Thursday, December 31, 2009
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Thursday, December 10, 2009
sing! sing! sing!
I saw two quotes today on Facebook...
the first was posted by Len Sweet - “First we sing. Then we believe.” Abraham Heschel
The second was in a comment on Sweets post. "Let me make the songs of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws.” It is often attributed incorrectly to Plato. More likely, it is a variation on a saying from Andrew Fletcher.
Both quotes have me thinking about the way that what we sing... or even listen to... works its way into our subconsciousness and helps to shape who we are, how we think, and how we see the world around us. In church, it is obvious that the songs we sing are very important in shaping our theology. Few people remember a sermon. None speak it as they do the laundry. Many will find themselves singing a catchy tune that they sang in church later on.
But it is true beyond that. The music we listen to on the radio and sing when we aren't thinking says a lot about the way we see and experience the world. I worry about girls who listen to misogynistic rap music, to African American youth who listen to music that repeatedly calls them "niggers," to young boys who listen to music that objectifies girls as nothing more than sex objects. I'm struck by how important the role of the musician is in any culture but especially in one like ours that is so shaped by media.
I've heard Sweet play with the quote from Psalm 139 - "how can we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?" asking if maybe the question church musicians should be raising is, "how can we sing a strange song in the Lord's land?" I think musicians of faith should be asking both and framing them in creative ways that both speak to culture and offer the possibility of transformation in and out of the Church. That doesn't mean that as Christians we only sing songs that mention Jesus by name. Instead, it means that we look carefully at the meaning of a song and ask the good questions - is this humanizing? does it push us towards wholeness? does this song communicate something that either makes the world a better place or shines a spotlight on an area where change is needed?
the first was posted by Len Sweet - “First we sing. Then we believe.” Abraham Heschel
The second was in a comment on Sweets post. "Let me make the songs of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws.” It is often attributed incorrectly to Plato. More likely, it is a variation on a saying from Andrew Fletcher.
Both quotes have me thinking about the way that what we sing... or even listen to... works its way into our subconsciousness and helps to shape who we are, how we think, and how we see the world around us. In church, it is obvious that the songs we sing are very important in shaping our theology. Few people remember a sermon. None speak it as they do the laundry. Many will find themselves singing a catchy tune that they sang in church later on.
But it is true beyond that. The music we listen to on the radio and sing when we aren't thinking says a lot about the way we see and experience the world. I worry about girls who listen to misogynistic rap music, to African American youth who listen to music that repeatedly calls them "niggers," to young boys who listen to music that objectifies girls as nothing more than sex objects. I'm struck by how important the role of the musician is in any culture but especially in one like ours that is so shaped by media.
I've heard Sweet play with the quote from Psalm 139 - "how can we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?" asking if maybe the question church musicians should be raising is, "how can we sing a strange song in the Lord's land?" I think musicians of faith should be asking both and framing them in creative ways that both speak to culture and offer the possibility of transformation in and out of the Church. That doesn't mean that as Christians we only sing songs that mention Jesus by name. Instead, it means that we look carefully at the meaning of a song and ask the good questions - is this humanizing? does it push us towards wholeness? does this song communicate something that either makes the world a better place or shines a spotlight on an area where change is needed?
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
genius and craziness
Isn't it interesting to consider the fine line between genius and craziness? Or at least between genius and eccentricity?
I came across the below video which is an encounter between classical guitar player, John Williams and builder, Greg Smallman. Clearly Smallman is a genius and maybe a bt eccentric... He has come up with a revolutionary design for the classical guitar. From about 4:05- 5:00, we see the radical changes in the construction of the guitar's top in a Smallman guitar. Many players prefer the sound of the old style of construction, but his designs have clearly changed that way guitars are heard and built and many top builders emulate his style of construction. That said, take a look at the shop (beginning about 3:25). It certainly doesn't have the clean design, perfect tools, and careful arrangement I expect from a world class guitar builder's shop. But the proof is in the product isn't it?
at about 5:00, Williams begins to seriously play the instrument.
I came across the below video which is an encounter between classical guitar player, John Williams and builder, Greg Smallman. Clearly Smallman is a genius and maybe a bt eccentric... He has come up with a revolutionary design for the classical guitar. From about 4:05- 5:00, we see the radical changes in the construction of the guitar's top in a Smallman guitar. Many players prefer the sound of the old style of construction, but his designs have clearly changed that way guitars are heard and built and many top builders emulate his style of construction. That said, take a look at the shop (beginning about 3:25). It certainly doesn't have the clean design, perfect tools, and careful arrangement I expect from a world class guitar builder's shop. But the proof is in the product isn't it?
at about 5:00, Williams begins to seriously play the instrument.
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
espresso & coffee
About two months ago, my buddy, Hershey, had to be euthanized. Hershey had been very ill and it was clearly time to say goodbye. He had been part of our family for 17 years and was my cat. 7 years prior, his partner, Lynx, had died. A short while after that, we tried to find a new friend to live with Hershey but he wouldn't accept another cat. I became his only buddy. I miss him purring at the back of my neck when I sit on the sofa and still expect to see him when I walk into the house.
Cheryl and I have been talking about another pet or two and decided on two cats. I like dogs but we think our lifestyle would make caring for a dog too difficult. Cats can get by with a bit less attention. And I like cats too. Plus, Cheryl likes things "in their place" so any animals are a problem. We decided, or she acquiesced, to get two cats so they could entertain one another. So... the plan was to go the shelter and find a bonded pair, preferably about a year old. We didn't want to fall in love with a cat only to have it only live for a few years so we didn't want one too old and we didn't want too young because kittens can be crazy.
