People? Discuss.
A friend sent an interesting article.
As much as I like the idea of a left-winger standing up for his beliefs (well past time for that), I have to say that I think this is poorly done. This is exactly the type of article that disallows any kind of meaningful discussion. It is exactly the type of article that shuts down someone on the right. It is exactly the type of article that keeps the argument going while doing nothing to achieve what we need most: progress.
I think there are better ways to get your point across than this. This article is full of assumptions, generalizations, exaggerations, extremist positions, and intolerance. Yes, the author addresses that. Doesn't make it helpful or constructive, though.
Considering the context of the author's viewpoint, I do understand his frustration and approach. Sometimes, after so much oppression, you've just got to yell. I can't say that I wouldn't be tempted if I was in his shoes. But that doesn't help solve a problem.
We need to be better than that.
posted by Teodoro Callate @ 8:00 AM
7 comments
7 Comments:
I feel like I've read something by that guy before. Maybe he gave me a bad review? Anyway, I'm with you, T, and I think liberals can often come off as closed-minded as this which seems antithetical to the meaning of the word liberal, and I think you hit the nail on the head with the word "discussion" - although I'm not extremely optimistic.
A few years ago, the school I was working at held a noontime rally against some homophobic graffiti that had been found on campus. I, white Christian church attender who has voted for both Democrats and Republicans in my time, attended this rally because I'm against homophobic grafitti. (I'm against homophobic behavior in general - not just grafitti, lest that Mr. Morford come and nitpick.)
The rally was just fine until the keynote speaker loudly proclaimed "these acts of intolerance must not be tolerated" without the slightest hint of irony and everyone clapped. Apparently intolerance is okay as long as it's my flavor of intolerance.
I agree that this article does nothing to move the ball forward. It is essentially the flip side of conservative flame throwers like Michael Savage who communicate in nothing but incendiary comments that strive only to ridicule those who hold an opposing viewpoint.
As an aside: I read his article on megachurches (it was linked from the original article) and was a bit dismayed. A bit of self-revelation here: I work for a megachurch. (Using the common definition of megachurch as 2,000+ weekend attenders.) Absolutely nothing in his description matched us or any of the others I've visited.
Oh wait, I forgot: He mentioned in his scathing criticism of them all that he's never actually visited one. Must be an expert by speculation. I'm the same way about flying helicopters. Never been in one, so I'm obviously an expert. But I digress...
A few clarifications so I can stop being so irritated:
1. The statement: "most megachurch parishioners have very low median incomes and little more than a high school education, and the vast majority are as white as bleached teeth". Actually, the overwhelming majority of our attenders do well financially (and that can be a problem unto itself, so it ain't a boast), have a college degree (a sizable percentage, including myself and many staff, have graduate degrees), and white people aren't a majority in our church.
2. The statement that our social outreach is "an afterthought". Puhleeze. This is based on what information, exactly? Our church has built quite a number of homes in Mexico over the years and recently built in tsunami-stricken areas of Thailand. (And, by the way, we built in Thailand for Muslims. They were surprised to find that Americans don't hate them, which is sad.) We have multiple groups in our church that exist to do nothing but serve our community. Not as an afterthought but as a scriptural mandate and core value of our beliefs.
3. And this, that these "delirious throngs of blind believers are merely a trembling shield masquerading as a sleek salvation, vainly attempting to protect themselves from the onslaught of, oh I don't know, divine self-definition". Yeah, I'd say that self-definition is sometimes bad - go ask Hilter and Idi Amin (and the list could go on) about the effectiveness of "roll your own theology to suit your purpose" and get back to me. Chrisitianity, like the other major world religions, benefits from an internal accountability derived both from tradition and numbers of adherents. People who get wacky with it (like the "God Hates Fags" guy) are generally shouted down by the rest of us.
I've been several times to Saddleback Church in Orange County, which is one of the defining megachurches in America. The founding pastor is Rick Warren, who wrote "The Purpose Driven Life". Don't like the book? Fine. I can understand that. But Rick is not a hate-spewing homophobe. Rick is a guy who doesn't draw a salary from his church, gives about 90% of his publishing income away (largely for projects addressing AIDS in Africa) and drives a Ford even though he has written the best-selling non-fiction book in English language history. He lives in the same house he bought 20 years ago when he had no money. If that guy is emblematic of a movement, I'm okay with that.
