Putting Christ back in Christmas! ...or not.

Man, I sure seem to be bad at keeping up with the blog these days, eh? I think I'll put it down to holiday shenanigans and promise to get back on the ball and rolling after the new year. But for now, a question, since I have a bit of time.
---
You sure do hear a lot of people going on and on about putting Christ back in Christmas these days, huh? What do you think of all that?-  James
---

You really do, James. Thanks for the question!

Churches almost seem to take it for granted that about half the sermons this year are about the importance of remembering the "real" meaning of Christmas. We're all set to be chastised on how "commercial" we're being. Little kids who have been looking forward to presents with all of their being (and why wouldn't they, they're already under the tree and wrapped!) are told that they should be remembering the REAL reason for Christmas, and that wanting presents in wrong.

It's like we went out of our way to make the season as joyful as possible, and then, in proper Puritan fashion, did our best to make everyone feel as bad as possible about that.

I'd meant to "cover" Christmas with my Holiday Roundup from earlier, but this question stuck back out to me when I was preparing for this past Sunday's sermon. In the Hebrew Scriptures I was reading, David had decided that, since he lived in a palace and God lived in a tent, it would be "appropriate" to build God a house.

It's not bad thinking, really. It comes from an honest place, a man who knows that everything he has was given to him by God, and being in a position to give back, wants to. There's God living in a tent (the Hebrew Tabernacle.) Why not build a temple for God?

At first, David's court prophet, Nathan, sees no problem with it. After all, he has seen indisputable proof that God has David's back, so why not? (This is before David's darker turn.) But that Night, the Lord gives Nathan a message. That message, in a nutshell, goes like this:

"Did I ASK for you to build me a house? In the whole time I have traveled with Israel, have I asked any of the leaders I chose for a house? I made a home for YOU. -I- gave YOU a place. I have blessed you, and I will continue to bless you, and I will build YOUR house now, and into the future."

The message is clear; We are not responsible for putting God ANYWHERE. We do not plant God. God plants us. It is not our responsibility to make sure that God has an honored place in our society (say, a nativity scene in front of a court house). Instead, our job is to live where God has put us, and follow God's commandments. You know, commandments like feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, welcome the outsider, etc.

While you're doing that, remember not to step on everyone else's Holiday cheer, if they are cheerful. Instead, find those who aren't cheerful, and see if there is anything you can do to help. The Holidays can be devastating to people who are alone or grieving, and while you should honor their wishes, making sure they know they are invited to join in the festivities can go along way.

So don't worry about putting Christ back in Christmas. Christ will go wherever Christ wants to go. (Perk of being God.) In the meantime, be a source of joy in the world, a candle that God has placed to make the world around you a little brighter, a little happier.

You know. Be awesome. Merry Christmas!

Reader Questions- Holiday Rundown

Hey! Where'd Pastor Dan go?- Max
---

Uh, sorry. Been kind of off about all this, haven't I? All right, back in the saddle! I've had a bunch of Holiday related questions the past couple of days so I'll see what I can do to hit a bunch of them in quick succession.

What's the big deal with the whole X-Mas thing? -Jake
---

Sigh. Ok. The first letter of Christ in Greek is chi, which looks an awful lot like a latin X, as well as looking a bit like a cross on it's side. Using chi as shorthand for Christ is old, certainly older than the anglicized word Christ itself. So the X in X-mas is not some variable designed to remove Christ from Christmas, if anything, it's closer to the source than anything we could do in English.

That doesn't stop some Christians from being offended by it, though.

Since Jesus wasn't actually born on December 25th, why do you keep celebrating Christmas Day?- Dune Buggy
---

You're right, Jesus probably wasn't born on December 25th. Of course, that is because there are 365 days in the year, and he could just have easily been born on any of them. No one was ever under the impression that December 25th was the right day when the choice was made. The point was to celebrate it, period. The fact that there was a handy pagan holiday that new converts were familiar with (and wanted to keep the reason to celebrate during Winter) likely helped.

The day isn't the point. The birth is.

I get pretty fed up with all the "merry Christmas" wishing. I kind of feel like tossing a "Happy Festivus" or something like that, just so people stop shoving their religion around. -Anonymous
---

Funny you should say that. "Christmas" has not been a distinctively Christian holiday for some time. For awhile, now, it's primary role (at least in North American Culture) has been worship of the family and consumerism, not necessarily in that order. Sure, the day and accordant feast was once a distinctly Christian holiday, but track backwards far enough and you have a pagan holiday that would eventually get co-opted when the people turned Christian.

So having someone wish you a merry Christmas hasn't meant, "This is my faith, I hope you share it too," for awhile now. Most people, when they wish you a merry Christmas, are simply choosing a seasonal version of "have a nice day."

So feel free to wish people a happy Festivus. If the subtext of doing so is, "I hope you have a nice day!" then good on you and no harm to anyone. But if your subtext is; "Screw you, religious oppressor!" then you're probably just being an asshole.

So people are always saying to remember the real "meaning" of Christmas. Other than the simple fact of a baby being born, what would you say that is? -Whovian Drax
---

A lot of people throw around the term "the REAL meaning of Christmas," without considering what they are talking about. In general, the theme of such talks boils down to, "it's not REALLY about what you can get, it's about peace on earth and being with people you love."

And you know, that's not a bad place to be. Christians will (hopefully) celebrate it in celebration of the life of Christ, but of the fulfillment of promise, but the call to be with people you care for, and to not be a total jerk to the people you don't, isn't bad, as messages go. Plus, treats and presents, and a general boost to charitable giving, so everyone wins, right?

The "real meaning of Christmas" is an amorphous mass that changes based on who holds it. We Christians can gripe about how it doesn't mean necessarily Jesus anymore, but given that we stole a lot of our traditions from other faiths, we don't really hold the moral high ground when we do so.

So to my Christians, don't get too up in arms when other people "miss the REAL reason for the season." If they are being more positive to others than they normally would be, I think that will please Christ.

And to my Atheists, whatever the season means to you, if anything at all, have a happy one.

To my readers in general, I'll try to get back on the ball with these blog posts!

Reader Qiestion- Why the Old Testament?

Why read both the Old and New Testament? Since Jesus is never mentioned in the Old Testament, why don't Christians focus solely on the New Testament? -Pradeep
-----------------

Oooh, fun question! Thanks for asking it, Pradeep!

You're not the first to ask this question. I've had plenty of church members ask why I spend so much time in the Old Testament. They'll grant that the stories can be fun, but since they're not about JESUS, why waste our time? Save the stories for story time, and spend our learning time learning about Jesus?

Simply put, because if you are Christian, the Old Testament is just as much about Jesus as the New.

For starters, I'd like to get rid of the term "Old Testament." It IS how most people separate the two parts of the Christian Bible, but a bit offensive to the Jewish faith, as if we're calling ourselves Judaism 2.0 and they're the outdated version. Check out Lewis Black's particularly funny take on that below...

I've done a vlog on Biblical Creationism, so I won't go back into it here. I don't accept Lewis' dichotomy... the Hebrew Scriptures are as much my book as his... but he can be forgiven the misunderstanding, given the lingo often used. Why waste time in that rusty Old Testament when we have a groovy new one, right?

The reason is simple... there is a lot of great stuff in the Hebrew Scriptures. It may not mention Jesus, but it DOES mention his namesake... Jesus is an Anglicization of the Hebrew name Yeshua... which can also be Anglicized to Joshua! (Wasn't it nice of English people to Anglicize it twice? Wish they could have done that with the Marys.) Also, if you believe that Jesus is God (which, in case you didn't know, Christians DO) then the whole of Hebrew Scriptures is about Jesus... it's not like we think that Christ just started existing around the first century CE. Christ's story is a continuation of the one told in the Hebrew Scriptures. And like any real geek can tell you, there's a good story to be told in the Lord of the Rings, but if you don't also read the Silmarillion, you're not getting the whole picture.

Besides, good research sort of demands understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures in order to truly follow the stuff us Christians added to the canon. The New Testament quotes the Hebrew Scriptures SO OFTEN that some of my Hebrew professors referred to the Bible as "The Hebrew Scriptures with a longish appendix."

