental in a way that makes it stand out from their catalog. In fact, when I saw the DVD for the first time (before I heard the album), it seemed obvious that the disorienting visual style was far more experimental than the music itself. The performances on that DVD led me to the studio album, but even the combination seemed insufficient. For a work as important as "Eskimo" or "The Mole Trilogy" (enter the joke about 4+ parts here) or "Gingerbread Man" (CD-R), something was missing. With "Demonic!" released last year, The Residents have given this material the second look and second listen that it deserves. First, the negatives. The 2 CD version that I purchased has track listings that don't line up well on disc 1. The first track is actually an overture of sorts, even before the band is introduced to the live audience, and that throws off all the other song names. For a new listener, the last thing you need is for the relationship between track number and song title to be off. Also, one of the highlights of the live experience is their remake of the Snakefinger song "Golden Goat" but here is it buried with two other songs in a single track as if the song was the centerpiece of a medley. Each of those songs stands alone, though, and deserved individual tracks on the CD. What's missing? Since the concert is a live performance of the "Demons Dance Alone" opus, it makes sense that there are very few additions from other albums. "Make Me Moo" is the only track from the studio album that could have been added.  I suspect the studio version would be superior, all the same. Now, the good news and an answer to the obvious question. If I have all of these songs in an excellent studio album, why such enthusiasm for the live version? There are two answers.

1. With the exception of "Weather Man" these live versions equal or surpass the originals. This new release, together with individual downloads of "The Weatherman" and "Make Me Moo" from the 2002 release would cover the complete experience.
2. The 2 CD set, as any live album will, provides slightly different takes on each song including more direct storytelling. More importantly, this set includes a couple of songs that were only available via video before. They are also among the best of the band's weird and wonderful catalog.

I suppose I am not alone in being offended by the controversy over whether Louie Giglio or someone else is going to pray at the ceremony for President Barack Obama's second term as president.  My reasons, though, probably put me in a very small minority. I respect Giglio, and I respect his decision.  In that, I've just separated myself from those who vehemently wanted him removed from that role, but I've also separated myself from most Christians who seem to have missed everything Giglio did not say when he declined.  His statement, "Due to a message of mine that has surfaced from 15-20 years ago..." is a far cry from stridently defending the sanctity of his current beliefs against any (insert numerous complaints from religious conservatives) abomination. This shouldn't be particularly confusing. Most politically active Christians struggle to comprehend things Jesus did not say or do either.  They would be just as quick to presume their favorite words of condemnation fit just as nicely into Giglio's mouth, too. I am not offended by what Giglio did or didn't say.  I'm disappointed, but not offended, by those who made the call for Obama to rescind the invitation which Giglio preemptively declined.  My views have changed as information has grown over the past 15-20 years.  I have asked God for wisdom as well, which implies a desire for growth that cannot happen without development and often change.  Perhaps the same can be said about Giglio. No, I'm offended by some of the Christian responses, including this one by Randy Alcorn:

We redefine sin, and minimize it in a misguided attempt to win people by saying what they’d rather hear. What bothered me most as I read dozens and dozens of comments was seeing professing Christians distance themselves from Louie Giglio. These new kind of “Christians” are a mirror image of this culture, craving popularity and acceptance. If that’s you, please understand—and I am trying to be honest, not cruel—that you bear no resemblance to what it has meant for two thousand years to be a true follower of Christ. Believe what you choose to, but please, in the interests of accuracy, stop calling yourself a Christian.

• Go and do likewise
• Feed the hungry
• Care for widows and orphans
• Whatever you have done for the least of these, you have done for me
• Go and make disciples

Although this year is nowhere near the nightmare for the Bowl Championship Series that last year proved to be, it remains true that college football fans have been slighted as always. The bracket below shows the playoff system we could be watching.  All 11 conference champions are seeded in a bracket with the next best 5 "at large" teams based on BCS ratings.  The only adjustment I've made was moving Georgia up to avoid 1st- and 2nd-round rematches of games played in the regular season. I'm not suggesting that the decisions necessary to reach a "March Madness" type of bracket would be easy.  Still, they are possible.  If SEC teams, for example, just dropped their annual game against lower division opponents, the football season wouldn't be too long for any of these teams.  As for other teams in bowl games, could those match-ups be any worse than they are this year even without a playoff system? Of course, I'm not suggesting that Arkansas State is likely to upset Notre Dame, or that Tulsa or Utah State might advance far into this tournament.  As any college basketball fan would attest, though, they have earned the right to play. College Football playoffs, as they should be, for 2012 season

