November 16, 2008

Is Religious Certainty a “Wedge Issue”?

It’s par for the course that aspiring presidential candidates frame themselves as “Christians.” Throughout the recent campaign, President-elect Barack Obama repeatedly fended off charges that he was a Muslim. This interview provided a window into our new president’s “Christian” faith. But it also reveals the inherent difficulties politicians face in making absolutist religious claims.

The interview was conducted by Chicago Sun Times columnist Cathleen Falsani during Obama’s bid for U.S. Senate in Illinois in 2004. After learning that Obama responded to an altar call at Jeremiah Wright’s church, the reporter asks:

FALSANI:
So you got yourself born again?

OBAMA:
Yeah, although I don’t, I retain from my childhood and my experiences growing up a suspicion of dogma. And I’m not somebody who is always comfortable with language that implies I’ve got a monopoly on the truth, or that my faith is automatically transferable to others.

I’m a big believer in tolerance. I think that religion at it’s best comes with a big dose of doubt. I’m suspicious of too much certainty in the pursuit of understanding just because I think people are limited in their understanding.

I think that, particularly as somebody who’s now in the public realm and is a student of what brings people together and what drives them apart, there’s an enormous amount of damage done around the world in the name of religion and certainty. (emphasis mine)

So is it possible for one to be a Christian and harbor “a suspicion of dogma”? Even more to the point, is it possible to be a Christian politician and not have a definitive dogma? (more…)

November 15, 2008

Juxtapoz Magazine & Retinal Delights

Categories: Art, Pop Culture | Comments (0) |

Speaking of “soft thinking”…

Last month,  Lisa and I spent a weekend away at one of our favorite coastal hangouts. To my surprise, In the Land of Retinal Delights was in its last weekend at the Laguna Art Museum. I’ve long been a fan of Juxtapoz Magazine and it surrealistic, pop art. The show drew together an amalgam of bizarre, wildly creative, sometimes baffling pieces; a mash-up of comic books, movies, music, TV shows, sci-fi, horror, fashion and carnival art. Just as we showed up, a busload of Goth kids from the OC were pulling in, making us feel suddenly more hip. Of course, pictures were not allowed inside (but you can check out this fantastic Flicker photostream of some of the pieces). Talk about irrigating your right hemisphere! Anyway, I left with a copy of Juxtapoz Illustration, and have been finding oodles of inspiration in its pages.

And, if you’re looking for further ways to rouse your muse, check out Juxtapoz’s User Art for a bead of some of pop art’s up and coming artists.

Tags: Art / Juxtapoz

November 14, 2008

I Got a Bloggy!

Categories: Blogging | Comments (0) |

Bloggy AwardHey, I got me a Bloggy Award! Their review is especially effusive, what with a perfect score of five 10’s. Who knew?! Now, if I can only convince Yahoo Directory to shine the $300 sign-up fee and let me join for free. Anyway, thanks, Noemi!

November 13, 2008

Soft Thinking is Hard

Categories: Art, Writing | Comments (4) |

Roger von Oech, author of A Whack on the Side of the Head, introduced the concept of soft thinking as a necessary ingredient to creativity. In contrast to academic thinking, which is typically ‘hard,’ ingenuity and imagination is the result of ’soft thinking’. Soft thinking is more playful, spontaneous, unconstrained, and much less concerned with finding the answer.

If you follow writers’ blogs or artist sites in general, you’ll inevitably encounter the issue of writer’s block. Often described as an absence of inspiration, a creative drought, or the lack of motivation to start or continue a project, it’s a condition that plagues even the most industrious. It’s also possibly linked to too much hard thinking.

As an insomniac, I tend to blame my restless nights on hard thinking. Tossing in bed, mulling characters, tying up loose plot ends, and generally yearning to transcend the mediocre. I just can’t seem to give it a rest.

Maybe I need to stand on my head.

Well, at least that’s what Betty Edwards suggested. Her famous book, Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain, contains a wonderful series of exercises for people who think they can’t draw. One of her assertions is that creativity is not something you’re born with, as most assume; rather, it is a learned skill. Or, to be more precise, it’s an unlearning skill. For example, one exercise she uses for the artistically challenged, is the upside-down drawing exercise. It goes like this:

Find a line drawing that you like. It can be the work of a master, a cartoon, anything.

Turn it upside down.

