More Lyrics – Alter Bridge – “Watch Over You”

Time for some more lyrics. I really like Alter Bridge, as I have said before, because the play great rock but also because they do it with more creativity than just the “sex, drugs, and rock” mantra. I was listening to this song today and understood it in a different light. Listen and follow the lyrics, and then I’ll give my thoughts.

Leaves are on the ground

Fall has come
Blue skies turning grey
Like my love

I tried to carry you

And make you whole.

But it was never enough

I must g0

[Chorus:]
Who is gonna save you
When I’m gone?
And who’ll watch over you
When I’m gone?

You say you care for me
But hide it well
How can you love someone
And not yourself?

[Chorus]

And when I’m gone
Who will break your fall?
Who will you blame?

I can’t go on
And let you lose it all
It’s more than I can take
Who’ll ease your pain?
Ease your pain

[Chorus:]
Who is gonna save you when I’m gone?
Who’ll watch over you?
Who will give you strength when you’re not strong.
Who’ll watch over you when I’ve gone away?

Snow is on the ground
Winters come
You long to hear my voice
But I’m long gone

So today, as I was listening to this song, it thought of it being from God to me. At first glance, it can’t be that. On the surface it is about someone being so hurt by his love’s behavior or his friend’s behavior that he can hardly stand to stay around and see this person continue to destroy themselves, hence the footage from Dr. Drew Pinsky’s “Celebrity Rehab.”

But what if this is what I do to God? What if I ignore God? What if I don’t ever slow down enough to see God in the world? What if I am so selfish that I don’t ever stop to see God in other people? What if I need so much evidence for everything that I make it impossible for me to see God? What if I base what I think about God on a house of cards? What if I shut down my emotional side and that is one of ways God is evident in us and speaks to us? What if I am so angry that I don’t love? What if I am always the victim? What if I miss out on today because I am always thinking about tomorrow? What if I mistake scripture for God? What if I hate myself so much that I don’t know how to love another? What if I push everybody away?

I believe there is God. I believe this God created all that is around us. I believe this God talks to all of us in a million different ways, down a million different paths, if we will let him. And I don’t want to ever be in a place where I can’t recognize that. I saw of picture of Richard Dawkins today. He looked angry. He looked bitter. He looked lonely. He believes there is no God. I don’t ever want to be there.

Ideological Blankets

Two things first. Sorry for the length ahead of time. This gets wordy. Also, I know I said I was done with Crazy For God, but as it turns out, I am not. So if you loved that book as much as I did you are in for a treat. If you didn’t, then you might want to skip this one.

Yesterday, I got deeply involved in a discussion on my friend Jason’s blog over at Losing My Religion. The topic at hand is the issue of torture. Unless you are living under a blanket you are probably aware of the issue in the media right now and the ideological lines that seem to be drawn up between the left and the right. The left thinks that all things torture are always and unequivocally off limits. The right thinks we ought to torture more and do it more severely. And of course the Democratic line becomes the left side of the issue and the Republican line becomes the right. To me this is just stupid, and I refuse to take my cues about what I think from either side. I want to own what I think and believe for myself. And as I have come to learn, the most truth can be found somewhere in the middle, and it is that middle for which I search on the torture issue.

Part of the left side of the argument is that once we step a single foot down this path of torture we are on a slippery slope. It’s as if once we start, we won’t be able to control ourselves, and before you know it we’ll be plucking eyes out, cutting off fingers, pulling teeth, and giving awfully bad raspberries ( not making light of the issu- just lightening the load with a little humor ). That’s ridiculous. It doesn’t mean that at all. And then oddly enough, the left pulls out the Christian ethic club to beat the right over the head with claiming that Christ would not be for torture. They like to say that torture is never helpful and never results in valuable information.

