This Week's Bible Story: Jezebel

Never let me stand accused of not being willing to shamelessly appeal to the lowest common denominator to a degree that only the bible is likely to surpass.

As even Wikipedia will tell you,  in the Old Testament (the part of the bible that Jews, Christians and Muslims all hold to be important), there is a particularly emancipated, empowered woman named Jezebel.  She wore a lot of eye makeup, and was known for running the country due to having the King by the Johnson, and later, through having her sons on the throne.  Her being Phoenician (and knowing how heavily she applied eye-makeup), she may well have looked quite like the woman in this picture here.

Jezebel is noteworthy in Jewish history for having her husband the king replace the Jewish religion, which was an approach to Jehovah to see who He Was and What He Wanted, with a violently enforced policy that "all Jews shall henceforth worship deities humans have made and therefore understand fully, which more conveniently serve us as instructive outer representations of inner human psychology."  

Far easier to make gods which help you understand yourself (Oprah, Dr. Phil) than it is to see yourself as having been made in the image of a fairly complex and unknowable Creative Force with a personality which is reflected in you.  AC/DC had their fingers on the point with their song "Who Made Who?"  That is, indeed, the question which the Old Testament seems to be about.  If (and it is a story which relates things this way) there was only one actual deity, and He was doing everything He could to be known by humans, right down to meeting them on their own level in helping them out with the violent, barbarous wars of conquest which He clearly found repugnant; then why did these guys continually choose man-made gods over Him?

C.S. Lewis tackles this in a characteristically allegorical and off-centre way in the Narnia books which repeat that Aslan (the Jesus-Lion) "isn't like a tame lion."  He goes where he wants and does what he wants and redefines every situation he involves himself in.  He isn't predictable, He isn't like Santa Claus (who shows up conveniently once a year with what you asked for, like people going to church at Christmas).  He isn't like Jupiter or Apollo.  (neither of those were makers or fathers of mankind, but mere power figures and archetypes for human psychology)

Jezebel uses what she's got to have her husband order the deaths of anyone who worships this "untamed" God, this God who does not serve us or merely function to add structure to our calendar year.  This is not a god who needs the sacrifice of children or young men like a clock needs to be wound (or plugged in).  This is not a god who turns into a swan so he can date-rape human women.  This is not a god who is into golden showers.  This is not a god that human women can manipulate using their feminine wiles.  This is not a god whose respect and temple-building go-aheads men can gain through acts of ruthless violence.  This is a Person who lets human men and women know how He intended them to effectively function (and what their special features are) when He made them.  This God doesn't tell us who and how to be.  He tells us who we are and who we can be.

Back to Ms.  Chesty Larue: Jezebel is queen, due to who her father was (King) and who her husband was (King), and decides that if she wants stuff (land, resources and so on) it should be a capital offense to deny it from her by, for instance, claiming to have possession of it in the first place.  She decides she wants a property which is being used as a vineyard, and has Naboth, who owns and tends the property, killed so she can take it.  God doesn't like stuff like that, it turns out.

Suffering a defeat when a prophet from God named Elijah calls a nuclear strike from Heaven at will, Jezebel just continues her rule through her son, who becomes (King) in his dead father's stead.

By the time she is dead (due to being thrown out a second storey window to the stones below, and grawed by dogs until only the palms of her rapacious hands are left) she has caused numerous bloody coups, betrayals, wars and religious cleansings.  Some atheists hate the bible enough (and some feminists hate men enough) to identify with Jezebel, just because it and they don't, which is quite similar to people who hate Jews identifying with Hitler, just to show 'em.

In the New Testament, the same attitude(spirit) seen in Jezebel is identified among the early Christian groups (in Revelation).  Eventually, most of Europe is peopled with ostensibly Christian countries, and the pope (at times when there was only one, anyway) rules from the Vatican, surrounded with gold, gems,  expensive spices, incense and fabrics on real estate no one else on earth could afford.  (is the security system in Rome called "Vati-Cam"?  I wonder stuff like that)

These "Christians" decide they want, not a vineyard, but the continents of North AND South America, as well as India, Australia and chunks of Asia and Africa.  Pretty much everything.  They even plant their flag on the shining face of the moon.  Apart from in the case of the moon, these "Christians" take these "vineyards" one by one, with shining steel and proudly ruthless hearts which don't recognize as equally human any mortally bleeding person who claims to have been there first.  Then they feel they've "earned" the land and its riches, because killing people and their families is such hard work.

