Thin Places

why I won't vote for any of the Republicans

2012-01-25T17:22:00.000-08:00

OK... anyone who knows me knows that there is a simple answer - BECAUSE THEY'RE REPUBLICANS! There are clearly some Republican stands that do not work for me. In my estimation, they are all too quick to throw the poor under the bus and to shred the little safety net we have. As a party, they have focused on what I think is the wrong issue when they talk about the deficit while what we really need are jobs. Yes, yes, yes, the Dems are not much better, but they are a little better. So here are a few of my reasons with each of the four remaining candidates.

Newt... character counts. He has none. We can look at his hypocrisy as he claims to be a "family values" candidate while having done more to sully marriage than anyone I have ever known, read, or read of. And while involved in despicable behavior, he had the nerve to condemn Bill Clinton for similar acts. I know he says it was not about the sexual acts but about lying to congress, but when the moderator of the South Carolina debate asked about his behavior with his 2nd wife, he said it was despicable to ask such questions in the midst of a presidential campaign. Evidently it was fine to ask such questions of a sitting president?! He claims to have changed. People do change. I don't believe him. His mean-spiritedness through the debates shows that he is the same old Newt. There are those who talk of him as having "big thoughts" and "great ideas." When his big thoughts and great ideas include essentially doing away with child labor laws, they sound like terrible ideas and small thoughts to me.

Rick Santorum... I respect a person living their faith and bringing it to play in their politics. Every single political view that I hold is impacted by my understanding of who Jesus is and what it means to follow him. That said, Santorum's understanding of what it means to be a Christian is, in significant places, diametrically opposed to mine. And while I believe one can act ofor public policy changes based on his or her faith, public policy can never find its sole or even primary justification in anyone's faith. To believe that birth control should be outlawed is so far outside of the mainstream and so far outside of anything that is positive for our country that I can't imagine him being president. Add to that gender views that take us back at least a century. I guess I expect more from him since he calls himself a Christian and a Roman Catholic. When he completely dismisses the rest of the "pro-life" views of his church without a blink, I wonder how much of his political views really are based in faith.

Mitt... First, running a government is not the same as running a business and anyone who thinks it is or should be, doesn't understand government. Add to that the fact that his role in business was to purchase weak companies, strip them of anything of value, and essentially throw the rest away. Even if business and government were analogous, that is not how I want to see government run. That he is so incredibly rich that he doesn't have to work, makes more in a week off of investments that I do in a decade from work, and seems to see nothing wrong in paying a lower percentage of taxes than the vast majority of the 99% makes me wonder whether he really gets it. It also seems that he wants this job too bad. He seems to switch his views depending on what he thinks will get him elected... perhaps not an unusual trait for a politician but still one that I won't vote for if I can help it and it just seems too obvious with him. I do respect that he gives a much larger percentage of his income to charities than any other politician I know of.

Ron Paul... he's the one that really scares me. I don't think the Republican establishment would allow him to win, but I think he is the candidate who would be most able to beat Obama. Paul's commitment to reduce the role of the military and to end our empire is very attractive to me and to many liberals. His commitment to enforce the parts of the constitution that protect individuals from the powers of the state likewise is attractive. His libertarian views regarding drugs also are attractive to many liberals. His consistency is a wonderful thing in the days of politicians reading polls and changing their views like their ties. He could strip off many liberal voters who are disenchanted by Obama's militaristic bent or who drank the Koolaid that he is a socialist and expected him to act like one. He isn't and he hasn't! At the same time, I think that many Republicans who find those views distasteful would still vote for him just to vote against Obama. I think he might gain far more than he would lose. The parts that I don't like about Ron Paul scare me more than the parts I do like entice me... he is commitment to shredding the safety net for the poor, doing away with government involvement in ensuring safe food, water, air, and drugs. He does not believe government has a role providing an adequate education for all or providing foreign aid that can make a difference in saving the lives of literally millions overseas. Those views are more than I can take. Add his racist statements of the past and he is completely off my list too.

When I listen to what each of them envisions for the country, for the world, and look at the stands and characteristics they bring to the table, none are the kind of leader that I believe we need in this difficult time. None bring the kind of vision of the future I want to see implemented.

So that leaves me with Obama. Folk who know me also know that I've never been a huge fan of Obama. During the Democratic primary I described him to my friends as a centrist and looking at his work in office, that is exactly what he has been... and I'm anything but a centrist politically. I'm not thrilled... but I like him much, much, much better than any of the above. I wouldn't vote for a third party candidate even if there was one I loved because I'd be too afraid one of the above might win.

So, given the choices, for me, it's Obama 2012.

annual pilgrimage

2012-01-21T13:03:00.000-08:00

This week was my annual pilgrimage to the NAMM convention in Anaheim, CA. NAMM is a huge conference for dealers of musical instruments (and everything you can imagine might be tied to them) and manufacturers. It is a big deal in that business and many of the manufacturers essentially do their entire years sales in the Anaheim convention center so they all trot out their newest and slickest.

I first attended about 5 years ago and was struck first by the booth babes... you've seen photos of them at auto shows. They were exactly the same. 6 foot tall women wearing very little clothing and more often than not, surgically enhanced in multiple ways. As the economy went down over the last few years, the booth babes were the first expenditure to be cut and very, very few displays had them this year. Business seems to be on the way back up and attendance seemed higher than the last few years although there were some obvious manufacturers who were absent.

It is a convention only for people who are in the business so if you don't have a tie with a manufacturer, a retailer who will send you to the event, or are a big enough star to be able to get in for publicity's sake, you can't attend. I get in on a visitor's pass with Lowden Guitars and really enjoy getting to spend some time with George and his family, seeing their primary demonstrator at the booth, Thomas Leeb, and getting to see the newest and slickest that George and company have produced this year.

For those of you who don't know, Lowden is a small Irish family run company that builds what I consider to be the finest guitars in the world. They build about 500 guitars a year and are played by some of the finest guitar players in the world including Pierre Bensusan, Alex DeGrassi, Richard Thompson, and Thomas Leeb. Many other famous players have played Lowdens at one time or another in their careers and there are scores of wonderful players around the world who love these amazing guitars. I've been playing them since about '86 or '87 and currently own two. My primary guitar is an O25C Custom built in 2000 after my first Lowden, an L25C built in early '86, was stolen in Philadelphia in August of 1999. My second is a recently acquired S10P built in '87. It is old, beaten, abused, and scarred. The two guitars have slightly different voices but they clearly come from the same gene pool and both really sing. They are not inexpensive guitars, but at this quality one would never expect them to be. That said, I have not played any guitars at any price that I would choose over a Lowden and I have played some very expensive guitars.

African Blackwood F50

Lowden had a bunch of gorgeous guitars in their booth but was really getting buzz about three of them. One was a medium size guitar with a redwood top, very elegant appointments including a bevel on the lower bout that makes the guitar more comfortable to pay, and back and sides of a very rare and expensive wood (at least in sizes needed for guitars) called African Blackwood. The wood has all of te characteristics needed for an excellent guitar and this one is. It was also the most expensive guitar at the booth.

The real buzz came from two prototype fan fret guitars. Let me explain the concept behind these guitars. Longer strings work better for lower pitches and shorter strings work better for higher pitches. This is called scale length and tells you the distance between the nut (the piece of bone near the top of the guitars neck) and the saddle (the piece of bone in the bridge). The vast majority of guitars have a single scale length for all six strings which like many issues in guitar design, represents a compromise. Once you've chosen your scale length, there are formulas that tell you where to put the frets so the guitar can play in a well tempered scale (another compromise to tuning). What would happen if you had multiple scale lengths so the lowest strings were longer and the highest strings shorter? Theoretically the low pitches would be richer and deeper and the high ones clearer and more bell like. This is especially noticeable for folk who do lots of altered tunings. Of course, it requires some voodoo with the frets, nut, bridge, and braces to make it all work. Most visible is the arrangement of the frets... like a fan. A few individual builders have been producing guitars with these multiple scale lengths but they are often incredibly expensive and beyond the experience of almost all guitarists. George produced two prototypes of fan fret guitars and every player who visited the booth wanted to try them. The high point of my time there was when Colin Hay, known to many from his days in the 80's band Men at Work, and a friend of his played a gorgeous duet on the two fan frets in the quiet room at the Lowden display. Just sublime. The sound of the guitars was really beautiful and they fit together, hand in glove.

fan fret guitars

I forget what the actual string lengths were, but, if I remember correctly, the lowest string is more than 1.5 inches longer than the highest one. Notice in the photo that the frets are arranged in a fan. The slanted bridge on the right hand guitar is the logical way to get a slanted saddle but the interior bracing of the guitar must be changed to accommodate the different placement of the bridge. The guitar on the left uses George's normal bridge with what struck me as a Salvador Dali'esque extension for the slanted saddle. This allows George to retain his signature bracing pattern. Some who looked at the guitar asked whether that additional wood would deaden the sound or lessen sustain. I certainly couldn't hear any deficits.

The orientation of the frets did cause many of the players to scratch their heads. Some reported that once they ignored what their eyes were telling them, they didn't feel any difference in playing. Others said that it would require some small adjustments to technique. I was in the second group. Given the depth and balance of George's "regular" guitars, I'm not sure I see the need need for the fan frets and so I can't see a situation where I'd feel the need to adjust. Others, especially some fingerstyle players who often play with the lower strings dropped a step or more, may see the design as a wonderful thing.

I didn't see much of the rest of the show... I walked through the entire center once and I did look at cases and gig bags since I need a new one for my S10P, but other than that, I stayed pretty close to the Lowden booth.

the beauty of a place

2012-01-17T09:39:00.000-08:00

Once upon a time there was a Texan visiting the northeast. He had heard about the beauty of the place and was excited to see it. Standing on the side of a Vermont mountain, looking across a valley he turned to his host, shrugged and remarked, "I guess the scenery is nice... but it is so hard to see with all of those trees in the way."

I have been very few places that did not have real beauty. I love the stark beauty of the desert with the shapes of the rocks and colors of the hills. I love the impressionist like landscapes in the northeast. I love the rolling hills, dotted with grazing cattle and sheep that we saw in Scotland. I love the fecundity of Hawaii where the flowers bloom everywhere and the mountains fall into the sea. I love El Junque, just east of San Juan Puerto Rico where everything literally drips with life, the green is overwhelming, and the oxygen so thick it is almost oppressive. Oklahoma didn't do anything for me... and I've been a few places in the central valley of California where it was also difficult for me to see anything truly beautiful but I expect that if I spent even a few more hours in either place, I would find something.

All that said, where I live is astoundingly beautiful. While I lived in the northeast, the picture I often had of California was of the sprawl of Orange County or the urban blight or extreme wealth of parts of LA (thanks television!). Those are certainly part of the picture here but the one piece that really surprised me, and still does at times, is how wild California is. About once a year we hear of a sighting of a mountain lion, often in a place where significant populations of people live. A few months ago, I was driving home along the Gaviota Coast and looked over to my right only see a golden eagle take off from a telephone pole. This past Friday, I was driving along the same coast in the other direction and looked out to the ocean only to see a whale spout about 200 yards off shore. It was the second time I'd seen a whale from my car while driving in that area. Then there are the more common wildlife - coyotes, hawks, hummingbirds, dolphins, sea birds, sea lions, elephant seals, varieties of lizards and snakes, and tarantula... And while we live in an area that is technically semi-arid, there are always flowers blooming of one sort or other. The hills are usually golden brown dotted with live oak trees, but after a rain, they turn green and then in spring they turn yellow, covered with mustard flowers. The sides of the mountains along with rock faces are often covered with the dirty green of chaparral, live oak, and evergreens. The mountains rise and fall into the ocean. In winter when the air is very clear, you can look south across the ocean (the coast runs east-west in the SB area) and it seems that you can reach out and touch the Channel Islands, the closest of which is 22 miles out.

Gaviota Pass

Driving from Santa Barbara to Buellton, where we live, you go along the coast for about 20 miles and then turn north, paralleling the coast which also turns north a bit further west, and drive through the Gaviota Pass through the Santa Ynez Mountains... the mountains are glorious with the southern end of the pass being particularly dramatic. Once you get to the Santa Ynez Valley, you're in wine country with some of the best Rhone style and Pinot Noirs in the world surrounded by vineyards, cattle farms, and other produce.

So, I highly recommend a visit some time and I expect I may hear you sitting at a breakfast spot either in Santa Barbara looking out at the dolphins playing in the ocean or in the valley, enjoying Danish pancakes and in either place, talking across the table, wondering whether you might somehow be able to move here.

Do You Hear What I Hear?

2012-01-08T09:16:00.000-08:00

My daughter was laughing that the other day about something she overheard. She was walking down a street and heard two young, elementary school aged girls singing a song they were much to young to be listening to - "I'm Sexy and I Know It" by LMFAO. There's a line in the song, "I've got passion in my pants and I ain't afraid to show it." The girls were obviously way too young to make sense of that line... so they heard it and sang it in a different way, "I've got cashews in my pants and I ain't afraid to show it..." Doesn't make much sense either, but it worked for them.

A few days ago I was talking with a friend about Cambridge Drive Church's community outreaches. We have multiple 12 step programs that meet on our property. As we talked, my friend mentioned SLA. He was talking about Sex/Love Addicts... I heard Symbionese Liberation Army, the domestic terrorist organization that kidnapped Patty Hearst in the 70's. Here's the connection... His SLA is a 12 step program. Mine goes back to my younger years and has a connection with the church because one of the Church members had a daughter who was part of the Symbionese Liberation Army. Obviously, the conversation quickly degraded until it made no sense.

How often does that happen in life? Even when we use the same words and hear the same words, they may have very different meanings for us and while we think we're making sense to one another, we may be missing something very important.

In the meantime... "I've got cashews in my pants..." and that would not be very comfortable. So be careful what you say.

compromises

2012-01-04T17:06:00.000-08:00

My primary instrument is acoustic guitar and I have two wonderful instruments, both built by Lowden Guitars, an Irish company that builds stunning guitars. They are not inexpensive but to my ears, they are well worth the cost. The sound is big, warm, responsive, elegant, and rich. Guitars though are not very loud as far as instruments go so to be heard in any but the most intimate of settings, they require some kind of amplification. Any instrument that embodies all of those adjectives is going to be very difficult to capture with any kind of pickup and amplifying it will necessarily involve multiple compromises between accuracy, complexity of the system used to capture the sound, susceptibility to feedback, and the choice of which characteristics of the instrument must be attenuated to play in a louder situation. I joke that I spent a significant amount on a great guitar only to be faced with multiple compromises when trying to amplify it and significant additional costs.

Getting a good live sound is a huge area of discussion among acoustic players. For me, the bottom line is always, which compromises am I willing to make? What characteristics of the sound of my guitar played in my living room am I willing to give up in order to be able to play for an audience of 50 or 100 or 500 people?

Compromise... is not a popular word in the US these days. For decades, compromise has been the primary work for politicians. In a nation growing ever more diverse, their job was to come together and work out deals with which nobody was completely happy but everyone got something they deemed important. Of course, there have always been instances where folk have had issues about which they could not compromise. Still, until recent times, politicians did a pretty good job of finding ways past those issues and making deals.

In recent years our culture has become more and more polar. In politics this has been fed in the primary process where the more extreme voters are likely to participate and many politicians, especially on the right, are pushed towards the extremes just to get nominated. As those more extreme groups have gained power in the primary process and have enabled some extreme candidates to get elected, they have become more entrenched and less willing to compromise. For what it's worth, the same thing has happened in religious circles.

Now, here's the piece that has me interested. A few days ago Glenn Greenwald published a fascinating article in The Salon comparing many of Obama's political stands to those of Ron Paul and traditional liberal stances. He said the issue was that many liberals are either downplaying the issues where Ron Paul is actually more in line with their beliefs or ignoring them altogether. The reality here is that progressives are being forced to compromise their views. They must decide whom they will embrace when one candidate stands for some of their issues and not others while the other candidate is the exact opposite. I think Greenwald is correct that in large degree the liberals are avoiding a conscious compromise and ignoring those issues where Obama stands in contrast to their historic views.

Coming out of Iowa, the Republicans have a similar dilemma. Mitt Romeny, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul represent very different understandings of what it means to be a Republican and each would present an extremely different platform for that party in the next election. None seem to be a happy compromise for them. Indeed, I think that dis-ease with compromise has been the genesis of the revolving 2nd place candidates as many in the party are not happy with Romney while each option they put forward turns out to be worse. In any case, they will be forced to compromise, to choose which characteristics they can let go in order to keep some others. Some, like many in the Tea Party have already said they will not vote for Romney as he would be a compromise with their core principles. It will be interesting to see where this goes...

conflation

2011-12-29T09:03:00.000-08:00

This morning, this graphic showed up in my Facebook feed. I have no issue with people allowing their faith to inform their politics and I do not have a problem with people of faith speaking out on political issues. Indeed, I think we should. Still, this little graphic really interests me. While I'm sure there are those who are actually pro those four things and anti-Obama and who genuinely hold all of those stances, I have real problems when they are conflated. I have met far too many folk who say that they are a package deal and if you don't own all of them, you don't own any of them. Add to that, my basic orientation that says that to some degree, these statements are anti-thetical and you can see where I have issues.

Let me address each... I am pro-God... but it really does depend on what god you're talking about. If we're talking about the God revealed in Jesus, then, I'm right with you. If we're talking about the god worshiped in some national religion that equates God with capitalism, war, and most of all the USA, then I'm definitely not "pro-god."

I am pro-life, but I have to say that I cringe when I say that. All too often the term actually means "pro unborn babies and once their born they're on their own." If you really want to use that term, you need to use it as the Roman Catholic hierarchy professes to use it - anti abortion, anti-war, anti capital punishment, pro affirmative action (in the broadest sense). Then, you can really say you're pro-life. If you are against all f the programs that support poor children, for raising funding of the military industrial complex... well, you get the direction... and you aren't pro-life, you're pro unborn babies and once they're actually born, they're on their own.

Pro - gun? Frankly, I don't believe the 2nd amendment has anything to say in today's world and should be repealed (like that would ever happen). The real question though is what does this mean to these folk? Are they saying they have the right to have a gun to shoot intruders (see pro-life)? To stand up against a repressive government? Good luck using that 440 deer rifle against a fuel air bomb dropped from a jet... or are they just saying they can spend their own money any way they please and that they have some machismo issue that requires owning something that can kill from 100's of yards away? Or maybe it has to do with the aesthetics and engineering of some weapons and the deisre to own something beautiful or with historical import? I don't know, but do any of those ideas really measure up to needing a constitutional amendment?

Pro-country... I'm pro the USA. I believe it is the best idea that anyone has had for a political arrangement. I believe we really can still be the city on a hill if we truly embrace the best of the dreams that gave shape to this country. At the same time, I am not a tribalist. If there is something to be learned from another country, then one who truly loves this country will learn it. If this country does something that flies in the face of all of its stated ideals, then one who truly loves it will call it out. Truly loving the country cannot ever mean turning a blind eye to its failings. The most important parts of my religious tradition tell me that those failings have to do with treatment of the poor and vulnerable. Being pro-country means to me, standing up to make life better for them.

Anti-Obama? Go for it. That is part of the genius of our system. You can be against the president for any reason you like, even stupid ones, racist ones, selfish ones, and uninformed ones. And there are good ones too. Still, if you go to the website for the PAC that produced that little graphic, they are complaining about a lack of leadership... but proposing no leader. Somehow, I think they've dropped the ball. They want your money to dispose of one poor leader to put who in? Trust them... yeah right.

And finally, all of these ideas are conflated with being a Republican. I'm sure there are Republicans who hold only the very best of values and vote that way because their conscience leads them in that direction. Like me, when I vote Democratic, many of them hold their noses because the Republican party endorses some ideas that they feel are important while ignoring some they also think important... and they make what they perceive as the better of two bad options. I sort of understand that. Still, I cannot but see how the basic orientations of the Republican Party do stand in direct opposition to my understanding of what it means to follow Jesus. Indeed, of the five statements, only two seem to fit, for me, with the Republican platform - pro-gun and anti-Obama.

for a little smile, here is a cartoon from the naked pastor blog (one of my favorites) that relates to the poster and the way that I experience the Republican party although it clearly is not meant for them alone (it is likely aimed at factions within the Church) and calls me to look more carefully at myself both from a faith standpoint and in regards to my politics as well.

Occupy

2011-12-26T14:48:00.000-08:00

First my disclaimers... I'm male. I'm white. I'm very well educated. I have a middle class salary. I live in a home that while not ostentatious at all, is quite nice, and when compared to houses in much of the country is pretty expensive. I have OK health insurance which likewise is ridiculously expensive. I grew up in a blue collar family in a blue collar city in a time when blue collar folk living in Pittsburgh made a solidly middle class living.

I'm aware of the other side though. I also went to a school district that was about 50% minority and I experienced first hand the ways that race impacts everything. I had friends who were poor and had no hope of ever being anything else and it didn't matter how hard they worked. I also saw first hand what happened when the good blue collar jobs disappeared from Pittsburgh and my parents slipped from being solidly middle class to poor. In their latter years, they struggled terribly. My younger sister was just far enough behind me to miss all of the benefits I experienced... and the fact that she was female with a learning disability didn't help at all.

My politics, theology, and economics were formed in the crucible of the 60's and early 70's and I never forgot where I came from. My formative influences were anabaptists, liberation theologians, and social radicals.

So here we are... read these words -

⁴⁶And Mary said, “My soul magnifies the Lord, ⁴⁷and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, ⁴⁸for he has looked with favor on the lowliness of his servant. Surely, from now on all generations will call me blessed; ⁴⁹for the Mighty One has done great things for me, and holy is his name. ⁵⁰His mercy is for those who fear him from generation to generation. ⁵¹He has shown strength with his arm; he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts. ⁵²He has brought down the powerful from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly; ⁵³he has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty.

I can't imagine a better theological frame for the Occupy movement. This passage clearly shows that when class warfare takes place (and it is right now), God is always on the side of the poor. The prophets speak similar words again and again. From the beginning, God has called for a system that precludes those with power from rigging things for their interests. The one time we see Jesus angry, it is when those with power and position use it to take advantage of those with none (he turned over the tables of the money changers in the Temple as they took advantage of the poor who came to worship as required by the law). Unfortunately, the Church is not always on the same side as God.

I recently read a powerful article by Kristin Rawls where she shares her frustration at a system that has failed her even as she did and does everything right and she feels that those on the more progressive side of the evangelical church have not stood with her and those like her. She asks for a church that will be "outraged with me and who practice solidarity by showing up when it matters and advocating for real economic justice. I want you to use your clout and influence to help..." Clearly she is asking for us, for me, to do exactly what Jesus would do. If we do anything less, Mary would remind us that we are standing against the work of God.

I don't know that I have any clout or real influence, Kristin, but I want to stand with you and your sisters and brothers who have been thrown under the economic bus. Yes, God does love even the 1%... but God clearly wants to bring them down from their thrones, send them away empty, while lifting up the lowly, filling the hungry with good things, and seeing the lowness of those under the bus.

