September 1, 2010 3

News and Notes: Courage, DC, and a Redesign

By Matthew Lee Anderson in News

Blogging has been lighter of late because I’ve been writing the book and preparing for some speaking engagements. So I thought I’d give a quick update of what I’m up to and (if you’re interested) how you can help:

1) Wheatstone Academy: I’m going to be speaking at a three-day high school retreat sponsored by Wheatstone Academy. The theme is courage. Have some ideas of what I should say? Put them in the comments below. I’m open to every and any suggestion.

2) The Mere-O Mixer, Washington D.C. Edition: If there are any readers in the DC area or who are attending the Values Voter Summit, I’m trying to set up a time to meet folks. Feel free to email me if you’re interested. And if you’re attending the Values Voter Summit in a few weeks, I’ll be there speaking about how to reach the next generation (which, I guess, is me) online.

3) Mere-O Minions: I was talking with someone about my schedule and what I wanted to do around Mere-O and they suggested that I put out a plea for minions. This is that plea. If you’re a high-schooler and want to help out a good cause, or a college student in need of an internship, let me know. There are all sorts of projects I need help managing. Preferably, the person would be someone with some tech skills or at least who is interested in learning.

4) Donate to a redesign: Just about a year ago, I decided to leave financial planning to pursue my vocation as a writer, teacher, and dilettante extraordinaire. It’s been an amazing ride since then, but I’ve found that while I enjoy writing long-form stuff, I really love Mere-O….and kind of want to keep making this a real voice in the internets. We’ve long passed the point where we need a redesign, and while I was this close to having outside funding for the project secured earlier this year, it fell through…and broke my heart in the process.

At this point, I don’t know what else to do other than put up the donate sign and ask for help. If you believe in what we’re trying to do here at Mere-O, which is raise the level of discourse and agitate for a conservative, classically informed Christian worldview, we’d really appreciate your help in trying to redesign the site. With everything we have to improve, I expect we’ll pay somewhere in the $2000 range.

Which means every dime helps.

We are so grateful for your patience and patronage. The one thing we can never do is take you, our reader, for granted. We love the sparring, even when its at its most heated, and look forward to many more dialogs long into the future.

August 31, 2010 9

Unwinding the Riddle of Glenn Beck’s Moral Authority

By Matthew Lee Anderson in Politics

I don’t want to pay attention to Glenn Beck right now–I’ve got more pressing things on my mind at the moment–but Ross Douthat’s analysis demands closer consideration.

To be specific, I think the lesson he draws from Beck’s weekend rally about the role of moral authority in the political order is almost right:

To loop back around to Glenn Beck’s rally on Saturday, I think that the peculiar moral power that Zurowik recognized in the day’s festivities — mawkish and maudlin and tacky as they often were — is entirely contingent on their unexpected disconnection from partisanship, and from the polarizing, disappointing work of politics. And to the extent that Beck himself grasps that point, then he’s grasped the only insight that could extend his current moment in the sun: Namely, that if you want to build and sustain moral authority in our culture, you shouldn’t emulate Barack Obama — you should emulate Oprah Winfrey.

“Moral authority” has the sort of ambiguity to it that makes it easy to recognize when we see it, but hard to specify precisely what we mean by it.

But more often than not, the people who we call “moral authorities” in our culture aren’t actually authoritative for us at all, but rather are simply embodiments of the sort of morality that we already believe in. They are projections of the moral system we prefer, not people with the sort of character to which we aspire.

In that sense, they are not authorities at all, and certainly not moral authorities. We are confronted with the moral authorities precisely when we recognize some way of life, some moral insight, or some decision that not merely contradicts our moral intuitions, but makes us suspect that they are wrongly ordered. A genuine moral authority is one who forces us to revise, or at least strongly question, our own moral systems.

That is precisely what Glenn Beck does not do. Douthat is right to question whether moral authority can survive our political climate. But we should also wonder whether it can exist in our cultural climate at all. In that sense, Douthat’s earlier analysis that Beck’s event was “identity politics without the politics” is closer to the mark. Beck has no genuine moral authority. He is only saying to the faithful precisely what they want to hear, reconfirming their deepest intuitions about the world, and challenging them to do precisely nothing that they weren’t going to do already.

