Chasing Whales

strange and evolving

2007-05-05T22:17:00.000-05:00

My friends and family know that since my toddlerhood, I have rooted feverishly for the University of North Carolina men's basketball team. UNC has perpetually been my favorite squad, even when I attended the University of Memphis. If during my undergraduate days, the U of M (Memphis State in those days) had played UNC in the NCAA tournament, I would have been pleased no matter the outcome, but more fulfilled if Carolina had won. Fortunately--sort of--I never had to face that choice and celebrated with screaming abundance when the Tarheels won the championship in 1982, 1993 and 2005. I felt disappointment in the years "we" did not win, but had an excellent chance to do so, this year being the most recent example (although I'm glad the Heels didn't have to play Florida: the Gators simply had a better team than anyone else in a "all else being equal" head to head matchup and I did not want to see either Carolina or Memphis lose in the Final Four).
Since the end of the tournament this year, however, I have felt strange inklings to--well--rearrange my order of teams. I am, after all, a Memphis graduate and have in the last several years begun to do what I could to help the school in this or that way of concern. I feel more of a personal kinship to Memphis than I do to Chapel Hill and I expect the chance that I may end up living in Memphis someday to be more likely than ever returning to UNC. In a word, 1984 and 1999 (when I graduated and became a member of the Alumni Association respectively) are a lot more recent than 1970 when my family left Chapel Hill. So I feel a logical bent to my inkling, thereby helping to assuage my "inner academic."
Where I'm going here, of course, is to say that I will now unabashedly root first and foremost for my belovedly frustrating University of Memphis Tigers in every sport and UNC second, but only in men's basketball. That has a right feel to it. A note to my friends: you can get off the floor now.

GO TIGERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

New Title

2007-04-19T10:03:00.000-05:00

After some thought and more in line with my semi-detachment from politics--not sports--and increasing emphasis on matters theological and literary, I decided to change my blog's name to what you see above. It's a way I can acknowledge both parts of my interests through a reference to the novel that accelerated my moving toward a full-time academic life. In reading Moby-Dick, a near-re-conversion experience took place and I've been "on the road to Galilee" ever since. My geographical reference comes from Mark's resurrection story as the young man in white tells the unnamed followers that the one they seek wants them to tell the (male) disciples to meet him in Galilee. The notion that as disciples, we're on the road still means a lot to me and Melville's novel is a primary way I grapple with what that "trip" and "road" mean.
Needless to say, however, I'll always be attune to sports, especially my belovedly frustrating Memphis Tigers (Joey Dorsey's mouth being the latest example) and the other teams that have captured my allegiance over the years. Nevertheless, where I feel my interests going are an intermixing and dialectical tension (unresolved) between theology and literature. I rather enjoy that.

Scopes and Wind, Part II

2007-04-15T21:49:00.000-05:00

I read Inherit the Wind for the first time about twenty years ago, the summer of 1987 I believe. The introduction of my edition indicated that the play's authors--mentioned in the NY Times article I posted earlier--specifically did not write a historical recounting of the Scopes Trial in 1925. They clearly indicated the borrowing of certain exchanges from the trial transcript, but their emphasis--in the 1950s--had to do with the spectre of McCarthyism then engulfing the country.
In other words, the play never was intended to be "history" as much as a commentary on contemporary events through the medium of art. It draws rigidly clear lines of Right and Wrong, portrays characters in overly stark manners and creates too much pathos through Matthew Harrison Brady's death while trying to make the speech defending his principles the day following his losing battle under cross-examination by Henry Drummond. William Jennings Bryan's actual death one week after the trial didn't make for the sort of climactic drama that both stage and screen visualized through the play.

For that matter, except in the most allusive of ways, the play did not refer to Clarence Darrow's defense of Leopold and Loeb--the University of Chicago students who planned in Nietzschean style the "perfect" murder--only a few years before he travelled to Dayton for "The Trial of the Century" (at least before the OJ Simpson disaster). The play also mentioned nothing about John Scopes actually volunteering to be arrested and tried for breaking the Tennessee statute against teaching evolution. In other words, the entire historical episode was designed (intelligently if you will) to create just the sort of confrontation that happened between Darrow and Bryan. The result rested on Darrow's use of Bryan's ego against himself in order to get him away from speech-making (Bryan's best forte) to cross-examination (Darrow's).
None of those complexities, however, have mattered in the 72 years since the trial. None of the biblical, theological, historical (the Civil War played a large, hovering role in the events that led to the trial), social, economic, and cultural factors are explored in the play or, except for sparsely-read books, throughout the culture. Nothing is mentioned about Higher Biblical Criticism and its--more or less--beginnings in 1835 and the efforts by many Christians to accept the new discoveries of science with their proclamation of faith throughout the rest of the nineteenth century. Some, but perhaps not many, folks are aware that if Bryan had given his post-examination speech, what he wanted to express was a fear of Social Darwinism that he understood as the logical consequence of evolution and materialism. Even given its performance in the 1950s, the play does not even hint that the historical H. L. Mencken all but advocated racial and social policies in much the same manner as the Nazis did throughout the 30s and 40s. The somewhat apparently awkward choice between defending either a narrow--and idolatrous--biblicism and barely restrained Social Darwinism does not leave one feeling too good about either who "won" or who "lost" at Dayton.

Unfortunately, the image of Darrow reducing Bryan to phrases such as "I don't think about the things I don't think about" is all that most people remember about a very complex series of events and an equally important set of questions. Proclamation of faith, in any manner of which I am aware, is not an easy way to live in an age of technology and--all too common--condescending skepticism. Each manifestation of faith, including secularists, makes various claims of Absolutism with the result of creating suspicion and alienation with people in other proclamations. Much bloviating and little listening takes place; we seem less and less capable of even agreeing to see things differently and, as a former professor of mine interpreted the Abraham and Lot story, to say "you go your way and I'll go mine." What we refuse to recognize is that any claim to Absolutism roots itself in the ambiguities of history, context and circumstance. That does not mean Absolutes aren't somehow "real." I, for one, believe in the Absolute I call God and experience in some way through Jesus of Nazareth. I recognize--at my best--my own context, history and cultural background that shaped my ability to make my profession of faith and subsequent inability to experience the Absolute in any other manifestation. I have Moslem, Buddhist and Christian friends who are much more conservative in their approach than I in mine. I believe God is with them as God is with me.

The American playwright Eugene O'Neill is credited with saying that the search for God rests at the center of life. He did so from the standpoint of a lapsed Roman Catholic and Lord knows he had good reason to be lapsed and to search. I search from the vantage of a "recovering Baptist." Whether my reasons pass muster I don't think matter ultimately. What matters is the search itself.

Scopes and Wind, Part I

2007-04-15T15:37:00.000-05:00

I'll have more to write about the play's revival later today. In typical pop-culture fashion, the Yahoo! article doesn't quite replicate the context of either the play itself, the trial, William Jennings Bryan or the biblical account(s) of "creation." Since the overwhelming majority of responsible scholars today posit that Genesis has two creation stories--which was in common understanding, both pro and con, in 1925,--to express controversy about "a" story is to inaccurately relate what actually was heppening in Dayton or, for that matter, in the 1950s when the play first saw production. As I say, however, more later today--

