We are on the wrong course in our interactions with courts, the legislative process, and specifically the women in our society. Lowering the abortion rate to astonishingly low levels is possible, and it starts (STARTS) with ending the expensive and wasteful process of trying to force people into making the choice most of us want them to make. Let’s do this the way Jesus demonstrated. Listen to people, love them as they are, intervene personally and directly; not with laws that attempt to control them without listening to them or even knowing who they really are (much less loving them as much as so many conservative Christians “say” they love the unborn child … an anonymous and cheap form of “love” at best).

There is a simple test that we should apply when someone in a debate talks about “low levels” of pregnancy due to rape and incest or life-threatening situations like we’ve heard about in the past year from Ireland and elsewhere. (Think it couldn’t happen here? I think it could in a rural part of states like Oklahoma, Mississippi, or others). None of that even includes women living with other sorts of threats, like domestic violence or health situations that could lead to serious consequences like sterility or conditions that would shorten life … but just not drastically enough to satisfy the kinds of legislation being proposed by so-called conservatives. No the test here is really easy: whenever you call a number of women small, then your job is to pull out pen and paper and write down (you, personally, not a bunch of pages or interns) the names and phone numbers of all the women you have met for the first time in the past year. You see, the same women aren’t typically pregnant from rape in consecutive years. For some women — thankfully — it is only a once in a lifetime experience if at all. But if you think it is a small number, go ahead and set a timer for an hour or two, and write down all your new female associates. It’s a small number, right?

Of course, if it is physically impossible for you to write that many names (thousands of women each year) in a short span of time, then it isn’t a small number at all. We should have the intellectual integrity to challenge people who use language so inappropriately. On the other hand, you also may have — despite being in a position of power — simply avoided meeting that many of your constituents, choosing instead to remain in a very narrow field of influence for some arguably political reasons. That would be a lack of ethics and/or moral integrity … if we are serious about the use of terms like “small number” to refer to such a large and important part of our society.

Jesus would speak with those women. With the woman at the well in John 4 as an example, he would empower her or them to be his advocate with others in the community, not only other women. He would never adopt a “there there little lady, I know what’s best for you” philosophy and he certainly wouldn’t legislate such an approach through the power of human government. People who do that are not following Jesus; they are opposing his example. Please, don’t empower the anti-Christ forces that you are forced to brush elbows with, whether they identify themselves as some sort of Christian voting bloc or moral majority or not. The only real “moral majority” is Jesus. Try doing things his way for a change, or take this prompting to challenge peers who are and have been taking the Lord’s name in vain on this issue (and numerous others).

Sincerely and admittedly,

Someone who loves Jesus more than power (I’m not alone here, my fellow Christians, and you are welcome to join us)

1. Some things are worth fighting for, on a personal level
2. I was a punk before you were a punk (and I don’t consider that band “punk”)
3. Using documentaries to keep score on sports history

I also answer the question: how do you know if you are a bigot?

Different Drummer: Ingmar Bergman

Lyrics: @ic_greg

Melody: Traditional

Season: Pentecost

Jesus woke me up

I thanked him anyway,

He wished me well and

Sunday morning - much to my surprise.

Seeing that my sins

Confused me,

He told me that

Had been quite a burden.

Because He didn’t want me

He died for my sins,

We talked about old times,

To build a church

In my shock, I did not

I guess for ten minutes

Or seek people who

Know what to say,

Or more,

Would donate their money.

Initially,

Subsequently,

Ultimately,

(Refrain)

This relaxed me and

Convinced me that the

Times really don’t change.

To answer Quentin’s question: I have had many sisters, more than I could name if put on the spot, and just a couple of them share the same parents as me.

Different Drummer: William Faulkner

Different Drummer: Leo Buscaglia

I mention this to provide some context for a statement that I feel compelled to make. It might be obvious. Then again, maybe not. Among other things, Inappropriate Conversations is, for me, a ministry.

Am I “preaching” the notion that strict separation of politics, religion, and aspects of popular culture (including sexuality) has not served us well? Perhaps. If so, this post is not a signal that things are changing in any way. On the contrary, I anticipate the tone and approach remaining the same.

It may be enough to say, for now, that I am reaching out in several directions, intentionally.

• * I’m asking Christians to view Jesus as something more than a celebrity they follow with an “I like this” or even an “I’m like this” mentality.
• * I’m correcting or even rebuking those who seem to worship their Bible, whether they realize it or not, without actually having a full understanding of what it says.
• * I’m also reaching out to people who have left the church or bypassed it completely because they have been either marginalized or harmed by what I call “politically active Christianity” but is more commonly known by terms like “the religious right.”
• * Finally, I’m delighted to know that I’m also speaking (literally, from a podcast perspective) with like-minded Christians. Almost without exception, these are followers of Christ who have felt the Holy Spirit move them, either in a completely different direction or simply out of complacency.