That seems to play particularly well with evangelicals because the message that we should rededicate ourselves to God is one that evangelicals are particularly good at hearing–for our neighbors. They are the ones who seem to stand in real (and perpetual) need of such a rededication, and we seem only too happy to remind folks of it as often as we can.

August 30, 2010 4

Metaphysics and an ‘Evangelical’ Ethic

By Matthew Lee Anderson in Theology (Revelation)

From Oliver O’Donovan (broken up to aid understanding for internet-conditioned readers….like me):

Any attempt to think about morality must make a decision early in its course, overt or covert, about these forms of order which we seem to discern in the world. Either they are there, or they are not.

This decision, which will shape the character of the whole moral philosophical enterprise, forces itself as much upon secular as upon Christian thought. Secular man can observe the same indications of order as anyone else. He can see that vegetables are ordered to serve animal life as food, and he can see that human beings stand in a generic equality alongside one another.

And so secular man, if he becomes a thinker, has the same decision to make. On the one hand he may interpret these relations of order as part of a universal world-order, a network of interrelationships forming a totality of which mankind is a part. If he does so, he steps, despite himself, on to theological ground, and will find himself required to specify rather carefully how he conceives the relation of cosmic order to the presence of mind and reason within it.

Alternatively, renouncing the pretensions of ‘metaphysics’, he may turn altogether away from the apparent objectivity of order. Dismissing the immediate and pre-critical supposition that order could be ‘perceived’, he will maintain that it was ‘imposed’ upon the raw material of expereince by the will-to-order within the observing mind.

For moral philosophy, this means that all our moral beliefs, such as that every human being is the equal of every other, are not ‘beliefs’ at all but mere ‘commitments’, claiming no correspondence with reality. They are the ways in which the will projects the pattern of the mind upon the blank screen of the unordered world…

For a Christian believer it would seem that there could be little hesitation over this decision. For only if the order which we think we see, or something like it, is really present in the world, can there be ‘evangelical’ ethics. Only so, indeed, can there be a Christian, rather than a gnostic, gospel at all.

The dynamic of the Christian faith, calling us to respond appropriately to the deeds of God on our behalf, supposes that there is an appropriate conformity of human response to divine act.

August 29, 2010 2

Mere-O University: What is Courage?

By Matthew Lee Anderson in News

I’m giving a few talks that touch on the theme of courage for Wheatstone Academy in a two weeks, and have been reading through Plato’s Laches as part of my preparation.

The dialogue, which is reasonably short, doesn’t resolve the question about the nature of courage, but it does offer raise some difficult questions about whether it is possible to gain any virtue with gaining all of them, and what makes courage unique as a virtue.

If you’re interested in helping me with my preparation for the talk, I’ll be hosting a conference call where we discuss Laches this Saturday at 9:30 a.m. Central time. Westcoasters, sorry about the time. It’s the only one that works for me, but what’s better than a little Plato early on a Saturday morning?

Reading the text beforehand is a requirement, but you can read it over a lunch break. And it’s available for free online.

If you’re interested, fill out the below form. We’ll cap the number at 15, though if we exceed it I may try to schedule a second round.

Loading…

August 27, 2010 11

In Defense of Dinesh

By Andrew Walker in Christianity and Culture

The evangelical world encountered another skirmish this week with the election of conservative public intellectual (and erstwhile Catholic) Dinesh D’Souza to the presidency of King’s College.

Where this fever-pitch overreaches is the mistaken belief that King’s is lessening its Protestant standards. I’m not sure how one arrives at fearing the desecration of a Protestant institution by a haphazardly Catholic who now proudly attends an evangelical church.

Opinions from both sides have weighed in on the matter. Opinions on the debate include notable Reformed church historian Carl Trueman and Francis Beckwith. Moreover, Christianity Today included a lengthy piece on the subject along with the evangelical Drudge himself, Justin Taylor, who simply highlighted the key terms of the debate.

