The Sunken Soul

Any city that you travel to, and stay for any given amount of time, you will say "People in Townsville do not know how to drive!!" And you'd be right.  People are so preoccupied with their own lives that they just let the whole "driving thing" become a subconscious act.  Cell phones, make-up, talking and making wild gesticulations with hands and arms, braiding long strands of hair (somehow), dealing with the ill begotten children imitating Tasmanian devils in the back seat, reaching for that last french fry that left the container and is hidden among the napkins, or better yet, the action that will ultimately kill me and be on my obituary--trying to get the pickle off the cheeseburger.

And yet, as I walk around the city of Dallas, I notice that people here aren't those kinds of distracted drivers.  The ones I see are those that are totally engaged in driving their car (or land beast, a large charging bull of metal and gasoline) and determined to get to their goal three seconds faster than anyone else, resulting in someone imitating Tron's light cycle (I wish I had one).  Swerving in and out of traffic, only to be stopped at the next light a foot in front of the person they just sped past.  Then, to make up for some inadequacy of their own, attempt to break inertia laws and speed off with their lack of mufflers roaring like a pride of lions feasting on an antelope.

Even this I can understand, especially if their sugar levels are low. Never drive when you're hungry, unless it's to get something to eat.  The true monsters of the freeway appear after it rains.

Dallas is particularly bad after it rains because of the refusal of officials to repair side streets prior to building the ornate bridges high over their fair city.  Thus, potholes and dips become small oceans after a thunderstorm goes by.  And being a simple pedestrian, just trying to get to the bus, I worry little about the rain coming from above, but rather the sloshing of water coming from the roadways by unaware drivers, or, as I suspect, by people who deliberately speed up (as I've witnessed first hand) to soak the walker before he can get his umbrella down parallel to the street.

The cartoons we watched as a child, they are full of illustrations of people getting splashed with rain water.  Movies as well.  It's a symbol of someone down on their luck, or more accurately, a depiction of the depravity of the human soul. It's the same monster that shows up in the "comments" section of most any internet article, the bully who mercilessly picks on the twitter account of a celebrity or, honestly, anyone, because they can, and they will get away with it.  For that driver is basically a troll, an anonymous face behind a window that drives off, never to be seen again.  Chances are the soaked pedestrian didn't get the tag number, nor the cyber-victim the IP address of the person who posted.  

What really ticked me off was a simply search on Youtube for "splashing people with a car."  There's a ton of them.  All people who decide to film themselves splashing people with rain puddles, on purpose, and then putting it on the Internet for everyone to see.  Because it's funny!! It makes you Cool!!  Well guess what, it doesn't.  I'm not going to put an example on here, as it will drive up their views, but you can go look if you want to.  If you want to put your sunken soul for all the world to see, go right ahead.  I will be wet on the sidewalk, but my soul will be on solid ground.  It will be yours that will be drowning.  I know Someone who can save you, if you will let Him.

This is Why We Fight: Folk Music and Republicans

"Bold and brilliant," is what I heard over the Borders overhead as the CD started.  A band I had never heard of, "The Decemberists." Lots of harmonica, lots of guitar, something that I would have fallen in love with anyway.  People call The King is Dead album "Dylanesque," and they're so right about that.  Folk music is, after all, about taking a stand, and this album does it. "This is Why We Fight," a track at the end of the album says, "And when we die, we will die, with our arms unbound." All this right before a moving song about his autistic son.  There is no better music (and hip-hop artists will disagree with me) to deliver vehement statements about the world we're living in than folk music.  The Decemberists stand fast, and proudly defy all the injustice in this world, and it's so much more than other artists, those that disrupt award ceremonies, or those that sing about money and fame and love and sex, none of them can fill that hole... a desire to stand up against the wrongs in this world, to have some power when so many of us feel powerless.  

It's not something that I take lightly, those who can stand for a cause, no matter what side of the political isle you're on.  Those who have a voice and can use their talents to be heard, when sometimes just a vote (as so many political pundits say is the most powerful voice) is not enough.  And then there are those with money, of which I most assuredly am not, who can influence the world with capital, and that is effective, but quiet.  The people who can spread messages through song and speech, through words and poetry, they are the ones that can influence people well beyond the political cycle.  

And it's odd that I would say all this, as I am definitely Conservative, decidedly Libertarian, and occasionally Republican when I go to the ballot boxes.  Those people that see the Republicans as some massive white, rich, heartless group of men (mostly), would think that my love of Bob Dylan; Peter, Paul, and Mary; Crosby Stills, and Nash; would run counter to my ideologies.  It is in fact quite the opposite.  

Conservatives choose to stand for causes, but they are quite lacking in the ability to put a voice to it.  The Republicans are equally, if not more, inept at putting anyone in the spotlight that has any ability to stand for anything.  Just looking at the CPAC meetings this week will tell you that.  The person who is leading in National polls (read, the ones made by all the mainstream media that have already crowned Hillary as the next Democratic Candidate, because they all have their ducks in a row, while the Republicans are akin to cannibalistic hyenas) is Jeb Bush, who while speaking during the meeting, was met with a walkout and blasted by most of the other speakers.  And so this, and Mitt Romney, and John McCain, and Bob Dole (we can go back that far) are the candidates that the mainstream people have given the opponents of liberalism to vote for.  And none of them had voices, at all, to speak about anything.  The VP candidates who could speak were silenced or denigrated into headline jokes on late night talk shows.  

There's no cultural fervor about the Conservative movement at all.  Sure, the Christian social conservatives are going to vote as a block, and have plenty of music and speakers to give their point of view.  And that's well and good... I enjoy some of it.  The music and speeches that are intelligent, thoughtful, and non-hypocritical of everyone (yes, I know everyone speaks of Christians as being hypocrites, and there is obviously some truth to this, or it wouldn't be so easily proved). Take a look at any of Mark Lowry's performances to see exactly what I enjoy that comes from the Christian world.  It's no wonder that I say I'm "Libertarian," when Facebook asks me my Religious beliefs.  It's all about my personal, individual relationship with God. For that, I need no other church telling me what to believe or what is evil or wrong in this world.  God does that quite nicely.  

But I've digressed from what I really wanted to talk about.  I'll get back to it eventually.  What I value in the music of the Folk music movement of the 60's, or The Decemberists, or of people like Mark Lowry in the Christian world, is the ability to stand up and say "This is what I believe in. It's something that very few people do nowadays.  We are too busy being afraid of who we might offend to stand up and defend anything.  We think those that have a cause must be those who are victimized, or those who are clearly crazy.  And those who stand for something have either Love or Hate in their hearts.  You can stand with the rainbow flag on one side, or the flag of ISIS (or, unfortunately, those of Westboro Baptist Church) on the other.  Those in the middle, every day citizens who live and love and work, they are just busy trying not to stand, lest they be labelled an extremist about something.  Why can't we just stand up and say, "I am a human being, and I love this world where I live, and I love the people in it." ?  Isn't that what God said is half of His greatest commandment? 

