Bah Humbug

I should write something about all of the people who aren't going to church this upcoming Sunday because it is Christmas. Does that sound as backwards as I think it sounds... and we are worried about a war on Christmas. When people make parties, get-togethers, and other traditions more important than going to church the seldom times Christmas falls on a Sunday then we lost the war on Christmas. It is now a secular holiday.

"But I have family coming over." Bring them to church.
"But we have so much going on and I have to get ready." I refer you to the story of Mary and Martha. Who chose the better thing?

I usually don't get upset over people's schedules and decisions to not attend worship. I get it. People are very busy and need to take care of themselves. But this is Christmas, one of the most holy days of our Christian calendar and it doesn't always fall on a Sunday. So on the days when it does shouldn't we make the effort.

If Easter didn't fall on a Sunday would people still attend church on that day?

Someone suggested to me that perhaps the quiet, simple time in the morning with the family is an appropriate way to honor and celebrate the birth of Jesus. It sounds good, but wouldn't it also be good to gather with your church family to honor the birth of Jesus?

Surrender the claim for titles. Surrender the demand that the pagan tree be called a "Christmas tree" because it has religious significance. I don't think people really care about the religious significance or they would be in church on Sunday. Surrender the idea that the reason for the season is the birth of Christ. Surrender it all because we have lost, Christmas is a secular holiday. Joy to the world.

Well, that was a whole lot of cheer.

A Naked Critique

I just read this interesting article from the Alban institute:

Basically the author, N. Graham Standish is arguing that the reason why a majority of churches are dying is because they have stopped listening to God. He claims that every "thriving" church he has attended are all open to the presence of God in their community. I don't know what he means by "thriving," but we'll assume it means they have more than 200 people a Sunday and really good donuts.

He claims that all of those other, apostate churches are mired in rational functionalism which is rooted in the idea, "that we can uncover the mysteries of life and the universe mainly through rational thought and disciplined investigation. It is the tendency of denominations, their congregations, and their leaders to subscribe to a view of faith and church rooted in a restrictive, logic-bound theology that ignores the possibility of spiritual experiences and miraculous events."


Sermons are basically academic papers. Churches are run like a rote institution. They are cold, vapid, and basically dead.


Those "thriving" churches are "open to God at its core." That is basically all Standish says about those "thriving" churches.


Mr. Standish (or is it Rev. Standish, or Dr. Standish?) I am calling you naked. Well, I'm not actually calling you naked but your theory naked. It is weak, hypercritical, and groundless. I think that is the nice way to put it.

It is very easy to go to almost any church and say, "well, since you are doing things that I don't like you must not be listening to God, you heathen, bastard church."

It is just as easy to say, "this church is doing well because it is doing the things that I think are exciting and important. They must be listening to God. Let the angels sing and rejoice."

Basically Standish is saying, "if you can't see what I see then you are Godless and doomed to failure." If you can't see the fine clothes on the emperor, then you must be a fool.

But I will call out the emperor's nakedness. Standish's critique and claim is nothing but putting up a false facade of spirituality and making other struggling churches feel like crap. There may be some value to the critiques he makes, but the package stinks. Thanks N. Graham Standish. Thanks a lot.

Christmas Apathy

I don’t want to get caught up in the whole “Christmas Wars” thing. I don’t want to be painted as some flag-waving, well-groomed nut who is convinced that the “secular media” and others have waged a war on Christmas. Nor do I want to be seen as some dirty, earthy, angry, vegan hippie who wants to be sure that everyone is miserable and no one can publically celebrate any holiday whatsoever. I don’t want to be painted or placed in either corner. I generally try to avoid the conversation because I see both sides as nuts.

Yet while strolling down Main Street (yes, I really did stroll down Main Street) I saw the following in front of Town Hall:

I know they will put up a menorah when Hanukkah starts, so I am not going to get all in a huff that other religions are being neglected (although I didn’t see anything for Ramadan). Personally, I don’t care that there is going to be a manger scene in front of Town Hall. I don’t care because of in the context of Town Hall I do not see the manger scene (or the menorah, or anything else) as a religious symbol.

