Sex and the Church

I've been thinking about sex... in the church... and that we need much more of it.

Let me tell two stories and share a song to help explain.  About 15 years ago, we had taken a youth group from upstate New York to the New Jersey shore to help a church with their summer Bible school.  We took a day trip to Philly for fun and spent some time on south street.  We had given the kids some freedom - they were high school students - and walking down South Street, some of the adult chaperones found the kids... shopping in Condom Nation.  It wasn't a huge deal but there was some embarrassment and off we all went to get water ice.   Later as we were driving back to the shore through the New Jersey Pine Barrens at night something wonderful happened.  It was as dark as pitch and by the time you got to the back of the 15 passenger van, there was no light from the dashboard at all.  A teenage boy, feeling safe and a bit anonymous, asked a serious question, "What's the big deal about sex?"  It led to a wonderful conversation about sex that likely never would have happened under any other circumstances.

Jump forward to last week.  I came across a link to a blog called sexquestionsfromseventhgraders on tumblr.  (It looks as if it is gone now).  The blog was ostensibly written by a teacher who has an anonymous question box in their classroom and is just a selection of the questions put in the box.  Assuming it is real, and there is no reason not to, the questions are at once both shocking and easily imagined.  In a time when pornography is so easily accessible it is not a wonder that children see lots of it.  Many of the questions asked seem to come straight from typical porn themes.  "Do girls like getting semen on their faces?" "If you have anal sex are you still a virgin?"  And on they go.

It is shocking to go from the innocence of the question from a high school boy 15 years ago to the explicit questions from seventh graders today.  More shocking to me is that at least some of those seventh graders are learning about sex primarily from watching porn videos and expecting that because of what they've seen, they know about sexual expression and about what bodies are supposed to look like and how they work.

Sex ed in schools is fine for the mechanics of things but someone needs to be talking about values.  As often as not, parents are uncomfortable with talking in substantive ways about sex.  Conservative churches often have abstinence programs (good luck with that as all of the data shows) but seem to be just as reticent to talk about the real deal of sex.  Progressive churches often ignore the subject.   I think it is time that we bring sex into the church in a big way, being honest, and talking about the way God intended real people to enjoy one another.   Why not tell our kids that sex is fun?  That sex is about mutual pleasure?  That sex is about sharing and communication and giving?  That bodies don't look or work like the ones in porn videos?  That the kinds of treatment of women seen in those videos is not what God intended for our relationships or our sexuality?  That sex is wrapped in all kinds of meaning and is not the same as any other bodily function?  Why not talk about sex in all of its glory, pleasure, and the dysfunctional ways we relate sometimes?  If we don't, who will?  And if nobody does, then we're setting up an entire generation for frustration and failure in their relationships - relationships designed by God for mutuality, pleasure, and the humanizing experience of sharing the entire self with one's partner.

Here's another picture of an earlier time... as Richard Thompson sings about a teenage boy who learned all about sex from magazines and books and cannot understand why his girlfriend is not reacting correctly.

foster kids

Some years back we did foster care and had a number of children come through our home.  Each had their own stories but for the most part, they were not happy stories.  In many cases, they had experienced things that children should never experience.   Each of those children made a place in our hearts and all these years later I find myself thinking about them - wondering what happened and hoping and praying for their best. 

We had one little boy whose life had been pretty bad who really caught our hearts.  Through the years, I have felt that we failed him even though we did our best for him.  My imaginings of his future were rarely positive.  Then the other day, I got talking about him with a church member and came home and decided to try to hunt him down on the internet.  I think I found him on Facebook.  Its hard to tell as he was just a child then and is now a grown man plus there is almost no biographical info on his facebook page and is name isn't an uncommon one.  Still, I'm pretty sure it is him. 

Here's the wonderful part, he looks to have gotten things together and found a positive direction for his life against what were terrible odds.  I hope it is him.  And whether it is or is not, that little boy, now a man, is still in my heart and my prayers.

I've thought about contacting him to see... but I'm conflicted between whether a contact from his past would be comforting (to know we still think of him and pray for him) or troubling as it would surely bring painful memories to the surface.  So, for now, I'm not contacting but continuing to pray and dream.

Political speech

I vote religiously (in both ways - in every election and in ways that reflect my faith).   I think it is an important thing to do as a  civic responsibility and as a steward of the future. 

This coming election strikes me as being especially important.  While things have certainly been worse, the country feels as if it is sitting on the knife edge.  The two candidates, especially since Romney chose Paul Ryan as his VP, have radically different agendas and understandings of the direction we should go.  If a Romney/Ryan ticket won the election and if the Tea Party was able to get a few more votes in congress, we could see a radically different country than the one I love in a very short number of years.  Add the possibility of the next president getting to choose as many as three members of the Supreme Court and this becomes a very important election in which everyone should vote.

There are multiple streams in this election cycle that deeply sadden me. 

The political discourse has become polarized to the point that there is little real discussion of the substantive issues.  Clear facts are dismissed out of hand.  Political leaders on the Republican side have stated that their primary goal is not to do right by the people but to ensure that Obama does not win again.  I am struck by the quick name-calling against Obama - Socialist, Marxist, Terrorist, America Hater... which feels more intense to me than I have experienced before.  My gut says that the degree of animus can only be based in racism but that is another post.

Both sides are throwing around inaccurate statements, although it seems to me that the Republicans are a bit more loose with the truth.  Still, both sides have trafficked in inaccuracies and at times, down right lies.  I know politicians "stretch the truth," but again, it feels worse to me than I have experienced before.

The money being spent... could do sooooo much good elsewhere.  Think how many teachers could be hired with the money spent on each one of those attack ads.  The amount of money being spent by billionaires is just obscene.   That the SCOTUS equated that with free speech boggles the mind.

Now, this year I am doing something I have never done before - I am making a campaign contribution.  I can't give $1 million like Bill Maher did or even less like Sheldon Adelson who has pledged as much as $100 million to defeat Obama and reportedly has already given over $50 million.