In short (too late) we don't ignore the Hebrew Scriptures because they are a integral part of our faith. The fact that they predate Jesus' human life on Earth only helps, because it paints the context in which Christ came, and has a lot of good things to teach us.

If you don't believe me, ask the Jews!

Reader Question- Is Ebola God's punishment? And how do we react to disaster language?

Recently I have heard several people claim that the imminent Ebola outbreak the US is facing is a sign that God is judging our nation for departing from him. Usually they also cite 2 Chronicles as the answer to the problem. So, two questions. First, does God deal with things like national sin today, or was that something he just did with ancient Israel? And second, how should we (Christians, Bible-readers) draw the line between recognizing a generally applicable truth, and "claiming a promise" that isn't ours to claim?

--Sarah

-------------------

Thanks for writing in, Sarah. Yeah, I've heard the same claim. And it's full of crap. 

I sat on this one a bit to let that point really drive home... with no new confirmed Ebola cases in the US since September according to the CDC, we can continue to say with pride and confidence that more Americans have been Batman than have had Ebola. More people have been married to Kim Kardashian than have died with it in the US. And more Americans have BEEN Kim Kardashian than have died of it in this outbreak.

Forget Ebola. We need to look into the eschatological significance of Batman and Kim Kardashian. 

So if Ebola was God's punishment for our drifting away from God, does that mean we have gotten back with the program? Yay, holy America? Not sure any of the pastors would say that.

Let's just say what the divine Ebola fear-mongering was, for real, and accept it: it was taking a spectre from pop culture and using it to try to scare people into toeing the line. It had nothing to do with any divine message, Biblical or otherwise. It had to do with exactly one thing... fear is an effective motivator.

You don't prep a nation for war by encouraging thoughtful contemplation of the enemies culture, you demonize the enemy and make them a bogeyman to terrify the populace, until any action is acceptable over allowing the enemy to continue as they have. You don't argue for "family values" by educating positive practices, instead you pick the "destroying our families" du jour and terrify people of what it will do. From fear of disease to fear of immigrant to fear of poverty to fear of change to fear of feminists playing video games to fear of republicans in large groups our society is practically defined, as a whole and in its niches, by what we fear. 

So people got scared of Ebola, and instead of thinking, "Gosh, this kind of panic could actually exacerbate the problem, better calm people down," some Pastors thought, "Gee, I bet I could get an easy sermon out of this! Maybe even TWO!"

Someone asked once why I hate Christianity. I don't think that held water, but you may have a point if you insinuate that I don't trust other pastors much, outside of a few very specific examples.

To the second part of your question, another lazy homiletical device (and another artifact of the emphasis placed on Biblical literalism) is the desire to take a story that has little relevance to a certain audience and try to apply it to them directly.

For instance, I've heard anger at political enemies justified through the use of psalms. Now don't get me wrong, there are some VERY angry Psalms, and they DO teach us that God understands our feelings of anger. But those Psalms were written by people whose nation had been brutally and militarily oppressed by powers whose lack of basic humanity had lead to horrible, horrible acts.

If you have lived most of your life north of the Rio Grande in North America, then odds are you have exactly zero context for the anger being described.

Now, you might be quite angry at those liberals with their unholy ways, or those conservatives with their backward ways, but either way, your anger was not theirs, and claiming it as such is a gross misrepresentation of the text. It would be like sitting down with people who are starving to death and complaining that the pizza place forgot to give you extra pepperoni. Sure, God forgives, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't knock it off.

I feel similarly for people who use revolutionary language in a Twitter Hashtag discussion, or in a Facebook thread.

The inability to recognize that there is a fundamental difference between inconveniences you experience and those experienced by others leads to hugely problematic attempts to co-opt language, biblical or otherwise, that was never meant for you. Can we as affluent North Americans learn lessons from what others go through, absolutely.

But if your instinct is to look at, say, a Holocaust survivor, and say; "Man, I know exactly how you feel," then you have missed pretty much every available point.

Reader Question- Who is your hero?

I've been wondering who Pastors look up to. Let me guess: Jesus? But who else? -Mandy
---------

Thanks for writing in, Mandy. And, well, yeah, we do look up to Jesus a fair bit. (I, for one, would love to be able to walk into a temple and flip tables and whip people and still be known as the Prince of Peace.)

I've actually been asked, on several occasions, who my "model" for ministry is, and the answer has always been the same; my dad. He's the baseline... when a situation arrives that I need to make some kind of decision on in the church, my first thought is nearly always what Dad would do... and then I either do that thing, or go another way. Our two ministries look quite different from one another, but the fact of the matter is that he is my model.

Which will be nice for him to hear, I am sure, if he is reading this, but doesn't give a lot of information to you all. So I guess I need a high profile answer.

I'm actually not looking to have a Jesus-like ministry. I do try to emulate Christ in how I live my life, but as I have said in previous entries, I am not savior, and not seeking to be one. Christ's ministry did things I do not aspire to do. So if I had to pick an answer that you all would know AND was possibly attainable...

I'd go with the Reverend Fred Rogers.

You really don't need me to sell Mr. Rogers to you, do you? He's a treasure of modern media, But more than that, he's the perfect example of the kind of preacher I want to be. Not necessarily by medium, but by attitude. He loved people without reservation, without worrying that his love was enabling. He taught acceptance over separation, taught curiosity over fear. He went, without hesitation, to the dark places we all assume children can't go to, and showed them simple truths of life, worked to demystify things like hospitals, dentists offices, and even death.

He wasn't the sort who sought to censor. Instead, he worked to offer positive alternatives to the negatives he saw. He vigorously supported the role of media in education, and approached new media, like video games, with the same positively curious attitude that he modeled in all aspects of his life.

He taught people that they were valuable while reminding them that others were, too. The show wasn't about you... it was about your neighborhood. And it was a nice place to be.

If I can teach love over hate, curiosity over fear, enthusiasm over pessimism, and hope over despair, then I believe I will have done my job as a Pastor.

Reclaiming Sodom

The story of the destruction of Sodom has become one of the more uncomfortable stories in the Bible. Often hailed as a dark foreboding of what comes of failing to be "tough on sin," it is a flagstone of the religious homophobic movement and used to justify atrocious behavior. On the other hand, it is also uncomfortable in that it takes what we dare to call a "loving God" and shows an act of mass murder by that God. The fact that some will call it justice, rather than murder, only drives home the homophobic point; it only makes sense if you assume that homosexuality is a sin, one worth killing someone over.

A point very at home at Westboro Baptist, but one even your more conservative Christians would probably stumble over, because even if you do believe homosexuality is a sin, punishment on that scale does not seem to fit the crime for most people. And so the story of the destruction of Sodom falls by the wayside, ignored except to be held up as an example of just how ridiculous the Bible is, anyway.

But I feel this is all based on a misreading of the story of Sodom which is a story, I believe, that actually does represent an important point about Justice.

We first hear about the wickedness of Sodom from God in the story, as God says that he has heard the "outcry" about the wicked city. Discussing this with Abraham, God says that the city will be dealt with appropriately. Abraham then goes to bat for the city with the Lord, asking for the city to be spared if there are fifty good people there. Then Forty-five. Then Forty. Finally Abraham gets the Lord to agree to spare the city if ten people who are righteous can be found.

The precise "wickedness" of Sodom is then shown, as the angels sent by God arrive in the city and are met by Lot, who immediately begs them to come with him, rather than go to the city center. His fears are explained when the "men of the city" arrive and demand that Lot hand the strangers over, so that they can have sex with them.

This is an example of a particularly vile cultural habit of the time, whereby out-of-region strangers would be raped when they came to a city. Like with how we understand rape today, it wasn't about sex, but about power, a way to claim dominion over the one being raped. And so we see the "wickedness" of Sodom was not Homosexuality... but rape. God's judgement is given, and Lot is given time to escape with his family before Sodom is destroyed.

But what about the ten righteous that Abraham was promised? We never hear about the search, or about the rubric used to determine righteousness. The story says that the whole city came out to get a hold of the strangers, but presumably they couldn't all have planned to rape them. So why does the city still get wiped clean with fire and brimstone?

This is open to interpretation, but here is mine: Other than Lot, no one spoke out against it. You can make the #notallsodomites claim all you want, but when the masses came to rape the strangers, no one besides Lot stood against them, and so the city was judged... and destroyed.

