A War Too Civil
Best of Job, originally published in February 2006.
This past July I ducked into Denny’s for some ice cream on the most obnoxious of hot and humid days. Claiming a booth and reading an expired USA Today, I settled into my peach dessert. By and by, a group of Revolutionary War re-enactors, still dressed in their period garb with artfully placed smears on their faces, came in and bivouacked diagonal from me. They ordered their meals and began commiserating about the Battle of Hubbardton, where all had just died, yet survived. You can imagine what a colorful treat this was for me.
They spoke of stirring deaths, gung-ho dives into tall grass, how old some re-enactors were getting, how great the smoke looked this year. You know — re-enacting type stuff.
With my ice cream an orange puddle at the bottom of a deceptively shallow bowl, I gave the war boys one last once-over with my eyes and left. I left, feeling sure that they would soon be in the dust heap of my memory.
But they didn’t retire so easily. The image bugged and dogged me for months. There was something about the situation that haunted me, and I racked my brain for an answer like I was trying to remember the last name of an old friend.
Finally, it hit me. I knew where I’d seen it before.
The patriots reminded me of Christians — and not pleasantly so.
Ever feel like our faith has become somewhat of a holy hobby? We love to talk shop and impress on each other our deep knowledge of muskets, field maneuvers and brilliant battlefield tacticians. We argue pre-trib/post-trib like a climber debates the nutritional value of Power Bars and Clif Bars. And we compare stats, never outright but just below the surface, like vicarious fantasy league fanboys — without any real athletic cache or sore muscles.
Church sometimes carries for me the uncomfortably queasy likeness of a Star Trek convention — we think a tiresome day in the battlefield is conversing with a Mormon over coffee in an airport diner, and we are more elated by the opportunity to share the war story with other believers than we were to share the Peace story with the unbeliever.
We stress about relevance in the world. We develop a complex if our music isn’t especially pleasing to human ears.
We’re petty and hypocritical. We’re competitive; we turn on each other.
We defend unborn children out of one blubbering side of our mouths, yet condemn a murderer to death out of the sneering other. An acrobatic feat worthy of those so well-versed in the game of Christianity.
We re-enact.
We quote Peter, and invoke Paul — still frames, never a movie.
The smears on our faces are for dramatic effect, never earned by actual warfare.
We re-enact.
And the most unsettling thing for me is that I am one of the worst. Granted an upbringing in a Kingdom outpost, given a stellar education, blessed with many gifts, and best of all, possessed of that beautiful itch for a fight.
And to use all that just to argue incessantly? I hate quitting and losing, but I’ve become a man who fights to win the argument, not the soul — a sophist who offers all rhetoric and no recourse. All cake and no bread. As James would call me, a waterless cloud.
But we’ve been called, friends. Not to re-creation, not to “name it and claim it,” but to an actual showdown with live rounds exploding around us. This is not a re-enactment.
But what a comfortable thing it is for us, eh? To wear the uniform for a moment, feel the fleeting thrill of the fight, then retire to discuss it over a hot meal before returning to the workday world and bundled Verizon package.
It’s so pleasant to live in the vicarious fog of an epic struggle, when we won’t acknowledge its demands for boots on the ground, rather than a roll call in the pews.
The Apostle’s battles were theirs.
These battles are ours.
The victory is His.
Exodus Playoffs — Round 1
We’re taking a week off from the Bible discussion to determine where to go from here, but in the meantime, here’s your chance to vote in the Exodus band name playoffs!
Rain in the Desert
Best of Chloe, originally published on April 25.
It’s raining, the first raindrops to fall on Las Cruces since October, and all I can think is, Praise God. The rain mesmerizes me as the sun peeks from behind black clouds to turn the beads into the precious jewels they are to us.
Las Cruces has been in a drought for nigh on ten years now. I have walked across the great Rio Grande with my bare toes and heels sinking into the hot sand, reluctantly conquering that once proud and powerful course. I have watched each summer as Elephant Butte, our last resort, grows smaller and smaller while the islands in the middle grow taller and taller.