Now, without turning the page right-side up, draw what you see, trying to ignore the subject and focusing strictly on the lines, shades, spaces and proportions of the original.

So in other words, if you’re creatively constipated, turn things upside down.

Ms. Edward’s rationale is based upon brain research. The brain has two sides; the left side thinks in concrete, linear terms, while the right is conceptual and non-linear. Left-brainers are logical; right-brainers are intuitive. In this sense, creativity flows from right-brain activity. According Edwards, by doing the upside-down exercise, “…you’re disabling your left-brain, which can’t see or handle such abstractions, and allowing your right-brain to do all the work.” In theory, drawing upside-down pictures disarms our normal mode of thinking and challenges us to see things differently — in abstraction — which is a right brain function.

Standing on your head, artistically speaking, is soft thinking. It’s inverting the obvious, a template for creative irrigation. Ingenuity is not a matter of doing something that has never been done, but looking at what is already there in a new way. In a sense then, everything you need to be more creative is already at your disposal.  All you need to do is turn it upside down.

G.K. Chesterton said as much when discussing the duty of the artist:

The dignity of the artist lies in his duty of keeping awake the sense of wonder in the world. In this long vigil he often has to vary his methods of stimulation; but in this long vigil he is also himself striving against a continual tendency to sleep.

Some view the artistic life as one long cerebral jaunt along the seashore, an endless latte at the cafe, lazy days ensconced in quixotic locales and long nights hobnobbing with the Inklings of our inner circle. In contrast to that blithe, mythical artist, Chesterton describes a “long vigil,” a “striving against a continual tendency to sleep.”

Your duty as an artist is in “keeping awake the sense of wonder in the world.” And you can only accomplish this with soft thinking.

Sure, our “methods of stimulation” will vary. Kathryn Lindskoog, in her wonderful book, Creative Writing, For People Who Can’t Not Write, catalogs a cluster of writerly oddballs and their quirky search for the elusive muse:

If creativity is partly a matter of having the right brain waves going in the right part of the brain, what can a person do physically to enhance creativity? Many writers and thinkers have come up with ideas of their own. Bosset wrapped his head in furs, Schiller wrote with his feet in ice water and smelled rotten apples, Prouse lined his room with cork and kept the windows shut tight, Turgenev kept his feet in a bucket of hot water, Swinburne isolated himself, Oswald Sitwel wrote best in hotel bedrooms, Thackery wrote best inside the busy Athenaeum Club in London, Voltaire dictated while sitting in bed, Descartes and Rossini created flat in bed, Victor Hugo composed on top of a bus, Samuel Johnson thought best in a moving carriage, Trollope wrote in a train, Thackery and Sothey could get ideas only when holding a pen, Balzac drank poisonous quantities of black coffee, Tennyson got his best ideas in spring and summer, and Einstein got his best ideas while shaving. Woody Allen prefers to write on a bed, with no noise or music to distract him. Agatha Christie said that the best time for planning a book is when you’re doing the dishes.

Ice water and hot water and furs and rotten apples and moving carriages and “poisonous quantities of black coffee.” Egads! Is it just me, or is this soft thinking hard?

November 10, 2008

Saving Science from the Church

An interesting article by Karl W. Gilberson in the latest Books & Culture expounds the oft-stated charge that evangelicals are wary of, if not hostile toward, science. Gilberson is the author of four books on science and religion, the most recent of which is Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution (HarperOne). Funny how incongruent those beliefs seem like to the average Christian, huh?

In his review of a new science anthology, in a piece entitled No Science, Please, Gilberson concludes:

Two centuries after evidence began to mount up that the earth is ancient, Christian bookstores feature titles arguing that all this science is wrong. A hundred and fifty years after Darwin, many evangelicals continue to reject evolution, even as data from the genome project establishes the near certainty of Darwin’s central idea of common ancestry. Young Earth creationists reject definitive evidence for the big bang theory.

Many evangelical scientists have encountered great hostility when they have tried to help their fellow Christians come to terms with controversial scientific ideas. Richard Colling has been on the hot seat at Olivet Nazarene University for over a year because some powerful fundamentalists don’t like his acceptance of evolution. Darrel Falk encountered similar problems in the 1990s. Howard Van Till fought this battle for years at Calvin College and finally left his faith tradition altogether. And so it goes. (I have experienced a bit of this myself since the publication of Saving Darwin: How to Be a Christian and Believe in Evolution.) The sad truth is that science writers in the evangelical world are discouraged from plying their craft. Those of us who teach at Christian colleges write with the knowledge that our books may get us fired.