If the Conservative movement, Christians and non-Christians alike, could stand up and say that, and put all other differences aside (for having irreconcilable differences is exactly what opponents of Conservatism would like nothing better than us to have), that would make all the difference, no matter who we elected President.  But I dare say that this can't happen, not in the polarizing, white/gold dress- blue/black dress world we live in today.  

This was not supposed to be a post on political ideology, or religion, or anything close.  I was trying to review The Decemberists' latest album, which I never even got around to.  But nevertheless, I'll let this one stand, and try again in a few days. Let March (now that's convenient, a term of standing and acting) take that review, and let February, known for love and introspection toward times when people had to stand up for their rights, take this one.  

(During this album period, I think Colin Meloy looked a ton like my dad. My mom didn't think so, but with those glasses and that shirt, he very much does.)

A Preacher in a Clown Suit

I've never liked doing returns. There's a part of me that says, if we have to return a book, it means I haven't done enough to sell it. Like I've said before, bookselling is one of the few careers where it's entirely possible to fall in love with your product. For those reading who aren't familiar with the idea of returns, they happen quite frequently in retail. With grocery stores, there is usually a "sell by" date in which, if the can of green beans hasn't sold, they are scanned out of the system and sent back (probably just the scan itself or the wrapper maybe) and credit is given because the item hasn't sold. For books, it's a little harder. Books don't have sell by dates. They don't go bad (well, unless it's a travel book or a calendar...etc), so there has to be a conscious decision to return something.

So I was going down the lists of books to return, and I reached the Bibles going back to one of the vendors. Pulling them and placing them on my v-cart that I purchased from Borders when it closed (best thing I ever bought from the bookstore), I realized that every single Bible I put there was ugly. Orange, a putrid caramel brown, one printed in Giraffe skin print, ones that looked like a Vera Bradley bag. I was very glad to return them, for I knew they would never sell.

Let's try something: I come up to you with a Bible and say, "What an Ugly Bible!!!"


Yes, you're right. The response that probably leapt to your mind was the same I got when I actually said that. Except... let's look at it further.

The Bible is the Word of God. We know that, and traditional Bibles, the ones your parents probably took to church, were made of a bonded or genuine leather, black or navy or burgundy. They were elegant, conservative in style. I have this one Bible made of a premium high grain leather, soft and regal.  Now, take a Bible that has been, for whatever reason, covered in a pink plastic with a candy-like peppermint thing on the top (yes, it actually exists).  It's the same Bible, isn't it? With the same words?  It should be treated with the same respect as the high-quality leather Bible.  And besides, you can't judge a book by its cover.... or can you?

The Bibles we pulled were probably made in an attempt to attract modern-day Christians who want a break from the image of Christianity that our parents and grandparents had.  I can understand this, as I can still remember the preacher from Agnew Pentecostal standing up before the congregation every January 1st and saying "The Lord has blessed us with another year" and at the end of the service, leading us in the Doxology. The dark, sombre hallways, the stained glass that let little light in.  My mom often talked about how, in her Sunday School class, they spent most of the time trying to untangle Christianity from the rules and regulations of the church.  My grandfather, long before I was born, thought it sinful to play with cards, or go to the movies. The lengthy conversations my mom would have talking about how, after she and my dad had gotten married, they were so stressed out on Sundays because they "had" to go to church each week, or else the "friends" my grandmother (dad's mom) had in that church would report that they had not seen my parents there.  And woe to the person who answered the phone at 12:05pm to make sure that we had gone to church.  When church, and the Bible, becomes a chore, a prohibitive force blocking every joy of life without cause or reason (except those were the rules of the church), it negates the simple, positive guidelines of Christianity, sung most elegantly by Guy Penrod from the Gaither Vocal Band:



So, as a break from the sombre tones of yesteryear, Bible publishers have changed some of the covers to make them more appealing to those who are unchurched or more modern.  And there's a certain logic to this.  Take the Skateboard Bible we have in the Kid's section. It's often on sale, and very well made, as the devotionals and images around the Bible text are designed for boys who like sports, the outdoors, skateboarding (obviously), and are very active.  It is usually right next to the Adventure Bible, which is designed as a safari, with African animals, compasses, as if the boys or girls were off on a grand adventure (which, of course, they are.) Similarly, the pink Bibles with sparkles and mentions of Princesses are geared toward girls who love that sort of thing.   All very popular Bibles, that sell very well. In this way the children are drawn toward the Bible and can read it for themselves. The text is the same as the more conservative Bibles, and so, yes, no matter what it looks like, the Bible is still the Word of God.

Now, the flip side, let's say you meet and fall in love with someone who is virtuous, successful, caring, but covered from head to toe in tattoos.  (This, example, of course, reveals my bias against tattooing, because I think it's ugly and stupid) He or She is a Christian and is the love of your life, so why the nervousness when taking them to meet your parents?  Partially because of the reasons given above about the rules of the church, but also, we all do judge a book by its cover.  Would it then be the same as covering the Word of God with pink plastic and candies? Doesn't the way in which you present a Bible effect the perception that the words contained are taken? The person with tattoos might be wonderful, but there will be trepidation felt by strangers who don't know the inside of that person. Would you listen to a preacher who gave the sermon clothed in a clown suit? It is the same words inspired by God. The message is the same, but the cover is different.  That's why preachers don't wear clown suits but rather a suit and tie or a robe of some kind.  It's the perception of the outside image that effects the persuasiveness of the message itself.

So, a balance needs to be struck, between the traditional image with all the respect and regal tones of what a Bible, for an adult, should be, and the modernizing of that image to help draw in those who might not otherwise read the words within.  The twist here, and why these different covered Bibles are made, is that adults, even my age, aren't always grown up yet, and having a Bible that looks like a Vera Bradley purse or made in Tennessee Orange might attract those who haven't read the Bible yet. I can understand this, but it doesn't make it easier when I see a Bible covered in a hideous design. It's a complex issue, one that comes down to personal choice.  For me, let the Bible be covered in the finest of material, but for those who haven't read the Bible or don't know of the meanings inside, that they get the Bible, in whatever form or fashion, is enough.

Tim Tebow and Symbol Drain

 It's astonishing the ways in which Sports and Faith intertwine.  The Biography section in Lifeway, where I work currently, is stocked full of books about the lives of Tony Dungy, Jeremy Lin, Kurt Warner...etc... These are men who have excelled in the highest levels of athletic competition, and yet they are quick to acknowledge Christ as the source of their strength.  They have tons of admirers, and the countless people who they may have helped convert to Christianity are more important than any championship they may have won. One could easily argue there is no greater symbol of the Christian Faith today, than that of former Florida Gator, and former Denver Bronco Quarterback Tim Tebow. In relation to my previous blog, Tebow has garnered the anti-religious group into a well constructed "symbol drain" to trivialize the praying warrior.