Christmas Carols #2 - gender

2011-12-14T17:25:00.000-08:00

We have a gender issue in the Church. To hear folk like Mark Driscoll parse it, we've become too feminine. He wants us to get manly and to restructure the church so it is more masculine (as he defines that). Let me say this gently... he's wrong... in almost every way.

We'll leave most of the argument for another time, but today I want to look specifically at gender and Christmas carols. For centuries, Christian theology focused on a God who was pictured as a stern, unapproachable father, just waiting for you and I to do something wrong so we could be punished. In spite of the fact that "spirit" is feminine in Hebrew and neuter in Greek, the three persons of the trinity were universally portrayed as male. Leadership was segregated to men to the degree that even translations of the scripture reflected that prejudice. Any images of God that hinted at the feminine were down-played. It was no wonder that Mary was elevated almost to become a fourth member of the trinity... people wanted/needed a mother figure who would kiss their hurts away and love them regardless of what they had done. That brings us to carols.

Christmas is the time in the Christian year when the feminine cannot be denied. Mary moves to the forefront as she is given veto power over the very plans of God, decides to be part of God's plans, carries, and then births the baby. Like it or not, biology puts the woman at the center of the story and keeps her there. This is especially true in a patriarchal culture where caring for children is a woman's work. Joseph essentially disappears from the story because he is unimportant.

All of this appears in the carols as we remember the mother and her role in the story of salvation... and all of this elicits a backlash. The Church with its patriarchal understanding of God and of authority could not allow for any portion of the year to be owned by women... so the carols often reflect the push back. "Good Christian men rejoice..." "God rest ye merry gentlemen..." "Peace on the earth, goodwill to men, from heaven's all gracious King..." "As with gladness, men of old..." And also notice the hyper masculine kingly language that is often used. We must be reminded that this is not a baby, but a king even as he suckles at his mother's breast lest she have too much power in the scenario.

Yes, yes, I know that common English usage when those songs were written didn't provide an easy way to be inclusive, but I am arguing that the entire content betrays a desire to put the woman in her place, to move the focus away from the mother and baby, and to remove as much humanity as is possible from a baby who is dependent upon a woman.

Guess what? She is there! She is central! Without Mary's "yes," nothing happens at all. It all depends on a woman... heck, in our culture, she wouldn't even be considered a woman. It all depends on a girl.

So, Mark Driscoll... I don't think we're too feminine... I think we've pushed too hard for too long to disenfranchise women even in our Christmas carols.

Adoption Day

2011-12-13T17:14:00.000-08:00

my little boy, John
that tree next to him is over 7 ft.

On December 13, 16 years ago, the Donkin forever family enlarged. The story is long and complicated, filled with frustrations and joys and fears and relief. After John had been a part of our family for five years, on December 13, 1995, Cheryl, Alexis, John and I appeared in family court in Albany, NY and finalized the adoption of John.

It probably isn't proper to tell more of the story here but there is one piece that I can tell the world... that day was one of the most wonderful and impactful days of my life. John is my son no less than Alexis is my daughter, biology beside the point. I am so blessed to have him in my life and I am so proud of the man he has become and is becoming.

Christmas Carols #1

2011-12-12T16:39:00.000-08:00

Of all of the sub genres of church music, I find Christmas carols the most interesting for a whole bunch of reasons.

First, the gospel is all about contextualization, but many theologians and many churches try to ignore that. They'll talk about trying to recapture the shape, style, and government of the Early Church, forgetting that there never was one early church and neglecting that the cultural differences would make it unworkable even if there had been. Incarnation is all about context. Jesus was born a boy in a very specific time and place with a very specific cultural setting, politics, and economics. His ministry becomes universal only because it is so contextual. The same continues to be true now. We see this most clearly in Christmas music.

Europeans moved the holiday to the middle of winter both to coincide with the shortest and bleakest time of the year and with pagan holidays that happened at the same time. One of my favorite carols is In the Bleak Midwinter. Now, how much more European can you get than that? "Snow had fallen, snow on snow..." "Water like a stone..." Jesus was born in a place where the weather just doesn't look that way. Still, the image works both for the setting of the singers, northern Europe and North America, and as metaphor. Here's a video of me playing this song in Santa Barbara at the Cambridge Drive Concerts Songs on a Midwinter's Night (sorry for the lighting and for the clam in the first verse) - another place where the weather doesn't fit at all, but the metaphor still works.

My favorite Christmas carol is Some Children See Him, one of the Alfred Burt carols with lyrics by Wihla Hutson from 1951. I blogged about the way this song reflects contextualism back in '06. Here are the lyrics.

Some children see Him lily white,the baby Jesus born this night.Some children see Him lily white,with tresses soft and fair.Some children see Him bronzed and brown,The Lord of heav'n to earth come down.Some children see Him bronzed and brown,with dark and heavy hair.

Some children see Him almond-eyed,this Savior whom we kneel beside.some children see Him almond-eyed,with skin of yellow hue.Some children see Him dark as they,sweet Mary's Son to whom we pray.Some children see him dark as they,and, ah! they love Him, too!

The children in each different placewill see the baby Jesus' facelike theirs, but bright with heavenly grace,and filled with holy light.O lay aside each earthly thingand with thy heart as offering,come worship now the infant King.'Tis love that's born tonight!

Those words reflect my understanding of incarnation more deeply than any song I can think of... and in that reflect the gospel in the deepest of ways. More than once, it has brought me to tears. Some Children has been recorded by a number of people but my favorite recording by far is by Stacy Sullivan. She changes the rhythm a bit and moves the melody some but I don't think does any violence to the song and makes it a bit more accessible for most folk. Unfortunately I can't find a video of her but you can purchase the MP3 at Amazon here. It is a gorgeous rendition of the song.

In a few days, I'll be back with some thoughts about Christmas music and gender.

beat boxes

2011-11-26T10:29:00.001-08:00

I love the NBC show, The Sing Off. It's got it all - great music, compassionate knowledgeable judges, and did I say, great music? I have a few favs... and two of them are finalists - Pentatonix and Urban Method. I also liked Delilah who were eliminated earlier.

If you haven't watched the show, go to Hulu and watch it. It really is a great show and I highly, highly recommend it.

I am routing for Pentatonix... They get a huge sound with just 5 voices arranged very, very well. The rhythm section is HUGE and just plain solid. The beat box guy - Kevin Olusola - also plays piano, cello, and sax and is evidently quite accomplished on each. I googled him the other day and found this incredible video of him playing cello and beat boxing... just amazing.

and here's Pentatonix

new gear

2011-11-14T12:59:00.001-08:00

my primary guitar

Guitar players are always looking for way to make their sound both better and easier. I'm at a lace where I'm very happy with the cogent of my sound. I have two amazing Lowden guitars that I love. My primary guitar - the custom Lowden O25C in the picture to the left - has two pickups in it, a Sunrise magnetic and a McIntyre soundboard transducer. Together they work very well for me... but to make them work well, I have a rack of stuff that is a royal pain to schlep around.

an earlier incarnation of my rack

The current incarnation has a different blender (the red thing on the top right) and I've removed the tuner (the 2nd thing from the bottom) but it is still the same overall size and essentially the same weight... and it sounds great. When I was playing with Jamie Green, she would request that I bring that guitar and the rack so I could get that "beautiful guitar sound." She was right.

For you gear heads, the signal path is a stereo out from the guitar to a stereo Sunrise buffer, to a Dtar Solstice blending preamp, with a dbx compressor in the channel inserts and a Digitech S100 digital effects unit in the effects loop, out to the PA. I generally run the guitar with a touch of compression, a little chorus, and a little reverb. The Sunrise is a touch louder than the McIntyre.

LowdenS10P - my 2nd guitar

My second guitar - an old Lowden S10P that is beaten to death, had some terrible repairs done, but sounds and plays great - has only one pickup, a Fishman UTS with the stock Fishman endpin preamp, so it doesn't require the blender or the buffer, but if I want the same rich sound with the compression, chorus, and reverb, I still needed to carry the entire rack... until now. I got a new piece of equipment, a TC Electronics G Natural, that has pretty much everything that is in the rack plus more in one box that I can access on the floor and the whole thing is 11.2 X 10.5 X 3.5 inches and weighs 4.1 lbs. And it sounds good..

G Natural

Because it is a digital unit, I can have the option to store 30 presets in addition to 30 factory set presets and I can recall them by stepping on the footswitches. There are more effects there than I have in my rack plus switching between sounds is much easier and quicker. It even looks as if I can set it up to work with the dual sources I have in my primary guitar so I can leave the rack at home almost all of the time. I'm excited about that... if I could leave the rack at home all of the time and got the same quality of sound, it would be wonderful.

Now all I need is to get things together so I have more gigs more often. I have to either find the right musical partner or get serious about the solo thing.

FWIW, if the G Natural works as I hope, one of these days, I'll replace the pickups in my second guitar to match those in the #1...

putting it out there

2011-11-10T08:54:00.000-08:00

Last week we had a wonderful show in the Cambridge Drive Concert series with Terry Holder. At some point during the day, I was talking with Jerry, Terry's husband and guitar player. He wondered out loud why it was that guys in the audience assume that every female performer "is available to them" and told stories about guys who tried to pick Terry up. One fun story involved a guy who had purchased 3 CD's from her merchandise table and then learned that Jerry was her husband. He returned the three CD's and walked away without even asking for his money back.

I was thinking about the discussion this morning as I was walking to work and listening to some music. I love "If I Were a Boy" by Beyonce and, despite the controversy over the rights to the song, I think she just kills that song. Every time I hear it, I believe her. I feel the pain at being taken for granted by some guy and her yearning for "a better man," and I figured it out. A great performance involves putting it all out there.

As a culture, we're just immature about emotions. When a performer opens his or her soul and puts their emotions out there, it feels intimate. Indeed, it is intimate... but that doesn't mean we really have an intimate relationship with the performer. All those guys to whom Jerry was referring were just unable to experience emotional intimacy of any kind without assuming it came with sex. They really need to be "better men" who can experience powerful emotions without making assumptions.

So, here's my question... how do we raise a crop of better men who really do understand the emotions of other people? Who are emotionally mature, caring, and giving, and who understand where the lines are?

Here's a live performance of "If I Were a Boy..."

handling the text

2011-11-09T12:36:00.000-08:00

As a pastor, I take handling the text very, very seriously. It is my responsibility to help my congregation understand what the text meant in its own setting in life and then help them find the meaning it has for us in our setting. This can be tricky. Often the setting of the scripture is as foreign as it can be to our setting. Sometimes the details just don't make sense to us. Sometimes, especially in the case of the gospels, there is more than one setting. For the gospels, we have not only the setting of Jesus' ministry, but also the setting of the writers' churches. They looked back at Jesus' life and asked, "What stories or events from Jesus' life do my folk need to hear?" Understanding those passages often requires looking at both Biblical settings and our own. Then... there are just those passages that don't seem to fit our setting at all.

This past Sunday, I preached on Matthew 25:1-13. It is a passage that I don't think particularly speaks to my congregation. The more I thought about the parable, the more I became convinced that if Jesus was telling this story to my church or to most churches in America, the story would take a different tack. In the Biblical story, there are 5 wise maidens who have adequate supplies of oil for their lamps when the bridegroom is late and 5 who do not. When those who do not have enough ask the 5 wise maidens for help, they are sent away. When they finally arrive at the wedding feast, again, they are turned away. The point is to be ready at all times for the coming of Jesus. This was especially true for Matthew's church who thought Jesus was running very late. My congregation is just not concerned about the second coming.

Here's what I think Jesus would do with the story today. The 5 wise maidens would share their oil. But what if there isn't enough and everyone runs out? Think of the feeding of the 5000, of the Hanukah candles, of all of the instances where God's generosity overwhelms the needs and there is more than enough. I think Jesus would remind us that by sharing, everyone has enough and the wedding feast would be that much more wonderful with the additional folk there helping to party. I believe the call to us today here is not to worry about being prepared but to share all we can with others and watch as God's party gets bigger and bigger. And I think he would use it to condemn those in the Church who identify with the Tea Party, the followers of Ayn Rand, and the Republican party who are so bent on holding on to what they have to the detriment of those in need. And that is what I talked about on Sunday.

So I danced with eisegesis... clearly my message introduced something to the text that wasn't there... but I do believe that if Jesus was telling that same story to us today, that's the direction he'd go.

just proves what's necessary

2011-11-03T14:20:00.000-07:00

She's playing a really cheap and lousy guitar in an open tuning and clearly doesn't know the "correct" way to play a guitar... but what wonderful music! Just goes to prove that the most important part of making music is in the heart and soul of the player... technique is secondary (although she clearly has great technique even if it is "wrong") and the quality of the instrument is secondary (even though with a better guitar she would have sounded that much better).

So... the lesson for me is, "play, play, play... and then play some more. just make music and don't worry about the other things."

Fall

2011-10-29T19:11:00.000-07:00

I miss fall... at least the kind of fall we had in upstate New York - when the air turns crisp, the leaves turn from green to reds and yellows and then brown, you put on sweaters and the first coats of winter, eat hearty soups, maybe even a little snow falls that hints of what is coming, and the last deluge of produce comes forth, especially the apples and the products made from them - cider, apple cider donuts, pies, and crisps... I feel it every year. I see the apples in the grocery store and I'm not impressed. They just aren't the same. Literally, they are different varieties than we loved in Pennsylvania and New York. The apples there were crisp and tart. Many of the ones here, even at the farmers' markets, are sweet and mushy.

Of course, there are other signs of fall here. The last of the grapes are picked and crushed and the new wines are beginning to ferment. Many wineries bottle wines to free up space in the barrel rooms and sales are abundant because of the need for warehouse space for the new bottlings.

While the temperatures in the low 80's would never have betrayed it, today was a fall day here. Cheryl and I jumped in the car and headed north to See Canyon in San Luis Opisbo county. I don't know why they can grow good apples there, but they do. And we have a favorite orchard - Gopher Glen - that grows 60 varieties of apples including some that we love from the northeast and some we enjoyed that were new to us. Two weeks ago they were selling Stayman Winesaps - one of our favorites from Pennsylvania and we bought ten pounds. They're all gone now. Today we purchased ten pounds of an apple we didn't know as they weren't selling the Stayman Winesaps - Arkansas Black - and two gallons of cider (if you've never had fresh pressed cider directly from an orchard, you've never tasted cider). It gives us a taste of the fall we know from our past. Some warm cider donuts would have made me think I had died and gone to heaven... or at least to upstate New York.

Then we headed south, towards home and stopped at Core Winery in Orcutt to pick up a wine club shipment. Dave and Becky Corey run a great little winery that is just fun. The wines are quite good and very reasonably priced but it was the family atmosphere that pulled us in and inspired us to join. So, we enjoyed some wines, talked with folk, picked up our three bottles (and bought three more) and headed home.

Yes, it was 80 degrees and didn't feel anything like an October day in upstate New York (where it was snowing today), but it still felt like fall... and that felt good.

goodbye Cathedral Music

2011-10-29T10:36:00.000-07:00

If you look down at the links at the bottom right of my page, you'll see a link to Cathedral Music (my favorite guitar store). After 16 years, Cathedral is going out of business. Klem says that it is time for a new chapter in his life, which I understand, but I can't but imagine the economy has a lot to do with the timing.

Cathedral is a small shop that never had the largest inventory, but as Klem said, "we don't sell no junk," and every guitar at any price point that came out of that shop was at least a good guitar if not a stellar one. There was a period when my daughter was taking harp lessons about a mile from Cathedral and about 15 miles from my home so every week, I'd drop Alexis at her lesson and then head over to Cathedral to play some wonderful guitars (there are a couple that still haunt me) and chew the fat with Klem. He never gave me a hard time about not purchasing anything. I quickly learned to get out of the way when a real paying customer was there but never, ever felt pressured in any way. I only purchased one guitar via Klem. When my Lowden L25C was stolen, Klem was the dealer that worked with me on my O25C Custom. I remember the experience of going to pick up that guitar as if it was yesterday... the anticipation as he brought the case out and the satisfaction of the first notes played. So, he never made much money from me - I don't know that he made anything on that guitar at all - but through those days of playing wonderful guitars and visiting, we became friends and I have a very soft spot in my heart for that little store. He is a man of impeccable integrity and was the kind of dealer guitarists all long to have a long term relationship with. And now Cathedral is closing...

I will miss knowing that store is there but wish only the very best for Klem as he begins this next chapter of his life. Good journey's my friend!

In the meantime, if you are looking for a guitar or a uke, Klem is having a wonderful sale on everything in his inventory except the consignment instruments. Tell him that I sent you.

Cambridge Drive Concerts Video

2011-10-25T10:08:00.000-07:00

well... not actually a video of a concert, but a promo video...

CD concerts
by: roy_d

it is my first fledgling attempt to use xtranormal. The next one will be better but I feel OK abut this first one

Does Romney Understand?

2011-10-21T17:34:00.000-07:00

Earlier this month Mitt Romney stated that he is in favor of a constitutional amendment stating that human life begins at conception. I can only hope that it is a position he doesn't understand or hasn't really thought about. It is a statement that could be made only by three categories of people... 1. the ignorant, 2. the political opportunist who doesn't really believe it but is hoping for votes, and 3. the insanely anti-abortion folk. Here's why.

Conception happens when an egg and a sperm connect. If at that point we have a human being, we have a number of issues to face. Many fertilized eggs naturally do not implant themselves on the uterine wall. If a human life begins at conception, every time that happens, we have had the death of a human being with all of the attending legal ramifications regardless of the cause. Some women experience ectopic pregnancies where the egg implants somewhere other than the uterine wall, most often in the fallopian tubes. This is extremely dangerous for the woman. If the fertilized egg is not removed, she will die. If the fertilized egg is a human being, we're talking about murder here... even though there is no chance that the fertilized egg would remain viable through an entire pregnancy. A number of the most popular birth control methods do not stop the egg from being fertilized but rather from implanting in the uterine wall. This would amount to murder. Many couples find themselves unable to conceive in the normal ways and use in vitro fertilization which typically results in numerous fertilized eggs, some of which are discarded at one time or another. Again, we're talking about murder if human life begins at conception. We haven't mentioned instances of rape or incest where the morning after pill - which prevents a fertilized egg from implanting - would no longer be an option. We also have raised other issues such as the mother's life, the health of the fetus, etc. etc. etc. Regardless of how one feels in general about abortion, this stance is as radical as it can possibly be.

So either Mitt Romney doesn't understand how conception works and how it relates to pregnancy and birth control, he does know all of this and is just trying to get votes, or he actually believes what he said... in each case, the possibility that he could become president is just frightening to me and should be doubly so to any woman of child bearing age.

a smile

2011-10-21T10:49:00.000-07:00

for you cat lovers - you'll identify... (just ask my wife about Espresso and her computer)

for you cat haters - you'll find more reason...

here's Simon's cat

i love my car

2011-10-20T10:02:00.000-07:00

We Americans love our cars don't we? Back in 2010 I wrote a piece about cars being the modern equivalent of a household god... it was a fun piece and think the concept holds water. Speaking of which, my first car was a 1964 VW Beetle. It had it's issues. It had rusted through in the wheelwells about half way up so when I drove in the rain, water splashed into the front of the driver and passenger compartments and would sit there until it dried out. It sat there virtually all of the time. I did drill a hole in the floorboard to allow it to drain but the hole would get plugged and the water would still sit. Growing up in Pittsburgh, that meant that in the winter, it would freeze and for a few months each winter, I had an inch or two of ice on the floor of my car. Air cooled VW's didn't do heaters either so I carried an ice scraper to scrape ice from both the outside and the inside of my front window. It only had about 60K miles on it when I got it in 1971. I loved that car and cried when the frame rusted through and I had to get rid of it in the winter of '73.

I've been through a bunch of cars since then. Some I loved (a Fiat spider when it ran), some I hated (a Dodge dart convertible), most I just drove until we replaced them.

not my car but it looks just like this

I have a car I love again. It is another VW - a 2002 GTI that I bought new when we moved to Santa Barbara. In spite of the story (apocryphal?) of Bill Gates claiming that if automotive technology kept up with computers we'd be driving cars that cost $25 and got 1000 miles to the gallon, the technology has changed in incredible ways. I think my bug had 40 horsepower and got about 25 mpg. My GTI has 170 horses and gets 28-30. It has nearly 140K miles on it and is still running strong. Oh... the heater works really well (even though I rarely need it). It is true that I don't live in a place where they use salt to melt snow, but I do live in a place where the salt breeze comes off the ocean all year round... and there isn't a spot of rust on the car. With the back seats down I can carry all kinds of stuff - guitars, PA stuff, amps, suitcases, groceries, even furniture. I have had to do very, very, very little in repairs beyond the normal replace the tires when they wear out stuff. Yeah, I wish it got 50 mpg but I love this car.

The other day we were playing the "what would you do if you won the lottery" game. You know the musician's answer - "gig until the money ran out." I might consider that but I realized that I wouldn't replace my car! I hope I can get another 140K out of it! I love my car.

word cloud

2011-10-19T11:35:00.000-07:00

so here are the words I use most...

What DO Progressive Christians Believe?

2011-10-19T09:39:00.000-07:00

Often Christians who are labeled as either "progressive" or "liberal" are described as having wishy washy faith systems or theologies that change at a whim. Try reading most of the professional theologians who represent that side of the spectrum and you're likely to find dense and difficult going, far beyond the commitment of a layperson and even many pastors. Pastors, if they understood it, have not done a good job of communicating it to their congregations. As a result many lay folk who fall outside of the conservative camp are not particularly articulate about what they believe. They are only able to tell you what they do not believe in conservative theologies.

One subset of progressive theology is process theology... a form that I find particularly attractive but also often particularly difficult to understand as it is articulated by many of it's primary thinkers. More recently there has been a movement to bring process theology into the local churches. Philip Clayton of the Claremont School of Theology and his Transforming Theology initiative has been particularly important in that movement. They describe the mission of the initiative thus:

Our goal is an ambitious one: to rekindle powerful Christian theologies that have a transformative effect on church and society. It is widely believed that only the conservative church knows how to speak in a distinctively Christian voice, that only conservatives are qualified to represent Jesus' message and mission. We believe that the gospel of Jesus Christ is far more complex, far more interesting, and far more relevant than what the Religious Right has offered for consumption in recent years.

Amen.

I have found Clayton's book Transforming Christian Theology for Church and Society particularly helpful.

Bruce Epperly is another writer/theologian/pastor/academic who has tried to make process theology accessible to a wider range of folk. At Cambridge Drive we have used his book Holy Adventure: 41 Days of Audacious Living for a study/devotional series and found it just wonderful and a much, much better fit for us than the other 40 Days books. One of our lay members was so excited at the end of the 41 days. He told me that every day he found himself identifying with the book and better able to put words to what he had known in his heart all along. (I highly recommend this book for a small group study/devotion series)

My friend, Bob Cornwall, just posted a piece by Bruce Epperly on his blog where Epperly gives a short capsulation of process theology. If you have ever looked for a good short explanation of process theology, here it is. If you haven't, read it anyway. Take a read and let me know what you think.

worship songs - again

2011-10-13T11:18:00.000-07:00

Last November I posted a piece about my struggle with theology in worship songs... that often I cringe at the theological implications or statements in a song but the music or another part of the song really works for me. I'm facing it again. In that post, I shared my fear that people get more of their theology from the songs they sing than anywhere else, so my song choices are doubly important.

