Another Week Ends: Kierkegaard, Suicidal Pastors, Andre Agassi, Rick Warren, Weezer, Julian C, BSG

1. A very interesting blog post over at the NY Times entitled, "Kierkegaard, Despair and Depression", the final paragraph of which is really something (ht Jeff Dean):

Each of us is subject to the weather of our own moods. Clearly, Kierkegaard thought that the darkling sky of his inner life was very much due to his father’s morbidity. But the issue of spiritual health looms up with regard to the way that we relate to our emotional lives. Again, for Kierkegaard, despair is not a feeling, but an attitude, a posture towards ourselves. The man who did not become Caesar, the applicant refused by medical school, all experience profound disappointment. But the spiritual travails only begin when that chagrin consumes the awareness that we are something more than our emotions and projects. Does the depressive identify himself completely with his melancholy? Has the never ending blizzard of inexplicable sad thoughts caused him to give up on himself, and to see his suffering as a kind of fever without significance? If so, Kierkegaard would bid him to consider a spiritual consultation on his despair, to go along with his trip to the mental health clinic.

2. A jarring and tragic piece in USA Today (that's right) about suicidal pastors. Read it and weep, truly. A few choice portions (ht J. Stamper):

Those who counsel pastors say Christian culture, especially Southern evangelicalism, creates the perfect environment for depression. Pastors suffer in silence, unwilling or unable to seek help or even talk about it.

A pastor is like "a 24-hour ER" who is supposed to be available to any congregant at any time, said Steve Scoggin, president of CareNet, a network of 21 pastoral counseling centers in North Carolina. "We create an environment that makes it hard to admit our humanity."

Rodney Powe, worship pastor at the church, said he only now understands depression is a mental illness. Christians who don't experience depression trivialize it, he said. "We just say, "Come on, get over it. We have the hope of Christ and the Holy Spirit."'

Stanford, who studies how the Christian community deals with mental illness, said depression in Christian culture carries "a double stigmatization." Society still places a stigma on mental illness, but Christians make it worse, he said, by "over-spiritualizing" depression and other disorders — dismissing them as a lack of faith or a sign of weakness.

3. Poor Andre Agassi! In case you haven't seen the headlines about his new autobiography, the book begins:

I run quickly through the basic facts. My name is Andre Agassi. My wife’s name is Stefanie Graf. We have two children, a son and daughter, five and three. We live in Las Vegas but currently reside in a suite at the Four Seasons hotel in New York City, because I’m playing in the 2006 US Open. My last US Open. In fact my last tournament ever. I play tennis for a living, even though I hate tennis, hate it with a dark and secret passion, and always have.

As this last piece of identity falls into place, I slide to my knees and wait. In a whisper I say: Please let this be over.

It goes on from there. Be sure to read the portion about his relationship with his father. It sadly doubles as a profound illustration of the fruit of the law, i.e. his hatred of tennis did not come from nowhere... He's still my favorite player.

4. A very interesting and not altogether unsympathetic review of the new Rick Warren biography over at Slate. The final paragraph is particularly telling:

One does not have to be an evangelical to realize that a world of ruthless calculators living for no higher purpose is as shallow as a world in which religious faith allows no room for individual self-development. Rick Warren, Sheler's book makes clear, has found a message that reconciles profit and high purpose, faith and individual effort, and offers a form of humility that, at its best, galvanizes without aggrandizing. It may not be how I, or others, would balance the relationship between individual striving and a life of meaning, but it is plainly a formula uncannily well-timed for our disoriented, driven moment.

5. The New Yorker printed a wonderful and in-depth profile of Wes Anderson this week. You can find it here. 26 days and counting!



6. Finally, in leaked music news, Weezer's Raditude sounds exactly as the title would have you believe (i.e. utterly infectious teen-pop thrown off-kilter because it's made by guys who have not been teens for a long time). Another predictably unpredictable move from Rivers and co, I would be lying if I didn't report that it's had me pumping my fist all week. In the ranks of terribly-titled-yet-totally-great-driving-themed songs, their "Tripping Down The Freeway" is second only to The Beach Boys "Honking Down The Highway".

Meanwhile, Strokes' singer Julian Casablancas' Oscar Wilde-inspired solo record "Phrazes For The Young" is even better than I had hoped. His lyrics have always been underrated, and they really get a chance to shine here. At eight tracks, it's a bit short, which would be a bummer if every single one weren't top-notch. Highly recommended.

Also, everything that needs to be said about Bob Dylan's fantastic Christmas In The Heart has been said over at mardecortesbaja (back up on Sunday). "Hark the hee-rald angels see-ing!""

7. Has anyone seen The Plan yet?!

8. Finally, if for any reason you missed this week's Mbird e-newsletter - which contains some pretty exciting details about upcoming events - read it here. You can sign up for our email list in the sidebar.