Is there hope for our scorched land, hope apart from the fickle sky and erratic wind? We could say that we find hope in our farmers, who will pump their wells dry and dig again to sustain crops of cotton and chilé, corn and tomatoes. We can find hope in those surreptitious reserves underground that feed our fading trees and pesky mosquitoes alike. We find hope in Colorado’s rainy weather, snowy weather, and anything else that may produce a runoff into the Rio Grande’s branches and sources. We may even find hope in the news that the ice caps are melting, because that means more water for everyone, and perhaps we’ll finally be allowed to scrub the dust off ourselves when the waters come roaring in from what used to be California and Arizona.
Just as quickly as it began, the rain now stops, and the droplets gleaming on my window are fast in drying, leaving only spots of dust in their stead. And yet the strikingly blue New Mexican sky is still obscured by those black and promising clouds.
The whole of the Mesilla Valley heaves a sigh and leaves the porch chairs set out specially to watch the rain color a brown and yellow landscape green. Not today, the wind sighs, reforming and dispersing the clouds. Not today. And the people turn away, removing hats with brittle hands to wipe away the sweat.
Will we find relief? Or will we dry up and turn to dust to be thrown by the idle winds to the north, where rain falls to the point of people’s loathing and grass is green in the summer? Or will we, perhaps, continue to live as we’ve always lived, skimping here and there with the dishes and the showers, saving water in landscaping and laundry alike? We have persevered thus far, proven that water is not as vital as we were told. Some of us have lived our whole lives covered in dust, wondering in awe at the rain, and some of us have grown thirsty for our old emerald fields of England or Ireland, where even the bark of the trees is green. But all of us have learned to sacrifice our fascination with water to the sun god, all of us have learned to accept — yes, even enjoy — the hot wind and the grit in our teeth.
We are tough like that, tough like dried meat and leather, tough like rock and bone, tough like the dry, dry river bed. Our water lies deep beneath all that, just as the desert’s water conceals itself beneath a cactus’ needles or a camel’s hump.
And we can live for a millennium like this. We already have.
Quote of the Day, 8/22/07
“Strange as it may appear, when I want any good head-work done I choose a man, provided his education has been suitable, with a long nose. His breathing is bold and free, and his brain, as well as his lungs and heart, cool and clear. In my observation of men I have almost invariably found a long nose and a long head go together.” — Napoleon
All Your Base Are Belong To Us…
Best of Job, originally published in February 2006.
I was reminded this morning of a prank I played in college. I was initially taught this genius by my brother Joel who would, of course, in his current pastoral capacity, deny it. But I had a giggle fit remembering it this morning, and now that the statute of limitations has passed, I will share it with you.
On one of the few occasions I was in the Houghton library, I noticed my arch-nemesis hanging out at a table with some of his henchmen, reading and carrying on. Armed with only a Russ Picardo, I felt the unholy, unhealthy urge to suddenly assert my dominance.
I made a beeline for the psychology section and searched for the most twisted title the shelves offered. I settled on “Homo-erotic Tendencies in Young Adults and Theories Toward Their Explanation” or something similarly-titled (ed.’s note: my search in the online catalog suggests it was “Homosexual behavior among males; a cross-cultural and cross species investigation”).
Perfect.
Rustler and I settled down at a table near the Pharisees and waited patiently. Finally my arch-nemesis and his minions went off to scope out the air-conditioned room upstairs for chicks to flirt with.
Quickly, and with Russ watching the stairs, I slipped the book into What’s-his-face’s bag, behind his binder and some looseleaf paper.
We moved over near the periodicals and waited. It was almost time for dinner. We would not have to wait long.
Here they came, laughing like drunken frat boys. Past the circulation desk. Towards the door. Through the scanners.
**BEEP BEEP BEEP BEEP**
Looks of honest incredulity, as they tested themselves individually, narrowing it down to the evil one — who opened his bag at the circulation desk.
“That is NOT mine!”
It was a good dinner.
Trust me.
