I've been digging into some stats and several case studies/examples about Christian believers who no longer belong to denominational churches, or even to churches at all. I'm not talking about people who find that they no longer believe in Christ. I'm talking about those who believe in Christ, and some who even stake their lives and livelihoods on that faith, but are avoiding 'organized church' entirely. Some pretty interesting stuff.
I can't say I identify all that much with these people. Their stories display many of the reasons I choose not to opt out. But I've gone through some of the things they have, so I can't simply ignore them. I have to listen. And so do all the leaders of those who choose not to join them.
More on that later.
Friday, January 12, 2007
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Second Midweek in Advent
Rejoice. It's a theme that Paul keeps coming back to throughout his letter to the Philippians. But the Philippian church isn't doing much rejoicing. They're split into at least two factions, probably more. The reasons for the split are not clear; he warns about common enemies that might come, but they don't appear to be there yet. Instead, he appeals to them to follow examples of how to be caring and self-giving -- Jesus, Timothy, Epaphroditus (the church at Philippi's own cofounder), and himself.
Paul loves this church. He speaks as someone who is torn when it is torn, uplifted when it raises upward. He is concerned that maybe they've lost track of what they have to rejoice over. "The Lord is near", Paul writes. And with Him comes the peace of God beyond all understanding.
When our life together is marked by bickering and feuding and backbiting (if not backstabbing), it becomes easy to forget the reasons we have for rejoicing. It is still true : "The Lord is near."
Lord, grant us Your peace, restore our joy, and lift our worry from us, so that we can live in a way fitting for the nearness of Christ. Amen.
A challenge : Keep watch on what you say. If you catch yourself saying things to tear people down, think of something to say that might build them up, and say that instead.
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Living With Our Neighbors
I just read the remarks from the new Deputy Prime Minister of Israel. He's sugggesting that it's time for Israel to give up on ever having peace with its neighbors, and completely ignore the Palestinian government.
If I were US President, I would come down hard and clear in public about even a hint of such talk.
The single most important thing we must get through Israel's head is that no amount of deceit, hatred, or killing gives any nation anywhere at any time any right at all to be anything other than a nation among nations that has to work at living with their neighbors, and indeed the rest of the world. (The Palestinians also have to learn this, true, but noone has any right to wait until the other guy does it.) I'm a full supporter of Israel's right to defend itself. But that right to defend itself is limited to actions against their direct attackers. If Hizbollah takes action against Israel, Israel has every right to stomp Hizbollah into the ground. I'd rather they found a different way to handle the matter, but it is rightfully their decision to make. But then Israel destroys the facilities (and occasionally homes) of everyone else in Lebanon. They punished the Lebanese government and people, even though they'd have gotten rid of Hizbollah long ago if they had anything even remotely resembling the power to do so. By their actions, Israel simply increased the proportion of enemies around them, an act that makes matters worse not better. (There is also Lebanese foolishness, for not understanding that Hizbollah is largely the cause of their disaster, and thus are their enemy not their defenders. It is of very high importance that this is what they say at all times and what they base their actions on, and definitively cut the crap about their being in any way "heroes".)
We know Bush knew that Israel had decided to go into Lebanon once those soldiers were kidnapped. It is now clear that W. took no action -- not even talk -- to try to impress upon Israel the importance of very strictly limiting their actions to their immediate purpose and their direct enemy. This failure on W's part is of a piece with W's other Middle East failures, including Iraq. His legacy is hellish, but who cares about that? I care about the blood, the bombs, the hatred, and the idiotic illusions that pass for reality in the Middle East. Bush is under similar delusions. He has blown the opportunity we had at 9/11 to really keep the world behind us and really get at the terrorists and what they represent. It was once said that we are a great nation because we are a good nation. (I never did believe we were all that good, just that most others are noticeably worse.) Bush has led the world to have even more doubt about how good our nation is. It is up to us to hold him and his administration responsible for that, and to do it right now. If we do, I expect Bush to then act more responsibly -- like most anyone who is held responsible after misbehaving.
If I were US President, I would come down hard and clear in public about even a hint of such talk.