This isn't "Atheists against Tebow." If we are to put a religious context in the fate of Tebow Time, Satan works in subtle ways, as well.  The main threat that Tebow has toward those who are fans of football is that he brings forth numbers that make no sense. He is the opposite of every empirically derived statistic that has been formed about football.  How can a quarterback throw for only 2 passes, and somehow still win the game?  And when he wins his first Playoff game against the Pittsburgh Steelers, in a game that lasted 3:16, throwing for an amazing 316 yards (think John on this) it's impossible to think that some supernatural force is at work with his gameplay.  Tebow has done this all his playing career, and it will be interesting to see how he manages in New York (the parallel of sending Jonah to Nineveh.) Most sports fans, John Elway probably included, can't understand the skewing of numbers from what is normal to something totally out of the ordinary. It goes against every bit of sports science they knew. In fact, it goes against the idea that science, numbers, technology, is supposed to be the answer for everything. Tebow is a threat to the status quo so anyone who doesn't understand the work of God behind his play, wants to see him fail.

Again, this wasn't done by some direct assault, but rather   through what Neil Postman called Symbol Drain.  I call it "Symbol Inflation," but it's the same thing. You make the target funny, inconsequential, irrelevant.  And there were many ways of doing this. First, and most important, the idea of "Tebow Time," and the man itself must be clearly made into a symbol. Tebow himself gave them the answer as he prayed after each miraculous touchdown. In a pose that is now called "Tebowing," the kneeling stance became a symbol of everything Tebow stood for. But as it became a phenomenon, mostly through the usage of Youtube (one of the most influential Media ever created for instant manipulation of any Message), everyone started Tebowing. It became a fad, like "Planking," to kneel "as if praying" and record it in a photo or a Youtube video. The crucial part of this action, however, is that the meaning of the act, in reverence to God, was totally wiped away. It became just a motion, bereft of any prayerful attitudes. This culminated with the Jimmy Fallon impression of Ziggy Stardust/Tim Tebow singing a parody of "Major Tom". In the end, he sings, "Everyone out there Tebow," and Fallon, as Ziggy Stardust, "Tebows," and the crowd goes crazy. In this act, Tebow is trivialized, as are the principles by which he lives his life. Christianity goes by the wayside.

Fortunately, Tebow has refused to do very many talk shows, probably because he knows that any interview will further trivialize his message. But that doesn't stop the Paparazzi from taking pictures of Tebow whenever they can.  In New York, he was spotted having a manicure, and so they took a picture and spread it far and wide, comparing the new Jets QB to the arrogance of Joe Namath, but without the star playing power.  It will continue to happen, and Tebow will be ridiculed and trivialized all throughout the media. Let us hope that his Message is stronger than their Medium. Since it is God's Message, it has to be.

Why I Don't Go to Church

 If you ask me which church I attend, I'll tell you, but in all actuality, I've not gone to any one church for quite a while. And while having worked on Sundays for years is part of it, the truth is, I have no interest in attending the today's churches anyway. Here's why. We live in an extremely complex world, filled with philosophical ideas, political stances, religious sects and fanatical beliefs that drive people to suicide in the hope that they find justice in the eyes of their god.  The customers I saw wandering about the religion and metaphysical sections wanted nothing more than something to believe in, some basis for their lives. More often than not they selected Robert Greene's The 48 Laws of Power or Hicks' The Laws of Attraction, something that would give them power over their own lives, often at the expense of a relationship with a loving God. Often I would find customers buying copies of the Jewish Kabbalah and the Koran, both at the same time, just to find the proposed mysticism of the religions. And as for Christianity, people wanted to know about the Apocrypha, the Book of Enoch, the Lost books, more than they cared about the New Testament or anything that had to do with Jesus dying for our sins. They wanted to see what powers were given to people if they joined the Christian faith. Those that did seek ancillary materials for Christianity were interested in being Prayer Warriors, choosing to believe that exorcism, the outcasting of demons and such were possible just by speaking of a word, as if they were Jesus himself.

In my opinion, looking at these lost souls, the current church does very little to prepare Christians for dealing with the issues that non-believers have. When it is successful, such as the self-help advice of Joel Osteen or the financial advice of Dave Ramsey, it's only a partial hold, without the central ideas of Christianity being brought into focus. I firmly believe that someone could sit in the Lakewood amphitheater, listen to Joel Osteen, and feel perfectly good about themselves, as if applying a band-aid, or taking Prozac would help the underlying problems in their lives. But ministerial Prozac is not what I would want, it's merely giving people fish instead of teaching them how to fish, as Jesus' parable goes.

My experience at the Sunday School at the church I have gone to has left me not at all satisfied with the training that teachers are supposed to be giving us to deal with the real world. The teachers would come in, talk about the weekend plans, the football games (and here in the South, Football is a religion, so it must be addressed.), the social rumors and the like. Then the "lesson" would begin, which was just us reading everything out of the book, verbatim, and then the teachers asking us the questions in their booklet. The questions would be, for instance, "Who is your hero?" "What was a time that you took someone for granted? Who did that hurt the most?" And so forth. And people would answer, Jesus, and God, and having swept any in-depth answers to the side (for "God" is the "right" answer for any question asked), we pray and then wait around for the time to go to the sanctuary for "big church." My fellow peers would look like they were brainwashed, only waiting for the end of the class, not willing to spend any time on actually delving into the ideas of the Christian faith, or what makes the other ideas out there so appealing. They are applying a feel-good social balm on an itch that won't go away. And when the unsaved masses walk by with their strange beliefs and their self-help books, we say nothing.

As much as I didn't like my stepdad for many reasons, I completely understood his reluctance to go to Church at all, despite being a very Christian person, a bass singer in a Southern Gospel Quartet, etc... He would invite Jehovah's Witness people in to apply his knowledge to their questions, firmly driving them from our house, never to return. He was determined to save his relatives' souls, even at the cost of having them live with us and take valuable items before we finally kicked them out. He didn't always do it right, but you couldn't argue with his belief systems. He didn't go to church because he found that there was little he could learn from the church pastors, and even less from the Sunday School teachers. He always asked me, "What did you learn at Church today?" I was always annoyed at the question, but I realize now that the answer I gave, "Nothing," was the correct one. To diligently seek (Luke 11:9) God's Word, it is better to read the Bible and other materials ourselves, and climb the path of our beliefs without the help of the current Christian population. It's why, on my Facebook page, I list my religion affiliation as "Libertarian," because I believe in having a relationship with God in my own way, learning from books and life in my own way, and when I die, God can show me where I was wrong. It is through His grace that we are forgiven of our sins, after all.

I would rather go into a Sunday School class and have the teacher say, "God doesn't exist." and then challenge us to prove him or her wrong. Train us in conversing with people, as the topic comes up, about our faith and our beliefs, as well as that of the world. Debate is only possible if we know the philosophies by which everyone believes, as well as our own. It is only possible if we listen first, not excluding those who are outside the realm of Christianity while we live in a safe zone away, apart, and superior to our gentile brethren.

