Posterous
Trey is using Posterous to post everything online. Shouldn't you?
Dsc02016_thumb
 
soul - ache  - ideas, sounds and images between the already and the not-yet

on the selling of indulgences and venture capitalists

What do you call a 16th century spinning nail gun? Martin Luther rolling over in his grave.


At least I think that's what's happening, and, given the New York Times article declaring that indulgences are back, I imagine he's peppered the inside of that coffin with way more than 95 Theses.

It's hard for me to even begin to process commodifying grace, but, in the interest of giving my Catholic brethren and sistern the benefit of the doubt, I'm really trying to wrap my brain around this. Promise.

I've spent some time trying to understand the psychology of "free stuff." Just last week I overheard our church ministry assistant telling someone that Weight Watchers has to charge a fee for their service because "if it doesn't cost you something then you don't value it enough to take it seriously."

By some cursory web searches that hardly qualify as research, it seems that psychologists and marketing folks are split about this. If you give someone something for free they may, in fact, abuse it--thinking that the well will never run dry. Conversely, others may treasure it as sheer gift, and, out of extreme gratitude, only use that one good/service above all others.

Then there's the question of the brain's own approach to things. In the choice between a "best" that costs and a "free" that's good enough, many folks will be happy to use the free version as long as it meets their needs.

It turns out Venture Capitalists in the tech sector have figured this out and have deemed this concept "freemium" . The guiding principle is that if a person becomes accustomed to using a service (with or without ads), they will eventually value the service and, as features are added at a cost, some members will be willing to pay a premium for the services they want, either motivated by guilt or perceived necessity.

I think the VC's out there and the Holy See may be drawing cards from the same trick deck. Both services rely on creating a sense of need within the consumer, giving them something for free,  then seeing whose willing to dole it out incrementally or (for the low, low price of $___.__) attempt to satiate that need instantly.

And when I'm honest, the Protestants like me, heirs to Luther's legacy, aren't much better. Truth be told I'm not sure but what the compliment to this post isn't the one I wrote about innocence a couple of days ago.

We crave absolution--some form of reciprocity. "Free" sounds cheap, and so we rationalize that we will abuse and misuse it--the thought alone the end result of our cynicism. It is our unwillingness to trust ourselves to do the right thing with the grace we have been shown--to give it back, measure for measure, to all who cross our path. Brennan Manning rightly reminds us "Never confuse your perception of yourself with the mystery that you really are accepted."

May we cease striving, cease spending, cease searching for the everlasting absolution only to find it was, and has always been, 
free.

She Must And Shall Go Free by Derek Webb  
(download)

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //   derek webb   free   freemium   grace   indulgences   martin luther   roman catholic church   venture capitalists  
Posted February 11, 2009
// 0 Comments

on innocence (lost & found)

Many of the folks who read this know that we have been working through the process of in-state adoption for the last few months. We had our first visit with our prospective child yesterday. There are a hundred things I could say about this moment, but there was one theme that kept running through my head on a perpetual loop.


Without violating a whole lot of state rules, let's suffice it to say that the child in question is in state custody, which means he encountered some pretty rough things. What struck me is how amazingly innocent this kid was. Sure, the child is capable of any number of things--lying, stealing, not sharing, not listening, the list goes on. The die-hard theological sensibilities in me tell me that this child is a sinner and was born into it whether they wanted to be or not.

After all, I was raised to believe that "my sin was always before me" and the guilt of that thought alone was (and still is) enough to send me into the abyss of despair (which is somewhere past the Slough of Despond , I'm convinced). Any life occurrence that went anything other than how I'd planned it was instantly, subconsciously connected to sin, be it of omission or commission. 

Of course, then there's the matchless grace of Jesus (deeper than the mighty rolling sea...). This grace, I was told, makes all those filthy rags magically turn white. I am, per Paul and the witness of Scripture, a new creation--transformed as it were, from depraved sinner to redeemed saint.