The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing has only one contribution by an identifiable evangelical, Russell Stannard, and he is British. This is disappointing but is not, I think, the result of any untoward editorial selection process. America has a population of evangelicals larger than any country in Europe. There are more than 200 evangelical schools with science divisions. And yet we don’t have a single science writer with the stature to get included in this volume. Shame on us. (emphasis mine)

And all this time I thought the enemy was radical atheists. Could it be the Church is the problem?

Believing in evolution does not demand one disbelieves in God. Of course, many believe in evolution as a substitute for belief in God. Still, it is quite possible to believe the universe was created, and that that Creator employed a mechanism like evolution. Yes, Man is unique among the animals, and science, society, and Scripture all bear that out. As hard as it is for some to swallow, biological evolution and the Bible can coexist.

Nevertheless, I was surprised by the level of “hostility” Gilberson describes as existing between evangelical scientists and the Church. Is it true that “science writers in the evangelical world are discouraged from plying their craft”? Is Young Earth Creatonism that central to the Faith? Is the idea that men and monkeys share a common ancestor completely heretical? Call me dense, but I’ve never been that threatened by the belief that the earth is millions of years old and I’m a bit of a gorilla…

Tags: Darwin / Evolution / God

November 9, 2008

Writing Brief — Fall ‘08

Categories: Sojourn, Writing | Comments (9) |

Back in ‘06, after I’d finished my first (still unpublished) novel and was shopping for representation, a Scripture came to me in a dream. The verse was so vivid, I immediately woke up and wrote it on an index card.

“Cast your bread upon the waters, for after many days you will find it.” — Eccl. 11:1

I keep that card in a shadowbox (the one pictured here), and the verse has served as a reminder, sometimes as inspiration, during my writing journey. There comes a point in every writer’s life  when a project is completed and then released. Months, maybe years, of labor are “cast upon the waters.” And then we wait to see if, when, or how it will return. The funny thing about this verse is that, the week I “got it,” Janet Grant offered me agent representation. So it’s a really special reminder about the nature of the writing business and how God providentially guides us and our work.

While a couple of my short stories have been accepted and are currently waiting in the wings for publication, I’ve recently managed to push through two big projects. Okay, this one isn’t so big — it just felt like it. But last month, I finished a short story that I’d been wrestling with for the longest. It’s about 5K in length and set in a distant future where “singers” — a new breed of being — are routinely exterminated. These frail souls, through their musical giftings, can evoke euphoria in their listeners, sometimes madness. Thus, they became fodder for the galactic black market. I named the piece “Consonance,” built heavily upon Pythagorean music theory and the Vocal Memnon legend. Aren’t we all looking for a universal note to bind our “dissonance”?

Anyway, Consonance begins its journey and, at the rate the publishing business moves, could take years before it ever returns to me. Stay tuned.

Of much bigger consequence is the revision of “What Faith Awakes” (WFA). It’s the story of a crippled woman who raises a boy from the dead, the smalltown citizenry who grapple with its implications, and the ancient curse unleashed by the miracle. (Miracles always have a price tag, don’t they?) This is my first completed novel, a 91K word supernatural suspense aimed at CBA readers. My agent has been shopping the work throughout the Christian publishing industry. While several house requested the entire m/s, nothing has stuck. The most interesting response I had was from an editor who really liked WFA, but thought it was “too eerie” (his words) for the Christian market. While the arc of the story, and the thematic elements, are overtly “Christian,” there are some ingredients that grate against CBA conventions. So I’m not too surprised with the response.

Anyway, it’s led to some great — but hard — conversations with my agent. After months of wrestling within myself, we’ve come to the conclusion I should aim for the general market rather than the Christian market. It’s a bittersweet realization for me. It feels like I’m leaving the Church or something. So, as part of this transition, I’ve spent time revising WFA for an ABA launch. It’s been really fun, and I actually think the story is truer to itself as a result.