I learn more from a fifteen minute lesson from someone like   Mark Lowry than I do a whole season at Sunday School. Because he thinks, he is willing to diligently seek to find the answers to his questions. And he is hilarious in doing it! Mark doesn't stand outside a college campus and shout to the top of his lungs how he is right and all the sinners on campus are going to Hell. No, he takes life, the humor in it, and crafts it like clay into a message that we can all understand. Even a serious motorcycle accident or a deadly tornado can become at once an entertaining laugh riot and a deeply affecting discussion about the Kingdom of God. And these are things we cannot get at church.

So as I was perusing the Bible section here at Lifeway, I saw an edition called the Christian Apologetics Study Bible. The Apologetics, as I have found out, do exactly what I have been talking about. They study philosophy and other "worldly" ideas as well as the Christian texts in order to understand and converse with those who aren't Christians. While I am certainly not an evangelical person, in other words, I'm not going door to door to bring people to Christ, I think the people who do should be trained in conversing and, if necessary, debating those who have other beliefs. Those who come from the Sunday Schools I've been in wouldn't stand a chance with those who have questions and doubts about the Christian faith. Being willing to talk about the answers in detail, even to challenge your own beliefs, that is the only way to become stronger in one's faith. Being brainwashed isn't going to do it. Diligently seeking is the only way to learn, be it about Christianity or any other subject or philosophy on Earth.

The Afterlife

The songs that buzz over our heads in the grocery stores or the malls, do we ever actually listen to them?  Sure, the idiots that put in commercials always seem to interrupt the best songs.  Cut off a Crosby Stills and Nash song, but let Michael Bolton go by unscathed. Honestly, I've always listened to the music while I worked, as it made the day go by quicker.  A song can take up 3 minutes of time, or more, and while working, it makes those minutes seem less stressful.  You tend to forget about the ticking of your watch and forget about what you want to be doing.  That, of course, is the reason, as it provides pleasure into an otherwise silent room.  Allan Bloom compared music to instant ecstasy, orgasm if you will (and that's for a later blog), and there have been studies that make disciplined decisions harder to make while in a sexual mood. See the book Predictably Irrational, Chapter 3, I think, for that study.  So people, hopefully, buy more because the music is on.  But I have digressed from the intent of this post.

***

Recently, we have been playing Paul Simon's So Beautiful, So What and k.d. lang's newest album.  Both have songs on them that describe Heaven. I found it odd that two recent albums would have such descriptions of the Afterlife, given that these are not Gospel albums at all.  Further, the depictions of the hereafter are much different than that of conventional Christian belief.  Paul Simon's take turns out to be a long line where you wait to see God, after filling out a form, much as you would at a voting station. In the song, the main character starts hitting on a woman in line, who, knowing that she was dead, just shakes her head.  Reminds me (as a sidebar) of the lines in Bob Dylan's "Talking World War III Blues," where the man fins a woman, suggests they go play "Adam and Eve," and the response is "You saw what happened last time that started."  Anyway, life is mirrored in the line that Paul Simon has us wait.  And yet when we get to God, someplace high in space, we have lost the words we were going to say, as if we had any to begin with.  Instead, we have a snippet of a song.



In k.d. lang's track, Heaven is a bar. A bar everyone wants to get to. One where everyone knows your name.  Now, as much as we want Heaven to be like Cheers, Lang states in the chorus that "Heaven is a place where nothing ever happens." Heaven is then compared to a party, where, after everyone gets there, the same thing happens over and over, and when the "party is over, it starts again / exactly the same."  This doesn't sound like a Heaven I would want to go to, and both images are frighteningly familiar.  They have created Heaven in the image of man's world, just as the images of Mount Olympus and the jealousies and tantrums of the Greek Gods parallel the actions of man.  What Paul Simon and k.d. lang forget is that God created us in His own image, not the other way around. 


Take Stargate SG-1, for instance. The place where the Ancients go as they are ascending looks a lot like a restaurant, where the papers report on the goings on of Anubis and other bad guys.  In Star Trek: Voyager,, the Q Continuum looks like a shack on some road in a western state.  Again, nothing ever happens in these places, and it all repeats itself for all eternity. 

A couple of other examples.  In Rick Riordan's The Lightning Thief,, the underworld, guarded by Cerberus, is basically a long line in which people wait in to get into the world of Hades.  How pleasant. In Pullman's The Amber Spyglass , the afterlife is a bog full of dead zombie like people, colorless, lifeless.  Of course, for Pullman, God is the bad guy, and Heaven is another dimension which is working on controlling the rest (see the episodes of South Park in which Heaven starts a war, and Kenny is the hero.

These are not the Heavens of the Christian faith, although there are other ideas that are positive.  Look at the afterlife talked about in Final Fantasy VII, where all life joins the undercurrents of power and song that flow through the Earth, giving it beauty and life.



While this has no comparison to Heaven, I believe it could be compared, given the harmonies and music that are discovered in the strings of molecular particles such as Quarks.  I talked about this before, in my blog post here. 

There are so many other images of the Afterlife that are used in modern day works of culture.  Take the waiting room in Beetlejuice, or Heaven in the movie Defending your Life. In these depictions of what comes after, it is a mirror of today's world, where waiting and defending are all that is done.  There is no enjoyment of the passage of time, which is of the utmost importance since time is eternal.  In fact, that is the main point of this blog.  When we look at Heaven, we think of eternity as a linear time model.  But the Bible depicts God as being outside of time, the Alpha and Omega, so we surely cannot expect Heaven to be in a linear time frame.  Thus the idea of a waiting line doesn't work. We would exist in a time aspect that is far different from the model we understand today.  It would be more like the Prophet's universe on Star Trek: DS9.  Past, present, and future mean nothing in this time frame, but song and vibrating emotions do. 

People spend so much time thinking about what happens after you die.  I think more time needs to be spent living.  Even for Christians, there's a whole lot of livin' goin' on (Ernie Haase song) between the Cross and Heaven.  If we accept death, which we must, then life is so much easier to deal with.  And if we see the afterlife as some gloomy bog or an endless line, then there's no point in dying, no point in living. What would living morally, toward the virtues of some loving God, what would that matter?  We should try and live by our own beliefs, our own morals, those that we have adapted from our faith, from the lessons our parents and other elders have taught us, and then, believing in what we do, when we die, whatever happens, will happen.  Jesus was assuring us life after death, but was also assuring us life before that death.  Let's not worry about what it looks like, and make this life the best we can.

Kenny on the Mountaintop (last one)

I've always thought that everyone had the ability to stand on the mountaintop. If you look at Caspar David Freidrich's painting Traveler on a Sea of Fog, which is my favorite painting, you see a man calming looking out into the distance at far peaks, after having reached the cliff tops. It's an amazing work. The man himself, just like Howard Roarke standing atop of his masterpiece at the end of The Fountainhead, or Frankenstein at the top of the Alps, has a clear countenance. He has achieved the pinnacle of human thought, and it's this that I want to talk about, to end this series of individuality. Because, like I said, I always thought that anyone could reach this state of being. I have found out that not everyone can, and there are reasons why.