As best as I can tell, Trueman and Beckwith disagree with the election of D’Souza as each understands it from their own respective tradition. Trueman castigates King’s for tabling the importance of their theological charter while Beckwith disagrees with the apparent minimalism from which D’Souza and King’s argues. Both men lay great importance on the disjunctive realities presented in the Catholic and Protestant debate.

While Trueman and Beckwith demonstrate fine points, Mr. D’Souza deserves our defense more than he does our evangelical antipathy. Trueman and Beckwith’s positions do not err inasmuch as I believe there are other issues to consider in this debate.

Parsing both significant and insignificant theological nuance is as important as ever, but the larger issue of cultural co-belligerency, especially in our times, reigns supreme. King’s may be perceptive in recognizing this first. And they may not be the last. And lest we assume that King’s has thrown in their hat, I don’t recall there being any official announcement that King’s is intentionally catering to Catholicism. Marvin Olasky has said as much in recent days, dismissing the rumor that King’s is an environment ripe for evangelicals converting to Catholicism.

What this issue ultimately proves is the impending necessity for both evangelicals and Catholics to work together on issues of social relevance. This is why, despite the well-articulated arguments by those opposed to the Manhattan Declaration, I believe that mild separationism will do far more harm to both evangelicals and Catholics than any perceived, minimal devitation from strict doctrinal standards. From where I stand, neither Catholics are evangelicals are willing to compromise. And that’s okay. No compromise is necessary for maintaining a vibrant Christian witness.

Particularly on the college level, it is right for stalwart evangelical colleges to remain stalwartly evangelical. The same can be said for Catholics and their institutions. What this suggests, however, is that both spectrums need not mitigate against the potential for a “third way”—colleges which are purposefully more ecumenical in blend.

Trueman and Beckwith are both right, and I stand here not as a reincarnated catalyst for Evangelicals and Catholics Together. But what I see, despite the correct distinction between colleges and seminaries, is the need for Christian colleges to stand for a strong cultural witness. This may mean, in the case of D’Souza, that such a cultural witness includes a strong political witness. Call me a latent apologist for a new Christendom, but King’s College is unique in fostering a bold Christian witness along the lines of Reformed Social Thought— a type of thought not seen as being in direct contradiction to Catholic Social Teaching in its implications for society. All disagreements aside over the lack of a “Christian consensus” on the “Christian World Life View” as Trueman calls it, the vision of King’s College is forged with a traditionally conservative political agenda. And, if I’m interpreting Trueman correctly, he’s okay with that as long as we admit our affinities. The decision of choosing D’Souza lies as much, perhaps even more so, in his political and cultural acumen than in his theological influence or for that matter, insufficiencies. Disagree with me if you will, but the terms of Christian influence in society lie more so in the crucible of ethical consensus and witness between Catholics and evangelicals than strict theological unanimity between the two.

I never want to diminish the important dividing lines of justification. There are firm, irreconcilable differences. Yet, however distant the two traditions may be on issues of soteriology, there still remains robust consensus on the sanctity of marriage and life. Such an alliance provides fertile ground for continued cultural engagement—especially in view of the diminishing significance of Christian influence in society. If we grant that King’s political and ethical witness appear to be inseparable, then the election of D’Souza is far more palatable and helpful than it is something to spurn.

August 27, 2010 6

Top Five: Lewis Non-Fiction

By Matthew Lee Anderson in Top Five

The authoritative, definitive list of Lewis’s top five nonfiction books. Don’t even try to argue with it. You won’t win.

1) Mere Christianity. Is there really another serious contender for this slot? Probably not at a blog that takes half its name from this classic. While admittedly it is not Lewis’s most academic or maybe even most profound book, MC has had so an influence that few books rival. That alone merits

2) The Abolition of Man. This is Lewis’s most important non-fiction book, and just as relevant today as it was when he wrote it. Lewis is at his best in diagnosing the problems of our late-modern era, even if his prognostication about the future ended up being wrong (he could have been helped by a dash of Tocqueville, I think).