I believe in freedom of speech and have no problem with Mr. Adelson supporting whatever candidate he likes.  Here's my question... why is his speech allowed to be so much "louder" than mine?  If we put this analogy back to its origins, we see how silly the situation has become.  Back in the day, free speech was just that.  I could get my soapbox and go out to the corner and speak.  I could shout... but only so loud.  The physicality of it enabled a real exchange.  The woman who disagreed with me could get her soapbox as well and we could have a lively debate or at least any audience could hear both sides of the issue.  This just isn't possible when Mr. Adelson is able to speak at a volume 1,000,000 times louder than me.    Limiting the amount he can give to a candidate does not limit his free speech, it only limits the volume and ensures that mine can still be heard.

A friend of mine was a part of a Black Muslim group back in the 70's that had a saying, "He who talks loudest gets over."  This year the SCOTUS has institutionalized that saying... and that is not a good thing for the state of political discourse or for our country.

Confessions of a Bible Thumper - review

We all have times in our lives that are critical to our formation... times that really are foundational to the people that we become, but are not good places to be stuck.  Being a teenager is a good thing, but only for 7 years.  Beyond that, it becomes problematic.  There is an old saying that everyone should live for a time in New York City, but not until they become too hard and everyone should live in Southern California, but not until they become too soft.  The implication is that both are good places to be from.  You can make your own list of developmental stages or experiences that played an important role in your formation.  In my list, I would add that evangelicalism is a good place to be from.


That is the story I was hoping to find in Confessions of a Bible Thumper by Michael Camp.  In part it was there as the story is his journey out of the evangelical church but he never really acknowledges any positive results from his time in evangelicalism.  He obviously has faith now, a faith that was birthed in an evangelical church.  He has a deep respect for the Bible, again birthed in an evangelical tradition even if he does understand the Bible in a very different way now.  Clearly, much of his experience with evangelicalism was toxic, but it still was an important place for him to begin.

Camp's book takes place in a brew pub as he and a small group of evangelical friends discuss his fictional manuscript and his journey from evangelicalism.  They go through a number of issues which he sees as important to the evangelical community and shows where they got the Bible wrong.  The issues include inerrancy of the Bible, freedom, the shape of the church, sexuality, eschatology, sexuality, and creationism vs. evolution.  As someone who lives outside of the evangelical community, none of his arguments were new to me (with the exception of his discussion of punctuated equilibrium in the chapter having to do with evolution) and the issues are not ones that particularly catch my imagination.  Still I can see that for many in the evangelical community, his arguments would be completely new ideas and may encourage new considerations or defensiveness. 

There are three themes which run through the book that I found really disconcerting.  Again and again he speaks of the church and includes only the evangelical tradition in that word.  He does throw a glance at other protestant traditions as when he answers the question of why he did not attend a more liberal church when he found himself in theological disagreement with the evangelical churches he was attending but a glance is all mainline or liberal protestantism gets.  He doesn't even mention Orthodox and Catholic traditions.  All the while, he rails against the legalism of the church.  He certainly could find the failings of any of those traditions, but they would not be the same as the ones he lived in evangelicalism.  By completely dismissing those other traditions, I think he also shuts them off as possible landing places for his future audience.

The second theme is related to the first.  He dismisses the institutional church as being a construct of the Roman empire which he says has no basis in scripture.  Rather than argue the point, let me just say that I think he neglects his own commitment to follow the truth wherever it leads and instead allows his own distaste for the evangelical church as he experienced it to color his conclusions.  He endorses the house church movement as some sort of return to the Biblical model for Christians and ignores the fact that having a house church still requires some sort of structure and so is an institution.  Someone has to pick the time for the meetings, get them started, and ride heard over the agenda. 

Finally,  he rails against spiritual practices such as tithing, praying, attending church as legalistic commands not based in scripture.  While that may be true that none of them are commandments which followers of Jesus are obligated to observe, it neglects the truth that spiritual practices are important for formation and ritual helps to shape us in important ways.  Those practices may not be helpful in his spiritual life but for others they can be extremely important, not as commandments but as disciplines that give shape to a life of faithfulness.  I would guess that he wouldn't disagree with what I said, but his tone seems to reflect an authoritarianism that feels a bit too much like the evangelicalism he is escaping.

All in all, I hope Confessions from a Bible Thumper is just the first volume of Camp's story.   I hope to read a bit more generosity to those of us who choose to stay in the institutional church and find there, in the midst of all of its failings, a significant opportunity to be the body of Christ in this time and place.  In the meantime, I think this volume could be a good read for folk struggling to find a new way to read the Bible and understand their own faith.

I'm slow

No smart comments...

I mean that I'm slow at putting down roots.  Santa Barbara is very similar to Hawaii in many ways.  The temperatures run a little cooler in Santa Barbara, but much of the flora is the same with many of the same flowers blooming in both places, the pace of life is similar, and the relationship to the ocean is similar.  That adds up to some pieces of life that surprised me when we came here. 

At graduation, many of the graduates wear orchid leis.  At that time of year, they have them in most grocery stores and Costco has a huge refrigerated display of them.  When our daughter graduated from Juniata College in Pennsylvania, we brought a lei for her and many people asked whether she was from Hawaii.   She was pleased to confuse them with "no, I'm from Santa Barbara, we wear leis too." 

Clothing in both places is very casual and very colorful.  For men, that means you see lots of Hawaiian shirts with bright colored flowers.  Yes, you do see them all over southern California, but it seems more prevalent here to me.  I remember joking about getting a Hawaiian shirt after we first moved here.  Cheryl laughed.  She knew my northeast sensibilities only wore black until they would come up with something darker.  No bright colors. Period. 

playing bass in the song circle following Andrew's service 

About two years ago (8 years into our life on the Golden Coast - reference to Katy Perry's "California Girls") I began to talk about getting a Hawaiian shirt more seriously and would pick them up and look at them in some of the clothing stores or at the local Costco.  I would look at them, knowing that wearing one would make me an official resident... but unsure about me wearing flowers. 

This past week... I bought one.   It isn't as bright as many but is is covered with hibiscus flowers, a flowers endemic to both Hawaii and Santa Barbara.  On Saturday we had a celebration of life service for my friend Andrew Jackson, a marvelous guitar player and friend who died after a courageous battle with cancer.  (do click on his name and listen to some of his wonderful music).  One of the instructions for the service was to wear Hawaiian dress.  It was a fitting tribute,  a gathering of colors, wonderful music, tears and laughter, a reminder of the importance of maintaining our circle of friends (a favorite image of Andrew's).  I wore my Hawaiian shirt and Andrew showed me that I really do belong here.