Clash of the Titans XLIII: Why I’m Hot
| In this corner, telling us why he’s hot, is Mims! | And in this corner, strenuously disagreeing, is Carly Simon! | |
|
It was for them that I wrote my hit song, a song that has captured the hearts of this country and the world, a song called simply This Is Why I’m Hot. But I am not content to rest on my laurels and allow this song, brilliant as it is, to alone speak for me and my all-surpassing hotness. I am grateful to bweinh.com, which has so kindly allowed me to briefly summarize some of the reasons for my hotness, in what is my original and most comfortable genre — the persuasive essay. Reason One: I am fly. No further discussion is needed, but I will nonetheless press on. Reason Two: I am universally popular. Did you know that I make ladies bounce? What is more, my attire moves crowds from side to side! And, for goodness’ sake, my pimping has NEVER ONCE dragged! This is why — THIS is why — THIS IS WHY I’M HOT! Reason Three: I am fly. Reason Four: Ladies love me. But my warmth is not solely dependent on what I can do for the females; it’s also about what they can do for me! These things include complimenting me, staring at me, engaging in extramarital intercourse with me, or even just riding with me in my car. “All aboard,” I say! Your love gives me wings, ladies. And they are hot wings. I thank you for your time. |
But first, let me also thank bweinh.com for giving me the chance to be relevant again, if only for the two or three days this article appears on their front page. The check is in the mail, folks! But back to Mr. Mims. He tells you repeatedly that he’s “fly”; he says it twice in this essay and about 325 times in his song. Let’s ignore, for now, the question of what exactly it might mean to be “fly” (don’t those things breed in garbage?), and just assume he’s referring to some sort of external measure of attractiveness. What he doesn’t tell you is that he regularly dips his hat below the level of his eyes, he has been known to wear a scarf of an apricot hue, and (in the most shocking and disturbing event of all) he frequently and intentionally watches himself gavotte! Yes, I said gavotte! No, I don’t know what it means either! But that’s not the point. The point is that Mr. Mims’s popularity, his flyness, his attractiveness, his heat, if you will, is merely an invention of his own fevered mind, stewing in its own juices and grasping at any explanation for its rising temperature. Mr. Mims is not hot, my friends — Mr. Mims is vain. There’s no proof that song is even about him! Don’t you agree? Don’t you? Don’t you? His travel, which he references, simply proves my point. Saratoga one week, watching horses; Nova Scotia the next, checking out the eclipse. Is this any way to maintain a relationship, Mr. Mims? Think of our children! And while I’m on the subject, do not think for one second that your admissions about extramarital intercourse will go unnoticed by my divorce lawyers! Where was I? Ah yes. Mr. Mims’s vanity. Forgive me for making this personal, but — I must. Before Mr. Mims reached this pinnacle of popularity, before his name was known from “Frisco” to “the dirty dirty” or whatever, he was just my little Mimsy. My world. All the girls dreamed of being his partner, but I — I had him all to myself. He was mine. And we were so happy. He said we were a pretty pair. He said he would never leave. Excuse me….. Ahem. But he threw it all away!! For “big spinners” and “getting on the floor” and “focusing on his cream” and hittin’ switches and hangin’ charms and all that gangsta-rap mumbo-jumbo gobbledygook! What happened to my Mimsy? What happened to us? You’re vain, Mr. Mims. You’re SO vain. |
My heat is well-known and self-evident. No fair observer of American popular culture could conclude otherwise. But in my frequent travels across this great country, I have faced the obvious question, often from schoolchildren and the elderly — “Mr. Mims, just why are you so hot?”
Mr. Mims may be hot, I will admit. He makes a powerful and convincing case, if you take him at his word. But he’s left out a good deal of this story. And that’s an oversight I intend to correct immediately!Tuesday’s Tract Excerpt
©1984-2007 Chick Publications, Inc. Reprinted without permission as fair use (parody). |
o.o.c.c.t.e. Answer.
What special note described this tract??
  |
If you picked “Drawn especially for Native American readers,” you’re a winner!!
