Jim Wallis' "God's Politics"

Thanks to Carl for bringing this interesting review of Jim Wallis' God's Politics to my attention. The author is fairly complimentary toward the book, although she does offer some serious criticisms as well. For my part, I have not yet read the book, but I find Wallis' writings to be excellent and thought provoking - he does an excellent job of challenging both conservatives and liberals to think more deeply about their beliefs in light of the Bible's teachings.

I appreciated the review because it raises some interesting questions about the intersection of religion and politics. I offer the following quote as an example:

"Nevertheless, certainty grounded in unbending religious conviction can (and often does) produce a remarkable rigidity that brooks no compromise. Which is precisely the place where religion and politics may not blend very well: Whereas compromise is the coin of the realm at the political negotiating table, it is often a sign of moral failure in a religious frame."

While I absolutely believe that religion has a place in political discourse, this quote does highlight one of the chief difficulties in meshing the two. There is a constant tension between the absolute claims a religion like Christianity makes, and the demands of democracy in a pluralistic environment, which inevitably require compromise.

Sunday School Teacher of 54 Years Dismissed Because She is a Woman

My friend Stewart brought this story to my attention. An 81 year old Sunday School teacher who had taught in her Southern Baptist church for 54 years was "dismissed" from her teaching duties, ostensibly because she is a woman. The news story can be found here, and an insightful post on the subject by biblical scholar Ben Witherington can be found here.

It's pretty shocking that what looks to be a very young pastor (watch the videos on the news site) would dismiss a woman who had faithfully served the church for such a long period of time. I suppose if he really believes the Bible prohibits women from teaching (I don't) , he may have felt it a move he had to make. The problem, it seems, is that there is some doubt as to the real reason. The letter in which they dismissed her (yes, it was a letter - he did not even have the courtesy to do it face to face) refers only to 1 Timothy 2:8-15. However, it appears that church politics are also in play - the church has now said that there were other (undisclosed) reasons (which were not listed in the letter) and it does appear that the teacher had some disagreements with the pastor in the past. This possibility makes the situation even more disturbing because it seems likely that the Bible is being used as a smokescreen to cover up more personal issues.

While I do believe that some allowance needs to be made for differences in interpretation regarding the Bible, such prohibitions of women from service in the church grieve me deeply because they stifle the gifts of many very competent women, whose abilities will never be fully utilized in their churches. There are other (I believe better) ways to interpret passages such as 1 Timothy 2:8-15, and most interpretations that prohibit women's activities in the church are remarkably inconsistent (for example, how many people honestly prohibit women from braiding their hair, or from talking at all in church?).

Interesting Video - Can the Media Be Trusted?

A friend brought this video to my attention, and I thought it might be worthy of discussion. For those who choose not to watch it (you probably should if you're able), it presents numerous examples that the authors (of the video) believe demonstrate that the news media have doctored photos of the destruction in Lebanon in order to create more sympathy for the Lebanese, and less for the Israelis. Aish.com is a Jewish website, but I'm not sure who produced the video itself.

First, I think that if these examples are true, they are undoubtedly problematic. I would probably quibble with a couple examples - most notably the woman decrying the destruction of her home. Just because one photo came out several weeks after the first does not necessarily indicate an attempt to mislead - for whatever reason, it was simply published later than the other. However, I have no trouble believing that some of these photos were indeed staged, which certainly highlights the fact that some reporters are not honest in the way they report the news, and it is always good to think critically about what we are told.

However, I cannot help but think that the same should apply to watching this video. While I don't doubt that some of what it says is true, I do think that we should think critically when viewing this "expose" just as we should when dealing with any other piece of reporting. The video is obviously put together by someone who supports Israel's current actions against Hezbollah in Lebanon. While this is not necessarily problematic, it is nonetheless true that this report is every bit as informed by the author's agenda as any other report. I guess I'm just a little troubled because I see political conservatives talk about the left's "agenda" quite a bit, and I think we need to remember that both sides have an agenda, and both sides are full of rhetoric. Legitimate complaints have been advanced against the so-called "liberal" media (and I view this video as one of those complaints), but there are also legitimate complaints against news sources like Fox News, which in my estimation is also far from an impartial news source.