In terms of the living of Christian life, it was painted that life is more or less a struggle between these two opposing forces, best represented in Luther's famous statement simul justus et peccator--"at the same time sinner and saint."

I freely admit, at the ripe old age of 30, I now tend to lean on the side of "grace for once and for all." My self-flagellating desires are gone--I have to embrace a Love that had been embracing me while I squalled about my prodigal nature. Which brings me back to this potential new addition to our family.

He did nothing to deserve the treatment he has yet endured. It is tempting to paint those responsible for his care as inhumane people who are somehow beyond redemption, but that misses the point. There are any number of factors that predisposed them to making bad situations worse, be it the endless cycle of poverty and abuse or the economic isolation of the rural South. More than that, if I am innocent, then I must confess under Christ, that they too, are innocent.

Most of us speak of innocence in virginal terms--something that cannot be regained once lost. All the while the story of redemption is born in every flower shooting forth in Spring, every child embraced, every life transformed by a grace that rejects all attempts to deny it's very existence.

To identify ourselves only, or indeed primarily, as "sinners saved by grace" is to only tell half of the story. 

To say that we are, 
that we have been, 
that we will perpetually be 
innocent. 

And that is very, very good news.

Innocent (American Idol Studio Version) by David Cook  
(download)

Loading mentions Retweet
Posted February 9, 2009
// 1 Comment

on the fallacy of the false dilemma (and how we all do it anyway)

For the last few weeks I've been teaching a class called Critical Thinking at one of Shorter's Adult Education campuses. It's an interdisciplinary class, so apparently I'm credentialed to teach it, and the modest amount of philosophy experience I've had seems to meet with the basic use of logic and forms.

There are a lot of things I've enjoyed about this class--it forces me to force other people to think (really think--like make-your-head-hurt-like-a-Dairy-Queen-induced-brain-freeze think.) It's allowed me to play devil's advocate A LOT--which is something I relish in the classroom. It's also forced me to consider logical fallacies that flow around us like the sea.

They are omnipresent--radiating from the speakers of televisions and talk radios, water-cooler banter and lunch-hour conversations. All around are arguments, that, albeit passionate and well-intentioned, do meet the standards of logic and are easily dismissed (including the one you're reading right now.)

In the last week or so, I have become particularly attuned to one such fallacy--so much so that I gave it an easter egg link in yesterday's blog, but as it has repeatedly resurfaced like a bobber with a trout on the line, I thought it merited its own post.

The fallacy of the false dilemma  is better known as the "either/or" fallacy. Simply put, it is an argument which claims only two options--for/against, black/white, pro/con--the list goes on ad infinitum. 

It turns out there are many reasons to believe these things are true. Dyads are common in nature and in science--where there ceases to be life, there is death, and so on. The problem occurs when an individual asserts that something can be one thing only, always. This suggests an implicit dichotomy where nothing else matters--only which side of the issue one has chosen.

And this effects everything. One can be either poor or rich, pro______ or against_________. 

On the heels of my take "on faith and economics" yesterday came word that Senator Tom Daschle was removing his name from consideration of a Cabinet appointment due to his failure to report and pay certain taxes as well as a lucrative side-income from speaking to various health lobbyists. One cannot, by common opinion, argue the cause of the poor and marginalized while taking measures to preserve a lifestyle of luxury.

On the faith side of the spectrum, much has been made of former President of National Association of Evangelicals Ted Haggard's untimely "fall from grace." The one-time crusader against rights for homosexuals hasrecently confessed to an innate attraction to men . Haggard has been affixed with the scarlet "H" of hypocrisy worn by Swaggart and Bakker, Ainsley and Alamo, and a thousand others before them.

I do not mean to dismiss these failures as inconsequential, but I would suggest that the false dilemma so quickly wielded in judgment is, as its name would suggest, a fallacy which we prize at our own peril.