Scientology: The Appeal Is Not So Strange

This has been a tough week to be a Scientologist. From the public renunciation by one of its senior members--screenwriter Paul Haggis---, to the interview-gone-wrong viral sensation by its spokesperson Tommy Davis, it seems that the Psychlos are carrying the day; however, Scientology has weathered many storms in its relatively brief existence and there is no reason to think that these will be any different. Since we here at Mockingbird are fascinated by all things celebrity and theological, the intersection of the two that is Scientology holds a special place in our Mockinghearts. A good friend of ours who is living and teaching in Vienna, Jeff Stockett, shares our fascination and sent us this take on Scientology that has some great insights into how Law/Gospel themes--self-creation, identity, hope, etc--are working within this intriguing religion. . .enjoy, and always remember your Happy Premises:)


The Church of Scientology (CoS) is an absolutely fascinating cultural subject (dare I say phenomenon?). Of particular interest, at least in my mind, is how the organization has continued to draw members over the last few years in spite of its controversial doctrines/origins and a seemingly endless supply of negative media attention (author’s note: my first exposure to the CoS on any sort of large scale came courtesy of Tom Cruise in June 2005, when he was interviewed by Matt Lauer of NBC’s Today Show about his role in the film “War of the Worlds.”) Of course, having atypical origins isn’t so unusual among the world’s religions, but the CoS is the only world religion I’m aware of that was founded by an American science fiction writer (L. Ron Hubbard) during the 1950’s—now that’s a pretty unique starting position!

In the case of the CoS it’s also worth noting that the group continues to actively work to PREVENT the spread of much of its higher teachings (specifically its cosmogonical beliefs) within the public domain, mostly through fierce litigation. For comparison purposes, this would be like Christians trying to stop the spread of the Creation account as it’s presented in Genesis. Thanks in large part to a series of tubes called the Internets (or Interwebs, to the layperson) this information is still readily available for public scrutiny (I recommend you listen here for L. Ron Hubbard’s account, and then view here for a visual interpretation:)

To exist and thrive despite these notable handicaps is impressive, and it really makes the CoS all the more intriguing to study. But how does this group continue to flourish amidst the viral spread of stories about galactic smackdowns, alien genocide, and a pestilence of ancient parasitical/reincarnated souls (also known as “thetans”)? I would suggest a few things:

1) Scientology appeals to the human desire to connect. This is nothing new among religions. Human beings are intrinsically built for community and relationship, and as a species we have a general desire to gain insight/understanding about our environment and surroundings. The teachings of Scientology provide a way for individuals to evaluate and connect with the world around them in a way that is explainable and measurable.

2) Scientology desires to help individuals confront past (and sometimes present) negative experiences and situations, which is a naturally appealing proposition. The CoS promotes the idea that through L. Ron Hubbard’s self-help counseling technique (called Dianetics or “auditing”(see below) one can come to grips with and move on from past traumas (called “engrams”). This idea of self-improvement is key, in my mind, to much of Scientology’s draw. In Scientology YOU are the one in control, and as you learn to siphon off these troublesome past experiences you become a stronger, freer, and more “Clear” being. For Scientologists, the goal is literally to create a new and better reality, which can only be achieved through the identification and elimination of these engrams. This concept, in principle, isn’t foreign among religions either, as using religion as a path to re-birth or enlightenment is an idea that has been around for centuries.

3) Scientology is naturally exclusive, in that the ability to progress within the community is attached closely to financial means. Much like a country club, not everyone has the resources to invest in Scientology, which limits high-ranking membership to the affluent and privileged. I’d venture to guess that this makes the CoS an appealing option to folks who DO have significant financial means, since they have the opportunity to join what one might consider an elite/celebrity community (it’s worth noting that L. Ron Hubbard developed an aggressive campaign specifically targeting celebrities for membership back in the 1950’s).

Essentially, the CoS has a pre-fabricated series of levels that one can reach by completing CoS courses. In this way, an individual’s progression through the ranks of the CoS is similar to how one obtains an academic degree: you pay your tuition, study the course materials, demonstrate subject mastery, and then are allowed to proceed to the next course. In that regard, the CoS appears to operate much like an educational institute, only without the ability to provide an accredited degree of any kind. This concept becomes particularly confounding when one considers that the cost of some individual courses can be in tens of thousands of dollars (coincidentally, the commercial success of the CoS led to the loss of its non-profit status in the U.S. (it was reinstated by the IRS in 1993) and has prevented it from being recognized as a religious body in many other parts of the world).

4) Scientologists have a built-in means by which to gauge their progress and success within the CoS. Success is dictated by each individual, and generally is restricted only by financial means (as noted above). The existence of measurable levels of achievement is contrary to many other faiths, and serves as an additional draw as it offers prestige, status, and measurable outcomes that an individual can control.(this is a picture of the Scientology "Celebrity Center" in LA)

5) Scientology incorporates the idea that one can secure “secret knowledge” about reality by progressing through the faith (not too dissimilar from Gnosticism or Buddhism). Again, much of the “higher level” teachings are held in strict confidence until one reaches a certain level/rank within the CoS. This makes obtaining that information more desirable for individuals.

One last note: my personal intrigue with the Church of Scientology is generated not from the organization’s religious precepts, but because I am a bona fide science fiction nerd. Regardless, Scientology remains an engaging and fascinating area of study. If you have additional thoughts about why what Scientology has to offer is appealing, please feel free to share. Here are a few snippets from Tom Cruise regarding the organization’s appeal:

*Auditing is a one-on-one session with a Scientology counselor. It bears a superficial similarity to “confession” or pastoral counseling, but the auditor does not dispense forgiveness or advice the way a pastor or priest might do. Instead, the auditor’s task is to help the person discover and understand engrams, and their limiting effects, for themselves. Most auditing requires the use of an “E-meter,” a device that measures minute changes in electrical resistance through the body when a person holds electrodes (metal “cans”), and a small current is passed through them. Scientology asserts that watching for changes in the E-meter’s display helps locate engrams. Once an area of concern has been identified, the auditor asks the individual specific questions about it, in order to help them eliminate the engram, and uses the E-meter to confirm that the engram’s “charge” has been dissipated and the engram has in fact been cleared.