It still sounds harsh by our standards, I know. What about the women, what about the children? But that's getting too literal, missing the point of the story. We're not dealing in history but in a mythology where, even IF based on real events, the lesson would be valued over actual events every time, and the lesson is this:

A civilization where rape is not only practiced, but implicitly condoned, is a civilization that, according to moral authority of the Bible, deserves to be destroyed. Even if not everyone is participating, if people cannot even bring themselves to object, for whatever reason, then they are ALL a part of a bad system, and all included in the judgement on it.

Don't get me wrong, the story is still problematic. It's from another time, far more interested in collective sin than personal, and the attitude towards Lot's daughters (both before and after the destruction of the city) is awful. But that's not the point of the story, any more than the fact that wolves are endangered is the point of Red Riding Hood.

This is the story I want to tell, the version of Sodom that, instead of being useful to condemn a very specific (and already marginalized) part of our population, is used to to point the finger at ALL of us, and show us not how great we are, but rather, how much work there is yet to do. I want to reclaim Sodom, and change the definition of Sodomy, to where Sodomy is not about who you choose to have sex with, but rather, the act, or implicit condoning, of rape.

And then say, in a clear voice, that the practitioners of Sodomy have been judged, and if they haven't been destroyed yet, it may only because there exists a handful of people who speak out against them. But still, wouldn't it be great if the same fervor some people currently have against homosexuals went, instead, against Rapists?

Reader Question- Should Creation be taught in Schools?

I went to a small Christian school where my science teacher taught Creationism alongside Evolution and the Big Bang Theory, not as counter-points, or differing theories, but alongside one another. I thought it was interesting. Is there a reason that this couldn't work in public schools? -James

----------------

Thanks for writing in, James.

And to answer your question bluntly, no.

Private Christian Schools will do what they want to do, that's kind of the point. Were I in charge of your school, I wouldn't have the science teacher teaching Creationism. Presumably there is a religious studies teacher there who could handle that aspect of things. Let the religious teacher handle the faith stuff, let the Science teacher teach, you know, actual science, stuff that can be tested and experimented on.

And when it comes to Public Schools, NO NO NO NO NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

I really don't want to smack you down here, James, but that would be an absolutely HORRIBLE idea. And here is why: if religious concepts were to be taught in Public Schools, then Politicians would be the ones setting the curriculum. They do a bad enough job meddling with concepts like history or science, but add faith to the mix? Can you imagine the massive mess that would be?

As a religious leader, the last thing in the WORLD I want is the religious education of ANYONE handled by state-level politicians. It would be a wreck. There is NO way that goes well. Because who's faith? Mine? Yours? The guy who talks faith and family values to get votes and then flies to Maui with his mistress?

So many people of faith SAY that they want faith taught in schools, but what they have in mind is THEIR faith being taught. (Is it sad or funny that these are often the same people who claim that teachers unions are horrible and that teachers should be armed? I mean, we'll call these teachers low life scum to score political points, then on the same platform claim that they should be armed and teach faith values. Conservatives are confusing.) They don't consider that faith, when taught in a classroom, is hugely affected by the one teaching. You can't NOT bring in personal biases.

So no, I don't think Creation, or any faith concept, belongs in the Public School, and even in faith based schools, I think the curriculum should be carefully considered, not for the sake of proper theology, but to be sure that what you are doing is education, rather than indoctrination.

And when a Politician pushes for faith to be taught in schools in MY hearing? My response is; "You stick to Civics. Let the teachers teach, in their respective fields.

Story Time- Deborah

From time to time, someone claiming the the title of "Reverend" will make some claim about female leadership, about how women are not to be leaders in the church. They'll often use various scriptures to make their point, and then say something about ineffability of scripture to make their points unassailable. 

But they have a problem. A problem many of them would rather not think about. A problem named Deborah. A problem that takes everything they think they know about Biblical Leadership and blows it to smithereens.

Deborah is a judge, her story told in the Book of Judges. Now in Judges, there is a pattern. The people of God are oppressed by some outside power. They cry out for aid and God responds by sending them a leader, known as a Judge. Judges were a combination of Priest, Prophet, Adjudicator, and Military Leader, but the position was not handed down to ones children. Of course, with so much power resting in an individuals hands, they usually came with a downside, and would lead the people of Israel into a sinful way, and before long the people would be worse off than they started. This happened over and over and over again.

With one, and only one, exception. And that would be, you guessed it, Deborah. Deborah's story has no flaws, no fall. At no point does she lead Israel astray, or abuse her power. 

While Deborah is Judging, Israel is under the thumb of Sisera, a military leader commanding 900 Chariots, which were sort of the ultimate in military technology at the time. Deborah calls to Barak, a tribal leader, and commands him to lead the warriors of Israel into battle. 

Barak says, flat out, that he will not do so unless she rides with him. She warns that this will mean that his own honor is lessened, and he is fine with that. 

THINK for a second about what that says about everyone involved. In a community where female prominence (let alone leadership) is so rare that even learning a woman's NAME in the Bible is a bit of a rare occurrence,  this military leader, with twenty thousand warriors under his command, will NOT go into battle without Deborah with him. He knows it will lessen his glory and he does not care: he wants her there. There is no doubt, even to the man who brings with him the military muscle, of who is really in charge.

So she goes. And they win. Sisera's forces are scattered, and he personally runs and hides, only to be killed while in hiding by the wife of one of his underlings, who promptly hands him over to the victorious Israelites. 

Deborah is, by any objective measure, the finest of the Judges, and one of the greatest leaders in the Bible's story. She gets two chapters in that book, one that tells a VERY truncated version of her story, and one that is a song about her. You can tell that the editor was a bit embarrassed about having her, but even the most sexist of the Biblical editors wasn't able to remove her story completely.

So if anyone claims that women are not meant to lead, then they are clearly, objectively, wrong. Because Judges were appointed by God, and God clearly appointed Deborah, who would go on to not only lead, but lead without any drawbacks... a figure of such importance that even editors who had every reason to do so were not able to remove her story completely.

So if the Biblical record is at all important to you, remember Deborah's story. And if anyone tells you that, based on the Bible, women should not lead? Point them to the Book of Judges, chapter 4.

And tell them that they are wrong.

Demanding More of Clergy

So yesterday I drove to a hospital I hadn't visited before. They had some really great parking spots reserved for clergy (SWEET) and after parking there I wondered if I needed to register for it. I had to ask like twenty people who you'd think would know about that before I could get a definitive answer from the head of security, who's answer was no, because how could you expect Clergy to keep track of required parking stickers or indicators or whatever?

I laughed about that but in retrospect it bugged me a lot, because it echoed a sentiment that has become fairly prevalent in our culture... very low expectations when it comes to clergy.

I've done some "live-tweeting" (can you call it that when it's done on Facebook?) of times in which I have been visibly clergy, like when I am wearing a clerical collar. It's often amusing how much people get thrown off by it, but it also reveals assumptions about the clergy that I don't like.

It's like I'm a walking anachronism, a relic of a by-gone time somehow transported to this strange future. People assume that I don't understand much of what is going on and go out of their way to be helpful. Which is nice of them, but I do, in fact, know how to operate an electronic device, or hail a cab, or find my airport terminal.

(Well, okay, I DO get lost easily, but did so LONG before I became clergy, all right?)

Now that is all funny, harmless, and a decent way to check the ego, and clerical egos often need to be checked. But there is another side to it as well. It is one thing when people assume I can't handle new-fangled technology like a touch screen. It is quite another when people assume that I have no stake in the world I live in.

I see signs of it all the time, people who are surprised when I am up on current events, or political movements, or the realities of love, hate, pain, death, and suffering. There is a belief in clergy detachment where I am supposed to be separated from all that, again the walking anachronism parroting trite phrases regardless of context and existing in a world that no longer exists, perhaps NEVER existed, in order to do... something.

I'm not entirely certain what that something is, but often I feel as though people assume I am paid simply to be, a reminder of that bygone (or perhaps fictional) time, a museum piece that reminds people of a romanticized era. Go on, say a prayer, it's like what Grandma used to say...