Part of the argument on the right side is that these guys did horrible awful bad stuff and deserve any ill treatment they get and that this will be a deterent for other bad dudes contemplating like activity. It’s as if we have a right to take out our revenge on them and that this will somehow make it all better, all the while forgetting that these guys are often holding to a passionate religious level belief and will not hesitant for one second by the ill treatment of their comrades. In fact, they may be energized by it. And then the right seems to overlook the fact that Christ sure did talk about turning the other cheek and going the second mile. And they like to point out a single instance where information gained from torture brought about something valuable to the lives of many therefore justifying torture and supporting expansion of its use.

The problem that I have with both arguments, the right and the left, is that the search for ideological purity where there is none available is a way to absolve ourselves of having to make hard choices. It’s a way of sticking our heads in the sand. It’s a way of not facing head on the issues that are before us. I grew up in a church that condemns all alcohol consumption across the board partly because once we start we may not be able to control ourselves. That ideology fails to consider the significant benefits of responsible alcohol use and is touted by a bunch of people who obviously can’t contro their food intake ( so maybe they should in fact be scared ). My boys used to go to a school where they teach young earth creationism with an unwillingness to consider the evidence that good science has produced, even calling it evil. That ideology results in a faith built on a house of cards with a frantic scramble to defend against every slight breath of wind for fear the house falling and really teaches people to be dishonest with themselves about what is right there in front of them. There are countless other examples that could be named. But the point is that mindless adherence to an ideology like a bunch of little robots often leads to weakness in faith and mind and body. I thinks it’s a bad policy and that we need to watch for it hawks.

I am reminded yet again of Frank Schaeffer’s book, Crazy For God, and chapter 57 where he is discussing the abortion debate. He describes how it has become political ideology that doesn’t even really make sense any more. How can the right passionately defend capital punishment and abortion at the same time? If human life is precious then human life is precious. On the other hand, how can the left passionately defend taking capital punishment off the board and supporting abortion for any reason? If human life is precious then human life is precious. Those ideologies cannot rationally coexist. On page 347:

“It seems to me that by demanding ideological purity on abortion (and other single issues as well [I would put the torture debate in here]), both parties have worked to eliminate the sorts of serious smart pragmatic people who make competent leaders. What we are left with are those willing to toe the party theological line, who are talented at kissing the asses of their party’s ideologues, raising money, and looking good on TV, but not much else.

But what if the absolute consistency on any issue from the left or the right, religious or secular, is an indication of mediocre intelligence and a lack of intellectual honesty? What if the world is a complex place? What if leadership requires flexibility? What if ideology is a bad substitute for common sense? What if ideological consistency, let alone ‘purity,’ is a sign of small-mindedness, maybe even stupidity?”

I think Frank Schaeffer is right, and I would add the following question: what if ideological consistency is a way of sticking our heads in the sand and avoiding the tough choices that we need to make? I think the torture debate is very well defined by these same questions and is falling into this same trap.

Now don’t get me wrong. I am not in favor of torture at all. It is tragic. It is mostly unnecessary. It should rarely be something that is even considered. And things that produce inhumane conditions, humiliation, nakedness, physical harm, permanent disability, etc should forever remain off the table. But I am willing to consider that under some severely extreme circumstances where some sort of action is demanded, some sort of decision must be made, and the choices available seem to be between hell and more hell, such tactics such as sleep deprivation, pressured interrogation, and light/auditory stimuli, which are by definition considered torture, may have niches where they are useful.

I’m getting long so I will close with a final quote from Crazy For God. Page 353:

“I want to live in a society that is willing to struggle with these balancing acts. I want to be in a society that values human life, because I am human, and far from perfect, and I want to be valued.

What I don’t want to live in is a culture that makes sweeping and dismissive secular or religious ‘theological’ one-size-fits-all decisions that oversimplify complex issues. And ideas of the good life based on perfection are a trap, a trap that prophetic books like Brave New World  gave us fair warning about, and that films like Blade Runner explored. We have been warned.”

I don’t have any idea what Frank Schaeffer believes about torture. I suspect he is mostly if not completely against it. But I think these quotes are applicable in what they say about ideologies and how we get trapped into them in society, in church, in our families. They are mostly destructive. Thanks for reading.