…Just make sure you don’t ever cross the streams…

A Brief Excerpt from Terrence Rattigan's The Deep Blue Sea (1952)

Miller: ... And you alone know how unequal the battle has always been that your will has had to fight.

Hester: 'I tried to be good, and failed.' Isn't that the excuse all criminals make?

Miller: When they make it justly, it's a just excuse.

Hester: Does it let them escape their sentence?

Miller: Yes, if the judge is fair -- and not blind with hatred for the criminal -- as you are for yourself.

(ht PZ)

October Playlist

1. I'm Sorry - Hall & Oates
2. Meat City - John Lennon
3. Soily - Wings
4. Sowing The Seeds Of Love - Tears For Fears
5. 11th Dimension - Julian Casablancas
6. Last Dance - The Raveonettes
7. Two Weeks - Grizzly Bear
8. Jesus Christ - Big Star
9. Big Star Baby - Mojave 3
10. King Of Kings - Echo And The Bunnymen
11. Low Life Kingdom - Ben Gibbard and Jay Farrar
12. What A Friend - The Magills
13. Underdog (Save Me) - Turin Brakes
14. I'll Be Back - The Beatles
15. Someday I'll Be Forgiven For This - Justin Townes Earle
16. I and Love and You - The Avett Brothers
17. Caroline Goodbye - Colin Blunstone
18. There Will Never Be Any Peace (Until God Is Seated At The Conference Table) - The Chi-Lites

The Ministry of Food

As someone who is "big-boned", I have been interested in the plethora of reality television shows that all revolve around heavy people. There is the one that is truly inspiring, The Biggest Looser, as well as many others that seem to be more like exploitation projects: Dance Your Ass Off and More to Love. Either way, I love to watch them all with a bowl of ice cream. This Spring, ABC is looking to continue the trend with a new reality television show revolving around America’s “fattest” city, Huntington W.VA. The show entitled “Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution” will host British Celeb Chef Jamie Oliver, many of you will know him as the Naked Chef, as he seeks to get an entire town to stop eating deep fried food and switch to more organic foods. (The most popular restaurant in Huntington is the Hillbilly Hotdog where they serve a fifteen pound hamburger).

A number of news agencies have picked up the story because evidently the town, which was initially thrilled with the idea, is not as excited as they once were with the diet plan...I can totally relate. Surprise, Surprise, many of the local town bureaucrats, parents, and teenagers don’t like being told that they are over weight and have failed as a community. The good citizens claim that the show will give their town a negative image, and not only affect tourism but people’s desire to move to Huntington W.VA. While that all may be true, I think Alex Witchell of the NYT nails the real reason for pushback when he writes with regards to the town’s response, “The reason the world is still waiting for the Messiah is that most people don’t actually want one, no matter how many fresh fruits and vegetables he’s carrying.”

That statement leads to two very interesting observations in light of the human condition and its interaction with the real Messiah, Jesus Christ. The first is everybody knows what they should be doing, the problem is no one is doing it; they are incapable of doing it, and they hate being told to do it (Romans 7). Second, this is exactly why nobody wants a messiah, ignorance is bliss. We don’t want our short comings and failures pointed out. We like living with the idea that everything is just fine and I am o.k. in the warm caress of the Hillbilly Hotdog or whatever your version of that is. However, unlike Jamie Christ, Jesus Christ doesn’t beckon us to clean up and get fit. Rather, through his cross he not only demonstrates our failures, but dies for and forgives them.

This Is (Really) It - Death, Resurrection and Michael Jackson

Just couldn't wait until Friday to post this amusing review of This Is It. From TIME magazine of all places, the Mbird-worthy passages of which include (major ht Jeff Dean):

Death and resurrection. That's the scenario not just for gods but for pop stars who earn fans' ardor with an electrifying presence and their sympathy with very public private lives of addiction and misbehavior. The stars' talent makes them unique; their transgressions make them human... It took death to restore [Michael Jackson's] standing as one-of-a-kind entertainer — to bring him back to life.

But full redemption, not to mention true resurrection, requires a personal appearance. And on the 125th day he rose from the dead, at least on screen, with Michael Jackson's This Is It, a docu-musical record of the star's rehearsals for his comeback London concert series that was to begin in July.

Michael's stalwart buddy Elizabeth Taylor, who attended an early screening last week, effusively tweeted that This Is It was "the single most brilliant piece of filmmaking I have ever seen."

For a modern entertainer who dies before his time, immortality is measured in residuals — the money from commemorative projects like this. Michael Jackson will have no resurrection — in the end, that was that — but the movie does earn him a redemptive legacy. It proves that, at the end, he was still a thriller. Fans and doubters alike can look at the gentle, driven singer-dancer at the center of this up-close document and say admiringly, This was him.

See you in line! In the meantime:

Less Law, Less Trespass - from the Automotive Dept.