We seriously looked at a pair of Bengals from a rescue organization in SoCal but ended up deciding to go to the local shelter. I had scouted things out in advance and I was sold on a pair named Fran & Ollie. They were beautiful little cats and were clicker trained which was just adorable. Cheryl and I took them out of the cage and played with them a bit and... nope. It wasn't them. They weren't particularly interested in us. Tried another pair... and one of them hissed at both of us. Not them. A third pair were too timid. We were getting a bit concerned that we wouldn't find a pair. We began to look at the individual cats, thinking we could pick two but every one that seemed to reach out to us had a note on the cage, "does not like other cats." I was getting discouraged.
Next, we went to the area where the younger cats were caged and saw a pair of black and white siblings. They were cute... so we took them out to play with them. One climbed my leg. Ouch. Then, they just went wild. Typical kitten behavior. Took them back. Last chance was another pair of short-haired black kittens who were a little older than the previous pair. We opened the cage and the larger of the two immediately began to purr and wanted to be picked up. The smaller of the two watched for a few seconds and then stood to join in the fun.
We took them to the room to play and they purred the entire time, enjoyed being held, and seemed clearly to have chosen us. The one small issue was their names - Inky & Stinky. New home, new family = new names. We filled out the paper work, paid the adoption fee and home they came.
They traveled in the cat carrier very well and adjusted pretty quickly to their new home. At first it seemed as if the smaller guy was more active than the larger. And their colors are subtly different with bit more red in the smaller guy. The larger guy is closer to real black. Both have gorgeous golden eyes. Names began to present themselves - Espresso, Cacao, Cocoa, Chocolate, Cafe, Coffee, Cadbury, Beans... (see any pattern there?) Our son liked Espresso for the smaller and Coffee for the larger so that looks as if it will be their names. We still have a day or two before the names will be permanent and I'm not 100% sold on them but the rest of the family seems to be happy so... Espresso is on the left and Coffee on the right.
They're home today, by themselves for the work day. I'm a little apprehensive as to what we'll find when we get home but I am so excited about having a new buddy or two. And Cheryl? She spent most of last evening talking baby talk and scratching and petting espresso who fell asleep on her lap.
Cheryl and I have been talking about another pet or two and decided on two cats. I like dogs but we think our lifestyle would make caring for a dog too difficult. Cats can get by with a bit less attention. And I like cats too. Plus, Cheryl likes things "in their place" so any animals are a problem. We decided, or she acquiesced, to get two cats so they could entertain one another. So... the plan was to go the shelter and find a bonded pair, preferably about a year old. We didn't want to fall in love with a cat only to have it only live for a few years so we didn't want one too old and we didn't want too young because kittens can be crazy.
We seriously looked at a pair of Bengals from a rescue organization in SoCal but ended up deciding to go to the local shelter. I had scouted things out in advance and I was sold on a pair named Fran & Ollie. They were beautiful little cats and were clicker trained which was just adorable. Cheryl and I took them out of the cage and played with them a bit and... nope. It wasn't them. They weren't particularly interested in us. Tried another pair... and one of them hissed at both of us. Not them. A third pair were too timid. We were getting a bit concerned that we wouldn't find a pair. We began to look at the individual cats, thinking we could pick two but every one that seemed to reach out to us had a note on the cage, "does not like other cats." I was getting discouraged.
Next, we went to the area where the younger cats were caged and saw a pair of black and white siblings. They were cute... so we took them out to play with them. One climbed my leg. Ouch. Then, they just went wild. Typical kitten behavior. Took them back. Last chance was another pair of short-haired black kittens who were a little older than the previous pair. We opened the cage and the larger of the two immediately began to purr and wanted to be picked up. The smaller of the two watched for a few seconds and then stood to join in the fun.
We took them to the room to play and they purred the entire time, enjoyed being held, and seemed clearly to have chosen us. The one small issue was their names - Inky & Stinky. New home, new family = new names. We filled out the paper work, paid the adoption fee and home they came.
They traveled in the cat carrier very well and adjusted pretty quickly to their new home. At first it seemed as if the smaller guy was more active than the larger. And their colors are subtly different with bit more red in the smaller guy. The larger guy is closer to real black. Both have gorgeous golden eyes. Names began to present themselves - Espresso, Cacao, Cocoa, Chocolate, Cafe, Coffee, Cadbury, Beans... (see any pattern there?) Our son liked Espresso for the smaller and Coffee for the larger so that looks as if it will be their names. We still have a day or two before the names will be permanent and I'm not 100% sold on them but the rest of the family seems to be happy so... Espresso is on the left and Coffee on the right.
They're home today, by themselves for the work day. I'm a little apprehensive as to what we'll find when we get home but I am so excited about having a new buddy or two. And Cheryl? She spent most of last evening talking baby talk and scratching and petting espresso who fell asleep on her lap.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Friday, November 20, 2009
Most of us have heard about Steve Anderson - the pastor in Phoenix who has been praying that Obama would die and go to hell. For the most part, people have written him off as being a crazy who is completely on his own at the lunatic fringe. Unfortunately, he is not alone at the fringe. He represents a growing movement. There was a t shirt and bumper stickers being sold on the web with the slogan, "Pray for Obama Psalm 109:8. Sounds innocent enough. Even the verse itself falls pretty squarely in the American tradition of political discourse - "Let his days be few; and let another take his office" (KJV) It becomes much more sinister when the following verse is read - "Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow."