Check Out My New Blog (and) Read This Quote

I’ve started a new triathlon blog. If you are interested please check it out. I’m trying to fill a void that seems to exist in the triathlon cyber world. Let me know what you think.

Also check out this quote. I’m reading Jim Palmer’s Wide Open Spaces. On page 23:

“For years I was taught that ‘faith’ is believing there is a God even if you can’t experience him. Maybe instead, faith is believing that what you are experiencing is God.”

Hopefully more on this book and my thoughts on it soon. It just occurred to me that I should sign on somewhere as a book reviewer. I like doing it.

Triathlon Training Update

I haven’t spoken much on my triathlon passion of late so I will provide a brief update here. Things are going well. I think I am actually a bit ahead of schedule to be honest.

The newest thing are a set of these. I did some consulting work recently and now can afford them without taking other monies. Triathlon is not an inexpensive passion although I have tried to reign in the costs as much as possible. But it keeps me healthy and relatively stress free and is a valuable investment in myself so I think it is worth it and is money well spent most of the time.

These babies are known as aero wheels. Their main function is to decrease wind drag. Many different styles of aero wheels exsit from solid disks to deep rims to these tri spokes. Ideally, you would own several different sets and combinations. But with a low end price at $1500 per set, that is for the millionaires who are spanning the globe following their new hobby while their companies make money for them or for the pros who have these wheels given to them or are maybe even paid to ride them. Me, I am in the “working class” triathlete who really just tries to afford one set. So I went with the HED 3’s because they offer the greatest advantage under all conditions for a moderate level rider like myself. Without boring you with wind speed and wind angle data, let it be sufficient to say that these wheels can reduce wind drag by near 50% under certain conditions. This allows two things: the first is the opportunity to go faster with the same watt output, and the second is the opportunity to go the same speed with less watt output. Both of those things can be very advantageous to getting done with the bike leg and onto the run leg. I am so excited that I could hardly sleep last night as I was dreaming about my new wheels. They should be here in about a week, and I have a set of Michelen Pro 3 Race tires coming to put on them. Pretty cool stuff if you ask me.

So my training is coming along well. I have found a couple of guys to ride with on Friday’s when I do my long ride for the week. They are a bit stronger riders than me so it works me out hard to keep up with them. Kind of like chasing a rabbit. I went 60 miles in about 2hrs and 30min with them last week. I will try to keep up that distance for the next 6 weeks coming into my first race of the season on June 14th, the Kansas 70.3 (formerly known as the Half-Ironman distance: 1.2 mile swim, 56 mile bike, 13.1 mile run). My long run for the week is up to 11 miles, and I will continue to push that to 13 miles weekly. My long swim is already at 1.2 miles. I am riding faster, running faster, and swimming faster than I have in previous years so I feel good about things. I am also doing TaeKwonDon with my boys 2-3 nights a week (I just passed my test for my orange belt) and doing strength training workouts 3-4 days per week. Finally, I have completely cut out “full strength” Mountain Dew now for racing season (which will last until Thanksgiving) and will be consuming only the stripped down diet version until then save for my rest week following race days when I will allow a bit of an indulgence.

I am also trying to get plenty of rest. Rest time is when you actually improve from all the breakdown that occurs during training so I am nappping, sometimes on my office floor for 20min, and getting as much sleep at night as I can. I have also noticed a massage salon near my house and am considering taking John’s advice on incorporating massage into my routine. I am seeing more and more evidence to support it.

So that’s it. 8 weeks to the Kansas 70.3. Then in September the Redman 70.3 in Oklahoma. Then the Sunday before Thanksgiving my second Ironman Arizona in Tempe. If any of you would like to come watch, especially the Ironman as it is the biggest and most fun and in the most exotic location, come on along. It might be a great meeting place for the Canon to actually get some real time together. Just an idea.

I’ll get back to the more philosophical stuff in a couple days. I just finished a book called Saving Darwin and am currently working on Philosphy According To The Dark Knight, Wide Open Spaces, and The Goldilocks Enigma. There should be a lot of good stuff in there to blog about. Thanks for reading.