We've got more than a few gearheads here at Mockingbird, and I thought that the following post from autoblog was a wonderful illustration of St. Paul's words that "where there is no law, neither is there violation" (Rom 4.15).

When the Utah DOT raised the speed limit on two pieces of I-15 from 75 mph to 80 mph, it discovered that driving habits didn't change. When the limit was 75 mph, the Utah DoT found that drivers were going between 81 and 85 mph. And now that the maximum limit is 80 mph, it has found that drivers are going between 83 and 85 mph.

You can look at that as less speeding, as the UDoT has, or simply the fact that people didn't automatically start going 10 mph over the limit, having found a speed that satisfies 85% of them. This shouldn't be that surprising – even when Montana had stretches of highway with unlimited speeds, it was only a few folks, mostly out-of-staters, that raced at max velocity. And most folks on unlimited sections of the Autobahn aren't even going 150 mph.

According to the Deseret News, a UDoT official said that accidents haven't increased, either, nor did they expect an increase in fender benders. What he said has increased, though, is speed differential, which we don't quite understand. Apparently, the difference between the fastest and slowest vehicles has widened. We can only imagine he was speaking of the 2 mph difference between the slightly higher lower average speed of 83 mph vs the 81 mph from before. Even though one Utah legislator wasn't happy about the increased limit, saying speed kills, the proof appears to be... well, not necessarily.

For an illustration of 1Co 3.13-15, check out this post.

Shakespeare on Prayer - Prospero's Speech

From the end of The Tempest:

Now my charms are all o'erthrown,
And what strength I have's mine own,
Which is most faint: now, 'tis true,
I must be here confined by you,
Or sent to Naples. Let me not,
Since I have my dukedom got
And pardon'd the deceiver, dwell
In this bare island by your spell;
But release me from my bands
With the help of your good hands:
Gentle breath of yours my sails
Must fill, or else my project fails,
Which was to please. Now I want
Spirits to enforce, art to enchant,
And my ending is despair,
Unless I be relieved by prayer,
Which pierces so that it assaults
Mercy itself and frees all faults.
As you from crimes would pardon'd be,
Let your indulgence set me free.

SAVE THE DATE!

We are proud to announce that our keynote speaker will be Dr. Rod Rosenbladt. All other details are still being finalized. Pre-registration opens in the new year. We hope you can make it!

Grace for Mark McGwire?

As the World Series is set to begin, the biggest story in baseball isn't the Phillies quest for a repeat title or the resurgence of A-Rod and the Yankees, but it's the return of Mark McGwire to baseball as a hitting coach for the St. Louis Cardinals. As expected, many fans are crying foul. Next to Barry Bonds, McGwire is public enemy number two in MLB's steroid era. News of McGwire's illegal doping first came to light in Jose Canseco's book "Juiced." While McGwire has never failed a drug test, Canseco's accusation confirmed the widespread suspicions that it was steroids that contributed to his rapid weight gain and 70 home runs. But unlike other players like Alex Rodriguez, Andy Pettitte, and Jason Giambi, McGwire has never admitted to taking steroids. Even worse, he has blatently side-stepped the issue when he has been asked about his steroid use and not proclaimed his innocence.

It is this silence that has aroused criticism of the Cardinal's hiring of McGwire to be their hitting coach. The lead FBI investigator Greg Stejskal had this to say: "It's basically rewarding a guy who hasn't stood up and taken a stand against this stuff. There's been no mea culpa, and instead he became a recluse. It reminds me of a passage from Proverbs: 'The wicked flee where no man pursueth.'"

The public outrage over Mark McGwire can be traced to both McGwire's alledged steroid abuse and his refusal to come-clean and repent. The Cardinals have hired a coach who hasn't "taken responsibility" for his actions. They have shown him grace. The Cardinals have willingly suffered the cost of this public relations nightmare by giving an abandoned transgressor like Mark McGwire new life through a job that allows him to do what he loves.

The Christian understanding of grace is not forgiveness to those who have made amends of their sin or those who properly prepared themselves for grace. But Christian grace is the forgiveness of the wicked (Romans 5:6-10). God does not demand any inclination toward God or movement of our will as a precondition of grace, but freely forgives. Jesus died for all his disciples who abandoned him in the hour of his need (Mark 15:40). As Luther said, "On the part of man, however, nothing precedes grace except indisposition and even rebellion against grace."

Mark McGwire may be a vile, heartless cheater who destroyed baseball (allegedly), but I hope that he makes a great hitting coach.

Another Week Begins: God vs Science, R.Crumb, Chris Christie, Social Justice, The Amazing Race and Dr. Null

1. On the off chance that you didn't see William McGurn's powerful editorial in last week's Wall Street Journal, "God vs. Science isn't the issue", here's a few lines from it:

Here's the problem: Almost no one really believes [that human beings do not possess some form of "special dignity" in comparison to other life forms]. Not, at least, when it comes to how we behave. And the dichotomy between scientific theory and human action may itself have something to tell us about truth.

Many Americans who are indifferent to faith will confess they find themselves challenged as they try to raise good and decent children without the religious confidence their parents had. The result may not be a return to religion but a healthy agnosticism about agnosticism itself.

[On a somewhat-related note - the discussion revolving around the Dawkins craze - check out Caleb Maskell's excellent recent post, "Terry Eagleton on Performatives and Propositions".]

