deCOMPOSE

I recently noticed that the employees at my local Home Depot had mysteriously become much more helpful. “How are you this morning, sir? Can I help you find something?” The first couple of times, I did a double-take. Is this Home Depot? I later discovered it had something to do with a new CEO who was attempting to overhaul the HD image. Well, in my neck of the woods, it’s succeeded.

When it comes to sales, being friendly is essential. When it comes to churches, I’m not so sure.

There’s lots of reasons people do not attend certain churches  — style, doctrine, demographics, location, etc. Unfriendliness is one of those reasons. As a pastor, I learned that visitors often judged my church based on the “friendliness factor.” Were members courteous? Were they helpful? Did they recognize visitors? Did members introduce themselves to newcomers and make an attempt to “connect” with them? These were some of the criteria “church shoppers” looked for.

Most churches respond by posting Greeters at the entrance and asking folks, during the service, to take a few minutes to hug, high five, or mingle with the people around them. Cool. But unlike a business, a pastor cannot demand that his members be friendly. And really, what kind of friendliness is coerced? Besides, we shouldn’t base our entire perception of a church upon the few people we happen to come in contact with. Churches are made up of lots of different people in varying degrees of maturity. Nevertheless, if a visitor sits between two bores, well, there’s a good chance that church will get branded as “unfriendly,” and they won’t be coming back.

I’m thinking about this because, after about 8 years, we have started attending a new church. I’ve commented to my wife, several times, how “unfriendly” this church is. I’m saying it semi-sarcastically, partly because of all the times I heard it as a pastor, and partly because it’s true. You see, no one has really gone out of their way to befriend me and Lisa. Does it bother me? Nope.

So am I suggesting friendliness isn’t important? Not at all. I make a habit of being friendly at least once a week. Kidding.

Churches are supposed to cultivate and demonstrate the love of Christ; to preach the Gospel and make disciples. Jesus did not tell us to “Go ye into all the world and make friendly people.” However, if we are doing what Jesus wants, it stands to reason that we will be friendly and make friends. So at some point, if a church is doing what it should, its members will be moving up the scale of “friendly.”

But churches are strange animals — an amalgam of young and old, well-to-do and down-and-out, saved, unsaved, and totally confused. On any given Sunday in any given church, you will find the talkative, the self-centered, the moody, the nit-picky, the wounded, the envious and the insecure. I mean, there’s no telling what kind of person may land next to you. All that to say, if my neighbor’s unfriendly, I don’t take it personal. Cuz I’m that way sometimes too.

It’s one thing to leave a church because they preach false doctrine. It’s another to leave a church because they’ve got a few snobs.

Maybe it’s wrong, but when I hear people say they don’t attend a certain church because it’s “unfriendly,” I can’t help but see it as an excuse. It’s an excuse to NOT get involved, to NOT open up, to NOT make yourself vulnerable. It’s an excuse to NOT make friends. I mean, if all you’re after is friendly people, then go to Home Depot. But if you want humans, then go to church.

So, yeah, I attend an “unfriendly church.” However, it’s only as unfriendly as I let it be…

I’m thrilled to announce that Coach’s Midnight Diner will be making another appearance! If the last volume was the “Back from the Dead” edition, this one’s gotta be the “Alive and Well and Preparing for World Domination”  release. As much as I mull Christian Horror at this site, it’s disturbing, er, encouraging, to know there’s so many readers of said genre out there.

This time around, Decompose friend Michelle Pendergrass will be at the wheel. Michelle is a member of the Indiana Horror Writers Association, believer in the Unseen, and fellow malcontent. Plus, I hear she makes a mean Jalapeno omelet. Once again, I’ll be re-joining the Diner Team as an editor, which guarantees crumbs on your manuscript and the project will run longer than it should.

So for those of you who write paranormal fiction, dark fantasy, supernatural suspense, zombie, vampire, conflicted superhero, or alien criminologist — you know, stuff that just won’t fit in the mainstream — be polishing your story for Diner consideration. Details as the cut deepens…

Two things happened last week that reveal the glorious possibilities and pitiful inanities of the technological revolution.

One has been called Iran’s Twitter Revolution:

What neither the U.N. nor the European Union have been able to do, what the Great Satan is too preoccupied with its finances to even try, may be accomplished by a social-networking internet site called Twitter.