And remember! Reincarnation is a LIE!
©1984-2007 Chick Publications, Inc. Reprinted without permission as fair use (parody).
Joke of the Day, 8/21/07
Man said to God, “Why did you make woman so beautiful?”
God said, “So you would love her.”
“But God,” the man said, “why did you make her so dumb?”
And God said, “So she would love you.”
Squeaky Clean
At some point, and I don’t honestly remember when, I had to put some serious thought into showering. I know it doesn’t seem like the kind of thing you need to think about, but applying some thought and reason toward bathing allows you to clean yourself more thoroughly and efficiently than could otherwise be possible.
Sins are gross, vile, and filthy stains that require cleaning. And while I certainly believe that, as the Bible says, whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved, we still have sins to deal with. You know, the process of becoming righteous… personal holiness and all that.
I’ve been a Christian for a long time now, saved at an early age, raised in a Christian home; a third-generation Christian, if you will. But I still struggle with sins in my own life. And it bothers me that after this many years, I still struggle with this problem.
I know I’m not alone, though. Everyone still struggles with sins after they are saved. So if it bothers me that I struggle after two decades of Christianity, it bothers me even more that after two MILLENNIA, Christianity is still permeated with the cancer of sin.
What have denominations been doing since the Reformation? Arguing over eternally worthless doctrinal statements, what day of the week Sunday School should be on, or whether or not ties are part of Heaven’s dress code (along with halos).
I know I’ve put thought into showering because I shower well — I come out of the shower clean, I don’t stink at the end of the day, and I’m relatively well-groomed. By examining the end product, you can tell I have a good process. Can the same be said for some Christian denominations? Spiritually, Christians are washed by the blood of Christ, the Spirit, and by the soap of the Word, right? Is their metaphorical showering doing them any good after they leave church?
Catholics — First, enter a booth and tell your priest what kind of dirt you have on you and where it is. Though you have a bar of soap at home, fully wrapped, you shouldn’t open it because laity couldn’t possibly understand how to use it properly. As you leave the booth, he’ll remind you to ask people, long since dead, who were clean while they lived, to bathe on your behalf.
Pentecostals — Cram as many people as you can into a tent and turn on the shower heads. Get them all riled up: running around in circles, flopping around on the tiled floor, working up a good sweat. Don’t bother learning how to use the soap: the apostles ’tweren’t learn-ed neither! Eventually somebody will show up with a snake. Just go with it.
Baptists — Which type? Does your congregation use the “King Jesus Version” of soap or are they “Nearly Inspired Version” heretics? How long, specifically, should you spend in the shower? Should you wash the right hand, the left hand, or your chest first? What temperature should the water be? For as many complaints or differences of opinion you may have, you can find a Baptist congregation out there tailor-made to your spiritual hissy-fits. Northern, Southern, Conservative, Cooperative, Primitive, Independent, General Associative, Regional, Ecumenical, American (sorry Mike), Progressive… you name it, we got it.
Me? I’d just like to stay grounded in the Word, submitted in the Spirit, and never too proud to see how I’m nothing without Him.
Through with exams
Hi all–I know some of you were praying with me through the ordeal of my comprehensive exams at Drew University. I finished two of them this past week and have one left in November. This is the kind of exam that essentially boils down to “Write everything you know about…” The exams were 6 1/2 hours long; my Reformation Liturgies exam was just over 10,000 words and my Revivalism and Frontier Worship exam was about 12,000 words. Pastors can say a lot without saying anything, though, so I’m just hoping I did well enough to pass!
Anyway, thanks for your prayer and concern on my behalf!
The Council’s Ruling — Worst Thing To Happen To America
This and every Monday, the Bweinh!tributors, having convened in secret for hours of reasoned debate and consideration, will issue a brief and binding ruling on an issue of great societal import.
This week’s question — What was the worst thing ever to happen to the United States?
The Council was unable to issue a majority ruling on this issue.
Connie offers this opinion, joined by David:
Legalized abortion.