Martin Luther famously apprised the human condition as "simul justus et peccator"--"at the same time, righteous and a sinner". For Luther, this paradox in which we live perpetually sinful-yet-grace-imbued righteous lives was a matter not of doing, but of being. The question was not tied to action but to essence. Human beings, for Luther, were, to stretch Heiko Oberman's biography of Luther a bit, perpetually between God and Devil. For Luther, this is where we live and move and have our being--between the sinful and the righteous.

Our political rhetoric seeks to stratify us by association with certain patterns of voting and belief. Red and Blue are the colors of the political palette and there is little room for shades of purple to dot the landscape.

The reason we know the fallacy of the false dilemma is because we live in the ether of the gray. 

U2 has a new album coming out, brashly titled "No Line on the Horizon" . They have chosen for the cover a photograph by the prestigious Japanese photographer Hiroshi Sugimoto from a collection entitled seascapes. After looking over the collection, I was somewhat surprised they chose Boden Sea over Sugimoto's Ligurian Sea, Saviore, 1982, pictured above. One shows an indistinct, fuzzy-but-still-there line between ocean and sky, but theLiguran Sea shows only a gray gradient--like a fog that blurs the blue-black water and the gray-white air.

There are all sorts of things that seduce us into false dilemmas, whether it's the theological inconsistencies of another ordained minister or the narrowing circle of acceptable belief within the Georgia Baptist Convention.  

To fall for the fallacy of the false dilemma is to reckon ourselves as "one or the other"--it means we are then, only, always sinner or only, always saint. 

It belies our God-given ability to think, create and adapt. 

It pigeonholes us into unnecessary categories that mechanize the gift of humanity.

It reduces our intricately woven selves into pull-cord marionettes.

But most of all, when we fall for the fallacy of the false dilemma (even this one), we risk missing the creative potential God has imbued us with.

We risk missing the joy of having our minds changed.

We risk missing out on celebrating a moment of Divine enlightenment with our neighbor.

We risk thinking that we've got things nailed down when we're still grasping at Mystery.

We risk exchanging the holy gift of wonder for the eroding sand of right-ness.

We risk gaining the whole world and losing our souls.

Loading mentions Retweet
Posted February 4, 2009
// 1 Comment

on conversion and culture (in Africa and corporate America)

There's an article by Matthew Parris in the UK's Times Online that has been making the blog rounds for the past couple or weeks. The title is "As an Atheist, I truly believe Africa need God" . I hadn't yet posted about it here because I hadn't really settled in to think about all the implications Parris puts forward, though it does play into a bit of the previous post with all the little stick figures. Toward the end of the article, Parris offers this insight:

Christianity, post-Reformation and post-Luther, with its teaching of a direct, personal, two-way link between the individual and God, unmediated by the collective, and unsubordinate to any other human being, smashes straight through the philosphical/spiritual framework I've just described. It offers something to hold on to to those anxious to cast off a crushing tribal groupthink. That is why and how it liberates.
Parris identifies what I affirm Luther reclaimed--that the priesthood of the believer allows for unmitigated access to the goodness of God. This conversion experience is a transformative event in the life of the Christian. It changes you in ways you cannot begin to put words to.

Today as I re-read the article, fully expecting to go into greater detail about the relationship between personal conversion and piety and it's residual effect on skeptics and unbelievers, I realized there was something deeper going on. Sure, there are ways in which Parris articulates something akin to Paul's explanation on Mars Hill, but the bigger story for me may be the similarity between his understanding of the influence of the African tribe and the predominant  model of success in America.

Parris says of the traditional tribal model: 

I observe that tribal belief is no more peaceable than ours; and that it suppresses individuality. People think collectively; first in terms of the community, extended family and tribe. This rural-traditional mindset feeds into the "big man" and gangster politics of the African city: the exaggerated respect for a swaggering leader, and the (literal) inability to understand the whole idea of loyal opposition.