Maslow, a prominent sociological figure, made a pyramid called the Hierarchy of Needs. The premise is that people must fulfill basic needs before moving on to mental and spiritual needs. At the bottom, are food, water, shelter, etc..., Then social needs, happiness, a job, friendship, biological reproductive needs...etc..., and at the top, is total mental and spiritual awareness, something he called "Self-Actualization." And I've seen the people who are mentally aware of themselves. You can tell, it's like they have their eyes open. They are the people that have the ability to reach the mountaintop, the top of the pyramid. They are the individuals that I have talked about in past blogs.

When I ended the last blog, a friend of mine commented that the individuality that I was talking about was not always attainable by all people. The reason, she said, was that not everyone in the world has the same mental capacity and ability to reach the upper stages of Maslow's pyramid. Of course, there are numerous reasons for this, not all of them known to us now. But as the pyramid shows us, if people are not able to achieve basic physical needs - food, shelter, water - they cannot be expected to cogitate on the spiritual world, or deem any sort of meaning in exploring the innermost consciousness or in achieving individuality. In fact, they probably would shun away from such an idea. A person who has been without would not be independent, but dependent on whatever entity would come about to provide them with the basics. This entity could be something known, as a government or charity organization, or it could be supernatural, such as provision given by God.

Government as Entity

The Government has become an primary entity that provides people with the basic steps outlined in Maslow's pyramid. They provide protection (military), bread and food (Welfare and other subsidies), shelter (HUD, Fannie Mae, other Government programs for low-income housing), and other things as well. In some instances, I feel, the government has a right and an obligation to do these things. The government's main responsibility is to protect its citizens from outside threats, and we have the greatest military force ever assembled to help us do that. It also should provide certain basic services for those that absolutely could not afford or be able to live without them (SSI, for instance). This is what the life and liberty parts of the Preamble to the Constitution talked about. It's the Pursuit of Happiness that gets a little more difficult, and is what takes me into my argument.

To me, the "pursuit of happiness" is the liberty to pursue the path of independence. To achieve "The American Dream" as it were. Because it is precisely the American Dream that makes this country as amazing as it is. It is not to be rich, necessarily, or completely successful. Happiness, as I believe the writers of the Constitution saw it, was to have the independence to control one's own life, to live out that life at one's own choosing. In today's capitalist market, that does tend to equate with financial success and wealth, but it doesn't have to. The Constitution doesn't say that we are guaranteed this, because in order to climb up Maslow's pyramid, we have to do most of it on our own. The Constitution simply says that the government has an obligation to start us off. To provide the foundation for individuals who have no foundation to start with. But that is all it is supposed to do. To provide any more, or to expect recompense, is to exert itself onto the individual more than it should. When an individual climbs up to the pinnacle, and finds that an organization is there waiting for him to serve it, then we have eliminated self-actualization and replaced it with another entity. We have become enslaved to the people that are providing for us. Much as the Pharoah was God and ruler to the people of Egypt, so are the organizations and entities that sit atop Maslow's pyramid, waiting to be served and depended upon. It is we that give them the power over us, it is our sanction that allows other people to give us direction in life. And since I'm talking about the Government first, let's look at how the Government takes the pinnacle of "Self-Actualization" and makes it into its own Mount Olympus, for us to be dependent upon.

***
Looking down from the tower high above London (600 years A.F.), Mustapha Mond smiles in the knowing way that he would have, seeing the horizon of a city filled with happy people. The unhappy ones, like Bernard and Helmholtz Watson, he had banished to Iceland, where independent thinkers would not upstage the world government by challenging the collective laws. The city languishes in amusement centers, drug supplemental centers (places where they give people free drugs, called Soma), and churches (which are little but gatherings for orgies of habitual pleasure). All this, of course, takes place in Aldous Huxley's novel Brave New World, where Mustapha is the leader of the European area of the World. The government of this Dystopian world rules through providing its citizens with everything. From the basics to everything they would need to attain happiness, even to the genetically controlled DNA makeup in their bodies. The provide recreation, sex, drugs, anything except material that would cause those who could think the desire to do so. All education is done through osmosis and sleeping chambers, and during the day, the children are taught the skills necessary to be happy, from games to sexual discoveries. There is no poverty, no unhappiness in life, and death is simply done in chambers where the elderly are "soma'ed" until their bodies stop functioning.

Obviously, today's government doesn't rule our lives like this. But it makes sense. Why would a government rule by fear, such as in Orwell's 1984 or in places like the Romulan Empire (Star Trek) when they can rule by happiness. Give the people everything they want, and then eliminate the need for anything else. There would be no desire to think outside the box, because it would not occur to them that there was an "outside." A government that would do this has ultimate control over the people's lives, and there would be no one to question them. For those who control your life have power over it.

[ As a side note, there are many dystopian novels and programs that will further deal with this issue. Among them:

Andre Norton Outside
Movie: Logan's Run
Ray Bradbury: "The Pedestrian"
Frank Bonham The Forever Formula
D.J. MacHale Pendragon Book 7: The Quillan Games]

The government does provide recreation, happiness, and passivity to all it's citizens, if they choose it. Certainly there is no more addicting game than the lottery to blow your life savings on, trying to get an even bigger life savings. There have been proposals made to provide Underground Atlanta with Casino type machines that would support the economy there as well as provide funds for the Georgia Lottery. There are also instances of medications like Viagra being paid for through government health care programs. Now, with the proposal of health care reform under the current administration, it will be easy to get Prozac, Viagra, Zoloft....anything to make us a happier nation. And, I am sure, the government will have no problems giving those medications out, as it will neutralize the unsatisfied and quell the bitter. Soma, as Huxley called it, is not so far away.

A government that provides happiness does it at a price. The dependency on the government to make you happy takes away your independence, and keeps you from reaching that last level of self-actualization. If you have the American dream handed to you, you have achieved nothing, and so that is what it's worth. Working to achieve your dreams, even if it might be harder, is worth the sweat and toil, because the rewards will be yours. And of course the government will try to take that away from you, because it wasn't given to you by them, so you should give it to them instead. This line of thinking runs right into Ayn Rand's philosophies, so I'll let her finish where I was going.

The proper government is one that interferes as little as possible in the private lives of its citizens. The only thing the Constitution gives them the right to do is to allow citizens the "pursuit" of happiness. It cannot and should not give it to them. Let the people fail. Let the economy tank and see hard times come about. Apart from providing the basics of Maslow's pyramid (shelter, food, water), the Government should let the economic system fix itself. The lessons learned from failure can only make the human race stronger, more durable. Today, it is soft, weak, whining. I see too many stories where 911 was called because the people at McDonalds gave them the wrong burger. I have witnessed the depravity of the human condition on Judge Alex. Makes me wish for a second Noah flood, so sickening are the people that appear as specimens of our society. They are the ones that need hard times so that they can learn what their grandparents learned at the turn of the 20th century. And these are the people I thought could achieve individuality and self-actualization. I realize that this will never happen as long as the government continues to provide economic security and superficial happiness to its people.