That last group describes me as well. Examples are sprinkled throughout these podcasts — sporadically, by design, to avoid becoming preachy. Make no mistake, though, ministry can and does happen in a variety of ways. It doesn’t require a worship service, and certainly not a sermon. Is there some risk in speaking up, in exercising my freedoms of religion and speech in this manner? There shouldn’t be, politically, for reasons that go back to the founding of this country.

I believe there is greater risk in silence. Why, and what does that have to do with ministry or God? “It’s far better to say something that should not be said, than not to say something that should be said.” I attribute those words to the Holy Spirit at 1:37 a.m. CST on February 7, 1987. How would you remain willfully silent after hearing that? I haven’t and I won’t.

Different Drummer: Derrick Thomas

Here is a view that I have heard before, and it was presented to me again this week: “You say that you want tolerance and despise, hate, but if I don’t agree with everything you say, you call it intolerance and hate. Explain to me again just how that works.”

Now, it is quite possible that this conservative friend was trying to discuss a contentious issue with someone who isn’t very open-minded about their “progressive” ideas. That happens.

On the other hand, it seems more likely that the discussion wasn’t really about issues at all. What if the focus was really on identity instead? At the very least, I can imagine my friend referring to a person as a sinner, making a lifestyle choice, or asking for “special rights.” Sad to say, that happens as well.

I have a response that asks Christians to consider when it may be important to tell someone that disagreeing with them is, inherently, inappropriate.

It is usually intolerance when people tell me that I cannot possibly be a Christian because Jesus isn’t real and therefore I couldn’t actually have a relationship with him as my Lord. We can argue that it is hypocritical to call someone intolerant for forcing us to believe everything they say; but, like it or not, a larger group than just Christians would and should label someone like that as “intolerant” and perhaps hateful if they layer in a bit of verbal abuse, too.

They don’t have to agree with me about everything I think or believe. However, when it comes to questions of who I am, whom I love, and how that most important of relationships works in my life, that isn’t a matter of opinion or an issue for public referendum or debate. Anyone who treats me harshly or dismissively on that basis deserves to be taken to task for it.

Most of the time when questions like this are raised about tolerance, I find that the issue isn’t about questions of opinions where disagreements can easily be managed with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15-16). It tends to be about judgments that cut to the very core of who a person is. If we don’t respect persons’ understandings of who they are (Christian, in this example), then we rightfully should be accused of failing to love in the same measure that we fail to listen.

Here is the problem: I wasn’t really talking about Christianity. It is true that I have been dismissed, on occasion, for being a Christian. Both courts and society would quickly leap to my defense, though, if that became a basis for denying me a job, or access to medical treatment, or the right to — for example — get married.

Religion isn’t the only thing that cuts to the core of who a person is. So, no, we aren’t entitled to agree or disagree with someone’s sexuality, whether it be a matter of identity or preference. You don’t get to “disagree” with whether someone is gay or straight. It’s just that simple.

Hopefully, I’ve fully explained just how this question of tolerance works.

Different Drummer: Chris Rice

One artist that answers both questions with an emphatic Yes is Chris Rice. I have backed that opinion by purchasing every one of his albums and seeing him in concert twice. Given the opportunity, I’d see a show again tonight.

Here are just a few examples, if you were looking for the adult contemporary singer-songwriter format of music with solid theology and a truly personal storytelling style:

“Love Like Crazy” from Amusing (2005)

“Thirsty” from Past The Edges (1998)

“Go Light Your World” from Short Term Memories (2004)

“Me and Becky” from Run The Earth, Watch The Sky (2003)

“The Face Of Christ” from Smell The Color 9 (2000)

“Smile” from Run The Earth, Watch The Sky (2003)

“The Final Move” from Amusing (2005)

I’ll have more to say about Chris Rice in an upcoming Different Drummer segment, no doubt.

Different Drummer: Anselm of Aosta

Different Drummer: Victoria Williams

Different Drummer: Harriet Andersson

Andersson in “Through A Glass Darkly”

Conclusion of “Through A Glass Darkly”

1. Communication lines between fathers and sons
2. Distorting the importance of lawns and other exteriors
3. An old answer to the question: where would I be without God?

Different Drummer: Jonathan Nolan

“Person Of Interest” Season 1 recap

Different Drummer: Joni Mitchell

Behind the song: “A Case Of You”

Different Drummer: James Joyce

Different Drummer: John Hughes

“Demons Dance Alone” is my favorite work by the experimental/alternative band The Residents. Written in the aftermath of 9/11/2001, it is almost less experimental in a way that makes it stand out from their catalog. In fact, when I saw the DVD for the first time (before I heard the album), it seemed obvious that the disorienting visual style was far more experimental than the music itself. The performances on that DVD led me to the studio album, but even the combination seemed insufficient. For a work as important as “Eskimo” or “The Mole Trilogy” (enter the joke about 4+ parts here) or “Gingerbread Man” (CD-R), something was missing.