We see it echoed in pop culture ALL the time. The religious figures in John Green's The Fault in Our Stars are, to me, infuriatingly incompetent, but everyone just seems to roll with it because, hey, what else did you expect? Someone has to say these words, but we would never expect that person to actually understand the person they talk about or to, right?

And so clergy just go around, doing what they do, and people just short of shrug and roll with it. What did you expect? They're just a museum piece! So long as they don't physically harm someone (or, most infuriatingly, even if they do) we just let them do what they do, say what they say, and either smile at the pleasant reminder or frown at the unpleasant one. But it's not like it actually matters, right?

Wrong.

I think we need to demand more of clergy, yes, even you, my atheists.

Your departed loved one was worth knowing, and the person doing their funeral should at least make the effort to ask. People deserve respect, and no faith background justifies treating them like dirt. The world we live in matters, and if they believe that their background matters, then they need to be pushing it towards the future, not lamenting the departure of an idealized past.

I don't know if we clergy marginalized ourselves, or if others did it for us. I don't know at what point we stopped being leaders and acquiesced to being memorials, it's likely a chicken/egg argument. Probably it was mutual, with the world telling us it we no longer mattered and us accepting it because, hey, at least we got to keep collecting paychecks, and life is easier when no one expects anything of you beyond not harming someone.

Is there another field where you can literally be paid to not do harm?

Throughout History, Clergy of all religions and creeds have been some of the greatest movers and shakers in the world. We have a unique perspective and an ability to bring together disparate peoples in pursuit of a whole bigger than the sum of its parts. If we are going to continue to exist, we should be trying to make our world better.

And if we're just going to be museum pieces, probably better that we did something else actually useful to someone. Like ditch digging.

Grading Batman

In a recent video I did in response to John Green, I spent some time defending Batman in his general direction. (No evidence that he himself ever saw it, but thanks to all who shared it at him!) It was a bit inspiring and so I sat down to BE Batman again by replaying the video games Batman: Arkham Asylum, and Batman: Arkham City. And while I was playing them, while I always enjoyed myself, a realization struck me…

Sometimes? Batman can be a bit of a jerk. And even stupid in how he relates to others.

Now of course, that was one particular version of Batman, and that got me thinking… we (and by we I mean the Internet) have this understanding of Batman as a singular fictional character, when really Batman is many fictional characters as understood by many different writers, artists, and actors. So I decided to take the ones I was aware of and really look at them, and see if any of those characters actually deserved some of the criticism directed at them.

Adam West Batman: There is a bit of revisionist history out there that would like to think that this version made Batman camp, but in reality this understanding of Batman was pretty accurate to the Silver Age version of the Caped Crusader, with a focus on outlandish gadgets and toys rather than brooding and detective work.

So how was he for Gotham? Pretty good, actually. His villains rarely (if ever) actually managed to kill anyone, and even stolen goods were usually returned at the end of the day. We didn’t see much in the way of charitable work by this Bruce Wayne (there was some implied by different affairs he went to, but you rarely saw much actual giving) so this version of Batman could perhaps be accused of being more about upholding the status quo then bringing about any lasting change to Gotham. That said, of all the versions of Gotham city, this would undeniably be the most pleasant to live in, with minimal poverty and violent crime. Other than a wave of colorful thieves and an equally colorful thief catcher, it looks a lot like Southern California. I give Adam West’s Batman a B.

Tim Burton’s Batman: For a kid who had always looked forward to when the TV show would be on, 1989’s Batman, starring Michael Keaton and Jack Nicholson as the Joker, was a serious paradigm shift, and that shift was taken even further for Batman Returns. Suddenly the Caped Crusader was the Dark Knight, scary, ominous, brooding. He lived in a Gotham that was dark, poverty stricken, and full of villains that were more than capable of killing. The movie and its sequel undeniably launched Batman into a new realm of cultural significance and proved that superhero movies did not require Superman in order to succeed.

Sadly, great for the franchise though the movie may have been, this version of Batman may have been the worst when measured by heroism. It is Batman’s very presence that inspires Joker to his murderous heights, and short of punching the occasional thug, it isn’t entirely clear what Batman’s long term plan was, or if he even had one. His plan isn’t justice, but revenge, as is made brutally clear by punishments given to the criminals who cross his path, along with a clear willingness to kill. With charity work as Bruce Wayne practically invisible (again save for some parties thrown) there is very little to redeem this version of Batman from being a vigilante who can afford a fancy bulletproof outfit and crazy toys… which in the end, makes his dividing line from his enemies fuzzy to the point of invisibility. I give him a D.

Joel Schumaker’s Batman: The Dark Knight from Batman Forever and Batman and Robin is credited, in most geek circles, as the worst of all of them. Shumaker’s return to the camp roots of the Batman have been blamed for the apparent death of the series until it was saved by the Christopher Nolan reboot, derided as being too cartoony, too colorful, too stupid. But how was this Batman at being Batman?

In short? Better than the Burton Batman by basically every measurable metric. Not only do his foes have a greatly reduced bodycount, we actually get to see Bruce Wayne not only as a much more active philanthropist (enough so that Commissioner Gordon thinks it makes sense to take a young Dick Grayson to him), but also as an Employer of someone other than Alfred, head of the Wayne Corporation, who insists that a deceased employee’s family receive full benefits despite an apparent suicide that is not covered by the health plan. Beyond even that? This Batman actually GROWS. From his acceptance of his dual identity in Forever to his development as a team player in Batman and Robin, Schumaker’s Batman shows a willingness to admit to, and overcome, personal flaws and obstacles… something more or less unprecedented elsewhere. Basically an improved version of the Adam West character; which earns him a B+.


The Dark Knight Returns: Credited alongside Watchmen for launching the “serious” side of modern comic books (as well as, it should be said, giving credence to the graphic novel as literature), The Dark Knight Returns featured an older, retired Batman who had lost his connection with a Gotham that had spiraled out of control, and in a world where Superheroes had been driven underground. When he takes up the mantle again, with a new Robin at his side, the world has to decide whether or not it has a place for a Dark Knight, while world events spiral even further out of control, until it is unclear if there is any way to live in the world WITHOUT a hero like Batman.

Which is odd, because as Batmen go, this one is decidedly not great. Villified psychologists call him insane, but it almost seems as if the writer agrees with them, with the Batman behaving in the beginning as a raging Id inside of the aging Bruce Wayne. Where Shumacher’s Batman grew, this one regresses, eventually taking up the mantle of Gang Leader. His reemergence brings back certain Supervillians, and all philanthropy has apparently ceased, with the comic book telling us flatly that any attempt to fix Gotham as Bruce Wayne had failed, with the publicly apparent Death of Bruce as well as the actual death of his conscience/butler Alfred paving the way for the future. He has his moments of clarity, but when the book itself makes such a strong case for Batman’s futility, it is hard to argue with. He gets a C, tops.

Batman, Year One: Now THIS guy is interesting. Before DC took to rebooting their characters every other year, this was part of a reboot effort that was a shining success compared to some other failures. Batman, it was discovered, did not need a complete reimagining, if anything, our world had become more suited to this kind of hero than it had originally been. A new coat of paint, and a new telling of his origin, was all it took.

And the result was a good one. Here we see a young Bruce Wayne struggling to become Batman, building an identity. We don’t really see any big picture stuff (Bruce lives into a perception as a careless playboy) but we see how deeply he cares about the people he fights and fights for, his desperation to not be a killer, to protect anyone he can. We also see the beginnings of his relationship with James Gordon, the start of a partnership that lends legitimacy to what otherwise might be seen as vigilantism. He’s not perfect, but also not meant to be. This is a developing work in progress, and that earns some bonus points. B-, with a bullet.

Dick Grayson: The death of Bruce Wayne was false, and short lived, but while it did we were treated to Dick Grayson wearing the cowl, with Damian Wayne (Bruce’s Son) becoming Robin. It created a delightful change of pace, with a fun-loving, lighthearted Batman mirrored by a brooding Robin.

And you know what? It worked. Dick got the benefit of being unblemished by questions of whether or not Batman should exist… in the story where he took the cowl in the first place, it had been made obvious that Gotham needed a Batman. All the old baggage was left with Bruce, allowing Dick a clean slate. He also didn’t have to play the “wastrel Playboy” line. Folks knew who he was, Bruce’s adopted son, and so he didn’t have to be Bruce. And he did a good job. A-.