3) The Allegory of Love. Lewis’s best scholarship is also an illuminating treatment of the courtly love tradition, compared to which the Renaissance is but a “mere ripple on the surface of literature.”

4) The Four Loves. Perhaps Lewis’ most profound book, The Four Loves is the best example of Lewis’s remarkable insight into the structures of the human psyche and human communities.

5) A Grief Observed. This barely nudges out The Problem of Pain, which really does deserve to be on the list. Lewis is at his most transparent in this profound meditation, though, a quality which is particularly suited to the difficulty of the topic.

August 26, 2010 8

The Philosophical Muddles of Postmodernism

By Matthew Lee Anderson in Epistemology

At the urging of a friend, I sat down and read Phillip Kenneson’s essay on the nature of truth in Christian Apologetics in the Postmodern World. I almost wish I hadn’t.

Count me among the not impressed. The essay is an example of what happens when you replace one philosophical muddle with another–namely, nothing good.

The essay starts by describing what’s called the “correspondence theory of truth,” which simply means that for a sentence to be true, it has to stand in a particular sort of relationship to reality. If you suggest that it’s raining outside on a day that happens to be pleasantly sunny, you have uttered what your grandma might call a “falsehood,” or a statement that in fact describes a state of affairs that simply doesn’t exist.

Kenneson contends that this theory of truth introduces a dichotomy between the ‘subjective’ and the ‘objective’ that we need no longer be bothered by (a problem that, if he’s right, should probably trouble more grandmas than it seems to currently). The postmodern approach to truth is a “new paradigm”–a phrase repeated with some persistence–which apparently is not a theory of truth at all. Indeed, Kenneson later gives up the point: “In short, because I have neither a theory of truth nor an epistemology, I cannot have a relativistic one.”

Kenneson is caught in a tangle, and doesn’t seem to be able to see his way through it.

Allow me to point out my agreement with him. The language of “objective” and “subjective” with respect to truth is utterly useless, as is the language of ‘absolute truth.’ Youth pastors, if you’re using it, stop. It’s simply not helping, as it’s the sort of philosophical vagary that a fellow like Kenneson loves to disabuse people of, even while he simply perpetuates the problem that it rests upon.

For Kenneson, “objective” truth means something more than simply a statement that corresponds to reality. Rather, it includes within it how we know whether a given statement corresponds to reality. As he puts it, “Indeed, the whole point of claiming that something is “objectively true” is to say that any person, unhindered by the clouds of unreason and the prejudices of self-interest, would come to the same conclusion.”

All well and good. Except when Kenneson uses the rejection of “objective truth” to summarily dismiss truth-as-correspondence (or what we’ll call the grandma theory from above), he commits a category error that seems to be rampant among proponents of postmodernism: he conflates how we know what the truth is with what truth is.

Those questions–the epistemological and the metaphysical, to use the “twenty centers”–have to be kept distinct if we’re going to make any reasonable way through the questions of either discipline at all. What’s more, Kenneson’s dismissal of “objective truth” contains a sort of psychological assumptions about how we come to know truth, which isn’t necessarily unphilosophical, but it might need to be kept distinct from the question of how the structure of justification for our beliefs.

Of course, all this is probably to put the “old paradigm” which was so terribly anxious about making sure our views line up with “reality.” And who needs that when you have a warm-fuzzy linguistic community to help you sleep at night, rather than staying up nervously fighting off Cartesian demons? Kenneson is at least honest in that when evaluated from grandma’s standpoint, his position is nonsense. His goal isn’t to reshape the conversation about the nature of truth–it is to kill it altogether (a desire which should be treated with wariness in any intellectual system).

The whole essay leads up to this provocative claim: “I realize there are plenty of Christians who think it makes good sense to say that the proposition “Jesus Christ is Lord of the universe” is objectively true; that is, our temptation is to insist that this is simply true whether we or anyone else believe it or not. But succumbing to such a temptation is deadly for the church.”

If Kenneson is right, then someone forgot to notify the evangelist Luke–not to mention the fellow riding the donkey.