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A revival of a major Broadway play that tackles the U.S. debate over Darwin's theory of evolution is more topical now than when it was first staged more than 50 years ago. ...
"Inherit The Wind" pits Charles Darwin's theory of evolution against the biblical account of creation. It is the fictional account of the 1925 Scopes Trial, otherwise known as the "monkey trial," where science teacher John Scopes was tried and convicted in Tennessee for teaching evolution.
The play's Tony Award-winning director, Doug Hughes, citing efforts in recent years to weaken the teaching of evolution in public schools in such states as Kansas, Pennsylvania and Georgia, said the work had more relevance today than when it first opened in 1955.
"The idea that 50 or more years later there is more controversy about its teaching than there may have been in '55 ... is amazing," said Hughes.
The play by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee was written in response to McCarthyism -- the post-World War Two era of anti-communist fervor and investigations.
"The plot, the gizmo, of this play is actually aligned pretty closely with what is currently going on in the body politic," Hughes said.
The play was adapted into a 1960 movie of the same name, starring Spencer Tracy and
Fredric March' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> Fredric March.
Reviews of the latest revival were generally positive and hailed
Christopher Plummer' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> Christopher Plummer's performance. Most noted the timing of the play's subject matter, including a chilling line uttered by Plummer: "You don't suppose this kind of thing is ever finished, do you?"
New York Times critic Ben Brantley noted that "while the subject of teaching evolution and religion in public schools is even more topical" than when it was first staged, "Mr. Plummer at play is something sacred."
AN AMERICAN DEBATE
The play, which opened on Thursday, shows what is an inherently American debate between biblical and secular thought, Hughes said.
"Fundamental belief seems to be very important to us in America. We are among the most religious countries on earth, he said.
"And yet our democracy is founded on an extremely secular document, the United States Constitution, and therein lies the paradox -- how do you square those two things?"
In the play, Plummer and
Brian Dennehy' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> Brian Dennehy play characters based on the real-life opposing attorneys during the Scopes trial, which pitted famed civil liberties lawyer Clarence Darrow against the politician and devout Presbyterian William Jennings Bryan, a three-time Democratic Party nominee for president.
Hughes said the play did not support either side of the debate, recently reignited through a theory called "intelligent design." It argues the variety of living things on Earth is so complex that an intelligent force, which some say is God, must have been responsible.
He predicted the outrage felt by some people that humans could have descended from a "lower order of animals" rather than being "divinely ordained" would persist and could be traced to the Puritans who colonized parts of the United States.
"I don't expect in my lifetime to see unanimity about Darwin's theory or the biblical account of creation," he said.

Stumbling Toward What is

2007-04-02T15:13:00.000-05:00

A cousin recently asked why, if relatively few people read what I write here, I spend the time to compose my thoughts. That's a good question, one about which I have thought some since my cousin and I spoke. Frankly, if "blogs" didn't exist, I wouldn't bother to keep a diary, even though I did as a teenager thirty years ago. I also continue to believe that technologies such as "blogs" provide convenience, but we as people have turned them into indispensable idols that give "centering" shape to our existence. In other words, I doubt "blogs" and cell phones and satellite television and those combination computer, email, address and phone book things that my friend Jaymeson showed me do more good than harm. We as people have, I think, thought very little about the price we are paying--and it's increasing by the megabyte--to have these myriad of conveniences, toys and highly advanced playthings.
I suppose that's one reason I write. By using these forms of technology, I can raise questions about them, if only for my own final satisfaction. I am always reminded of Spencer Tracy's major speech during Inherit the Wind about how much we are willing to relinquish to gain what we say we want. All one has to do is update his references and the point becomes immediately relevant. Asking those questions, of course, is not what most people want to do. We all seek security, absolutes and certitude in a world that by its nature offers none. Faith in something beyond ourselves provides access to what most traditions call--in one way or another--the Absolute, but we only experience that in ambiguous, clouded and fleeting ways. Our experience, most traditions say, does not mean we have, as it were, the Keys to the Sanctum Sanctorum. So no matter the issue, be it technology, faith or literary criticism, I feel led to ask questions, read provocatively and admit my lack of final understanding. In writing, reading, thinking and grasping toward being fully human, every once in a while, I'll stumble toward that which I seek.

since my last posting

2007-03-13T06:06:00.000-05:00

About ten days ago, I tried to post some thoughts on Shakespeare from his hometown of Stratford-upon-Avon, but lost them in some sort of cyber mishap. Since then, I have seen Coriolanus-one of his "Roman" plays along with Julius Caesar and Anthony and Cleopatra--at the Royal Theatre in Stratford, visited a friend in Northern Ireland and am now heading into my last period of time in Galway.
I've also managed to get some reading finished, mostly about American Naturalism at the turn of the 20th Century, which I find infinitely fascinating and enriching. I'm not really an afficiando to some of the ways in which literary criticism has gone since--I think--certain parts of the academy reached the conclusion that universities are "businesses"--abut 30 years ago, I think--and any department or field of study that does not make a profit somehow is automatically suspect. That being said, I don't think a given work of fiction or drama (loosely, literature) can be read apart from its immediate historical, political, economic and theological context any more than I think the any part of the Bible can be read apart from those same influences. My academic education at Vanderbilt Divinity School helped me to understand that and it's a logical bridge to literature. What issues I tend to have, however, relate more to what the premises of a given critical school and, less clearly, what lengths its adherents are willing to go to implement their ideas. My cultural education at Vanderbilt Divinity School taught me to ask those questions.
Context matters: that's my starting point for reading a given work of literature. Context matters, at the same time, in how it stands in tension with the text being read and discussed. Using a text to make some claim about the critic's school of thought, however, is where my problems begin. To do so uses a text--say King Lear or O'Neill's Long Day's Journey into Night--for purposes other than what the play or novel or short story addresses in its own context. Such forms of criticism adapt the text for a specific agenda, usually having something to so with "radical politics" as defined by the given critic. Questions about the outcome of such "radical politics" tend to be dismissed or swept aside with bromides like one offered by my systemtic theology professor at Vanderbilt in the fall of 1987: once "liberation" occurs, "everything else will take care of itself."
My professor's context rooted itself in his "Hegelian-Marxist" reading of Christian theology vis a vis the politically-rooted theological movements of Latin America and various expressions of particularization throughout the United States. My professor believed, I think, that once liberation took place (he didn't say how it would take place, as I recall), human beings would somehow stop the behaviors which have defined our existence since we crawled out of the mud however many millions of years ago. I tried to ask "What happens next?," in an effort to get him to describe a society where "everything else will take care of itself." He smiled--condescendingly--and didn't answer my question. His lack of an answer was, of course, his answer in that he had none. From my experience these--wow--20 years later wth literary critics who espouse one form or another of "radical politics," they seem to have almost no answers apart from a designation that capitalism is the great evil in the post-modern world and somehow if we as humans divide ourselves into particularities of experience, we will somehow keep ourselves from doing to one another what we have done since we crawled out of the mud however many millions of years ago (repetition intended).
As a "card-carrying member of the religious left,"--as one of my current professors called me and God bless him--I certainly believe capitalism has more than its share of problems. My father grew up in near-poverty as the son of a sharecropper in Depression-era Missouri and his father worked sometimes three jobs to put food on the table (being white didn't hurt as Dad came later to understand). Wealth distribution is a terrible problem, especially when a few seem to live in conspicuous consumption while billions seem to be without adequate drinking water--never mind anything else. The biblical prophets from Amos and Hosea onward spoke loudly, clearly and with the power of God to the rampant inequalities that existed around them. Jesus from Nazareth, as the Gospels imply, didn't spend his time consorting with the powerful, but those who lived on the edge of starvation, exclusion and hopelessness. Capitalism is inadequate as a system.
To call for "radical--something beyond capitalism--politics," however, without offering specific policy solutions is for these current critics to express the same "defiant optimism" as my theology professor did, also quoting him from 1987. Both literary critics today and my professor then, in other words, were willing to propose next to nothing in the face of, as Reinhold Niebuhr reminds us, "what every page of human history attests" (paraphrase from The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness). Human will behave better, these people appear to say. The twentieth century not withstanding--or the previous 30 for that matter--surely with radical social change inspired by the right readings and inspired action of literature, history and theology, all will become well. I would, rather, continue to raise, hoist and waive the flags of caution, relying upon what has happened and that almost no one denies (these folks rationalize, but usually don't deny). That reliance tells me that how we humans have behaved is--with very, very few exceptions--how we will always behave and that is not a pretty picture. Capitalism, I am led to argue, becomes neither the problem nor the solution. Human beings are both the problem and the potentially mitigating force of solution.
Somehow, as you might have surmised, literature got lost in all of this. That's a good part of my point too.