Christopher Nolan’s Batman: Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, and The Dark Knight Rises marked the return to domination of the Batman, boasting a “gritty realism” to divorce the movies from the Schumaker era. The trilogy embraced a timeline of batman, from his origins in Begins to the height of his heroism in The Dark Knight to the end of his career in Rises. Definitely a new approach, with a Batman who, at the very least, cannot be accused of simply seeking to preserve the status quo.

So how good is this Batman at Batmanning? Well… not bad. His motives are strong, as is his dedication to not killing. He clearly values charitable work, and is willing to take huge monetary losses if he isn’t sure of the safety of a product. All of that said, when this Batman makes mistakes, they are devastating on a scale that the others can barely even scratch. And, like with The Dark Knight Returns, it’s hard to escape the idea that Batman himself is primarily responsible for Gotham’s dive into Madness. A solid B, but I can’t grade him higher.

Arkham Videogame’s Batman: The guy who inspired this post, this is the Batman from the video games that, more than any other, made you really FEEL like Batman. So much fun to play, from creeping through the claustrophobic environs of Arkham Asylum to the Dystopian Arkham City. And yet…

I cannot get past the feeling that Rocksteady, while believing that it would be lots of fun to be Batman, don’t think he’s very effective at, well, anything. How many people do you “save” in the Asylum only to see their corpses littering the ground later? Massive death tolls in both games. And worse, Batman frequently manages to do precisely the wrong thing with various supervillains he’s forced to work with, leading to catastrophic results. I can’t overemphasize how good the games are, but sadly, he gets a poor Batman score. C-

Animated Batman- Batman: The Animated Series, kickstarted the DCAU into hyper prominence that no Marvel property has even scratched on the small screen. And of its heroes, Batman is clearly without peer. He manages to control the death count of his villains, works solidly in charitable foundations, seeks to understand both his peers and his enemies. He’s an undisputed leader of the Justice League, a solid father figure to his various protégés, strikes a perfect balance between frightening and funny.

He is, and will probably always be, THE Batman by which all others are judged. A+

Beware the Echo Chamber (When votes don't go your way.)

So there are a lot of people who are upset, currently, with the state of politics in the US. (This will be my understatement of the year.) They might even be particularly upset with the result of the votes from yesterdays general election. I have to admit, I didn't like a lot of them either, even though plenty of people saw them coming.

All of us, regardless of political affiliation, will lose these things from time to time. And there are ways of handling it well, and ways of handling it poorly.

For instance, in todays political atmosphere, with blogs and comment boards, it is easy for the defeated party to create an echo chamber where their adherents become increasingly embittered and angry, and that anger is used as a resource to blunt current initiatives and power future elections. It's an incredibly powerful tool... and a highly, highly dangerous one.

We got to see it most clearly with our current Presidential Administration; the echo chambers calling him the worst president ever even before he took office, calls of "socialism" from all sides, so much anger and rabid hate. It was hugely disruptive to his administration, with people looking to tap into the echo chambers blocking him at every turn.

It hurt them, too. Echo chambers are great for pep rallies and groundswell but horrible for reasoned debate or analysis. Obama made quite a few legitimate mistakes over the course of his first term but... so what? It wasn't like the Republicans could oppose those mistakes any louder than they were already opposing everything else he did. And when the Elections came the Echo Chambers were certain of a win, even predicting a landslide... and never saw their sizeable loss coming, and were left staring, shocked, after it happened.

It was actually kinda funny. But it isn't representative of one party, or ideology. The Echo Chamber is a powerful new force in politics and if you find yourself saying; "Well MY party would never do that..." Then you're kidding yourself.

For the next few days or even weeks, it's okay to gripe and be disappointed. But beware of the Echo Chambers, especially if they appeal to you. Remember that, whatever "side" you are one, there are people working in the opposition who are legitimately trying to help the country. And while they are running it, you can do your country a whole lot of good by not being a voice from the Echo Chambers, but a true voice of opposition, who demands debate and compromise over angry yelling.

Be awesome to others, even those who have defeated you, even those you consider opponents. Don't look for the demons the Echo Chambers promise, but instead look for the human being underneath the politician, who is working hard and trying to do their best.

In the end, they may disappoint you. It happens. But at least you will have remained human, rather than letting the powers you align with to turn you into a rabid attack animal for their own expedience.

Reader Question- Faith in Politics

With the Election and everything, I was wondering. What do you think about combining faith and politics? Does your faith affect how you vote? -Amber
-----------------

I think answering this question is a great way to get in trouble with some Nerdfighters, but oh well, let's run with it, shall we? Thanks for writing in!

I've heard, several times now, someone posit that "personal faith has no place in politics." Or, "believe whatever you want, just don't try to force it on other people." It tends to be a fairly popular position in the internet circles where I move, and I certainly understand the sentiment; in a society where supposedly faith based initiatives have hurt quite a lot of people, the urge to try to cut those motives out of politics entirely certainly appeals on multiple levels.

So I get the idea in theory. In practice, however, it is patently ridiculous.

The statement "personal beliefs have no place in politics" is itself a personal belief. Our beliefs are who we are. We love talking about telling people to do the research and make the "right" choice but in the end, regardless of who you are, you're going to have to make a choice between values.

Is it more important to be financially sound, or to care for the poor? What programs can best sustain both? How much right does the government have to our money, and who gets to decide how that money is spent?

These are all questions of relative value that lack any classic "right" answer. And so we make value judgments, based on our experiences and personal beliefs. And any faith you have WILL effect that. It's a part of who you are. Attempting to cut it out will be a silly mental exercise at best, and attempted in true faith (pun absolutely intended) will leave you with a final result that just feels wrong.

Yay, Democracy?

In general, people who take this position are often not thinking about how your faith informs your views of money. It's the so called "family values" questions, questions of who gets to sleep with who, and who has final say over a woman's body, that we're really talking about.

I also wish that very specific religious organizations would quit trying to throw their weight around over those issues. I'm certainly glad that we're not a theocracy. But just because I disagree with how some people vote doesn't mean I get to change the rules of "how" they vote. We don't get to tell people how to think. All we can do is try to change their minds.

Like it or not, faith and religion are person formers... they shape how we think and how we react. They form a part of who we are, even if only in our rejection of them. Attempting to ignore that part of yourself while voting will only end with a result you aren't happy with. So don't do it. Be wholly yourself as you make your choice, and then stand by it.

And this leads to the other side of the coin.

If someone, ANYONE, tells you that, because of your faith, you HAVE to vote a certain way? They are 100% wrong.

I'm always at my most Democrat around election season. Why? Because somehow, someway, word is out on the call lists that I am a pastor. So come election season, Democrats call and ask for my vote, while Republicans call assuming that they already have my vote, and ask me to stump for them.

Nuh uh.

The people who use religious affiliation as a voter mandate are in the same boat as the folks who say that your faith should be excised from the process entirely. Religious people disagree. (You may have noticed this.) Being a religious person does not remove your ability to think and function, and people who try to use it to do so are doing you no favors.

So when you vote, do your research and go with your own personal values. "Well, I only think that because I am religious," doesn't hold water. Neither does "Well, I'm religious, so I have to do this."

What you have to do is THINK, and FEEL, and go with what you believe at the end of the day. I may not like what you decide, but so long as you made an actual decision, rather than following a script someone tried to hand you before hand? Then you did it right.

Now go vote.

Reader Questions- Religion in Literature

Continuing from your question about comic books and superheroes, what is your take on some Christians considering comic books, superheroes and other fictional characters false idolatry. Particularly when some of us learn many lessons about good and evil and morality from superheroes (eg With great power, comes great responsibility).  -Jymm

How do you read religious themes in fantasy-Harry Potter, LOTR, etc.? Do you consider them to be clear allegory like in the Narnia books, or something else? And how do you feel about their usage, whether positive (Harry Potter) or negative (His Dark Materials)?  -Kitty

------------

These two questions were related nicely, and so I figured I'd bring 'em together. Thanks for writing, Jymm and Kitty!

We'll start with yours, Jymm. I have said repeatedly in this space that Christians claiming to read the Bible literally is highly problematic, no less because very few people actually know what that would mean. What they SEE it meaning is taking everything read at immediate face value, no looking for metaphor, or symbolism.