Nobody who purchased that t shirt or bumper sticker did so without reading the verse in its context. Nobody who wore it did so without knowing that they were calling for the death of the president of the United States. Ronald Kessler, who wrote a book about presidential security says that death threats against Obama are up 400% over George Bush. It is no wonder... people are hearing "death to the president of the US" from pulpits... and not only from radical Muslim imams in the Middle East, they are hearing it from "Christian" fundamentalist pastors in the US.
Let me say this as clearly as I can. This slogan is not funny or cute. It is heinous. These people are not "biblical" or "Christian." They are using proof texts to back up political ideologies and trying to bolster their cases by attributing their views to God. And finally, any Christian who does not condemn these misuses of the Bible and of Christian theology is culpable for anything that may happen.
Nobody who purchased that t shirt or bumper sticker did so without reading the verse in its context. Nobody who wore it did so without knowing that they were calling for the death of the president of the United States. Ronald Kessler, who wrote a book about presidential security says that death threats against Obama are up 400% over George Bush. It is no wonder... people are hearing "death to the president of the US" from pulpits... and not only from radical Muslim imams in the Middle East, they are hearing it from "Christian" fundamentalist pastors in the US.
Let me say this as clearly as I can. This slogan is not funny or cute. It is heinous. These people are not "biblical" or "Christian." They are using proof texts to back up political ideologies and trying to bolster their cases by attributing their views to God. And finally, any Christian who does not condemn these misuses of the Bible and of Christian theology is culpable for anything that may happen.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
one voice - wrong voice
In academia, when multiple students hand in papers with identical sections, the automatic assumption is that either one of them copied from the other or both copied from a third source. The best that can happen is an "F." The worst is that the student is expelled from the institution. Imagine what would happen if 20 or 42 students handed in essentially the same paper?
That is more or less what happened in congress. An article in The New York Times reports that a written statement by Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina on the health care bill was identical to one by Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer. And 20 Democrats and 22 Republicans used very similar language in statements they presented. Coincidence? Not likely. It turns out that the language was provided by lobbyists for Genentech, one of the world's largest biotechnology firms that just happens to be a subsidiary of a Swiss pharmaceutical company, Roche. Wilson & Luetkemeyer weren't even creative enough to make the words their own. They just parroted the lobbyists. 40 other representatives joined in the chorus.
Now, we wonder why health care reform has gotten nowhere. It is clearly because the discussion is controlled by those with large amounts of money and clear agendas that have little to do with controlling cost or providing the best health care possible. If these representatives had handed those statements in in many universities, they would be out before the end of the week. Let us at least call them on their irresponsibility and push them to represent us rather than the moneyed interests of big pharm and the insurance industry.
That is more or less what happened in congress. An article in The New York Times reports that a written statement by Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina on the health care bill was identical to one by Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer. And 20 Democrats and 22 Republicans used very similar language in statements they presented. Coincidence? Not likely. It turns out that the language was provided by lobbyists for Genentech, one of the world's largest biotechnology firms that just happens to be a subsidiary of a Swiss pharmaceutical company, Roche. Wilson & Luetkemeyer weren't even creative enough to make the words their own. They just parroted the lobbyists. 40 other representatives joined in the chorus.
Now, we wonder why health care reform has gotten nowhere. It is clearly because the discussion is controlled by those with large amounts of money and clear agendas that have little to do with controlling cost or providing the best health care possible. If these representatives had handed those statements in in many universities, they would be out before the end of the week. Let us at least call them on their irresponsibility and push them to represent us rather than the moneyed interests of big pharm and the insurance industry.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
little green men
Evidently truth imitates fiction. One of my favorite books of all time is The Sparrow by Mary Doria Russell. It is the story of an expedition mounted by the Roman Catholic Church to encounter intelligent life on another planet. It is a wonderful book that shows how expectations color perception, understanding culture is crucial to meaningful communication, and how badly we can screw things up when we don't fully appreciate those two rules. I think all church leaders should read them both.
The Vatican just concluded its first conference on astrobiology. On the one hand, I more than a little puzzled at why this is a theological issue. On the other hand, I hope, but doubt, they came up with some good answers. At the very least, I am encouraged to re-read The Sparrow and its sequel, Children of God again. - wonderful, provocative books.
Friday, November 06, 2009
Sara Tavares concert review
We saw Sara Tavares and her amazing band last night at the Skirball Center in LA. The short version of the review is, "if you have the opportunity, GO! And be willing to drive a good distance to see her."
Sara Tavares was born in Cape Verde but spent most of her life living in Portugal. Her music is a wonderful blend of African, Portuguese, Brazilian, and US R&B.
The show attracted a very interesting crowd. There were significant numbers of Cape Verdeans there as well as Portuguese nationals - she asked. Then there was a large group that probably reflected the typical Skirball crowd - middle aged and up, middle class and up, white folk. And a smaller group of twenty somethings who know great world music. The venue is a wonderful one with reasonably good sound and a real sense of intimacy. I would guess it seats around 300. Every seat felt very close to the stage. I would certainly go there again to see another show. Every seat was full, at least for the period when people were actually sitting. It wasn't long before everyone was up, dancing to the music.