August 26, 2010 13

The Non-Necessity of Sex and Singleness as Vocation

By Matthew Lee Anderson in People and Relationships

Joe Carter has some great thoughts on sex and Wendell Berry, most of which I agree with.

The central premise is taken from an essay that we’ve referenced ’round here before, namely that the divorce between the body and the soul mechanized the body and led to an industrialized approach to sex oriented around maximizing pleasure.

Most of Joe’s practical advice is right on the money. But he goes awry when he hits #6:

6. Sex may be a joy and a sanctuary but it is also a marital duty. It is the primary physical method God provides in order to deepen and strengthen the union of a man and a woman. Forgoing sex for long periods of time can be a form of disobedience. If we are physically able, we should give ourselves to our spouses. We are the sole means by which they are able to properly meet that physical need. Denying our spouse food or sleep would be cruel and unjust. Withholding sex is no different.

Yes to a duty, and yes to the sinfulness of withholding sex. Doing that reduces sex to a manipulative tool and destroys the integrity of the act.

But Joe is a little too quick to draw a straight line between sex, food, and sleep. In point #2, Joe points out (rightly) that sex is a form of communication rather than strictly a technique. But as communicative, it seems sex is a bodily act distinct from other bodily pleasures or needs. Like all communication, there is an element of freedom in the act that suggests that sex is not motivated by the same laws that motivate us to find food–on which our material well-being actually does depend.

The point has practical ramifications, especially for single people. If sex is a necessity along the lines of food, then we should expect us to have a morally licit outlet for it, regardless of our marital status. While there might be a case that masturbation is licit, the easier way through is to reject the premise. Sex simply isn’t a necessity in the same way that food is.

I’ll make the case for rejecting that premise theologically.

Sex often seems like a necessity because it is frequently tied to certain biological pleasures and urges which have a strong motivational pull, and because the propagation of the species depends (for now, at least) upon the act.

But if we stopped there, sex wouldn’t be a distinctly human form of communication. But sex as a human act is best construed as an act of self-giving in which man–as man and woman–freely gives himself to the other and opens himself to receiving the gift of the other. For Christians, the normative account is in the Garden of Eden, which suggests that sex bears witness to the order of creation.

But singleness points in the other direction. It bears witness to the eschatological life (in which we shall neither “marry nor be given in marriage”) that was inaugurated by Christ in his resurrection. Rather than destroying the order of creation and the goodness of sex and its pleasures, it establishes the biological on its properly human foundation: the freedom to give ourselves to God, who then enables and frees us to give ourselves to others. In that sense, the vocation of singleness not only disestablishes sex from being a need in the way food is, but points us toward the transcendent basis of marriage (and sex itself): it is a union that is oriented ultimately toward God.

What does this mean, practically speaking?

Single people are, in fact, human. My single friends tell me this is unfortunately still a question. It shouldn’t be. In fact, any church where singleness is not treated as a full and acceptable vocation within the family of God does not value marriage properly, for it rejects one of the primary witnesses to the church’s eschatological life and one of the primary witnesses to marriage’s transcendent basis.

Sex is good. But it is not necessary. And the distinction must be kept in mind, lest we unwittingly undermine the way in which sex and marriage witness to the reality of the Gospel.

–

Addendum: My thoughts and language are heavily influenced here by JP2. Just thought I’d mention that.

August 24, 2010 1

The Definitive Reply to the New York Times

By Matthew Lee Anderson in Christianity and Culture

On emerging adults is here.

Read it. I didn’t write it, but I sure wish I had.

(Apologies for playing traffic cop of late. More substantive thoughts coming soon.)

August 23, 2010 1

Responses to Emerging Adults

By Matthew Lee Anderson in America

I am pretty intrigued by the NY Times piece on emerging adults, if only because I am one and so resonate with many of the struggles they face.

With that in mind, I thought I would excerpt a number of the responses I’ve seen. I hope to have more commentary later this week (but have to focus on the book, after all, so don’t be too disappointed if tattoos show up again).