So what changes did I make? Did I gut the story of its religious elements? Not at all. The story arc remains relatively the same, however I’ve included more PG-13 elements (minor cursing and “soft” horror elements), and reduced the “Christianese.” It’s funny how, when approaching this story from another angle, so much “Christian code” is evident. (Could this be said of all Christian Fiction?) But even more surprising is, after two years away from WFA, how cliche the ending seemed. Good guys win. Bad guys lose. Scriptural lesson is obvious. Just heat and serve. Can’t figure out if this was the result of me being a novice or trying to meet CBA quota. Maybe both. Whatever it is, aiming general market has made the tale truer to the telling, more nuanced, and less predicatable. Anyway, I’ve re-titled the novel, “The Unnamed.” You can find a One Sheet synop, PDF formatted, HERE.

Okay. So this weekend, I finished my revisions, a two-page, single-space synopsis and bio, and the book is cast upon the waters. When, or if, it will ever return is anyone’s guess. I’ll take a couple weeks break, finish up another short story (an urban fantasy, of sorts) and then it’s on to another novel.

November 6, 2008

Gambling on God’s Existence? Odds are 4-1

Categories: Religion, Science | Comments (1) |

Paddy Power, an online betting outfit in the UK, is currently offering 4-1 odds that God exists. So far, about $5000 has been wagered on the question. Apparently, interest has increased as the result of an atheist ad campaign on London buses with the slogan: “There’s probably no God.”

Initially, odds that proof of God’s existence would be found were 20-1, spurred on by the development of the Hadron Collider and search for the supposed “God Particle.” When the multi-billion dollar atom smasher was shut down temporarily because of a magnetic failure, odds grew to 33-1 . But interest in the wager has increased following the recent launch of the ad campaign. So as a result of a flurry of small bets, Paddy Power has cut the odds on proof being found of God’s existence to 4-1.

According to the Telegraph article:

A spokesman for Paddy Power said that confirmation of God’s existence would have to be verified by scientists and given by an independent authority before any payouts were made…

As much as I like the odds, this isn’t a good bet. I mean, exactly how is “confirmation of God’s existence… verified by scientists”? Doesn’t this mean you’re really betting on scientists? Cuz frankly, their track record isn’t all that great. Heck, knowledge of the atomic and subatomic world is fairly recent, and still developing. And if there is a God who made the atoms, then wouldn’t He, by nature, be more profound? Greater? Maybe smaller? Furthermore, what exactly are we looking for? An old man on a throne in a distant galaxy? If that’s the case, maybe we haven’t developed telescopes big enough, or we aren’t looking in the right quadrant. But if God is a spirit, as the Bible teaches, do we even have the right tools to “see” Him?

Okay, the chances of winning that bet are slim. But heck, even those atheists running the ads don’t seem too sure. I mean, what’s up with “probably no God“? Is that a 99.9% probability or a 63.75% probability? Because if it involves heaven or hell, you might stand to lose a lot more than a few bucks. And either way, you’ll have to wait forever for a payout.

Tags: Atheism, Existence of God, Science and the Supernatural

November 4, 2008

Ten Things I’ve Learned from Election ‘08

Boy, am I glad this election’s over! Okay, so it isn’t quite all the way over. I’ll be voting this afternoon, but I’m anticipating certain outcomes. America will elect its first black president, Democrats will be in total control of the House and Senate, the media will embark on a lengthy, orgiastic, love-fest with the Savior in Chief. The world will love us again, liberals will gloat, George Bush will slither into the historical sunset, and we’ll begin our slide toward Doomsday. (Okay, strike that last part.)

In reflecting upon this long, brutal, election season, here’s 10 things I’ve learned from Election ‘08, in no particular order:

The Christian voting bloc is fractured — It used to be that Evangelicals were a powerful constituency, rallying against cultural causes like abortion and gay rights. But this election revealed more splits than ever. The resurgence of a new type of believer, young social activists eager to distance themselves from the religion of their parents, tilting ever closer toward theological liberalism, has compromised whatever political clout Evangelicals once had.  (See my article, Evangelicals and Emergents: The Political Divide for more.) Each election cycle becomes more volatile, pushing us closer toward violence — I hate to say it, but I believe it’s true. It seems every election some pundit is there to remind us that, unlike Third World countries, Americans can oust administrations without firing a shot. However, as the rhetoric continues to intensify, outrage becomes status quo, anger ratchets exponentially, and meanness doesn’t matter, we drift closer to societal implosion. If Barack Obama is somehow not elected President, you will see angry charges of voter fraud and minority suppression, possibly pockets of violence. Think LA Riots on a larger scale. Politics are becoming way too complicated for the average person to understand –  Wasn’t this how Rome fell? The proliferation of lawyers and “legalese” put the power in the hands of the elites. The same is true today. Heck, just trying to read through the average State Ballot is an exercise in tedium. The more “experts” it takes to explain an issue, the less Joe the Plumber really matters. As regards politics, most Americans are largely uninformed, unsophisticated and naive — This is partly due to #3, wherein the system itself is monstrously complex. (Just try grasp Economics 101, for starters.) Still, the American masses have been culturally conditioned by the electronic media to eschew prolonged contemplation, and to think in terms of (1) Images and (2) Sound-bites. Of course, this is a generalization, for there are lots of voters who understand the issues. Nevertheless, the majority of voters are largely oblivious to the complexities of politics. I know many people who will vote for Obama simply because he’s (1) Black, (2) Cool, and (3) We need a change. Voting while dumb may be the equivalent of driving under the influence. The American press has sold its soul — I can remember no other election where the press has fallen so obviously for one candidate. And this under the guise of “objectivity.” It’s been fairly well-documented (see: How the press reported the 2008 election from Journalism.com, Obama leads the Media Race as Well, from Center for Media and Public Affairs, and Media Credibility in, off all places, The New York Times). The caveat: These facts remain grossly under-reported. Gay Marriage will inevitably become a fixture in the USA — Even if Prop 8 passes out here, there is a inevitable sentiment toward condoning gay marriage. Of course, it’s framed as a Civil Rights issue, which is misleading. Sadly, much of the support for gay marriage comes from the Religious Left. Polling is out of control — If it’s not Perception Analyzers it’s streaming data; we’ve become so wired we can’t so much as sneeze without having our emotions quantified and sorted. Demographic Polls. Exit Polls. Surveys of Married White Women, Single White Women, Black Men Who Wear Bifocals and Left-Handed Thirty-Something’s. Enough with the projections! It was recently reported that there was more polls taken in the last three months than in the entire 2004 election combined. I believe it. There ARE two Americas — As much as some disavow that concept and think it breeds divisiveness, there is a growing divide between voters. I tend to see it as a philosophical divide between Relativists and Absolutists. The political Left tend to be relativists who believe there is no God, that morals are not absolute, and that society must change and adapt to shifting values. The political Right typically believe in a God from Whom absolutes emanate, they are old school cultural conservatives. So yes, Virginia, there is a culture war. We put far too much emphasis upon politics to change society — The passion people have for a candidate or a political cause indicates how important we believe politics are to shaping culture. It’s like we have all our eggs in this basket. Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting that politics are not important, but that other things shape our country as much, if not more, than politics. The home, the church, and the school are three institutions more powerful than the three branches of American government. Perhaps if we spent more energy are bettering our homes, churches and schools, we’d be less hysterical when an election rolls around. The Republican Party needs an overhaul — If anything, this election has revealed how culturally, technologically, and philosophically out-of-touch the GOP has become. Furthermore, I believe the Republican Party, in an attempt to reach the middle, has drifted from its conservative ideological roots. Hopefully, by next election, they’ll have figured out what they’re really about… but I ain’t holding my breath.

No, I’m not a gloom and doomer. America has survived many hard times and bad presidents. And we’ll continue to do so. But, like you, I’m really glad Election ‘08 is history.

November 2, 2008

NBA Picks 08/09

Categories: Sports | Comments (0) |

So, last year, I won our NBA pool. 80 bucks, hombres! Being the glass-half-full kind of feller I am, I’d picked the Lakers to tank. (Remember, ‘07 was the preseason of Kobe’s discontent.) Course they won the West. My saving grace? New Orleans Hornets (no one picked them for the playoffs), and Miami Heat (I was the only one who picked them to miss the post-season, which they did.) This year, I have far less enthusiasm for my picks.