Ireland thus far

2007-02-01T14:37:00.000-06:00

I arrived in Ireland two weeks ago Saturday morning about 7 here, more or less 1 Central Standard Time. Thus far, I've read a lot, walked a lot, worshipped in a church dedicated in 1382, visited Kylemore Abbey at Connemara and seen the Atlantic Ocean from Galway Bay. The weather has mostly been cooperative and I found a comfortable place to live during my stay. Next Tuesday, I take the train to Dublin to see the Irish Museum and hopefuly catch a play of some sort--I'm hoping for Shakespeare.
What strikes me primarily is how the Irish economy is growing. Building is going on everywhere and people walk the streets, "mobile" phone in hand, apparently conducting business transactions or something vitally important--to them anyway. The level of sheer movement reminds of an Obi Wan Kenobi line about Anakin Skywalker in Episode III: "Always on the move." I felt rather foolish in not knowing about what folks have come to call "The Celtic Tiger." It's roaring and evidently has been so since the early 1990s.
The people I've encountered are courteous, helpful and tolerant of my undoubted "American" ways, including my accent (which I'm hoping isn't as pronounced as I fear it is). When I ordered an "Irish coffee without the whiskey" last night, however, I thought the waitress was going to call the Mental Hospital or at least recommend me for psychological observation. I have enjoyed, in any case, seeing Diet Cokes dispensed in bottles, even if they are of the 6 ounce variety.
I realize as well--I think anyway--that Irish people by and large do not eat as much as Americans. I'm not saying, of course, that everyone here is thin and within their recommended weight range, but the size of a given serving coupled with the walking everyone seems to do seems to equate with my general observation of more people being proportionate than otherwise. I've noticed myself thinning somewhat, which is a good result of eating, walking and drinking water, coffee and Diet Coke in fairly large quantities.
I'll be here for several more weeks with trips to Germany and England (Coriolanus in Stratford on March 2--if I can keep from levitating onto the stage!!) planned before my return home. I notice that North Carolina's men team is--well--rather good. It's good to know that some things never change.

check out my friend's blog and our latest discussion

2006-12-28T12:27:00.000-06:00

I'm going to try and cut, then paste it, but in case I can't figure it out, check out the latest exchange between my friend "LeftWingCracker" and me on his blog. He can be reached at www.leftwingcracker.blogspot.com . The issue presently is about President Ford's passing and, most specifically, the impact of his pardon of President Nixon. Since "the Cracker" and I have been friends for 23 years, we don't hold much back. I don't think you'll be bored, even as we engage in a bit of "LBJ-esque" language. Here goes--

On the passing of Gerald Ford.
While everyone lionizes the 38th (and only UNELECTED) President, I am going to be slightly less praising of him.To be sure, he was a nice guy, and, like the Rude Pundit says, Gerald Ford WASN'T bugfuck insane, something we haven't been able to say about a Republican President in a LONG time. He seemed average and unassuming, which are good qualities to have in a President, especially when you're succeeding the Worst President in History (remember, neither Reagan nor the Bushes had come along yet).Yet, Gerald Ford (the man who would rather have been House Speaker) will always be judged for the fact that he pardoned Nixon. Most of the Beltway Blatherers laud Ford for "putting this behind us so the country could move forward."BULLSHIT.The fact that Nixon never had to face an American jury is what allowed the Iran-Contra traitors to be pardoned by 41, and may allow 43, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld to avoid the war-crimes trials they so richly deserve. It set a horrible precedent, and deserves condemnation over 30 years after the fact. Would it have torn the country apart? Well, the response to that is this: how much more COULD it have been torn apart?Steve Gilliard says this today about that:1975 was a difficult year. The US military was dysfunctional, American society was shattered, there was a real question if the US could have survived the trial of Richard Nixon for his various crimes.Once he had slunk off, to everyone's relief, there was no great appetite for punishment among Congress.But, by pardoning Nixon, he helped save the GOP, by not exposing the criminal nature of that enterprise. It was allowed to reform as a right wing party, catering to small business and backwoods rednecks. The Dems never really pressed the advantage they could have had by exposing Nixon and his crimes.Read the rest of it, it's terrific.Also, think how much we could have avoided if Nixon had been tried and convicted:No Reagan or EITHER Bush.Perhaps the implosion of the Southern Strategy before it went any further than it did.Folks, if there IS a God, Gerald Ford is doing a LOT of explaining right now.UPDATE: Jeff has EVEN MORE that I had forgotten about at the Pesky Fly!
Posted by LeftWingCracker at 5:12 PM Permalink Comments
var a = 8;document.write('('+a+')');
(8) links to this post
The comments are where we "go at it." I'd also recommend "the Cracker" for other postings about Memphis, Tennessee and periodic entries about sports.

Materialism and Artifice

2006-12-01T16:30:00.000-06:00

A few years ago, I heard Hendrick Hertzberg (I think that's how his name is spelled) present a lecture for the Presidentially-related series "Character Above All." Given at the LBJ SChool of Public Affairs in Austin (glad Texas lost to A& M last weekend--I've rarely had a weirder football experience. I rooted for A & M and Notre Dame--I must be losing my mind), Mr. Hertzberg gave his lecture on his assessment of President Carter's character (he had served as a main speechwriter in the latter two years of the Carter Presidency). One of the attributes that President Carter possessed and still possesses is an outright rejection of any form of artifice or, as Hertzberg said I believe, anything that resembled artifice.
I must admit being prone to that sort of reaction whenever I see or hear examples of what appear to me as false fronts for whatever purposes, usually in terms of "marketing" or "advertising" or trying to convince people that "all is wonderful, right, bright and just downright glorious" with whatever the "product" happens to be. Whether we are constantly bombarded with more and more examples of "marketing campaigns" (SIU is presently, as I recall, initiating a very expensive effort to attract students here from other parts of our state while simultaneously spending presumably scare dollars on campus entrance and directional signs, bowling alley repairs, Chancellor search processes and continuing neither to repair older buildings nor find funds to fully renovate the upper two floors of our Library) is probably a matter of perspective, but I think it's a fair statement that television programs which present images of smiling, happy workers at Company X may open themselves to questions about just how content their employees happen to be.
Perhaps, that being said, the certain company's atmosphere does create happy, satisfied people who make decent wages and have benefits that enable them to provide for their families. Perhaps presenting these happy people on a television network ("The Biography Channel" or, when I can stand the screaming "Boo-Yeah's!," ESPN are but two examples) reflect little more than the criticisms that Edward R. Murrow reportedly made nearly 50 years ago about superficiality and escapism or what Chief Justice Earl Warren (according to Ed Cray's biography from the mid-1990s) predicted about television's impact on the justice system if it ever got inside a courtroom. Given that Cray's book came out just as the OJ Simpson lunacy was reaching a climax, the words of Murrow, Warren and President Carter ring ever so reasonable once again. Those words, of course, do not simply connect with television and its impact on our culture. Artifice, theatre, decadence and unawareness deal with matters far more serious that whether employees smile at work.
We face, as scores of others have said and written, an ever-growing "Forrest-Gumping" of our population--although I'm not sure we ever achieved the heights of "an informed citizenry" that Mr. Jefferson originally envisioned. Fewer and fewer people, it seems, bother to read anything anymore. Fewer and fewer people, it seems, want to explore subjects other than what immediately surrounds them. More and more people want the "security of stuff" without realizing that one can never have enough stuff (or money or power or...) to assuage the basic anxiety that remains the root of the human problem. What's more paradoxical and frustrating is that an ability to understand these issues about ourselves is more readily available to more people than at any time in the world's history. What we do, as Murrow proclaimed and Warren warned and partly over which Carter lost re-election, is avoid, retreat and create an artifice of "There you go again," "It's Morning Again in America" happy faces.
Do I have a solution or even think that several solutions somehow magically "exist"? No. Do I think that directional signs in the face of under-repaired buildings is somehow even remotely an honest attempt to deal with the issue? No. What do I suggest? To paraphrase how my favorite American playwright--Eugene O'Neill--put it in Long Day's Journey into Night, "faithful realism" would be a nice beginning.