These "Christians" go around torturing and killing people who will, for some reason, simply not go against their own consciences and pay lip service to the newly-enforced religious and political ideologies.  They simply take countries with oil, with jewels, with gold.  As they do this, they are followed around and blessed by "holy" men in special clothing with special symbols, who accompany them and pray to God to help them take this land "for Him."  Holy men who quoted "Thou shalt not kill" had to stay home, no doubt, under threat of execution.  They "bring the word of God" to natives, and wipe out their ancient cultures and kill them if they don't conform to the outer, idolatrous forms of it (if they don't kiss the rings and bow before the people, statues and symbols).  They invade countries who do not pledge allegiance to the King, the Queen, God, Democracy or Marxism (whatever their "thing" is) and remake these areas entirely in their own violently acquisitive images, with a structure that keeps them and theirs firmly on top.

These "Christians" not only take countries, but people as well, building the richest countries in the world on the backs of the poorest people in the world.

And then people want to make those obvious connections between angry, poor youth (the descendants of the above-mentioned slaves) being violently acquisitive as a way to get their hands on something good, this occurring in the cities owned,  rented out and run by the "Christian" descendants of the "Christians" we've been talking about.  And then some crazy people want to allow the slaves their freedom, the right to own guns and property, to marry women from the Conquering Race, to vote, to hold public office.  At every step, "Christians" are there to oppose this, brandishing crosses (burning and otherwise) and doing their best to outshout and out-pompous everyone opposed, claiming to serve God, and not a ghastly idol they've made to replace Him so they can do things He will have no part in.

And now, "Christians" in democratic countries who rule or bully most of the world are panicking.  They are panicking because a man (who draws heritage from a union of Conquering "Christian" race with the descendants of slave people) is claiming to be a Christian, claiming to be acting in a Christian way, and he's not hating the right sinful people enough, he's trying to change things to help the less important and deserving people out, and most of all, he's not as into killing dark people in the East as he should be.  They can't decide whether to criticize him for not "supporting the troops" over there, or for sending additional troops over there to "support" them, for intending to end this invasion (usually called a "war" like starting it was a two-sided thing) or for not having ended it yet, for being too weak and peace-mongering, or for winning the Nobel Peace Prize without having achieved World Peace yet.

Today, the "Christians" who can afford to be on TV (popes, politicians and preachers alike), with gleaming studio sets, teeth and jewelry, with their fleets of private jets and homes in countries around the world, with their mini-armies of armed security personnel, these "Christians" are feeling threatened.  They are threatened by people who don't take them seriously.  They are threatened by people who want to remake society so that they (and their "non-profit organizations") cannot legislate that they be treated specially.  They are frantic that people with different views (and different sins) may increasingly be allowed to speak, to marry, and to hold public office.

They wonder where God is, and why He doesn't seem to care about the state of their crumbling empires.  Where is God?  Some of us think we know.  Some of us think He is sending prophets to say it is time to throw these Jezebels down from their windows and let the dogs have at them, to not view them and their cracked plastic personae with even a modicum of seriousness or respect.

I'm Not a Preacher

If I were and I didn't know the answer to certain questions I'd been asked, I would be looked down upon, rather than respected, if I sensibly went ahead and said "I don't know." 'Cause that's not the job.

And if I was, and (as is the case) I had nothing in particular to say on a given Sunday, I wouldn't be allowed to do this.  

To just have nothing to say, and then just sensibly go ahead and not say it.

Reaching Out

I was born, like most people, into a religious system and given many assumptions I have spent my whole life sifting through, seeing what I want to keep, and what I can't, in good conscience, have anything further to do with.  I could make a chart.  I won't.  It's still a work in progress.

Some things, though: the assumption that was seeded all through the thinking in my little Plymouth Brethren group (like in almost every religious and irreligious group) was that we were "getting it right" in a way that no other group was.  We understood things better, and the way we went about our lives was more supportable by a larger number of scriptures (if not by the intent of the writers) than the approaches of the other Christians.  We admitted that those groups "certainly had those within them who Were The Lord's" but felt that they were getting it all a bit wrong and should listen to us.  

Plymouth Brethren groups are particularly shameless in defining themselves as a group that is getting stuff right that other groups are getting wrong.  Check out a random PB website.  Look at the helpful books and articles and essays you can get:

Is the One Man Pastor Scriptural? By Dave Binds, former denominational pastor.  What I Have Found Dave Binds' testimony concerning the New Testament pattern for the church. Is It Possible to Meet as a New Testament Church? By Gospel Booklet Press Choosing a Church or Gathered in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ?  A letter written by Jeff Fires to encourage a brother in Christ. My Reasons The reasons for Dino Sealand's resignation as Pastor of the First Baptist Church of Newcastle, PA., and from the Baptist Ministry. Headship and Headcovering in the Church By Tim Badborn Should Women Speak in the Church? By Robert E. Savings, Jr.