MC-B offers this opinion, joined by Josh:
The Great Depression.
Steve offers this opinion, joined by Chloe:
Material success on a scale that tempted us to worship.
Chloe offers this opinion, joined by MC-B:
The World Wars, because they revealed the depth of mankind’s evil.
Tom offers this opinion:
Unionized labor.
Djere offers this opinion:
Women’s lib, because it led to most of those things.
Mike played no part in the determination of this issue.
Next week: what is the most effective superpower?
Ask Bweinh! Poll — Spice
Today’s Ask Bweinh! poll is brought to you by the Northwest Passage — finally opening after all these years, and more than ready to accommodate your kayak trip or pleasure cruise.
Our favorite spices, coincidentally now available through the Northwest Passage!
| Rank | Spice | Points | ||
| 1. | Cinnamon | 27 | ||
| 2. | Garlic | 16 | ||
| 3. | Black Pepper | 10 | ||
| 4-5 (tie) | Chili Pepper; Lemon Pepper | 9 | ||
| 6-8 (tie) | Salt; Ginger; Oregano | 6 | ||
| 9-10 (tie) | Cumin; Vanilla | 5 | ||
| Other | Basil; Sage; Nutmeg; Cloves; Parsley; Paprika; Posh; Allspice | 1-4 |
Quote of the Day, 8/20/07
“We need people to make visible the great embracing and compassionate message of Christianity, people to continue the revolution started by Christ Himself, people to bear witness that the story of Jesus Christ is going on and on without end, gaining power with each century, and reaching more and more people. We need saints. We have to become saints. We have to become like Christ. Anything less is simply not enough. The world doesn’t need any more mediocrity or hedged bets.” — A. Rice
Clash of the Titans XXIII: Wikipedia.com
Originally published on May 19.
| In this corner, arguing for Wikipedia, is Mike J! | And in this corner, arguing against citing Wikipedia, is Steve! | |
|
Let’s be honest and first admit that Wikipedia has its shortfalls. The accuracy of many articles is a concern, and it the format also has difficulty when the facts about a person are beyond question, but open to several different interpretations. My dissertation will be on revival evangelist Charles G. Finney. His Wikipedia entry has a tag warning that the information provided may not be neutral. Why? The biographical facts of Finney’s life are unquestioned, and much of his writings survive. But Finney is a controversial character because people are not sure how to interpret his legacy. Was he a Calvinist? Was he not? Did he save American Christianity or kill it? Were his methods of evangelism a consistent mechanism for the Holy Spirit’s act or a clever substitute for the Spirit? Everyone who thinks about Finney has a stake in the answers to those questions and so his Wikipedia entry can be a battleground. Yet let’s also be honest and confess that complete and total accuracy and neutrality is not the role that Wikipedia plays in our culture. It may well be true that Wikipedia is not completely accurate or neutral; it also is no doubt true that I don’t have four wheels and a horn. That’s because I’m not a car, nor should I apologize for not being one. In the same way, Wikipedia is not a completely accurate or neutral source for information, nor should it apologize for not being one. The site itself even says so: on its “about” page, we are warned that especially newer articles may contain “significant misinformation, unencyclopedic content, or vandalism.” No, you can’t cite Wikipedia authoritatively. But you can learn from it. When I needed a jumpstart for another paper on Finney, Wikipedia led me to a site with all of Finney’s works. The links also led me to a bit of interesting debate from varying perspectives on Finney, as well as the website of the church he founded. While I couldn’t cite anything directly from the site, I found it helpful in getting off the ground. Wikipedia is also able to cover more arcane and interesting topics than a normal encyclopedia. Hitting the “random article” button five times gave me articles on HSY (a Korean fashion label), Tagin (an Indian people-group), ’70s Rock Must Die (a 2000 album by a group called “Lard”), Carson High School, and Kirkland House (one of the undergrad houses at Harvard). Who else would cover all of these things at all, even if their coverage wasn’t completely bias-free (as if any coverage ever is)? You also can enjoy Wikipedia. Some people decry the vandalism and turf wars that go on — I sort of like it. It’s a case study in people being people — sort of like Survivor on the internet. If people want to waste their lives arguing on Wikipedia, isn’t it at least nice that we can be amused by their foolishness? So instead of being disappointed that Wikipedia refuses to be respectable, let’s enjoy its strengths: it has potential to provide new information on esoteric topics and provide geek drama at the same time. What’s not to like? |