elections, transitions, living

2006-10-23T22:33:00.000-05:00

In two weeks, we Americans will have an election. Senators, Representatives and Governors--along with State House and Senate offices--will go either to Washington, DC or home. I've followed politics since 1972 when I was the self-appointed campaign manager for Democratic Presidential candidate George McGovern in Mrs. Garner's fifth grade classroom. In not the first election I endured, Senator McGovern lost the Presidential vote to Richard Nixon. I loathed President Nixon in those days, less so with the passage of years and after some reading about the ambiguities that composed his life. Senator McGovern is still alive, having just published a book about what to do in Iraq. I won't read it as I have neither the time nor the desire to enter that quagmire, even as a "detached" observer.
As the present election approaches, I have my preferences and will exercise them. Jerry Costello, Rich Whitney (probably), Charlie Howe and Sheila Simon are my candidates for their respective offices and I'll more than likely win one or two of the four I listed. Illinois is not electing a United States Senator this year, but I will gladly support Richard Durbin in his re-election bid in 2008. I am not pleased with our current Govenor, Rod Blagojevich, but will vote for him if his current lead slips under 8 points between now and the election.
A large part of me, however, is burned out from politics, pure and simple. I campaigned for several candidates in my undergraduate years, but since 1984, my attitude toward active political involvement has changed. That's not to say I somehow "left politics behind" or stopped trying to "change the world." I didn't and--obviously--can't get politics out of my system. I simply do not have the fire-breathing, crusading launching, idealistically-oriented sense of drive that I once did. I don't, in other words, do what Lyndon Johnson once said he did: think about politics 18 hours a day. I presume Karl Rove thinks about politics at least 15 hours a day, but I don't know of any quote to verify my hunch.
I'm more interested, as my previous posts may indicate, in theological, historical and literary issues, which I do not understand as wholly separate from either themselves or politics generally. In other words, I'm inclined more to seek than crusade. It matters more that literature, theology and history help people begin or continue or validate their beginning to ask questions about issues in their life that they have not previously been able to ask, never mind attempt to answer. In as much as that becomes a "political" process, then I maintain an interest in politics. Our social system, I think, must allow people the intellectual and existential freedom to ask and seek for themselves. The issue for me, however, rests not upon a Congressional bill or a Presidential signing ceremony played that night ad naseum on "Countdown" or "Hardball with Chris Matthews." I hope through teaching literature and being able to at least articulate a bit of theology and some historical overview to give people a larger sense of those realities that influence how they make their decisions. I won't be voting for Captain Ahab in two weeks,--or Hamlet either--but if their stories can give people the tools by which to decide what type of world they wish to inhabit, then I'll consider my work "successful." I reserve the prerogative, however, to ask what it means to be "successful."

As a Tiger Fan, I have Felt Many Things, but Never This...

2006-09-30T20:30:00.000-05:00

My school, the University of Memphis, played our hated in-state rivals, the (not) University of Tennessee today. Three friends, with whom I enjoyed the DeAngelo Williams years, and I went to the game and crammed ourselves into decent seats along the 20 yard line. I thought over the summer and even as the year started, that given our conference (C-USA) and schedule (two relatively easy games and excellent chances against our Conference opponents), that we might go 7-5 or even 8-4. I did not think, in any case, that we would beat (not) UT, but I hoped for a competitive game that would continue to assist our recruiting C-USA type players, eventually getting us a league title and another step toward becoming a regional power program.
Our coach, Tommy West, had shown over the last three years, a willingness to spread the field with an open passing game, balanced with a good running attack led by DeAngelo. I thought our backs this year, while not first-round NFL draft picks, were adequate to keeping the spread offense moving smoothly. I also thought that Martin Hankins, our new quarterback, played quite well, even as we lost to Ole Miss four weeks ago. Even after we collapsed last week against East Carolina (East Carolina--in retrospect), I thought we still would show up to play (not) UT and make a decent showing.
In all of the above, I was wrong--terribly, horribly wrong. I have seen Memphis lose countless games since 1980, some by abysmally lopsided scores. I have seen head coaches so afraid to lose that they punt with less than 2 minutes to go in the game rather than try a 55 yard field goal that would have just resulted in a tie (Rex Dockery, 1983--RIP). I have seen dropped passes by wide open receivers in end zones that would have won games. In a word, I have seen a lot of mediocre Tiger football since 1980 and only in the last three years have I seen measureable improvement in the program.
I have until today, that is, been embarrassed, frustrated, angry, disappointed, but never ashamed during a Memphis football season. Until today. We not only lost (41-7), but we everything we seemed to have overcome in the last three years, we rediscovered today. Coach West became the second comings of Rex "Punt" Dockery, George Halas (minus Gale Sayers) and George Allen (with an Under the Ground Gang). He called running play after running play after runing play, even in 3rd down situations and over ten yards to go. On three separate ocassions, we had (not) UT pinned inside their five yard line and couldn't keep them from scoring (yep, scoring, not just getting first downs, but driving all the way down the field and scoring!!). Our defense tried in the first half, but thanks to our inept, unimaginative, three inches and a cloud of whimpering offense, simply had nothing left for the seocnd half. I will be interested to hear if Coach West blames himself for one of the worst defeats in a school-long legacy of defeats or if he'll launch into Coach-speak about "not having had time to install his new defense" (two weeks and he's a former Defensive Coordinator?) or (not) UT having a biggger football budget or some other forms of excuses. Congratulations to all UT fans: you deserved to win and played well. As for my beloved U of M, I'm out of words.