The reason I don’t care is because the institution of Town Hall and the politicians of East Greenwich do not have the depth or history to make religious/theological claims. It is not a Christian institution (while there may be Christians working there). Nothing is placed in front of Town Hall for Easter, or Pentecost (the other two of the big three holidays). Nor have I noticed any wide observance of Lent, All Saints Day, or any other day on the religious calendar. It is an institution that does not have a religious voice. So when a manger scene is placed in front of the hall I see it as an empty symbol speaking to a desire to placate a number of people and maybe to celebrate with them; probably more of the former than the latter. For me it is the same when a box store wishes me “Merry Christmas,” an insurance company sends me a card, or when David Bowie sings “the little drummer boy.” These are empty gestures (to be fair, I don’t know if Mr. Bowie is a Christian, so I will withhold his condemnation – aren’t I generous?). These are a cultural symbols and a sign of the Town recognizing that a lot of people are celebrating Christmas as well as Hanukkah. I would rather the picture be of Santa, but again I’m not going to complain.

Now if the manger scene is in front of a church that is a different story because I assume they understand the significance of the birth of Christ. But it is very possible I am giving many churches more credit than I should.

Say It With A Flair!

This Sunday the Catholic Church will be using a new liturgy – newly translated, closer to the original text, and apparently a greater sense of the mystery of God.

I don’t know the specifics of the Mass since I have only been to one once, and I certainty don’t know the Latin text, so I don’t know if the original is better or not. I have seen some of the examples of the translation in an article from the Providence Journal. One jumps out at me not very good:

Before, in the Nicene Creed, Jesus Christ was described as “one in Being with the Father,” and now will be described as, “consubstantial with the Father.”

That seems much more confusing and cold.

To be fair, there probably are some changes that are smoother and cleaner but I don’t feel like looking for them right now. I’m sure they are out there – find them and let me know so you can show me up.

The thing that stuck out to me was the move to make the prayers more formulaic and structured and to offer less freedom to the priests. The intent seems to be good. I won’t read into the idea of the existence of a smoky, underworld, bureaucracy of the hierarchy clothed as charlatans pretending to care about the blue haired women while they wring their hands counting their coffers as the copyright fees are updated and St. Peter’s builds a brand new bathroom. I won’t comment on that because it probably is more of a canard than anything else (but fun to write).

What I will comment is on the particularity of the local parish. I understand the necessity for uniformity in a movement/church, and that liturgy is a place where that uniformity can be celebrated. One of the arguments for a Latin Mass was that you could go to Mass anywhere in the world and know that the words themselves will always be the same.

However, there is something else to be said for contextualization. It took a number of years for missionaries to realize that the gospel cannot be told with the same language and in the same exact way to people of different cultures. The gospel needs to be contextualized. I would argue that to a degree that is the case for the Mass. Different communities have different characteristics; they will hear and receive the a message in different ways depending on how it is conveyed. For example, some prayers are heard better by one community using very formal language while another community would respond to language used in a more vernacular language. I would argue that the pastor of the parish should have the freedom to nuance the Mass in such a way that it will speak to the people of that particular congregation. Having a written liturgy will insure uniformity, but when it is made to strict there is a danger that the Holy Spirit will be ignored and no one will be reached.

Of course I am sure that I have some Catholic brothers and sisters who would take great offence at this post and say something like:

“What the **** does this two-bit Baptist know about uniformity and liturgy? How dare he criticize the one true Church?”

or

“Who does this Malone character think he is telling the all-powerful and mighty Church what is right and what is wrong? He should return to he back-woods Baptist group of slack-jawed yokels and leave real worship to us.”

Feel free to choose either one as a critique. I do recognize that I am an outsider and don’t expect my comments to change any minds in the hierarchy. I’m just sharing my humble, simple thoughts. Thoughts that are probably right, but humble and simple nonetheless. 