From Jessie Rosen:

Where I get confused around this plight-of-the-20-something issue is when it’s suggested by the generations above us that our crawling or churning is immature or foolish, that one day — sometime after we cross over the 3-0 threshold, apparently — we’re all going to wake up and realize we should have buckled down, gotten married and quit the charade because the real joy/purpose in life is to “be an adult.” That slow and steady actually loses the race.

So, my question as I literally spend my grown-up savings account to pursue my childhood dream is, What is so much better about becoming an adult faster?

Dana Goldstein:

Then there are obvious cultural factors like the sexual revolution and the affinity of values between Boomer parents and Gen Y kids. Living at home no longer seriously disrupts many young adults’ freedom to date or have a good time. Parents and their adult children have a lot in common and enjoy each others’ company. Twenty-somethings are more and more cautious about marriage and kids–and why shouldn’t we be? We lived through our parents’ and friends’ parents divorces. If possible, we’d like to avoid all that.

For a variety of reasons, I never lived at home after age 21, but I think we should be forgiving when we discuss why some people do. We shouldn’t be too quick to blame cell-phone wielding “helicopter” parents (for “hovering” and failing to teach their kids independence) or 20-somethings themselves (for not “growing-up” in the traditional way). Rather, families are reacting to–and are all too often victimized by–systemic forces far beyond their control.

Jamelle Bouie:

That said, my main problem with the piece was simply the fact that there wasn’t much of an attempt at making class distinctions. It delves into the “extended adolescence” of relatively sheltered graduates from major universities, but what about the mass of 20-somethings who either didn’t go to college or pursued degrees at community colleges and local universities? I graduated from a high school of roughly 2,400 people in 2005, and judging from the Facebook profiles of those I graduated with, many of my former classmates have built fairly adult lives for themselves. Most have jobs and live independently of their parents. Some have spouses or long-term partners, a few have children. For those who do live with their parents, it has less to do with maturity and more to do with the terrible job market. Obviously, anecdotes can’t substitute for statistical data, but I’d wager that the above is true for many 20-somethings of modest means.

Melissa Gutierrez:

No one knows all the answers, but many of the answers are already out there. People have succeeded in many ways at many things and know what to do to live well. We are not entirely a stupid race; rather, we don’t give ourselves credit for the things we (collectively) already know. That’s saying it too nicely: what I mean is, in opinionated speech, that we tend to ignore the already-tested knowledge and experience of others for the sake of “exploration” or really, the sake of our own experience. If you don’t work hard, you won’t be able to support yourself or anyone else. If you do too many drugs, you will end up a mess. People have known these things for years. “Exploration” begins to seem inefficient — why would you let them spend ten more years making the same mistakes you only had to make for one or two years? Why do we have to provide support for people to practice and prepare for making right decisions, when we could just make better choices in the first place?

August 22, 2010 3

Tattoos and American Culture

By Matthew Lee Anderson in America

As if on cue, the Today Show takes upon themselves the onerous task of listing out the ten most tattooed cities in America.

The list is fascinating for its diversity, which seems to reflect the diverse reasons that people get tattoos.

You have the warm-weather beach cities where skin is a commodity that is amply presented (if only because of the weather), and where tattoos have been assumed into the expression of “sexiness” and style. That so many of these cities should make the list isn’t surprising given their popularity in the Us Magazine world.

But Flint, Michigan makes the list as well, reminding us of tattoos prevalence in the lower classes, where they function less as expressions of style and more as an act of rebellion and solidarity, like they might have been for Eminem.

And then there’s the artsy cities of P0rtland, San Francisco, Austin, and Kansas City, where I suspect self-expression is the dominant mindset behind the practice. They are places where hipster culture is prevalent (yes, Kansas City) and where authenticity is a central virtue and tattoos are a sign of resistance against the hegemon that is Madison Avenue. How they must loathe to see ink become the new fashion trend.

Overgeneralizations, of course. But as a taxonomy for the cultural significance and motivations behind tattoos, I suspect the above isn’t all that far off.

Of course, if you’re looking for reasons to not get a tattoo, Paste Magazine provides a few.