Left Wing Independence

2006-09-16T15:41:00.000-05:00

I am neither a conservative nor a Republican. My understanding of Judeo-Christian heritage roots itself basically in the notion that God's revelation is ongoing and understood by people through the lens of their respective cultures, families and individual experiences. That's quite different from a friend of mine in Oklahoma whose view of Scripture is evangelical, which he then underdtands to make his politics left of center. I do not believe that my Christian faith, in other words, constitutes the only or final or "first among (sort of) equals" way that the One I call God becomes--in language that is, of course, inadequate--"known" to human beings. For anyone to suggest that my perspectives on faith, life and politics resides in anything left of center simply is not true.
When I was a young(er) man, I valued most what I idealistically understood as--poetically--the Beloved Community (Dr. King's phrase from his book Community or Chaos: Where Do We Go From Here) or, in a more prosaic phrase, "interracial democracy." I wanted, advocated, and argued for personal understanding and societal sacrifice in order for those ideals to become maninfested. At ten years of age, I appointed myself the campaign manager for George McGovern in my Fifth grade classroom. I supported Jimmy Carter, Ted Kennedy, John Anderson, Gary Hart, Walter Mondale, Al Gore, Michael Dukakis and Bill Clinton in my first four Presidential elections. I voted for John Kerry with pleasure in 2004. During these years, I can say that without undergoing a "conversion" experience, I did nevertheless grow increasingly weary of what I'll call "left wing orthodoxy." Beginning in 1984, but continuing in various ways over the last 22 years, I felt that to raise questions about the consistency of liberal proclamations about "tolerance," "justice," "inclusion" or--at root--how we understand the use and function of language was to broach subjects that invited something other than dialogue, argument or even the civility to agree to disagree.
Since the late 1980s, I have tried to find a via media (or, in Bill Clinton's phrase, a "third way") to insist that any method or means or idea that "seeks justice and loves kindness" (Micah 6:8) must include even those who have benefitted from the present lack of Micah's ideals. I do not believe, in reference to what one of my colleagues expressed about King Lear's two elder daughters (Goneril and Regan--who betrayed their father, sent him into a raging thunderstorm at 80 years old to fend for himself and ultimately had him killed so they could maintain the power he had fooloshly given them in response to their flattery that he had sought) would have behaved differently if women rather than men held the levers of power in society. Power corrupts, I believe, and human beings of either gender--to paraphrase George Orwell--seek it for its own sake. I also do not believe that "liberal" criticisms of Bill Cosby two years ago for insisting that black (or white or Hispanic or Native American or ..., even though he focused on black students) schoolchildren learn standard English to constitute a "selling out," but rather the belief that for those most likely to be societally forgotten to assume some responsibilty for themselves and make the "haves" pay attention to them. Frankly, I have come to believe that for a multiplicity of reasons, some originally nobel, some more recently calculated and some of which I do not know, most of my fellow left wingers cannot bring themselves to allow questions about what kind of world we actually desire and how to achieve it. If I felt a chance of having my questions heard and--more importantly--respected rather than suspected, I would stay enthusiastically with my political heritage.
Unfortunately, I do not believe questions are welcomed by orthodoxies of either left or right. After months of thinking and knowing that while I can never become a Republican, I have reached my own ironic Jim Jeffords moment. I now declare myself a political Independent and if Illinois had party registration, I would change my status accordingly. Since, however, we do not, I will confine my voting to the General election and, while leaning well to the left, try to view each candidate on the basis of his or her positions rather than using their party as a factor through which to cast my ballot. That's easy to write, but I no longer can believe that Democrats or liberals are more attune to "seeking justice and loving kindness" than are Republicans or conservatives. I no longer can just tune out the all but openly-expressed disdain from some of my fellow "liberals" when it comes to my faith in the monotheistic God expressed through Christian symbols, forms and cultural experiences. I have, fortunately, not experienced that sort of feeling from my professors at SIU, but I am not fond of references I hear that are directed to people whose friendship I cherish. I hope, in any case, that these past 22 years have allowed me to develop--at my best--means by which to react with greater wisdom and tolerance than I showed to opponents when I was a young(er) man.

ken lay

2006-07-06T11:22:00.000-05:00

Kenneth Lay, the Pastor's son, George W. Bush benefactor, Bible-carrier into court, corporate thief, died yesterday, evidently from a heart attack or related illness (so sayeth the Atlanta Journal Constitution and USA Today) . Already, conspiracy theories are being spun through this very blogging medium that, no, "Kenny Boy" isn't dead. He faked it and may well be living on an island somewhere far away from the Federal authorities who would otherwise send him to prison. Maybe, so the thinking goes, he paid someone to "represent" him in the funeral (a la JR Ewing in the Dallas remake), allowing an escape to that same island or perhaps even the mountains of Pakistan. On and on the thinking goes, as always generating press for themselves and distracting us from the major issues at hand.
Kenneth Lay, Pastor's Son, was a thief, pure and simple. He enriched himself through the slimiest of means, defrauding thousands of his employees of their life-savings by creating the conditions under which his "house built on (electronic) sand" collapsed. He refused to listen to the all-too-few responsible accountants who saw just how shaky was his sand, instead pursuing Mammon with a "let them eat cable television" mentality. His treasure, as his Scriptures told him, rested in his wallet, bank statements, fradulent balance sheets and his ability to charm politicians (one in particular) through campaign contributions. If the conspiratorial blogging multitudes would concentrate on Lay's behavior, both personal and representative (or, more likely, if the "mainstream media" would report it and ignore the "He's alive!" stuff), maybe some learning and--more important--political, business and economic memory--can arise from Lay's burial plot. The one in the cemetery and the one at Enron Headquarters.

who knows where I'm headed here

2006-05-23T12:34:00.000-05:00

I went to Portland, Oregon toward the end of March to deliver a Conference paper on a Shakespeare character from King Henry IV, Part I. I love almost anything to do with Sir John Falstaff, agreeing with Harold Bloom's assessment that the Fat Knight embodies the divine blessing of life (!) more than any other character in Western literature except Hamlet. I do not necessarily think Bloom's view of the Danish Prince fits, but I think Falstaff does embrace what God offers--even if Bloom wouldn't necessarily use those terms.
My presentation went well and I look forward to perhaps giving something on Falstaff's "opposite," Iago, next year. Opposite not so much in Shakespeare's intention, but using the Hebrew Scripture's categories of Blessing and Curse. These type of discussions--ontological, foundational, root--are why literature matters and can get we scholastic types beyond the "ivory tower" (politely put), "egghead" (not so politely) categorization in so many people outside the University setting. I haven't a clue why seemingly so many apart from the University have tended to view us as "not in the real world" or "unrealistic," except that most of what we do is not easily translated into what I'll call "Uncle Richard" language (a real Uncle of mine who died some years ago). Even people in local congregations want sermons or Bible "studies" that use "their" words as if we native born American academic and theological types with Anglo-Saxon heritage primarily speak something other than English.
We academics can, for the most part, express ourselves well and we do have something to offer public discussion. If, on the other hand, we urge--for one or another reason--"social action," or promote political and economic "liberation," only to then stay inside of our offices, write our Journal articles and attend our many, many Committee meetings, I remain unclear what exactly constitutes the nature of our advocacy. By trying to act "relevantly," we paradoxically tend to increase our distance from those we wish to help. Primarily among these, of course, are the students we encounter and the University support staff who answer our phones. I'm not sure if Falstaff would have tried to promote relevancy (he already was, at least to his fellows in the Boar's Head Tavern), but then again, with his embodiment of the Blessing, he would not have to articulate what he implicitly already understood.

faith, secularism and literature

2005-12-19T18:49:00.000-06:00

Two years ago last fall, I met with a professor who I hoped at the time might serve as the director of my work at another university than the one I currently attend. As I introduced my subject interests to him, I saw a look across his face that seemed to indicate that he thought I was very much off-base. I heard later in that semester from a fellow person of faith and clergyperson that this same professor appeared to evaluate work on the basis of his feelings about faith rather than the merits of a given student's work. I, of course, do not know if the professor actually graded that unfairly and I am making no accusation of any kind. I did sense from my conversation with the professor, however, an antipathy toward faith perspectives in terms of reading, understanding and analyzing literature.
Fortunately, I have not had similar experiences from my professors since beginning my work at Southern Illinois University. Whether the given professor has specific faith inclinations or not, each of them to a person has honored my perspective and the search for integrative intepretation that I bring to my work. I have very much appreciated their grace and decency.
What continues to disappoint me, however, rests on the manner in which some of my fellow graduate students seem to interpret both my faith and how I use it in various classes. Naturally, I am accusing no one of anything in particular and my "inklings" may well be wrong. I do sense, however, various levels of either impatience or even sometimes outright hostility that any rationally thinking person could profess any sort of religious faith (other than the secular materialism that seems to be embraced by folks here and there among these same grad students--without them realizing that what they embrace is a "religious faith" as well). I partly realize that trying to counter their lumping of me with one form or another of, as a grad student said some months ago, "fundies" is pointless. These folks have their "demon" and won't give an inch since it helps to form their weltanschaung. In other words, they are as averse to ambiguity as any of the fundamentalists they so easily disparage.
On the other hand, I have reached the point in life where I am unwilling to submit to silly comments by people who are unwilling to consider that Judeo-Christian tradition is complex, rich and varied with ample room for people, such as myself, who do not believe homosexuality is a choice (neither is my being a heterosexual) or that the Bible is "the infallible, inerrant word of God" or that, since I believe Jesus is Lord, that I am going to try and impose that profession on people who do not (since this is being sent to many of my relatives, I'll refrain from using an expletive that comes to mind). In various ways and in various levels of voice, I have increasingly raised objections to that type of "anti-faith" bias and, somewhat hesitantly, but firmly nonetheless, will continue to do so. I maintain the hope that we as Grad students can live up to our vaunted ideals of open inquiry, free exchange and respect for other viewpoints. Thankfully, I have found some of that, but sadly, not as much as I perhaps I expected.
Your comments are, as always, welcome.