Her band is a drummer, percussionist, bass, ukulele/electric guitar, and herself on vocals and nylon string guitar. The band is as tight as any I have ever seen, pulling off wonderful polyrhythms without a blink and starting and stopping on a dime. Most important though is that they were obviously having fun. This isn't just a job for them, it is obviously a passion filled with joy and a true sense of community. I've seen many shows with great musicians who each seemed to be in their own world. Things sounded good but I didn't feel as if they were really playing together. It was more like the parallel play child psychologists talk about in young children. This band was a unit and they were playing together.
The ukulele was especially interesting as the player used a lot of signal processing and looped it on more than one song. It added a great sound and texture to the mix. (He has me looking at them online this morning). He played it on well over half of the tunes. The percussion player caused my jaw to drop more than once and he and the drummer seemed almost to be attached to one another.
Sara Tavares is a lovely presence on the stage, glowing... but never overpowering her excellent band. She is also a good guitar player and has a haunting voice. She was obviously having fun too.
Joy permeated the entire performance. Even a soulful ballad (like the one in the video below) exuded a sense of joy and beauty. The upbeat tunes, most of the show, had the entire audience wishing there was a real dance floor available.
I don't know were she is in her tour, but I highly, highly recommend seeing her if you can. And if you can't see her, there is a DVD available of a live performance. I haven't seen any of it other than the three clips on youtube but if her show last night is at all representative of that disk, it is well worth owning.
here's a clip from the DVD of a ballad - Nha Cretcheu
Sara Tavares was born in Cape Verde but spent most of her life living in Portugal. Her music is a wonderful blend of African, Portuguese, Brazilian, and US R&B.
The show attracted a very interesting crowd. There were significant numbers of Cape Verdeans there as well as Portuguese nationals - she asked. Then there was a large group that probably reflected the typical Skirball crowd - middle aged and up, middle class and up, white folk. And a smaller group of twenty somethings who know great world music. The venue is a wonderful one with reasonably good sound and a real sense of intimacy. I would guess it seats around 300. Every seat felt very close to the stage. I would certainly go there again to see another show. Every seat was full, at least for the period when people were actually sitting. It wasn't long before everyone was up, dancing to the music.
Her band is a drummer, percussionist, bass, ukulele/electric guitar, and herself on vocals and nylon string guitar. The band is as tight as any I have ever seen, pulling off wonderful polyrhythms without a blink and starting and stopping on a dime. Most important though is that they were obviously having fun. This isn't just a job for them, it is obviously a passion filled with joy and a true sense of community. I've seen many shows with great musicians who each seemed to be in their own world. Things sounded good but I didn't feel as if they were really playing together. It was more like the parallel play child psychologists talk about in young children. This band was a unit and they were playing together.
The ukulele was especially interesting as the player used a lot of signal processing and looped it on more than one song. It added a great sound and texture to the mix. (He has me looking at them online this morning). He played it on well over half of the tunes. The percussion player caused my jaw to drop more than once and he and the drummer seemed almost to be attached to one another.
Sara Tavares is a lovely presence on the stage, glowing... but never overpowering her excellent band. She is also a good guitar player and has a haunting voice. She was obviously having fun too.
Joy permeated the entire performance. Even a soulful ballad (like the one in the video below) exuded a sense of joy and beauty. The upbeat tunes, most of the show, had the entire audience wishing there was a real dance floor available.
I don't know were she is in her tour, but I highly, highly recommend seeing her if you can. And if you can't see her, there is a DVD available of a live performance. I haven't seen any of it other than the three clips on youtube but if her show last night is at all representative of that disk, it is well worth owning.
here's a clip from the DVD of a ballad - Nha Cretcheu
Thursday, November 05, 2009
little things & the melody of life
I'm in the process of changing picks. "What?" you think... "why would anyone worry about something as little as that?"
It makes a difference. The material, the shape, the edge of whatever strikes the string affects the tone and even what you can or cannot play. The little things are important.
I used to play with just my nails most of the time. I'm not a stereotypical fingerstyle player. I don't have the grace and touch that many of them have. Often, I used my nails, especially my index finger, almost like flatpicks. Occasionally, when I broke a nail, I would get an artificial nail applied at the nail salon and liked the sound and feel of the false nail but didn't like what it did to my natural nail or what happened when it was getting to the end of its life and began to catch the string on the trailing edge of the nail. OUCH! So as quickly as possible, I'd try to get back to my natural nail. And that worked OK. I tried fingerpicks and they just don't work and I considered just going to artificial nails as a permanent solution but didn't want to go there...
Then we moved to CA and I found myself playing electric guitar. The strings are much thinner and did terrible things to my nails so I went to a flatpick. Unfortunately, I hold the flatpick very close to the tip and my index finger nail hits the strings along with the pick... which damages that nail even more. So I began using a flatpick on acoustic as well most of the time... which just exacerbates the chips that I get from using the flatpick. So I've been using flatpicks... only they come in scores of sizes, shapes, and materials.
The holy grail of picks is made from real tortoise shell. Of course, it is illegal and immoral so I don't have any of them and never will. Word is that they sound amazing and are the best feel of any pick. Many modern pick companies are trying to replicate that sound and feel without killing sea turtles for the material.
When I used to play electric, I used these wonderful little ivory or bone picks that were made from the tops of old piano keys. They sound very organic and feel good but they are hard to find, break, and can be expensive. And of course, ivory has its own issues of legality and morality. I still have a few and I have a few bone blanks from old piano keys... I may end up going back to them.