They might as well have titled them like this:

Why other churches having a One Man Pastor is not Scriptural! By Dave Binds, former denominational pastor who saw pastorship was wrong and selflessly gave it up to come gather with us and forever after be more correct.  What I Have Found Is that the Other Churches Are Doing Everything Wrong! Dave Binds' views concerning the New Testament pattern for the church that other groups are fucking up. We are Definitely Meeting as a New Testament Church, Unlike Most Groups! By Gospel Booklet Press Attending With Us Isn't Just "Choosing a Church," It is Being Gathered in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ! A letter written by Jeff Fires to encourage a brother in Christ to choose our group because it's right. My Reasons For Thinking Y'all Are Wrong! The reasons for Dino Sealand's resignation as Pastor of the First Baptist Church of Newcastle, PA., and from the Baptist Ministry, which he decided God thought was wrong. Why Other Churches Letting Women Have Authority, and Not Making Them Cover Their Heads is Wrong!  By Tim Badborn(an alleged man) who enjoys keeping women in their proper place Why Women Should Not Be Allowed To Speak in Church, Like They Are In Some Other Churches (Ours Aren't)! By Robert E. Savings, Jr. (another alleged man) who enjoys keeping women in their proper place

I believe, though I have changed the wording and authors' names but slightly, that I have kept the preoccupations and spirits (attitudes) intact.  It's not that I'm saying PB groups like this one are wrong (Heaven forfend!).  I am saying they define themselves, right out of the box, to complete strangers who might not know anything about the bible or Jesus or God, as people who aren't doing what the other Christian groups are, but instead are righter.  I think this attitude is immature.

Anyway, like most groups too (religious, irreligious and in other ways cultural) I knew that I'd be looked down on it if I "went out" to find friends and a wife, rather than "bring them in" to our circle of belief. 

Well, it didn't work out very well.  Most left, most "went outside" and then didn't reconnect with or "come back to" the people and approaches which had gotten them, in varying degrees of smug, stunted brokenness, to adulthood.  I wasn't content to "just leave" it.  I wanted to make sure I kept what I wanted to keep, and only lost what I wanted to lose.  

I also had a big problem with tossing out any attempts to reconcile, connect, re-evaluate or compromise with the people who were in a very real sense "my people."  I believed that throwing them out with the holy bathwater was something I could have nothing to do with.  I believed that having no loyalty or lasting concern and affection for each other was, in fact, my biggest problem with them to begin with, and that walking off into the ecclesiastical sunset with a different girl under my arm wouldn't fix a thing for anyone but me, and that too, I'd probably find myself needing to revisit the problem anyway.  

We have a way of finding ourselves not being able to really get away from the really real stuff from our childhoods.  We end up on the other side of it, doing the same bad stuff to today's children or those under our care or authority, or we end up doing things that are so mirror-image opposite that they might as well be us doing exactly the same thing.  Then we really  have to think and work on how to deal emotionally.

Many people I grew up with used careful techniques to keep this thinking and dealing away:

Some filled every waking moment with work, with busy, darting here and there activity that added up (from the perspective of even six months later) to little besides keeping them in a state of perpetual leaving to go somewhere else.  You could talk to them, but you were made all too aware of where you were keeping them from being, and how little time they had.  Ignorant shallowness maintained through over-commitment of time.

Others used a cult-like technique of filling their heads at all times with little mottos, slogans, jingles, aphorisms, poems and songs.  You couldn't talk to them.  You'd make a perfectly obvious comment, and they'd spit back something facile that someone else had come up with, as if thinking about stuff like that was a waste of time.  They hadn't even thought about the thought-substitutes themselves.  They were just using them as corks to jam in the faucet.  George Orwell called this "protective stupidity."

Others used alcohol whenever they got trapped alone with their thoughts and feelings.  I believe the strategy was two-fold: if they were drunk, then their brains wouldn't work properly, so the thoughts wouldn't flow properly.  Secondly, anything they thought that evening could be dismissed out of hand the next morning as "stuff they thought when they were drinking."  You could talk to them about meaningful stuff only when they were drunk and their brains didn't work right, and every epiphany or depth of understanding they reached faded in the morning light.

Others used drugs for a similar purpose.  Unlike the booze-hounds, they often claimed, however, that the drugs made them "think better" or "just 'get things' more" instead of seeing their brains as impaired while in that state.  True, all sorts of random, out-there, interesting thoughts flew into their minds while they were messed up, but these flew just as easily right back out again and were almost always lost.  You could talk to them, but although the state made them believe almost anything could be true, it at the same time made them feel that almost nothing was false, which kinda ruins any attempt at thinking.

Having children helped many others stave off thinking and dealing even more than over-involvement in partying or jobs.  Nothing takes your thinking time away like kids.