2. Renowned/infamous underground comic artist R.Crumb published his long-awaited The Book Of Genesis Illustrated last week. Not a huge Crumb fan myself, but this project has my interest for obvious reasons. A particularly priceless portion of the review in the Washington Post (ht PW):

Crumb himself has written: "I am constantly disgusted by reality, horrified and afraid. I cling desperately to the few things that give me some solace, that make me feel good. For me to be human is, for the most part, to hate what I am. When I suddenly realize I am one of them, I want to scream in horror."

Not unlike the God of Genesis beholding the depravity of his children, even his greatest servants. Abraham pimps his wife, Sarah, Jacob cheats his brother, Esau.

3. Anyone interested in the free will/obesity/health care discussion would do well to read Daniel Engber's highly insightful (and often irritatingly smug) assessment over at Slate. The latest installment, "Is Chris Christie too fat to win an election in New Jersey?" contained a number of gems about identity and self-righteousness and the bound will (ht J. Stamper). The final two paragraphs read:

A couple of months ago, I asked [Esther Rothblum, editor of the Fat Studies Reader] why she thought the fat rights movement aroused so much ire from across the political spectrum. Thin people tend to think they've controlled their weight through hard work and strength of character, she said. That makes the idea of size acceptance seem like a personal affront to anyone who's not severely obese. If we're all OK with being fat, then there's no pride in being thin.

So what does this mean for Chris Christie? Most of the country is overweight or obese, according to government standards, yet there's no constituency for a fat politician. Conservatives see excess weight as a sign of moral failing or a breach of personal responsibility. Liberals sneer at the bloated American lifestyle, even while imagining the war on obesity as a fight for social justice. A size-blind culture is clearly a long way off. Until we get there, it's the thin candidates who will be throwing their weight around.

4. An interesting and very personal account from author Chris Rice about the sometimes tense relationship between grace and social justice [just ask this man], aptly titled "From Trying Harder and Doing More to a Culture of Grace" (ht AZ):

For us, “telling the truth” had so much become telling the church and each other how you need to change and be more radical. But now we saw that the greatest truth was telling and showing each other how much God loves us. Our paradigm for daily life had shifted to John’s mantra, “Caring for each other, forgiving each other, and keeping the dishes washed. We are forgiven. All the rest is details.”

5. Blogroll: Over at Andy Whitman's fantastic blog, Razing The Bar, check out "The Jerk Factory", a brief look at contemporary evangelicalism through the lens of... The Amazing Race. Then, in anticipation of the return on Wednesday night of the best show on (direct)TV - besides Mad Men of course - be sure to read "Now Go Out There And Take It!" on Heather Gregorio's 15 Shekels.

6. Here in NYC, Christ Church's ministry conference kicks off tomorrow night (10/27) at 6pm with a talk on Thomas Cranmer from Mbird favorite Dr. Ashley Null. Highly recommended! For more details, go here.

Love Doesn't Justify; Faith does: an interview with Dr. Mark Mattes

Regular readers of our blog will, no doubt, be familiar with the deep thoughts of our favorite philosopher-hunter, David Browder. Recently, he forwarded me a discussion that he had been having with one of our heroes, Dr. Mark Mattes, who gave these addresses at our first-ever Mockingbird conference in 2008 and is the author of the MUST-READ The Role of Justification in Contemporary Theology. They thought that their conversation may be of interest to us here on the blog, and were they ever right. We're hoping that this will be a regular feature here, but in good reformation-theological form, we're just happy to receive what we've been given and then pass it on to you:) Enjoy!

Mark: Do we need someone to start us off? How about this? I submit that we (at least as old beings) resist grace and we use religion in some way or another to do just that. Our concern for our "potentiality" while good when the intent is to help others can and often does work as just another defense to keep us in our self-righteousness. This is a little abstract, but I'm just throwing it out there for conversation.

David: Here we go (along those lines): In the movie The Passion of Ayn Rand (at the end), one of Rand's disillusioned old lovers asked an older Rand where love fits in her objectivist philosophy. Her response was that love consisted in reaching one's full potential. As you know, becoming master of one's own domain was the highest priority for her. In the very next scene, the director shows Ayn Rand's tombstone in a graveyard. Could you give your reaction to this in terms of what it means for people living life and interacting with God?

Mark: David, "The Passion of Ayn Rand" sounds like a "must-see" movie. Love assists her to reach her full potential? Next scene: tombstone. Whether the director intended it or not, this to me sounds like a commentary on "the wages of sin is death." I would think love would be the least likely place to look for the development or realization of self-potential, because real love entails a letting go of oneself. I love my child really and truly only when I love him in God and give him over to God. If every time I seek my self-development or my ego when my child is up to bat at little league, then I'm really hurting my son. He picks up that he's just an appendage of my ego, and that doesn't do anything positivefor him. No doubt, many parents do this, but isn't this just a symptom of sin? Doesn't one's child really belong to God and not to oneself? Only by letting him learn from his mistakes and triumphs do I succeed as a parent.