In "liberal" v. "conservative" debates we've heard all year, one repeated argument is over entitlement and self-sufficiency.  One side argues in favor of social programs as a crucial safety net for the most vulnerable members of society.  The other side notes the cost of the programs and the potential for those same people to become dependent upon the support of government.  I've placed quotations around these ideological terms because the lines get more blurry than you would think around a concept I'll call The Nanny State. Originally a British expression, Nanny State refers to government policies over-reaching and essentially "babying" the public.  It can function as both a liberal complaint (conservative fiscal policies designed to protect wealth) and a conservative one (legal requirements on products that invite litigation).  The tone of this current election year leans toward complaining about government coddling the perpetually unemployed. Earlier this month, though, Missouri voters have given us a spectacular example (emphasis on "spectacle") of conservative, religiously-oriented over-reaching.  Quoting FoxNews.com: "Missouri voters approved an amendment to the state constitution Tuesday [August 7, 2012] that proponents say will help ensure the right to pray in public.  The amendment was on a statewide ballot and had widespread support, though critics said the right to pray is already protected under the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.  State GOP Rep. Mike McGhee and other supporters agreed, but they said Amendment 2 is really an effort to make the state constitution match the U.S. Constitution and protect Christianity, which they said is under attack." We probably should be deeply concerned about elected officials or their constituents setting out to change government in ways that will "protect Christianity."  Where Jesus said, "Give back to Caesar that which is Caesar's, and to God what is God's" (Matthew 22: 21), Missouri would like to force Caesar to name-and-claim what is truly God's. The concept of Nanny State comes in when McGhee and others justify the amendment.  With limited anecdotes, examples have been given in interviews -- last week on National Public Radio "Tell Me More" and elsewhere -- of cases where teachers or other officials have misapplied the law or overstepped their authority. From the same Fox article online: "McGhee, whose legislation led to the amendment proposal, told FoxNews.com about an incident in which a teacher told a kindergartner singing 'Jesus Loves Me' while swinging on the playground to instead sing 'mommy loves me.'  McGhee thinks the teacher simply didn't know the law and said the proposed amendment attempts to make clear such rights." Why wasn't something done to provide corrective First Amendment instruction to the teacher in cases like this?  How does it make sense to pass an amendment to the state's constitution that merely repeats the current state of the law?  Are we afraid to give crucial information to teachers about executive orders going back to the Clinton administration that cover this exact same ground for all states? Or, did the state already step in, whether by school administrators or other agents?  If so, why conceal that fact, if not to make voters perceive an "urgent need" where none exists?  Or, have all the talking points from this amendment merely been a smokescreen to cover-up what truly is new in the amendment: a rule that students can legally opt-out of any coursework that might conflict with their personal religious convictions? Missouri voters have taken a terrible step.  They are out of line with Jesus Christ, from a conservative Christian perspective.  It appears that they have coddled teachers who needed to hear stern words of correction about interfering with a student's private and personal faith (yes, it is still private and personal on the playground or in the lunchroom, as long as it isn't proselytizing).  They have placed the possibility of a student being offended by educational materials above the necessity of learning itself. If the Nanny State element isn't clear, I'll explain in reverse order. Third, it is over-protective and counter-productive for the state to presume it can enable children not to be offended by school work.  It stunts their development intellectually, and it inhibits their ability to speak apologetically against ideas they may grow up to oppose. Second, a constitutional amendment to "make clear such rights" certainly represents the worst kind of conflict avoidance.  What will McGhee recommend if this governmental "reminder" doesn't work?  At what point would Missouri lawmakers propose the most direct approach instead: talking with teachers and other officials who make mistakes?  Surely we don't need a constitutional amendment every time someone gets confused about the state of the law! First, Missouri voters have presumably made a statement about how important it is to protect public expressions of religion.  Some conservatives have referred to this as a "public prayer amendment."  The headline on the Fox article reads: Missouri votes to fortify public prayer with amendment that critics call unnecessary.  Whether it is necessary or not, the entire idea is a slap in the face of Jesus and a renunciation of his teaching. "When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men.  Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full.  But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you."  (Matthew 6: 5-6) This amendment is not what Jesus would do.  Clearly and directly, it is not what Jesus would have us do.  Perhaps, though, supporters of the "conservative" form of Nanny State don't defer to Jesus at all when they speak of protecting Christianity.  For some, that belief system is more political than religious and the power being consolidated is anything but spiritual.

In a fascinating exchange of interviews on NPR Fresh Air last month (the Inappropriate Conversations page on Facebook has links), an American nun and priest traded perspectives on the true meaning of the term "pro-life."  The priest referred to the position of the pope on specific issues like abortion and euthanasia.  The nun made a distinction between pro-fetus policies and the larger set of pro-life policies including poverty and war among other threats to life.

I have always maintained that the term itself, pro-life, is meaningless.  From an earthly perspective, all of us will die.  From an eternal perspective, the response of some in the church to controversial issues like abortion strongly and wrongly imply that God's metaphorical hands are tied.  He is somehow powerless to save, either during an earthly lifespan, regardless its length, or afterward.

Of course, politically-focused church members and representatives quickly backtrack from these flirtations with heresy.  However, their policies don't line up with either a confidence in God's Providence or with the commands from Jesus and his apostles that hatred is unacceptable and we must not express it.  In both a gospel and letters, the Biblical writer John speaks for Jesus very clearly.

"Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.  We know love by this, that he laid down his life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.  But whoever has the world's goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him?  Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth." (1 John 3: 15-18)

Jesus said, "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.  I do not receive glory from men; but I know you, that you do not have the love of God in yourselves." (John 5: 39-42)

In the epistle, John refers to Jesus' words in the Sermon On The Mount (Matthew, chapters 5-7).  In the gospel, John quotes Jesus directly.  Two warnings are clear.  One is a statement that you cannot be pro-life and express hatred, not toward politicians or doctors or women who've had an abortion, and not toward homosexuals.  The other is Jesus explaining that the Old Testament must not be an object of worship; that's not what the Bible tells us to do, even about the Bible itself.  Jesus says that those Hebrew Scriptures provide a testimony about Him, and that following those rules and laws will not give life.  It is one of many passages where he makes claims to deity that his Jewish contemporaries could not (and did not) miss: Jesus says that He is the way to eternal life.

These points matter, perhaps now more than ever.  In the midst of angry words this week over the meaning of "marriage" and the significance, or relative insignificance, of Levitical laws, more than one Christian on more than one occasion told me (with alarming confidence) that "Jesus tells us to hate ..."

I used quotation marks for a reason.  That's a direct quote.  It comes, in part, from the non-Biblical notion of some Christians that they must "love the sinner but hate the sin." It's a borderline heretical concept, where these Christians have taken the words and anthropomorphic descriptions of God's character from the Old Testament and presumed that they must be "like God."  It's heretical when this transforms into "playing God" by deciding through the politics of our times that Christians can levy judgment against others on the basis of Hebrew Scriptures in God's name.

Jesus has told us two things that we must not forget.  First, we aren't commanded to hate anything or anyone; in fact, Jesus commands us not to hate.  The line about "Jesus tells us to hate" is dangerously misguided and the driving force behind most of the very public actions from Christians in recent days.  Second, as Christians our guidance comes from Jesus and not a set of rules that he directly told us cannot supersede His love.

If we make a mistake here, we are not "pro-life" no matter what our political policies proclaim.  The Bible says we are murderers.  My fellow Christians have taken action and spoken words this week that were ultimately designed to shun our neighbors, supporting people who finance organizations with goals of isolating, arresting, or perhaps executing those same neighbors as "an abomination."  It is blasphemy to claim that this is what Jesus would have us do.

Chuck Norris is in the news for what some are describing as "taking a stand" against changes that would permit homosexuals to volunteer to serve the Boy Scouts Of America. I don't intend to address this issue directly, but it raises a question that I first mentioned in Inappropriate Conversations #8.  On the topic of The Sexual Revolution, I asked if "celibate homosexual" has tangible meaning in our society.  The related question is whether "homosexuality" is an inherently sexual concept. For some this will sound silly.  After all, the word "sex" is embedded within the term in a way that intends to communicate something other than gender.  No, I'm going to keep gender out of this.  But must there be a link between orientation and sexuality?  We don't limit the term "gay teen" to sexual experience.  There is such a thing as a sexually-active gay teenager versus a gay teenager who is completely inexperienced in the area of coupling.  So, clearly, we can -- and, therefore, should -- make a distinction between orientation and sexual practice. What does this have to do with the Boy Scouts Of America? The answer is hidden inside this question: who in this debate is sexual-izing (making something "about" sex) the concept of homosexuality? To connect back with IC #8, is there such a thing as a celibate homosexual?  (My answer is Yes, by the way.)  Would that individual be welcome to serve as a Scouting volunteer?  Let's focus there, rather than on Chuck Norris.  Frankly, he isn't asking the right questions. Here's the dilemma you must face if you favor the long-standing Boy Scouts ban: 1)      If a celibate homosexual would not be welcome as a BSA volunteer, then this really isn't about sexuality at all.  It's just about discrimination and prejudice.  Rather than teaching these young men the values that have made America strong, the organization is doing the exact opposite. 2)      If a celibate homosexual would be welcome (please don't turn the word "allowed" into a pejorative and demeaning qualifier), while others would not, then perhaps the issue is solely about sexual practices ... but who is making "sex" the issue?  Certainly not the volunteer.  Gay parents who want to help surely aren't sexualizing the conversation unless they are volunteering solely for a topic like sex education. Who is making sexual orientation "all about sex" in this situation?  I think we know the answer to that, and those people should be ashamed of themselves. I'm not saying that it is wrong to consider this conflict, or many other examples, as a question of equality and discrimination. I'm also not saying that the BSA organization cannot decide to keep discussions of sexuality out of their mission.  I'm only saying that supporters of the long-standing BSA policies are the ones who have put sex in center stage when the debate (if necessary) should be solely about orientation. That is a very different thing.  We need to start asking more pointed questions of people who confuse the two concepts, or try to confuse others through willful obfuscation. There is no badge for deception.

Here is C.S. Lewis, speaking via radio address some of the words that would become Mere Christianity and other works, including several parts that I have quoted in Inappropriate Conversations. C.S. Lewis Original Recording Inappropriate Conversations references include: 12: Have we evolved beyond religion or is Christianity itself that mutation? 20: Reading ‘Chapter And Verse’ on what I don’t believe 21: Permanent Things that I believe 49: R.S.V.P. 61: Impermanence of Time