befuddled

2005-08-27T23:24:00.000-05:00

Tonight for the second straight Saturday, I attended worship at what can be safely called a "contemporary" local church. The "sanctuary" overflowed with people of all types, including a professor from the English Department where I attend graduate school. I place "sanctuary" in quotes simply because that's not a term these folks would use. Their lack of use also provides a convenient metaphor for, as it were, my "befuddlement." The church calls itself "seeker friendly," which I well understand as a realistic assessment that many, many folks (including adults of my generation) do not possess the "Christian code" in even the most rudimentary forms of language. I first became aware of that some years ago when one of my parishioners (in Central Southwest Oklahoma), a 51 year old woman who had attended church her entire life asked in Sunday School "Now Noah comes before Jesus, right?" Aside from being appalled, I have since come to realize that for churches to reach people with what we Christians believe as the life-changing Good Story, we have to treat even the most-highly educated adults as theological children or even infants. People simply do not know the background, stories or even some of the words that have comprised Christian faith for almost 2,000 years.
In a large sense, I am glad not to be part of the active ministry any longer. I do not have to deal with the sort of hand-holding that Pastors and church leaders currently do, for which I am grateful. Nevertheless, I feel somewhat at a loss when I do worship, even in my own tradition (Episcopalian). Rarely do I experience the "Word" part of worship in a sophisticated, complex manner that leaves room for ambiguity and uncertainty of interpretation. Most sermons and even Scripture readings almost have to be prefaced in these numerically growing churches with "now these words were spoken by (say) Jesus to such and so an audience and were thought of badly by several other groups of people known as the so and so's..." I dare say that when my grandfather preached, most of his congregations at least knew that the Pharisees and Saducees were different groups of people and had different fears in living under Roman occupation.
That assumption no longer holds and I just shake my head and wonder what will become of (especially) mainline Protestantism over the next 35 years or so. The congregations that adapt will, of course, survive physically while those (like especially one of my former congregations) who insist on worshipping in a style of circa 1958 will die sooner than later. I wonder for the survivors, however, at what cost will come their maintaining their congregational life. Worship will resemble something far different than the traditions these places claim as their heritage and time will be spent simply explaining, for example, that baptism is an important part of "following Jesus" or "we have what's called the Lord's Supper every Sunday and you are certainly welcome to have it with us" sort of pronouncements. Time will not be spent, in other words, in exploring just what baptism has meant and how that has changed over the centuries. Time will not be spent in discussing how the Lord's Supper has not always had an "open admissions" policy and how both it and baptism, for Protestants, are sacraments that somehow indicate God's reality to us. Time may even have to be spent in explaining the word "Protestant," which causes me no small element of despair.
So other than just continuing my own search and proclamation of God as mysterium tremendum et fascinans (Rudolf Otto's phrase--wonderful and metaphorically inviting) and an ever-increasing unwillingness to downplay my faith in public settings, I plan to attend worship, seek the Holy and try not to worry too much about matters about which I can do nothing. God bless to all of you--

Politics and Faith

2005-07-28T21:31:00.000-05:00

I have "enjoyed" politics since at least 1968 when I started the first grade. I remember the day after the Presidential vote walking to (I think) lunch and hearing our Principal announce that Richard Nixon had defeated Hubert Humphrey. Four years later, I wanted to write the Governor of Tennessee to urge that he pass a law so that ten year olds (which just happened to be my age) could vote for President. I have lost more than won, but usually felt energized enough to recover in time for the enxt round of campaigns, issues and elections.
Not that I am swearing off politics or the causes in which I believe: far from it. Where I feel the most passion currently, however, stands squarely on issues of faith and, loosely understood, "theology." I realized those feelings during my research, writing and discussion of my class papers this summer, both concerning Shakesperean characters and in each of whom I found appropriately theological lenses through which to interpret their lives and actions (Falstaff and Iago). During my process, I found myself, in essence, almost "tuning out" the various twists and turns coming out of Washington, even for the most part the Supreme Court nomination of John Roberts (although I e-mailed my Senators urging them to oppose his nomination) . My Memphis friends have "blogged" like mad over the recent County Democratic Party elections, which has been interesting to follow, but not something in which I invested much energy, despite my considering myself to be a Memphian.
When faith and theology become involved, however, I "focus like a laser beam." When a member of my church (who has a Ph.D) mouthed that Islam is "an evil religion," I wanted (and should have) blasted his ass out of the water. His disgusting comment indicates a stupidity that I find incomprehensible in a world when thousands of Moslems use almost the exact phrase about Christianity and we Christians, putting their faith into action by flying planes into buildings. What makes Christianity better than Islam? What gives we who are Christians the obscene right to condemn a worldwide faith whose very name means "peace?" What makes our "Bible" better than their "Koran?" I am a Christian, as I have told my friends and at least some of my former parishioners, as I can be nothing else after having tried to be "something else." For me to limit the Creator of all that is to one particular faith "system" (just happening to be mine) I find both impossible and ridiculous (although I make an exception for my Mother who insists that Christianity is "the most refined" of the world's faiths). If God is beyond our ability to understand, then why does any faith group (including died in the wool secularists who have just as much of a faith as we who profess a particular series of "words about God") proclaim itself as superior or legitimate or the only "path to salvation?" In the words of John Shelby Spong (whose work I find almost always overwhelmingly refreshing and invigorating), God cannot finally be understood, but experienced, which is the clear implication of the story of Moses "seeing" God's back after it has passed by him on Sinai. If experience "after the fact" is the best we mere mortals can expect, why do we turn around and suggest that we somehow have come to possess the truth, to the point of calling a different faith system "evil?"
Those issues energize me and, I suspect, will do so throughout the rest of my life. I understand God through Christian symbols rooted in our glorious Judaic heritage. I experience that God in a variety of means, often having something to do with music, but sometimes through stories or even, as John's Gospel puts it, "incarnated" moments. I am grateful for others in my life who have alternative experiences. Thank God for them all--

Irony within a Sea of God Knows What

2005-06-04T16:32:00.000-05:00

Looking at the calendar, I am reminded that today is the 37th anniversary of Robert Kennedy's assassination. I have no idea, had he lived, if he would have somehow wrestled the Democratic nomination from Hubert Humprhey or, given that, if he could have beaten Richard Nixon for the Presidency. The dynamics of that general election would have been very different than what actually happened: of that I am quite certain, whatever the final outcome. I also believe that if he had become President, Kennedy would have focused on poverty with a renewed intensity, brought an end to our involvement in the Vietnam War without five more years of bloodshed and managed to defeat Ronald Reagan in 1972 (bringing an end to the "Conservative movement" and saving us from the Religious Right's ursurpation of power through the choice of George W. Bush. In any case, Kennedy died 37 years ago tomorrow and his loss saddens me. Given the latest example of yet another case of political corruption (from Shelby County, Tennessee primarily), I find this date especially ironic.
In the last twenty years or so, I have developed a love-disdain relationship with "politics" and its process. In my early 20s, I was full of passion, tactlessnesss and what Reinhold Niebuhr might call a "Child of Light" idealism. I wanted, in short, to make the world a better place to live and those feelings still resonate within me. It's a large part of why I went into theological work, believing (as I still do) that the Church should be at the forefront of efforts to ease suffering, feed the hungry and clothe the naked. In the intervening years between (more or less) 1984 and today, however, I have become skeptical and bascially cynical about what "politics," even if it is working for benefit of the many, can actually accomplish. I am both saddened and not surprised by the news from my home state of Tennessee. Of course, I thought, politics lends itself to greed and avarice: what else is new? I also wondered if the current administration, which happens to be of a different political party than most of those arrrested, had something to do with setting up the sting operation originally and if the timing of those arrests was not coincidental to the announcement of Harold Ford, Jr.,'s campaign for the Senate. I do not know, of course, but I wonder. Naturally, if Democrats were in power, we would in some way try to pull those stunts as well, which makes my sense of ennui that much stronger.
I have become something, in other words, of a Christian nihilist in the last several years. Melville's despair powerfully attracts me, as does that of Dreiser and O'Neill. At the same time, however, I cannot relinquish the faith through whose symbols I can access some fleeting sense of meaning. My younger colleagues at SIU seem to have trouble understanding my reliance upon faith, which frustrates me. To paraphrase Bill Clinton, "I feel their freedom," but wonder if they're as free as some of them might think they are. I doubt it. Still, I believe and even if Bob Schieffer and CBS were to have been at the tomb on the first Easter and filmed that God among us was still inside, dead on the ground I would nonetheless proclaim the symbol of resurrection. Despairing hope? Despairing muted hope? Perhaps....