Love, if it is genuine, really has very little or nothing to do with me. Unless of course I am a "love addict" and simply use another to have any sense of self or identity. But such "love addiction" is no love but only a semblance of it.A love addict doesn't trust that God's love is sufficient for him or her. He or she is addicted to the biochemistry of love as an antidote to pain. (And, the researchers now say that such love biochemistry is good for about a year and a half!) The addiction can never free one of such pain, however.If faith allows another (God) to be there for me (Eberhard Jüngel) and thus allows me to live outside myself in God (in the word), then similarly love too is a living outside of myself in genuine concern for my neighbor (not to control them in any way) and ultimately living outside ourselves in our love for God, lost in "wonder, love, and praise" as Charles Wesley so magnificently and somewhat mystically put it. Or as Luther put it in The Freedom of the Christian (1520), faith receives the Christ become incarnate for us in order to serve us, and such faith naturally and spontaneously issues in love in which (or even so that) we can serve others.

If I really love, the story is no longer about me. I'm not on center stage. Instead, I'm there for someone else, and I allow someone else to be there for me. This truth, I think, can help a marriage. No doubt a teenager with a crush or in a relationship might very well feel that love is all about himself or herself, his or her feelings, due to a heightened biochemical awakening. This is all natural, and developmentally, it's normal for the teen to be somewhat narcissistic and self-centered.

But, genuine, mature love-akin to that of our master Jesus Christ-really is unconcerned for self. In my relationships, the narrative isn't about me. It's about us. Ultimately it's about where God is leading us to become who he wants us to be-free to be and free to serve where and when that service is needed. As a mentioned at our recent conference, I'm convinced that nature as it comes from the hand of God and were it to be unsullied by original sin is geared towards an altruism. God's law as accusing and destroying brings an end to our being-curved-in-on-ourselves (which is nature for Ayn Rand but corrupt nature for us!) so that grace might liberate this nature, and allow creation to be as God intends it. Be aware: the social sciences don't study human nature as such, but only human nature as sullied and polluted by original sin.

David: it sounds like love (which seems like an all-encompassing idea) has two different meanings in Christianity and the world of Aristotle (Ayn Rand was a self-proclaimed Aristotelian, of course). Is there a common thread between the natural man's potential-based emphasis and potential-based Christianity?

Mark: I find your comparison between secular Ayn Rand and many "born-again" Christians, with respect to love, insightful. I would think the common thread is me, myself, and I. For many Christians, Christ simply helps us fulfill our potential. In many respects, one could ask them: Is Jesus Christ really necessary for your salvation and life? Or is he a supplement? With respect to self and others, though, they really are on a continuum with a secular philosopher such as Rand. But the truth, as I see it, is: Love doesn't justify. Faith does. And, when you love, it demands that you die, hardly fulfilling any kind of potential, but opening me up to where others are.

Never Let Go, Jack

Ask anyone who has ever run out of a locker room before a game and they will tell you that there is usually some sort of slogan or inspirational message hanging near the door that is supposed to get you all fired up and ready. Would that this quote from Luther were hanging in the vestries of our churches in a similar way:

“If you preach faith [and assurance] people become lax…But if you do not preach faith, hearts become frightened and dejected…Do as you please. Nothing seems to help. Yet faith in Christ should be preached, no matter what happens. I would much rather hear people say of me that I preach too sweetly…than not preach faith in Christ at all, for then there be no help for timid, frightened consciences…Therefore I should like to have the message of faith in Christ not forgotten but generally known. It is so sweet a message, full of sheer joy, comfort, mercy and grace. I must confess that I myself have as yet not fully grasped it. We shall have to let it happen that some turn the message into an occasion for security and presumption; others…slander us…and say [that by preaching so much of Christ] we make people lazy and thus keep them from perfection. Christ himself had to hear that he was a friend of publicans and sinners…We shall not fare any better.”

Martin Luther Ascension Day sermon of 1534: WA 37, pp 394-395

Good News? Shut Up About It. Mockingbird at the...TV

Can the news be that good if no one wants to hear it? I often find myself chuckling derisively at the preaching in churches that I see on television. "Ha!" I'll snort. "What an offensive message. No one's going to like that very much!" Then, as you might imagine, the camera pans around to reveal the masses hanging on the preacher's every word. I have no masses. Don't get me wrong, I love my congregation, and we're growing, but we didn't have to buy an arena from an NBA team, like Joel Osteen and Lakewood Church in Houston did. Why is it that preaching that some of us might consider to be bad news is so appealing to so many listeners? The answer, of course, is to be found at the core of the recent Treehouse of Horror XX.

Can you believe that this is The Simpsons' twentieth season? Astounding. In any event, each year, The Simpsons produces a Halloween episode that is required viewing, even if you're not a fan of the show itself. The Halloween special is a cultural phenomenon. This year, the episode included a vignette in which Krustyburger (the chain owned by the town's children's television star) sells what turns out to be an "infected" hamgburger. Through a production process that would have the FDA and the EPA carrying pitchforks and torches, Krustyburger puts a burger out that turns the citizens of Springfield into...of course: Zombies. Favorite line from the episode? Bartender Moe, as he's being carried off by four zombies: "If I were you, I'd wash me before I eat me."

Even after the alarm is raised people continue to eat the burgers! Finally, days after the plague starts, Bart can stand his burger-jones no longer, and risks life and limb to navigate a sea of zombies to get his hands on what appears to be the last remaining Krustyburger. He bites.