Education as Tool

"Give a man a fish, and you've fed him for a day. Teach him how to fish, and you've fed him for a lifetime." A popular quote in education circles. Something that makes teachers all warm and fuzzy inside (in return for not being paid what their worth). I know I've looked at Education in the previous blog or two, but there's something I wanted to touch on in regard to the Government (or the Church, as private schools go) as Entities in place of Self-actualization. Public education here in America, while being some of the best "free" schooling in the world, has its drawbacks. I mentioned in the last blog the Biblical verse about "diligently seeking." I heartily approve of this for almost anything that one does. But I hardly call what public schools think is education "diligent." It is as if a giant spoon is coming to each child and force feeding them information, to simply be regurgitated onto some standardized test, before forgotten thereafter. And what is effective in Huxley's novel is clearly not effective here. We can't just download the information into children's heads and expect them to become productive, knowledgeable citizens. They have to want to learn it. They have to seek knowledge out and combine it with a priori knowledge. Else it becomes lost in the mess of consciousness and subconscious yearnings.

As a tool for the government, public education works only half the time. In general, the government sets the curriculum (both stated and unstated) and the teachers do their best to fulfill this. While I could go into a tirade of the political bias of teachers and the liberal leanings of teacher organizations, I won't, because there are too many blogs that deal specifically with this. But if children are taught that the government is here to provide us with everything we could ask for, as if citizens had a right for the luxuries that our anscestors worked so hard for, then children will learn that individuality, that hard work and diligently seeking anything, isn't worth it, because the government will provide everything that is needed. Therefore, self-actualization isn't necessary.

Where education fails in our system, is that it does not provide the students with the skills to do anything with their lives outside of school. True, there is some minimal vocational training going on in some of the schools (Rockdale Career Academy, for instance), but it is certainly looked down upon by those that matter. A vocational degree is often looked at as something that the delinquents get because they do not or could not go to "college." The true path is to graduate with a "college prep" diploma, and then go to college and get a "liberal arts" degree. This is the most highly looked upon path. Then a student can go to med school or law school or wherever. Being an auto mechanic, or a welder, or a plumber, or someone that works on Air Conditioning, that is not a job for a "civilized person." Our public school system treats those careers in this manner. Therefore, everyone that graduates from high school might know how to type, but nothing else useful. And then we spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to specialists that keep our machines running and our lives comfortable. We should be able to do it ourselves. But there is no way to learn these skills outside of our parents' teachings.

Therefore I propose that every student in public school take a "Life Skills" course, where private enterprise comes in, teaches everyone how to do basic maintenance and skills that are needed to become self-sufficient (unless a transmission blows). Changing oil, changing the wiring in an electrical socket, wiring a ceiling fan, the parts of a lawn mower, balancing a checkbook, etc... Do what Home Ec. is supposed to do. Sure, taking AP courses and Comparative Literature and Calculus is important, but living life is equally so. We must teach our students to seek diligently their goals and dreams, to improve their lives, to improve all of our lives.

Among the most important things that schools today must teach their students is information literacy. In today's world, reading is not enough. Technology has progressed us beyond simply a reading culture. Now, we use visual communication far more than mere words. Postman's ideas in Amusing Ourselves to Death, that the medium is the message, is as important as what is said. They must learn how to use the information gathered from the Internet, from TV, from the news, and apply it to what they already know. They must interpret the data being flooded in to their brains. This, and only this, will allow self-actualization to occur. I find it surprising, given the amount of revolutionary technology that has been developed since the 1990's, that school curricula have not included information literacy into their requirements. In fact, most schools are languishing behind with out of date technology and limited ability to use what they have. I had a teacher complaining to me about, while she was in a brand new school, made with the most up to date equipment they could get, had no computer in her room. She wondered where all the funding went. Controlling what children learn, and what they don't learn, is the critical tool that any Entity uses to keep themselves at the top of Maslow's pyramid. This includes any government (whether on purpose or subconsciously), or the Church, past, or present.

The Church as Entity

It's amazing how hard it is to write this section. All during my attempts to think this through, I've had to separate the "Church" entity from God as Entity. Because certainly God is one. And there certainly is a difference. In my beliefs, God is the only Entity which accepts mankind climbing as high as he can. Note that obviously God does not want man to climb to an equal footing as He, as the Tower of Babel episode doth explain. But climbing to as high a summit as man's mind will let him reach, this is perfectly acceptable, and even desirable. What would Man be, having been made in the image of God, if he could not reach his full potential? Why would God want to prevent His creation from becoming the most it can be? Therefore God as Entity is perfectly suitable to sit atop Maslow's pyramid of Needs, because God does not supplant Self-Actualization, He merely enables it.

The Church, on the other hand, has for centuries been a force that has kept mankind from reaching his full potential. Even in Biblical times, the Christian church was wrought with problems. Each letter that Paul wrote to the churches of Asia Minor contained issues that the Church faced at that time. The concept of a church, in the way that man has conceived of it, is simply another power heirarchy, where people congregate, and men in leadership roles have power over those below them. This is a perfectly acceptable idea, as William Golding demonstrated in Lord of the Flies. Some sort of leadership structure must be maintained, for those who have not yet reached Self-Regulation (which also cannon happen without self-actualization), need the guidance of those wiser than they. Plato saw it, in The Republic, and America's founders realized this as well, else they would not have made a Federal government at all.

The problem arises when the people in power try to keep mankind from reaching his full potential by withholding necessary steps in Maslow's pyramid. The Church has, for centuries, done just that. It is ironic that, in the Middle Ages, it was the Catholic Church that preserved the knowledge of the Roman Empire while keeping it from the general population. This is done most effectively by not teaching everyone to read. In the Middle ages, with books not readily available, and education handled by the richest private schools, or the clergy, a very small percentage could actually attain the knowledge passed down by their ancestors. Most of those people were either in the clergy or in places of power. Therefore keeping the general population illiterate was most advantageous. This method of control is similar to not wanting slaves to read in America during the 1800's. In this most direct example, the Church of the Middle Ages kept mankind from climbing to the apex of his abilities.

But what about the Church today? Certainly, thanks to Gutenburg, books and other media are quite common. And Martin Luther founded the Protestant movement, where every individual being has direct communication and a relationship with God. In a sense, Christianity should be a Libertarian religion, with each individual having a relationship with God, and seeking to know him better through the scriptures, through other people (church), and through the miracles and wonders of daily life. But more often, I see the power structure of a denomination or an independent church rising up to take the place of individual thinking. In the Baptist denomination, people have long been forbade to dance. In my own family, my grandfather found card playing sinful, but had no problem dating after he was married. Recently, church groups have formed political parties (such as the moral majority) to actively back candidates. It seems to me that churches need to spend less time on telling people what to think, and more time instructing people on how to pursue a relationship with God based on the Bible. Yet we have pastors such as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright preaching from the pulpit that 9/11 was revenge on white people, and such theories. We have pastors telling their congregations who to vote for, and how to decide on amendments and laws and such. Show us the Bible passages, and let us make up our own minds. If we are wrong, then let that be between God and us.