I didn't allow myself any of that or failed to really get into it.  I was far too lazy and disinterested in money and career to throw myself into those, and I wanted to be a teacher.  I wanted to be a teacher when there was a teacher glut going on, Mike Harris was doing odd things to Ontario and I just couldn't.  I had a series of jobs where I'd have to do things like sit on a couch all night long after having put some handicapped people to bed with their pills, or sit in front of a machine and press a button every five minutes or so.  It paid the bills, and usually kept me sitting up all night with nothing to do but think and no interruptions of any kind.

I waited until 21 to try alcohol outside of a Sunday morning service.  A couple of years later I noticed that I'd now reached an age where my peers were either cutting back on their partying due to maturity, or realizing that they were drinking (or smoking up or dropping hits) at home alone and at all times of the day and should really think about the sense in that.  It was too late to be a drunk 14 year old who'd gotten his hands on some of Dad's beer anyway.  (My Dad has never had any beer anyway.)

So, I approached thirty, having spent countless years of weeks of hours thinking and dealing.  Most people I knew were not doing much thinking, at least yet.  They viewed all of this with suspicion and distrust.  They assured me that I had to quit all this thinking and reach out and connect to other people more.  (I was, but like most people, I wanted to connect to other people who were doing what I was doing, and main thing people like me did was not go where there were rooms full of people.)  Many of them have contacted me since, and are showing signs of just starting, around 35 or 40 years old, to re-evaluate the thinking they grew up with, and which they have already engraved into their kids' souls.

My religious group had a couple of huge acrimonious split-ups caused by how they tended to do things (to check to see if you agreed, and if you didn't, to walk away from you ideologically and socially and pretend you were dead, kicking you out of the church group just to be safe).  Some of us thought a lot about this approach, but most people quickly put the thinking to rest with "We were right, they were wrong.  End of story.  End of discussion.  End of lesson."  This freed them up to do more kicking out without a pang of conscience or overmuch reflection on the worth of eliminating people rather than the problems which proved to be not limited to individuals.

Eventually they kicked me out for thinking.  (to be fair, my "thinking" involves discussing things with others, making parody versions of things I think don't make sense, like religious literature and hymns).  This really kick-started the thinking in a big way.  The Internet, and having a blog and a web page (and Facebook and Youtube) started to connect me to people of similar thinking.  It also forced people who, in their circles, can have people like me shut up or kicked out, to need to approach me and my thinking and that of my friends in forums and ways the Internet made suddenly egalitarian.  They could say they wished I was not allowed to write things, but they couldn't make me stop.  Now THAT made me need to think!

How much time should I be spending talking on the Internet, and what should I say and how should I treat people who are throwing iRocks at me, when I seemed to have this iShotgun in my hand now, so to speak?  Jesus is hard to know how to use as an example.  The iRock-throwers tend to insist Jesus would never stoop to name-calling (though he certainly did) and that he was always meek and kind and nice (though he certainly was not).  They insist that deconstructionist thinking (the sort of thinking that post-modernists engage in) is unhelpful, not constructive (see what's happening there?) and totally lacking in value or merit.

It was amazing hearing an mp3 of Tom Wright, the Archbishop of Durham, speaking at Harvard.   He said that what we think of as "traditional" 20th century thinking and approaches to truth are what the rest of the world would label "modernist" (mindless optimism about the system we live in and how we need only follow it and support it and protect it from Philistines and it will spit out cool thing after cool thing).  

He suggested that the rest of the world (in the 90s, quite audible in Kurt Cobain's voice) had moved from that into post-modernism ("Does this REALLY work?"  "Is all of this REALLY necessary?" "Is this perhaps more than a little ridiculous, once you think about it?" "Why not just say fuckit?"  "What's the use of anything?")  Post-modern thinking, Wright thought, questioned that mindless optimism about the system we have served thoughtlessly (actually, I think he said it "gave it a much-needed poke in the eye"), and the task of a Christian isn't to hide in outmoded modernist thought, nor to wallow uninspiredly in post-modern nihilism but to respond to what is happening in the mind of the world so we can show we HAVE something to say in response, rather than simply that we're not thinking about it.

For the last ten years, people have been saying that, for my own emotional health and growth, I need to "leave all that Plymouth Brethren stuff behind and get on with your life."  It struck me that for these past ten years since I was kicked out of my group for thinking and feeling things thought to be gratuitously unorthodox by the very old I have been reaching out trying to find other Christians outside tha' PB who won't crucify me if I act like Jesus in ways they're not used to.