The other piece of putting down roots is that I do put down roots.  Once a place is home, it really does become my home.  Don't be surprised if I buy a few more Hawaiian shirts.

Gun violence

I don't have any issue with people having guns for hunting, target shooting, or even collecting (under certain circumstances).   I do believe that the NRA interpretations of the 2nd Amendment is completely off base and out of touch with the current reality.

The tag line "guns don't kill people, people kill people," is again proven incomplete as an apparently lone gunman entered a theater in Aurora, CO and shot and killed 14 people (as of my writing) and as many as 50 were wounded.  Yes, it was the violence of an individual man, but it would not have been possible without the three guns he was carrying.

We need sensible gun control NOW.  Go to the Brady Campaign to see how you can help change the current situation which enables so much needless violence.

By What Authority?

I subscribe to Richard Rohr's daily e-mail meditations from the Center for Action and Contemplation.  Rohr is a Franciscan priest who writes about the intersection of spirituality and culture.  I deeply appreciate his insights.  Recently he inspired me when he began a series answering the following questions “By what authority do you say the things you do, Richard? How do we know these are not just your ideas? Why should we believe you?”  Another way of framing the questions might be to ask, why do you believe the things you do?  or What are the foundations of your faith?

I thought it might be interesting to think about those questions and blog a bit.  So I'll be blogging about a few of my sources of authority in no particular order.

First - the Bible.  There are scores of more conservative Christians who would shake their heads at me saying that.  They would argue that I don't really believe the Bible.  Depending on what you mean by that, they may be correct.  I do not believe the Bible the way they do.  I do not take the Bible literally.  Indeed, there are things in the Bible that I do not believe are God's word to us and there are things I just do not believe.  I would go so far as to say that in order to really believe the Bible, one cannot take it literally.

So what do I find in the Bible if  "plenary verbal inspiration" is not a descriptor I would ever use?  (Plenary verbal inspiration is the idea that the very words of the Bible are individually chosen by God.  Many who hold that view would say that it only applies to the original autographs or documents written by the Biblical writers.  Others apply the idea even to some translations, usually the KJV.) 

I do not expect the Bible to be without contradictions nor do I expect it to be a book of history in the modern sense or of science.  I believe that taking the Bible seriously requires one to recognize that it is comprised of metaphor, parable, myth, poetry, and is the stories of fallible human beings trying to make sense out of their experiences of the Holy... and sometimes misinterpreting it entirely.  I am inspired by my ancestors in faith who struggled with the presence of the Divine One.  I am challenged and humbled by their courage and strength and I am warned by their weakness and cowardice. 

Theirs are not the only stories.  There are similar struggles in every culture in the world.  They are the stories that are central to my culture and my faith so I stand in them, wrestle with them, and hopefully learn from them and become a better follower of Jesus because I take them seriously.

The Problem with the Insurance Argument

After the Supreme Court ruling, the question of health insurance has come back to the front with Democrats celebrating and Republicans vowing to repeal.   Democrats should not be celebrating and while the Republicans might be able to repeal the Affordable Care Act but they have no solution worth real discussion.

First off, the free market does not and can not work with regards to health care.  The consumer has no power to influence the market at all.  You can't shop for the lowest cost when you've just had a heart attack.  Add that there is often only one hospital nearby and the physician on duty is the physician on duty.  Most of us also have no control over what, if any, insurance is available to us and even less over what is covered by that policy.  Employers may shop for the lowest price on insurance but it is very seldom that they do so while comparing two identical products and the dissimilarities may not be obvious until the product is used and the patient discovers that a specific lab or physician is not covered by their insurance.  And the coverage is constantly changing so a physician covered one year may not be the next year.  Which services and providers are covered by a given policy rarely if ever have anything to do with quality of care.  Market forces simply do not work when it comes to health care so if we rely on them to control costs or quality, we will only see failure.

Second, there are some things that should not be sold for profit.  Health care is one.  In a for profit business, the business always has a primary responsibility to make money for the stock holders.  There is a legal responsibility to do that regardless of whether they are producing widgets, automobiles, or providing health insurance.  The first responsibility is not to the client, it is to the stock holder.  Obviously, in the free market, a better product is more likely to produce higher profits for the stock holder, but the primary job of any for profit company is not to produce widgets, automobiles, or sell health insurance... it is to make money for stock holders.  For health insurance companies, that means denying coverage.  If they can deny a procedure, they have made more money.  It is no surprise then that for profit insurance companies have employees whose job is to find ways to deny coverage to the patients and they get bonuses when they do so.  At least a panel of government agents making decisions around coverage would have the well being of the larger population as their primary concern. 

The bottom line is that the current system, even under Obamacare, cannot solve the problems we face and will remain the most expensive health care delivery system in the world while at the same time being far down the list in terms of almost all of the significant metrics for outcomes.  The good news is that there are models around the world that actually work.  All we need do is swallow our pride and embrace a model that delivers health care to all of our citizens at a more reasonable price.

Affordable Care Act

Today the SCOTUS ruled that Obamacare is constitutional.  I am not a lawyer and don't claim to understand whether or not it is a good ruling.  My gut says "yes," but that is an opinion without any real basis so take it with that degree of impact.

Whether or not the law is constitutional has nothing to do with whether or not it is a good law and there are those on the right and the left who are arguing that it is not a good law.  Those on the right say that the law interferes with the movement of the free market and impacts the freedom of individuals.  Those on the left argue that health insurance is too important to be subject to the whims of the free market and should never be a for-profit business and that this law will make the movement towards establishing a non-profit, single payer system more difficult to accomplish. 

I hoped for at least the option of a single payer system all along and in the best of all worlds, that is what Obamacare would have been.  I'm not sure how this law will impact that possibility.  There are those who argue that the constraints on the private insurance companies included in this law will drive them out of the health insurance business and push us towards single payer.  Others argue that this law just entrenches the for profit health insurance companies which will keep us from moving towards single payer.  Time will tell.

The Republicans will vote to repeal this law although, it isn't clear that they would do this if they really had the power to make it happen.  Being seen as responsible for removing the popular provisions of this law is not likely something they really would want and keeping the popular provisions without the individual mandate is not something the insurance companies are likely to be happy about...

