Sunday, February 28, 2010
Hmmm... The Crucifixion offensive? Goodness, we can't have that! What a scandal! How dare th.... Oh, wait. It's kind of assumed to be offensive, isn't it? I mean, you don't want to use it just to be offensive -- but isn't it kind of guaranteed to be so? Doesn't the Apostle Paul call it an offense, and "foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God"? Maybe the problem isn't the crucifix outside the church, but, rather, a lack of understanding (or proper perspective) of the cross by those inside.
The church's Reverend Souter says, "As a key exterior symbol for us it was putting people off rather than having a sense of hope and life and the power of the resurrection."
Which is fair enough, I suppose. Passersby not knowing the context of the man on the cross could easily be confused or offended by it. But if it's a problem as a "key exterior symbol", then just move it inside. Right? Wrong. They've apparently given it to a museum (where, one would think, it would be even more potentially confusing or offensive, since it's even further removed from the proximity of a Christian church). But, besides all that, doesn't one kind of have to come to grips with the awfulness of the crucifixion to even get to a sense of hope and life and the power of the resurrection? And what better place than a church?
I find it hard to believe that early Christians were suprised that crucifixion was offensive. In Jesus' time, the simple fact that one was crucified at all was considered a disgrace. And since the horrible spectacle of public crucifixion was kind of a daily fact of life for them, then isn't it possible that Paul keeps reminding them of it because he knew they'd immediately and vividly understand the reference? Aren't we supposed to be shaken-up by the grim reality that Jesus endured such a tortured death for a world that pretty much despises him? And isn't there a danger of minimizing the seriousness of the sins he died for, when we sanitize horrors he suffered procuring the forgiveness of those sins?
Maybe that's why Christianity in Europe has been in such decline for so long. Maybe they just got too civilized and sophisticated for a story with such a crude and violent component to it. Maybe. But then, they seem to tolerate other (more modern) types of violence.
It makes you wonder, don't it?
Obviously, a message that focuses only on our sin-guilt, and the gruesomeness of the price paid for our forgiveness, shouldn't be where the story leaves off. And it's unfortunately true that some people seem to be so obsessed with the physical horrors of the crucifixion that it borders on morbidity. But a message that wants to skip lightly over that part of the story, in order to get on to more pleasant things, seems equally wrong. Western society seems to be either excessively preoccupied with death, or excessively afraid of it -- and neither extreme is healthy (either emotionally or spiritually). Balance seems to be a rarer and rarer thing in the modern church (and society in general), but isn't balance just the kind of thing Christians are called to model in this unbalanced world?
The Reverend also said they want to portray "an accurate biblical picture of the crucifixion as a moment of hopefulness for the world, and not one of despair." But the Apostle Paul spoke of the world viewing the cross as an offense and foolishness. And the writer of Hebrews encouraged Christians to: "Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God."
And maybe therein lies the problem. We are to focus on Jesus, but too many want to focus on just the parts of Jesus that don't upset them too much. People (believers and non-believers alike) prefer an amputated Jesus. The Liberation theology Jesus; the prosperity gospel Jesus; the positive thinking Jesus; the fire & brimstone Jesus; the New Age guru Jesus; the ethno-centric Jesus; and I expect to soon start hearing about the 'Liberty-Minded' Jesus (who is a Libertarian/Anarcho-Capitalist). But the Jesus of the Bible transcends and defies such neat and easy catagorizations. The fact that he had a zealot and a tax collector as two of his disciples should be proof enough of the radically life changing nature of the gospel (a zealot would have likely killed a tax collector, if ever their paths crossed in a dark alley -- but not after they encountered Jesus).
Then there are those who confuse the offensiveness of the cross with the offensiveness of their preaching style. But just because people are offended, that doesn't mean they're offended in the way the bible describes. Some people seem to confuse the offensiveness of the message with the obnoxiousness of the messenger. (Which is kind of how cultists think: "Ooooh, we're being persecuted because we're God's true chosen." No, you're being investigated because you're stockpiling an arsenal of military weapons, you're involved in financial illegalities, and you're practicing mind control on your members. Get a clue.)
Christianity is a faith that is full of paradoxes that, if not properly understood, may seem overly negative to some (e.g., you've got to die to get life; the last shall be first; he who saves his life shall lose it; etc). But one doesn't have to have a degree in theology to grasp such paradoxes (I mean, have you looked at the kinds of people Jesus called -- and still calls -- to follow him? You should meet the one writing this post). On the other hand, you can't approach the Christian faith and scriptures with an anti-intellectual "Oh, I just trust the Holy Spirit to explain it all to me, if it's really that important" mentality. Which brings us back to the concept of balance.
The church's curator said, "That today isn't an image which a lot of churches want to follow. They'd much rather see an empty cross where Christ has risen."