Some have suggested that the Iranian protests are the single most important political use of technology in history. (Click on the above pic for a sense of scope of this uprising. It’s mind boggling. ) And the fact that Twitter has played such an important role in providing critical updates and reportage from the belly of this oppressive regime, is even more fascinating. Can a social networking tool topple the ayatollahs? Surely, this is the best of what technology can supply.

Then Michael Jackson died.

Suddenly Twitter, the little  engine that could, shifted gears. A story with long-term historical implications was quickly supplanted by one far more trivial. And Twitter was there.

The AP reported:

[Twitter] said news of Jackson’s death generated the most tweets per second since Barack Obama was elected president, and more than twice the normal tweets per second from the moment the story broke.

Then came the deluge of bad jokes. And suddenly the Iranian uprising was yesterday’s front page news.

Web 2.0 has decentralized the power base and led to the democratization of information. But our total connectivity has created something else — an unchecked emotive megaphone.  So while many used the Iranian protest as validation of the power of technology and social networking, Jackson’s death reminds us that we’re still a nation of voyeurs, fixated upon celebrity, and all too eager to migrate from the complex and vital, to the utterly inane.

Yes, Jackson’s death is tragic and should produce grief and introspection. But the Iranian revolution, and whatever form it eventually takes, will in the long run impact the course of the world far more than Michael Jackson ever will. But alas, with our short attention spans and fetish for all that glitters, no technology can ever save us from ourselves.

Is it a sin to throw a Bible away?

A long time ago, my friends and I attended a gospel meeting to see an elderly evangelist. It was a young crowd, full of saved ex-hippies. We sat in the front row and had our Bibles resting on the carpet underneath our chairs. To our surprise, the preacher noted that in many faith traditions, laying one’s Bible on the ground is irreverent. “People suffered and died to get that Bible into your hands,” said the gruff evangelist. “The least you could do is respect it.”

I’ve been traumatized ever since.

Maybe that’s why I’ve got bibles like this one around the house. It’s a Thomas Chain Reference Bible, New International Version. I cut my spiritual teeth on this baby. But now its binding is gone, its pages are torn, and the Book of Hebrews is in shreds. But throw it away? I mean, if there’s something sacrilegious about laying your Bible on the floor, putting it in the trash can has got to be grounds for a lightning strike.

So it’s safely tucked away inside a cabinet in my office where it will collect dust and decay. Not very spiritual, I know. But it beats risking the wrath of God…

So I finished Bram Stoker’s Dracula several months ago, and really liked it. A little melodramatic in spots, overly florid in others. The entire story is told in a series of journal entries, and though the technique works, there are times when it challenges credulity. I mean, wow, they journaled a lot! But overall the story reads like a classic, especially as it stands in relation to vampire lit.

But throughout my reading, I kept thinking how “Christian” Bram Stoker’s Dracula seems. Yes, I use the term “Christian” loosely, having major qualms with how religious booksellers have come to define our conception of both Christianity and fiction. Nevertheless, so many elements of the story parallel current CBA sensibilities.

For one, Christianity is portrayed in a positive light throughout Dracula. The protagonists pray, quote Scripture, seek God’s guidance, and ultimately prevail. If Count Dracula is meant to symbolize the devil, then it is clearly Stoker’s intent to show that the evil one is resisted through the power of God. And unlike much contemporary vampire fiction, Christianity is not minimized or mocked. Rather, our heroes display an unabashed reliance upon the God of Scripture and His Son, Jesus Christ.

Religious imagery and practice are explicit throughout the story. Literary critics often note the Christian allegory inherent in Dracula, not just in its overtly religious symbolism (crucifix, communion wafer, holy water, etc.), but ultimately in the collision of Christian ethics with Darwinian evolution, a topic that would have been of great interest to its Victorian audience. (See The New Annotated Dracula, pg. 542).