The single most important thing we must get through Israel's head is that no amount of deceit, hatred, or killing gives any nation anywhere at any time any right at all to be anything other than a nation among nations that has to work at living with their neighbors, and indeed the rest of the world. (The Palestinians also have to learn this, true, but noone has any right to wait until the other guy does it.) I'm a full supporter of Israel's right to defend itself. But that right to defend itself is limited to actions against their direct attackers. If Hizbollah takes action against Israel, Israel has every right to stomp Hizbollah into the ground. I'd rather they found a different way to handle the matter, but it is rightfully their decision to make. But then Israel destroys the facilities (and occasionally homes) of everyone else in Lebanon. They punished the Lebanese government and people, even though they'd have gotten rid of Hizbollah long ago if they had anything even remotely resembling the power to do so. By their actions, Israel simply increased the proportion of enemies around them, an act that makes matters worse not better. (There is also Lebanese foolishness, for not understanding that Hizbollah is largely the cause of their disaster, and thus are their enemy not their defenders. It is of very high importance that this is what they say at all times and what they base their actions on, and definitively cut the crap about their being in any way "heroes".)
We know Bush knew that Israel had decided to go into Lebanon once those soldiers were kidnapped. It is now clear that W. took no action -- not even talk -- to try to impress upon Israel the importance of very strictly limiting their actions to their immediate purpose and their direct enemy. This failure on W's part is of a piece with W's other Middle East failures, including Iraq. His legacy is hellish, but who cares about that? I care about the blood, the bombs, the hatred, and the idiotic illusions that pass for reality in the Middle East. Bush is under similar delusions. He has blown the opportunity we had at 9/11 to really keep the world behind us and really get at the terrorists and what they represent. It was once said that we are a great nation because we are a good nation. (I never did believe we were all that good, just that most others are noticeably worse.) Bush has led the world to have even more doubt about how good our nation is. It is up to us to hold him and his administration responsible for that, and to do it right now. If we do, I expect Bush to then act more responsibly -- like most anyone who is held responsible after misbehaving.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Impoverished politics
I'm watching the election results as I write. Bush has to understand just how much of an albatross he has become around the necks of some pretty good Republicans who lost. But is he the kind who is able to take his medicine and learn his lessons? His presidency thus far leaves me with little hope that he can. Which will leave him increasingly like a lame duck. Only, while he sits there lame, more soldiers and more Iraqis will die.
Watch for the Baker-Hamilton report, coming very shortly. W isn't going to like that, either.
Watch for the Baker-Hamilton report, coming very shortly. W isn't going to like that, either.
Friday, November 03, 2006
online dating weirdities
I've been spending a lot of time the past few months in the hopes of finding companionship and maybe true love on-line at the services. If you're not familiar with it, it's an odd experience, to be sure. Most of the services have you create a profile where you describe yourself and your interests. Each member searches through the profile, based on a choice of factors or by keyword.
Unfortunately, reading them can be a form of torture. Especially for me, since I fancy myself a writer and I'm very picky about spelling. There are all sorts of elements to the torture. You can probably guess a few of them -- lying about age or weight, using photos from many years ago, or photos of someone else. But here are some you may not know :
(1) There are more problems with the photos than the obvious ones. For instance:
(a) dark photos. (So dark I can't tell where the clothing or hair ends and the background begins.)
(b) the photos of her with her exboyfriend or ex-husband. (With the head whited out or with the face cut off. I guess she still has issues....)
(c) The Group Photo, usually with co-workers, friends, or sisters. (Not a bad concept, really. But in practice, there's always someone in the photo that looks much better than the one whose profile I'm looking at. No self-respecting woman would answer if asked about her friend instead of her. Also : her friend's probably married.)
(2) Profiles are Cliche Central. For instance :
(a) "My friends say I'm ...." (Or at least they say that to her face...)
(b) "I'm equally comfy in a formal dress and blue jeans." (But how is she in khakis?)
(c) "I love to travel" (Most of us do, but we can't afford to do much of it. Can she?)
(d) "no [emotional] baggage" (Right. If you get past 30, or you have a divorce, you've got baggage, you may not know where it's stored.)
(e) "I'm sick of the bar scene" (But she wanders back there once in a while...)
(f) "I see the glass half-full" (Of what?)
(g) "down to earth" (But she loves gossip and fashion magazines, romance novels, and makeup.)
(h) "Looking for Mr. Right" (But how much has she worked on being Ms. Right? Be a good partner, and you'll get a better partner.)
(i) "I'm family-oriented, with strong traditional values, looking to settle down." (I guess that's why she's posted that racy photo with the busts propped up, or in a come-on position draped over her bed.)
(j) "Liars and players, go elsewhere." (But she usually don't know who's lying or playing games until she knows them a while. Remember : the gamers know how to game her.)