Interesting times.

tired of politics

Yep... I'm tired of politics.

First the reasons why I keep making political tweets, facebook entries, and blog posts...

I think politics are important.  Our politics do shape the way we live together as a nation and the way we interact with the rest of the world.  That has profound implications for me as a person of faith.  If I really claim to follow Jesus, then my faith must express itself in political ways.

I think the next election is particularly important as there may be a member or two of the Supreme Court who are replaced and the make up of the court has a huge impact on the direction of the country.  Another far right justice could really change things.  (I know that Supreme Court justices have tended to surprise people in the past as they have taken their roles very seriously but there have been some recent appointments that seem to not get it and are simply partisan hacks.)   On top of that we are facing some significant issues that require choices to be made based on values and the platforms of the two primary parties do represent different value sets.

Obama has not thrilled me but I don't know that anyone could have done a better job given the current political climate.  And I am convinced that much of the reaction against Obama is racist in nature.  Yes, I know that previous presidents have also been the brunt of jokes, animosity, and disrespect, but it feels worse at this point and the only reason I can see is his race.  That must be resisted.

And the reasons that I am tired...

The attacks on Obama really do seem over the top and at times have an overt racial side to them.

I don't sense that either party, but especially the Republicans, have a commitment to making things better so much as they have a commitment to winning... or worse than that, for the Republicans, a commitment to ensuring that the Dems lose.  Indeed, Mitch McConnell has said as much.

Yes politicians lie... and politicians engage in hyperbole... and politicians make promises that they either can't keep or flat out don't intend to keep...  but again it seems worse to me as, and again I see it more from the Republicans, they flat out lie as a way of getting power. 

I am disenchanted by the role big money can play and has already played since Citizens United.  (see the Wisconsin recall as a clear example of that).

And finally, I am saddened by the degree to which partisan politics have fragmented our nation.  I happen to think that a diversity of viewpoints and even disagreements are productive when we have a common commitment to the common good and work/struggle/wrestle together to that end.  More and more it feels that the differences do not help us to find creative solutions or even compromises,  instead they drive us apart.

So, I'm trying to write/blog/tweet/post less about politics... we'll see how that goes.

Good Grammar, Proper Word Choice

I'm usually pretty good with my English.  My grammar is usually spot on... and I'm generally careful with getting the right word in the right place.   It is, after all, a significant part of my job.  Sometimes though, I do fall down... and I have a good friend who enjoys finding such gaffes and sent me a note the other day with a few examples from previous blog entries.  Thanks Tom ;-)

In one, I quoted the phrase from the United Church of Christ, "Don't place a period where God places a comma,"  except I misspelled comma - I wrote "Don't place a period where God places a coma."  And I did it more than once so it wasn't a simple typo.   Tom enjoyed wondering what it looked like when God put people into a prolonged unconscious state.  In another blog I said something like "illicit a response," but of course meant, "elicit a response" although an illicit response might have been entertaining.

So I've been thinking about the wrong words/poor grammar issues that make me cringe... here are a few...

Irregardless - no such word.  It is a conflation of regardless and irrespective.

There, Their, They're.  Three very different words even though they all sound the same.  Use the right one in the right place.  There = a place.  Their =  a possessive, belonging to them.  They're = a contraction of "they are."  Every time I see the wrong one in the wrong place, I can hear my 8th grade English teacher exploding.

The wrong prepositions... don't you just hate it when people confuse the usages of him/he, her/she, me/I ?

What grammar/word choices issues get under your craw?  Can you list some more?  Or write a sentence using a bunch of the ones that make you cringe?

stereotypes & smiles

Stereotypes... they're everywhere.  Sometimes they're helpful, usually they have at least a little basis in fact or history, occasionally they're a bit funny.

Last night we had supper in a little Italian restaurant and the wait staff were wearing t-shirts with the following text on the back...

Heaven is where
The police are British
The cooks are Italians
The lovers are French
The mechanics are Germans
and it is all organized by the Swiss


Hell is where
The cooks are British
The mechanics are French
The lovers are Swiss
The police are Germans
and it is all organized by the Italians.

I have to say is made me smile even though we ate some amazing meals in England and I'm sure each of the other stereotypes clearly fall down in many individual cases... but as general observation, it may ring true... and I did laugh as I ate my chicken parm and drank a bottle of Tuscan wine.

Healthy Systems and the Downfall of the Church

This morning I was reading a commentary by William Willemon on the recent United Methodist Convention.  There was one concept that really caught my imagination...

My organizational guru Ron Heifetz speaks of the “myth of the broken system.”  Heifetz argues that all systems are “healthy” in that systems produce what those who profit from the system desire.

It makes a lot of sense to me... and to the degree Heifetz is correct,  it really calls into question the future of the Church.

The first important observation is that Heifetz is not saying that all systems have healthy goals.  Indeed, they may be fooling themselves about their goals.  In my 34 years as a pastor and three moves plus a few other times when I've considered moving, I have interviewed with many churches representing a variety of different settings all across the country.  I dare say that every single one of them has said that they wanted to grow.  Almost all of them had a statement regarding growth in their descriptor of hat they were searching for in their next pastor.  I don't doubt they actually believed that they wanted to grow.  When faced with the changes that were required in order to grow, almost all of them declined.  They were committed to maintaining the status quo, not to moving forward.  Those few who actually took steps to change often did so with considerable conflict.  The reality was that the vast majority of folk who were there, were there because their needs were already being met.  They didn't really want change and if that was what growth required... never mind.

When I look around, I don't see a lot of hope... (sorry, it could just be that I'm feeling particularly cynical today).  I live in an area of the world where there are lots of megachurches very willing to change style at the drop of a hat to bring in new people.  The problem is that in large degree, I think the UCC folk are correct when they observe the conservative wing of the Church has put a period where God has put a comma.  And they often fight against what seems to me (although obviously not to them) the clear movement of God.  On the other end of the spectrum - very rare in my part of the world - I see more progressive churches who clearly see a comma when it comes to justice issues and theological questions... but when it comes to style, they have a period that was drawn no later than 1950.  In either case, there are large proportions of the population left out... they yearn for a theological openness (which I believe is a yearning of the Spirit) of the more progressive church but chafe at a stilted style... or the resonate with a freer style in the megachurches but cannot abide by what they experience as a simplistic and irrelevant theology.