Furthermore, there are numerous impromptu prayers and reverential references to God. Here’s a sampling:

“Great God! Merciful God, let me be calm, for out of that way lies madness indeed.”–Dracula by Bram Stoker: Chapter 3

“The real God taketh heed lest a sparrow fall. But the God created from human vanity sees no difference between an eagle and a sparrow. Oh, if men only knew!”–Dracula by Bram Stoker: Chapter 8

“…the devil may work against us for all he’s worth, but God sends us men when we want them.””–Dracula by Bram Stoker: Chapter 12

“Poor Mina told me just now, with the tears running down her dear cheeks, that it is in trouble and trial that our faith is tested. That we must keep on trusting, and that God will aid us up to the end. The end! Oh my God! What end?”…God can, if He wishes it, guard me as well alone as with any one present.–Dracula by Bram Stoker: Chapter 22

“Take heart afresh, dear husband of Madam Mina. This battle is but begun and in the end we shall win. So sure as that God sits on high to watch over His children. Therefore be of much comfort till we return.”–Dracula by Bram Stoker: Chapter 24

“God grant that we may be guided aright, and that He will deign to watch over my husband and those dear to us both, and who are in such deadly peril. As for me, I am not worthy in His sight. Alas! I am unclean to His eyes, and shall be until He may deign to let me stand forth in His sight as one of those who have not incurred His wrath.”–Dracula by Bram Stoker: Chapter 27

And there’s lots more. Especially Van Helsing’s wonderfully eccentric exhortations, like this one:

“Thus are we ministers of God’s own wish. That the world, and men for whom His Son die, will not be given over to monsters, whose very existence would defame Him. He have allowed us to redeem one soul already, and we go out as the old knights of the Cross to redeem more. Like them we shall travel towards the sunrise. And like them, if we fall, we fall in good cause.”–Dracula by Bram Stoker: Chapter 24

Compound these elements and you’ve got a story brimming with explicit Christian content and biblical worldview.

An absence of profanity and sex. In many ways, CBA fiction is defined as being family friendly. Thematically, of course, Dracula is for adults. Yet despite its contemporary adaptations, the original contains no erotica. Yes, there is the suggestion of physical allure and temptation. But nothing explicit. On the other hand, Chesterton’s The Man Who Was Thursday, which is often considered a Christian Classic, contains far more language than Stoker’s book.

Vampires are not glorified, romanticized, or portrayed as anything but vile, hellish beings. This is important because the current trend is to celebrate the vampire mystique. So instead of monsters, contemporary vampires are Casanovas.  In the classic, Dracula, though powerful, is clearly the spawn of Satan, a creature cursed and demonized. In Stoker’s world, vampires are the antithesis of resurrected saints, and thus, one of the greatest of all fictional antagonists.

A redemptive resolution. As Mina plummets toward Darkness, her husband Jonathan vows to kill the vampire, staking it through the heart and sending it to hell. Mina pleads with Jonathan to, if possible, slay the vampire first so that the Count may find redemption. What happens?

But, on the instant, came the sweep and flash of Jonathan’s great knife. I shrieked as I saw it shear through the throat. Whilst at the same moment Mr. Morris’s bowie knife plunged into the heart.

It was like a miracle, but before our very eyes, and almost in the drawing of a breath, the whole body crumbled into dust and passed from our sight.

I shall be glad as long as I live that even in that moment of final dissolution, there was in the face [of Dracula] a look of peace, such as I never could have imagined might have rested there.–Dracula by Bram Stoker: Chapter 27

Did Dracula find peace? Is Stoker implying that no one is beyond the hope of salvation? If so, I think that’s good theology. Either way, in Dracula, not only do the good guys win, Mina is saved from the curse, and the Vampire is stopped.

Yet, despite all this, what do you think the chances are that a CBA house would publish Dracula today? If you said “Slim to none,” you’d be right. So seeing that Stoker’s classic contains so much Christian content and adheres admirably to CBA strictures, why is the vampire mythos still so incongruent with contemporary Christian Fiction?

He’s saved us from national disgrace, economic collapse, crooked bankers, institutional racism, poverty, and unaffordable health care. Now the Dem’s Enlightened Being has saved us from eight years of the scientific dark ages. From Scientific American 10: Guiding Science for Humanity. The leading science magazine in America selected ten people who have “demonstrated outstanding commitment to assuring that the benefits of new technologies and knowledge will accrue to humanity”:

After eight long years in exile, scientists have been enthusiastically welcomed back into the White House. In the first few months of his administration, President Barack Obama acted with remarkable speed to place science at the center of policymaking on climate change, energy, health care and research funding. He wiped away science-averse policies and appointed outstanding scientific talent—including physicists Steven Chu and John Holdren, marine ecologist Jane Lubchenco, and biomedical experts Harold Varmus and Eric Lander—to top posts.