And if you’re wondering why all the thinking about tattoos around here lately? That’s why.

August 22, 2010 5

The Peculiarity that is Church

By Andrew Walker in Theology (Church)

Today, while listening to an excellent rendition of “Turn Your Eyes Upon Jesus” at my stereotypical, evangelical, and Baptist megachurch, I was struck by how non-stereotypical church really is.

To think that, week in and week out, seemingly distinct individuals from different parts of the city, comprised of different races, socio-economic levels, educational levels, and family structures (widowed, single, etc), meet voluntarily to announce the Lordship of Jesus Christ is astonishing. In fact, it’s nothing short of absurd.

We come to church to experience and proclaim a better reality, an interpretation of life that is not only unique and helpful, but profoundly true. Individuals enter the sanctuary burdened by the past week’s events—economic hardships, relationship struggles, employment uncertainties—and leave assured that the trivial, yet life-altering circumstances encountered in the past do not hold final sway on a person’s destiny.

And we do it…every week of every year for our entire lives.

We shake hands with perfect strangers with an enthusiastic “Hello.” While most of us spend our errands trying to avoid conversation with unfamiliar people, the Christian Church somehow thinks it better to be friendly and deliberate, and so, we dedicate a few minutes during the service to actually practicing hospitality. The audacity!

We sing songs, routinely, to proclaim our allegiance and adoration to Christ. What segment of society gathers together to sing? It’s rather absurd if you think about. Most of us avoid having our voices heard for fear of embarrassment. I, perhaps to the detriment of those around me, sing like a fool. And in church, that’s not only acceptable but encouraged.

The larger culture attends concerts and musicals in an ingratiating manner. The Christian Church, we somehow believe our songs not only affect us, but can move mountains because of who they’re sung to.

We listen to a pastor preach. He (yes, He) informs, rebukes, instructs, and encourages. We dedicate 30-45 minutes of our week to listen a man expound the truths of a book millennia old, believing that it is still true. We grant him permission to speak into lives and to peel back the silliness from which we normally live. Where authority is spurned with pugnacious audacity at large, Christians invite authority into their lives.

We live by a book, as unspectacular as that sounds. There’s no frills or productions, just a book.

We worship a God-man, however metaphysically unlikely this sounds. We REALLY believe that God became man, died the death of an insurrectionist in the most shameful manner accessible during that time, and then physically rose from the dead. Yes, a stagnant, dead, and cold heart began to beat again.

And to make matters more absurd, we believe enthusiastically that the experiences of this man becomes our experience.

My church is perfectly lovable, because mostly, I’m imperfect and unlovable—an ungrateful cuss who still thinks my way is correct despite abundant proof to the contrary.

That’s me and that’s you if you’re apart of the Christian Church. We’ve pledged our lives to an institution that promises nothing materially gainful in the end. We’ve identified with with an institution that has no authority to speak for itself aside from the authority mediated by Christ. We are like meddlesome sheep needing instruction—often quick to speak and slow to listen. But we forgive each other.

We live with a sense of reckless abandonment, but we’re neither truly reckless and we’re the furthest thing from ever being abandoned. Instead, it’s the idea that we live by grace, and if grace has ever been stereotyped, that means it has been falsely tamed.

You and I? We’re stereotypical. Conservative. Middle Class. Bachelor’s Degree.

The Christian Church? Grace. Forgiveness. Humility. Love. Those are hardly stereotypical.

August 21, 2010 1

The Best U2 Recordings You’ll Hear

By Matthew Lee Anderson in Music

For your Saturday listening pleasure come two songs from U2 that no self-respecting fan should go without hearing.

The first is With Or Without You. A famous song, yes, but this live version includes a bridge (taken from the Book of Daniel) that they occasionally included in their live performances:

We will shine like stars in the summer night

We’ll shine like stars in the winter.

One heart, one hope, one love, with or without you…

The second is “One,” which has some of their best lyrics. But rather than the pop version that they originally performed, they slow this concert version down considerably and add an orchestra. The result is overwhelming.

More Monday. Enjoy the weekend.