The question remains - should this video have some impact upon those who believe that Israel has acted inappropriately in the current conflict? The authors of the video clearly believe it does - the entire video seems to argue that the fact that these photos are doctored indicates that what is going on in Lebanon is not as bad as has been reported, and that the damage is being exaggerated to turn people against Israel. The response the authors of the video seem to desire is for people to accept that news reports have been falsified, and to support Israel's actions based upon this information.

I'm not sure, however, that the video accomplishes this purpose - at least it didn't in my case. While it is certainly an indictment of some of the techniques used to "report" the news, it had little impact on my thinking regarding the current conflict - mainly because my reasons for thinking that Israel has gone too far are based upon accounts from multiple news sources (including those favorable towards Israel's actions like Fox News), not upon pictures from the media. The possibility that some of the pictures taken in Lebanon are doctored really does not affect the validity or non-validity of the arguments against (or for) Israel's actions in the current conflict.

Unintentional Effects of Israel's Offensive in Lebanon

My good friend Jody noted this article on one of the comments pages below, but I thought it was worthwhile enough to bring to everyone's attention here. I would quibble with a few points, and at times his tone is a little more argumentative than I think is helpful, but he argues a point I have tried to argue here - that Israel's actions in Lebanon are actually counterproductive - much more eloquently than I have been able to do.

Jazz Improvisation

"This is an important distinction for an understanding of jazz. Improvisatory creation is not a medium that half-heartedly tries, but won't rise up to, a written composition: on the contrary, it gives jazz its grandeur, which is a potential to eclipse written music in its performance. . . . [I]f all the written music in the world suddenly burned up in a flash, who could still do a gig the same night, with complete strangers, and no rehearsals?"
-- Brad Mehldau, from the liner notes to Art of the Trio 4: Back at the Vanguard, writing about the difference improvisational and more structured forms of music

I just liked this quote - nicely captures at least a little bit of why I enjoy jazz music so much.

"Hater" Jesus

Some of you may have seen references to the recent controversy over the new Everclear video for their song "Hater," which features a Jesus figure roaming the streets and smoking, beating up an old woman, and engaging in sexual activity with prostitutes (and there is more offensive material than that). I don't necessarily recommend watching the video, although it's out on the internet if you want to do so. Just be forewarned that it is extremely offensive and even contains a small amount of nudity. I thought it was worth mentioning here because of the explanation that Everclear's frontman, Art Alexakis, has given for the video.

Alexakis was interviewed on the O'Reilly Factor tonight, and a partial transcript (the website notes it is edited for "clarity") can be found here. As usual, O'Reilly does his best to prevent any sort of reasonable discussion, but some of Alexakis' comments are still enlightening. He notes that the Jesus figure is not supposed to be Jesus, but a representation of a Jesus who "made the wrong choice." The video is dedicated to Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, and the band's intent seems to have been to criticize the brand of Christianity they believe is exemplified by these two figures, rather than to attack Christianity as a whole (as many have assumed). The song refers to Alexakis' divorce and his own feelings of hatred which resulted from that experience. The video, however, recontextualizes the song to criticize those who use religion to justify their own hatred of other people, as Alexakis notes in another interview: "Politically, I thought it was a really cool statement (dedicated to all the people who use religious beliefs to justify their own hateful feelings)." (Note: One could argue that this does not describe Robertson and Falwell, but the band's perspective seems to be that it does)

Please note that I am not defending the video. Frankly, I have mixed feelings about the whole thing. While I am sympathetic to the band's stated concerns, many of the video's images are terribly offensive. I often land on the side of artistic expression, but at the same time I don't really see much value in using art to deliberately offend, as the majority of this video seems calculated to do. Any thoughts?