Highly Improbable Cosmologies aside, the Bible is full of stories that were plainly meant to be read as object lessons, fictional stories with morals, rather than history. Jesus' Parables are a huge example here, likewise the story of Job, which is so plainly a philosophical thought experiment. So much of the Bible's meaning gets lost when the "everything literal" approach is taken that it makes me crazy. But oddly enough, that might not even be the worst consequence.

Because what you get, with groups like these, are people who are actually be trained to read without seeing metaphor. An entire culture of Drax the Destroyers, and sometimes the title becomes achingly accurate. Before long, it isn't just the Bible, but ANYTHING that they read that is taken literally, all in order to keep on the devastatingly comprehensive blinders required to avoid noticing that the "all literal, all the time" approach to Bible Scholarship is patently ridiculous. 

This, I feel, is where so much of the oft repeated Christian problem with fantasy and sci-fi multimedia (including comic books) comes from. People are suddenly unable to get past the metaphors and so take things only at value. ("The Harry Potter books teach witchcraft! Wonder Woman gets her powers from Pagan Gods! Dungeons and Dragons are devil worship!" etc, etc, etc.)

Sigh.

You can't spend all your time with blinders on and not expect to end the day with blind spots. While that isn't a distinctly Christian problem (some of my atheists have some pretty impressive blind spots) this is a very distinctly Christian approach to it, and robs so-called "Christian Culture" of so much. That might be another part of the reason why I so often dislike "Christian Movies..." in order to meet the viewing needs of their target audience, most metaphor gets tossed out of the window, which is why they so often feel as subtle as a shovel to the face.

But once believers DO read the symbolism, we transition to Kitty's question. And I have actually seen other believers make this transition, find this huge magical word where works of literature (including the Bible) are deeper than a literal interpretation.

They often go, shall we say, a little crazy with it.

I mean, so did I as a kid. I remember the first time I read The Wheel of Time series, by Robert Jordan, I started reading EVERYTHING like I was combing for clues and vague hints and taking single phrases out of context to extrapolate huge meaning where it probably wasn't intended. Once you calm down a little, and start really reading (rather than the other, which is astrology without starlight) then I have the following advice.

In general, few things are true allegory, and unless they straight out SAY they are allegory (like Narnia) then it is best not to treat them that way. There will be meaning to glean, for sure, but creating the 1 to 1 comparisons is only one step removed from literalism, in the end.   

Read first to enjoy. If you find lessons that you like, take them and apply them. There is wisdom to be found everywhere, a bit of God in everyone from the most devout believer to the most stalwart Atheist. Get out there and find it, when you find it, share it! Just remember someone else might read it differently, find something you didn't, something that may stand apart (or even against) what you found.

That holds with pretty much all reading, scripture, fantasy, or otherwise.

Reader Question- Why Comics?

You seem to talk about comic book characters a lot. What is so fascinating about them to you? It seems like a strange thing for a pastor to like. Not trying to be offensive, it just seems weird, I guess is what I am saying.  -Alex
-----------

You know, I often wonder what it is that people think Ministers do in their spare time. Some people seem to think we're kept in cryo sleep at the church until we're needed, or something. Worth asking about, I suppose. In any case, thanks for writing in!

I'm pretty sure I got my love of comic book characters from my father, who collected comics as a kid. I never really collected comics myself, but I loved the stories, the idea of these people who regular faced impossible battles with courage and moxy and super-powers. There is also something about comics that is irreversibly silly... and that is part of the appeal, too. Comic Book heroes can challenge us on any number of levels, but at the end of the day, they are cartoon characters, and so you are left with breathing room.

I think that might be why I prefer DC in TV animated shows to the big screen. I loved "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight" as much as anyone, but the Nolan-verse always seems to have a sort of contempt for its subject matter. The desire to be dark, gritty, and realistic starts to go beyond an aesthetic choice and starts to remove the silly... the fun.

DC TV Cartoons, though? Count me in. From Batman the Animated Series to Batman and Superman to the Justice League, To Justice League Unlimited, to Young Justice, they manage both the fun (and the deep issues) in spades. And because it's all drawn, no one feels bad about putting invincible Titans in tights. I like it.

I think that Comic Books are the new Mythology. Every culture has a mythology, and I think the worlds of the Comic Book Heroes are becoming ours. And I'm fine with that. In fact I encourage it, and always want to add to it, hence my Wonder Woman script in process and multiple short stories. I think this shared mythos (Everyone knows Batman and Superman's Backstory, basically) gives us a common ground that is approaching a universality that I don't think Humanity has ever had before.

And it's not based in combating religions or Political Ideologies. We have superheroes representing countless nations, both genders, many religions, and they interact. And you know what? If it is possible for the Avengers to Assemble... maybe there is a chance for the rest of us, as well.

Or maybe it's all just silly fun. That would be okay, too.

Reader Question/Blogger Clarification- I am not a Savior

What's the first thing/things you do to save someone? Do you have lots of unsaved people in the congregation? How do you find people to save/ what's your favorite way?- John

--------

Hey there, John, and thanks for writing in!

Your question made me grimace a bit, for a very, very simple reason. I don't save people. never have, never will. I am not a Savior, that kind of thing is WAAAAY above my paygrade. That's God level stuff. And if I haven't made this clear yet, then let me do so now... I am not God.

I strongly dislike it when Christians used "saved" language in this way. We do not save each other. We can't even save ourselves. It's a twisting of language that makes us feel like we are the ones in charge, the ones with power, anything but the broken, sinful people that we actually are.

It gives an excuse to ignore or justify our own behavior. What is more important than someone's eternal soul, right? So you can do pretty much anything to them if your goal was soul saving. It's the ultimate "ends justify the means" approach.

I do not save people's souls. NO human being does. Ever.

The state of peoples souls is dependent on precisely one thing... God. The Almighty Creator of the infinite multiverse HAS GOT THIS COVERED. And thank goodness, because we humans? We're class A screw-ups. We do things like harassment under the flag of soul saving. Thank God we're not actually in charge, or we could do some REAL damage.

Imagine if every person ever turned off of religion in general, or Christianity in particular, was a lost soul because one of us screwed up.

I for one would NOT be excited about having to fess up to that before the pearly gates. 

I guess the question made me grimace a lot, actually. So, just to set the record forever straight, I am not a Savior, I don't save people's souls. I do my best to offer a helping hand to them as we go along, struggling together, hoping beyond hope that when it comes to the actual saving, God has got us covered. Because if in the end it is down to you or me? Then we are ALL in a lot of trouble.  

Reader Question- Non-religious Children in Religious Pre-school.

Fellow Nerdfighter here. I consider myself "non-religious" and am raising my almost 3-year-old daughter without religion. (My husband agrees on this.) I do have a religious background, which is not really a positive thing for me. However, I just landed a fantastic job opportunity and the best child care program for our situation is a church program (Presbyterian Church of America based). They incorporate religion into most of the day's activities. I'm not anti-God or anything, but I want to enable my daughter to make her own decisions, and I worry that this level of exposure at this age will be difficult to overcome. I also don't want to be negative about the program to her, because surely that wouldn't be helpful. How do I teach her to respect her teachers and classmates while also encouraging her to wait until she's old enough to understand religious concepts?  --Sara

---------------

Thanks for writing, Sara.

You know, I have heard variations on this concern over and over again and I have to admit I have never really understood it. I get confused because, almost invariably, I hear it from people (like yourself) who were raised with religion and eventually went away from it. My impulse is usually to say; "Well, YOU managed to do it."

A great number of formerly religious people that I know have something of a skewed perspective on the process that lead to them leaving their faith... a narrative gets built where they broke away from some great indoctrination or brainwashing process, a narrow escape managed only through their own ingenuity and strength of will. Now it's their story, and they're welcome to tell it however they want, but it does make things a bit tricky when they are forced to relate to others who might approach religion differently, or in respecting the ability of others to do what they did.

My guess is that you won't have to worry about your daughter. She will hear the stories they tell her in pre-school, enjoy them or not, but noting that they aren't important to you, they probably won't be very important to her, unless at a much later age she chooses to become religious on her own. Hearing the stories and closing her eyes at prayer time aren't going to magically make her a religious person... at this age, those cues will be taken from you and your husband.