Do You Understand The Words Coming Out Of My Mouth?

I didn't get a chance to do any reading or studying yesterday, so I am still without anything profound and earth-shattering to say. Don't worry, I'll get back on the ball soon.

I am doing a burial today that poses and interesting question. It is a last minute deal for a family that is not connected at all with any church. The father (who is being gently laid to rest) never went to church nor did the son. So what can I say and what can I offer? I could just assume they are Christians and use language of life and salvation. Maybe they are in some confused, weird way, but probably not. I could speak in broad and shallow platitudes that will offer just about as much comfort as a Helen Steiner Rice poem on a Hallmark card. Who is Helen Steiner Rice, and how did she become so great? (Ambassador of Sunshine my a**)

The family asked for a minister so there must be something to my presence; something that speaks to an awareness of the presence of God. So I do think it is important to speak to God's presence in one way or another. I will assume that there is some level of grief and I think it is important to speak to that grief. Yet I do not know if I can speak to the hope I find in Christ in a way that they will understand. I will use scripture because that is my tradition and will speak to some hope that is found in Christ, but I do not feel I can speak to eternal life through Christ.

What I think I can do is talk about the love of God, how this man is God's child and is now at rest (or something like that).

MacIntyre, Hauerwas, and others make a big deal over language, grammar, and community and here is where I think the rubber hits the road. These people are not a part of a church community and do not have that language. They are looking for something and I can only answer it with language that I know. However there is an "inner" language that I must withhold to a degree unless moved otherwise.

Of course I could just take advantage and have an altar call during the burial, but I'm afraid of people falling down the deep, deep hole as the come up to embrace Jesus. The idea of someone dying trying to accept Christ is kinda funny.

There have been a couple of things happening that I could possibly comment on in an insightful and meaningful way. I, along with a number of other very bright Baptist theologians, was asked to look over a statement from the National Council of Churches on evangelism in a pluralistic world. The issue of evangelism versus social justice arose - haven't I addressed this before?

I was recently at my last meeting with the American Baptist Home Mission Societies board of directors. I am no longer a director, so I'm just going to assume that the ABHMS will now flow haphazardly into the abyss of institutionalization.

Christmas music is already playing in a number of establishments. This makes me more than slightly nauseous.

To top this all off, I have started reading Twilight of the Idols by Freddy Nietzsche.

So there are a number of things I could muse over with wit and profundity. Yet I wont. So many things have distracted me from any one thing and I do not have any focus. Something should be said to doing to many things at once and never really being able to focus on what one is doing at one time, however that is what our society dictates. The phone beeps and we need to answer the text right away or our friend will never speak to us again - is that so bad? Someone asks you to do something and you have to say yes or else no one will ever like you. If you aren't reading more than one thing at a time and writing and publishing then you will never be successful. It is almost as if we set ourselves up to fail, but to fail in a thousand ways, falling into a thousand pieces.

This is a familiar rant and may be more for me than anyone else, but then again it is my blog, I can write what I want, and the blog at heart is the work for the narcissist.

Don't Blame Me...

Yesterday I had the joy of driving all the way from my town in RI to Sturbridge, MA to pick up the youngest. What made the trip so great was having lunch at an Applebee’s. I don’t think I have had a worse lunch in a long time. I tried to play it safe with a soup and salad combo but the basil tomato soup tasted as if it were the leftover sauce from a Chef Boyardee can (this is not a good thing), and the spinach salad was so coated with oil and some other mystery substance that all of the leaves of spinach clumped together as if they were one. Bleh!

I read an article from a back issue of Newsweek about the guilt of an executioner. A major thrust of the article was that every time he killed someone who was then exonerated (to little to late) he felt that he was a murderer. Now, if we look at the idea of sin and responsibility, where does it fall?