(k) "I like all styles of music, except [multichoice, select from country, opera, rap, or metal]" (I have a radio show at one of the most widely-varied stations in the world, WUSB. I've heard it all. And I can say there's no style I don't like something from. But there are many genres and subgenres I overall don't like. How many women actually have listened to any styles or artists that are outside the Top 20 or MTV?)
(l) "Writing about myself is pure torture." (She wonders, 'do I have anything worthwhile to say about myself?' And comes up blank...)
There's much more where that comes from. An original, unusual, or honestly personal profile is rare. (That includes my own, which suffers from TMI.)
Unfortunately, reading them can be a form of torture. Especially for me, since I fancy myself a writer and I'm very picky about spelling. There are all sorts of elements to the torture. You can probably guess a few of them -- lying about age or weight, using photos from many years ago, or photos of someone else. But here are some you may not know :
(1) There are more problems with the photos than the obvious ones. For instance:
(a) dark photos. (So dark I can't tell where the clothing or hair ends and the background begins.)
(b) the photos of her with her exboyfriend or ex-husband. (With the head whited out or with the face cut off. I guess she still has issues....)
(c) The Group Photo, usually with co-workers, friends, or sisters. (Not a bad concept, really. But in practice, there's always someone in the photo that looks much better than the one whose profile I'm looking at. No self-respecting woman would answer if asked about her friend instead of her. Also : her friend's probably married.)
(2) Profiles are Cliche Central. For instance :
(a) "My friends say I'm ...." (Or at least they say that to her face...)
(b) "I'm equally comfy in a formal dress and blue jeans." (But how is she in khakis?)
(c) "I love to travel" (Most of us do, but we can't afford to do much of it. Can she?)
(d) "no [emotional] baggage" (Right. If you get past 30, or you have a divorce, you've got baggage, you may not know where it's stored.)
(e) "I'm sick of the bar scene" (But she wanders back there once in a while...)
(f) "I see the glass half-full" (Of what?)
(g) "down to earth" (But she loves gossip and fashion magazines, romance novels, and makeup.)
(h) "Looking for Mr. Right" (But how much has she worked on being Ms. Right? Be a good partner, and you'll get a better partner.)
(i) "I'm family-oriented, with strong traditional values, looking to settle down." (I guess that's why she's posted that racy photo with the busts propped up, or in a come-on position draped over her bed.)
(j) "Liars and players, go elsewhere." (But she usually don't know who's lying or playing games until she knows them a while. Remember : the gamers know how to game her.)
(k) "I like all styles of music, except [multichoice, select from country, opera, rap, or metal]" (I have a radio show at one of the most widely-varied stations in the world, WUSB. I've heard it all. And I can say there's no style I don't like something from. But there are many genres and subgenres I overall don't like. How many women actually have listened to any styles or artists that are outside the Top 20 or MTV?)
(l) "Writing about myself is pure torture." (She wonders, 'do I have anything worthwhile to say about myself?' And comes up blank...)
There's much more where that comes from. An original, unusual, or honestly personal profile is rare. (That includes my own, which suffers from TMI.)
Friday, October 27, 2006
great time at the show
The singing groups special went quite well, thank you. (Even with having to use the guest mic for nearly the whole show.)
I was thinking about how I was tiring of the "contemporary" acappella groups -- the ones patterned on Rockapella and then infused with boy-band slickness and a sort-of-jazzish calculated cool. What could they do to make a sound that had inventiveness, soul, guts? My show, oddly enough, held part of an answer; it had all sorts of great sounds in it. The "contemp" groups, well.... they don't. They haven't put these sounds to use. Do they know how to do it? I would guess they know how to do some of it. But the point comes in a song where you could really use, say, a sharp Beach Boys or Crosby Stills Nash or Delfonics harmonic, or a lead that really ran with the song's end like Phillippe Wynne of the Spinners, or a bass who talks it through like Hoppy Jones of the Ink Spots. Or maybe sharing leads with the precision of the Temptations, perhaps, or they could add a touch of Celtic or Dalmatian voicings, maybe even a burst of Bulgarian choir or Black Mambazo if they have enough singers. But when the time comes ... it passes....
I'm well aware that no group can do all those sounds well, but any of them can draw on more of them than they use now. The harmonics, leads, lyrics, and feel are different for each, but lessons can be learned from all of it, and having these modes in your arsenal means it's there when the song or the live moment calls for it.