The orthodox way to do what I'm attempting is simply to visit the local churches and try to integrate myself deeply and unthinkingly into one.  I'm trying something harder.  I'm shooting for something deeper.  I'm trying to relate to Christians as a whole, or failing that, one-by-one.  I'm trying to move outside my upbringing's narrowness, its willingness to coldly cut off all contact with people.  People, by the way, it is told by scripture to love and care for, and claiming this was necessary in order for them to protect and preserve their own position of correctness before God. (see what's happening there?  Incorrect actions to dodge any association with people thought guilty of incorrect beliefs or thoughts)

Here's the trouble I'm having: the local churches are full of people who left my group and haven't changed much, and other people an awful lot like them.  People not differenter enough to make this about expanding my horizons at all.  In other words, the conventional Christian approach to community and sharing doesn't work for me and they're telling me I have to make it work for me and that there is no other path to success open to me but through them and what they're doing.  I've heard that one before.  In tha' PB, actually.

The Internet is generally a cold, plastic, too-convenient, etiquette-free way of connecting to people. It can lead to MSN, to phone calls and sometimes even face-to-face meetings with people who turn out to be awesome or creepy, but who don't live near enough to become a regular part of one's yearly routine.  It's what I have right now, though.  I've "met" some extremely awesome people on it.  It's working.  I want to connect to locals more, but am having trouble.

People accuse me of looking for "a perfect group."  I'm not.  I just need one that doesn't fill me with disbelief, nausea and conscience-questions (now I guess I'm having to decide if I should try to connect to people I don't know whom I don't understand, and if I can connect in any depth.  This is uncomfortably like, or backwards to, people in my own group deciding not to continue to remain connected to people they know intimately and grew up with and are related and intermarried to.)  

As usual, I am told there is an orthodox way to do things and it doesn't work for me and I'm told I have to MAKE it work.  Going into a room at a given time once a week (Sunday morning) and listening to a guy try to pull me along his own path doesn't work for me.  It's too much about unthinking conformity and just as unthinking hate.  It's too much about stopping at nothing while standing for nothing, but just standing in opposition to whatever they can find to hate.  We're all infected with that.  I don't need more of it.  People in groups don't act well, and the larger the groups, the more anonymity, the more evil can hide, the more power is there to be abused and the more people are there to prey on.  I don't see even the slightest sign of the spirit in which it sounds like New Testament Christians hung out.  That's just not how I holy roll, I guess.

I am determined to meet people one (OK, maybe two) at a time.  I don't need to join anything.  I don't need to chair anything, mentor anything, or work in a facilitatory capacity on a committee of any kind.  I am determined to grow into a more mature, deep, effective, warm, loving person and I don't believe the path to that is systematic, formulaic or in any way one-size-fits-all or institutionalizable.  

Guess I'm on my own, mostly, then.  The rest of the Christian world seems devoted to polishing and remarketing, structuring and funding the modernist system they already follow, which system doesn't work for me.  Christ as a person works for me.  Christendom as a system works against everything He and I are trying to put together.

I don't have faith in the idea that somewhere, somehow, there is a group which isn't perfect, but would be a "good fit" for me.  Fitting into a group like a wad of hamburger shoved into a patty mold isn't my spiritual aspiration.  Looking into the eyes of friends and strangers alike and being able to deeply connect to and have conversations with them and "get" on a number of levels what is going on with them and sharing what I see and being able to take in and benefit from their perspective on me and what I'm up to and other stuff, and being able to agree on things and share similar reactions to stuff in common: That's what I live for.  That Jesus stuff that Jesus was able to do.  Because it's good stuff to be able to do, and good stuff that needs to be done.  I can't do that in a church.  I've tried.

There is this false dichotomy being thrust in my face.  You see, in case you don't know, there is this verse in the bible which says "forsake not the assembling of yourselves together as the manner of some is."  This verse is continually used to whack "church forsakers" like me in the snout with.  In a more modernly worded translation (and with more of the context) it says "let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another."  (some translations say "exhorting" which means "to urge strongly").  

I stand accused of not "meeting together" with Christians because I don't go to church Sunday morning.  You see, Christians and atheists alike (and anyone else for that matter) will all agree that we can recognize a Christian in one simple way: a Christian goes to church.  If they were asked "Can a person be a Christian and never go to church?" they'd probably be a bit confused at the idea.  They'd probably say "Well, if he's a REAL Christian acting like one, yeah, he'd go to church."  The first question one gets asked if one identifies as a Christian is always the same.  It isn't "In what way do you want to live like Jesus?"  It is invariably "What church do you go to?"  And if you don't go to one, that derails the whole conversation and it will no longer be about him, but will be about "Why not?"

When the average, unthinking and systematized, institutional Christian is in complete agreement on a subject with people who are far outside that system, either the point is inarguable, or something very interesting is going on.  They may have all missed exactly the same thing at exactly the same time.

The false dichotomy can be worded like this: 

You have a choice.  You can either go to a church and thereby be connected to and involved in the dealings of The Christian Church, the Christian Community worldwide as represented in your area, or else you can stay home and have no significant connection or involvement at all, really, in the dealings of The Christian Church, the Christian Community worldwide as represented in your area.