The objective is simple: Pick the 16 teams who will make the playoffs. Here’s my 2008-2009 selections:

EASTERN CONFERENCE

Toronto Boston Philadelphia Cleveland Chicago Detroit Orlando Miami

WESTERN CONFERENCE

Utah Denver Lakers Phoenix Dallas New Orleans San Antonio Houston

The West is a gimme. The only negotiables are Golden State, maybe the Clippers, and (with Greg Oden now injured) a far distant Portland. The East is another story. Toronto, I think, is a shoe-in with newly acquired Jermain O’Neil, and Chris Bosch coming off a fantastic Olympics. Boston’s a no-brainer (but still one injury away from average.) Cleveland’s good enough to make it — and that’s about it — and Detroit, I think, still has a chip on its shoulder and a lot to prove. But the Eastern bubbles are many: Washington, Atlanta, Milwaukee, Philly, New Jersey, Indiana, even (*gasp*) the Knicks. I think Elton Brandt will be a perfect fit for Philadelphia, and wouldn’t be surprised to see them surpass expectations. But I’m guessing, the Eastern Conference will be the telling point in ours, and many others, NBA pools. My secret weapon? Miami. D. Wade, Wolverine and Mr. Beasley are about to shock the basketball world…

Tags: NBA

October 31, 2008

Atheist Decries Fairy Tales

Categories: Religion, Science | Comments (3) |

Well, there’s another person who doesn’t like Harry Potter. No, it’s not some religious fundie on a book burning crusade. It’s none other than the world’s most famous atheist.

From the Telegraph UK, Harry Potter fails to cast spell over Richard Dawkins. What exactly is the hater-of-all-thing-religious worried about? Excerpt:

The prominent atheist is stepping down from his post at Oxford University to write a book aimed at youngsters in which he will warn them against believing in “anti-scientific” fairytales.

Prof Hawkins said: “The book I write next year will be a children’s book on how to think about the world, science thinking contrasted with mythical thinking.

“I haven’t read Harry Potter, I have read Pullman who is the other leading children’s author that one might mention and I love his books. I don’t know what to think about magic and fairy tales.”

Prof Dawkins said he wanted to look at the effects of “bringing children up to believe in spells and wizards”.

“I think it is anti-scientific – whether that has a pernicious effect, I don’t know,” he told More4 News.

“I think looking back to my own childhood, the fact that so many of the stories I read allowed the possibility of frogs turning into princes, whether that has a sort of insidious affect on rationality, I’m not sure. Perhaps it’s something for research.”

I haven’t read Harry Potter, but I have read my share of fairy tales, and I can corroborate Dawkins’ thesis: Fairy tales have had an “insidious affect on [my] rationality. Okay, maybe “insidious” isn’t the right word. But The Pied Piper, The Golden Key and The Hobbit have permanently tweaked my perception of reality. My imagination will never be the same.

And maybe that’s what Dawkins really fears — imagination, wonder, myth and mystery. It’s what Chesterton called Elfland. “…fairy-tales are as normal as milk or bread,” he said. “Civilisation changes; but fairy-tales never change… Fiction and modern fantasy and all that wild world… can be described in one phrase. Their philosophy means ordinary things as seen by extraordinary. The fairy-tale means extraordinary things as seen by ordinary people.”

Course, this is Dawkins’ fear: that “ordinary people” envision “extraordinary things,” that the young mind finds wonder in science as well as science fiction. I mean, why imagine elves and orcs, pirates and princes, when we can settle for a nerd in a lab jacket smashing atoms? It belies the atheist’s real god.

But maybe what’s most interesting about Dawkins’ objection of all things fantastical, is his admission that extra-terrestrials may have seeded life on earth. And this from a man who considers Christians intellectual Neanderthals. Hey, bring on the science. But when it comes to this grand, baffling, wonderful, mystery called life, maybe we need our “rationality” tweaked. Extra-terrestrials seeding earth? And Dawkins is worried about Harry Potter?

October 29, 2008

Are CBA readers less sophisticated than ABA readers?

Categories: Religion, Writing | Comments (6) |

After some revision, I reposted my article on Is Christian Horror Becoming a Trend? over at Novel Journey this week. I guess you could say I’m grinding an ax, but by the feedback I continue to get, it seems like it’s an ax worth grinding. (At this writing, it’s over 20 comments.) Not only did I receive an encouraging private email from one of the authors I cited, but both Eric Wilson and T.L. Hines have left some terrific comments on that post.