What could compel Bart to do this? To act in such a counter-intuitive way? This convention is well known in slasher film: "No group of nubile teens has ever returned from that campground alive!" "Oh, I'm sure we'll be fine." Or, "This house, built on an ancient Indian burial ground has phantasmagorical blood pouring down the walls, and the realtor, a crusty old woman with one eye and a goiter, told us not to stay here." "I'm sure it's nothing to worry about." Bart's been given information that can save his life: Don't eat that burger. He does anyway. And Christians? What's with them? Why the resistance to the good news? In the end, Bart's hunger gets the best of him. His need for a burger overrides the logic of avoiding zombie-ism. For Christians, our need to contribute, our need to self-justify, and our need to be active overrides the logic of accepting what appears to be the best option: A free gift for which we much do nothing and which requires no response.

In As Good As It Gets, Jack Nicholson gives Helen Hunt medical care she can't afford for her son. When he tells her that no thanks are required, that it's a free gift and he doesn't want to read her thank-you letter, she becomes angry. People want to contribute. People need to self-justify. People desire to be active. So when we've got Good News (no contribution necessary...justification already accomplished...no activity required...) no one wants to hear it.

In place of my usual "Great movie no one has ever seen," and in honor of this being Mockingbird at the TV...here are my two favorite TV commercials of all time:

And...

Pandora as Judgment-Free Zone

There is a very interesting article in this week's New York Times Magazine about Pandora, the free internet music service that creates custom playlists based on your personal music preferences. I am a huge Pandora fan.

Most interesting, for Mockingbirds, is how the absence of judgment (i.e. law) in Pandora creates the space for love (of music) to flourish. Pandora's entire system depends on a group of music experts evaluating songs in the most objective, least judgmental way possible, which often leads to unexpected musical connections for listeners, as is recounted in the following humorous anecdote:

Westergren (Pandora's founder) likes to tell a story about a Pandora user who wrote in to complain that he started a station based on the music of Sarah McLachlan, and the service served up a Celine Dion song. “I wrote back and said, ‘Was the music just wrong?’ Because we sometimes have data errors,” he recounts. “He said, ‘Well, no, it was the right sort of thing — but it was Celine Dion.’ I said, ‘Well, was it the set, did it not flow in the set?’ He said, ‘No, it kind of worked — but it’s Celine Dion.’ We had a couple more back-and-forths, and finally his last e-mail to me was: ‘Oh, my God, I like Celine Dion.’ ”

This particular listener would have never realized the horrifying, liberating truth that he likes Celine Dion if Pandora had rated music based on taste, which is, by definition, judgmental. As the author writes:

What Pandora’s system largely ignores is, in a word, taste. The way that Gasser or Westergren might put this is that it minimizes the influence of other people’s taste. Music-liking becomes a matter decided by the listener, and the intrinsic elements of what is heard. Early on, Westergren actually pushed for the idea that Pandora would not even reveal who the artist was until the listener asked. He thought maybe that structure would give users a kind of permission to evaluate music without even the most minimal cultural baggage. “We’re so insecure about our tastes,” he says.

Simply put, the absence of judgment in Pandora creates the freedom for people to discover what they actually love, rather than what they're supposed to. As a pastor myself, I see my role in the spiritual formation of my congregation as fostering the type of non-judgmental, gospel-induced freedom that allows for love and creativity to blossom. I may have my ideas of what "living by the Spirit" looks like, my own personal "taste", but imposing this on others will invariably quench the movement of the Spirit in their own lives.

Of course, whether or not liking Celine Dion could be called a fruit of the Spirit is another question...

All The Romery People

In Oxford on October 15, 1555, Anglican Bishops Hugh Latimer and Nicholas Ridley were burned as Protestant heretics under the reign of Queen Mary. Shortly before they were murdered, Ridley said to Latimer, “Play the man, Master Ridley; we shall this day light such a candle, by God’s grace, in England, as I trust shall never be put out.” And although this candle has indeed burned for over 450 years, many believe that this week’s Papal decision to allow for disaffected Anglicans to enter full communion with the Roman church, may reduce it to, at best, a smoldering wick.

“Under the plan,” writes Ruth Gledhill of the TimesUK, “the Pope will issue an apostolic constitution, a form of papal decree, that will lead to the creation of “personal ordinariates” for Anglicans who convert to Rome. These will provide a legal framework to allow Anglicans to enter full communion with the Catholic Church while preserving distinctive elements of their Anglican identity, such as liturgy. Clergy will have to be retrained and re-ordained, since Rome regards Anglican orders as “absolutely null and utterly void”, but they will be granted their own seminaries to train future priests for the new ordinariate.”

How magnanimous:)

Although there have always been Anglican clergy who were sympathetic to Roman Catholic theology, it is only since the mid 19th century with the appearance of the Oxford Movement, that there has been a recognized stream within Anglicanism that has self-consciously considered itself more Roman than Protestant. And even though the patron saint of this movement, John Henry Newman, found it impossible to remain an Anglican and uphold his oath to the 39 Articles after trying to interpret them through the lens of Roman Catholic theology, many Anglicans from his day on have nevertheless opted for an uneasy Anglo-Catholic limbo; ironically, the Pope’s decreee allows for suspension of this limbo. Anglo-Catholics, it would seem, can now have their transubstantiation and eat it too:)

Now of course, we’ll quickly see objections made and reasons why comfortable Anglo-Catholics won’t “swim the Tiber,” as they say, issues like church governance, dogmas regarding the Blessed Virgin Mary and the nature of Holy Orders, but as important as these issues are, no reformer would have considered them church-dividing issues. None. Sure, what you think about Mary is important, and who among us likes to think that their ordination is invalid, but the historic fact remains that had the fundamental issue of the nature of Justification--the way God and humanity are related--been agreed upon, then these issues could have been resolved without splitting the church. The initial break and the continued reason for the divided church can be seen in the clear and unapologetic disagreement over what Luther called the articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae--the article upon which the church stands or falls--the doctrine of Justification by Grace alone through Faith alone.