Bullshit, I say.  (or, "not fit even for the dunghill" one could opine more in the language of scripture).  I know (because I've done it) that you can attend a church and have no involvement in or connection to the Church worldwide as represented in your community.  You can equally not join or attend a church and be a crucial, beneficial part of the lives of a large number of Christians.  (I know that because I'm doing it, with varying degrees of success.)

So, I'm at home this Sunday morning.  Writing this.  Listening to David Bazan and Thrice because Jerry said they were really good.  They are.  I'm sure my Christian fellows will do their usual things, and warn people not to read stuff like this, point out the complete lack of bible droppings (Hez 3:12) in it, describe it as anti-church and see it all as a plan to tempt young people away from church and into an eternal hell.  The other Christians who are more like me will either decide it's too long and not read it, or will read it and not tell me or anyone that they read it, because they're like that.

But, one thing I'm learning is that I reflexively flinch and prepare for the worst whenever dealing with Christians.  This is, of course, a reaction trained into me.  Wouldn't it be great if a couple of people showed me that I'm underestimating them?

My Latest "I'm a Christian, but I just don't get this about them" thing

All the old hymns that we were raised with seemed to be about "Life is hard.  Trials,  troubles, temptations.  Nothing good or nice that can be trusted or enjoyed.  Don't worry though.  We'll all be dead soon enough and won't have to worry about that stuff anymore."

Here are some examples: "All my trials, Lord/soon will be over" "One glad morning when this life is o'er/I'll fly away...Just a few more weary days and then/I'll fly away "Faithful 'till death said our loving Master/a few more days to labour and wait" "Then when all of life is over and our work on earth is done" "Now little brother has done gone on, but I'll rejoin him in a song/we'll be together again up yonder in a little while" "there, close by the side of that loved one/'Neath the tree where the wild flowers bloom/When farewell hymns shall be chanted/I shall rest by her side in the tomb" "Through many dangers, toil and snares/I have already come/T'was grace that brought me safe thus far/and grace will lead me home" "There's a better home a'waiting/in the sky, Lord, in the sky"

It was like the emotional focus of the bible was one thing, the focus of the "teaching" of it at church was quite a bit different, and the emotional heart of the hymns was ever farther in that direction.

Now, I am kinda used to the idea that we are to view the onerous human life and the horrible world in which it takes place as "nothing but trouble and work and saying no to temptation."  I was raised to that.  

When I read the New Testament, though, I don't see that monochromatic, sit-down-and-shut-up-and-do-your-work-and-you-can-fall-down-dead-if-you're-good spirit in there much.  Most tellingly, the attitude of "life is so hard, but soon it will be over and I'll be dead and can just go to Heaven and not worry about that stuff" was not apparently held by Jesus himself, who of all people could have been forgiven that attitude.  

His life was more about hardship, duty, obedience, temptation and sacrifice than ours ever will be, yet he seemed to want to treasure his moments with his friends, he seemed pressed for time, I believe he viewed not only bearing sin, but going through death with absolute horror and loathing, and he never once was heard to say "Well, the son of man is going to be finished with his labours and can rest very soon, thank goodness.  Won't that be nice!"  Not only did he not say that, I find nothing to suggest that he felt that way either.  The closest I think I can come to finding a New Testament attitude like this one (and discounting emo Old Testament people like maybe Elijah who just wanted to be dead and were therefore from that point on useless as servants of the Lord) is Paul, toward the end of his life, saying he was serene about both possibilities, whether he lived a bit longer, or died.

Tom Wright, the Bishop of Durham, has a pretty strong rant against the "Christian" (in the sense of  "being after the manner of Christians" rather than "after the manner of Christ Himself) preoccupation with and "life hope" of finally being done with this life.  He points out that the Jewish and Christian hopes alike are (in my words) "more life/bigger life/perpetual life" or "Life 2: The Sequel," (the resurrection) and not "just two more months until 'retirement'." In my book I tried to echo his views on what the bible is actually saying by the wording "the afterlife will be more like graduation than retirement."

See, my life isn't the most exciting or rich one.  Even I know, however, that drinking with friends is good (and Jesus made it a sacrament right before he died, after having done that all along, including at a wedding where he supplied more wine when they ran out).  Friends are good to have.  Jesus was at Bethany with Mary, Martha and Lazarus and it sounds like "down time."  He even kinda scolded Martha when she wanted Mary to stop the chitchat and get the work done.  Having a spouse or a child is good.  Food is good, nature is good, pets are good, laughing is good.  Even sneezing is good.  Life, you see, is good.  The only thing that can make life not good, is people who (and situatuions which) are impeding your ability to enjoy it.