Next week we're having a missionary - Corenne Smith - visit us and share her work. (She and her husband Philip have a wonderful ministry in Brazil. Check it out in the link on her name and the video below.) So, I asked her for suggestions for songs and she gave me one - God of This City. I really like the general message of the song - that God is at work and has a vision for what we will become in this local. Except the first verse really grates on me. "You're the God in this city." I don't know what city they're talking about but I've never been in a city without multiple "gods" and certainly have never experienced one where God is truly seen as God. Still, I could almost let that line slide. "You're the King of these people." Same argument, but much stronger. Again, I might let it slide, thinking that it is referring to the people singing the song. "You're the Lord of this nation." That one is just untrue... and as a true believer in separation of church and state, really makes me squirm. I don't want it to be true. For a slew of reasons, I just can't sing that or have the members of Cambridge Drive sing that.

On the other hand, I love verse 2

You're the Light in this darkness
You're the Hope to the hopeless
You're the Peace to the restless

And I love the chorus...

For greater things have yet to come And greater things are still to be done in this city Greater thing have yet to comeAnd greater things are still to be done in this city

So... what do I do? Just delete the first verse? Maybe. Or change the words a bit... it is tricky to make them fit but work for my theology. "You're the God who loves this city" for example... Still, it feels a bit parochial and requires a few more syllables to get squeezed in... Maybe, "God is in this city... God loves these people... God loves this nation..." or do I just skip the song? What do you think?

here's a video, sharing Corenne & Philip's work.

prayers, imaginations, and intentions

2011-10-12T09:36:00.000-07:00

The other day, my daughter called me on the carpet. She was in town for the weekend and attended Cambridge Drive Church. During lunch she raised a bunch of good questions about the direction of the church but the most important ones had to do with prayer, with imagination, and with intentions... and I think the three are tied together in an intimate way.

We're listening to Orson Scott Card's book, Xenocide, in the car. It is an interesting and philosophical read - indeed, some folk have complained that it is too philosophical and needs more action. In the book the Hive Queen describes the way new queens are formed as an imagining of what could be and a calling into the chaos for something to come and give shape to the pattern imagined. In some ways, it recalls the New Agey idea of dreaming something hard enough and it happens. It got me thinking about the role imagination plays in prayer... and how intentions are lived out when we have the courage to imagine them as real, present them to God, and live them out.

I have to admit that I've not had a very fertile imagination lately. Cynicism has been more likely to hold sway in my heart than wonder and expectation. That's not good. It isn't helpful to the folk who are members at CDCC and it isn't helpful for those who need just the kind of community we are and should be becoming. So... my task is to get imagining... to get intending... to get praying... and to see God's yearnings for us - wonderful, beautiful yearnings - filled full.

<=>

2011-10-06T08:40:00.000-07:00

I love that symbol... Less equals more... stands in direct contrast to the advice we got after 911 from President Bush, "Go shopping!" It stands in contrast to the common wisdom of the day as to the best path to repairing our economy - consumers need to be spending so producers produce and make more jobs for more consumers to spend more...

A more important question is whether it works on a spiritual level. Does having more really make us happier? Our guts tell us "yes." Bumper stickers remind us that "he who dies with the most toys, wins." I live in a place where 10,000 square foot homes with multi million dollar price tags are not unusual. Still, our experience tells us that more doesn't make things better. The person living in that 10,000 square foot home is no more likely to be happy than the one renting a single 300 square foot room a few miles away. Having more toys only tells us one thing about you - you have more toys.

I've written before about GAS and how guitars players (read me) constantly search for the perfect instrument that will make their playing shine. Of course, it isn't the instrument at all, it is the player, so they go through guitar after guitar after guitar searching for the one that doesn't exist. I'm not so caught up on the guitar merry-go-round... I know a guitar won't make me a better player and I actually have an electric, a bass, and two amazing acoustics that I am more than thrilled with... but there are always pickups and microphones and recording interfaces and capos and tuners and gig bags and amplifiers and and and

When I was a bit younger I was also concerned about other things as well... but I am getting better. My car is 9 years old and has almost 140,000 miles on it... and it runs fine and I love it. I don't think I'd replace it even if I hit the lottery. I love our condo, although I do wish I didn't have to commute so far. I have more than enough clothing. We eat well and have a nice little wine cellar. Life is good... but I could still do with less and it wouldn't hurt me a bit. Maybe I need to do some ruthless editing?

St. Francis Day

2011-10-04T17:53:00.000-07:00

Today is St. Francis of Assisi Day. St. Francis is one of my heroes... and not because he acted like Dr. Doolittle and talked to animals. Well, actually it is because he talked to animals. The story tells us that Francis' first sermon was to his brothers and sisters, the birds. He ended the sermon by telling them, "Now go off, because I've told you who you are." And who they were was children of God, who by being who they were, brought glory to God. He preached similar sermons to a wolf, a lamb, fish, even worms and bees. He saw the presence and glory of God in the creation that surrounded him and knew himself to be but a part of that wondrous creation.

Brazilian Cardinal

A few weeks ago we vacationed in Kauai and had a wonderful time. It is a place of astounding beauty and heartbreaking stories. One day, I had an experience that made me think of Francis. We were wasting some time while waiting for a reservation at a restaurant and saw a pair of Brazilian Cardinal's doing their mating thing. The male had found a piece of popcorn. The female would shake her feathers, call, open her mouth and wait and he would pick a piece from the popcorn and feed it to her. This went on for a bit... and then a second female decided she liked this guy who was obviously a good provider. He had a piece of popcorn! So, she flew nearby and began the same thing... shake her feathers, call, and open her mouth. Back and forth he went, feeding both of them. Each competing for his attention and him not willing to choose. We watched until we had to go to our reservation... and have no idea how things ended. I wnder what Francis might have said to brother Brazilian Cardinal with his gorgeous red head...

Church & State... never simple

2011-10-04T14:18:00.000-07:00

Justice is a central pillar of my understanding of what it means to follow Jesus. I believe in civil rights for women, racial minorities, sexual minorities, religious minorities and, especially, any minorities I missed. I believe in the role of the law in enforcing anti-discrimination laws. Indeed, if anything, I believe they should be stronger than they now are... except...

I have to say I cringe even as I write this, except when we're talking about religious institutions. Tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear a case involving a Lutheran school in Michigan who fired a woman. She says it was because of a disability. They say that the government has no say in hiring and firing of people who transmit the values and teachings of a religious institution and that her behavior showed that she was not fit to do just that. That principal is broadly accepted when it comes to clergy. It makes sense there. If a religion believes that one must be Jewish to be a Rabbi, it is understandable that they will discriminate against non-Jews. Ditto for a group that believes women cannot be priests not being held legally culpable for not hiring women priests. It makes sense that the leader of a religious organization can be required to fit with all of the tenants of that faith, whatever they might be. What happens, though, in a situation where the person under consideration is not clergy and may even have a majority of responsibilities that could rightly be described as "secular?" In this case, the woman was a teacher who taught primarily "secular" subjects although she did lead prayers and perform other religious duties.

The case has brought together the strangest bedfellows ever with everyone from the Southern Baptists to The National Council of Churches, Yoruba, and Hare Krishna's supporting the Lutherans. The Baptist Joint Committee , has filed a brief in support of the school, arguing that

Indeed, questions that might seem facially nonreligious take on a religious coloration in a dispute between a religious organization and one of its ministers. ...
This case exemplifies how theological or religious issues are almost impossible to avoid in cases involving employees with spiritual duties...

Ultimately, the church congregation terminated Perich‘s commission because, given her behavior surrounding the request to return, it had lost confidence in her ability to represent the school‘s purposes to children... [I]t is up to the Church, not a jury or judge, to decide whether she could be effective.

It is true that allowing for such a broad interpretation of the current law regarding "ministerial exemptions" may open the door for serious abuse by religious organizations. Still, a more narrow interpretation impinges on their ability to live out their faith. The government has no right to do that.

gonna party like it's my birfday. it's my birfday!

2011-10-01T13:11:00.000-07:00

It's my birthday. That pulls together a bunch of different threads for me. On the one hand, it is a day like any other day. 'nough said... but it is good to set time aside to be aware of the passage of time, of people and places and experiences that are important to us and to celebrate and commemorate. It doesn't have to be expensive or elaborate. It just needs to be.

So we're celebrating. And it won't be expensive or elaborate. We blew way more money than we could afford on our recent trip to Kauai so it can't be either. I'll be thankful for family and friends, for technology that kept me alive way beyond most of the men in my family, and for blessings too numerous to even remember let alone list.

Cheryl and I started last night by stopping by a wine bar in Lompoc called D'vine. It was our first time there. We'll be sure to go back. We had some nice local wine and heard some great music by Owen Plant (who we have coming back to the Cambridge Drive Concert Series in January). We weren't planning to eat anything but they had this desert that wouldn't let us not try it. It was a dark chocolate chili tart with candied apple smoked bacon. It was soooo good and was just perfect with red wine.

Today... I'm beginning by trying to put off finishing my sermon. It is not an easy passage (Matthew 21:33-46) and I've never preached on it before so I can't even cheat and pull out an old sermon. So, I blog first and then I'll get back to it.

For dinner, like many folk, the birthday person gets to pick either a favorite restaurant or a favorite meal. Cheryl is an amazing cook. She can do sophisticated and fancy and she can also do peasant food. I like both. We can get sophisticated pretty easily in Santa Barbara and some kinds of peasant food, especially Mexican, but other peasant foods are just not available. Good pizza is very difficult to get on the west coast period and the people's Italian food is almost as difficult to find. Back in Philly and Pittsburgh, every few blocks there was a knock you off the bar stool neighborhood Italian restaurant. Here... there just aren't. Cheryl makes a red sauce, called gravy in Philly, that is as good as any I've ever had anywhere and a killer meatball. So that is what I requested. We'll have a nice super Tuscan, the Tocata Riserva from Mandolina and some store bought deserts. Cheryl also makes some amazing deserts but if she made an entire flour less chocolate torte I'd eat it. So we bought deserts from a local bakery. They won't be as good as hers, but I'll be finished with it this evening and won't have all of those evil calories calling me.

Now... back to the sermon. Thanks for the diversion.

NGD

2011-09-24T10:17:00.000-07:00

NGD - stands for New Guitar Day... and it isn't quite accurate. I've been on vacation and therefore away from blogging. The NGD took place just before I left on vacation (more about that later) and I am sooooo excited. And it was only a new guitar for me...

Some of you realize that I am a huge fan of Lowden Guitars. George is a genius and has a design that is different enough from anything else out there to be uniquely his own with a distinctive sound. He was also the first steel string builder to use cedar for tops to a significant degree - again a different sound than the more traditional spruce tops of most American designed guitars. Lowdens aren't for everyone, but they work for me. I've been playing a Lowden as my primary guitar since 1987 when I bought an L25C from little music store in New Hope, PA that was going out of business. That first guitar, which I deeply loved, was stolen in Philly in '99. At that point, a friend loaned me another Lowden while the company built me a very beautiful replacement that I also love and have been playing since receiving it in 2000. After the theft, I watched for my guitar to show up and still do check e-bay and craigslist every now and then, hoping to run into it again. It really was my guitar but I have, for the most part, given up hope of ever seeing it again. There was something special about the guitars built by the Lowden company in the late 80's and I've been hoping to get one at some point. Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to purchase one so when I've seen one come up for sale, I've longingly said... "Oh well..."

A few weeks ago I came across an ad on a guitar forum looking to trade a Lowden S10 from that era for a Taylor. Normally this wouldn't be much of a possibility as Lowdens are significantly more expensive than Taylors. This particular Lowden was pretty beaten and had a few issues that made it less desirable and therefore worth a little less... and I had a Taylor 314CE for a back-up guitar, although not the particular model the other individual was looking for. I dropped him a note anyway and what do you know, we were able to work out a trade. Off went the Taylor to Colorado and the Lowden made its way to California.

The guitar arrived and it is as I expected. It is a "lower" end Lowden with two piece neck construction rather than the typical 5 piece Lowden neck and had come from the factory with a pickup and two little holes in the side for controls, the controls having been removed, leaving two little holes - see the left photo. That also meant a different saddle arrangement as Lowdens are designed with a split saddle for better intonation. At that period in time, there were no under-the-saddle pickups that worked with split saddles so Lowdens with factory pickups from that era had a single wider saddle rather than their standard split arrangement - see above. Also, there were some Lowdens from that era that had problems with the bridges coming loose. An easy but very undesirable fix was to drill holes and use bolts to solidify the joint. That had been done to this guitar. It also shows the wear and tear of 25 years of hard play and the finish is worn and scratched. She looks as if she'd been through a war. And the hard case is beaten, cracked, and has a few holes. All of that brings the value down and puts it closer to the trade range of a Taylor 314CE (what I had to trade).

Here's the most important info about the guitar. It sounds AMAZING! It is every bit a Lowden from the late '80's. Even the under-the-saddle pickup, which I typically don't care for, sounds good. It is the perfect backup guitar for my primary Lowden and I am sooooo happy with the trade. It could even become my primary gigging guitar. FWIW, I heard from the person I traded and he is thrilled with the Taylor so everyone is good.

So, what does a Lowden sound like? Listen to the songs in the player in the right column and you can hear both my 87 guitar and the 2000 guitar. Heartbeat is a good example of the newer guitar and Celtic Dreams and Call Down Thunder are the old one. You can guess at the other songs.

Sing Off

2011-09-07T11:49:00.000-07:00

Sing Off is one of my guilty pleasures... so much great music!

here's the preview for this year's show...

where did the carriage returns go?

2011-09-07T09:46:00.000-07:00

There has been a change in the format of blogger and somehow, the way I was using it, it left out the carriage returns. I apologize and fixed the two posts without carriage returns. happy reading

I can do math

2011-09-06T10:33:00.000-07:00

On the day after Labor Day, I feel the need to write a short piece about what strikes me as the most important social issue for us in the US right now - jobs. There simply aren't enough of them. Far too many people have been out of work for far too long. Safety net programs are both inadequate and losing their efficacy and more and more folk are falling through the cracks. All of the politicians are marching out their plans to create jobs and frankly all of them fail to consider the long term. That is fine and indeed, that is appropriate at this time when we are in such a crisis. The question then is, do the programs work.

Here's where the math comes in. Laying off government workers makes more people unemployed. Immediately. Unemployed people don't spend money which causes businesses to lay off people which causes spending to go down which causes businesses to lay of more people and the spiral goes down. Take away jobs... and the number of jobs goes down... in a spiral. Cutting government contracts makes people unemployed. Similar but more complicated arguments could be made regarding infrastructure and education although both are more long term issues and so probably don't fit in this discussion.

Some folk will come out with plans that advocate lowering taxes on businesses or lessening environmental regulations and safety regulations. Again, I think in the short term, that might be fine as a stop gap to get things moving. Here's the problem. Neither works. Businesses already have money, what they don't have is customers. Cutting taxes on businesses doesn't create customers. Lowering safety standards and environmental protections doesn't create customers. Even cutting taxes on individuals doesn't help that much because it only impacts the folk who have jobs. What we need are jobs... and they will follow customers... but without jobs, we get no customers.

So what can the government do? Spend more money. Yes, I know that would raise the deficit and it certainly isn't a good strategy for the long term, but in our immediate crisis, it is what we need. Jobs are the presenting problem. If your house is on fire you don't stop the firefighters from hosing down the house because you're worried about water damage. You deal with that after the fire is out. The deficit is like water damage while the job situation is clearly a fire. Government should be hiring more people, not laying them off. Government should be passing money out to the states for every program that can be kick started with an infusion of cash not cutting back. Government should be hiring folk to go in and clean up after Irene. Government should be investing in research, supporting new technologies and strategies to make us more competitive. Government should be spending more, not less. If it means borrowing money. Borrow it. Interest rates are lower than they have ever been. Take advantage of that. Spend. Spend. Spend. And do it in a way that the money ends up in the pockets of real people and puts real people back to work so that businesses can begin to see customers and so need to hire more workers... and the spiral begins to go back up again. Then, when the population are more stable financially, the government can begin to wrestle with dealing with the long term problems.

they can choose when they're old enough

2011-09-05T19:53:00.000-07:00

We've all heard that statement from parents and I'm sure it is meant with all sincerity - "I don't want to impose a religion on my children... they can make their own decision when they're older." I'm not trying to sound insensitive here but... it's a crock.

First off, whatever you teach your children, they're going to make their own decisions when they get old enough. That is human nature. It is what we, as parents hope for, that our children will grow into fully functional adults who can look at complex issues and make decisions for themselves. You can't make it happen, and more importantly, you can't stop that from happening. To imply that somehow by raising a child in a religious tradition will keep them from making their own decisions about faith is just silly.

But there is a way a parent can make it more difficult... By not giving a child a perspective, by not providing the child with tools, you can make it much more difficult for them to make informed and intelligent decisions regarding religious life. Let me give some parallel examples. When our children hit age 9, they were required to take up a musical instrument. Alexis chose folk harp and John chose violin. We paid for lessons and made them practice. John got pretty good as a violinist and Alexis still has her harp, but neither really plays any longer. That was their decision... but had they decided otherwise, starting instruments in adulthood is much more difficult than starting as a child. Believe me, I know.

Second, neither of our children were forced to learn a second language as a child. Guess what, both are mono-lingual. I think Alexis would have been very gifted there and has touches of a variety of languages but the pathways of her brain were not formed correctly as a young child to make learning languages easier and she only has a smattering of each. Let me give a positive example. Both of my children grew up in very diverse settings interacting with people of a number of racial groups, economic classes, educational backgrounds, and sexual orientations and identities. Both are able to easily fit into just about any setting and be respectful and empathetic.

And here is a direct example. Some years ago, one of my close friends with two daughters, one the age of my daughter, suddenly passed away. His young family was in a shambles but the church did exactly what a church is supposed to do and offered an amazing amount of support and caring. It happened that the wife had grown up in a family with no faith. Her sister watched as the church rallied around her and as her own faith gave her strength in a time that made no sense to anyone. The sister was literally amazed. I learned about a year later that she had gone home and began a search for a faith that she could embrace. It wasn't easy as she had no idea even where to begin... except she had seen faith in action as a community of grace and love cared for her sister and nieces. How different from her nieces' perspective when they grew up knowing what a real faith community looks like and how it acts.

For an adult to "make their own decision" regarding a religious tradition, it is sooooo much easier when they have a background, a perspective, a language from which to begin. That child very well may reject your religious tradition, but if you really want to enable them to make an informed and meaningful choice when they're older, give them a background in childhood. Let them participate in a tradition and discover the riches there. Give them a language so they know what they truly need and truly don't. Let them see what faith in life really looks like. Give them training so they have someplace to start.

It's all about Jesus

2011-08-31T10:53:00.000-07:00

I am involved in an interfaith group and have a great deal of respect for most other religions. I believe in my heart of hearts that virtually all religions have some truth in them (and none, including my own, have all) and so have something to teach me. I also realize how much of what one believes is a result of culture and setting. Had I been born in Pakistan, I would likely be a good Muslim boy, in Tibet, a good Buddhist... you get the picture. I know at least a little abut a lot of religions and have good friends who are believers in a variety of faiths.

I marvel at the way my Muslim friends live their faith in their daily lives. I wish I had the centeredness of my Buddhist friends. I have a Hindu friend who has such an incredible sense of the Holy all around her... she sees God where I see weeds. I'm jealous of the deep roots my Jewish friends have. Even within the Christian tradition, there are very different streams - the seriousness of many conservatives, the dedication of many Anabaptists, the commitment to liberation in many minority traditions, the rootedness of the Orthodox... you get the picture. There are also religious traditions in which I don't have friends but I've still learned a little about them - the care the Jain have for all living things, the commitment to standing up for the oppressed that is central to Sikhism, the close community of the Mormons. Yes, I may misunderstand some of the traditions, oversimplify or give in to stereotypes, but I haven't run into a religious tradition that didn't have something I needed to hear.

As you can guess, I don't believe that everyone who doesn't believe like I believe is going to hell. I don't believe God requires one to be a follower of Jesus to find salvation. That is another discussion that I don't want to get into now - just so you understand what I believe and where I'm coming from.

So why am I a Christian vs. something else or some amalgam of a variety of traditions - a JewBu or ChristLim or whatever? Jesus. It is that simple. I find Jesus revolutionary, compelling, and impossible to ignore. When I think of God, it is always through the lens of Jesus. When I wrestle with truth, it is always through the lens of Jesus. When I struggle with my life and the direction I feel I should go, it is always in the context of the cliche'ed question, "what would Jesus do?" Jesus is the one who challenges me to be more, in whom I am inspired as to what that more might be, the one in whom I experience as close as I can get to the fulness of God.

I don't claim to have all of Jesus sussed out. Indeed, I don't think the Christian tradition has him all sussed out (which is why, even though I do believe that Jesus is the Truth, the Christian tradition doesn't have all the truth. We don't "have" Jesus, but hopefully he has us). And I know that there are lots of interpretations of who he is and was. We each see Jesus through a set of lenses formed by our background and culture and even preconceptions but however colored that picture might be, some of the real Jesus still shines through. So, my task as a follower of Jesus is to work to get better and better lenses until they are transparent and don't distort him at all... probably a never ending task, but one to which I'm committed. For me, it is all about Jesus.

presidential religion & article 6

2011-08-29T11:18:00.000-07:00

The other day Michele Bachman was questioned by Byron York of the Washington Examiner regarding what it meant for her to submit to her husband. The audience booed and since then lots of talking heads have said that her faith is a private matter and is out of bounds for questions. She answered, “Thank you for that question, Byron. What submission means to me—if that’s what your question is—it means respect.”

Then there was a blog on the Washington Post written by Richard Dawkins attacking Rick Perry on some of his faith stances, particularly his dismissal of evolution.

All of this makes me want to write about the 6th article of the constitution again. Article 6, paragraph 3 of the constitution says, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." The argument that has come from some quarters, both liberal and conservative, is basically that you cannot vote against someone on religious grounds. As I said in the previous post, that is just plain stupid.

The article is referring to a legal test. Nobody can be excluded from running for president on the grounds of his or her religion or lack thereof. The article says nothing abut an individual's right to vote for whomever they want for any reason that is important to them. If I want to vote for someone just because they practice one religious tradition or against someone because they practice another, that is my right.

I want to know and everyone needs to know what Michele Bahman means when she says she is submissive to her husband. If she is thinking about bombing Palestine, decides against it, and then her husband tells her it is the right thing to do, they discuss it and still disagree... I want to know whether that means she will just acquiesce. If I vote for her for president, I want to know what role her spouse will play. Will he be an important advisor, as I would expect virtually all presidential spouses have been, or would he be the final say, after all, she said that she submits to her husband. And frankly, if she really means that means that she respects him... then she is lying to everyone about her theology and that tells me even more.