With “Demonic!” released last year, The Residents have given this material the second look and second listen that it deserves.

First, the negatives. The 2 CD version that I purchased has track listings that don’t line up well on disc 1. The first track is actually an overture of sorts, even before the band is introduced to the live audience, and that throws off all the other song names. For a new listener, the last thing you need is for the relationship between track number and song title to be off. Also, one of the highlights of the live experience is their remake of the Snakefinger song “Golden Goat” but here is it buried with two other songs in a single track as if the song was the centerpiece of a medley. Each of those songs stands alone, though, and deserved individual tracks on the CD.

What’s missing? Since the concert is a live performance of the “Demons Dance Alone” opus, it makes sense that there are very few additions from other albums. “Make Me Moo” is the only track from the studio album that could have been added.  I suspect the studio version would be superior, all the same.

Now, the good news and an answer to the obvious question. If I have all of these songs in an excellent studio album, why such enthusiasm for the live version? There are two answers.

1. With the exception of “Weather Man” these live versions equal or surpass the originals. This new release, together with individual downloads of “The Weatherman” and “Make Me Moo” from the 2002 release would cover the complete experience.
2. The 2 CD set, as any live album will, provides slightly different takes on each song including more direct storytelling. More importantly, this set includes a couple of songs that were only available via video before. They are also among the best of the band’s weird and wonderful catalog.

Randy’s lead vocals are both a distinctive and derided trademark. Many of their songs wouldn’t be the same without his swampy redneck drawl. While many of The Residents’ legendary works function largely as instrumentals or sound collages, others like “Gingerbread Man” or “God In Three Persons” depend heavily on his voice.

All the same, the inclusion of female voices is crucial to my favorite songs by the band. “How To Get A Head” (Wormwood) needs a young girl to relate John The Baptist’s fate from Salome’s perspective. Even friends who despise The Residents have to admit that “Harry The Head” (Freak Show) is a love song told by a woman who is emotionally committed to a disembodied head.

In this performance, the crucial tracks are “Golden Goat” and “Wonderful 2.” The latter was identified as “Mrs. Wonderful” on the original DVD. The same childish mixture of excitement and fear that drives “How To Get A Head” makes “Golden Goat” such in interesting interpretation of the song written by both Snakefinger and The Residents. “Mrs. Wonderful” has some of the most heartbreakingly harsh yet subtle lyrics I’ve ever heard.

“If the father of the baby that I know I’ll never have wasn’t married to the lady whose house I cleaned when I was fat, life would be wonderful … life would be wonderful … life would be wonderful.”

I suppose the impact of the entire “Life Would Be Wonderful” suite depends entirely on your tolerance for the intentional inconsistency in their sound. “Demonic!” is dreamlike and disturbing for a reason. It is also far more melodic than most of The Residents’ previous output. Lyrically, though, the band is as bizarre as ever. Like most of their albums, this one is produced by The Cryptic Corporation. Nothing ironic about that.

“Demonic!” is a limited release. One pressing is available with a supplemental DVD, but I cannot imagine it would replace the original DVD release based on the songs mentioned in descriptions I have seen. When I first saw the original video, I dismissed it completely with an “I guess you had to be there” shrug. It haunted me, though, and called for a second look. I had the same response to the studio album, which features the “female resident” on several tracks but omits “Mrs. Wonderful.”

“I have seen the Golden Goat, and he would like to lick my throat. I know his mane. I know his spoor. I know he waits outside my door.” Haunting.

With this 2012 offering, The Residents have made things right. Life may be wonderful after all.

I respect Giglio, and I respect his decision.  In that, I’ve just separated myself from those who vehemently wanted him removed from that role, but I’ve also separated myself from most Christians who seem to have missed everything Giglio did not say when he declined.  His statement, “Due to a message of mine that has surfaced from 15-20 years ago…” is a far cry from stridently defending the sanctity of his current beliefs against any (insert numerous complaints from religious conservatives) abomination.

This shouldn’t be particularly confusing. Most politically active Christians struggle to comprehend things Jesus did not say or do either.  They would be just as quick to presume their favorite words of condemnation fit just as nicely into Giglio’s mouth, too.

I am not offended by what Giglio did or didn’t say.  I’m disappointed, but not offended, by those who made the call for Obama to rescind the invitation which Giglio preemptively declined.  My views have changed as information has grown over the past 15-20 years.  I have asked God for wisdom as well, which implies a desire for growth that cannot happen without development and often change.  Perhaps the same can be said about Giglio.