In either case, there are populations in the Church whose own needs are being met by the status quo... and who see very little need to struggle with the implications of real change.

Romney & Religion

LDS Temple in Salt Lake City

There was an interesting development this week in the presidential race.  A Romney supporting super-PAC planned a $10 million anti-Obama ad campaign centered on the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.  Presumably, the ads would have focused on the kinds of themes that often come up in Black Liberation Theology and the fears, anxieties, and misunderstandings that theology might ellicit among many white folk.  Mitt Romney squashed the campaign.

The cynic in me says that the reason for this was not because he felt the ads were out of line, but because he was worried that if religious questions come to the forefront of this campaign, his own Mormon faith would be under the magnifying glass.  There are lots of evangelical Christians who already have problems with a Mormon president, to add more doubts to that piece of the picture would, I believe, be very damaging to Romney.  He needs the Christian Right and underscoring Mormon doctrines, history, and even his own family story of faith would not be helpful with that constituency or with more secular folk.

I think that Mormonism should come under the magnifying glass, especially with regards to Romney's commitment to his faith and the way that would play out in social policy, ethics, and in who Mitt Romney is...  Likewise, I think it is not a bad thing for people to wrestle with the ideas of Black Liberation Theology and the role that tradition plays in Obama's formation and ethics.  I do see at least some of that tradition playing out in Obama and it makes sense to me to understand that when I make a decision about whether to vote for him.

I have no idea how serious Mitt Romney is about his Mormon faith at this point in his life.  I do know that he did his missionary work and that he continues to give substantial amounts of money to his church.  I also don't know a lot about Mormonism.  I do have impressions about the way that religion sees its relationship to the government and that makes me a little nervous.  From the little I think I know, I'd be very nervous about a seriously committed Mormon as POTUS.  I'd like to hear more about Romney's relationship to the teachings of his church and to see more of those teachings made public.

On the other hand, I know a good bit about the various strains of Liberation Theology and feel quite comfortable with the way that theology would and does interact with politics.  Indeed, I wish that Obama had shown deeper roots in that tradition and stronger commitments to it during his first term. 

I'm not arguing that a Mormon or a Wiccan or a Presbyterian or an Atheist or whatever cannot be POTUS.  I am arguing that a candidate's faith or lack thereof are a part of the package that must be considered when we go into the ballot box.  I'd like to know more regarding Romney and his Mormon faith.

A Big Lie

Our economy requires unemployment.  It requires that there be poor folk without jobs to keep the costs down for low skilled jobs.  If you sat any Republican down and asked whether they really want 0% unemployment, if they were being honest, they'd say, "Absolutely not.  If we had 0% unemployment who would work at McDonalds or Walmart?  What would happen to prices?  What would happen if some sector decided to go on strike and there was nobody available to replace them?  We need people without jobs who are looking for work to drive wages down."    For that reason, I find comments like the one in the video below to be particularly offensive.  Even if it was true, it would be impossible... get real, where would we put all of the golf courses?   The reality is that Romney does not want you or me to get rich and he certainly doesn't want everyone to get rich. 

just what you needed

is another sermon to enjoy on the web!

no seriously, I've begun to put some sermons up on the web for your listening pleasure... or comments...

you can find them at www.roydonkin.podbean.com

I've also added a little media player in the lower part of the right column that should update with each new post.

There are four available now and I'll add more as I feel moved.  The four that are there are all within the last two or so months so it isn't a "best of" series, but I am particularly happy with each of them.  The most recent one - Radical Inclusion - was from this morning and is done in a first person style, a style I find particularly effective when not used too much.

Here's to Singer/Songwriters

I get to rub shoulders with lot of great singer/songwriters at the Cambridge Drive Concert Series.  They amaze me.  I've never been a good songwriter.  It requires skills that I just don't have.  Think of it for a second...  a good songwriter has to be able to write a memorable melody, surround it with chords that make sense and aren't too predictable, and has to be able to condense human experience into three or four verses with a chorus and bridge that fit rhythmically and likely have some sort of rhyme scheme.  Then, they have to be able to play and sing all of that in front of an audience.  More often than not, they do their own booking, web site management, and maintain their relationships with their fans.  And they have to have at least a passing knowledge of how to use the gear they need and what gear is available to do whatever they need.  It is just a very broad and diverse set of skills that not any people have.

I'm a reasonably good guitar player with a good ear, a good sense of melody, a good sense of how an acoustic guitar (vs. an electric guitar or some other instrument) works in a song, and reasonable knowledge of theory (both in my head and in my hands)...  I'm not good at writing lyrics.  I'm much too prosaic.  And I'm not particularly good at performing by myself.  I forget lyrics.  When I'm singing, I tend to get nervous about the whole package and it impacts my guitar playing in a not good way.   Then there are the other non-musical pieces... some I'm quite good at and others not so.    I marvel at the singer/songwriters who do all of that while making incredible music.

So, here's to the singer/songwriters who do all of that AND make our lives richer with songs that touch our hearts and delight our ears!

4 versions of Somebody...

It's been a while since I've posted a music video... so here are four versions of the same song, - Somebody that I Used to Know.  I like the song

first the original by Goyte...



a second fun version by Walk Off the Earth (The Key of Awesome does a fun parody of this...)



and more a serious version by Pentatonix



and finally, a fairly straight cover by Ingrid Michaelson



So which one do you like best?

Oh Wow!

My wife is a chaplain/spiritual counselor for Visiting Nurse and Hospice Care of Santa Barbara in the hospice division.   VNHCSBdoes amazing work and has scores of wonderful people on staff who support and care during one of the most intimate and difficult times of their lives.  This past Sunday was the annual service of remembrance when family members and some of the staff gather to remember those who have passed in the previous year.  Each year it is a moving time as photos are projected and names read...

The speaker this year got me thinking.  He shared a quote which he attributed to Rumi.  Since then, I've googled it and found it also referenced as a Tibetan Buddhist saying.  It could be either or neither, but it still inspired this blog post.  "When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. When you die, you rejoice, and the world cries."  It made me think of what are reported as the final words of Steve Jobs, "Oh wow!  Oh wow!  Oh wow!"