I want to know if she truly believes that the earthquake and the hurricane were messages from God to control spending? And how does she know they weren't messages from God to cut back on greenhouse gasses or to provide medical care for the poor? And are all disasters to be read as messages from God?

I want to ask Rick Perry what he thinks about education when he writes off commonly accepted scientific conclusions, about which, I'd bet he has very little real information? Does he really believe that a majority climate scientists are fudging their data to further their careers? And if he thinks that, what does his understand about the way that scientific research works? I want to know why, when disasters hit places other than Texas, it is the judgment of God while when a terrible drought hits Texas, it is a call to prayer rather than an indictment of the present administration's sin? And the cynic in me wants to know why he thinks God did not answer their prayers?

Hey, it isn't about conservatives only. I was thrilled to see that Obama was a member of Jeremiah Wright's church and likely has/had a good understanding of liberation theology. As I've said before he was not my first choice but that piece of knowledge would have made it much easier for me to vote for him as I think liberation theology is a positive theology and reflects a good general understanding of the scriptures. I was saddened when he left that church and that told me something about the role of faith in his life.

All of this is to say that religion or lack thereof is an important facet of what makes a person and must be fair game when we're trying to figure out who to vote for. The same is true about their education, I'd like to know what they studied and where... it does tell us a good bit about their formation. I even want to know about their career paths. A lawyer is trained to think like a lawyer. A physician is trained to look at the world through a very specific set of lenses. A business owner or a career military person likewise seems things in a specific way. And I want to know where they grew up. Did they spend their childhood years in a wealthy white suburb or a mixed race middle class neighborhood in a large city or did they grow up on a farm in the heartland? Clearly, none of these characteristics are necessarily definitive, but they are all part of the puzzle and they all deserve consideration and tell us something about the candidate.

So Mrs. Bachman, was does it mean when you say you submit to your husband and how will that play out if you are elected? Mr. Perry, how is it that you write off a scientific theory that has virtually unanimous support in the scientific community and how does that impact how you understand education and how you understand the judgement of experts in any given field? Mr Obama, how do you understand the theme of liberation in the Bible and the prophetic tradition that stood against those with power and for those on the margins and how would that impact a second term if you receive one?

up from the bottom

2011-08-24T11:24:00.000-07:00

I get a daily meditation in my e-mail from Fr. Richard Rohr via the Center for Contemplation and Action. Today's meditation has another perspective on my semi-tongue in cheek comment that faith requires one to be liberal. I've quoted all of it here...

The terms “right” and “left” came from the Estates General in France. It’s interesting that now we use them as our basic political terms. On the left sat the ordinary people, on the right sat the nobility and the clergy! (What were the clergy doing over there?!) I think you see the pattern.

In history you will have these two movements, because we didn’t have the phenomenon of the middle class until very recently. The vast majority of people have been poor, even in Jesus’ time. The people who wrote the books and controlled the institutions, however, have almost always been on the right. Much of history has been read and interpreted from the side of the "winners,” or the right, except for the unique revelation called the Bible, which is an alternative history from the side of the enslaved, the dominated, the oppressed, and the poor, leading up to the totally scapegoated Jesus.

It is interesting that the history of the terms - right and left - reflect the demarcation between poor folk and those with power and riches. To some degree, that seems still to be true with the wealthy and powerful tending to lean more to the right while those on the margins of life tend to lean more to the left. How the middle class plays into this is even more interesting, especially as we watch the middle class shrink.

I'm struck by Rohr's comment that the Bible is an alternative history written from the viewpoint of the poor, the enslaved, the dominated, the oppressed... The central story is one of liberation, first of slaves in the Hebrew scriptures then of the outsiders in the Christian scriptures with the prophets in the middle crying out for justice to those oppressed by the folk with power and wealth. And that the clergy, like many of the religious hierarchy throughout the scriptures, sat on the side of those with power rather than with the people...necessitating the prophets to speak the word from God to those in power when the professional clergy either refuse to do so or are deaf to the still small voice of the Spirit.

lots to think about...

30 days

2011-08-19T22:30:00.000-07:00

What are you going to do for the next 30 days?

read your spam?

2011-08-17T17:55:00.000-07:00

Do you ever read your spam? Yes, I know there are monsters out there and it is likely that your spam folder has lots of stuff that you don't want to read, lots that is a waste of time, and lots more that you just shouldn't read. Still, every now and then something shows up - and it clearly is spam - that still offers something positive.

I regularly look at the titles in my spam folder to see if there is anything with a remote possibility of being worthwhile. Usually there isn't. Today I got an ad for a book. Now I have no idea whether the book is worth buying - It is called The 100/0 Principle: The Secret of Great Relationships. Since it was spam, I'll not include the link but you can google it if you're interested. Anyway, the ad copy reminded me of those movie trailers that give you the very best scene of the film and, after seeing the film, you wished you had just watched the trailer again... The ad copy had four ideas that are great when it comes to relationships. I don't have any idea what more they had in the book.

here they are:

· STEP 1 - Determine what you can do to make the relationship work...then do it. Demonstrate respect and kindness to the other person, whether he/she deserves it or not.
· STEP 2 - Do not expect anything in return. Zero, zip, nada.
· STEP 3 - Do not allow anything the other person says or does (no matter how annoying!) to affect you. In other words, don't take the bait.
· STEP 4 - Be persistent with your graciousness and kindness. Often we give up too soon, especially when others don't respond in kind. Remember to expect nothing in return.

good stuff! Obviously there could be situations where following these rules of behavior could be counter-productive or even self-destructive, but as a general understanding it makes sense to me. Give 100%. Expect nothing in return. Everything that comes back will just be gravy.

I have faith

2011-08-11T08:38:00.000-07:00

and therefore must be a liberal.

Back in my seminary days, at what is now called Palmer Theological Seminary - which was then a pretty centrist American Baptist seminary, one of my profs said that it is not possible to be both Christian and a Republican. In part, he may have been trying to get a rise out of some of the students, but he did believe what he was saying. He was saying that the political stances of the conservative movement and the platform stances of the Republican Party were antithetical to Christian ethics. I have continuing connections with that professor and he would say that this is more true now than it was back in the 70's.

I read an article today in the Scientific American that says foundational that I think makes my profs statement even more true. The article shows that positive images carry more weight with liberals than conservatives or, to phrase it another way, that conservatives have a "bad is stronger than good bias." It is no wonder then, that the article quotes William F. Buckley who said that conservatism "stands athwart history, yelling "Stop." For conservatives, change is always for the worse and the future is only dark. For them, our role is to hang onto the past as tenaciously as we can because things are clearly falling apart.

This strikes me as the opposite of faith. If I truly trust in the power of a loving God, then how can I but see the future as positive? As a child, I had a plaque on my wall with a quote from the early missionary Adoniram Judson, "The future is as bright as the promises of God." If I believe that, how can I envision anything but a future of beauty and wonder and progress? Now, I know that many conservatives would respond that I cannot ignore the power of sin. Fine, I'll give them that. I have experienced the powers of sin and each day I read about it in the newspaper and see it on television and online. Sin is very, very real... and it is bigger than many of them would acknowledge as it wields power both in and through individuals and in and through larger societal systems. But, sin is not the final word. I also believe in the good news of Easter when the powers of sin and death are overcome by the power of God's love. I believe Paul when in Roman's he speaks of God's love which overcomes all negative powers in the universe. I believe the prophet Isaiah when he speaks for God, "look, I'm doing something new."

Standing astride history yelling "stop!" by definition means standing against the movement of God to a better future. Living with a basic orientation of "no" is a position of no faith rather than one of faith. So, again, I have faith... therefore I am a liberal.

just say YES

2011-08-09T08:56:00.000-07:00

but you have to mean it...

Alexis told a wonderful story about her time in India. They deliver everything there and she and a bunch of friends were ordering ice cream from Baskin & Robbins to be delivered to their house. They called and asked, "What flavors of chocolate do you have?" "Yes." (with an Indian accent). "Do you have Rocky Road?" "Yes" (keep the accent going here). "Dark chocolate?" "Yes." "Chocolate with chocolate chips?" "German chocolate with coconut?" "Yes." "How about strawberry?" "Yes." "Mango?" "Yes." So they placed a complicated order with at least 4 distinct kinds of ice cream. 45 minutes later a bicycle delivery guy arrives with a package, takes his money and rides off... vanilla.

Saying yes without meaning it doesn't accomplish anything, but meaning it can open amazing doors. A week or so ago John Bohlinger had a great column in Premier Guitar where he quoted Tina Fey's book, Bossy Pants, extensively. Fey say's that when improvising, you need to say, "yes." Anything else stops the process.

While Bohlinger is talking about improvisation on guitar and Fey in comedy, I think the general idea is a good one for life.

A few months ago, I got a call from Stefana Dadas to play a gig. Her normal guitar player was not available nor was her back-up. The gig included a few middle easternish tunes and a belly dancer - far outside of my musical vocabulary and my comfort zone. I thought there would be a keyboard player though, so I'd have some cover... and said, "yes." It turned out there was no keyboard player, just two vocalists, a drummer, a percussionist, a bass player, and me. Had I known how much sonic space I needed to fill, I may not have said "yes." I'm glad I did. I got stretched a bit. Met some great musicians and a wonderful dancer. (thanks Stefana, Ei, Kali, Budhi, Randy, & Mason!) And we sounded good. Because I said "yes," I got to be a part of something wonderful. You can see some video clips here.

Last Friday we presented Jill Knight at Cambridge Drive Concerts and Jill invited me to sit in on a few songs. I have to say that my first inclination was to say, "no..." Then I thought about the article and said, "yes!" I'm glad a did. Here's a link to a previous post about that evening with a video of one of the songs I joined. Again, saying yes, allowed me to be a part of something beautiful.

Now, it is true, saying "yes," doesn't guarantee that things will turn out wonderful. Sometimes there will be messes. The possibilities of both are there. Still, you can be sure that if you don't say "yes," the beauty will not happen. Take the chance. Say "yes," mean it, and see what comes your way.

a great song

2011-08-06T12:54:00.000-07:00

Last night we presented Jill Knight at the Cambridge Drive Concert Series. Jackie Morris opened for Jill. It was a wonderful, wonderful show. Jill is a great songwriter, a great guitar player, and an engaging performer (if you ever have the opportunity to see her perform, don;'t miss it!).

Jill's most recent CD, Rare October is stripped down to just voice and guitar. It is perfectly recorded and perfectly performed. The songs are strong enough to stand with nothing other than a voice and a guitar, albeit a wonderful, soulful voice and stellar guitar work. That CD is in heavy rotation for me right now.

Last night, Jill performed many of the songs from that CD in a slightly different format. She brought along monster bass player, Bobby Santa Cruz. There were numerous jokes through the evening that guitar players can throw out some clams but there is no room for mistakes for a bass player. Well, Bobby provided this wonderful bottom end that grooved and added just enough and never too much. The songs still shown through. Jill even invited me to sit in on a few songs. I was thrilled to be able to play with her and enjoyed those few moments of thinking about adding a little icing to those great songs.

Bottom line of all of this is that a great song doesn't need whiz bang production, 14 highly paid studio musicians, or lasers and lights. All it needs is a competent, heartfelt performance.

Here's a video of "Carolina" with Bobby Santa Cruz on bass and me trying to add a little icing.

he said, she said

2011-08-04T13:44:00.000-07:00

There has been more than a little discussion regarding whether or not Anders Breivik should be called a Christian. Fox news has complained that the mainstream media jumped to conclusions and called him a "Christian Terrorist," while others such as Jon Stewart have called them on their hypocrisy

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

In the Name of the Fodder

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor & Satire Blog

The Daily Show on Facebook

Regardless of what you think about Breivik, we're back at the question I've raised before... who get's to decide? Who gets to define the terms? Do Breivik's action, by definition exclude him from being a Christian? Did Bin Laden's actions define him as something other than a Muslim? Who decides and how?

My friend Bob Cornwall just put a piece up on his blog written by Margaret Mitchell that raises the same questions, specifically regarding Breivik. Here's a quote from the article that I think is important.

In the days since the attack and arrest, the media has been abuzz with reflections on whether or not Breivik can or should be called a “Christian.” Each argument depends upon some stated or implied criterion for what constitutes Christian identity: a form of “belief,” of personal piety or religious experience, of ethical comportment, of ritual practice, of theological commitments, of cultural identity, of ecclesial participation, of relationship to political orders. These arguments tell us as much or more about the commitments of the authors as they do about Breivik.

She points to Breivik's extensive use of materials written by conservative Christians, calling for armed resistance against Muslims and secularists as important for understanding him.

I still don't know who gets to define the terms... but I can clearly say that Breivik is not my brand of Christian... and neither are the folk he cited in his manifesto - Joseph Farah and Michael Bradley.

The Brothers

2011-08-02T13:39:00.000-07:00

I've been reading a lot more recently (as long as you allow that listening to an audiobook is reading.) I don't have an e-reader though... Last week, I read my first book on a screen - my computer rather than an e-reader - and the experience was OK. I didn't have that wonderful tactile experience of turning a page but a book is a book is a book. The book I read was The Brothers, the first novel published by my daughter.

I have to say that I enjoy fantasy and science fiction and I love my daughter but with that disclaimer, I really enjoyed the book. It falls into the YA fantasy genre so it is a quick and easy read but it is not shallow. Khloe Alwell's struggles, while not exactly the same as every teenage girl's, are close enough that we can all identify - who am I? how do I fit in? what is my place in the world? how do I find meaning and purpose? The characters all ring true.

I found it a fun read and I'm really looking forward to the second book in the trilogy. Alexis is only charging $3.99 for it on Smashwords so it is about the same investment as a latte at Starbucks.

compromise? not

2011-08-01T17:45:00.001-07:00

It is said that you can tell a good compromise because nobody is happy. The idea is that both sides have given significantly and that a higher goal has been met. It involves a common commitment to a definable end. Next, it involves both sides sharing their deepest hopes and dreams and then trading back and forth, giving a little here and a little there, until a solution is reached that reflects both sides giving up roughly equivalent amounts and that definable end being met. I believe in compromise. My wife would tell you that all too often I give too much.

What happened in Washington today was not a compromise. It was capitulation. Let me tell you why.

First off, there was no common definable end. There is a significant number in the Republican party who basically do not believe in a strong federal government. How can compromised be reached regarding government spending when some parties do not believe in government?

Second, there are some in the Republican party who do not have the best interest of the American people at heart. Mitch McConnell has proudly said that his primary goal is to see that Obama is a one term president. The easiest way to see that happen is to see the economy crash and burn. On the other hand, if the recovery took off like gang busters tomorrow, his goal would be impossible. So, tell me, what his strategy should be? And then there are some of the Tea Party folk who truly do believe that a strong federal government is a bad thing. Finally, there are those who are beholden to very wealthy and connected benefactors who are doing quite well with the status quo and don't want to see a stronger, more educated, more active middle class.

Third, nobody brought the liberal concerns to the discussion. Yes, I have heard many conservatives call Obama a socialist or even a communist. He isn't. Let me say that again, HE ISN'T. At best he is a centrist pragmatist. I have been saying since before he even won the nomination that he is right of center. I can't think of one thing he has done that would make me conclude otherwise. True, he is to the left of Michele Bachmann... but that still doesn't make him a liberal. It makes him sensible. So, what did liberals want that never even got discussed? Liberals wanted significant cuts in the military including an immediate end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not on the table. Indeed, discussions about military cuts usually still involve significant increases over current spending, just cuts in proposed increases. Liberals wanted significant increases in taxes on the wealthiest Americans. Never even in the same room. Liberals wanted to see deficit reduction come long after job creation which they see as requiring more, not less spending. That wasn't even discussed. Liberals want to see a plan for controlling medical costs that removes the profit motive from medical care. That wasn't even seriously discussed when Obama's medical plans were being raised let alone now. Liberals wanted separate talks regarding the debt ceiling and other economic issues. Again, never discussed. The liberals got none of their hopes or dreams. What did they receive? Medicare and Social Security were not cut... but the Republicans didn't really want them cut anyway or they would never have been re-elected. Now they can blame any fiscal problems on the Dems who refused to cut in areas they never would have cut anyway.

The conservatives got everything they wanted and more. They moved the discussion from jobs to deficit without showing how the two are even remotely related. No increases in taxes were discussed or are on the table for the future. Indeed, McConnell has promised that any representatives he sends to the "super congress" will be strong anti-tax increase folk. Again, they will be in a position to completely derail any possibilities of true compromise. They received significant cuts in the social programs upon which poor and middle class folk rely with more to come without touching the third rails of SS or Medicare. What did they give up? They didn't get a balanced budget amendment... which likely would never have passed anyway as it is simply a stupid idea. They didn't get cuts in Social Security or Medicare - see above. Now it is true that the truly anti-government crowd did not get to bring down the government... but did anyone with any sense really want that?

economics

2011-07-29T09:15:00.000-07:00

I'm not an economist and I don't play one on television. I never had an economics course in college. I am reasonably bright and thoughtful and I'm very good at looking at issues from every side, including the ones with which I don't agree. I'm also very good at realizing that things are rarely if ever simple and that complicated issues usually don't have simple solutions. All that said, there are multiple issues in the current economic discussions that strike me as stupid.

A couple of assumptions. I believe in taxes. They are part of the social contract. If you don't want to pay taxes you have two options... lower your income to the point that you drop below the threshold or move someplace like Somalia.

I believe in government. There are some things that the free market cannot or will not do that must be done. There are some things that non-profits and religious organizations cannot do that must be done. Civil society requires a strong and active central government.

Nobody does it all on their own. We all stand on the shoulders f someone who stood on the shoulders of someone who stood on the shoulders... and because of that we all have a responsibility to maintain the larger system for those who come after us.

So....

1. The argument goes that if we tax wealthy folk, they will not invest and if they do not invest, we will not have new jobs. Let's think about that one for a second. If someone makes an investment, they get a tax deduction for that investment. So, doesn't it follow that a higher tax rate encourages investment? After all, why give the money to the government when you can do something positive with it? On the other hand, if there is no tax incentive to invest, why take the risk? It makes sense to me that higher tax rates encourage rather than discourage investment. And that is before we look at the raw data. W dropped taxes on the wealthy to an historic low and we lost rather than increased jobs. The times when we had significantly more economic growth all had significantly higher tax rates on the wealthiest Americans. The higher rates then increase revenue in two ways. If the wealthy do not invest, they pay higher taxes. If they do invest, the tax rolls increase as jobs are created.

2. Debt reduction/government austerity seems to me to be a stupid plan when the economy is so weak. Take 20 million dollars out of the economy tomorrow and what happens? Everything falls a little lower. Low and middle class folk tend to be money in, money out folk. They spend their income because they have to and that feeds the economy. They purchase clothing or food and that creates or sustains jobs for other folk who then spend their income and it goes around and around. Cut unemployment or aid to poor families and the cycle stops. Let's look more long term. Cut student Pell Grants and other student aid and some students will not be able to go to college. 4 years later, we see a significant drop in capability of the work force and we all pay for that. Let the infrastructure continue to fall apart and moving goods costs more which raises prices which causes everything to slow down more and that spiral goes down. Laying off government workers adds to the unemployment roles and decreases economic productivity rather than increasing it.

3. Healthcare costs are central to the debt discussion. We have the highest costs in the world but by no means the best results. Many studies have suggested fixes but none will be easy and politics rather than economics or health are the problems. S+We need someone with cajones to look at long term real solutions.

4. The military. Nobody is going to suggest that we dismantle our military superiority... but we don't need to fund an empire. End the wars. Close the bases all around the world and bring those folk home. Then put them to work rebuilding America. Engage the companies that are building weaponry to build green technologies and come up with ways to reduce dependance on oil so we can defund the Middle East's terror machine. Finally build a national Peace Academy that studies how we promote peace, justice, & development. How many War Colleges do we have? Doesn't it make sense from a security standpoint to put some of our best minds to the study of what makes for peace? Take a percentage of the money we spent supporting an empire and use it for foreign aid. Build schools, especially for girls. Support infrastructure, education, and industry in the developing world.

5. Entitlements? As for Social Security? I'd raise the maximum income on which the tax applies so the tax is not so regressive.

Medicare? Remove the constraints that support big pharma and learn from places where Medicare costs are lower (Minnesota for example) and duplicate those ideas in places where costs are higher (Texas). The problems are systemic and shifting the costs to the elderly and the poor is not an acceptable or workable solution.

6. Get realistic in the discussions. Again and again we hear politicians saying that we should run the government like a family and every family has to have a balanced budget. First off, I don't know any families that do not borrow. We have mortgages. We have car loans. We have credit cards. Second, I don't know any family that defunds basic needs. If my wife is diagnosed with a serious illness... I'll borrow to get her treatment. Yes, I may/will forego some purchases and choices but I would not stop basic needs. I would not decide to stop eating because I have to pay medical costs. And if there were any way possible, I would not decide to stop medical treatments so I could pay to eat. I would borrow as much as I possibly could.

The entire discussion of a balanced budget amendment is just stupid. Imagine if there had been such an amendment during WWII. "Sorry, we can't invade Europe... there isn't any money."

So... my solution to the current mess... First, a government jobs program. Get unemployed folk out there working to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. Reduce rather than increase costs for education so that we can actually compete on a global scale. Spend more rather than cut. Increase taxes on the wealthy and remove loopholes for corporations while at the same time increasing tax benefits for investments that either create jobs or rebuild infrastructure. Reduce military expenditures and put those funds in productive areas.

look... a chin!

2011-07-28T08:16:00.000-07:00

I shaved my beard and mustache last night. This morning when I shaved my entire chin, lip, and neck, I remembered why I hate shaving so much...

so why did I do it? I was tired of the beard and mustache and wanted a different look. Women can change their hair in radical ways and still fit in. They can change color. I've been married to a brunette, a red head, and a blond. They can change length. I've been married to a woman with waist length hair and every other length down to about 2 inches long. They can do radically different styles. I've been married to a woman with straight hair, curly hair, layered hair... you get the picture. All of that still fell in the mainstream and never got a second look other than the one that said, "what beautiful hair."

Men don't have as many options. Some men do color their hair, often to cover gray, but Just for Men still gets looks, especially in the business world. More radical colors just don't happen in men out of their mid twenties who work somewhere other than the entertainment business. There also isn't a lot of leeway in choice of styles especially when you are no longer, "young." I can go a little shorter or a little longer but not much in either direction before it is less "respectable." A well trimmed beard or mustache is allowable in most circles but they can't be too long, thick, or unruly without being pigeon-holed as a biker, an eccentric, or an outsider, each with its attendant expectations and stereotypes.

I've had the beard and mustache for about 6 years this time. I grew them because I was tired of shaving and wanted a change. I've been thinking about removing them for a few months. It wasn't that I wanted to change back... I just wanted something new. We'll see how long this lasts. And guess what... I do have a chin! Photos coming

Multiple Religions

2011-07-20T10:29:00.000-07:00

I mentioned Rachel Held Evan's blog the other day... yesterday she posted an interview with a friend of hers who is an Orthodox Jew. It is a fascinating read... Often the questions were formulated like "What do Jews think about..." and answered, "Jews think..." or "the majority of Jews think..." I commented that the answers may have been representative of Orthodox Jews but readers needed to be aware that answers from Conservative and Reformed Jews, let alone secular Jews, might be radically different. The woman who was interviewed responded, "The vast majority of Orthodox Judaism consider Reform and Conservative to be a different religion."