I think one of the key errors inherited from ages past by the religious system I was raised in was in labeling as "evil" and "temptations, blandishments and wiles of the devil" many of the best things God provided in life.  

If you thought a girl was stunning, someone quoted "Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain" or the hymn "life at best is very brief" or warned how quickly looks fade, and how what you wanted, if you were a young man, was to find a hard-working, sensible, godly young woman who would keep you on the straight and narrow, not an exciting, fun one.  If a young woman dressed in such a way as to delight young men in any way, these same verses would be quoted, or, as in the case of my sister, her mother might just say "Oh, you look AWful!"

If you were at a church social event for teens and twenties, there would certainly never be any alcohol of any kind, except on Sunday morning, and if you laughed a lot Saturday night you would often be warned "Tomorrow is the Lord's day..." as if to say that Saturday nights not alright for anything but solemnity, and that we needed to avoid the temptation of foolishness.  Whenever I "laughed too much" my father quoted "foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of correction driveth it from him."  I am unlikely to forget that verse, as it was written in black magic marker on the wooden paddle I was punished with, growing up.  

Any form of spectator sport, drama, comedy (or entertainment of any kind) was "temptation to avoid."

I could go on and on.  I really could.  My point is, the system of Christianity I grew up with created a miserable human life by asking members to dutifully remove from their lives anything that might make life bearable, and then tell ourselves that "all my trials, Lord, soon will be over."  Oh, and "rejoice evermore" and stuff about how happy we should be to be Christians.  Can YOU say "mixed messages"?

So my thoughts on all of that is that perhaps there is something screwy with a system which demands that you make yourself miserable, avoid enjoyable things, repress all urges to enjoy anything, and try to instead, through willpower and this joy-starving thing coupled with a continual exposure to hymns and the bible, remake yourself into the sort of person who would find joy only at the prospect of being done with this life, and perhaps in singing songs about being done with this life.  It was so death focused.  Even Jesus' life was all made solely about his death.  We were far less interested in what he said and what he did, and just that he died and it was our fault for wanting to enjoy things we shouldn't.

My Christian upbringing, my "participation in a Christian community of faith" made me want to be dead.  Very strongly it made me want that.  This reached a peak when I was 17.  Most of my peers either said "Screw all this noise" and "ran off and joined the world" (like "the circus") if they reached this point, or got kinda insane, broken apart and split down the middle inside.  Many of those who "ran off" in their teens lived lives that were purely about "What can I enjoy?  What can I indulge in?  Can I declare victory over my past by giving in to every 'temptation' and not dying?" and then later "came back" and having had a good taste of it all, repented and "saw the error of their ways" married sensible people who would keep them on the straight and narrow and worked with youth, harassing them about stuff they enjoyed but didn't know was dangerous and wrong.  

The idea that, if you indulge in some bible, in some prayer, and let that compete with TV or beer for your life, that Jesus can actually win out as more enriching and deep and answer-providing quite easily, this idea was never entertained, as it were.  We were always told that, of course the bible and church could never compete with "the world" (movies and concerts) and that we therefore needed to keep from those things lest we become involved in world to the exclusion of them entirely.  It was always a black and white, this or that thing.

I think a lot of people have figured out that it isn't like that.  Sure, at any given moment you can be deciding between "I think I'll go read a bit more of Matthew's gospel" and "I want to watch a rerun of House right now though."  But in my life at least, I can do both.  And they "talk" to each other.  Points, questions, issues, discussions and themes in the one echo when raised in the other.  It's cool.

What hope do the life, death and resurrection of Christ give me?  That my life can mean something besides temporary work and "I didn't sin today!" sacrifice, and that after I die, I have the hope of resurrection, with a human body phase II existence, and stuff to do and things to enjoy and people to meet.  This is, I agree with Tom Wright, a Christian hope, rather than "It will all be over soon."

"praise"