I really like the V picks on electric guitar. I love the way they slide through the string and the fat solid pick just feels right in my hand. At $4 they're expensive compared to the $.25 pick you get at the local Best Buy but not compared to some of the other picks out there. I tried them on acoustic and they're OK... but the make a funny chirping sound as they wear so on to something else for acoustic.
I'm waiting for an order of Wegen picks. I've heard good things about them... that they approach the sound and feel of tortoise shell. I'm hoping they work well. We'll see. At about the same price as the V pick, I can easily justify a bunch of them.
There are a couple of companies out there making expensive picks. Blue Chip & Red Bear are the most visible right now and both are generating a lot of buzz and lots of true believers. At $20 for a Red Bear and $35 for a Blue Chip, they aren't throw away picks... but if they do what they say, maybe they're worth it. One of these days I'll order at least one of each. And of course, if I like them, I'll need two for each guitar case...
I could tell you that each material and even the shape of a pick change the sound of your playing and the way you play and I would be telling you the truth. There is more to it though... it is the small things that, added together, make up our lives. It is the little details, the little acts, the daily habits, that make us who we are. So, as I search for the right pick... I'm thinking of it as a metaphor for my life. Each day I make hundreds of small choices, many of them unconsciously, all of which affect the melody that is my life. They dictate who I will be and even who I can be. The little things matter.
It makes a difference. The material, the shape, the edge of whatever strikes the string affects the tone and even what you can or cannot play. The little things are important.
I used to play with just my nails most of the time. I'm not a stereotypical fingerstyle player. I don't have the grace and touch that many of them have. Often, I used my nails, especially my index finger, almost like flatpicks. Occasionally, when I broke a nail, I would get an artificial nail applied at the nail salon and liked the sound and feel of the false nail but didn't like what it did to my natural nail or what happened when it was getting to the end of its life and began to catch the string on the trailing edge of the nail. OUCH! So as quickly as possible, I'd try to get back to my natural nail. And that worked OK. I tried fingerpicks and they just don't work and I considered just going to artificial nails as a permanent solution but didn't want to go there...
Then we moved to CA and I found myself playing electric guitar. The strings are much thinner and did terrible things to my nails so I went to a flatpick. Unfortunately, I hold the flatpick very close to the tip and my index finger nail hits the strings along with the pick... which damages that nail even more. So I began using a flatpick on acoustic as well most of the time... which just exacerbates the chips that I get from using the flatpick. So I've been using flatpicks... only they come in scores of sizes, shapes, and materials.
The holy grail of picks is made from real tortoise shell. Of course, it is illegal and immoral so I don't have any of them and never will. Word is that they sound amazing and are the best feel of any pick. Many modern pick companies are trying to replicate that sound and feel without killing sea turtles for the material.
When I used to play electric, I used these wonderful little ivory or bone picks that were made from the tops of old piano keys. They sound very organic and feel good but they are hard to find, break, and can be expensive. And of course, ivory has its own issues of legality and morality. I still have a few and I have a few bone blanks from old piano keys... I may end up going back to them.
I really like the V picks on electric guitar. I love the way they slide through the string and the fat solid pick just feels right in my hand. At $4 they're expensive compared to the $.25 pick you get at the local Best Buy but not compared to some of the other picks out there. I tried them on acoustic and they're OK... but the make a funny chirping sound as they wear so on to something else for acoustic.
I'm waiting for an order of Wegen picks. I've heard good things about them... that they approach the sound and feel of tortoise shell. I'm hoping they work well. We'll see. At about the same price as the V pick, I can easily justify a bunch of them.
There are a couple of companies out there making expensive picks. Blue Chip & Red Bear are the most visible right now and both are generating a lot of buzz and lots of true believers. At $20 for a Red Bear and $35 for a Blue Chip, they aren't throw away picks... but if they do what they say, maybe they're worth it. One of these days I'll order at least one of each. And of course, if I like them, I'll need two for each guitar case...
I could tell you that each material and even the shape of a pick change the sound of your playing and the way you play and I would be telling you the truth. There is more to it though... it is the small things that, added together, make up our lives. It is the little details, the little acts, the daily habits, that make us who we are. So, as I search for the right pick... I'm thinking of it as a metaphor for my life. Each day I make hundreds of small choices, many of them unconsciously, all of which affect the melody that is my life. They dictate who I will be and even who I can be. The little things matter.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
denominations
I have been an American Baptist since seminary in the mid 70's. I am committed to the Baptist understanding of the church in what I would call, its best expressions. At the same time, I have little hope for the denomination... for any of the denominations.
Here's a fun video made about the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America but with a few changes in text it certainly could apply to the ABC or to any other current denomination.
We spend soooo much time fighting over issues, writing reports, and forming committees, all the while forgetting to do real ministry or even to take prophetic stands. I worry that none of the mainline churches will make it through the next century.
I don't have any more hope for the fundamentalists, evangelicals, or megachurch movements. They spend too much time and energy on what they perceive to be hot sins and fighting against positive changes in culture, often dress the gospel in the dress of self-help, and in any cases have bought int the most pernicious parts of the current culture - faith as a consumer product, that I don't expect they will make it through the century either.