I was especially interested in something Tony Hines said in his comments:

…I do feel there’s a difference between ABA and CBA readers. And to be brutally honest, ABA readers are more sophisticated. I’m a little shocked when I see some reviews of my work on Christian book sites, with people decrying the lack of “Christian” content in a few of my works. I think, symbolically and metaphorically, the Christian content is rather obvious. Maybe a bit too obvious, as Publisher’s Weekly said of their review of my second book, “The Dead Whisper On.”

I do find it troubling that a fair amount of CBA readers (at least in my experience) have a hard time seeing symbolism; we should, after all, be BETTER about seeing these kinds of things since many of Jesus’s teachings were told in parables.

I’m sure some could misinterpret this as suggesting that CBA readers are simple-minded, naive, or uneducated. I don’t think that’s the case. Rather, it’s the natural result of how we’ve come to define Christian Fiction. By its very nature, Christian Fiction must have overt “Christian” elements — redemptive themes, salvation episodes, biblical quotations, references to God or a Supreme Deity, positive resolutions, etc. In other words, the more nuance and symbollism, the less “Christian” a novel becomes. So when Tony suggests CBA readers are “less sophisticated,” I think he’s referring to the expectation Christian readers have of their fiction. Because we are conditioned to expect the “obvious” Christian elements, we don’t look for the nuanced or symbolic. At least, that’s my take on it. What’s yours?

October 27, 2008

Must Respect Be Earned Before It’s Given?

“Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.” (Romans 13:1-2)

At the heart of most great movements is the resistance — at least, the questioning — of authority. America would not be on the map except for those brave souls that defied British tyranny. The Civil Rights Movement stood against discrimination and institutional racism, and challenged the powers that be. In a certain sense, questioning authority is an American ideal.

But have we gone too far?

I’m seeing these logos more and more, you know: Respect is Earned. The sentiment goes something like this: I will honor or humble myself for no one until they prove they deserve it. But this kind of thinking can and has led to a rabid egocentricity. In other words, we become the arbiter of who deserves our respect. If someone impresses us or meets our personal criteria, i.e. earns our respect, we will honor them. If someone doesn’t, we won’t. Nowadays, no authority should remain unquestioned.

And that’s an important connection. Behind the Respect is Earned movement is the Question Authority crowd.

I’ve always disliked those Question Authority bumper stickers, for this reason: The mantra of Question Authority undermines itself. In other words, If we should question authority then why not question the authority of that statement? The assertion that I should question authority presumes that that assertion is unquestionably tenable.

The above Bible verse suggests that certain stations are vested with a God-given authority. The King or Queen, General or Judge, deserve a certain amount of respect simply for holding that office. Like him or not, we should respect the President. Now, some like to distinguish the Office of the President from the man actually occupying the Position. However, practically speaking, how can you respect a position of authority and not the person in it? To me, that distinction has always been a bit of a cop-out.

Nevertheless, there are times when a person in a position of power abuses the office. Once, while in the ministry, I received a letter from a woman who’d been abused as a child by her parents. She was a new believer, growing just fine, when she encountered this verse:

Honor your father and your mother,

that your days may be long

in the land which the Lord your God gives you

Exodus 20:12 (RSV)

It threw her for a loop. So how does an abuse victim “honor” the people who abused her? Or maybe a better question is, Should an abuse victim honor the people who abused her?

Jesus, on many occasions, resisted — even chided — those in authority. Nevertheless, Scripture repeatedly describes Christ’s posture as one of meekness and humility.  He was hardly a revolutionary in the anarchic sense people mean it. In fact, Jesus remained civil, even to the point of death.

And civility is what’s being lost in today’s Respect is Earned culture.

Yes, the moment someone demands respect, they disqualify themselves from deserving it. Unless, that is, they occupy a genuine position of authority. In those cases — like the abused child commanded to honor her parents — we must walk this tightrope between compliance and confrontation, submission and resistance.

The question is not if we should question authority, it’s how.

Just because your boss is a jerk doesn’t give you license to be one. Sure, you might need to stand up to him, question his judgment, or even organize a mutiny. But you needn’t become a terrorist in the process. It’s one thing to disagree with someone, disapprove of their leadership, and dislike them as a person. But it’s completely another to walk around with your nose in the air, giving the world the middle finger.

Those are the people I simply cannot respect.

Older Posts »
 


You are viewing a mobilized version of this site...
View original page here

How do you rate mobile version of this page?

Mobilized by Mowser Mowser