My first reaction was WHOA!!! and all of the hairs n the back of my neck went up. How many times I've been written off as not really being a Christian because I don't agree that TULIP is an adequate or accurate condensation of the Christian faith or disagree with what someone else feels is required in a statement of faith. Then I thought about the answer... clearly it is accurate. The way that many Reformed Jews and Conservative Jews understand their faith is so radically different from what this woman described that they may easily be seen as separate religions. That got me thinking about an experience I had a few years ago and think I shared here but couldn't find so here it is again.

I was flying someplace by myself and ended up seated next to a young woman. It was the time when the Episcopal Church was fighting about Gene Robinson, an openly gay man, to the position of Bishop. Whatever I was reading led her to ask me what I thought of ordaining an openly gay, non-celibate man as a Bishop. I told her I thought his orientation was irrelevant to the question and we had an interesting discussion. It turned out she was an Orthodox Presbyterian. To put the highlights in a nutshell, she told me that her brother is gay, God created her brother that way, and that God would condemn him to hell for being gay. The potter can create a pot for whatever use the potter chooses... Obviously, I was aghast at her theological construct. We talked for a bit and she observed, "we worship two very different Gods." She was correct. She might have also observed that we practice two different religions... even though both are called or, at least, call themselves "Christianity."

I've raised the question of definitions before. I still don't have any good answers but the questions still remain. Who is the real Jew, Christian, Baptist, Muslim, American, whatever? Who gets to define the term? And, perhaps, most important of all, when terms are used with such radically different definitions, how do we ensure that we are understood or understand?

a radical benediction

2011-07-18T11:52:00.000-07:00

I came across this Fourfold Franciscan Blessing today at Experimental Theology and love it...

here it is

May God bless you with a restless discomfort about easy answers, half-truths and superficial relationships, so that you may seek truth boldly and love deep within your heart.

May God bless you with holy anger at injustice, oppression, and exploitation of people, so that you may tirelessly work for justice, freedom, and peace among all people.

May God bless you with the gift of tears to shed with those who suffer from pain, rejection, starvation, or the loss of all that they cherish, so that you may reach out your hand to comfort them and transform their pain into joy.

May God bless you with enough foolishness to believe that you really can make a difference in this world, so that you are able, with God's grace, to do what others claim cannot be done.

thanks for sharing it Richard.

Truth

2011-07-13T10:02:00.000-07:00

I regularly read Rachel Held Evans blog and follow her on twitter. The other day she called a prominent pastor on the carpet for behavior that was anything but Christlike. I think she was right on target with her criticism but that isn't what really caught my attention. In her critique, she cited a couple of sources outside of the conservative Christian media. She was criticized for citing unbelievers and the message was that anything said by an unbeliever was by definition untrue and unworthy of consideration, especially if it was criticizing someone in the Church. It is a fairly typical argument in parts of the evangelical community.

Truth is truth is truth is truth, regardless of where it comes from. 2 + 2 doesn't cease to equal 4 because a serial killer tells us it is so. And 2 + 2 doesn't equal 5 just because a prominent preacher from a large and influential church tells us it does. I couldn't help but think of the story in Numbers 22:22-35 of Balaam and his donkey. Truth comes from unexpected places. The donkey saves Balaam's life and sees the "truth" of the situation. Now, I am not implying that the secular sources cited in the blogpost are equivalent to Balaam's donkey. Not in any way whatsoever. I am saying that if we ignore the truth that comes to us from a wide variety of sources, we do so at our own risk. In the case of the blogpost, to ignore the truth in the sources cited is just... stupid.

a religious test for president

2011-07-04T13:02:00.000-07:00

Last week, Politico had an article that missed the point of the constitution. It begins with the statistic that 1 in 5 voters would be less likely to vote for a candidate who is Mormon. They then ask, "Doesn’t the Constitution say, in Article VI, 'No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States?'"

They miss the point. The article is referring to a legal test. Nobody can be excluded from running for president on the grounds of his or her religion or lack thereof. The article says nothing abut an individual's right to vote for whomever they want for any reason that is important to them. If I want to vote for someone just because they practice one religious tradition or against someone because they practice another, that is my right.

They also misunderstand religion. If an individual truly believes a given religion, we can expect that it will impact the way that individual would see and experience the world which must impact the way they govern. If I knew that someone running for president was a young earth, 6 day creationist Christian, I wouldn't need to know anything else to vote against them. That would tell me a great deal about the way they would approach education policies, scientific research, and likely even foreign policy. A religious system, if truly embraced, must impact the way a person sees and acts in the world. Therefore, it is fair game for an individual voter to consider. Likewise, it tells me something if an individual claims to hold a faith but also says it will not impact the decisions they make. Then I wonder what does inform that person's decision making.

Of course, in the United States the question of religion is always more complicated. Some years back, Martin Marty referred to the "baptistification of America" - the idea that each individual can construct his or her own faith system and that no outside authority can impose itself on the individual (or local congregation). That means that one can no longer assume that a Catholic agrees with what the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church says even though that system clearly expects individual believers to follow the teachings of the Church. In the US, just because an individual is a Mormon does not necessarily mean that they abide by the directives of the Mormon church. While this trend cannot be ignored, we still can expect that any given religious system will have an impact on the particular paradigms in which a person lives.

The bottom line though is that one can vote for a candidate for any reason the individual feels is important - the color of their hair, their educational background, where they grew up, or their religion.

what makes good music?

2011-07-01T12:27:00.000-07:00

I've been thinking about this question for a few weeks. I read something while surfing a few weeks ago that cited a study done where brain activity was charted while people listened to music. They had a piece of classical music that was played perfectly, no mistakes or flubs of any kind. My guess is that it was played by some midi program. The brain activity was fairly flat. Then the same piece of music was played by a human being. There were no huge mistakes but it was anything but perfect. It included some notes that were a little early or late, maybe some pitch wasn't perfect. It also included emotion. The brain scans showed a lot more activity. Basically, the brains of the listeners were much more engaged with the imperfect renditions of the piece of music.

OK, I don't have the link and I'm not even 100% sure that the study was real or if real, reported accurately. Still, it rings true to me... I find human music much more engaging and players who play like midi computers don't impress me.

The second piece of the question goes back to our days in Albany when the Eighth Step ran a weekly open mic. It was a wonderful community. There were seasoned and touring pros who would show up and play new material they were readying for the road and there were rank beginners just learning. Sometimes the music was sublime. Other times, it was clearly the work of beginners. Everyone was affirmed and appreciated and encouraged to move further along their journey. There was none of the stereotypical, "I could do that better" that sometimes happens among musicians. There was no sense of competition. Instead, it was a wonderful and supportive community and the music was reflective of that. Alexis and I had similar feelings when we played at Songwriters at Play about a month ago.

So, where am I going with this? Music, "real" music, for me, is all about community and relationships. It need not be perfect. Indeed, when it is perfect, that probably indicates that something is not quite right about it (when have you ever experienced perfection in any of your relationships?). If you want perfect, hire a DJ or pop on a CD. If you want music, enjoy the warts, clams, and flubs and find the beautiful and sublime in the joy of creative relationships that reflect the souls of those making the music.

gigs?

2011-06-29T11:31:00.000-07:00

So... I'm no longer playing with Jamie Green... (if you want to hear more about that, contact me personally as I don't want to put any of that u[p on the web). Once again, I'm being pushed a bit to be more intentional regarding my music. That is a good thing, except it does require a bit of discipline and investment of time. In the meantime, I'm looking for opportunities to play with/for others. Wish me luck and keep your eyes and ears open for more of my music which hopefully will be coming soon (ish).

Gettysburg

2011-06-23T18:55:00.001-07:00

We visited the Gettysburg battlefield today... it has been a long long time since I was there and most of the details had receded into some dark corner of my brain.

It was a painful day... My daughter, Alexis, remarked that places have memories. The memories of this very beautiful place were horrific. Some 163,000 soldiers met over the three day battle. Total casualties, killed, wounded, or captured, were 23,000 for the Union and 28,000 for the Confederates. My wife's great grandfather was wounded at Pickett's Charge and later died from the wound. So much death. So many families torn apart. So much pain. I found myself wondering why we have not learned.

We saved the last part of our visit for the Eternal Light Peace Memorial. As I drove up to the memorial I found myself dreaming that someday we might learn the lesson of that horrible battle. We parked just behind a car with multiple bumper stickers. The first said, "Everything I need to know about Islam, I learned on 9/11." The second was a "terrorist hunting license." The third was a painting of the framers of the constitutions with the label, "Right Wing Extremists." There was a fourth I didn't really look it. And of course an NRA sticker.

I didn't talk with the driver. I didn't see the driver. I have no idea what kind of person he (I assume the driver is a "he") is. I do have to wonder how a person can frame the world in terms of those bumper stickers. More importantly I couldn't help but think of him in terms of the numbers of people who fought and died at Gettysburg. And to read those words in front of a memorial to peace...

Mac 1

2011-06-13T11:31:00.000-07:00

Back in April I posted a piece about switching from a windows pc to a mac. The key piece pushing the move was that I wanted a laptop with firewire for recording. I couldn't find any windows laptops with firewire and I looked hard. And my laptop was getting more and more unstable and problematic. Well, I did it. I bought a 13.5" Macbook Pro with an I5 chip and 4M of ram. It arrived last Friday and I've begun moving data etc. to the Mac. Here are my first impressions...

1. The Mac is no easier or more intuitive than windows. Indeed, there are lots of things that I could do on the pc much easier and quicker. Now, there are surely some things that I haven't figured out on the Mac... but they are not obvious or simple.

2. The slight differences in the keyboard are frustrating. I really miss the end, page down, etc. keys. The different uses of the control vs. command keys are just a matter of learning and becoming accustomed to the differences.

3. The hardware of the Mac is stellar. The computer is elegant, fast, and seems just really, really, really well designed and outfitted. Of course, for the price, it should be. Did I say fast? I mean really fast.

4. Software remains to be decided... I have been using Open Office on the PC for a while but haven't been completely happy with it. Just out of principle, I have been trying to move away from Microsoft for a while. So... I purchased Iworks... that may have been a mistake. Office may have been a smarter choice to make the transition to the new platform easier. I do need to be aware that we use windows at work.

I HATE Itunes. I don't like the interface. I don't like what it seems to have done with all of my files. Did it actually make additional copies of every music file? It sure looks that way. Safari is eh. I used Firefox on the PC and may try the Mac version.

5. Everything seems more difficult to tweak.

6. It is nice to not have the virus worry... although I have to say that I'm not entirely sure that I trust that.

7. I have a windows smart phone that I still have to figure out how to get it to talk with the mac.

So... what would I say to someone thinking about the switch? Only if there is something that you need to do that you cannot do on your current platform. There are differences but I don't think they are nearly as significant as the Mac true believers would tell you. It is more like learning a different language than moving to a new universe.

frustration

2011-06-02T11:24:00.000-07:00

why does blogger keep randomly inserting http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif in my blogs? I found 3 in my previous blog... after I posted it

ARRRRGGGGHHHH!

family stuff - Alexis d

2011-06-02T09:19:00.000-07:00

Tuesday evening, Alexis and I played a short set at Songwriters at Play in SLO and had a wonderful time. It was so much fun to dust off some material we haven't played in a long time, to relearn some tunings (we did one song in DGDGCD), and just to share that experience with my daughter. We have two more gigs coming up that I'm also looking forward to - we open for John Batdorf at the Cambridge Drive Concert Series tomorrow (June 3), and then on Sat, June 4 are participating in a fund raiser for Robert Postel.

Also, this week, I finally got an old VHS tape of Alexis and I playing on a local television show in Albany, NY from about '99 transferred to a digital format. I'm hoping to put a few of the performances up on youtube... I'll let you all know when that happens.

I love playing with Jamie Green and I love playing with the church band and sitting in with other folk but I have to say there is something really special about performing with my daughter... If you're in the Santa Barbara area, come by and check us out.

let's play

2011-05-29T14:12:00.000-07:00

I love this video...

We have a wonderful nursery school at Cambridge Drive Community Church called the Goleta Valley Nursery School where the core of the philosophy is that children learn through play. Every aspect of the curriculum is based on that premise and it is a wonderful, child centered place to be.

I believe they are absolutely on target. But... but... play as a way of being in the world, of finding joy, of experiencing the gifts of God is something we should never abandon. I think that is, in part, what Jesus was talking about when he said that in order to fully enter the kingdom of God we must become like children (Mark 10:15)- experiencing joy and wonder in each moment.

Watch the video again... wouldn't it be wonderful to approach life with the same joy and playfulness as the child (and the otter for that matter)?

The Bible Guarantees It

2011-05-25T10:08:00.000-07:00

We've all seen the advertisements that were running before May 21st with the tag live - "The Bible Guarantees It." And then, nothing unusual happened on May 21st. What are people to conclude? The Bible is not reliable. Of course, many conservative Christians have responded by saying that the Bible does guarantee many things... just not that, and they have a long list of things they would say the Bible does guarantee.

I'd agree that the Bible does guarantee a few things: God loves us. God's yearnings for us are more wonderful than we can imagine. Grace truly is amazing... but beyond that, not much. Some time back I quoted The Shadow Rock UCC Church in Phoenix who say "We know that to understand the Bible means taking it seriously but not literally." I'd go a little farther, I think, and say, "Taking the Bible seriously means not taking it literally," and I take the Bible seriously. It is a central book in my faith. There are lessons there that can be found nowhere else. I believe that God chooses to speak through that book in a unique way and it truly is inspired. I believe the Bible... but, I do not believe that it provides predictions regarding the future. I do not believe that it provides simple answers to complex questions. I do not believe that proof texts can easily be applied to the issues we face today. I do not believe it is a science book nor do I believe that it is a history book in the sense we understand history books to work today. Taking the Bible seriously requires that I understand these things before I open the pages and read stories, letters, poems, and songs that serve to shape my faith and help to give direction to my life.

So how do I respond to the folk who are distraught because the Bible seems no longer to be trustworthy? I tell them that they don't understand what it is or how it works.

May 22

2011-05-18T08:09:00.000-07:00

I'm sure by now you've heard the news from the e bible fellowship .com and family radio...

I don't believe it. Indeed, I don't believe in the second coming in that form at all. I have to admit that I'm tempted to make fun of those folk. I've received an invitation to an after-rapture party. I've chuckled at the new business offering pet care to the left behind and well-loved pets of believers caught up in the rapture at a serious pre-paid price. I've scratched my head at folk who feel the need to quantify the end of the world... And then I heard some interviews on NPR with true believers. Now I'm just sad.

There are a bunch of folk who believe this interpretation to the point that they've left jobs, sold off property, given up anything to be ready for the rapture on May 21, 2011. I'm sad because of what I believe they will face on May 22, 2011. Will their faith be completely destroyed? How will they put their lives back together? What about relationships they sacrificed to this belief? Can they be redeemed?

I'm sad about the other fundamentalist groups who are drawing lines in the sand and calling the true believers of this interpretation heretics. I'm sad about the more liberal Christians who just write these folk off as crazies without seeing the depth of their faith and the depth of their need for... something.

And I'm sad for those who look at this and paint all people of faith with the same brush... one that spells "CRAZY" and write off any possibility of a faith that speaks to their real lives.

So... I won't be partying on May 22... I'll be sad.

a sideman's blues

2011-05-16T09:17:00.000-07:00

I love to play as a sideman. I have played guitar or bass with some wonderful performers. Currently, I play regularly with Jamie Green and really enjohttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gify playing with her and Bob Terry on cajon (Bob is an amazing drummer). I get to make wonderful music without being 100% responsible for what is happening. I put the date on my calendar, learn the music, show up, and hopefully play well.

Here's the problem... a good side man is transparent. They play exactly what is on the recording, nothing more, nothing less. Bob works in artist relations for Yamaha drums and tells lots of stories of great players not getting a gig because they cannot reproduce the exact sounds on a recording without purchasing some new something or other. And it isn't even the same rhythms we're talking about, it is the exact sound. I'm not particularly interested in being transparent.

When you move from a recording with a full band to a trio with one acoustic guitar and a cajon or a duo with one acoustic guitar, it just doesn't work to play exactly what the guitar player on the recording played. The context is too different and you end up with a live performance that is pretty anemic. Sometimes that is fine for the songwriter and sometimes it isn't as they sometimes fill in the missing parts in their head and hear something the audience doesn't hear. And two different sidemen might hear what is needed in very different ways.

Then there is the other piece of the puzzle... I'm not particularly interested in playing what was done on the recording even when it does work. I have my own aesthetic and the joke is true... "how many guitar players does it take to change a lightbulb?" "However many you have... only one to actually change the lightbulb while the rest talk about how they would have done it better." An example here is a great song of Jamie's called, "Like to Be with You." The part on the recording would work fine live and I could easily play it exactly that way... but I like the way I play it much better, using multiple capos and a bit of a Celtic feel.

Luckily, Jamie lets me play like myself for the most part although therehttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif are times when she'll ask me to play something differently. They are her songs and it is her name on the calendar so I do my best to accommodate her desires. I think that most of the time she is happy with what I do but I do get the feeling sometimes that she is dreaming of a sideman who worked with her in LA and who is transparent.

Back in the late 90's and early 00's, I played with my daughter, Alexis. It was a fun project. We wrote some very satisfying music, performed around the northeast and as far away as Des Moines, Iowa. When we started, I was doing a solo thing and had Alexis sit in with me a few times. She had a blast and it eventually became a duo. We performed as "D" and did a record that in part was a senior project for a music production major at the College of St. Rose who had heard us phttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.giferform. Alexis has a distinctive voice and a wonderful stage presence and we quickly learned that people weren't really interested in me so we switched the name to "Alexis d." Even though we were performing under her name, it still was a partnership in terms of the music. So, I didn't have to worry about being transparent as I was the one who wrote the guitar parts from the beginning.

It has been about 5 years since we've performed together but Alexis is staying with us for two months while her husband is doing an educational program in New Jersey and we have a few gigs lined up including opening for John Batdorf at the Cambridge Drive Concert Series in June. She isn't quite as thrilled as I am since the lyrical content of some of the songs reflects a very different place in life for her... still, I'm excited that I get to play ME a few times.

You can hear some of the Alexis d material on the player in the right hand column.

National Day of Prayer

2011-05-05T11:22:00.000-07:00

Today is designated the National Day of Prayer - an event that has been held since 1952. As violations of the separation of church and state go, it is pretty minor, but the symbolism is important and it is a bad idea. I am against it both on constitutional grounds and on religious grounds. Here's why...

To whom are we praying? Even among Christians, one could argue that the God we pray to is not all the same. The folk at Westboro Baptist are a clear example of this when they say that the God they worship does not love everyone... my God does. Clearly we are not worshiping the same God. I once had a discussion with an orthodox Presbyterian who told me that God had created her brother gay so that God could send him to suffer eternally in hell. That woman and I do not worship the same God. She actually came to that conclusion before me and raised it to me. And that doesn't begin to add all of the variety of religious understandings in our country. So, to whom are we praying? Should we sacrifice a chicken? Bow towards Mecca? Sit in silence? Chant a Sanskrit chant? Recite the Lord's Prayer (which version)? Pray in the name of Jesus? Burn incense? Pray in Hebrew or Coptic or Greek?

And what when the deepest prayers of our hearts conflict? I pray for the end not only of specific wars but of war in general and of the military complex... and I believe it should begin with the immediate dismantling of the American Empire. How do I find common ground with those who would pray for the literal destruction of America's "enemies?" What of those who pray for the assassination of the current president vs. those who pray for his re-election? We can't even ask forgiveness together when different groups would see America as guilty of very different sins.

Some would say to go ahead and pray specifically. They would say to go ahead and pray in the name of Jesus while likely feeling much less comfortable with a prayer to Allah or some god whose name they had never even heard before. In any case, this would marginalize many people some of whom might even feel that praying to whatever other god in whatever other way constitutes sin.

Some would answer that we should pray generic prayers that can apply to any religion... but if we do that, why bother? If the prayers are so generic, so non-specific as to not offend anyone, they have no real meaning.

Another answer is that individuals can each pray privately as they see fit... but people who pray already do that, so again, why bother?

The early Baptists knew that when the state imposes religion, above all else, it damages religion. At the very best, imposed religion weakens faith both by causing it to move to the lowest common denominator and by identifying it with the "earthly institution" of the state. At the worst, it is used as a means of rendering the actions of the state as being above judgment as they are identified with whatever god is being implored.

Finally, the state cannot grant me the right to pray as I see fit nor can it stop me from praying as I see fit. Those actions are simply beyond the power of any state. Some nations have tried to curtail faith and many more nations have persecuted people of a wide variety of religious understandings... but those who believe cannot be stopped from believing as they choose and they cannot be compelled to believe that which they do not.

None of what has been said applies to the population of Americans who do not pray at all, who have no faith in any god. Are we asking them to act against their consciences? their deeply held convictions? Or worse yet, are we reminding them that they are not really "us" and trying to dissociate them from the mainstream of our culture? Again, we are marginalizing folk.

I'm against a national day of prayer. It does nothing to deepen faith. It does nothing to bring our nation to a better place. It does serve to harm real faith and to cause divisions between people. And it clearly is unconstitutional.

That said, I have prayed today. I would have prayed anyway. Indeed, I had forgotten that today is the National Day of Prayer. There is nothing any state can do to make me pray nor to make me stop, short of killing me. So, pray if it is something that is part of your life. It is a good thing to give thanks for the positives of the USA, to ask forgiveness for our cultural shortcomings, and to pray that the negatives will change. And do it again tomorrow and every day. And work to make things better. If you don't pray, then, do something positive today that makes the world a little better. And do it tomorrow as well.

Baptists... again...