Their palettes are just too skimpy. (Just one part of the puzzle, but an important one, I think.)
I was thinking about how I was tiring of the "contemporary" acappella groups -- the ones patterned on Rockapella and then infused with boy-band slickness and a sort-of-jazzish calculated cool. What could they do to make a sound that had inventiveness, soul, guts? My show, oddly enough, held part of an answer; it had all sorts of great sounds in it. The "contemp" groups, well.... they don't. They haven't put these sounds to use. Do they know how to do it? I would guess they know how to do some of it. But the point comes in a song where you could really use, say, a sharp Beach Boys or Crosby Stills Nash or Delfonics harmonic, or a lead that really ran with the song's end like Phillippe Wynne of the Spinners, or a bass who talks it through like Hoppy Jones of the Ink Spots. Or maybe sharing leads with the precision of the Temptations, perhaps, or they could add a touch of Celtic or Dalmatian voicings, maybe even a burst of Bulgarian choir or Black Mambazo if they have enough singers. But when the time comes ... it passes....
I'm well aware that no group can do all those sounds well, but any of them can draw on more of them than they use now. The harmonics, leads, lyrics, and feel are different for each, but lessons can be learned from all of it, and having these modes in your arsenal means it's there when the song or the live moment calls for it.
Their palettes are just too skimpy. (Just one part of the puzzle, but an important one, I think.)
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Singing Groups radio special
Tomorrow, Wednesday 25 October 2006, 1 pm - 5 pm (13:00-17:00) Eastern Daylight Time (like in New York).
WUSB 90.1 FM on the radio (Long Island and coastal Connecticut), wusb.fm to the website and the link to the netcast (up by the logo, to the right).
All sorts of singing groups -- with instruments and without, US and the world, pop and rock and soul and vocalese and collegiate and old and new and and and ..... It's in there. There has been no more more consistent presence in music, and never more than now.
Tune in -- radio or web! And tell others about it!
(Oh -- and it's a fundraiser for the station, so please give. There's a link at the website, or call 1-800-394-WUSB or 1-631-632-6901.)
WUSB 90.1 FM on the radio (Long Island and coastal Connecticut), wusb.fm to the website and the link to the netcast (up by the logo, to the right).
All sorts of singing groups -- with instruments and without, US and the world, pop and rock and soul and vocalese and collegiate and old and new and and and ..... It's in there. There has been no more more consistent presence in music, and never more than now.
Tune in -- radio or web! And tell others about it!
(Oh -- and it's a fundraiser for the station, so please give. There's a link at the website, or call 1-800-394-WUSB or 1-631-632-6901.)
Words of War / War of Words
We had no business going to Iraq. Many of us have been saying that from before the start, as President W. was ramping up for it. (Some are wondering where Christians were at that time -- they've forgotten some rather large rallies that took place before W. went in, where quite a few of us Christian believers went.) In any event, I felt like I failed the day we went in.
Once the move was made, I was hoping for the next best thing -- an honest, caring attempt to create the framework for a government that most Iraqis could be part of, so we could get the hell out. It soon became apparent that the US was most interested in keeping certain sectors out. Granted, most of those sectors didn't want 'in' (or at least not in something where they had to deal with others) and didn't really care if everyone else was blown up. But the more people that are outside of the government, the easier it is to challenge its legitimacy.
Then, some of these people -- and I have to join with W. when he called these particular people 'terrorists', attacked certain targets (including a key mosque) in hopes of generating a Sunni/Shia conflict. The thing I keep finding hard to understand about the Middle East is the foolishness of so much of the anger. If I knew that someone was trying to make me hate, and I knew that particular someone was responsible for the attacks, and I knew that revenge attacks were what the attackers wanted to cause, I'd be a d**n fool to take revenge, wouldn't I? The last thing I'd do is give the guys who blew up my people's mosque/holy place exactly what they were aiming for -- it's like giving them a 'thank-you' note, or even a big cash reward, for striking me. I would think they'd have responded by redoubling efforts to unify and find common ground, and thus making sure the terrorists got the opposite of what they wanted. I would think the people of Iraq would want not to be a dummy, opening the mouth to speak someone else's words. That sounds like good revenge to me. But then, I'm not in the Middle East. It's almost as if the people there find any excuse they can for the foolishness they have been doing since WWII. Cheering them on. Protecting them. Doing everything but the one thing they must do -- the one thing that is far and away more important than anything else, even the righting of injustices -- stopping anyone who wants to carry out more war. Even if it means turning in your brothers -- because not turning them in puts all in your families at risk. The more the flames are fanned, the worse things get. So stop fanning the flames, and instead douse them with water. These conflicts are solid proof, as if any more were needed, that war and hate cause far more injustice than they can resolve. It must end, and end first. The 'compound interest' of the evil must stop. W. needs to learn that lesson, sure, but the biggest part of the problem is that the Middle East has no desire to learn it, either. Even if it is right there in their holy books (there are some threads of peace in the Quran, contrary to image and usage). Even if they and their loved ones keep dying over it. Peace is the only real path to survival, but true peace cannot be had while we fatten the vampire of hate by such endless supplies of blood.