Religious people "praise" God. Something in the modern heart is revolted by the notion of a being who approaches people so He can be praised by them. The modern mind confuses recognizing the primordial, surpassing excellence of He Who is Responsible For All That is Excellent, with abasing one's self ("We're not WOORthy!") and pretending one has not been built with any redeeming qualities or merit whatsoever (WHO made us again? WHAT quality of work does He do?) "How big is God's ego?" it wonders. "Why does He need the validation of others?" it continues. It's not like that. The praising of God is like (unto) a girl with gorgeous breasts, who is alone with a man she cares about and who is seriously commited to her. She opens her shirt and removes her bra, and the man touches her eagerly and lovingly and says over and over how beautiful he sees that they are (and she, of which they form only a part, truly is). A strong connection between the two is formed. It's like that. God = girl with gorgeous breasts. Praise is what the man is doing. What is she doing? What God does. It's not a question of "How big is her ego that she needs validation like that?" Is it weird to compare God to a beautiful, partly naked girl? No. The beautiful, partly naked girl is perfect for understanding God. God put a part of His own position and essential nature into that girl. To appreciate her is to see God's signature on and in her flesh. The bible more than once uses this kind of comparison. (the bible is full of things about "breasts like clusters of grapes" "breasts like towers" and other such talk) Because, the males in the room "get" what that means. It is close to their hearts, to their psyches. I think the girls get it too, albeit more from God's side of things. Or, it's like God is Tobey McGuire. Tobey is tired, he wants a smoke, and he doesn't want to do it at first, but there is a room packed full of excited children and teenagers who will, if they get to see "Spider-man" in the flesh, talk about it for the rest of their lives every time celebrity, comic books or movie actors are mentioned. So Tobey presents himself, and they freak out and are in ecstasy, and he's glad to be able to make them feel that way. It isn't (though it can be) an ego thing. It can be just about making people happy because you can. The praising of God isn't something done because God demands it. It is done because, given that God is not only the Coolest Thing In The Whole of Existance, but also the Source Of Everything That Is Or Ever Was Excellent and of Value, any true grasping of what it means to have Him taking steps to make us happy will result in Him getting what He wants, which is us getting happy like that. God doesn't always get to make us happy, any more than parents always get to give their kids whatever the kids want. Praise is when God and people who seek Him both get what they want.

September

I decided to publish the "demon emails" in my book ]The Screwtape Emails: Lessons in Ecclesiastical Mincing on a blog of their own.

So I'm into the swing of things now, the days are getting grayer and colder and nothing much besides school is going on unless I am careful to set stuff up.  Obviously, when the hilarious things that happen in a school happen to and around me, I can't really put it up here, but suffice it to say that one of my "out there, totally random theoretical examples" was coincidentally 100% untheoretical for one kid. Played at an open stage last week.  Seems like a good idea to do more of that.  Played this.  Except a lot better.  I'm now much more nervous to sing into a microphone hooked to a recording device, than to a P.A. in front of a room full of people.

Thought House's premier episode was a daring and decisive break from formula. Just what a show going into its sixth year is not normally allowed to do.  I thought it worked.  Hugh Laurie said in Season 1 that it was very important that House never learn better, never improve.  They're messing with that a bit.  I suppose so long as he's bad at it, it will be fun anyway.

 

Mallory put me onto some awesome time-waster websites:

http://www.thisiswhyyourefat.com

http://www.awkwardfamilyphotos.com

http://www.mylifeisaverage.com

http://1000awesomethings.com/

Getting School Stuff Ready

This evening I previewed a possible contender for "Modern take on Macbeth for possible showing in school."  When I show a Shakespeare, movie, I want it to be very good or very bad (it really doesn't matter.)  This one turned out to really be both, so might qualify, though the nudity is giving me pause.  My thoughts while watching it went like this:

a 2006 Macbeth movie set in present-day Australia with Macbeth, a rising figure in the street gang scene, working his way to the top, aided by his zoned-out, coke-snorting wife and the drug-induced visions of the prophecies of a hissing trio of high school wiccans in private school uniforms, including berets and kneesocks.  

It seriously looks like all of Jesse Spencer from House's third and fourth cousins picked up a used video camera at a pawn shop and said "Jisse's doing OwKuy in Americah, ind thet Baz Luhrman fella did olroight with thet blowke Shikespeah's Rawmeoh 'n Jehwliut, sow lit's mayke owre awn McBith videow ind sill it! OlROIT! We kin edit it et Mick's ind put loads a guns ind hot noikkid sheilas innit!" It's like a very slow-paced, very hip hop/rock video version made with handheld video cameras, dutch angles, and all sorts of riced-out cars and extras from Fallout Boy videos. The Australian accents make the quietly mumbled (and growled) Shakespearean dialogue hiLARious, but I think school kids might absolutely LOVE it. (Mcbith stabs Dunkin with a pair of bowie knives, and clearly feels the need to stab him about 28 times to moike sure e's comploitly did.)

The thug who kills Macduff's family and Banquo looks EXACTLY like Peter Jackson. And the witches deliver their prophecy about Macduff completely naked with occult-looking sigils painted on their bodies, 'rooting' Macbeth and thrashing around as they declaim their lines. And Lady Mcbith's freakout occurs while she is wearing only diaphanous panties ("Kin thou nut MINistah to a moind disOIsed?"). And Macduff takes a silenced, nickel-plated automatic and kneecaps both Peter Jackson and his co-thug so's he can shoot them through the back of the heads while they're trying to crawl away. And "Birnam wood comes to Dunsinane" in the form of Macduff's men storming MacBeth's house in a fully-loaded logging truck which has, not "Birnam Wood" painted on the door, but "Birnam Lumber."