2011-05-04T08:08:00.000-07:00

On March 24 I out up a post titled Will the Real ____ where I asked who gets to define a term or tradition. I touched on my tradition - the Baptists - and I want to revisit that part of the discussion.
One of my Facebook friends recently made a number of comments about Christians in general and Baptists in particular in a thread about compassion that I want to address without further hijacking that thread. In a first comment he mentioned Westboro Baptist as an example of Baptist "compassion." When I complained about that, he told a story of some very negative experiences with Southern Baptist churches and wondered why Southern Baptists don't speak out about Westboro.
I am not a Southern Baptist. Never have been. Wouldn't be. Couldn't be. Can't speak for them. As I hinted in the earlier thread, I'm not sure they deserve to be called Baptist at all... but that too is another discussion.
So... let me address my friend's statements from my perspective.
I belong to the American Baptist denomination. Pre civil war days, there was basically one large, loosely connected, Baptist group in the US which split over slavery into the Southern Baptist Convention and the group that became the American Baptist Churches, USA. Since that time there have been multiple split offs and new configurations of Baptists. A few years ago I was told that there were 49 Baptist bodies in the United States alone and there are thousands more "independent Baptist" churches that do not formally relate to any larger groupings. Theologically, most are conservative but not all. Some groups, like the Alliance of Baptists, fall solidly in the progressive/liberal camp. Most of the Black Baptist groups are a mix of liberal on issues of economics and race and conservative on sexuality and theology. Many groups are wildly diverse. My denomination, ABCUSA, has no racial group comprising over 50% of the denomination, includes churches that would proudly call themselves fundamentalist and others that are dually aligned with the Unitarian Universalist Association, has had ordained women leaders since the 1800's and many congregations that do not allow women leaders of any kind... you get the picture. Worldwide, there are 218 groups that are members of the Baptist World Alliance.
Some prominent names in Baptist history illustrate that diversity - Martin Luther King Jr., Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Walter Rauschenbusch, Fred Phelps, Albert Mohler Jr, Jerry Falwell, and Roger Williams.
Early Baptist commitments were summarized by Walter Shurden in his book The Baptist Identity: Four Fragile Freedoms where he identifies four core commitments that define the Baptist movement - soul freedom, church autonomy, freedom of the scripture to speak for itself, and separation of church and state.
All of that is to show that the Southern Baptist Convention is by no means representative of the entire tradition, and indeed, I would argue that they have strayed so far from the main stream of the tradition that they are no longer Baptists at all.
As to the second question - why don't Baptists speak out against Westboro Baptist and its actions? They do. The last time Westboro was making national news the General Secretary of the ABCUSA had a press conference and sent news releases everywhere condemning Westboro's actions and telling everyone that Westboro is not related to ABCUSA. I don't know whether other Baptist groups did the same but I would expect they did. The actions of a denomination condemning Westboro Baptist doesn't have nearly the sex appeal of their despicable actions and so didn't make the news anywhere. It happened, you just didn't hear about it. Blame the media for that, not the Baptists. As far as I know, Westboro Baptist Church is an independent church and is not affiliated with any larger Baptist body and I'm sure they couldn't care less what the ABCUSA has to say to them. Indeed, they likely see the ABCUSA condemnation as a mark of honor.

a parable

2011-05-02T09:27:00.000-07:00

I'm struggling with the killing of Osama bin Laden. As most of you know a very important part of my spiritual formation took place among the Anabaptists and I am a pacifist by faith. I also truly believe pacifism works. The immediate response to someone who espouses non-violence is usually something like "they're trying to kill us," or "who will protect the innocent?" as if taking up arms means that nobody on your side dies and the innocent are spared! Violence begets violence. Non-violence opens new possibilities.

This little parable comes back to me often when I think of such times as today...

It was rainy season and a holy man was sitting under a tree in prayer. Nearby a scorpion was cut off on a small mound of dirt, surrounded by the rising waters. As the holy man watched he realized that the scorpion would drown if he didn't act to save it. So, he got up and reached towards the scorpion, which tried to sting him. This happened a number of times while the water continued to rise.

A man who was watching spoke to the holy man, "You're going to get stung if you keep trying to save that scorpion. Don't you know that it is in the nature of the scorpion to sting?"

The holy man smiled and responded, "Don't you know that it is my nature to preserve life? Why should I allow the evil nature of the scorpion to cause me to abandon my good nature?"

it's been a while

2011-05-02T09:09:00.000-07:00

since I've posted a music video...

I don't have any idea what this song is about and the video is a little... unusual... but I really like the song. Bizness by tUnE-yArDs

Shiloh Baptist Church

2011-04-29T07:57:00.000-07:00

On Easter Sunday, the Obama Family attended Shiloh Baptist Church in Washington DC. Shiloh is an historic black church, founded in 1863 by 21 freed slaves. Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton each attended there at least once during their presidencies. I know the pastor, Wally Smith, who is also the current president of the Palmer Theological School (my alma mater). He was on the faculty by the time my wife was a student and he was one of her professors. Palmer is one of the more conservative seminaries related to the American Baptist Churches USA and while Wally falls solidly in the tradition of the African American large church pastor, he is anything but radical. Like the vast majority of African American pastors, as I know him, he leans left on issues of poverty and race, right on issues of sexuality and is conservative in his theology.

That didn't matter to Sean Hannity. It took three days to find something they could use to brand him as controversial but eventually they found a video of a lecture at Eastern University where he spoke about racism and called Fox news and some in the conservative movement on their racism. In Hannity's world, Wally Smith and Jeremiah Wright are one and the same. Can you really believe that there is any church the president could have attended and not been attacked?

If it were not for the results, the story would be laughable it is so ridiculous but there have been results... since the story ran on Wednesday, Shiloh Baptist Church has received over 100 threats including a fax with a graphic of a monkey with a target across its face. And Sean Hannity is claiming the high road? Claiming that we live in an America where racism is no longer a problem? No, the only place where Wally Smith is controversial is in Hannity's warped world... a world where a Fox television host uses race as a way to whip up a political base who have had their ridiculous birther ideas discredited again and so need some new story to radicalize the first Black President.

the water tastes like the pipe

2011-04-22T17:19:00.000-07:00

Have you ever been to a Quaker service? They don't have preachers. Instead, the congregation sits in silence and waits for someone to be moved by the Spirit and speak the words that the Spirit urges. They believe that anyone present who is open can become a conduit for the very presence of God... but they know that the words are never purely God's words... you see, the water tastes like the pipe. It is still water, but it always takes on a bit of the characteristics of the conduit.

Today, I preached at a Good Friday service. It was the first one in at least 10 years and likely a bit more than that. And things are different in Santa Barbara. Back east, we did a 3 hour service from noon to 3:00 with seven preachers usually doing the seven last words of Jesus. Today, we did the seven last words... with seven preachers... and the service was scheduled to last an hour. Each sermon was supposed to be between five and seven minutes long! (In my tradition, that is how long it takes to clear your throat... or maybe introduce yourself). We actually did pretty well and only went over by about 15 minutes. I did go over my time though but I was able to keep my remarks to about 10 minutes.

Anyway, I was struck by the way the water tasted like the pipes. There were some wonderful words spoken and a couple of the sermons really touched me. Each one reflected not only the theology but also the experiences of the preacher so each one was significantly different and I would have been very unlikely to take any of the passages in exactly the direction they went (although I do have some hints for another year) but the water was still there. Clearly too, if the water came through my pipes... it tasted of me.

FWIW, I preached on the last word - "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit," Luke 23:44-49... and here is the sermon I preached.

It is traditional to spend this time on Good Friday reflecting on the words and experience of Jesus... and there is certainly lots of preaching material there, but as I thought about this passage, I kept coming back not to the words of Jesus, but to the reaction of his followers to the events of that day...
But all his acquaintances, including the women who had followed him from Galilee, stood at a distance, watching these things.

It struck me that Jesus had no other option but to commend his spirit, his life, to the Father as there was nobody else there for him. There was nobody standing next to him and touching him to comfort him. There was nobody breathing in unison with him so he would know he was not alone as he died. There was nobody there to rail at the injustice as even the centurion remarked that he was surely innocent. There was nobody there to affirm that in spite of the events of that horrific day, Jesus had made a difference in the lives of real people and had opened a new way of seeing and experiencing the presence of God. There was nobody there to comfort him and assure him that the work he had begun would be continued. No, those who had shared his life and his ministry stood at a distance and watched and he... was... alone...

We can understand their lack of action. Clearly they were traumatized. They entered Jerusalem expecting miracles. They entered the city of peace expecting that God was going to do something amazing and it had not happened as they expected. Jesus hanging on a cross was so far from what they had imagined that it never had even entered their nightmares.

They were in shock that the one who had turned their lives upside down, who exemplified the very power and presence of God was dying before their eyes and, no doubt, they were having difficulty even believing that it was really happening. Perhaps they thought that if they stayed far enough away, it might not be real.

And they were afraid... they were afraid that they might be next. They were afraid that someone might recognize that they had been with him and that the same crowds would turn against them just as they had Jesus. They were afraid of Roman whips and even more afraid of Roman hammers and nails. So they stood at a distance and watched.

And Jesus was alone. The one who was hurting, the one who's very life work was in question, the one who needed support, the one whom those with power had oppressed and trampled down, the one in need... was alone... and it should not have been that way.

All too often, you and I stand at a distance and watch as Jesus suffers in the guise of the poor, the powerless, the broken, the sick, the imprisoned. We who know the rest of the story must not stand at a distance and watch. Those in need must not be left with only the option of commending their pain to God.

Forgive me for getting ahead of myself and of the story here but I am reminded this year of a quote from my friend Pete Rollins who was asked whether he denied the resurrection, he said - “Without equivocation or hesitation I fully and completely admit that I deny the resurrection of Christ. This is something that anyone who knows me could tell you, and I am not afraid to say it publicly, no matter what some people may think…

"I deny the resurrection of Christ every time I do not serve at the feet of the oppressed, each day that I turn my back on the poor; I deny the resurrection of Christ when I close my ears to the cries of the downtrodden and lend my support to an unjust and corrupt system.

"However there are moments when I affirm that resurrection, few and far between as they are. I affirm it when I stand up for those who are forced to live on their knees, when I speak for those who have had their tongues torn out, when I cry for those who have no more tears left to shed."

I pray this year, that even on Good Friday, you and I will affirm the resurrection and not leave those in need with their only option being to commend their lives to God while we stand at a distance and watch.

Hardware

2011-04-13T14:47:00.001-07:00

In '82 the Kaypro II computer was released to the public. (the photo is a Kaypro IV but they looked the same). It ran at 2.5 MHZ and had a whopping 64K of memory. For storage there were two 5.25 inch single sided double density drives. The operating system was CPM (pre-DOS) and it had no graphics or sound other than a beep. That was my first computer, probably in '83. About '86 I got my first IBM PC clone, a Leading Edge Model D with dual double sided drives and 256K of internal memory! Then I got my first "laptop," a TRS80 Model 100. It was an amazing machine that came stock with 8K of static memory and the programs on EPROMs. You could upgrade it to 32K of memory and add an external 3.5 inch floppy drive and a 300 baud modem.
About that same time I got my leading edge, a friend of mine got an Apple Macintosh. Jim was convinced that the Mac was the only computer for an artsy type and tried repeatedly to get me to leave behind that "gray suit corporate machine and get something creative." At the same time, I really liked the open architecture of the PC and the fact that it wasn't monopolistic like Apple. So, I stuck with PC's.
My first home "recording studio" was based around a 4 track cassette deck from Yamaha called an MT44 (which I actually still have). The photo shows the full rig which I didn't have. I only had the deck, not the patch bay or mixer. I had a hand-wired patch bay and a little battery powered stereo mixer. Then I got into recording on my computer - still a PC - first with a card from Echo and then after the echo died, with one from Lexicon. We got some reasonably good sounding recordings from those cards including Big Job, Beautiful Day, and Heartbeat that are available to hear in the player on the right.
I began to have difficulties with the Lexicon card about '99 or 2000 and then upgraded my operating system and there were no drivers available for it so it was abandoned and I haven't had a recording set-up since then.
As I said in The Siren Call, I've been feeling a serious itch to get back to work on my music and so I've been looking into setting up another studio, small and relatively inexpensive but hopefully still able to come up with decent recordings. Which has me back looking at APPLES!
I have to say that I have even lower opinions now regarding Apple's monopolistic practices, but I have to admit that the computers sure do look impressive. Plus, in laptops, I've not been able to find anything that has the features I'd need in a PC... so I may be going over to, or from, depending on your perspective, the dark side. Indeed, at this point, it looks pretty likely that I'll do a Mcbook Pro and a recording interface from Presonus.
So, Jim, I may finally be joining you in the Apple world!

the siren call

2011-04-07T09:18:00.000-07:00

Since my late adolescence there has been this siren call that my music has had for me. During college, it was very strong and I was very close to making music my career. I majored in music and spent a lot of weekends traveling and performing in churches and coffeehouses. Still, it felt untenable as a way to actually live and I followed the other call and headed off to seminary. Then in seminary, the call re-asserted itself and I toyed with following a path as a "Christian" musician. After two years as an intern in a local church, I worked for one year with Come Alive Ministries, doing a syndicated radio show with Cheryl and traveling and performing in churches. I had some wonderful times and some that were anything but and it became clear that actually making a living doing music in churches was more difficult than I wanted to tackle. I decided to follow the call to the pastorate and, for the most part through the years, have felt that was the right decision.

I have continued to perform in a variety of settings through the years, playing in bar bands, as a solo singer/songwriter, in duos and trios and as a sideman. I also was on the board for the Eighth Step and now book a small concert series in Goleta. The tension has always been to find a way to make music that is meaningful and fits into the space allowed by the demands of family and job. At various times that has been easier and more rewarding than others.

I'm feeling a strong call again and trying to figure out how to make it all fit. I continue to play guitar for Jamie Green, although Jamie struggles with the same issues and is spending a significant part of her musical time with another project called Soul Aviv so we don't perform all that regularly. Alexis will be staying with us for a few months while her husband does a training program in New Jersey so we'll be performing once or twice, doing some of our material from the Alexis d days (one of the most satisfying musical times for me - you can hear it in the player on the right). Still, it feels like I need something more. I'm trying to take on a few more guitar students and to find a few more opportunities as a sideman on either guitar or bass but so far there hasn't been a lot of bites for either.

A couple of pieces have pushed me to think more about the solo singer/songwriter direction - a direction that is the most difficult, the most work, and perhaps has the most opportunity for reward. This past Sunday, my friend, Bob Terry played drums for us at church and we were talking afterward. Bob essentially said, "it's all about the music, making good music that feeds your soul." He was right. Then, I read a blog from an acquaintance, Fernando Gros, who seems at times to struggle with the same kinds of questions that I wrestle with... (although he answers them better). Fernando had two recent posts - here on the music biz, and here on putting together his new studio. Together with the discussion with Bob and my internal stuff, it has all been pushing me to get my butt in gear and start making more of my music and to do the work to get that happening.

So I'm writing this post as a way of making myself more accountable... and I'm hoping that every now and then some of you out there will say, "Hey Roy, have you written any music lately?" or "How is the plan for your little studio moving along?" or "Any solo gigs coming up?" I'm still looking for a few more students and I'd love to have a few gigs as a sideman on bass or guitar but... maybe with a little push, I'll answer the siren call in a way that both fits my life and makes some good music that is truly mine.

dancing about architecture

2011-03-26T19:57:00.000-07:00

Steve Martin reportedly once said that "talking about music is like dancing about architecture." I understand that. Music can be described and analyzed. There are rules and formulas that can be written down and passed on. There are techniques that can and must be learned in order to make music. Still, when it is all it should be, music becomes a spiritual experience that truly is beyond words... indeed, if what we say with music could be said with words, we'd do that. But we can't because there are things that must be communicated that are beyond words. So we make music. And music - vibration/harmony/melody/rhythm - is built into the very fabric of creation.

Zoe Keating is a cellist who makes sublime music using a cello and looping technology. This video is a short interview where she talks about her music and expands upon the ideas implicit in the Martin quote.

Will the real....

2011-03-24T11:18:00.000-07:00

_______ please stand up?

Back in my childhood, I remember watching the television show, To Tell the Truth. An individual with an unusual occupation or experience would be joined by two impostors and a panel of celebrities would question them and try to decide who was the real person. For some time I've struggled with the question, Would the real Baptists please stand up? or, Would the real Christians please stand up? And recently, Would the real Muslims please stand up? How do we decide who is the real thing? Who gets to define the term?

Let me give some examples. Early Baptists had four commitments that distinguished them from other Christian groups. They believed in soul liberty (an individual is responsible for his or her own faith), church freedom (no outside body can tell a church what its ministry must look like), freedom of the Bible (the scriptures speak for themselves and nobody can assign an official interpretation), and the separation of church and state(much more complicated than many people think, but that is another post). Those four commitments led to a wide variety of theological stances from fundamentalist to Unitarian but all stood within the tradition. Few Baptists today are willing to live with the implications of that freedom - think especially of the Southern Baptist Convention. Are they still Baptists?

How about Christianity in general? All Christians would presumably say they are trying to follow Jesus but their understanding of who Jesus is would differ to the point that, at least in some cases, they clearly are not talking about the same person. Let me give an example that is close to my heart and about which I'm willing to live with significant differences... but it is a real difference. The early Christians were pacifists. They followed the teachings of Jesus and understood the things he said about enemies as absolutely prohibiting participation in the military or acting in violence under any circumstances. Rather than take up arms against enemies, they chose to watch as loved ones were tortured and killed and to endure the same. Most in the Anabaptist traditions in the Church continue to understand the teachings of Jesus that way. Beginning with Constantine, Christianity began to identify more and more with the empire of the day and military service was seen as a appropriate way to express one's faith. There are movements in the US military today that absolutely identify themselves as followers of Jesus even as they launch missiles against Libya or attack enemies in Afghanistan. It is difficult to imagine a more different understanding of how to follow Jesus. Are they both Christian? Who decides and how? What does the term mean?

More recently there has been a great deal of discussions about the nature of Islam. We often hear statements like, "For Muhammad, religion and politics were one and the same so any Muslim is automatically against separation of religion and government and is out to impose Sharia law on the entire world. Convert or kill is the mandate." Whether or not that was Muhammad's original understanding is another discussion but it clearly is the understanding of some visible Muslims today. It also clearly is not the understanding of the overwhelming majority. Indeed, all of the Muslims I know are absolutely committed to freedom of religion and to a more peaceful expression of their faith. So, who gets to define the term?

I don't have any good answers. I find myself wanting to define the terms as I prefer they be used. Of course, that may or may not coincide with how you prefer they be defined or how the general population understands them. A good friend of mine was involved in a Black Muslim organization back in the 60's where they had a saying - "he who talks loudest gets over." Often these terms are defined by the most visible or most vocal groups... Do we allow the crazies (or at least the folk who don't think like us as they might define me as a crazy) to own the terms or do we keep trying to re-frame the discussions and redefine the terms? I have to admit that I'm growing tired of those battles... but they still feel worthwhile to me.

Libya

2011-03-22T15:54:00.000-07:00

I feel deeply for the people of Libya. I respect the hunger they feel for freedom and self-determination and I think I understand both the optimism and the despair that led to their uprising. My heart breaks for the violence perpetrated by their own leader against them. I feel disgust at mercenaries willing to enter another country and kill the people there because the leader s afraid that using his own forces will alienate the military and turn them against him. Something in my gut resonates with the old Bruce Cockburn song, "If I Had a Rocket Launcher..." and the myth of redemptive violence calls me like a siren call.

All of that said, we should not be involved. There are at least three good reasons for that. The first is that we cannot afford to be involved in yet another war. I understand that on the first day, the US launched 112 cruise missiles into Libya. Those missiles cost $1 million each. Just for comparison sake, NPR receives about $5 million a year in government funding. Imagine how many teachers, college scholarships, meals for the poor, health care for the needy we could fund with $112 million dollars, and that was one day... there is no end in sight. Today, an F16E crashed. Evidently the pilots are safe but there are reports that US service people were injured in the rescue. I tried to find prices for an F16E and the ones I could discover ranged from $31.1 to 43 million in 1998 dollars. Add in the other costs and I can't imagine it is costing us less than $500 million a day. This is at a time when many are saying we're broke and those on the right are calling to slash programs for the poor, for children, for the elderly... We cannot afford to engage in yet another military adventure.

Second, we have seen that whether our intentions are good or not, we can't seem to get things right in the Middle East. No, I do not believe the lines we were fed by the Bush administration as we went into Iraq and Afghanistan, but at least some folk did... so even if I give them the benefit of a doubt, IT DIDN'T WORK. Why in the world would we think this would turn out any better?

The third is what war does to the participants, the human costs. Taking a human life destroys a piece of your soul even if the act is justified. For some folk, it is a small bit, for others, it is a huge piece and some never are the same again. I can't help but think the number of vets living on the streets has something to do with the condition of their souls when they got back... and healing a soul is not an easy thing. And there are the horrific examples of destroyed souls that we saw in the photos from Abu Ghraib and now from the "kill squad" in Afghanistan. I would never begin to imply that all soldiers turn into monsters... but some do. Were these evil kids before they went off to war? Perhaps some were, but what about those who were so damaged by their experiences that they became less than human. Again, I am not implying this is the norm or even common, but I do not believe these young men and women would have acted that way had they not been sent off to war. Yes, I know Obama has said we will not send in ground troops and at least to some degree that may mitigate some of the human costs to our side, but as today showed, even an "air war" sometimes requires boots on the ground and there are men and women firing the missiles and flying the planes who know their actions end in death and destruction. Plus, there are the traumatic brain injuries, the missing limbs, the deaths, collateral damage to civilians and infrastructure in foreign lands, and the destroyed families there and here.

I am a pacifist and do not believe war is justified, period, but for those who believe that at times war is a necessary evil, these human costs must be weighed seriously. This is not the time or place to send our young men and women.

NFL lockout

2011-03-19T11:30:00.000-07:00

You all know that I'm a football fan... well, not exactly a football fan, I'm a Steelers fan. Growing up in Pittsburgh, football is as present as the air you breathe and the Steelers are religion. Watching football on television, it is easy to forget just how violent the sport really is, how big, strong, and fast those players are. Imagine a 300 pound player with reflexes like a cat, wearing pads and a helmet, running at you at the speed of a high school sprinter with one thing in mind... and you're not at the happy end of that event.

My son, John, is built like an NFL defensive lineman and is stronger than a bull. His arms are significantly bigger than my thighs and as hard as rock. He is very athletic although not terribly aggressive. He started to play football in 9th grade and dislocated his knee in a scrimmage before the season even began. He decided not to play again.

There was some pressure on him through high school to join the team again and then even more when he attended City College where one of the coaches told him that with his size and strength and a bit of coaching, he'd have a good shot at getting a scholarship to a division one school when he was finished at City College. And they had a slot at nose tackle just waiting for him. He was very, very tempted but decided against it. I have to say that I was relieved. Even as I experienced a bit of a thrill, picturing him in my mind running out onto the field, pushing his way through the middle of the line and sacking the opposing quarterback, stopping a run up the middle to deny a touchdown, my imagination went back to the dislocated knee and imagined so much worse.

Those thoughts take me to the possible lockout of NFL players. Yes, many of them (not all) get paid huge salaries and it might be easy to see them as overpaid, spoiled brats. While some, no doubt, are, there is a lot more to the story. The average NFL career is only 3.6 years long and a very large percentage of those players leave the game with permanent injuries. Some will have permanent brain damage. Some will have leg injuries that will make walking painful or difficult for the rest of their lives. Many will struggle with weight issues and its attendant heart problems and diabetes. Depending on their length of play, they may or may not have significant health care benefits as they struggle with what are often lifelong problems.

During the lockout, the players will not be paid and they will lose whatever portion of that 3.6 year average career the lockout takes. In the meantime, the owners will continue to receive revenue from television contracts which pay whether or not the games take place. So, because of reduced costs and continued income, the owners will make a profit even if there is no season. The players, all of those who work in the stadiums, and the franchise cities will suffer.