Karmen

Karmen is my wife, and today is her birthday. 37 years old. She won’t mind me telling you that. She’s pretty solid. And as I think about her today I am just blown away by her as a person. Not just physically. Of course she is smokin’ hot. But her other side is what I’ve been thinking about more today. Her kind spirit. Her cute little laugh. Her girlness that fills her house full of boys with softness (except when we do stupid boy stuff which draws out her wrath). People love her. Really love her. Our email inbox is filled with probably 30 messages from friends wishing her a great day. One my birthday I got 2. People love her. But I love her most.

I don’t know where I would be without her. Probably bashing through life with razor sharp edges and an ice cold heart would be a good start. Really. I am not a soft person. But because of her, I am reminded that softness is important. I am reminded that I can’t just break problems, I need to actually solve them. I am reminded that I wouldn’t have many friends if it weren’t for her smoothing me out, softening my edges, hiding my pointiness. Sometimes I wonder why she stays with me. I must be because she loves me back.

We will have been married 16 years in May, and wouldn’t trade her or any of those years for anything in this world. It hasn’t always been a cake walk. Sometimes it has been a hot coal walk. But it has been a great walk. She is not afraid of my questions about faith, not afraid of my questions about God, not afraid of my need to take everything apart, and in fact, she has been courageous enough to join me in much of my exploration.

I love her. I am humbled and honored that she chooses to stay with me on this crazy road. Sometimes I know I drive her crazy with the way I am, but she still stays.

Happy Birthday, Love.

Black Saturday

I like the term “Black Saturday” better than “Holy Saturday” for this reason: if Christianity is true, the most convincing evidence as I see it is that a small group of people in the first century witnessed something about a man named Jesus that convinced them that he was God and for whom they were willing to give their very lives. If I am to believe it, that is why. So for those people who were living the events of this weekend 2000 years ago, there was nothing about this day that felt holy. It was just black.

So on this black day I want to share a different perspective about one of the parts of the entire story that many would consider to be the blackest: the betrayal of Jesus by Judas. Peter Rollins has quickly become one of my favorite authors/philosphers, and in his recent work, Fidelity of Betrayal, he starts off with a different look at Judas.

He begins with the most traditional reading of the story that results in Judas often being considered evil incarnate but then quickly turns the tables in true Rollins fashion as he indicates that Christianity is in some manner indebted to Judas for its very existence. He suggests that Judas may in fact not be the real betrayer. On page 14 and continuing on to page 15: “For if, as an initial reading of the text would imply, the betrayal was deemed necessary for the rise of Christianity and the fulfillment of God’s will, then we are presented with the image of Judas as one who was in fact central to the outworking of a divinely ordained plan. With this in mind one might ask whether it was really Judas who was betrayed by Jesus rather than the other way around.”

He continues further down on page 15: “…if Jesus did know what Judas was capable of from early on, then the narrative compels us to ask why he called him to be a disciple in the first place. Or why Jesus did not endeavor to both warn him about his weakness for money and to ensure that he was never in a position to give in to such temptation. Surely, if someone knowingly offers a recovering alcoholic some wine, then that person is implicated in the consequences. The ultimate betrayal, according to this traditional reading, could thus be said to be the one perpetrated by Jesus against Judas, rather than the other way around.”

Rollins then suggests other ways to view the actions of Judas. Perhaps he was, as a zealot who desired a forceful military-style overthrow of power, just attempting to further along the confrontation between Jesus and the unjust chief priests and was not aware of what the consequences would be thus leading to his decision for suicide when it all fell apart. But yet again, Rollins makes an even more intriguing suggestion.

As John’s gospel makes clear, Jesus was aware early on of what Judas was going to do. Rollins asks the question of page 18: “What if Jesus knew at an early stage precisely because Jesus was going to ask him to do it?” He then leads us through an interpretation of details in Mark’s story of the woman spilling out expensive perfume on Jesus head which is coupled with Judas almost immediately leaving to go to the chief priests with his deal. Could it have all been planned by Jesus, the woman, and Judas to work that way? An interesting question, and maybe the fact that Jesus addresses Judas as “friend” after the kiss in the garden is a clue to a much deeper relationship than we have traditionally assigned.