…When making the choice to award the president, we searched among less obvious candidates who were deserving of broader public recognition. But President Obama’s accomplishments in a matter of weeks of taking office were so extraordinary that he could not be denied. The new president’s actions have proved almost startling after the Bush admin­is­tra­tion, which was criticized for routine suppression of scientific knowledge for political purposes. But the impact of the Obama White House will likely reach far beyond such a facile comparison. The president’s unprecedented emphasis on science and technology should propel basic research, innovation, and U.S. scientific and technological competitiveness for generations to come. (emphasis mine)

For folks who pride themselves in objectivity, it’s amazing how “gushy” the scientific community is for our Prez. According to these “level-headed,”"unbiased” academics, Obama single-handedly saved us from “eight years in exile,” acting with “remarkable speed” to turn back oppressive “science averse policies” and “routine suppression of scientific knowledge,” with an “unprecedented emphasis on science and technology.” Remarkable. Extraordinary. Startling. Unprecedented. These are the words scientists are using to describe Barack Obama. Who knew?

So now that the Commander in Chief has delivered us from the technological Stone Age (otherwise known as the Bush presidency) and saved science “for generations to come,” perhaps he can solve a more perplexing problem: media bias.

Advertising agency Cramer-Krasselt has compiled a 2009 Cultural Dictionary of new words and phrases culled from magazines, Web sites, blogs and other cultural conversations. Besides the joy of being on the cutting edge of societal evolution, appearing hip can earn us oldsters some valuable points with the iGeneration. So here’s some of my faves:

• Social notworking (v.): The loss of productivity caused by too much time spent on Facebook.
• Brickberry (n.): A painfully obsolete cellphone.
• Madoffing (v.):  Scamming someone.
• Ecosexuals (n.): Iindividuals who select their partner based on their shared environmental concerns.
• Baby goggles (n.): A phenomenon where the parents of an ugly baby think their baby is adorable and no one else does.
• Carborexic (n.): A person who is obsessed with minimizing his or her use of carbon.
• Bamelot (n.): Barack Obama’s version of Camelot.
• Digi-necker (n.): A driver who, when passing a road accident, whips out their mobile and takes a picture.
• Stress puppy (n.): A person who thrives on being stressed-out and whiny.
• Kitchenheimer’s (n.): When you’re in the kitchen going around in circles because you can’t remember what you were doing there.
• Precycling (v.): Purchasing products based on how recyclable they are.
• Twitterrhea (v.): Waaaaay too much Twitter.

No wonder my kids give me a funny look when I say “fo’shizzle, my nizzle” — It’s soooo yesterday.

When debating evolutionists, the average Christian must concede a lot — mainly, reams of scientific info and terms. I can navigate my way through the Bible, but when it comes to Horizontal Gene Transfer, Epigenetic Inheritance or the Cambrian Explosion, I am relatively clueless.

This doesn’t mean we should sacrifice all scientific spin to the academics, but that we should at least admit, at some point, the average Christian is way out of their league handling evolutionary data. Yes, we should possess a rudimentary understanding of arguments against evolution, namely that it is unproven and untestable. Still, I am dependent on somebody else (i.e., Christian scientists) to “technically” bolster my argument. The Christian, then, must rely on the Bible and common sense — and someone with a degree in the biological sciences — to wage war against the barbarians.

However, more and more of our brainiac “brethren” are embracing theistic evolution. It’s caused not a few rifts among Christians (see my post: Saving Science From the Church). But I personally believe that conceding theistic evolution is a reasonable middle ground, if not a move that makes tactical sense.

You see, most non-theists embrace the concept of biological evolution not for its wealth of evidence, but because it’s (currently) their best argument against God.  In other words, many people believe in evolution simply because it supports an atheistic presupposition. In this way, evolution has become the default “proof” that the Christian God does not exist. Of course, uncovering actual “proof” that men came from monkeys is another story.

So why concede theistic evolution?

For one, as I mentioned above, it frees us the embarrassment of defending scientific data, biological processes, and genetic research that we know little or nothing about. This is not meant to say that there isn’t any data or research to support biblical creationism, but that wielding technical arguments without technical background or accompanying savvy is a double-edged sword. It is far better, in my opinion, to cite sources and references that support one’s position, rather than throw around terminology and statistics willy-nilly.