So what do the owners want? They want an increased percentage of the total revenue. They now get approximately 50%. They say they are losing money but refuse to allow the players union to see the proof. They also want to increase the season 2 more games to 18. This would increase the likelihood of injuries to players and shorten their careers at the same time that their salaries would be cut. There are other details as well that would seriously impact the players.

What do the players want? A fair cut of the revenue, health care, basic rights, and to play the game they love. They are not asking for more of anything and indeed, had a collective bargaining agreement that the owners are choosing to back out of.

From what I can see, the players have tried to negotiate in good faith and the owners have done anything but. You can go to NFL Lockout to learn more and to sign a petition urging the owners to negotiate in good faith and allow the season to go ahead.

ahh springtime

2011-03-15T17:05:00.000-07:00

Yes... I know it isn't spring time many places. And yes, I know that what passes for weather in Santa Barbra is pretty much perpetual spring. It took me a couple of years before I could figure out that there actually are seasons here, even though the differences are very, very subtle.

When spring comes, many flowering trees go into bloom and many of them are fragrant. The airs smells of flowers everywhere. We have a few pittosporum trees on the church campus that go into bloom in spring and are flat out amazing. They are bout 150 yards or so from my office but all I have to do is stick my head out the door to be intoxicated by them. Even cooler than that, as you would expect, they attract bees by the thousands. They are alive with them. Last year I discovered that if you stand under the trees in the morning and remain quiet, the trees actually buzz from the bees flitting from flower to flower, gathering pollen.

It is an amazing experience...

Un-American

2011-03-10T10:22:00.000-08:00

I'm a Baptist. One of the core commitments of all true Baptists is separation of church and state. Religion must be freely chosen and the government has no role in either curtailing or supporting religious practice. Essentially, religion must be invisible to government.

Today, Rep. King, a Republican from NY state is holding hearings to look into the "The Extent of Radicalization of Muslim Americans." While there is no doubt that there are radical Muslims in America and it might even be possible that the number is growing, to paint with such a broad brush is clearly a swipe against freedom of religion, a core principle upon which this nation was founded. When one faith group is singled out for attack, all are threatened.

Representative King, this is as un-american as it gets. You should be ashamed.

Time for Jubilee?

2011-03-08T16:32:00.000-08:00

A few pieces fell together for me the other day and I have to admit, the constellation both horrified and frightened me.

Piece #1. There has been a concerted effort to mobilize the religious community in greater Santa Barbara to reach out to and care for our neighbors without homes.

Piece #2. I've read stats and seen charts about the economic division in the US... that the gap between the rich and the poor is growing wider, that the rich are getting richer at an alarming rate and everyone else is stagnant at best, that the wealthiest 400 Americans have about the same wealth as the poorest 155 MILLION people, that the percentage of children living in poverty is approaching 25% (here are a few graphs that point to some of this data)

Piece #3. Just when it is clear that more children are slipping into poverty, many of our political leaders call for cutting programs to help children. Just when it is clear that we are falling further behind much of the rest of the world in education (we're 9th in the percentage of YA's with college degrees), those same politicians are calling for cuts to education spending. Just as we're starting to crawl out of a terrible recession, they call for cuts in government jobs and spending which will put more people out of work. At a time of record deficits when a larger percentage of government receipts comes from regressive payroll taxes, they call for cuts in progressive taxes and for cutting the very programs that the regressive payroll taxes were put in place to fund.

Piece #4. The people seem to be rising up in response to the actions of the Wisconsin governor.

All of this got me thinking about the Year of Jubilee in the Bible. During the Year of Jubilee all debts were canceled, slaves were freed, and land returned to the families who had originally owned it. No family would permanently benefit from the hard work or luck of an ancestor nor would any family permanently suffer from the misfortune or laziness of an ancestor. There would be no trust fund babies and no permanent underclass. Every 50 years, wealth would be redistributed and everything would be equalized.

Now, as a person of European descent living in the US, I'd be more than a little leery of calling for a literal Year of Jubilee... that would put all of the property back in the hands of the Native Americans... Clearly though, it is God's plan that everything regularly be redistributed so everyone truly has a fair shake. I don't know what that might look like, but I think it begins with progressive taxes, includes programs for the poor, and values education and infrastructure above military might.

Love Wins

2011-03-01T10:54:00.000-08:00

I've posted before about universalism... and I clearly believe it is the only reasonable option. I've been interested to see the topic being raised in evangelical circles lately. I think they struggle too hard against it, but more and more, especially younger evangelicals, seem to be embracing the idea.

Here's a video promo for a new book by Rob Bell

LOVE WINS. from Rob Bell on Vimeo.

If you want to think a bit more theologcally about the subject, check out this excellent short post from Richard Beck on his blog. In a comment on that post, Tyler Priest remarks that at a conference he had attended, Jurgen Moltmann was asked if he was a universalist, Moltmann replied, "No no, there are some people I've met that I do not wish to meet again. But God, now God might be a universalist."

bass player

2011-02-28T09:50:00.001-08:00

Next Saturday we have a fundraiser coming up for a wonderful songwriter named Robert Postel with a terrible disease called Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy. Robert is undergoing an experimental treatment that shows great promise and even though his insurance will cover part, the side costs for pre and post-care are staggering. You can contribute here.

So, a bunch of local musicians are all kicking in and we're having a marathon concert Saturday evening at Center of the Heart in Santa Barbara, beginning at 5:00. Jamie, Bob, and I are playing a short set at 5:25.

I'm playing bass with about 4 different performers through the evening and I'm really excited. Yesterday, we did a rehearsal with me on bass and Grace Feldman on drums and percussion. It was a looonnngggg day but I actually sounded like a bass player and had a lot of fun.

So, if you're in the Santa Barbara area on Sat. evening stop by for a wonderful concert, help out with a great guy, and as an added bonus, get to hear me play bass!

Why We Should Support Unions

2011-02-23T15:23:00.001-08:00

OK... first the disclaimer. I know there have been and are corrupt union bosses. I know that unions take money from paychecks and sometimes use it in ways the individual worker might not choose. I now that there have been some contracts that were negotiated that seem a bit... much. But I am still pro-union. Here's why.

Historically, just about every positive movement forward for workers has come because of the work of unions. If you are an hourly worker and get overtime when you pass 40 hours a week... thank a union. If you had health insurance benefits at work... thank a union. If you work in a factory and look around and see that there are no children present... thank a union. If your employer gives you time for breaks, adequate safety gear,sick pay, etc... thank a union. You would be hard pressed to find anything positive that has happened for working people that did not come as a result of union blood, sweat, and tears. And they did it for all of us whether we were unionized or not. (See my earlier post where I share my experience in a blue collar family in a union city) I would not hesitate to say that it was the unions who built the middle class of America and it isn't a surprise that they're demise coincides with the decline of the middle class.

So, the argument then goes that the unions did wonderful things in the past but they have served their purpose. They are vestiges of a by-gone era and now we have evolved past the need for them. My answer to that is horse pucky.

Do you truly believe that any corporation out there truly has the interests of its employees at heart? Do you truly believe that without unions employers would honor the contracts they have with workers? All we need do is look at the state of Wisconsin and a number of other states who are trying to renege on contracts they made with workers and trying to remove the right of unions to collectively bargaining.

The other argument is that government can take on the role of watching corporations to ensure that they do not abuse employees. And this argument is often made by the same folk who want to shrink government until it is small enough to drown in the bathtub... the same people who want to remove all constraints on business and let the free market run, regardless of what that would do to people without capital or power. All we need do is look at Wisconsin to learn that a governor who is sponsored by corporate money will pay them back in kind.

I stand with the unions.

Kora on guitar

2011-02-22T11:01:00.000-08:00

At the Western Regional Folk Alliance conference a few months ago I heard some wonderful music. There were some songwriters who wrote stories that felt like they came straight from my heart only in ways that I could never express. There were voices that brought tears to my eyes. Still, I rarely hear something that just makes me shake my head and smile. Walter Strauss was one of those performers.

Every now and then there is a guitar player who does something completely unexpected. The greatest players of all time have done just that. Django did it in jazz. Jimi took electric rock guitar to new places. Michael did the same for fingerstyle acoustic. Now, I wouldn't put Walter Strauss in those same categories but he did something completely new to me that was just amazing. Walter is a wonderful player who does kora music on the guitar. A kora is a 21 string African harp. Now, there may be some other players out there who do kora on guitar, but if there are, I've never run into them. And I can't imagine anyone doing it better than Walter does.

This video is getting a bunch of play now as Acoustic Guitar magazine has an article on Walter's guitar and included this video. Wow!

If you get a chance to see him perform, I highly recommend it. Here's his current calendar.

These Cuts

2011-02-22T08:57:00.000-08:00

I've been chomping at the bit here for weeks as I listen to politicians talk about cuts that need to be made in government programs and that all of us will need to share the pain. They're lying. And it is immoral.

Here's where are the cuts they're discussing - education, food safety, children's programs, programs to help the poor, international food aid, and the list continues in a similar vein. Most of the budget items are relatively small but they are symbolic. To the degree that a budget is a moral document that speaks to a nation's real priorities, these discussions clearly tell us that the most vulnerable in our society are on their own. These cuts won't fix any perceived problems but the mean spiritedness and short-sightedness of the proposed cuts really is amazing to me. Imagine the future if our educational system, already lagging behind much of the developed world in important ways, is defunded and pushed further down the list. Imagine the future in our cities if the poor safety nets we currently have are removed. As a further insult, I did see a report today that while discussion these small cuts, funding for one will continue - the Army will continue to purchase ad space on a NASCAR car to the tune of $7 million a year.

Which leads us to the big areas... First is the military, which depending on how you count it is somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of the entire government budget as we care for vets, support bases in over 150 different countries, and prosecute two wars that are rapidly approaching the longest wars we have ever engaged in. There is almost no discussion about the efficacy of the current military or the necessity of maintaining it as it is. Do those bases in 150 countries really contribute to our security? Or are there other ways to accomplish this? After spending nearly $1 trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan, are we closer to lessening the threat of terror? And even if we are, might there have been better ways that would have cost less and caused less suffering? As long as military power is an unquestioned value for our country, we will never even investigate the possibilities.

Second is Social Security, the retirement income program. Discussions of cutting the two latter programs are taking place. Unfortunately, they haven't been honest. We hear that Social Security will be broke in X years... as the society ages and there are fewer workers paying in and more taking out of the system. While that piece is clearly true, the original intent was that the funds paid into Social Security were envisioned as being in a "lock box" as a trust fund, held for the time when they ould be needed. Whether that was ever a realistic plan or not is debatable, but beginning with Reagan, the fund was used to pay for other government programs, essentially moving it from a retirement investment program to just another tax used to fund the government.

Any changes made to Social Security will have far reaching implications for our society as it has become the primary income for many elderly folk, the very folk who built this nation. And many who are nearing retirement have planned their lives with that program as an essential part of their future. There are ways to make the program more viable. The tax is capped at a certain income level. If the funds were only used to cover the costs of Social Security, this might make sense but as they are used to fund other government programs, they become an incredible regressive tax. So raise the cap or remove it entirely. There is talk of raising the retirement age as people live longer. While this discussion has merit, it must also be noted that different slices of the population have very different life expectancies and some kinds of work simply cannot be extended. While a 70 year old may do fine behind a desk at a computer screen, climbing onto a roof to do manual labor is a very different issue. And finally there are those who look at the statistics and see the program as being viable, as it currently is, for a very long time.

Third is Medicare, the medical program for the elderly and disabled. Frankly, I don't know enough about Medicare to be ignorant enough to make stupid comments. I do know that it, as with Social Security, is a critical part of the system many people rely upon and that the problems in our heath care delivery system are systemic.

Fourth comes the other side of the equation - taxes. Our highest marginal rates are the lowest they've been for over 50 years. Surely it tells us something that as the tax rates went down, the deficit went up. The discussion has been framed by the right wing that taxes are always evil and should never be raised. While my bank account certainly appreciates that argument, my heart finds it terribly lacking. It takes money to provide essential services. In my mind, the role of government is to provide those essential services, especially the ones that cannot or will not be provided by private enterprise. To the degree that an individual receives the benefits of living in this society, that individual is responsible to pay back. That means taxes. It is clear that since the Reagan presidency, income has been redistributed upward (see the chart to the right which goes through '07, the trend has increased since then). The wealthiest 1% have by far received the most benefits of living in this society. They, and the rest of us, should pay our fair share to support this society.

OK, now for the theological part... it is simple. The scriptures again and again show God's expectations that a society must care for the poorest and most vulnerable of its citizens. Sojourners Magazine is distributing What Would Jesus Cut bracelets... surely he would not cut the programs upon which the poor depend.

Another Rainy Day

2011-02-19T12:49:00.000-08:00

We don't get lot of rain in Santa Barbara, CA. And the temperature doesn't change that much. Indeed, the first year I lived here I wondered why the news stations had weather people. I joked that they could come and tape one report and show it every day and still be as accurate as any other weathercasters in the nation - "Fog in the morning that will burn off by 10:30, then sunny with a high about 70." I did learn that the fog isn't usually year round, there is a slight variation in the temperature from season to season, and we do get rain occasionally.

This year has been particularly rainy... and today it is rainy and cold (at least cold for here). We've had a couple of rainy days in a row and the natives are complaining about being depressed (they don't have a clue as to what seasonal affective disorder really is). I have to admit, that the weather here turns you into a weather wimp very quickly and I feel these few cloudy days too.

I also see the results. Just a little water and everything comes to life. The mountains are green. Mustard flowers cover the hillsides in bright yellow. Other flowers will follow soon.

All of this had me thinking about a poem Cheryl read in a funeral service the other day that essentially said that without grief, one can never know the real beauty of life. Without rain, there are no flowers...

a good song?

2011-02-16T09:19:00.000-08:00

What makes a good song? I've been thinking about that question as I listen to the video of Tinashe playing mbira and singing Zambezi that is posted below.

I love the song - especially in this simple, stripped down version (he also has a full production version on Youtube). It begins like a simple love song... two people under a mango tree, enjoying one another and full of life. The musical tone doesn't change at all but the lyrics then carry us into a very different place as the soldiers come and the singer urges the beloved just to live. This gentle little song holds all of the joy and fear of life in three minutes.

So what makes a good song? It opens the heart in unexpected ways. It distills the important things of life into a few minutes. As a listener, I experience life in new ways. I may cry. I may be filled with joy. I will be a little richer and more whole because I have had a good song find its way into my life.

beautiful

2011-02-16T08:45:00.000-08:00

it's been a while since I posted a music video... this one moved me.

learning a language - bass

2011-02-15T14:24:00.000-08:00

A bilingual person is a person who speaks two languages. A trilingual person speaks three... so what do you call a person who only speaks one language? American.

OK, I'm not literally talking about languages here although I am truly an American. I'm talking about music. Each musical genre has its own vocabulary, grammar, and syntax... its own language. Each musical instrument has its own dialect in that language as well.

Many guitar players think that because they understand a fretboard, they can play other fretted instruments - bass, mandolin, ukulele, banjo... So, they run out and buy whichever one of those instruments catches their imagination and fancy themselves banjo/mandolin/uke/bass players. It doesn't work. Believe me. I'm a pretty good guitar player and know a couple of different languages on guitar but even though I know where all of the notes are on each of those instruments... I'm not a banjo/mandolin/uke player... I am becoming a bass player.

While I've owned a bass guitar for years, I always sounded like a guitar player playing a bass rather than a real bass player. I never went so far as to get a good bass for that reason. I would use my cheap bass for recording and sounded, well, not like a bass player, but it was OK for my needs. Then about 6 months ago, we lost our bass player in the church band. I decided to get serious and learn another language just in case. So, I bought a good bass - a Peavey USA Cirrus (there on the right) - and a decent little bass amp - a GenzBenz 3.0-8T - and began to study bass. I know where the notes are. I know how chords and harmonies work. I know about voicings and how rhythms work in acoustic music, rock, and funk. I am learning how a real bass player fits into all of that. And frankly, I'm doing pretty well. I don't usually play bass at church as we have a teenager who is filling that slot but I'm always ready to fill in when he isn't there.

I'm really enjoying the bass and decided it would be a lot of fun if I can get some gigs playing bass with some of the local singer/songwriters. I'm not looking for a steady band but occasional things would be really cool. My bass is top notch and my amp is a good sounding amp if a little bit under-powered by modern standards but my speaker cabinet was way too small for any real gigs. So, I started researching different cabinets and the sound philosophies behind them. For electric guitar, the voicing of an amplifier and the speakers are as important to your sound as the guitar. For acoustic guitar, you want the amp to be as transparent as possible. For bass guitar, there is a discussion there with some companies making highly voiced gear and others being more hifi so that what you put it is pretty much what comes out, only louder. I decided to go the hifi direction and began to look for a cabinet called a B2 built by Acme Bass Cabinets. Acme's have a reputation of being very accurate and having among the lowest and biggest bottom ends of any cabs out there. Sounded like a cool idea to me... I found a used B2 and went to try it out - and here's the reason for the whole blog post. After playing it a bit and purchasing it, I told the seller, an accomplished bass player, that I am primarily an acoustic guitar player and that I'm trying to learn to play bass like a real bass player. He smiled and said, "you sound like a bass player to me." Alright!

So, for my musician friends... if you need a bass player for a project, you know where to find me.

Is This All? Hard question #2

2011-02-09T11:11:00.000-08:00

It's been a while since I wrote about my friends 1st hard question... and to be honest, I've been avoiding the 2nd one. She asked me whether there is life after death or if this is all there is.

From a pastoral viewpoint, I would guess she's feeling some deep frustrations regarding the current direction of her life (or at least was the day she wrote me) and as a pastor, I would want to address those issues first. That said, the question still is an important one.

Unfortunately, there really isn't a great deal about life after death in the Bible. Many of the passages that are typically cited are either metaphor or parable and may or may not tell us anything about life after death. As a result some Jewish traditions have affirmed life after death while others have denied it. In the Christian church we have seen very different understandings of life after death ranging from a literal physical resurrection of the body to a spiritual existence, absent a body to a more eastern idea of becoming part of some more universal presence to no afterlife at all. I think you can find support for any f these ideas both in the texts and in the tradition.

So, what do I think? I don't know. Philosophically, I have difficulty understanding my existence separate from a body - after all this physical body with its attributes and failings has made me into the person I am. At the same time, the idea of a physical resurrection does seem a bit... unusual and raises a ton of other questions. I like the idea of continue conscious existence but i just don't know.

So what do I believe? First off, I believe in an inexhaustible and unquenchable love that never abandons us and never lets us go. I believe that in life and in death, God's yearnings for us are full of mercy and grace. I believe that even the smallest actions can have results that change the universe and that because I have been here, things will never be the same as if I hadn't. I believe that life - here and now - is good even if it is never easy or pain free. I believe that if I open my eyes and my heart, that I can experience eternal life, heaven, the kindom of God, today, wherever I am.

Here's what I'm sure I do not believe. I do not believe in a heaven or hell that is comprised of rewards or punishments. While I would not dare to speak for God, I can speak f my own experiences. I cannot imagine a situation where I would turn away from my children forever. There is nothing they could ever do or say that would make me, in my very finite humanity, abandon them. I could never subject them to endless suffering. If my love is bigger than that, I cannot imagine God's being smaller than mine. And if salvation involves the necessity of a person turning to God, then in spite of it being a very small action, it is still an action done by the individual and salvation is no longer a matter solely of grace. Whatever comes later is a gift of God's love. There is nothing I can do to deserve it and nothing I can do to deter it.

And we come back to the underlying question - what about here and now when life seems to be or certainly is less than it should be? I cannot dismiss the pain of another. Sometimes the psychic pain is more than we can bear. Sometimes our most wonderful dreams and deepest hopes are snatched away, never to be seen again. Some of us are broken by poverty that is almost unimaginable. Some of us find ourselves in circumstances where hopelessness is a reasonable response. All I can say is that in my experience, God is always there with us. At those times when the pain is deepest, we are not alone. When we find ourselves dwelling in the land of the shadow of death, in the darkness and anguish of Good Friday, there is always an Easter coming.

cut capos - duh!

2011-02-01T09:10:00.000-08:00

I've been playing with cut capos since they were really cut capos. Here's the concept... a capo is a little clamp that goes across the strings of a guitar - like an extra finger - normally used to change the key of a song to fit a voice or to make certain chords easier to play. A normal capo goes all the way across the fingerboard so the relationships between the open strings stay consistent with whatever tuning you're using. A cut capo is just what it sounds like - you take a hack saw and an art knife to a normal capo and suddenly it only pushes down on selected strings instead of all six, changing the intervals between open strings. The first ones that people made covered three of the interior strings creating an Esus4 chord when the strings were played open or one that just leaves one string uncovered for the equivalent of a drop D, two frets higher. Fingerings remain the same. So, you get an interesting hybrid between the normal tuning of a guitar and an open tuning which allows you to do some things impossible in either of the other situations.

If you look at the photo, the capo on the right is an actual cut capo. It began life as a normal Kyser capo and I cut it to cover three strings only... probably did that one in the early 90's. Since then, they've found more widespread use and a number of companies sell them already configured. The capo on the right is a Shubb partial that does the Esus4 thing and is available in many music stores. The Kyser version of the Esus4 is called the Short Cut. Both also market a version that covers 5 strings. Kyser even markets a series in 4 different configurations with a lever that makes it easier to play the strings that pass under the capo.

So, I've been using cut capos for a number of years. If you go to the player on the right, you can hear some - Call Down Thunder and Beautiful Day have one cut capo. Heartbeat has two cut capos. With Jamie Green, I use a whole capo and a cut capo with a lever on Like to Be with You which I play very differently than the player did on her CD. So... I've been using them a long time, but I stopped experimenting a long time ago too. I've been taking them for granted and haven't pushed them nearly as far as I could.

A few weeks ago I saw that my friend Greg Newlon was giving a seminar on using cut capos in the Bay area... got me thinking about them a bit... Then I was surfing around the other day and ended up at Harvey Reid's site. He is a big proponent of using partial capos and has been doing so since the 80's. Looking at his site, I realized how much more I could do with partial capos than I have been doing. So I dumped all of my capos on the bed (and there are a lot of them in various configurations) and started playing around. He has a book called Capo Voodoo that I ordered, hoping it might inspire me a bit (which it has). So I'm working at using them more and more of them. I'll likely buy a few more in different configurations or maybe cut a few more...

Here's a video of a guy named Trace Bundy playing a song called Hot Capo Stew with 5 capos on his guitar - 4 cut ones and a whole one. Notice how sometimes he plays between and behind the capos...

So if you're a guitar player, they do open up some new and interesting possibilities for chord voicings that aren't possible in any other way. I'll be working more with mine. Who knows, maybe I'll follow Greg's lead and offer a workshop in the Santa Barbara area. Let me know if you'd be interested.

Hard Question #1

2011-01-26T11:08:00.000-08:00

A friend of mine seems to be having a crisis of faith. I haven't really had a chance to talk with her so I don't know exactly what is going on with her, but she asked me to raise some rather foundational questions here on my blog and I agreed...

The first pair of questions are "Why do we believe in God... why should we believe in God?" I've been thinking about these questions for a few days and I think I'll answer a slightly different one... why do I believe in God?