Frankly, I don't think about an afterlife very often.  I don't think the issue is all that important.  I'm not entirely sure what I even believe about one (although I am pretty sure what I don't believe.).  What I do believe is that the grace and love of God is all powerful and undeniable.  Whatever it looks like after we die, it is shaped by the grace and love of God... a grace,  a love so far beyond our understanding that all one could possibly do when confronting it without a veil between us and it is rejoice and exclaim, "oh wow!"

putting myself out there

About 20 years ago I regularly played out as a solo act.  I played at restaurants, coffeehouses, open mics... all as a solo performer.  I had a long list of cover tunes that I knew and a few originals.  I gigged three or four times in an average month.  Then something happened.  Alexis was growing up and showed the promise of being an excellent performer.  We learned a couple of songs together and I took her to a little vegetarian restaurant called Mother Earth to perform with me.  She was in 9th grade.  She sang on about half of the songs and we had a great time.  She was glowing by the end of the evening.  When I gave her half of the tip jar, she looked at me in sheer amazement... "You mean we get paid for this!?!?!?"  I laughed and smiled at her naivete.  She was bitten.

She began to come with me on every gig and before long she was singing the entire night.  A 9th grade class project came up where each student was supposed to pick a profession and do a report.  Alexis chose singer/songwriter and shadowed a friend of mine - Amy Abdou - as she wrote and recorded material.  Alexis and I wrote a couple of tunes together (including Call Down Thunder in the player on the right - the melody and the lyrics were hers) and performed them for her 9th grade class.  We were officially a duo - originally called "d"  and we began performing around the folk circuit in upstate NY and into Massachusetts.  As Alexis became more comfortable on the stage, she took over.  She was clearly the focus and we began to perform as Alexis d.  I sang lead on two or three songs, but she clearly had become the star.  We performed together and wrote material all through her high school years and shared the stage with some great acoustic acts including Patty Larkin, The Nields, and Tony Trischka.  I had transformed from a solo performer to a back up musician.

It was fine with me.  It gave me the chance to stretch out a bit on my guitar parts plus she was a great performer with a wonderful ear for unusual melodies.  It made for music that I felt very good about.  And if something went wrong, there was someone else on stage to help fix things (or to blame).

When we moved to Cali, Alexis came along and we continued to perform for the first year around Santa Barbara and into the LA area a few times.  Then, she went back east to finish her school and Alexis d essentially bit the dust.  She moved on as she should have.

I took a position playing electric guitar in a funk band for a while but discovered I'm too old to be playing bars anymore... then took on the role of acoustic guitar player for a singer/songwriter named Jamie Green.  Together with an amazing drummer/percussionist named Bob Terry, we were a trio.  Jamie is also a great performer and wonderful songwriter, but I was not part of the songwriting.  I was charged with playing guitar parts from her recordings (which weren't always what I would have chosen to play so sometimes I played pretty closely to the recording and other times I made them my own) or coming up with something that worked in the stripped down acoustic trio setting when her recordings were full productions.  I was even more of a sideman during those years but it still felt like a good fit to me.  Last summer, Jamie decided to go in a different direction and with very little notice, I was suddenly no longer a sideman.

I looked for a while to try to find another singer to back up but in spite of running into some great singer/songwriters, none seemed to fit very well for a variety of reasons.

So now I'm struggling with trying to become a solo act again.  I got used to playing some complicated and difficult parts and wrote some music with Alexis that I'm still proud of... but for the life of me, I'm having a difficult time playing those parts and singing her unusual melodies.  But I'm putting myself out there.  This week I did a songwriters circle, played at Songwriters at Play, and met and played for and with a wonderful musician named Randall Williams.  Frankly, in each setting I screwed up some of the vocals and played my share of clams on the guitar while trying to sing.  Still it was fun and terrifying and I'm inspired to do more and to try to write some new tunes all by myself.  I'm excited about putting myself out there!

Ragamuffin

It's been a while since I've posted a music video...

This is Jason Kessler playing a song written by Michael Hedges  called Ragamuffin which appeared on Hedges' 1984  ground breaking CD, Aerial Boundaries.  Kessler is playing a  Lowden F size 12 string guitar built of Honduran Rosewood and Adirondack spruce and is accompanied by percussionist Josh Dekaney and dancer Pallavi Gupta.  just beautiful...

Why the Hate?

I have to admit that I've been more than a little puzzled by the political discourse regarding Obama.  Yes, I know political discourse is always marked by exaggeration and hyperbole, but the stuff around Obama has just seemed over the top.  There still are accusations that he is not an American, born in the USA.  There are still prominent folk who claim he is really a Muslim.  There is the constant buzz that he is a Socialist.  Others say that he is the biggest threat to US security in the history of the nation.   Simply put, none of the above is remotely true.  Love him or not, he was born in Hawaii, is not a Muslim, is not a Socialist by any reasonable definition, and is clearly not the greatest threat to US security ever.

Many, especially in the African American community, have blamed the over the top hatred on race.  Many on the right protest that they are not racist and his race has nothing to do with their disdain of Obama.  Now, I know many folk far right of center who would never vote for Obama who are not racist and for whom race does not have any relevance.  Still, I cannot help but think that the depth of invective against him is out of proportion to his policies.  Indeed, most of his policies are literally continuations of those begun under the Bush administration.  If that isn't about race, then what in the world is it?

And then today I saw a photo of a bumper sticker... it had the Obama logo with a circle and a line through it with the tag line - "Don't Re-Nig 2012."  At first I wondered whether it was something made up by an Obama supporter to inflame the base so I googled it.  I found a vendor selling the stickers along with other far right slogans.  If that's not about race, then I have no idea what is.

Government Power vs. Religious Beliefs

Anyone who has read my blog knows that I am a staunch supporter of the separation of church and state.  I believe the wall should be so high for government intrusion into issues of faith as to be almost impossible to even see over.  I believe Native American religions that use peyote in a sacramental way should be allowed.  Ditto for Rastafarians (I have to admit I know next to zilch about Rastafarianism so I could be off base here) with regards to marijuana.  I get really uncomfortable even at government interference that requires a Christian Science family to provide medical care for their children.  That is how I feel about these issues.  That is not the way things work.