End of Semester: Not the End of You-Know-Who

2005-05-04T10:09:00.000-05:00

We have one week or so left in the Spring term. Southern Illinois is proving a good place to study and live, for which I continue to be grateful. Naturally, I write in an effort to avoid my papers (both grading and writing), but I've also been somewhat wistful about the semester ending. I will miss the mostly relaxed atmosphere in my classes and the laughter that accompanies much of our discussions. I do not expect my students to write like Ph.D candidates in English (some of whom cannot write coherently in the first place) and, aside from some frustration about them completing their assigments in relative proximity to the due date, most of them have done as well as I had hoped.
The end of our semester, however, does raise the specter of George Bush continuing to sit in the Oval Office. At last, with his proposal to destroy Social Security (and make no mistake, the Republicans have been trying to do so since it was enacted seventy years ago), the Congressional Democrats have developed some backbone coupled with an awareness that the Republican mantra of "bi-partisianship" always has and always will mean the raw pursuit, acquisition and maintenance of power. In effect, Democrats have finally decided to say "no." The Bush people continue to use their well-practiced tricks and rhetorical techniques of demonization, but ultimately, their efforts resemble some of my former parishioners who stomped their feet, screamed their voices and threatened to take their marbles and go play in another congregational sandbox if they did not get their way. I wish, retrospectively, to have taken those parishioners up on their offer (they wouldn't have left as their power and ability to get attention was dysfunctionally tied to their membership) and, with equal wistfulness, I wish Al Gore had developed an understanding about what Bush and Rove actually desire. If, however, the Congressional Democrats can prevent disaster through next year's elections, perhaps we can pick up enough seats to make Bush's last two years an essential standoff and prepare ourselves for what will be an extremely important election in 2008. Democrats, in other words, have the necessary understanding: I hope they can utilize it.

fundamentalism, part ad infinitum

2005-04-12T17:52:00.000-05:00

Some days ago, The Daily Egyptian, which serves as the student newspaper for Southern Illinois University in Carbondale, ran a letter to the editor from a student who, in his words, had not been raised in a "Christian home." In fact, the author indicated, he had only "been saved" two years ago. While the author did not describe the circumstances in which his conversion took place, his letter indicates that he went from a sense of nothingness to an absolute commitment to God in Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, however, his sense of commitment roots itself in a misreading of Scripture and a tendency to view those unlike himself as "lost" and, as his letter indicates, doomed to "hell."
After leaving the pastoral ministry, I almost swore to avoid wading into these type or arguments. One reality I learned as a Pastor is that theological reflection is not rooted in one's choice of denomination or congregation. Most people are going to understand God in their life through certain lenses and no amount of biblical analysis or presentation of differences between the world(s) of the Bible and our own will convince them even to examine their presuppositions. Such were my feelings when I decided to respond to the article in last week's paper.
My feelings, however, rooted themselves in little more than an exhausted sadness that in the 21st Century, educated, affluent people can still believe in a three-story universe with "heaven" on top, earth "in the middle" and (politely referenced) "the underworld" below. People still can argue (and expect to be taken seriously) that without "a relationship with Jesus Christ," one will (as my forebears would say, or at least hint) "burn in hell." People can still argue, no matter the clear, unambiguous Biblical references laid right before their eyes, that the Old and New Testaments are "the infalliable, inerrant Word of God" and anyone who does not adhere to that "doctrine" cannot be a Christian and will suffer the same penalty as an athiest, agnostic, Buddhist, Hindu, Moslem or anyone else who does not "accept Jesus into their heart." While I still can grind my teeth in anger, my usual feeling post-pastorate is one of sadness and futility. It simply does not matter.
Unfortunately, however, the author's words do matter. Children for centuroies have been scared into conversions (Langston Hughes wrote a marvelous story "Conversion" about his experience) and adults have been led to believe that their beliefs are, as one of my relatives still says, "more refined" than those of my friend in Memphis who is a practicing Buddhist and whose life underwent the same type of "fundamental" transformation as any "born-again" Christian. Our view of "God," does not rest in our superior understanding of ontology or a set of Scriptures. God transcends any method of interpretation, choosing to become known (I believe) through acts of compassion, kindness, tolerance and love. We as human beings can grasp those acts as we participate in them. They are not abstractions, but rather incarnate expressions of that which is beyond ourselves. I find those acts and wha they embody as well as represent to be the hope on which the world, with God's help, can acheive healing and reconciliation. More later...

Terry Schiavo

2005-04-01T13:11:00.000-06:00

Initially and at present, I am appalled at how the "pro-life" factions have exploited Terry Schiavo and her family for publicity and political gain. Tom Delay said as much, as did Bill Frist, a physician who knows better, but whose lust for the White House got the better of his medical judgement. Most Congressional Democrats reverted back to their timid Florida 2000 recount selves and found a way not to protest the Congressional usurpation of power scheme better known as the bill that allowed Ms. Schiavo's parents to sue in Federal Court so that her feeding tube might be reinserted. I believed and continue to believe that Ms. Schiavo's case should have remained a family matter and, at worst, resolved (as it was repeatedly) in the state courts.
What bothers me, however, is not so much the Republican obsequious cowering to their Christian Right masters: so what else is new? I am not bothered significantly by the Democrats, with a few exceptions, "running for the hills," only to let the news break that Tom Delay some years ago chose to "pull the plug" on his father only now to have an epiphany about a woman whose name he never would have known apart from the tragedy of her situation. Again, what else is new?
I remain bothered by the entire matter exemplifying yet again the lack of civility in our public discourse. Scenes of Joe Scarborough interrupting Catherine Crier Wednesday night or Randall Terry screaming into any microphone he could find or even Jesse Jackson trying once more to redeem his reputation all caused me frustration and not a little worry. Each side remains convinced of its own righteousness, whether it employs the language of "faith" or not. Each side does everything in its power to demonize the other rather than trying to listen for some sliver of commonality that can help to ease the Schindler and Schiavo family's suffering. Each side tries to "win" the language battle since, as Orwell reminded us in 1984, that whomever controls language controls debate. "Starve to death," die with dignity," "euthanasia," "right to die," all permeated the airwaves and absolutely nothing changed for either Ms. Schiavo, her husband or her parents.
Now Ms. Schiavo is dead, mercifully at peace in some manner, I believe. I do not think, however, her case will die anytime soon. I am afraid she will become a fund-raising tool and a martyr for either side of the culture wars debate. That, as far as I am concerned, is the real obscenity. Terry Schiavo, 1963-2005. Rest in peace.