Finally, on page 21: “Is it possible then that Jesus himself not only wanted Judas to betray him but actually demanded it? Is it possible that Jesus, as portrayed in the Gospel of Mark, possessed the insight that for his mission to expand and impact the whole world, this betrayal needed to take place? And is it then possible that this singular betrayal is one that actually testifies to a profound fidelity? It is with such a reading in mind that the philospher and cultural theorist Slavoj Zizek goes so far as to write that, while ‘in all other religions, God demands that His followers remain faithful to Him-only Christ asked his followers to betray Him in order to fulfil His mission’”.

Lest you fear that Rollins is just asking a bunch of ridiculous questions, he does have a method to his madness. The remainder of the book explores the idea that we must put “…our religion to death so that a religion without religion can spring forth.” Rollins is suggesting that this act of betrayal may actually be the highest act of fidelity.

A challenging read. And enlightening read. Appropriate for Black Saturday.

Crazy For God – Again and Again and Again

I think this will be my last post on Crazy For God. Fantastic book that I will forever keep as a reference. If nothing else, it has validated much of what my experience has been.

On pages 331-332, Frank Schaeffer talks about how Christians, specifically evangelical Christians, have become about excluding themselves from the world, not including themselves in it:

“…by the 1970’s the evangelicals as a whole had come up with an alternate ‘gated’ America: ‘Christian’ education, radio, rock, makeup, publishing, schools, home-schools, weight loss, sex manuals, and politics. It wasn’t about being something but about not  being secular, about not having nudity, sex, or four-letter words. What it was for, no one knew.

What was so strange was how evangelicals learned to use all those worldly tools that their fundamentalist grandparents stood against and that, as a child, I was forbidden from even knowing about. They were now using rock, TV, and movies to construct an alternate reality. But they were using these ‘worldly tools’ in a way that was odd: it was not to involve themselves with their culture and learn from it, but to hide from other Americans and create private space.”

I lived in this world for a long time, excluding myself, avoiding all that stuff that was “sinful.” And it’s not that I am living in “sin” now. But when your focus is on avoiding all the time, then it becomes difficult for you to do. Difficult for you to go out and help someone. Difficult to be about justice and social justice. Difficult to be about interacting with our culture in a constructive way. Difficult to establish relationships outside of the false purity of church. I have friends (used to be good friends but now are just at the margins of friendships as they have essentially disowned us for leaving our former fundamentalist church) who have their kids in Christian school, have a DVD player that screens out bad stuff from regular secular movies, etc, and what does it teach their kids? It teaches them to avoid the world. I would rather teach my boys to be responsible in the world. To teach them that this is the world that God made and that it is an awesome place and not to be afraid of it and that there is a great deal of truth to learn about God from all over it. Everything and everyone holds a little bit of truth that if you are willing to look hard enough, you will find (kind of reminds me of some of the words of Jesus). I think we need to work to be more inclusive and less exclusive. That is what will make this world a better place.

Crazy For God – Again and Again

There are a couple of other things I want to get down from Crazy For God by Frank Schaeffer. I’ll tackle one of them today because it is pertinent to the church community of which I am currently apart. It has to do with how we view scripture.

And at this point I would like to step out with a bit of a personal statement to my church. I am going to talk below about how we are a highly varied group with multiple different views on Christianity and scripture. I see this as a highly positive thing, that we can all come to the same table with respect and give each other a validating voice with which to speak our various truths. I wouldn’t want it any other way. With that in mind, I fully realize that some of the things that I say on my blog may be difficult for some of you, and it is not my intent in any way to cause you confusion or anger or frustration or to make you feel like you are an outlier. If there are any outliers here, it is surely me. I am not really that much part of the main-stream in my brain nor in my life, and I love blending the stereotypes. But I respect all of your views, and I believe that all of us contain truth that needs to be shared. So to my family at the Wheatland Mission I say that I want this blog to be a place that any one of you, myself included, can be honest and open about anything spiritual (or non-spiritual for that matter) and ask any question or make any statement that you want. You will not find shame and condemnation here, and it is not my intent to marginalize anyone. Now with that out of the way….

