iPuke

I was checking out some online promotional material from different organizations related to the association of churches to which I belong (www.fgbc.org). Apparently the theme for our fellowship this year is "iGo." Clever, eh? I'm certain no one has ever thought of making a Christian knock-off based on the catchy, somewhat trendy, but oh-so-tired Apple brand. I guess "Got Evangelism?" was a bit too cliché.

We also just had our annual youth conference "Momentum." The theme was caring for the poor, the title? You guessed it, "iCare."

Enough already.

I am soooooo sick of Christians regurgitating the creativity of others in hopes of finding some sort of cultural relevance. Do we not have creativity of our own? Can we not muster the ingenuity and wit to come up with our own marketing brands? Must everything be a half-baked, Christian parody of pop culture? We see "Dance, Dance Revolution," like it, consume it, throw in a little Jesus and spew out "Dance Praise." Show us a little Harry Potter, and we'll give you "Jesus Potter" or some other swill. It's pathetic.

So to all of you Christian creativity pirates out there, do us all a favor and stop your brand-plundering. It cheapens the message and makes us all look like hacks.

Cartoon Me > Real Me

I have always been a closeted fan of the Gorillaz, a cartoon virtual-band who were somewhat popular back in 2001 because of their song "Clint Eastwood." An interesting concept, performing music through a pseudo-identity. Of course the idea is not unique to the Gorillaz, Kiss did it, as did Alice Cooper, Buckethead, and Gwar (don't Google "Gwar," seriously...don't do it). But the idea of a group of cartoon musicians is such a neat idea, existing only in cartoon reality is an enviable existence, methinks.

I sometimes wish I could preach and theologize through a cartoon alter-ego. I could call him "The Reverend Horton Hooligan" and he could speak his mind without fear of consequences. He could question ANY aspect of Evangelical dogma without losing his job. He could be a full blown prophetic disonant, decrying the common consciousness with a Bible in one hand and an oversize ACME anvil in the other.

You Googled "Gwar" didn't you? I told you not to, but you did anyway and now you are slightly less virginal then you were before. You should listen to Reverend Horton, I know of what I speak.

Springs > Bricks

I was thinking about that really hip book by that one famous preachy guy with the fabu hair. ("Velvet Elvis" by Rob Bell). One of the premises put forward by fabu-haired guy was that theology ought to be more like springs than bricks. The idea, I think, was that if we treat all of our theological beliefs like bricks and use them to construct a big theological wall, we run the risk of becoming rigidly defensive about each brick in our wall. This, of course, is due to the fact that each brick is structurally necessariy for the long term viablity of our wall. And what kind of Christians would we be if we didn't have structurally sound walls?

If we treat our theology like springs in a trampolene, then we are able to value the theology while allows it to flex. I like that idea, flexible theology - theology that moves with the times, changes as our understanding of the world changes. Afterall, as a professor of mine once said, theology is our way of explaining our view of God in culturally relevant ways.

So, given my recent fluxuations, I was wondering which springs in my theological trampolene I would keep, which I needed to flex a bit, and which I ought to replace. So I made a list (isn't that nice?).

Keepers:
1) Deity of Christ
2) Humanity of Christ
3) Substitutionary Attonement
4) Authority of the Bible
5) Redemptive work of God
6) The Kingdom is alive and well
7) Love God love People
8) Concept of Incarnation

Flexers:
1) Hell
2) Second Coming
3) Nature/activity of the Holy Spirit
4) Covenant relationship with God
5) Satan
6) Concept of the "Word of God"
7) Homosexuality
8) Authority of the Community


Replacers:
1) Inerrancy of Scripture
2) Cosmology


Note: List is not exhaistive and can be changed at any time and without notice. I'm going to eat lunch.

Nora Jones > Icelandic Food

I have had two Nora Jones albums ("Come Away with Me" and "Feels like Home" ) playing in a never-ending loop in my office this morning. I like me some Nora. As I listen to the musical equivalent of manna from heaven, two thoughts doddle across the dimly lit transom of my mind:

1) I can't believe I spent so much time listening to "Green Jello" and "Breakfast with Amy" when I was in college. Did I ever really think THAT was good music? Good grief.

2) Nora Jones could smack me upside the cranium with an aluminum baseball bat...as long as she was singing while she did it. Hmmmmmm....*smack*.....ahhhhhh.

Icelandic Music > Icelandic Food

A friend of mine turned me on to a group of musicians from Iceland a few months back. They call themselves Sigur Rós and they make some of the best music I have ever heard. It is so emotive and image rich. I am listening ot their newst LP now, it's called "með suð í eyrum við spilum endalaust" ("with a buzz in our ears we play endlessly"). It is decidedly more upbeat than some of their past stuff, but absolutely a fantastic album so far. I recommend it, heavily. Buy it. While you're at it buy "Takk" and "()" as well. Both worth it.

The Other Problem with the Bible

The other problem with the Bible is it undeniably a product of human ingenuity, culture, and experience. It is certainly a book with divine power (2 Tim 3:16-17), but if you leaf through its pages it clear that this divine power is dripping in human perspiration.

The book is so human at times, that we almost can't stand it. Like when Jesus uses eating and defecating as a metaphor for true moral living, or when prophets run around naked and shave their pubic hair, or when Paul growls at those who were trying to reincorporate Jewish religious practices (circumcision) into the new community of faith (the church) by telling them to castrate themselves.

The Bible is riddled with starkly human elements that are at odds with our contemporary/evangelical/North American sensibilities. Elements that contradict the tidiness that we strive to impose on the text, defy our post-reformation hermeneutic, and belches rudely in the face of our theological systems.

We like to treat the Bible as a holy soothsayer, ethereal and refined, a genteel dispenser of starched and pressed theological pleasantries. But it seems to me the Bible acts much more like a eccentric uncle who laughs too loud, dresses too sloppily, and makes embarrassing bodily noises at totally inappropriate times.

The Problem with the Bible

The problem with the Bible, or at least "a" problem with the Bible (there are MANY problems with the Bible, but there is one specific problem that is problematic for me today), is that it is almost impossible to convince people who do not accept the authority of the Bible that it is, in fact, reasonable to do so.

That sentence sucked.

What I mean to say is I think it is reasonable to follow the teaching of the Bible, but so many people don't. This means that whenever I enter into a discussion with said nay-sayer, I have this 800-pound gorilla of an issue stinking up the conversation. I think the Bible contains wisdom, she doesn't. My appeal to the Bible as source of moral authority is futile.

The issue is compound by the fact that we Christians all claim the Bible contains "God's truth" yet none of us seem to agree about what that truth is. The Bible is tricky business. I had an atheist ask me this question once, "If the message of the Bible is so important, you know, like, you have to believe it or you are going to burn in hell forever, then why did God make it so hard to understand? It's like he wants it to be hard for people to avoid hell, why did he do that?"

I had no answer.

Disclaimer

It has come to our attention that, contrary to what the staff here at scottbarger.com may think, people actually do read this blog. It has also come to our attention that some of our readers are not particularly pleased with the theological pitch and timbre of our posts. after a three day meeting with our legal team, we have decided to release the following disclaimer.

"The views and opinions expressed on scottbarger.com are strickly those held by our contributors and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinons held by Scott Barger. Scott Barger is not responsible for items prepared and submitted by contributors to scottbarger.com. Scott Barger disclaims responsiblity for any theological abhorrences contained within these contributions, including those due to negligence."

Remember, Scott Barger is your firend and he really does love you. Really.