And it goes beyond that. As I have said in a past blog (Adding Points to the Compass), I found "collectible bookmarks" in all of Borders' copies of The Golden Compass basically saying how Pullman's works were sinful and Athiest (true, Pullman is an atheist), and then gave a web site that continues with this line of thinking, linked to a church that passed out the bookmarks to people who requested them. It was an underhanded ploy not meant to be in a bookstore. If the church in question wanted to have people outside our bookstore handing them out, let them go ahead. Or publish a book decrying the philosophies of Philip Pullman, and I'll be glad to put it right next to it. But placing unauthorized material inside the books without our knowledge.... that is beyond the pale. Why not put pro-Jewish bookmarks inside of Mein Kampf, or anti-pedophilia pamplets inside of Lolita? Let the people read as they choose, and decide for themselves what to believe, and let the final judgement be for God.

In the end, it is always up to the individual to decide. I have this theory, and Galileo would agree with me, that if churches let people decide what they want to believe for themselves, that religion would slowly fade away. They are scared that self-actualization would bring about groups of people who don't see the empirical evidence of God, and therefore believe that he doesn't exist. They are afraid of losing their power and influence over all those people who don't have the ability to self-actualize. The church would stand, as Mustapha Mond did, atop the tower in London, and fear for the people below actually being able to think for themselves. And the less people that actually could do that, the better off the Church would be. I am not saying that those Sunday School teachers that I have mentioned in the past were deliberately trying to brainwash us, keep us from questioning the tennants of Christianity, in the fear that we might not find them to be true. But I am sure that somewhere, Church officials would rather us not question the prinicples of their denominations, for fear that we might find that we can believe and worship God on our own.

I wonder though, what God would feel like, if He looked down upon the world and find that Mankind had truly advanced to the point where they were all self-aware. What if God didn't need to do anything, as we had achieved all that he had wanted. (Of course, this isn't going to happen.... however....) I remember, in my youth, playing a game on the Super Nintendo called Actraiser, and, coming to the end of the game, the Angel tells us (the player actually being "God,") that isn't it every Diety's wish for the people that live under them to not need them anymore? For God to be proud of us for reaching the pinnacle of our abilities, to all reach the top of the mountains, and look out unto Paradise. Yes, I think God would be very proud indeed.
***

I'm gonna move on to other topics, silly and profound, and say good bye to Kenny and Butters and the rest. Honestly, I'm not really a big fan of South Park, but I appreciate the legitimate questions they raise. A note about these last few blogs. There will come a time, undoubtedly, when my opinions change, and I will believe differently than this. If you ask me now, do I believe all that I have written, I will answer, "Probably." But as Emerson said, minds can be changed. If I contradict myself...then fine, I will contradict myself. But for now, this will do.

Kenny in Heaven: The Individual and God.

First, before going into this topic, I need to link the other two blog posts that have similar thoughts. That way, I can mention it without going into detail:

http://denzilpugh.blogspot.com/2006/11/just-some-thoughts.html

http://denzilpugh.blogspot.com/2007/04/turn-your-radio-on.html

As I've reread my blogs, I keep going back to the idea that, as I see the people walking into the churches in the area, I see herds of cattle that seem not to be interested in the lessons that they would learn, but rather the social aspect of the hour, or maybe they walk along the same paths that they traveled as a kid, doing so for years but not really knowing why, accepting that they had always gone to church, and that to not do so would be unfathomable. And the questions they are asked are the same, and the answers they give are the same, and nothing is learned. My stepdad, for all his faults, always asked us upon returning from church, "What did you learn today?" I was always annoyed with that question... but I think that was the reason for asking it. Because the answer is "nothing." It frustrated me that I would go to the church and walk out the same as I came in, with no new revelations about the nature of God or of my relationship with Him. My stepdad, especially towards the end of his life, saw that not going to church was as beneficial as going to a church which taught you nothing. And while his reasons for not going to church were ones of self-esteem (he had his teeth pulled, too.), it should not be for others that you appear in Church, but rather for yourself, for the continuation of a journey towards understanding of eternity, of God, of the progress toward the greater good (Aristotle).

So as I was thinking of this blog entry, I went back to a verse that my stepdad always quoted, Hebrews 11:6:

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. (KJV, bold emphasis added)

I totally question those who went to the church I went to earlier in my life, whether they were actually diligently doing anything. It is as if, satisfied with the walls of beliefs that they had constructed (or had constructed for them) as children, they were quite willing to believe that there was nothing else. Comforted and sheltered by those teachings as a child, they had no real reason to learn anything else as it pertains to their spiritual beliefs. So they went into adulthood, college, real life, marriage...etc... believing the same things they did as they were children, allowing nothing of life events to change it. And while, if the teachings were sound, this is acceptable, I think there's something to be said for finding those beliefs on your own, seeking (diligently) and understanding the relationship between God and man as individual thinkers. Would God, with me standing before him, be pleased that I had learned nothing all my life than the lessons that someone had taught me when I was in Kindergarten, and then applying (or not) those lessons during my life, had learned nothing? Would it be better to struggle up that mountain to reach the pinnacle and see the heavens by ourselves, and appreciate them that much more, rather than being taken up in a carriage built by our parents and family and not feel the bumps in the road and the sweat and blood as we climb ourselves up to the apex? I would think that God would want to be proud of us for the lives that we have lived, and not that he had been the God of a herd of cattle that believed unquestioningly and chewed on the cud that we were fed. Is it not better for us to step off the road traveled so often by our elders and climb the mountain ourselves?

The most obvious example of this occurs in the Amish practice of rumspringa, which is usually just a relaxing of rules because of adolescence, with the full knowledge that an adult can only join the church and be baptized of his own free will. It is an appropriate exercise, with some communities even letting Amish teenagers visit "the real world" and see what it actually looks like. (As an off topic mention, Neal Stephenson uses the same idea in his science fiction tome Anathem. Excellent book!)From Wikipedia sources, most teens that participate in this "discovery" period actually return to the Amish community and join the church, rejecting the freedoms and temptations they found in the outside world. In other words, they come home.

A friend of mine that is now in the cold, frozen tundra of Bangor, ME, once said that, in raising her child, that she raised him with all the knowledge and morals that she knew to give him, and then she let him go, hoping that it was enough. I think it was. Letting go, to let the children of our time find their own paths, that is the greatest gift parents can give their children today. Yes, they need discipline, and structure, and guidance, but there comes a point when they have learned all that they can learn, that the parent has to have faith that their child will eventually return to the beliefs they were brought up with. When they leave the nest, to use another metaphor, they will fall, but only until the wind picks them up and they spread their wings. Then anything is possible. Proverbs 22:6 :

Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it. (NIV)

Note, it's "when he is old," so the Bible gives people room to question, to explore, to discover. It's also proven that, given time, those same people will come back to approximately the beliefs in which they were raised, but wiser because they will have reached it themselves.