"Your Great"

2005-03-16T22:06:00.000-06:00

Tonight (Wednesday), I attended a University of Memphis NIT basketball game. The previous Saturday, we played Louisville for our Conference Tournament championship and an automatic bid to the NCAA tournament. Our year, until the Conference tournament, had been inconsistent at best, but we managed, quite unexpectedly, to reach the finals and played a terrific game against Louisville. The last play of the game actually took place at the free throw line when our freshman point guard, Darrius Washington, had a chance to win the game with three free throws or force overtime by making two. He made the first, but painfully (for him more than anyone else) missed the last two. We lost the game and, in due course, received an NIT bid rather than going to the NCAA "dance." Hence our game tonight, which we won by 35 points. Darrius Washington played very well, receiving a standing ovation from the hometown crowd before the game started.
Sometime during the game, the on-court cameras panned the crowd, looking as usual for signs or pretty faces to put on the Jumbo-Tron scoreboard. Part of the modern reality of attending a game: nothing problematic with it as far as I am concerned. There remain, however, some realities that bother me quite a bit.
As the second half progressed, one camera came across a hand-held sign that said "D. Washington--Your Great." Our young point guard has already established himself as a very good player with the potential to be one of our school's historically best players. That's not the problem nor is it my issue. Upon reading that sign, I did roll my eyes with frustration and wanted to say "what else is new?" The word "your," as used on the sign, is a possessive pronoun, employed in cases such as "your book," "your car," and "your basketball." In other words, the person holding the sign (and its maker) used a pronoun in place of the verb "You are," here contracted to "You're great." The older I get, the more unwilling I am to allow misuses of words or to endure horribly incorrect grammar. Children, of course, are an exception, but if we as Americans really believe in education, it seems fair to ask that if their parents or guardians are not willing to instill reasonably decent English (I always get confused about the uses of "to lie" and "to lay," so I by no means claim perfection) in their children, then the schools must do so. Unfortunately, in seemingly far too many places, paid school teachers and their administrators mangle subjects and verbs, confuse the nominative and objective cases ("between you and I" among other such jewels) and would think nothing of "Your great," even if they recognized its incorrect useage.
I speak of one town where I served pastorally in particular. To provide truth in packaging, my anitpathy toward these people extends far beyond the manner in which many of them butcher our God-given language. The misuse and wholesale destruction of basic grammar, however, on the part of school teachers and principals provides a picture of the overall problem as I see it. If children hear verbal pronunciations such as "He already done it," or "They is running late" from those who receive salaries from state tax money to teach them, something remains dreadfully wrong. The end result becomes a university whose students don't know the difference between a contracted verb and a pronoun. I react, but despair about what to do. My students in Carbondale, however, know that I will correct them if I recognize improper grammar. At least in part, I get paid to do so.

Library Thoughts Southern Illinois University

2005-03-11T21:53:00.000-06:00

Wednesday afternoon, I attended a meeting that concerned recently raised issues about the discarding of books at Morris Library, the main campus facility for SIU. Some English department faculty, other graduate students and myself met within the context of SIUC's stated "goal" of becoming one of the "top 75 Public Research Institutions in the United States by the year 2019," when we will celebrate our 150th year as a school. It seems logical, given our "goal" that the university would spend whatever resources are necessary to UPGRADE library facilities and its holdings such as books and print journals.
Unfortunately, however, for some (seemingly undetermined) time the library has been discarding books with very little attention paid to a given book's value for the same scholars whose research will help to make SIUC one of the "top 75 Public Research Institutions in the United States by the year 2019." By almost miraculous good luck, at least 20 volumes that would otherwise have been, in the not-quite-euphemism used by the Dean of Libraries, "recycled" have been recovered and the process of discarding has (so we were told) been discontinued for the time being. One of the recovered volumes is, seemingly, one of only two paper (non-copied or computer regenerated I think) copies that remain in the entire WORLD. The Dean of Liberal Arts (God bless her) mentioned that several scholars from other universities have e-mailed her expressing concern over the discarding policies and procedures of our library.
The meeting itself lasted almost two hours, the first quarter of which was spent in listening to the Dean of Libraries discuss the progress of our years in planning, 42 (or so) million dollar renovation project currently underway. We the listeners were given detailed diagrams with multi-colored sections that designated the layout of the new facility, scheduled to be completed sometime in 2008. Part of our millions are to be spent for the installation of a Starbucks within the Library itself, presumably for the purpose of making our primary research facility more "student friendly," perhaps neglecting to remember that those of us seeking advanced degrees are students as well as teaching assistants. At the same time, however, the Dean made it clear that the newly renovated library would not have additional space for books or (presumably) print journals. His attitude in answering that question, made by one of my fellow graduate students, almost brought her to tears. In a word, he literally laughed in her face. What evidently the Library Dean means by ageeing with our university "goal" of being one of the "top 75 Public Research Institutions in the United States by the year 2019" is to spend 42 million dollars on a coffee shop, one of which we already have in the Student Center. Presumably, having two Starbucks in our university will make it easier for the attainment of our "goal" in being one of the "top 75 Public Research Institutions in the United States by the year 2019" more than the maintenance of rare volumes or the purchase of new ones.
The remainder of the meeting managed to remain a civil affair with the Dean promising that a new "policy" will soon be formulated that will clarify the existing "procedures" about book discards and "recycling." He rejected any sort of physical shelf on the first floor where faculty or students could, as a last measure, check which volumes are to be discarded as "unworkable." The Dean wants to rely upon the Area Liaisons to inform the faculty member of books or other materials that are scheduled for "recycling," asking for their input one way or another. Evidently, one person in the Library for the (in my case) entire College of Liberal Arts is somehow to remain responsible for keeping tabs on scholarship within each of its respective departments, each specialty and interest of faculty members and each area of study for even greater numbers of Masters and doctoral students. I leave it to practioners of basic logic to discern whether or not the Dean's approach of "policies, procedures and liasions," upon which he insisted, as being more "workable" than a physical space on the first floor (of a seven story building) for books to be placed before they become, seemingly, Rare Editions of toilet paper. Maybe our university's "goal" will be achieved. Maybe those who evaluate research institutions will be impressed by the taste of coffee in the Library Starbucks; they certainly will not have many books to examine.

fundamentalism

2005-03-10T17:00:00.000-06:00

I grew up Southern Baptist, being baptized by immersion at age 9, some 32 years ago this month. My maternal grandfather served Southern Baptist congregations with honor in Georgia and Mississippi from the teens until his death in 1946. In part becuase of his legacy, but more due to my persistently unanswered questions about Christian faith and God's basic nature, I attended Vanderbilt Divinity School (graduating there in 1988) and eventually served congregations in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) between 1993 and the spring of 2004. I discovered that the fundamentalism of my boyhood was not simply cofined to rightwing interpretations of Scripture. Fundamentalism, in a word, is an attitude that asserts its right to dominance by any means necessary. Since leaving seminary (which intellectually I found stimulating in very important ways), I have spent a good deal of these almost 17 years trying to formulate a working faith in the context of Protestantism. I continue to discover, however, that being one among very few voices in a wilderness of Christians who only want their Pastors and Church executives to "tell me what I want to hear" leads to a dynamic of, as William Faulkner described Flem Snopes, "having eyes like stagnant water." In other words, fundamentalism in any form destroys the life it claims to protect. God does not create and redeem us, I believe, to live the "morality" as arbitrarily designed by someone else. God invites us to live with all the abundance that he (or she) provides.
While I am not dedicating my "blog" solely to a fight against fundamentalism, I do hope that most of our conversations can focus upon different ways to understand faith or even a lack of faith. God is beyond our comprehension: that's my basic premise, which I believe to reflect my Judeo-Christian heritage and the Biblical witness. That being so, let's explore God's nature together in a spirit of acceptance and openness. Such openess is the best way to resist fundamentalism as theology and, more importantly, as Form.