Anxiety - fear of evil spirits, of ancestors, of nature and the wild, of a tribal hierarchy, of quite everyday things - strikes deep into the whole structure of rural African thought. Every man has his place and, call it fear or respect, a great weight grinds down the individual spirit, stunting curiosity. People won't take the initiative, won't take things into their own hands or on their own shoulders.


Though it is often exaggerated, the American "worker bee" corporate model is not dissimilar. This perceived weight is portrayed in all forms of culture, from the landmark 1927 film Metropolis (which, though German, got it's greatest reception as portraying American Industrialism) to the British and American versions of The Office  that mock the eccentricities of the cubicle-landscape. The box-office hit Wanted (which I foolishly thought would be a decent movie) is the odyssey of a worker drone turned-assassin-turned-target-turned-back to everyday life. The final scene of the film is the featured character detailing the last six weeks and then staring at the camera saying "What the (expletive) are you doing?" The message is abundantly clear--even if you have to go right back to that office, at least you were an assassin, got the girl, lived a crazy life and took control of your destiny. The individualism is as rugged (if not coarser) than John Wayne could have ever dreamed.

I get that it may seem disingenuous to claim direct comparisons with the African tribal mindset, but for all of America's swagger and rhetoric, for all the marketing and pandering to rugged individualism, the majority of employed persons work pedestrian jobs and can often feel like a cog in someone else's wheel, or, as art reminds us, just one more "brick in the wall." Something clearly has to give in this equation, whether it's the perpetual hypnosis of Peter Gibbons in Office Space or the psychotic break of Michael Douglas' character in Falling Down or the widely perceived nobility of Chris McCandless' journey from mind-numbing corporate work to the wilderness in Into the Wild , there is a fascination with the fantasy of what would happen if someone just had enough.

Though McCandless' story was tragically true, most of the stories that get screen time are fantasies, but by their popularity they clearly reflect thoughts and ideas dreamed by hundreds of thousands of employees. My point is not that all people break, but precisely that they don't--there is a need for some kind of coping mechanism--something that brings life and vitality to their work--something that tells a person "you are NOT a machine."

For hundreds of thousands of Americans (and most of the ones sitting in church with me on Sunday) this is the role of faith in their daily lives. It grounds them and gives depth and breadth and vitality to their everyday experiences. It is among these most faithful followers of Jesus that Scriptures are never quoted to win an argument around the watercooler, nor are expense reports questioned--they are people who have put into practice the very thing Parris describes of the Aid workers he encountered in Malawi:

But instead I noticed that a handful of the most impressive African members of the Pump Aid team (largely from Zimbabwe) were, privately, strong Christians. "Privately" because the charity is entirely secular and I never heard any of its team so much as mention religion while working in the villages. But I picked up the Christian references in our conversations. One, I saw, was studying a devotional textbook in the car. One, on Sunday, went off to church at dawn for a two-hour service.

It would suit me to believe that their honesty, diligence and optimism in their work was unconnected with personal faith. Their work was secular, but surely affected by what they were. What they were was, in turn, influenced by a conception of man's place in the Universe that Christianity had taught.


Parris is articulating the lost art of witness. Not witness-ing as such--not rabid evangelism that markets faith like vacuum cleaners--but "martyria" witness. The kind of thing John's gospel speaks of in this weeks lectionary reading--the kind of thing that one's entire life testifies to.

Whether our liberation is from the tyrannical rule of an oppressive regime or tribe or from the slow-death of being evaluated solely in terms of production, it is the way in which we carry out those tasks that our claim to liberation is proven true or false.

I would want to think if Parris followed me around he would see the same evidence of faith he saw in the kindness and diligence of the Aid workers in Malawi, but I tend to think otherwise. Perhaps the greater reality is not to rage against the machine but to consistently embody the shalom that my kips confess but my actions so often belie. 

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //   africa   conversion   corporate america   martin luther  
Posted January 16, 2009
// 0 Comments