I guess a blog entry is an electronic soap box. I'm getting off of this one, having said enough.
Once the move was made, I was hoping for the next best thing -- an honest, caring attempt to create the framework for a government that most Iraqis could be part of, so we could get the hell out. It soon became apparent that the US was most interested in keeping certain sectors out. Granted, most of those sectors didn't want 'in' (or at least not in something where they had to deal with others) and didn't really care if everyone else was blown up. But the more people that are outside of the government, the easier it is to challenge its legitimacy.
Then, some of these people -- and I have to join with W. when he called these particular people 'terrorists', attacked certain targets (including a key mosque) in hopes of generating a Sunni/Shia conflict. The thing I keep finding hard to understand about the Middle East is the foolishness of so much of the anger. If I knew that someone was trying to make me hate, and I knew that particular someone was responsible for the attacks, and I knew that revenge attacks were what the attackers wanted to cause, I'd be a d**n fool to take revenge, wouldn't I? The last thing I'd do is give the guys who blew up my people's mosque/holy place exactly what they were aiming for -- it's like giving them a 'thank-you' note, or even a big cash reward, for striking me. I would think they'd have responded by redoubling efforts to unify and find common ground, and thus making sure the terrorists got the opposite of what they wanted. I would think the people of Iraq would want not to be a dummy, opening the mouth to speak someone else's words. That sounds like good revenge to me. But then, I'm not in the Middle East. It's almost as if the people there find any excuse they can for the foolishness they have been doing since WWII. Cheering them on. Protecting them. Doing everything but the one thing they must do -- the one thing that is far and away more important than anything else, even the righting of injustices -- stopping anyone who wants to carry out more war. Even if it means turning in your brothers -- because not turning them in puts all in your families at risk. The more the flames are fanned, the worse things get. So stop fanning the flames, and instead douse them with water. These conflicts are solid proof, as if any more were needed, that war and hate cause far more injustice than they can resolve. It must end, and end first. The 'compound interest' of the evil must stop. W. needs to learn that lesson, sure, but the biggest part of the problem is that the Middle East has no desire to learn it, either. Even if it is right there in their holy books (there are some threads of peace in the Quran, contrary to image and usage). Even if they and their loved ones keep dying over it. Peace is the only real path to survival, but true peace cannot be had while we fatten the vampire of hate by such endless supplies of blood.
I guess a blog entry is an electronic soap box. I'm getting off of this one, having said enough.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Fund Raising
I just got back from the start of the fund raising drive at my station (wusb 90.1 FM) . Off to a good start! Over the years, the whole fund raising thing has slowly felt like it was bogging down. We really hadn't stepped upward to get the money we need to keep being the free-form, programmer/personality-centered weird and energizing place on the dial that it is. I think we may be onto something this time out -- we're putting some of that programming inventiveness to work.
Now, if only the website can be brought up to date....
Now, if only the website can be brought up to date....
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
On First
I'm making my second try at the world of blogging. I hope this time it takes, and I actually decide to write in it. I have a lot to say. Much of it is already on line at http://www.spirithome.com/, and in groups messages. But each of those cover only one specific turf. I'm figuring this will give me a place to flex my wings a bit.
My main thing isn't politics, or even (at least in an on-line way) religion, but public planning/zoning/economic development. Yet 'tis the political season, and I'm a Political Science MA, so that's what I will probably write about until a few weeks after the elections.
Bob
My main thing isn't politics, or even (at least in an on-line way) religion, but public planning/zoning/economic development. Yet 'tis the political season, and I'm a Political Science MA, so that's what I will probably write about until a few weeks after the elections.
Bob
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)