For many years, my standard response to the (oft posed) question, “Why aren’t you a Catholic?” was always that I wasn’t comfortable with the “fact” that the Pope had a solid gold bathroom. The sophistication and thoughtfulness of this response belied my genuine ignorance about Catholic doctrine and practice, because all I knew is that, really, they thought that the Pope could fly. Essentially, I viewed Catholicism—not unlike my own faith at the time—more as a social phenomenon than a theological category. I basked in this ignorance until the summer of 2001 when I was given a copy of First Things, and my life was turned upside down. In April 2002, I’ll never forget reading How I Became the Catholic I Was, by the late (great) Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, and being genuinely struck by the fact that many of my objections to Catholicism were, at best, misunderstandings and, at worst, completely wrong.

My introduction to First Things coincided with the rise of the movement called “Evangelicals and Catholics Together," and slowly, my objections to Roman Catholicism began to come down. Due, in addition, in no small part to having met during that time one of the most winsome and articulate defenders of Catholicism I had known, I was on my way to either swallowing the whole loaf and going Roman, or at least coming as close as possible by joining the more-socially-acceptable but consigned to limbo Anglo-Catholic fold. Then, one glorious and life-changing day, I heard the doctrine of Justification explained in historic law/gospel form, my heart was strangely warmed and well, now I know why I can never be the Catholic I almost was.

This understanding--that the very heart of the Gospel is protected by a clear articulation of the doctrine of Justification by Grace alone through Faith alone--was the catalyst for both the Continental and English Reformations, fidelity to it is why the early Anglican Protestants were martyred and it remains, IMNSHO, the only reason to not go to Rome.

Now, the arguments concerning the division between the Roman Catholics and the various Protestant groups over the doctrine of Justification are many, long and well-documented; nevertheless, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Reformed, Baptists, 7^th Day Adventists, and 1st through 6th Day Adventists have always been defined in some way against the condemnations of the Roman Catholic Council of Trent and its condemnations of the “Protestant heresies.” This council, according to the encyclopedia Brittanica, “clarified virtually every doctrine contested by the Protestants.” With the clarifications came the requisite anathamas—or curses—from the Roman Church, among which are the following:

Canon 12: "If any one shall say that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy pardoning sins for Christ's sake, or that it is that confidence alone by which we are justified ... let him be anathema"

Canon 4: “If anyone says that man’s free will moved and aroused by God, by assenting to God’s call and action, in no way cooperates toward disposing and preparing itself to obtain the grace of justification. . . let him be anathema”

Canon 5: “If anyone says that after the sin of Adam man’s free will was lost and destroyed. . . let him be anathema.” (Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, tr. H.J Schroeder)

And before anyone is tempted to think that the aforementioned “anyone(s)” referred only to the more hot-headed Calvinists or Lutherans, or that Anglicans were somehow the reasonable (well dressed) via media between Rome and Geneva--the "catholic lite" idea--let us compare these canons to the 39 Articles, which are a collection of theological statements based on the theology of Thomas Cranmer that all Anglican clergy (at least in the Church of England, including yours truly) since 1571 must affirm as part of their ordination vows. (for a good summary of Cranmer’s thoughts on Justification, see this interview with our hero, Canon Dr. Ashley Null)

Article XI: Of the Justification of Man

We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings: Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.

The last paragraph of the aforementioned homily is :

Hitherto have we heard what we are of our selves: very sinful, wretched, and damnable. Again, wee have heard how that of our selves, and by our selves, wee are not able either to think a good thought, or work a good deed, so that wee can find in our selves no hope of salvation, but rather whatsoever maketh unto our destruction. Again, we have heard the tender kindness and great mercy of GOD the Father towards us, and how beneficial he is to us for Christ’s sake, without our merits or deserts, even of his own sheer mercy & tender goodness. . .

Article X: Of Free-Will

The condition of Man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith, and calling upon God: Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will.

Clearly, the anathema’s of the Council of Trent were intended to cover the “protestant heresies” of the Anglican church and it is only by the most dubious logic and almost complete devaluing of language itself that people have been able to reconcile the two (for instance, see Cardinal Newman’s (in)famous “Track 90” on Justification).

As for me, I’m glad that the Pope has made this decree, because now, perhaps, people will have to really examine the reasons that they are either Anglican or Catholic, and, in turn, they will hopefully be brought back face to face with what we here believe to be this “most wholesome doctrine” of Justification by Faith. And while it is my hope, and my life's work for that matter, that Ridley and Latimer's candle of the Anglican Church and its proclamation of the Gospel continues to shine, I am nevertheless comforted by God's promise in Christ that, "a smoldering wick he will not extinguish," and will remain steadfast and secure--despite the anathemas--resting wholly and completely with “confidence in the divine mercy pardoning sins for Christ's sake." Thanks be to God.