No, I’m offended by some of the Christian responses, including this one by Randy Alcorn:

We redefine sin, and minimize it in a misguided attempt to win people by saying what they’d rather hear. What bothered me most as I read dozens and dozens of comments was seeing professing Christians distance themselves from Louie Giglio. These new kind of “Christians” are a mirror image of this culture, craving popularity and acceptance. If that’s you, please understand—and I am trying to be honest, not cruel—that you bear no resemblance to what it has meant for two thousand years to be a true follower of Christ. Believe what you choose to, but please, in the interests of accuracy, stop calling yourself a Christian.

Stop right there.  Being a true follower of Christ is not about maintaining the mantle of empire bestowed upon Christianity by Emperor Constantine centuries ago.  Throughout those years, many Christians have called for the church to correct its course.  Martin Luther alone is proof that this notion of Christian understandings of both scripture and science being unchanged for 2,000 years is false.  More to the point, Jesus doesn’t command us to believe anywhere near as often as he commands us to do:

• Go and do likewise
• Feed the hungry
• Care for widows and orphans
• Whatever you have done for the least of these, you have done for me
• Go and make disciples

Those of us who do the things that Jesus commanded — and, to be honest, a great many Christians are much more accomplished than I am — bear a much better resemblance to the true followers of Christ than anyone who is so committed to a political position that he or she would deny evidence, scientific research, and testimony even from believers who understand homosexuality in a way that I, frankly, never will.

If we are to love God with all of our hearts and souls and strengths and minds, as Christ commanded, then we need to stop attacking other Christians who are using their minds.  If there is to be a litmus test for “true Christianity” after all, Jesus tells us that his followers will love God this completely and love their neighbors selflessly.  Who is your neighbor?  Of course, that question was asked and answered in Luke 10.  Jesus was answering the same question in Matthew 25 when he spoke of “the least of these.”

Giglio’s speech from decades ago and Alcorn’s defense of that viewpoint today clearly speak about “the least of these.”  The problem is that you cannot identify a group of people with such dismissive terminology and ignore the fact that denying they exist (it’s “just a choice” or there is “no such thing” as a non-heterosexual identity) also denies the existence of Christ in the hearts of those who presume to call themselves the only true believers.

“Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me,” Jesus of Nazareth (Matthew 25:45, New International Version)

I am a Christ Follower, a Christian, a man who has faith in Jesus in part because of the role the Holy Spirit has played in my life.  I have asked some (certainly not all) tough questions of my Lord and I’ve been blessed to have heard answers.  I do not presume that every thought that enters into my head is “of God.”  Likewise, though, I don’t presume that God has nothing to tell me, that he is done answering prayer, and that God has nothing more to reveal through his Spirit even though we know much more is being revealed through the light of conscience and nature, as Paul described in his letters.

I’m more than willing to believe Giglio has taken such an ambivalent stance toward this controversy because he knows that God isn’t finished with him yet. I hope the same can be said of me.  I’m not unaware of what has been called “Christian” for the past 2,000 years, but I’m also alert for what the Lord is doing around us at this very moment.  It’s possible that 2,000 years from now, how we behave today as Christians — what we “do” as opposed to what we “believe” — will be part of the tapestry of faith that our distant ancestors will refer to  homogeneously as what “Christianity has meant for the past four thousand years.”

May this be the moment when we decided that calling on people to lie to and about themselves “for the sake of Christ” is an abomination.  May this be the day that what we’ve been led to believe about our neighbors stops having any relevance to our ministry compared to what we go and do … as Jesus commanded.

Different Drummer: Reba McEntire

Different Drummer: Phil Manzanera

Different Drummer: John (of Patmos?)

Different Drummer: Freddie Mercury

The bracket below shows the playoff system we could be watching.  All 11 conference champions are seeded in a bracket with the next best 5 “at large” teams based on BCS ratings.  The only adjustment I’ve made was moving Georgia up to avoid 1st- and 2nd-round rematches of games played in the regular season.

I’m not suggesting that the decisions necessary to reach a “March Madness” type of bracket would be easy.  Still, they are possible.  If SEC teams, for example, just dropped their annual game against lower division opponents, the football season wouldn’t be too long for any of these teams.  As for other teams in bowl games, could those match-ups be any worse than they are this year even without a playoff system?

Of course, I’m not suggesting that Arkansas State is likely to upset Notre Dame, or that Tulsa or Utah State might advance far into this tournament.  As any college basketball fan would attest, though, they have earned the right to play.

College Football playoffs, as they should be, for 2012 season

Different Drummer: Harvey Milk

Human Sexuality Is Complicated

Different Drummer: Lee Strobel

Many partisan-conservatives believe the media never ask hard questions of pro-choice candidates during debates and on the campaign trail.  It isn’t because those questions are difficult to answer.  The second half of the show provides an off-the-cuff example.

Different Drummer: Pier Paulo Pasolini

Different Drummer: Jakob Rehlinger

Arachnidisc’s videos including Moonwood and Babel