There’s a lot to like about Wikipedia, conceptually. There are millions of frequently enlightening articles, especially those on uncontroversial matters, ephemeral lists, and complex topics. Most of their guidelines and principles are wise and thoughtful, and no one denies it’s an educational and entertaining way to spend an hour. But other than this article, I will never cite to it here. Wikipedia often reminds me of feudal Europe in the Middle Ages — rule by the whims of the few. You know the party line — anyone can edit anything — but in truth, the site is like any other bloated bureaucracy, full of ardent protectors of power and self-interest. If an article has a wise, benevolent ruler, or a good group of editors, it may be neutral and well-sourced. But in the frequent event there’s a turf war among users who each want it their way, it becomes part-faculty meeting, part- soap opera, a storm of endless bloviation about complex acronyms and ‘sockpuppets.’ Kissinger once said, “University politics are vicious precisely because the stakes are so small.” I think he used that example only because he wasn’t yet able to watch “Netscott” and “Radiant!” argue for days about whether discussions or surveys were better to “build consensus” on Islam and Slavery. More than just the culture irks me. When researching our Council question about drugs, I read the Wikipedia article about the War on Drugs. It had a questionable claim that marijuana was America’s largest cash crop, and cited an article in a British newsletter, which in turn cited a report from something called the Bulletin of Cannabis Reform. Apparently, as long as information is cited, it can come from the most biased sources. In fact, most of that article reads like the platform of the Marijuana Reform Party, but good luck getting its defenders to let you change that. People, even those who should know better, frequently defend their work like it was their child, especially about politics. Remember Richard Gere publicly kissing that actress in India? I looked her up, and the second result was Wikipedia, which called her an “AIDS sufferer.” That didn’t seem right, so I looked further — turned out she only PLAYED an AIDS sufferer in a movie; she was actually an AIDS activist. And “activist” was on Wikipedia for weeks, until someone changed it slyly. And there it stood, proud and unchallenged, for over a week, until I came along. This is why I can’t and won’t cite Wikipedia — you can’t trust it. And you can’t count on anything to still be there in two minutes, let alone two weeks. For instance, “DanEdmonds” decided it was inappropriate to include “AIDS activist” in the article, so he removed it. I went to the Wikipedia ‘drugs’ article as I wrote this, and its first sentence read: “Drugs are good for you.” I changed it back immediately; the sentence had only been up an hour. But in the past 24 hours, there have been 19 similar attacks by vandals — it’s almost all that’s done to change the page. What a waste of time! You know quite well how many morons and troublemakers there are in the world. If you still want to trust a vast random sampling of humanity to be authoritative about any subject, be my guest. I’ll stick to using it to find Sir Mix-A-Lot trivia. Did you know politics are “important” to him? |
Nothing new on the front page?
Don't forget to check out the Bwog!
What's New
- Battle of the Bands LXXXIV
- Bible Discussion — Ephesians 5-6
- 28
- Quote of the Day, 2/25/09
- One Hundred Words (48)
- Quote of the Day, 2/23/09
- Battle of the Bands LXXXIII
- Bible Discussion — Ephesians 3-4
- That’s Some Great Police Work
- One Hundred Words (47)
- Quote of the Day, 2/20/09
- Fortune and Judgment
- One Hundred Words (46)
- Quote of the Day, 2/18/09
- Three Links (Vol. 19)
- The Council’s Ruling — Worst Year
- One Hundred Words (45)
- Quote of the Day, 2/16/09
- Bad Marketing
- Quote of the Day, 2/13/09
Email Us
Archives
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