This community is made up of quite a varied group from the pastor, whom I greatly respect, on down to each one of us. I don’t quite know how this motley crue came together, but I like it. There are some who view scripture (and by that I mean the Christian bible) very literally from cover to cover and who feel it is important to think about it very systematically with each piece fitting together just right and that it is completely inerrant. Sadly, because I do think they have a lot to offer, many from this group have decided to leave our gathering in recent months. Then there are others who would say that they have been completely disillusioned and turned off to scripture, much of that because of communities from their past which they feel in a way spiritually abused them. I don’t doubt that to be true for a second. There are yet others who view some of scripture as very literal and some as more metaphorical and who don’t need it all to fit together just right. They feel as long as they are searching that they are on the correct path. And there have been others, I don’t know if there are any at this moment, who believe that any scripture, Christian or not, is a path to the same god. And finally, there are some who probably don’t know what they think of scripture, and much of the time I think that is a fine place to be. No scriptural baggage. Frank Schaeffer speaks to ourviews of scripture a bit in Crazy For God.

In chapter 51 on pages 308-309, he is discussing how they found themselves aligned with more and more right wing fundamentalist groups as the Schaeffer books and films gained in popularity. As these movements gained steam, Frank saw his father gradually leak back to a stance of the “doctrinal purity” for which he fought most fiercely when younger. The intervening years had seen more of an “enlightened position.” As this stiffening took place, the elder Schaeffer father advised people to “take back their denominations.” One of the places affected was the Schaeffers own work at L’Abri, their campus in Switzerland.

One of Frank’s brother-in-laws, John Sandri, had been giving well attended bible studies for some years. As the elder Schaeffer’s views tightened, many of the workers at L’Abri complained that John’s teachings did not give scripture the “‘correct’ theological spin” and bordered on “heresy.” On page 309, Frank Schaeffer writes:

“John’s ‘crime’ was his interst in how the Bible states things and how you draw meaning from the biblical text. John knew that if you push the so-called Sola Scriptura Calvinist approach and the ‘inerrancy’ ideas to their absurd limit, all real study of the Bible stops. It becomes a magical text. It is no longer open to interpretation. Dogma replaces study, because scholarship can only be meaningful when you are allowed to ask real questions and let the chips fall where they may.”

That rings true on so many levels with me that I don’t quite know where to start, but perhaps the most important is this. When I was in the Nazarene church and beginning to struggle with why I believed what I believe, the answers that I got from asking questions were not helpful and usually resulted in some comment like “your heart is not in the right place” or “you just have to have more faith” or “just let your leaders lead.” It eventually became clear to me that in order to get a different answer, in order to “let the chips fall where they may,” I had to ask questions in a different location. If I asked a question to Nazarenes, I was going to get a Nazarene answer. So I had to get out. Now back to Crazy For God….

John Sandri’s “heresy” led to him being asked to leave L’Abri in a teaching capacity. Oddly enough, they asked him to stay on to help “run the work.” Frank calls what took place “an absurd theological fight” and praises John for “not taking himself too seriously” and staying on to help out where he could. Frank states that “once fundamentalists start to sniff out ‘impurities,’ they never stop.” History alone certainly proves that out.

To close I want to quote one more section from page 311:

“To me, John’s selfless actions came to represent what faith looks like when lived, as opposed to what theological ‘purity’ looks like. And one reason I still bother to struggle to have faith is because of John Sandri’s example. He truly returned good for evil.”

I think that is a great reminder about what is really important. People aren’t interested in how “theologically pure” we are. People aren’t interested in what we think about how the bible is to be interpreted. And I don’t think God is much interested in it either. How we treat each other is what is important. How many of right hoops we jump through is not. I want to understand the bible in a way that leads me to a life of love and compassion and validation of others and listening and searching and discovering God. And I don’t really care one lick about how theologically pure I am.