If you're really worried about it, though, the best way to deal with it is to talk to her about it. Ask her what stories they learned in class, and then ask her what she thinks about that story. She may like them (The Bible has some really fun stories, especially if your daughter shares your nerd genes) but just because someone likes a story doesn't mean they'll be a believer. The lessons at that age are pretty basic, Golden Rule type stuff. Fables with morals. Check out the morals, and if you jive with them, then no harm, no foul. If they are problematic, well then you probably don't want her in that program, anyway.

Faith is an abstract thing, and it will be years, at least, before your daughter is even capable of really embracing religion on her own terms. Until that day comes, she will embrace it on yours. And so the best way to model respect is to be respectful yourself. Honestly, I don't think you have anything to worry about.

Reader Questions- Dealing with the Neighbors

Hey Pastor Dan! As a fellow believer in Christ, I find myself having a difficult time figuring out how to deal with my neighbors and could use your help. My neighbors change routinely as the unit next door is rented out by the LDS Church. Every few weeks to few months new missionaries come to live there and serve their mission. Every time new ones arrive they immediately ask us as their neighbors to discuss why we should become a part of their church. Every time we tell them how we also are saved and have a church of our own. We both agree that God's gifts are alive and continually blessed upon his people (gifts of prophecy, visions, etc) and have many of the same opinions. We just disagree that the bible should be added to. That's really it.

So my concern is that although they know we are committed to Christ, actively pursuing what he has for us, and have accepted Him in our lives, that's not enough for our neighbors and they constantly push to have us meet more with them until we say yes. When accepting and pursuing Christ is not enough for someone, it is extremely concerning for me. Maybe you could help me understand why they keep doing this? Also, how can I tell them that now it's just disrespectful and that their time is better served sharing God's love to those who haven't experienced it for themselves and not on my wife and I who already are saved? Thanks!!!!

Regards,
Zachary Thomas
-------------------

Ooh, tough one. I like it! Thanks for writing in.

As I read your situation, I was cringing internally, because here is the bad news... this problem probably is never going to just go away, short of moving. That house will always be full of young, excited Missionaries who are gonna get out there and change the world and by golly look! Nice neighbors! Let's help THEM, first! And even if they do get the hint, it'll all start over again a few months later, every...single...time. 

It gives me a headache just thinking about it.

To your second concern, the reason they do what they do is that they don't know better. These are young people who are scared to death at the enormity of what they have to do, and so now that they are actually doing it, they're all gung ho and not really thinking it through. Plus, you're nice, kind, and so hours they spend talking to you are not hours spent going door to door with who knows who answering. I'd probably spend a lot of time on you as well, never thinking that A) You'd been through this a million times before and B) I'm actually being pretty insulting at the same time. Their intent is probably not to insult your faith. 

That said, it's perfectly reasonable to want the constant doorbell ringing to stop.  

There are a plethora of solutions on how to get rid of door to door missionaries out there on the internet, but most lean far closer to the Worldsuck side of the Awesome/Worldsuck meter. There has to be a way to get these folks off of your case without having to be really mean to new neighbors every few months. 

My first bit of advice is to contact the local elder of the LDS community in your area and let them know about the situation. Ask if, as a neighborly favor, he could point out that you get visited by a new group of missionaries every few months and so maybe could he remind the missionaries themselves of that, and maybe buy you a bit of peace and quiet? He may or may not be receptive to this, but its worth a try. 

Even if the Elder doesn't seem to take your request seriously, another approach is to go on the offensive by greeting them first. When a new group arrives at the house go over and visit them, say hi, maybe bring them cookies or something. Introduce yourselves and welcome them to the neighborhood. Give them advice on good places to eat, good places to avoid (dangerous neighborhoods, etc) and invite them to knock if they need something.  

What this does is it moves you, in their minds, from the position of mission field to caretaker. They don't need to worry about you... you're worried about them! By doing this, you change how they perceive you and so how they behave towards you. It won't always work, but when it does, you'll find that, for that cycle anyway, you have some very nice neighbors.

Hopefully.

Reader Question- Foxhole Faith

How do you respond to someone who only believes in God when they need someone to blame for their problems?   -Katie

-------------

Hey there, Katie, and thanks for the question. I know what you're talking about, people for whom God is essentially a non-entity until things go wrong. But when they do...

There are several ways to go from here, and I refer to all of them as "foxhole faiths," from the old saw that there are no atheists in a foxhole*. Some people get really religious really fast, using the fanciest language they have at their disposal to make grandiose promises to whatever deity might be willing to listen in exchange for getting out of their jam.

(Those prayers often amuse me in the sense that, once whoever it is gets delivered, I often imagine the one who prayed trying to go back over the list of deities they made promises to and then trying to figure out who came through so they know what is now expected of them. I imagine it would be like an interview process, with a waiting room and everything. I want someone to make a cartoon of this for a t-shirt.)

Others go the other way, blaming God for putting them in this jam in the first place, cursing the divine for creating a world where such situations could exist. I have actually heard someone use the phrase; "You see? THIS is why I didn't believe in you!" which is a very, very interesting statement, theologically.

Finally, there is the middle road. It isn't euphoric, angry, or bombastic, but quiet, considered, a soft plea. Think Everett's prayer when he's about to hang in Oh Brother, Where art Thou? and you'll get the idea. This person wants to retain their dignity, but on the off chance there is something listening, well, why not?

For people who believe more regularly this sort of thing can be very frustrating. In my time as a chaplain in a Children's Hospital, I often heard parents making the grandiose promises in return for their child's life. If their child stabilized, they often looked very awkward when they saw me next, like I was going to deliver the spiritual bill for services rendered... but that really isn't how it works.

I have always said that one of the great things about believing in God is you always have someone to yell at. Even better, if you believe in an all-powerful God, like I do, then you also believe your God can take it, so yell away, God will still be there afterwards, still ready to listen. In really hard times, it is a great thing to have (yes, even if it is just a crutch) and I would never think of denying that to anyone.

Because when you believe as I do, you also believe that God loves people, and cares for them, whether they believe in God or not. Imagine a parent who almost never hears from their adult child, save when things are wrong. Sometimes the child makes grandiose promises of how things will be better, sometimes they come back raging, sometimes they make quiet apologies and requests for assistance.

A lot of their friends would probably tell them to just cut that child off, that they're just being used. But most of the parents I know just shrug it off, knowing that they will be their when their child needs them again, and hoping that, maybe this time, the child will actually keep talking after the crisis has passed.

So how do I respond to them? I pray with them, and for them. I don't try to deliver the spiritual bill. I just hope that, once this wave of crisis has passed, that maybe the conversation, this time, could continue.

*I would like to take this moment to point out that I have not done the research on whether or not there are any atheists on foxholes, not having yet been in a position to properly survey foxhole spirituality.

Reader Question- Happy or Holy?

It seems that recently I've heard several Christians (prominent and otherwise) declare that God doesn't want us to be happy, but holy. Also, along those same lines, they proclaim that if a Christian is "living with sin" that they temporarily lose their vital connection with God (not their salvation, just their personal connection). My question is what do you think about that line of reasoning? Does God care nothing about our completeness and ability to live a full and joyful life as long as we end up "holy" that side of the grave? Why is it that whenever the righteous character of God is emphasized, it always seems to be at the expense of his compassion and grace?    --Sarah

----------------

Sarah, before I take my shot at your question, I want you to know that I read it awhile ago, and then went on vacation, not intending ANY posts while I was gone, and then suddenly it came back to me and hit me like a hammer. I just HAD to answer it. If that doesn't scream "good question" then I don't know what does, so thanks for the question!

I, too, have heard that God wants us to be holy, not happy. And it's bullshit. But it's the kind of bullshit that resounds and strikes a chord and even occasionally rings true, and that is because of the truth it contains, which is to say, just enough to be harmful.

God does, indeed, want us to be holy. God loves us, and our unholiness forces separation, and so of COURSE God would rather we were holy.

What's more, holiness itself is quite conducive to happiness. The things we do in order to be happy often fail to make us actually be happy, and so lead to unhappiness. Often, the sort of thing I just described is also unholy. (The correlation is quite high.) When raising children, we often find ourselves forced to do prevent them from doing things that would make them happy in the short term because of long-term consequences.