I think there are sociological reasons why populations believe in God or not and we could argue for decades regarding whether or not it is a good thing to do (why should we...) so instead, I'll just get personal.

I grew up as a nominal American Protestant. My family regularly attended church - it was the thing to do - but faith was in large degree taken for granted. You didn't talk about it. You didn't question it. And you certainly didn't let it become too emotional or demonstrative. In general, I think my family assumed that believing in God was the right thing to do and that it impacted your life even though they would have been unable to articulate what that meant beyond, "it helps you to be a good person."

At that point, I guess I "believed" in that way, but didn't have any personal ownership or real commitment. I lived on Chalfont St,. went to Turner School, and God was there. They were givens and didn't require anything more than assent. When I was in high school things changed. A number of mystical experiences... looking at the logic of the situation... watching the changes in friends' lives when they made commitments to follow Jesus... all lead to a decision for me. That started me purposefully on my path. Faith was no longer a passive given... it was the breath of life. (that story is another post perhaps)

But that was a long time ago. What about now when my life is very different? When I have known both the settledness of a middle class life, the pains that inevitably come all of our ways, and the joys of love and parenthood and deep, deep friendships? I don't have the same kind of intense mystical experiences I had in my younger years and the circles I travel in don't lend themselves to the radical transformations I saw then. What has replaced those experiences is a more moderate/even/reliable sense of the holy, of wonder, of the luminance of all of creation, of God's presence with me each day. I think that without that awareness, life would be much more difficult. Indeed, I don't now how some people face those days when we wander in the valley of the shadow of death without that awareness. I see God's fingerprints all around me. I rest in a sense of being loved and known exactly as I am. I see a general movement in the universe towards that which is good and beautiful and it feels utterly trustworthy to me. I have a sense that I am a part of something much bigger than I am... I hold the past in my memories and in the stories that give shape to my life and I see the future in my children and in the other children in my life. I don't have a feeling of certainty about much, maybe very little beyond that Love, but I don't feel a need for it. I trust in that Love that I feel surrounding me and that is enough for me.

And that will bring us to my friend's next question - "is there truly an afterlife or is this all we get?" In a few days...

Pro-choice... but

2011-01-22T11:07:00.000-08:00

A horrific story hit the news this week about an abortion clinic in Philadelphia where it is alleged that the physician was delivering live births and then killing the babies by cutting their spinal cords with a pair of scissors. If the allegations are true, this guy deserves all he gets.

I am pro-choice... but it isn't a stand that I wear comfortably or easily. Let me first say why I'm uncomfortable and then I'll share why I still come out where I do.

When a fetus becomes a human being is a difficult question to answer for me and for most people. It is a matter of very fine lines. I know very few people who actually and practically believe that at the moment of conception, a person exists. (Yes, lots of people say they believe that but don't follow up on the practical implications... so I don't quite believe them). On the other end of the spectrum, everyone I know of who agree that the day before the birth of a full term baby, you've got a real person there. (Yes, again, there are those who would say that as long as the fetus is in utero, it is still a part of the mother's body but that also seems to be pushing things to ridiculousness to me). The question is where is the line in between? Is it as soon as the embryo attaches to the uterine wall? Is it when the fetus begins to look like a baby? Is it when what used to be called "quickening" - the first time the woman feels movement - happens? But now we know that movement happens long before the woman feels it, so what does that mean? Is it when the fetus could survive outside of the womb? that is a moving target given the changes in medical technology... I don't know how to answer that question of when. When we read stories like the one about the physician in Philadelphia it becomes clear to me both how difficult the question is and how important the answer.

There are significant theological questions here too... During my doctoral program we had an elective course on medical ethics in various Christian traditions and talked about abortion. The thumbnail Roman Catholic foundation says that we are created in the image of God. That image has nothing to do with capabilities, it is just there. So, a person with significant brain damage, to the point they are unable to do any of the things we associate with being human, still reflects the image of God as much as a world class athlete or Nobel Prize winner. You can easily see where this foundation would preclude abortion a any time under any circumstances. A Reformed view begins at different place. In the Reformed tradition, God's primary work is in re-creating the world and we are called to partnership with God in that endeavor. You can see where the Protestant work ethic grew from this theological ground. And you can see where it places value on the human being in a slightly different place which would, at least theoretically, leave room for abortion under some circumstances.

There are scriptural questions as well... which are not as clear as anyone would like them to be.

And there are sociological, cultural, and political questions which are as messy as they could be. Many of those who are anti-abortion under any circumstances also see no responsibility for the child once it is born. Social safety nets, medical care, support for the mother, even adequate school are all irrelevant. That seems to me to be the height of hypocrisy that a society forces a choice upon a woman and then offers absolutely no support.

So I don't sit comfortably in the Pro-choice camp. But I do still sit there. In part it is because of those difficult questions as I experience them. More so, it is because I cannot experience them the same way a woman who is pregnant would experience them. I cannot wrestle with the question of caring for a child whom we know will be profoundly disabled. Some families are capable and some are not. Given recent attacks on the social safety nets, it could be a terrible decision that would destroy the futures of other children in the family. I cannot imagine reliving a rape every time I looked at my swollen belly. I cannot imagine looking at a life that I had planned out and suddenly discovered that because of one irresponsible act or even just because of an accidental failure of birth control responsibly used, everything is destroyed. I cannot. And that is the key for me. I cannot make those incredibly difficult decisions for another person. And I do believe in my heart of hearts that part of what it means to be human, part of God's yearnings for us, is to be moral agents and to make those hard decisions.

In my most wonderful of dreams, I would envision a world where there are no more abortions. Birth control would be effective and readily available to all... and because of good education, used by all who didn't want to become pregnant. Rapes would be reported in a timely fashion and the morning after pill administered so the embryo would not attach to the uterine wall. I would envision a society where once a child is born it is not forgotten and that poor or differently abled children get the same opportunities as well off children. I would envision medical technology that could deal with problems in utero so that a child would not be born disabled or deformed.

For now, my dream is just a dream. In the meantime, I believe there are times when abortion should clearly be regulated. But where those lines are less clear, it is only the woman, in the middle of her community of support, that can make those hard decisions.

Kyrie Eleison

2011-01-20T09:33:00.000-08:00

I really like the music written by Keith & Kristyn Getty and Stuart Townsend. Sometimes the theology is too reformed for me, but their melodies really get me and I find myself overlooking the theological issues. We sing three or four of their songs regularly in worship at Cambridge Drive.

This is a new piece they recently wrote which we will sing... and I'm thrilled with the theology! The performance is by the Christ Church Choir in Nashville, TN with Jill Frontz as the soloist. She and they do an amazing job with a beautiful piece of music. I keep playing the video over and over and over again.

and I'm also thrilled to write about something other than politics!!!!!

irresponsible governance

2011-01-19T16:55:00.000-08:00

Today the House voted to repeal the health care reform act. That was no surprise. The Republicans had promised to do just that. They voted unanimously. That was no surprise. Depending on how you spin it, either the Republican Party has done a much better job than the Democrats at working together OR they have completely destroyed any options of diversity of thought within their party. What also isn't a surprise but deeply saddens me is that they still have not offered any real solutions to the massive problems we are facing. It is irresponsible to go into office without a plan other than to dismantle what is there. It is irresponsible to claim to govern when all you have are plans to say, "no." Indeed, it is irresponsible to run for office when you have no positive vision or plan for solving the problems we face. It is even more irresponsible to use emotionally laden terms and perhaps even dishonest data, especially while not having a positive plan.

Now, we know that the Senate will not pass the repeal and even if they did, the president would veto the bill. So... if the legislators are doing this as some cynical theater and feel no need to propose real solutions then they are even more irresponsible and should be ashamed of themselves.

The problems are real. Death panels that work for insurance companies regularly denied coverage to needy people when they became too ill and threatened profitability. Families struggling to get by lost insurance coverage at the whims of bean counters. Many people lived without insurance coverage and so only had access to the most expensive and least effective kind of care - emergency care. Increasing medical costs balloon the deficit and cripple the economy. If all the Republicans can offer is, "no," then they are being irresponsible and should be held accountable for their cynical and destructive actions.

Guns

2011-01-18T15:08:00.001-08:00

Some of my in-laws hunt own guns and regularly hunt. Indeed, I have a scar on my forehead that I got while hunting with my grandfather-in-law a long time ago - I got too close to the scope. I understand hunting and appreciate a good venison steak when someone will give me one. I understand target shooting as a hobby. I even understand gun collecting within certain parameters. Especially given the events in Tucson, I believe it is time to change our laws regarding firearms.

First, I don't think the 2nd amendment has anything to do with the arguments we have today and certainly do not refer to the weapons you or I can purchase at a local gun store. Folk who call themselves "originalists" can't possibly believe that the framers of the constitution meant "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" to say that any crazy could go in and purchase a semiautomatic pistol, high capacity magazines, and unlimited rounds of ammunition, conceal them, and carry them anywhere. And if so, why not depleted uranium shells? Or nuclear warheads? After all, if the purpose of the amendment is to allow a citizen militia the ability to stand up against the army, then they need access to the same kinds of firepower. If the government has the right to regulate any arms, why does it not have the right to regulate all arms? Of course, as soon as I write that, I realize there are those who would argue that indeed, the government has no right to regulate any arms and that they should be able to go to the store and purchase a howitzer or shoulder mounted rocket grenade launcher if they want. Crazy!

Second, clearly the current regulations do not work. Crazies get guns and ammunition and, at least in the case of Jared Loughner, they do so legally. The last time we visited Phoenix, we ate at a Waffle House with a sign on the door - "No Handguns Allowed." I couldn't help but wonder what had happened that they had that sign or why the McDonalds across the street didn't have one. It was very common to see guns in holsters at people's sides. I'm sure there were at least as many concealed weapons.

Third, the argument is made that if more people have firearms, then when a crazy does pull out a gun, there will be someone there with a gun to "take them out." This didn't work either. In Arizona, which has some of the most relaxed gun laws in the nation and where you can't go anywhere without seeing guns strapped to people's belts and evidence of guns everywhere, nobody had a gun to "take out" Jared Loughner or at least, nobody used one. Indeed, he was stopped when people tackled him while trying to reload... which of course was after 32 shots since he had a high capacity magazine. And think of that scenario a bit more... so a crazy in the middle of a crowd, pulls out a gun and starts shooting and people from all around pull out their guns and start shooting as well... how many would be injured or killed in the crossfire?

Fourth, there are those who want to relax the laws further including allowing guns on college and university campuses and in bars. Picture college age guys brimming over with testosterone, alcohol, and guns... mix them all together and picture the results of that. We already have states where a person who is obviously mentally ill can buy a semi-automatic handgun. Imagine what might happen.

Fifth, in spite of what the NRA would have you believe, recent studies have shown that the vast, vast majority of guns being used by the Mexican drug criminals were purchased at gun shops just over the border in the US. Gun ownership is highly restricted in Mexico and there is only one gun store in the entire country and it is controlled by the military. Between 7000 and 8000 firearms are legally sold in Mexico each year. Last year some 30,000 guns were seized by law enforcement officials, primarily from drug cartels. Our guns are clearly finding their way into Mexico and feeding the violence there.

Yes, it is true that guns don't kill people, people kill people... but Jared Loughner would have killed and injured a lot fewer people, maybe none, without his Glock 19.

So what do I learn from this? Restrict gun ownership. Restrict the resale of guns. Restrict the ownership of ammunition. Restrict the kinds of weapons that can be owned. Restrict where those firearms can go or be.

Martin Luther King jr.

2011-01-17T13:06:00.000-08:00

Martin Luther King jr. is one of my heroes. I have no allusions that he was a perfect man. He wasn't. I am sure that if times had been different, instead of being the leader he became, he would have just been an excellent pastor of a local church. But, times were what they were and he was thrust into the spotlight. Once there, he did not compromise his beliefs and did not hesitate to stand against the powers and principalities if the day. Were he still alive, I believe he would be doing the same thing today.

What strikes me is the way that he has been co-opted. Rarely when spoken of in public circles is it even acknowledged that he said and did what he said and did because of what he believed as a man of faith (and a Baptist at that). Remove his faith and you don't have MLK anymore. And then, we forget how radical his commitments were and still are. We can't and don't allow him to be the man he was and still be a national hero because if we did, he would call into question too much of what we have become as Americans.

Yesterday I saw this video put together by an anti-war group that is working against the Afghanistan War. The part that is most surprising though is the clip they share where a spokesperson from the Pentagon claims that if Martin were alive today he would be a supporter of the war in Afghanistan. That is the most ludicrous statement I have ever heard come from the mouth of a government official. Get just a little bit past the "I Have a Dream" sermon and you see that he was very much against, not only the Viet Nam war, but all of the implications of the military industrial complex. When you look at the resources being expended on that war, the Iraq war, and all of our military empire vs. the needs of the poor and marginalized at home, it is crystal clear where MLK would have stood and what he would be preaching today. Consider this quote from a sermon preached at Riverside Church in 1967 - "A true revolution of values will lay hand on the world order and say of war, "This way of settling differences is not just."...A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death."

Then I read in this morning's paper that a school board member and radio talk show host at a little station in Colorado named Brett Reese said that Martin Luther King jr. is an "America hating communist" among other things. I have not heard or read the rest of his commentary so I can't speak to the other content or make a comment about Mr. Reese. Still, I have to wonder whether he is the one who is looking at the real Dr. King, at least with regards to where his political stances would be today. Indeed, he would likely seem to be even more leftist now than he was in the 60's and that was exactly the kind of comment that was made about him then. King was a radical and still would be. His words, taken as a whole, would put him clearly at the opposite end of the political and social spectrum than the Tea Party, the Pentagon, or even the current administration. He would be against both wars. He would be for shutting down military bases all over the world and bringing our military home. He would be for single payer healthcare. He would be for putting more money and energy into our inner city schools. He would be for tearing down prisons and building rehab centers. He would continue to call out our nation for its racism. He would be for mercy and justice for undocumented workers. He would be for gun control. He would be for gay marriage. He would be against DADT. The list goes on.

Today is Martin Luther King Day. I invite you to remember the real man as you celebrate it and take seriously what he truly believed.

OK... one more

2011-01-12T11:25:00.000-08:00

The other day a friend of mine posted a quote from Penn Jillette on his Facebook wall - "F%*K Civility. The marketplace of ideas cannot be toned down for the insane."

I think it is an important statement and bears some scrutiny. First off, I don't think the discussions around recent political rhetoric are really about civility. Any single statement or image might be innocuous enough and reasonably interpreted as a metaphor... Palin's crosshairs may not be very different than the Democratic map with targets on it. Martial language is often used in political battles. You might even pass on "Don't retreat, reload" and argue that it is clearly metaphoric. Other statements are less easy to dismiss. Angle's "2nd amendment solutions" seems a pretty unambiguous statement that the use of guns at times of political disagreement is not only allowed but even encouraged. Joyce Kaufman's "if ballots don't work, bullets will" is even less ambiguous. Add those who continue to call the Obama administration illegitimate... When you place all of these kinds of statements together, it is very difficult to understand them as anything other than incitement to violence. If the Obama administration is illegitimate, then the ballots did not work so it is time for bullets. We have seen FBI and Secret Service reports that since the '08 election death threats against politicians, especially the president, have sky-rocketed. I do not believe this is a coincidence. So, I don't think it is about civility at all... let the pols and the talk show folk call somebody an idiot, make fun of them, disagree vehemently, whatever... they don't need to be civil, but calling for violence is something else altogether.

Now back to Jillette's comment because I think it is an important one for a variety of reasons. First off, it seems to acknowledge that the language did, does, or at least can incite people, albeit crazy ones, to violence. And then it argues that regardless of that, we must not allow political discourse to be defined by the crazies. I think he is correct on both counts. Here's the problem. We have people engaged in the discussion who are clueless. Many on the right just don't seem to get it. I have seen multiple arguments that calling for 2nd amendment solutions or proposing that bullets are the proper solution when the ballot box doesn't go your way are in any way related to violence. Having important discussions implies responsibility. Those who engage in public discourse have to weigh their words and understand what the possible results might be.

Again, the teaching from my CPE days is important... Chaplain Cholke never said "don't preach," he said, "be careful what you preach because someone may believe you." Those words ring true for political leaders as well... be careful what you say, someone will believe you and possibly will act upon those words.

doing the thing I don't want to do

2011-01-11T07:58:00.000-08:00

I began this blog as a place to write about topics slightly outside the scope of my normal public presentations - i.e. sermons. Certainly a sermon is a place where I raise the concerns that the culture is impressing on me and my hopes and dreams for the congregation in response to the witness of scripture... but... and it is a big but... sermons walk the fine line of speaking what I see and feel while respecting the views and experiences of the congregation. There are times when I must push this over the line, but I have to be careful there. For example, as I understand the words of Jesus, a Christian must be a pacifist. Members of my congregation have come to different conclusions than I have. So, I can preach about peace without requiring people to become total pacifists and allow them to struggle with what that means when their theology allows for war/violence under some circumstances. So, I envisioned the blog as a place where I could let loose without those constraints. I envisioned most of my topics as being theological or related to my therapy - music and guitars.

It feels as if I write most often about politics. I don't like that. I know that politics, as the way that groups of people make collective decisions, is by definition theological. How we live together says something about what we believe and what we believe says something about the ways we live together. So my understanding of God's yearnings for us is always reflected in my political acts and writings... and that is rarely material that makes it into my sermons because there is considerable diversity even in my little congregation with regards to any of these questions. So, I know where it is coming from... I write it here because I don't feel it is appropriate to say there... And it often comes across as more hard line than I really see myself.

So I'd like to write a bit about something less contentious... and this week I will. In two days I go to NAMM, the biggest trade show for the music industry. I go as a guest of Lowden Guitars, get to see George and some of the other folk from Lowden, connect with my friend Thomas Leeb, get to check out all of the newest doodads available for musicians to purchase, and see some of the bizarreness that is the LA commercial music scene. This year things will be a bit more serious for me as I'll be thinking about equipment etc. for use at the Cambridge Drive Concert Series but it will still be a fun couple of days. And I am soooo looking forward to not thinking about or writing about Sarah Palin, Sharon Angle, or any of the rest of that bunch. Instead, I'll get to think about things that are important to me - strings, pickups, guitar builders, microphones, etc. - but which make little difference in the grand scheme of things.

The Word and words

2011-01-09T18:26:00.001-08:00

As Americans we denigrate the power of words. We believe actions more than statements and often with good reason. When was the last time you trusted a politician to keep their promises? And if you have, will you do that again? Psychologists tell us that we believe body language more than words. We have sayings like, "sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me," as if there is no power in the words. In our culture it is not a surprise that someone can use violent images in rhetoric and be surprised when someone takes those words seriously. That assessment of words is inadequate. Words have power. And there is Biblical basis for that understanding.
The Christian scriptures tells us that "in the beginning was the Word... and the Word was God..." The Hebrew scriptures tell us that all that is comes into being when God speaks a word... And in the other creation narrative, the creatures take on their nature once the man speaks a word and names them. Before that, they are incomplete. The power of the word is more than metaphoric, it gives shape and substance to all that is. It is our language, our words that form the paradigm through and in which we experience and shape the world. If those words are full of hatred and violence and images that separate us from one another, that will be the world we create. If the words are words of respect and community, building up the other, then that will be the kind of world we create. What kind of world do we want? Choose your words carefully...

Palin's graphic & more

2011-01-08T20:53:00.000-08:00

here is the graphic that appeared on the website of Palin's PAC... targeting Representative Giffords with a gunsight...

I have to say that I am deeply offended by the statement released by Sarah Palin...

My sincere condolences are offered to the family of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and the other victims of today's tragic shooting in Arizona.

On behalf of Todd and my family, we all pray for the victims and their families, and for peace and justice.

- Sarah Palin

Given her rhetoric, how can she imagine that her condolences and prayers are enough.

And read these words from the sheriff of the county where the shooting took place as reported on the Huffington Post...

Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, speaking about Arizona:

"When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous. And, unfortunately, Arizona I think has become sort of the capital. We have become the Mecca for prejudice and bigotry.

"It's not unusual for all public officials to get threats constantly, myself included. And that's the sad thing of what's going on in America. Pretty soon, we're not going to be able to find reasonable, decent people who are willing to subject themselves to serve in public office."

He later added:

DUPNIK: Let me just say one thing, because people tend to poo-poo this business about all the vitriol that we hear inflaming the American public by people who make a living off of doing that. That may be free speech. But it's not without consequences.

REPORTER: How do you know that that's what caused it.

DUPNIK: You don't.

An Atmosphere of Hate and Violence

2011-01-08T11:54:00.001-08:00

This morning, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot at a political event in Tuscon, AZ. As I write, details are still sketchy but early reports are saying that 12 were shot and 6 killed. Reports are conflicting as to whether the congresswoman is alive or dead. Likewise, at this time, there is no solid evidence made public that the shooting was politically motivated... Still, it is difficult to suspect anything else.

Giffords was on Sarah Palin's "hit list." This is the same Sarah Palin who has said - "don't retreat, reload." How are we to understand those statements?

In '09 a gun was dropped at a Giffords event and her office was vandalized following the healthcare votes during the last session of congress. She voted for the healthcare reform act.

An anti-Giffords event was held in June with the billing: "Get on Target for Victory in November. Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly." She won a difficult race against a Tea Party candidate.

Go into any African American neighborhood and talk politics for a length of time and inevitably someone will tell you they fully expect a serious attempt to assassinate Obama at some point during his presidency. They feel the hatred in the air

We have heard rhetoric from numerous Tea Party and Republican party folk equating the current administration with terrorists, calling for the people to rise up and "take our country back" (as if someone from the outside has stolen it), and some have gone so far as to hint at or even directly call for armed insurrection. Did they mean these statements to be taken literally? Some probably not... some likely so... In either case, it should not be a surprise that someone has taken the calls literally and has followed up with gunfire, especially in a state like Arizona which still exhibits more than a little of the "law of the gun" old west mentality and has some of the most liberal gun laws in the country.

When I worked at Haverford State Mental Hospital, my supervisor told us,"be careful what you preach... someone will believe it." He was specifically talking about the hospital patients and referred to passages like the one in Matthew that advises you to pluck out your eye if it offends you...(Matthew 5:29). He warned us that if we preached that, we might very well come to the hospital the next day, only to find a patient missing an eye. When leaders called for the assassination of political opponents, they should not be surprised when someone takes them seriously.

Speaker Boehner and Palin have both released statements of condolences and prayers... that is not enough. They, and the rest of the leadership of both the Republican Party and the Tea Party must take responsibility for their part in building this atmosphere of hatred. If they, like Palin, have used this kind of langage, they must personally apologize to the family and to the American people. Whether they personally have used this kind of language or not, they must condemn those who use such irresponsible rhetoric and incite such an atmosphere of hatred and violence that nurtures these kind of acts. As to those who continue to use this rhetoric, and some will, Republican and Tea Party leaders must condemn them and distance themselves from them.

My prayers are with the families of the victims of this horrendous act of violence and with this nation where democracy is so fragile and there are people with positions of power and influence so willing to act irresponsibly.