Some may say that ultimately the executioner is to blame because he is the one who pushed the button (so to speak). Yet what of the judges and lawyers who pushed for the individual to be executed? Should they be held culpable as well? What of the detectives and other police forces who did not do a thorough enough investigation to find out all of the fact? What about the people, the lawmakers who pushed for a death penalty in that state? What about the people who voted for someone to keep the death penalty (or reinstate it)? What about the tax payers whose dollars support the death machine used to kill the convict?

Girard (yeah, him again) makes the point that the prison system has in large part taken the scapegoat out of the system, punishes people, and keeps a kind of calm in society. Albeit it is a faux calm, it is a calm nonetheless. But let us return to the question of blame.

We are all to blame, unless we move to a state that does not support a death penalty. Kidding. We are all to blame because we all are a part of the system whether we like it or not. If that is the case, then whenever an innocent person is executed we are all murders.

Yikes, that is a fairly macabre way to end!

It's Not My Fault!

Once again it has been a while since my last post. Part of it was because I did not fare very well on the way back from Indonesia. I ended up getting a little sick and then a double outer and inner ear infection. Seriously? An outer and inner ear infection? What? What?

I have recently finished reading with my good friend Paul the Girard Reader. Students of Rene Girard I’m sure are very excited to see that someone else is actually reading this guy. Personally I am always skeptical to read anyone’s work while they are still alive, but sometimes I make an exception.

Girard is good, fairly good, and I know I have posted about him earlier. So instead of going into his stuff again, I would like to consider the Occupy Wall Street movement via Girard’s scapegoat theory. Just so all of you sticklers know, I am going to crassly simplify Girard’s theories. If you don’t like it, get the book and read it yourself.

People are not happy. They are not happy for a number of reasons, which I will not list here. When people are not happy they tend to look for someone or something to blame for their sorrows. The Tea Party blames the government (go figure). The Occupy folks blame the capitalist structure of sorts. It may be true or it may be because they Occupy folks really just want what they (the capitalist pigs) have.

In this theory the scapegoat needs to be similar but not exactly like the crowd casting blame, so Wall Street et al works well. What usually happens is that the anger will increase and increase until something or someone snaps and the metaphorical stone is thrown. At that moment the rest of the stones will come crashing down until the victim/scapegoat is dead. After that the scapegoat is deified or made into a savior of society and peace returns. For the time being.

This is not a happy scenario for those of us bleeding heart, peace loving, tree hugging, “can’t we all get along” wusses who want to avoid any bit of violence. We get squeamish and start to cry and look for a way around the violence. One way out of the stone throwing is for the scapegoat to willingly embrace his or her crowd-demanded punishment. For example if a billionaire would go public and give away all of his or her money or something else humiliating the desire for “blood” would be satiated. Such an action could then shame others to action and appease the angry crowd.

Now this is all theory so don’t start waiting for something to start throwing things. Don’t go to Wall Street or wherever you are and start throwing stones in hopes that more will happen. Oakland may be the first stone thrown, but maybe not.

Regardless, I think Girard’s theories are quite good and apt in this situation. The challenge is to look past the distraction of the scapegoat at the actual cause of unrest and inequity. It may not be Wall Street’s fault. Wall Street and company may just be a part of a systemic problem that goes beyond one group of people. But that is much more difficult to do and I have this great, smooth stone that I have been aching to throw. Now I just want to find a nice, big window or someone named Tessie Hutchinson. Shirley Jackson, eat your heart out (not literally).

Indonesia - A Pictorial Timeline, or The Many Faces of Jonathan Malone

I'm very, very, very excited to be here!

Tell me more about everything.

 (Sung to the Pointed Sister's song) I'm so excited to go to the governor's house. It makes me feel special.

How dare you cut me off!

Well, if I can't talk then I won't listen (aka "the mature response").

So sleepy and yet cannot sleep.

I don't even know what time it is any more - probably because I'm not wearing a watch.

My "meeting face."

Uh, maybe something I ate?

Definitely something I ate! 

Ever feel out of place?

Laughing with the Trinidadians (not shown).

And now, Trinidad the Musical!

Polite applause.

Who has two thumbs and is happy he went to Indonesia?

This guy!