And while those parents could say that they want us to be healthy, not happy, they usually don't, because while even in the sense I described above you could claim that statement to be loosely true, it is also totally misleading.

God loves you, wants you to be happy. Holiness is a means to that end, practiced in the light of long term understandings that go far beyond what any parent is capable of with a child. Your happiness is deeply, powerfully, important to God. And ever implying otherwise is horrifically wrong, because deep down most (I even feel comfortable saying all) of us have those moments when we are not only unhappy, but feel that our unhappiness is somehow deserved. And so when we hear that God doesn't care about our happiness, we might be inclined to believe it, which moves it squarely into the bullshit category.

So why does it get spouted so much? As it happens, your next question touches the reason nicely. Not only fun questions, but you practically planned my segue for me as well! How thoughtful!

"Living in sin" is biblical language that has become divorced from its original meaning. Once upon a time, someone who lived in sin was someone who sinned, well, a lot. Now, it means someone else who sins a lot in a way of which the speaker doesn't approve.

You see, when you define "living in sin" as "sinning a lot" you have just described, well, everybody. And it's really hard to point fingers and feel self-righteous when the phrase you use also applies to you. It's a real buzzkill, in fact. And so, our definitions changed.

"Living in sin" has since shifted to describe people who live openly in what some others would describe as a particularly naughty sin. For instance, living with someone without being married to them. Or living married to a divorced person. Or living with a gay person. Because we all sin a lot, sure, but THOSE people are LIVING in sin. I at least feel bad about my sin! (Sometimes. Mostly. When I'm reminded of it. And I really did it. I mean, I think I'm doing pretty okay...) THEY aren't even repenting! And so we can live comfortably in the knowledge that they are worse than us.

But they're in love, you say? They nurture and support one another? Care for one another in a way that is suspiciously and alarmingly beautiful and (dare I say it?) Christ-like? Well, no matter. God wants us to be holy, not happy. So long (and this is important) as my rubric for holiness is being observed.

(I really look forward to the above paragraphs being quoted out of context. In fact, I hope it happens. I'll feel I've really arrived, Internet-wise.)

God's love is often hugely problematic for people who like to grind the holiness axe. I believe that this is borne of fear, of the need to believe that we are worthy of love and happiness. This can be a huge problem for (and I am speaking generally here) everybody ever, and one of the easiest (if least fulfilling) ways to assuage such concerns are by throwing others under the bus so that we can feel superior to them.

Ever heard someone give a powerful opinion on an issue that affects them, apparently, not at all, and wondered why they bothered? THIS is how it affects them. They have built their happiness on an illusion of superiority, and if they ever (even for a moment) allowed the idea that God loves those other people as much as them to permeate, the whole thing would come crashing down.

Such as state is pitiable, and as I said, pretty much everyone can empathize. But building your concept of self-worth and happiness in such a way is a short term fix at best, and has long ranging negative effects for everyone involved, including you. It isn't healthy, it isn't happy. It most definitely isn't holy.

And God wants you Healthy, Happy, AND Holy. 

Vlog- John Green and Batman

Reader Question- So Why Christian?

Why Christianity? As in, why did you chose to be a Christian instead of , say, a Buddhist or Hindu or Baha'i?- Krista

-----------------

Good question, Krista, and thanks for asking it!

I guess it's pretty interesting that I've answered a question on why I'm such a big geek, but not on why I am Christian, specifically. I did talk a bit about my perspective on other religions here but that still doesn't really answer why I chose Christianity. So here we go!

For starters, I cannot discount the fact that I was raised Christian. I've mentioned before that I am the son and the grandson of pastors and so that family connection cannot be denied. I am also a white guy raised in the US in the 21st century, if I was inclined to be religious (which I think we can all agree I am) then Christianity was always going to have a great shot.

I've described faith to you before as a sense, and senses get trained. My spiritual sensitivity is trained to connoisseur levels when it comes to Christianity, so that was always going to be my default, which makes it a legitimate question whether or not I actually "chose" Christianity at all. This is the sort of thing I often see more skeptical Nerdfighters refer to as indoctrination, though thankfully rarely to people of faith they actually know.

There was an element of choosing however, because as I have said before I wasn't always a believer. There was a period of time when I was an atheist, and then eventually came back to the faith. The experience was a personal one, an interaction with God. So I did choose to come back, but it's not like I did research to see what other options there were. I had interacted with the Christian God. So that was the direction my new found faith was going to take. My research went into what form of Christianity I was going to try to follow... and while I stayed Presbyterian, that at least was an informed choice based on research and experimentation with alternatives, but that experimentation never went beyond the bounds of Christianity.

Even reading this, I know my atheists are going to be a bit (or a lot) skeptical about it and that is your right. I mean, it's faith I'm doing here so it's not like I can prove anything, and if you assume that faith is bogus, the above just looks like indoctrination or brainwashing.

Could I have had an equally powerful reaction elsewhere? Possibly. I have prayed with Muslims, Jews, Native Americans, Buddhists, and Hindus, felt the presence of God with them, and had I been doing so when I had my faith moment, maybe faith would have been flavored that way from then on. I can't say with any definiteness because I honestly don't know.

But when you have that strong faith tugging, it's not the sort of thing that calls you to check alternatives. It makes you want to know more about that faith, specifically, to research your options within it and learn how best to follow it. Any other reaction is not an attempt to educate your newfound faith, but rather an attempt to break or distance yourself from it.

You should, of course, be aware of and responsible for your own actions. If people try to use that faith impulse to, say, get you to harm yourself or someone else, then you need to look for answers elsewhere. But if/when you feel the tug of faith, a spiritual spark that you can't otherwise explain? Follow that thread, at least for awhile, rather than grabbing at others.

Reader Question- God Gendered?

At a church I was visiting the person speaking (who was a visiting academic, which thrilled my little grad school soul) intentionally flipped between pronouns when referring to God. So...what's the deal with God being a "he"? Is there a reason for it other than "because the culture at the time much more strongly valued masculinity and it was different from Pagan goddesses?" Do the pronouns we use for the Divine matter?

-Curious

--------------------

Oooh, fun question. Thanks for writing in, Curious!

As anyone who has been tortured with a high school foreign language class can probably attest, English is a rare language that does not explicitly gender nouns. So, when translating many languages, (including Biblical Greek and Hebrew) the pronouns are the only way we have to convey the gender that comes built into some of the words we are translating. A lot of those words (though not all) are male, and so the speaker MAY have just been going for felicity to the text, but in all honesty, was probably just flip flopping randomly. 

So why gender God, outside of a linguistic imperative to gender everything?

Well, for starters, in the scripture God is not simply a gendered noun. God is repeatedly referred to as a parent in the Bible. sometimes in the language of a Father, other times as a mother. These are usually analogies, attempts to explain attitudes and behavior, to make the unknowable a bit easier to relate to.

I'll get the elephant in the room out of the way, first. There is not a Great Divine Penis up in the sky. God is not limited to one gender, but has attributes that are often understood AS gendered. The point of the gendered language was not to make the Hebrew God distinct from pagan goddesses (the pagan gods the Hebrews interacted with were as likely to be male as female, if not more so) but to help people understand the motivations of a being beyond basic comprehension.

The eternal creator of the universe caring about mortal life was hard to swallow... but a Father caring for his children? That got across. A timeless being of light and love providing sustenance was a bit too abstract... but a mother suckling her children? Easy. 

Do the pronouns we use matter? Yeah. Using "He" or "She" provide a friendliness and familiarity that we are encouraged to use that cannot be reached through "it." But beyond that, the specific choices matter as well. Because when we use exclusively male language, important aspects of the character of God get lost. Father/male  language has its place, and it is an important place, but Mother/female language is equally important.

All the more so because of who WE are. When humanity is first created, according the book of Genesis, God created humanity in his own image, "Male AND Female, she created them." We are made in the image of God, male and female both. So if we exclude the female, then we lose a part of that.

So, there's your answer. The proclivity we have shown towards a wholly male understanding of God is most certainly a product of male dominated society, but the origins of male language are not. Properly combined with female images, we actually get a better understanding of God.