Parents don't want their children to fail. They don't want to see their children go through the pain of discovering what is right and wrong through heartbreak, through pain, through jail time. And that's understandable. But sometimes, it's necessary, even valuable, because lessons are learned better that way. I sometimes think that we live in a society where failure is not even to be felt, from the economy, to sports, to grades on tests....but that's another blog.

***
One thing I don't understand is the Christian communities insistence in making us seem so bad. Yes we sinned...yes, we've come short of the glory of God.... but there's something to be said in experiencing the joy of Christianity, of striving to be the best people we can be, instead of wallowing in self-pity. Even the most covered song in the world, "Amazing Grace," reminds us that we're all wretches. And the thing is, after a while, I don't want to sing that line anymore. I mean, we are children of God, we have to want to be like God. We want God to be proud of us, not constantly reminding us of how original sinny we are. That's why He sent Jesus. And everyone says in sermons how rotten they are, it just doesn't gel with what I think God would want for us.

If you look at my Facebook profile, you'll see, under Religious Views, the word "Libertarian." This means that, while I might go to one church or another, or not, I will pursue my relationship with God on my own. Martin Luther believed that each individual could develop their own relationship with God, and he developed the Protestant denomination around that principle. This is, at its very core, what Christianity is all about. All the rest of the stuff, like not being able to dance, and giving to the church, and the politicizing of the Christian faith when it comes to our government...etc... all that means very little. I will live my life as I think God would approve of, based on my knowledge of the Bible. If I am wrong, then he can correct me in Heaven. That is what His grace is all about. It's self-regulation, based upon the beliefs that are inside me, not about following the laws of this church or that. And it's certainly not about showing others that I am a Christian or not, but rather that my relationship with God is known to Him, and me.

[Well, not the best blog, but it's needed to glue the first two blogs into this series. Better next time.]

Just Some thoughts...

Just some thoughts as I go about selling tons of books to tons of people. It's amazing how many times I hear "Happy Holidays" during the December month, and I'm not going to sit here and argue the use of "Holidays" instead of Christmas, or the obvious domination of the commercialized secularization of Christmas and its impact on religion. There are articles, books, and blogs galore on this topic. My observations are more personal.

It seems strange that, among the countless Christmas songs we here played over the Musak systems at the stores, so many of them are about Christ's birth. In a time when we try not to offend anyone by taking all meaning out of anything, we think nothing about including Christian Carols along with the Santa Claus tunes. In particular, one I've been listening to is a bluegrass/folk duo, Robin and Linda Williams, and their album, The Christmas Gift. They perfectly blend the images of Christmas here in America (although, granted, from a uniquely Appalachian (sp) view), and directly relate it to the story of the Nativity. An amazing use of a capella and 3/4 time, old time country singing and nostalgic themes that gives the album appeal. They use no traditional carols, but instead find gems that should be played as much as the ones oft heard in shopping centers.

Another person that has influenced my thinking of late is Mark Lowry, who's comedy and intimate and knowledgeable sermons are mixed perfectly together. He talks on Mark Lowry goes to Hollywood about how God opened up Christianity from just his Chosen people to include the "Gentiles," who would be everyone. Everyone should be allowed to believe in God. No forcing, no exclusion, no inclusiveness. Another point Mark makes is that now, many Christians try to exclude people because of their lifestyles, because of the way they dress or other discriminating factors.
And that got me to thinking.... it's obvious that what people see in Christians is the snobbish, prejudiced people that some are (although, not, in my opinion, everyone.) And I can see that, because there have been some churches I have been to that clearly did not want us there. You could see icicles hanging off the ceiling. Why should anyone look favorably in a religion that is so prejudiced against anyone that is not just exactly like them? Of course, that is not the way things are, but a few people like that can influence the way everyone looks at a group.

God loves the sinner, and hates the sin. We should love the sinner, and hate our own sin. That's what Mark said in his video. And did not God also say to "Love the Lord your God and Love one another as yourselves" (paraphrased, cause I don't have a Bible with me). Nowhere did it say to hate those people who believe differently than you or have a different lifestyle. I agree with Joel Osteen, who says that it is up to God to judge the sins of others, not for us. So if you look at Mark Lowry, and Joel Osteen, they can be very content in their faith, happy and loving toward all people around them. Isn't this what Jesus did as well? Sure, he got mad at some people, but mostly he got mad at the hypocrites, not at the outcast, at the unbelievers. This is the way we should all believe. Let us remain confident in our faith, in our own relationship with God, and love those around us, because it is up to God to judge those who have sinned, not us. We can each individually have a relationship with God, and it is up to us to act as He would have us do, not what a denomination or a person or whatever. And yet we try to govern the morals of other people, through legislation, through the courts, and it becomes a perversion of what people should do.

Republicans are constantly urging for less government involvement in people's lives, until it becomes a moral issue, and then the more regulation, the better. And Democrats believe that they should be able to legislate everything, bending on moral issues whenever their constituents believe it right (in other words, whatever gets them elected). My political belief and my religious belief are the same. Let us not legislate or discriminate based on morals, but let God and the individual work that out. In politics, the individual should know what is right and what is wrong, based on their beliefs and the will of God. Therefore, governmental legislation on the private lives of its citizens should be very minimal. The government is there to protect, defend, and provide for its citizens, not to govern the citizen's private lives. In matters of faith, the church should not be the body that governs the personal lives of it's members, but rather God himself. The individual should know what is right and wrong based upon the word of God and should act according to the relationship that he or she has with God.

So what's my point with all this? The point being, is that, while I was driving back from work with my Christmas Carols playing, I was very happy with myself, with my faith, with the belief that God has put me here for a reason, and that there have been times in the past where if God had not had a plan for me, I wouldn't be here now. And that is enough. Enough that I shouldn't care what churches think about who I am or if they should discriminate against me for any reason. It doesn't matter. I have a relationship with God that is my own, and there is no church that can legislate that relationship. let the churches open the doors to the outcast, to the people of this world, and cease to discriminate against everyone. God has enough love for everyone, and so should we. The church's responsibility should be to provide the material (the Bible) that should guide a person in his relationship with God, and also provide knowledgeable people to help people understand the material in the Bible. There are very few teachers I have seen in church that I would have them teach me in the ways of religion and belief. Why should I have teachers instruct me in the ways of faith when their methods are more of brainwashing and of mere socialization with the students rather than a philosophical and theological examination of the ways of faith and belief.

Anyway, just some ramblings as I attempt to put together this whole Christmas feeling, separate it from the secular commercial Christmas, and define why people believe the way they believe. Especially in this world where terrorists hate the Christians, and Christians hate non-Christians, where discrimination and bigotry remains as much alive now as ever, and that's clearly not the way Christianity should be, especially now, with the peace of Christmas upon us.