A few years ago I had hope for the emerging church. I saw a bunch of fearless, committed, young men and women struggling with post modern questions while at the same time being committed to hands on mission in their contexts. They were neither conservatives nor liberals, but had by-passed those energy wasting battles. And they were starting little churches, mostly in urban neighborhoods, and getting on with the work of the church. Unfortunately, the movement seems to have taken a serious turn to the right. Most of the true post-moderns have given up on any institutional expressions of faith. Like many young adults, they seem to have been a bit impatient and overly optimistic about their little movement. It didn't change the world and they got frustrated and gave up or the realities of institutional life were too much. In the meantime, the face of the emerging church has been co-opted by the mega-church movement who treat it as one more franchise through which they can sell a old fashioned conservative gospel. Add some tables, get a bit artsy fartsy, play some techno in the background and maybe even have some litanies from the 12th century church and images of celtic crosses and you can catch a few college students and get them saved and teach them about the evils of homosexuality, women's rights, abortion, etc. It ain't the same movement, friends.
I want to have hope. I am still committed to the institution of the "church," indeed, I don't think it is possible to be a follower of Jesus outside of a community of faith worshiping, serving, and struggling together. I want to have hope... more later.
Here's a fun video made about the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America but with a few changes in text it certainly could apply to the ABC or to any other current denomination.
We spend soooo much time fighting over issues, writing reports, and forming committees, all the while forgetting to do real ministry or even to take prophetic stands. I worry that none of the mainline churches will make it through the next century.
I don't have any more hope for the fundamentalists, evangelicals, or megachurch movements. They spend too much time and energy on what they perceive to be hot sins and fighting against positive changes in culture, often dress the gospel in the dress of self-help, and in any cases have bought int the most pernicious parts of the current culture - faith as a consumer product, that I don't expect they will make it through the century either.
A few years ago I had hope for the emerging church. I saw a bunch of fearless, committed, young men and women struggling with post modern questions while at the same time being committed to hands on mission in their contexts. They were neither conservatives nor liberals, but had by-passed those energy wasting battles. And they were starting little churches, mostly in urban neighborhoods, and getting on with the work of the church. Unfortunately, the movement seems to have taken a serious turn to the right. Most of the true post-moderns have given up on any institutional expressions of faith. Like many young adults, they seem to have been a bit impatient and overly optimistic about their little movement. It didn't change the world and they got frustrated and gave up or the realities of institutional life were too much. In the meantime, the face of the emerging church has been co-opted by the mega-church movement who treat it as one more franchise through which they can sell a old fashioned conservative gospel. Add some tables, get a bit artsy fartsy, play some techno in the background and maybe even have some litanies from the 12th century church and images of celtic crosses and you can catch a few college students and get them saved and teach them about the evils of homosexuality, women's rights, abortion, etc. It ain't the same movement, friends.
I want to have hope. I am still committed to the institution of the "church," indeed, I don't think it is possible to be a follower of Jesus outside of a community of faith worshiping, serving, and struggling together. I want to have hope... more later.
Friday, October 09, 2009
what's good for the goose
I am absolutely and completely against organizations or corporations defrauding the government. I don't know enough about the complaints against ACORN to have an opinion as to whether they are justified or not. I know there is a lot of ideological stuff going on, but that doesn't tell us anything about the conduct of ACORN.
We do know, beyond a doubt, that a number of large corporations have defrauded the people of the United States. A number were even prosecuted by the Bush administration, not an administration known for being anti-large corporations. Why not hold them to at least the standard being proposed for ACORN. If a company defrauds the government, they are no longer eligible to receive government contracts.
We do know, beyond a doubt, that a number of large corporations have defrauded the people of the United States. A number were even prosecuted by the Bush administration, not an administration known for being anti-large corporations. Why not hold them to at least the standard being proposed for ACORN. If a company defrauds the government, they are no longer eligible to receive government contracts.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
political contributions
Here's a very interesting page with some useful graphics that show how different companies contribute to the Democratic and/or Republican parties.
It will help me decide how I spend my money.
It will help me decide how I spend my money.
Monday, October 05, 2009
More about being Biblical
I have read that Christianity is the only major religion where the scriptures do not need to be read in the language of the founder. Think of Islam as an example. The Koran is only the word of Allah if it is read in Arabic... and indeed, it should be read aloud to be it's holiest. If it is translated into English or any other language, it is no longer the unadulterated Word of Allah.
That makes sense to me. Language is a way of conceptualizing the universe. The structure of the language both describes the universe and defines the way the individual can experience it. Last year I even heard a story on NPR about disappearing languages that mentioned a language that counts in both base 12 and base 20. Living in a culture that sees numbers in base 10, I automatically translate that idea into one that is completely foreign to them... or am just puzzled that "they" don't see the universe as it really is... base 10.
The semantic range of a word almost never exactly corresponds from one language to another. There is a reference that many pastors have on their shelves called The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament which tries to take important words in the Bible and show their semantic range. The word we translate as "salvation" from the Greek has an article some 70 pages long, explaining what it meant to those who used that term and thought in the original language. And you thought the Amplified Bible was tedious? The Muslims know, and rightly so, that once you translate the text is is not and cannot be the same. Translation requires interpretation. Let me give an example of that. There is a Greek word that is often translated servant - "diaconos." In the early church the term became a technical term, referring to a church officer. We transliterated it to "deacon." When translating, any time the translator comes across that word, s/he has to decide whether the word is referring to a servant or to a church officer. The translators of the KJV had a theological position that helped them. "Women cannot be deacons," they thought, so any time the word clearly referred to a woman, they always translated it as "servant." Their theology dictated the translation.