Today I read an article in The American Thinker by Tom Trinko in which he attacks liberals like Sandra Fluke for wanting the government to intrude on religious beliefs.    Here's an important quote from the article...

What greater crime can one commit against a person than using the force of government to coerce him to become an apostate to the faith he believes in?

Now, I'm not going to argue the issue at hand, even though I believe the Obama administration's solution was perfect and that the real issue for most conservatives has nothing at all to do with using the power of government to offend religious believers.  At it's core, I agree with the statement and would bet that I believe it a lot more strongly than Tom Trinko, although I can't be sure of that.  Here's why the argument doesn't work.  The government does that all of the time and these folk raise no concerns.  The government prohibitions against Native American use of peyote and Rastafarian use of marijuana are simple examples.  

 

Let me give two personal examples.  I am a pacifist.  I believe that the history of Christianity, the scriptures, and the person of Jesus allow for no other interpretation.  Still, I am required to pay taxes that go to supporting military interventions all over the world.  Indeed, we spend more on the military than basically everyone else combined and depending on how one reads the numbers, as much as 50% of our federal budget is related to "defense."  I am not given a religious option to abstain.  Now, you might say that the difference is personal beliefs vs. institutional beliefs.  The entire Roman Catholic Church stands against contraception.  That argument doesn't fly, though, as there are a number of denominations in the Anabaptist movement, known as "historic Peace Churches" that are officially pacifist.  The force of government is used to coerce us to be apostate to the faith we believe in.  A second example - I do not believe as a follower of Jesus that there ever is a time when capital punishment is appropriate.  Ditto again for the historic Peace Churches.  And again, I/we cannot opt out of paying for such barbarity and are so forced to act in denial of our expressed beliefs.

I would agree that there are times when the government can stop certain religious practices.  I don't care what you believe, the government has the power to curtail human sacrifice.  Bottom line though, that is not what this issue is about.  It has nothing to do with freedom of religion and everything about culture wars and the oppression of women.  And then, there is the fact that Sandra Fluke was speaking on behalf of a lesbian friend with no worry about pregnancy but who uses birth control pills as a means of halting the growth of ovarian cysts... but why confuse a good argument with facts.

Do You Hear What I Hear?

Guitar players are notorious for hearing with their eyes... a cool looking guitar always sounds better.  For electric guitar players, they see some guitars or amps and hear them as "BIG!"  Of course the epitome of this effect took place when a band's stage set up included a wall of huge speaker cabinets... except they were all empty and just for show.  For acoustic players, lighter colored woods like maple for the backs and sides are heard as being thin and bright while darker colored woods like most rosewoods are heard as richer and deeper.  That is why you see very few high end acoustic guitars with backs and sides of light colored woods and some companies traditionally dye medium colored woods like mahogany to make them darker (CF Martin is an example).  For both groups of players, the shapes of the guitar also impacts what we hear.  Now there clearly are differences between different kinds of woods and different shapes of instruments... but they are not always consistent with the assumptions.

It turns out there is a scientific background for this called the McGurk Effect.  Watch this fascinating video...



Cool huh?  I think that roughly the same thing is going on for the guitar players.  Now, here's the question... does this work in theology?  Politics?  other social settings?  And does it extend beyond just sight and hearing playing against each other?  I think so.  When I was doing my doctorate, we had a couple of faculty with southern accents.  One of them joked that the right kind of southern accent always increased respect.  The wrong kind, got you written off immediately.  How many times I've heard a newscaster here in sunny Cali with Valley Girl inflections and written her off as a ditz...  And it goes further still, when certain vocabulary is used I place the speaker in categories that impact what I hear.  Start talking to me about seeing angels or getting people saved or the Cosmic All and I easily slide you into a slot defined by preconceptions which color what I hear and do not hear. 

The good news is that I can be aware of it and work to really listen to whatever it is you're saying, trying to understand your language without my baggage getting in the way.  The bad news is that like the McGurk Effect, I may not always be successful.  I'm trying though.

Political Life and Faith

First, let me begin with two disclaimers.  1. I fully believe there are politicians who are men and women of sincere and authentic faith.  2. I have no ability to judge the faith of another beyond what I see and whether their words and actions are consistent with their professed faith.  Even that is shaky.

Back in the '80's we lived in Philadelphia and there was a pastor of one of the larger African American Churches who was elected to the House.  He was charismatic.  He was bright.  e was a good "politician" in that he knew how to work with a variety of people to get things done.  He was easily vetted.  Everyone expected he would go far, perhaps even to become the first Black president.  Then one day he resigned.  He said that it was not possible to be a politician and to retain his integrity.  He chose his integrity and he resigned.

Again, I don't doubt that there are some people of faith who retain their integrity in the political process, but it clearly is not an easy task.  The temptations of power are always present.  Doing things the easy way is just easier.  Compromises of character are not the same as political compromises but it is easy to confuse the two.  As I've been watching Rick Santorum, who presents himself as a man of faith and is often touted as such by the Christian Right, I'm struck that his behavior is not very "Christian."  Often, he says things in his campaign speeches that are clearly not true.  Yes, that is what politicians do... but it is not what Christians do, at least not real ones.  By playing that faith card so prominently, he opens himself to that criticism and calls into question his integrity as a Christian and as a human being.

I'm struck too that the reverse is equally true... when people of faith become overly involved in partisan politics, they too risk losing their integrity.  Earlier this week, Franklin Graham was on the television show, Morning Joe, and was asked about the faith of the president.  He wouldn't go so far as to deny Obama's Christianity but at the very least he waffled, saying that he couldn't judge the veracity of another's faith.  And he clearly does not like Obama's politics.  When asked about Santorum, he was sure that he is a Christian.  He volunteered the same knowledge regarding Gingrich.  When the host stated that Graham was revealing an amazing double standard, Graham responded that Obama seems to be more concerned about the Muslims of the world than the "Christians murdered in the Muslim world."   Here's a link to the interview.  And here's a response to Graham from Zachary Bailes, an M. Div. student at Wake Forest, on the Associated Baptist Press.  I don't follow Graham and so don't know whether he still had any integrity in this area, but if he did, he sure blew it in this interview.