But what do I know? I attend - nay, work for a megachurch, so I am obviously a slack-jawed sheep being led to right wing Jonestown with my fellow NRA-loving, gay-hating, high-school-dropout honkies. Wait...um....that doesn't describe me or anyone I know.
*sigh* Why is the communication always dominated by the most outrageous voices on both the right and the left?
Wow!
Kev, get DOWN with your bad self.
MEGA
Other than my default "too many christians, not enough lions" position, I don't have much to say about tolerance. The word, "MEGA", however, sets my soul alight. MEGA
Nothing so much captures the essence of these times, the roaring 'nothings than the world MEGA. Our pathological irony, our irrational exuberance, our conservative reserve, our penchant for power, our quest for grace. One word: MEGA.
Felicity enjoyes the Hiaku essence that this term, when properly deployed, adds to a simple conversation. To wit:
Felicity, what size roll of duct tape shall I purchase?
"MEGA"
Hey Felicity, did you hear that Karl Rove's head is on a stick?
"MEGA"
Felicity, how come the floor of your Felicity De Ville is littered with chicken legs?
"MEGA"
The meaning is no meaning. MEGA.
Iran & atomic science. MEGA.
Jury still out on evolution. MEGA
The content of our character. MEGA
MEGA is the apt metaphor for the nothings, when our language devolved to nothing but juxtaposed droll ironic references.
Which, as I said before, sets my soul alight. Felicity is never one to get weepy or boo-hooy about the state of things. Every thing happens for a reason. MEGA
Agreed: "Mega" is overused and a bit goofy. I will only clarify that it isn't the term I chose - it was Mr. Morford's use of the term "megachurch" that I was commenting on. I think it's a dumb term, but it is a term that's used a great deal and the standard definition is 2,000+ at services in a week. Thus, our place (around 3,000 per week) is in the category, for better or worse.
"Mega" is like "extreme" - an overused an therefore increasingly meaningless term used to describe virtually everything: paper towels, snack bags, and churches.
Interestingly, for those who suggest that big numbers and churches are a new combination, the biblical book of Acts details single days in which 5,000 people became Christians all at once. So it ain't like this is all new since Bush got elected. In fact, most of the biggest churches in America got big during the Clinton presidency or before. Anyone suggesting a cause and effect relationship between presidential administrations and church size is probably stretching the limits of believability. (And any church seeking to pad its attendance numbers by appeals to politics is misguided. Scripture is pretty clear that there's a difference between faith and politics, which is something both Jesus' contemporaries and many of today's religious spokesfolks have overlooked, so that tension also ain't new.)
I realize I turned this discussion into something about churches, which really wasn't the crux of the original article Teodoro referenced. Anyone wanting to get back on track with the original article should do so with my blessing and encouragement. I derailed us a bit.
Megapinata out.
Mega.
Now, shall we get to the real question at hand? Not "why do men have nipples", but "Why does Felicity Taint Have Three Nipples". Intelligent design, indeed!
Three nips is the honest-to-gosh truth about Felicity. Those of you who have spent quality time in the back seat of the Felicity De Ville know all too well. Three Nips. My shame, my scorn. As a youth, I adapted by carrying a large concertina splayed about my chest. While this provided an amusing distraction, it proved awkward during formative intimate moments, such as the boys shower room or the church pic-nic.
It is damn hard to gunny sack race while playing a jig. Harder still is the chore of lather rinse repeat while using a concertina to conceal one’s private bits. This is why, perhaps, that duct tape has played such a critical role in my socialization.
Duct tape will conceal or celebrate extra limbs or other freakish side effects of intelligent design. Thus, Felicity was born. Three Nips Hooray! These experiences taught me to love myself for myself. I also learned that duct tape is handy in the repair of a soggy concertina. MEGA.
Introspectively yours, Felicity Taint
Once again, Felicity wins.
Brilliant! Mega brilliant!
Post a Comment
<< Home