There were theological decisions made regarding which books would be included and which left out of the Bible. And different traditions disagreed as to which books belonged in which categories.
Finally, even if we agree which books are in and which are out and can make a "perfect" translation, we have literally thousands of manuscripts of the scriptural texts which often do not agree with one another. Those who say that the scriptures are "inerrant in their original autographs" are simply hedging their bets... they want to make a theological statement but it is meaningless. We do not and never will have the original autographs. Some fundamentalists have seen this for what it is and claim that God would not allow us to not have an inerrant word... so it must be the KJV!
OK, so what does this say to those of us who want to be "Biblical?" It tells us that the Christian scriptures are not documents written by the finger of God on stone. They are living words, meant to wrestled with in the context of the community of faith. They are not, God's instruction manual for human beings. They are the history of God's people struggling with their experience of God and trying to live lives of authentic faith in their times and cultures, reflecting both the best and the worst of human nature.
So, do I believe the Bible is true? Absolutely. Do I believe it is historical? Sometimes, but usually I think that is an irrelevant question. Do I believe it is inspired of/by God? Absolutely, but that never means dictated by God. Do I believe the Bible is central to Christian faith? Absolutely, but the Bible is not the object of our faith or devotion, that is Jesus, the Word.
That makes sense to me. Language is a way of conceptualizing the universe. The structure of the language both describes the universe and defines the way the individual can experience it. Last year I even heard a story on NPR about disappearing languages that mentioned a language that counts in both base 12 and base 20. Living in a culture that sees numbers in base 10, I automatically translate that idea into one that is completely foreign to them... or am just puzzled that "they" don't see the universe as it really is... base 10.
The semantic range of a word almost never exactly corresponds from one language to another. There is a reference that many pastors have on their shelves called The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament which tries to take important words in the Bible and show their semantic range. The word we translate as "salvation" from the Greek has an article some 70 pages long, explaining what it meant to those who used that term and thought in the original language. And you thought the Amplified Bible was tedious? The Muslims know, and rightly so, that once you translate the text is is not and cannot be the same. Translation requires interpretation. Let me give an example of that. There is a Greek word that is often translated servant - "diaconos." In the early church the term became a technical term, referring to a church officer. We transliterated it to "deacon." When translating, any time the translator comes across that word, s/he has to decide whether the word is referring to a servant or to a church officer. The translators of the KJV had a theological position that helped them. "Women cannot be deacons," they thought, so any time the word clearly referred to a woman, they always translated it as "servant." Their theology dictated the translation.
There were theological decisions made regarding which books would be included and which left out of the Bible. And different traditions disagreed as to which books belonged in which categories.
Finally, even if we agree which books are in and which are out and can make a "perfect" translation, we have literally thousands of manuscripts of the scriptural texts which often do not agree with one another. Those who say that the scriptures are "inerrant in their original autographs" are simply hedging their bets... they want to make a theological statement but it is meaningless. We do not and never will have the original autographs. Some fundamentalists have seen this for what it is and claim that God would not allow us to not have an inerrant word... so it must be the KJV!
OK, so what does this say to those of us who want to be "Biblical?" It tells us that the Christian scriptures are not documents written by the finger of God on stone. They are living words, meant to wrestled with in the context of the community of faith. They are not, God's instruction manual for human beings. They are the history of God's people struggling with their experience of God and trying to live lives of authentic faith in their times and cultures, reflecting both the best and the worst of human nature.
So, do I believe the Bible is true? Absolutely. Do I believe it is historical? Sometimes, but usually I think that is an irrelevant question. Do I believe it is inspired of/by God? Absolutely, but that never means dictated by God. Do I believe the Bible is central to Christian faith? Absolutely, but the Bible is not the object of our faith or devotion, that is Jesus, the Word.
Saturday, October 03, 2009
Are we a "Biblical" church?
this is a slightly edited version of a short article I just wrote for our church newsletter, also called Thin Places.
Is Cambridge Drive Community Church a Bible believing church? That is a question that is often asked, but it usually carries with it considerable baggage. Generally, the question really being asked is something like, "Are you fundamentalists?" or "Do you take the Bible literally?" or possibly, "Are you conservative, like me?" or "Does your pastor use lot of proof texts in his sermons?" or maybe even, "Do you read the King James Version of the Bible?"
When we were visiting Phoenix some time back and looking for a church to attend, we came across the Shadow Rock UCC Church that addressed this question in a way that inspired me. They answered, "We take the Bible seriously but not literally." I think that is a good start, but I want to go a bit further. Taking the Bible literally is not being Biblical. Indeed, I have never met anyone who takes the entire thing literally - check out the wonderful book, The Year of Living Biblically to see what I mean. So to make that claim is to be dishonest at the start. Worse than that, it does violence to the text of the scripture. The Bible is composed of a wide variety of types of literature, written in different times, for different purposes, to different audiences, in different languages that reflect different paradigms of reality. We live in a very different world from theirs and face wildly different issues. Indeed, through the centuries covered by the Biblical text, the writers reflected different cultures and times and issues and answered them in ways that were often contradictory. To be "Biblical" requires that we take all of this into account when we come to the text and form our faith.