Here's the piece that worries me.  I obviously have strong political views (duh!) and even agree with Franklin Graham that my understanding of faith, of who Jesus is, and of his call on my life, must impact my political views.  So, how do I avoid losing my integrity?  Howdo I keep my faith from being so tied into partisan politics that it becomes co-opted?   I try to be honest and to look at the whole picture.  I try to be respectful of opinions that I clearly believe are wrong.  I try to see the strengths and the failings of my own "side" as well as any other.  Still, the risk is real.  The best I can say is that I'm trying to retain my integrity as a person of faith while strongly holding opinions regarding important issues.

Radical Inclusion

I have never been to Burning Man... but it is sort of on my bucket list.  There is something about the event that calls to me.  I'm not sure that I'd enjoy a full week of desert, dust, and weirdness, but I would guess that in order to really experience it, you need to experience the entire event.  And that has kept me from going. 

If you don't know about Burning Man, it is a crazy bohemian hippie gathering in the middle of the desert that takes place in late August to early September.  There are lots of interesting and bizarre people, art, music, and a unique ethic based on 10 principles - 
1. radical inclusion
2. gifting
3. decomodification
4. radical self reliance
5. radical self expression
6. communal effort 
7. civic responsibility 
8. leaving no trace
9. participation
10. immediacy

As you can imagine that makes for a very interesting social experiment.  And from what I understand, it has worked for the most part... until this year.  Last year was a very good year with great weather and good press.  It also sold out.  This year the tickets went on sale and the immediate requests were 4 times the capacity of the event.  Radical inclusion bit the dust.  As the organizers said, "Radical inclusion does not mean we can all fit in the same place at the same time."  Still, if there is one thing radical inclusion cannot mean it is, "sorry, you can't come." 

All of this has me thinking about church... if there is a principle we should be embodying it is radical inclusion yet, we rarely do.

for a wonderful taste of Burning Man, here is part of the problem, a great video that went viral this year.

The Authority of Faith or If You're Going to be a Catholic, Be a Catholic

I believe in freedom of religion.  I believe politicians can and should vote their consciences and that their consciences should be informed by their faith.  I also don't believe that public policy should be formed around religious preferences.   That basically means that when a politician puts forward a policy that is consonant with their faith, they better also have some good reasons that are outside of their faith.  A foundation in one's faith is not enough to form public policy.

I respect politicians who truly hold their faith, whatever it may be, and live it with authenticity.  I have no respect for politicians who use faith as a wedge between constituencies and I have little respect for politicians who are less than genuine in their commitments.

That brings me to Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, both of who have been playing the "good Roman Catholic" card of late.  Neither is a good Roman Catholic.  Both are ignoring the nature of authority in the Catholic church.  They think and act as if a good Roman Catholic can pick and choose between the teachings of the church and embrace those that fit their own politics or morals while rejecting others.  While in fact, many who call themselves Roman Catholics in the US do just that, it is a difficult place to be when the Catholic Church is built on a hierarchy of authority which cannot be easily ignored.  Juan Cole has an interesting blog piece entitled the Top Ten Roman Catholic Teaching Rick Santorum Rejects While Obsessing about Birth Control where he shows how Santorum does just that.  These two politicians claim to be pro-life and point to their supposed Roman Catholic faith as the foundation for that understanding, all the while ignoring that in Roman Catholic teaching, pro-life is a much broader term that rejects capital punishment, any kind of pre-emptive war, most specific wars including Iraq, and which calls for universal health care, welfare for all needy families...

The first time a politician stands up and says "I am against birth control because I'm a Roman Catholic... and I'm also against capital punishment.  I take Just War Theory seriously and I believe in a safety net that truly provides for the needs and dignity of the poor," I will take that person seriously.  Until then, he or she can't say that they hold a position based on the authority of their church without me laughing at them.  I laugh at Santorum and Gingrich.

Now, there are other kinds of Christians who understand authority very differently.  The Baptist tradition, for example, says that an individual's relationship to God is between them and God.  Authority does not come from a hierarchy but from responsible reflection by the individual and interaction with the Holy.  Without responsible reflection and without relationship to the Holy, there is no authority.  Even when the relationship is authentic, in this tradition, one still cannot generalize the shape or substance of another's relationship with the Holy.  (This is why freedom of religion was an idea that came primarily from the early Baptists).  I know many in this tradition, my tradition, who see things very differently than I do.  Some I respect deeply because their views are based in responsible reflection and in their understanding of their relationships with God.  Others... not so much.

Still other traditions place the authority in the gathered community.  The bottom line is that if one is going to claim religious authority for a particular stand, they had better understand how authority works in that tradition and own the tradition.

A True American Story

The other day, a friend of mine shared a bit of his story.  His father was a devout man who held his faith deeply.  The nation where he lived made it very difficult to practice his faith as he believed God called him so, with pain and difficulty, leaving behind family, friends, job, and roots, moved to another country where he believed he would be able to faithfully practice his faith.  He put down new roots and raised a family, trying to be faithful and to build a good life.  Jump forward a generation and my friend, another faithful man, was trying to live out his understanding of his faith which didn't quite fit into the majority opinion of his homeland found himself in the US attending college.  It was a new world with a broad mix of religions and opinions about faith.  More important though,  it was a place with an expressed commitment to freedom of religion.  Each individual could practice his or her faith (or lack thereof) in a way that was most faithful to the deep commitments of their hearts.  My friend and his new wife decided, this was the kind of place they could truly be faithful to their understanding of God's yearnings for them.  It was the kind of place they wanted to raise their children.  They stayed in the US and became citizens here, working, putting down roots, raising a family, and living out their faith in freedom.

Can you think of a story that more characterizes the American dream?  Can you think of a story that is more consonant with the commitments that gave birth to this nation and continue to shape our culture as a people?  I can't.  This strikes me as the quintessential American story.  It just happens that Mukhtar is Muslim.  His father left India for Saudi Arabia to find a pace where he could live his Muslim faith without difficulty.  Mukhtar left Saudi Arabia to find a place where he could live out his faith in a way that was authentic to his understanding of God's yearnings for him... he came to the land of freedom of religion so he could faithfully live as a Muslim, next door to Catholics, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Protestants, Mormons, Atheists, and a hundred other commitments, all learning from one another, struggling with one another, and even disagreeing with one another... in freedom.

why I won't vote for any of the Republicans

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

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

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?

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

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...