I can understand not wanting people to think that Christ on the cross is the whole story. Without the resurrection, he's just another deluded false messiah that got himself executed. But it just seems to be symbolic of modern Churchianity's obsession with never offending anyone -- i.e., the suffering Christ is more welcome in a museum than a church (providing he stays on the cross), while the church attempts to offer a "hopeful" resurrection message of a Christ that never suffered.
Still, the curator may have inadvertantly said more than he knew, when he stated, "They'd much rather see an empty cross where Christ has risen." Because an empty cross only indicates that Christ was taken down and buried. The empty tomb tells us Christ has risen. And, unfortunately, an empty church is usually the evidence of an amputated Jesus. God help us.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Well, to their credit, MySpace actually replied promptly to my e-mail complaint about the link to this Blogger page being blocked. And, unlike the last time it happened, the response actually addressed the problem specifically. So I applaud MySpace for such improvements. Maybe they aren't the problem after all.
The MySpace explanation for the blocked link is:
We've recently discovered that BlogSpot pages are being used by spammers to send spam, so all links to that site have been disabled. Although you or your blog may not be associated with or linked to spam or spammers, to protect all MySpace Profiles from spam, phishing, and online scams, all links to Blogspot are blocked.
Which now begs the question: If BlogSpot pages are being used by spammers to send spam, what (if anything) are the Blogger folks doing to fix the problem? And, if they're not doing anything about it, why shouldn't I take my millions of readers and move to a different blog site
[Addendum: Since this was originally posted, I've received two "comments" that were spam links to Asian porn sites. So, apparently, the spam problem is a real concern. What losers. I hope Blogger gets a handle on the problem soon. DEATH TO SPAMMERS!!!]
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Well, they're at it again! The MySpace Nazis have once again blocked the link to this here blog. Their reasons? Well, let's look at those. Shall we?
Anyone clicking on the link to here from my MySpace page sees the following (just click on the picture, if it's too small to read):
Now if that's not about a load of mierda del toro, I don't know what is.
MySpace seems determined to chase me off. It's not bad enough that they're interfering with my link, and lying about the reasons why. I had an Imeem account, but MySpace bought Imeem. So there went most of my playlists – including my Van Gogh playlist, which was comprised of songs I wrote the lyrics to and sang on! They had no business deleting those!!!
I can imagine what some might be wondering: If MySpace is so bad, why not just go to Facebook? Which might be an option, if not for one small point: I HATE Facebook! But that's a whole other post.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Taking a break from his Golf Channel reality show, NBA Hall of Famer Charles Barkley takes a dip in a hotel swimming pool. And although he looks none too pleased about having his photo taken, he should have known it would take more than a Wilford Brimley mustache to hide that legendary physique.
Friday, February 5, 2010
While checking my e-mail, I saw the following news headline:
Mel Gibson Takes on Obama in a War of the Words
Well, I'm ashamed to admit that I was morbidly curious. So I clicked on the link, where I found a short article that quoted Gibson as saying:
"[Obama] is a man with an impossible task on his hands... He got left a mess and I wish him all the best but I don't think he's going to fix it in five minutes and probably not in his entire tenure."
Really? This is a “War of the Words”? Seriously?!?! THEN...WE...ARE...DOOOOOOMED!!!! Shout it from the rooftops. If that is what passes for a “war of the words” in this country, then America can officially be pronounced brain-dead.
(But I guess that's what I get for taking the bait.)
Thursday, February 4, 2010
I was sure something would happen to keep us bent over, and,...darn it!....I wasn't disappointed. The prison rape continues. Seriously, though – if this is some kind of test, I'm not getting it. Are we supposed to be learning some great spiritual lesson from all the crap of the last couple of years? And if so, shouldn't we have at least some small clue by now as to what that lesson is? I don't think God causes every crappy thing in life to happen, but I know he can redeem every crappy thing for his glory. Sometimes God takes life's shit and uses it for fertilizer to bring forth something good. Still,...I'm kind of clueless as to just what's going on. Maybe I'm like a field of really bad soil; or maybe the crop he's cultivating takes longer than most to come to fruition; or maybe I'm even denser than I think I am; or maybe (probably) it's a combination of all three, and some others I'm not even aware of.
If I were a Calvinist, I think I'd be telling God where to stick it. But I'm not,....so it never really occurs to me. It's the old "though he slay me, I will hope in him" thing. I think the fact that he exists is more important than whether or not he saves my soul or listens to my prayers. Still, I'm glad he did do the dirty work of saving my soul, and has the patience (not to mention the fortitude) to listen to what passes for my prayers. I'm certainly not worth the price he paid – but, ironically, the price he paid gives me worth. (Man, I do love it that God seems to delight in paradoxes!)
[More than likely to be continued...]