So, what does it mean to be a Bible believing church? First, we must look at the scripture for what it is. We do not believe that our scripture was lowered from heaven on a golden cord nor do we believe that a founder discovered golden tablets hidden under a stone which were translated by an angel. We don't believe that God dictated each word to a scribe who copied what he or she wrote. We have a scripture that reflects the differing experiences of men and women through the centuries, wrestling with faith in their contexts, and sharing their experiences. We have a scripture that includes a wide variety of types of literature which are meant to be handled and understood in different ways. And as Howard Moody, pastor emeritus of Judson Memorial Church in NYC, reminds us, the Bible is not the Word of God... Jesus is.
We must remember that truth and historicity are not the same. Whether or not a story took place the way it is reported has little to do with the truth embedded in that story.
Harry Emerson Fosdick spoke of the effective preacher having a Bible in one hand and a newspaper in the other. It is a good metaphor for the task of Biblical interpretation (and we always interpret the Bible - just translating it requires interpretation). It is not enough to even understand all of the setting of the scripture, the original intent of the authors, or the message that was conveyed to the original hearers. We must also ask the question, "how does this word translate to our situation?" knowing that answer may be different today than it was 10 years ago and is likely different than it was 2000 years ago.
So, is CDCC a Biblical church? I hope so... Unfortunately, many of those that claim to be are anything but...
Is Cambridge Drive Community Church a Bible believing church? That is a question that is often asked, but it usually carries with it considerable baggage. Generally, the question really being asked is something like, "Are you fundamentalists?" or "Do you take the Bible literally?" or possibly, "Are you conservative, like me?" or "Does your pastor use lot of proof texts in his sermons?" or maybe even, "Do you read the King James Version of the Bible?"
When we were visiting Phoenix some time back and looking for a church to attend, we came across the Shadow Rock UCC Church that addressed this question in a way that inspired me. They answered, "We take the Bible seriously but not literally." I think that is a good start, but I want to go a bit further. Taking the Bible literally is not being Biblical. Indeed, I have never met anyone who takes the entire thing literally - check out the wonderful book, The Year of Living Biblically to see what I mean. So to make that claim is to be dishonest at the start. Worse than that, it does violence to the text of the scripture. The Bible is composed of a wide variety of types of literature, written in different times, for different purposes, to different audiences, in different languages that reflect different paradigms of reality. We live in a very different world from theirs and face wildly different issues. Indeed, through the centuries covered by the Biblical text, the writers reflected different cultures and times and issues and answered them in ways that were often contradictory. To be "Biblical" requires that we take all of this into account when we come to the text and form our faith.
So, what does it mean to be a Bible believing church? First, we must look at the scripture for what it is. We do not believe that our scripture was lowered from heaven on a golden cord nor do we believe that a founder discovered golden tablets hidden under a stone which were translated by an angel. We don't believe that God dictated each word to a scribe who copied what he or she wrote. We have a scripture that reflects the differing experiences of men and women through the centuries, wrestling with faith in their contexts, and sharing their experiences. We have a scripture that includes a wide variety of types of literature which are meant to be handled and understood in different ways. And as Howard Moody, pastor emeritus of Judson Memorial Church in NYC, reminds us, the Bible is not the Word of God... Jesus is.
We must remember that truth and historicity are not the same. Whether or not a story took place the way it is reported has little to do with the truth embedded in that story.
Harry Emerson Fosdick spoke of the effective preacher having a Bible in one hand and a newspaper in the other. It is a good metaphor for the task of Biblical interpretation (and we always interpret the Bible - just translating it requires interpretation). It is not enough to even understand all of the setting of the scripture, the original intent of the authors, or the message that was conveyed to the original hearers. We must also ask the question, "how does this word translate to our situation?" knowing that answer may be different today than it was 10 years ago and is likely different than it was 2000 years ago.
So, is CDCC a Biblical church? I hope so... Unfortunately, many of those that claim to be are anything but...
Thursday, October 01, 2009
torture
A judge ruled a short while ago that the the US tortured a man whom they knew was innocent but tortured him anyway so they could justify what they had already done.
This action cries out for justice and for anyone involved to be prosecuted.
You can read the entire story here and the actual judgment is here.
I am ashamed that my country participated in this and continues to cover it up...
This action cries out for justice and for anyone involved to be prosecuted.
You can read the entire story here and the actual judgment is here.
I am ashamed that my country participated in this and continues to cover it up...
what is success
When we visited England some years back, thoughtful folk were concerned about some changes they were seeing in their society. Being "on the dole" was a common experience. Jobs were not always easy to find and many people ended up on public assistance at one time or another. For working class people, it was seen as a part of life. Then, US television began to change the image. A person without a job wasn't in that situation because of social forces, they were there because they were lazy. And new tension began to rise and people began to see themselves and one another in very dysfunctional ways.
The reality is that even in the US economy we need to have a certain number of people unemployed for the system to work as it is designed to work. If nobody is looking for a job, productivity goes down, wages go up, and workers' demands increase. But we still bame people for fulfilling a role that we require somebody to fulfill!
this wonderful talk on Ted by Alain de Botton helps us to think a little more about the way we see one another and the way we see ourselves as we look for a kinder and gentler view of success...
The reality is that even in the US economy we need to have a certain number of people unemployed for the system to work as it is designed to work. If nobody is looking for a job, productivity goes down, wages go up, and workers' demands increase. But we still bame people for fulfilling a role that we require somebody to fulfill!
this wonderful talk on Ted by Alain de Botton helps us to think a little more about the way we see one another and the way we see ourselves as we look for a kinder and gentler view of success...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