Secondly, biological evolution is not clearly ruled out in Scripture. Of course, many Christians would dispute this. The Bible’s aim, however, is to show us the origin of the Universe and the Beings who inhabit it, not provide a detailed description of the organic processes God may have used along the way. Man is created in the image of God. This is central to the Genesis creation account and distinct to historic Christianity. As long as a theistic evolutionist affirms that biblical doctrine (i.e., that Man is much more than an advanced animal; he is Divinely imprinted), how that Man was “assembled” should be peripheral.

Third, conceding theistic evolution frees us to focus on the essential issue: How everything got here. Think about it: The core distinction between Creationists and Evolutionists is not evolution, per se, but the belief that a Superior Being is behind the Cosmos. That’s it. Conceding theistic evolution allows us to (1) Completely remove the “evolution” argument and complex scientific narratives and linguistics, and (2) Focus on the larger issue of who we are and how we got here.

Admittedly, conceding theistic evolution is more a strategic turn than a biblical imperative. I mean, the Scripture could easily be interpreted to say that God instantaneously brought a human from the soil. But is that a hill we need to die on? By conceding an “evolutionary process” we remove a central plank of the non-theist’s apologetic and expose their underlying presupposition that the Universe is just a godless, unguided tangle of particles that arose from, well, Nothing. As long as we do not deny the essence of the biblical account, conceding the process (i.e., an evoltuionary mechanism) can help us get more quickly to the real issue, which is usually hostility toward the Creator.

I’ve updated the Duran Clan website with some pics from the kids’ recent trip to Maui, and their visit with Grandma D. Along the way, Alayna was experimenting with her new Canon EOS and its many lenses. And by the look of some of these pics, I’d say she’s doing a great job. You can check them out HERE.

I’m still Twitterless. At least, I was until I discovered that, in the lingo of social networking, a Twitterer can be de-Twittered. Just when I was conniving a community of Twitter separatists, someone snagged the URL. Shucks!  Accordingly, Twiterless “Keeps track of your followers,” specifically when “someone stops following” you… and in our ever-expanding universe of giga-groupies, keeping an eye on your digital wake is a must.

It’s the flip-side of Follower boxes. You’ve seen Follower boxes, right? Well, now you can stalk, er, track, ex-followers. Someone unhappy with your Twitter feed? Well, maybe they weren’t really your “friend” to begin with.

Does anyone feel as awkward about these Follower boxes as me? I get the building a vertical fan base idea. Especially for a writer. But does that require my readers show their ID? Asking serious devotees to “stop lurking” and “step forward” with their pledge of allegiance just seems a bit weird. Besides, what if I install a Follower box and no one follows? And isn’t that the saddest thing — a Follower box with 5 followers: two relatives, two spammers, and the author.

Face it: Many people “follow” an author in hopes of being “followed” by someone else. I mean, having my Profile in with a gaggle of others on some New York Times best-selling author’s blog might land me a few looks. But as far as being a real “friend,” well, that’s negotiable.

Okay, so maybe I’m just afraid of rejection. After all, I was the kid that no one wanted on their kickball team. Still, I can’t help but feel that this Twittering, Follower-finding, social-networking thingy is slowly distorting our concept of “friendship.” All right, so I’m being anal. Or maybe it’s just me asking that deeply human, privately painful question — Will you really be my friend?

Toni Morrison, best-selling novelist and Nobel laureate, was the keynote speaker for last week’s National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC), a non-profit group founded in 1974 to protect First Ammendment rights for journalists, authors, and artists. The subjects ranged from sex, to violence, to profanity… and why artists should be unconstrained in their usage.

Morrison is no stranger to controversy. Her novels have been frequent targets for removal from libraries because of racial, sexual, and violent content. In her presentation before the NCAC, Morrison traced our censorious tendencies to a familiar source — the Bible.

From the AP:

Morrison said the problem was fear — fear of information, dating back to the book of Genesis and the fatal temptation of the Tree of Knowledge.

“Knowledge is bad” is the Bible’s message, Morrison said, while being interviewed by author-humorist Fran Lebowitz. “It is sinful. It will corrupt you and you will die.”

And that fear still “floats around in the back of the brain,” Morrison added, noting how slaves once risked their lives to learn to read. “To know stuff is a bad thing. It has consequences, and the consequences are death.” (emphasis mine)

Don’t you just love it when celebrities start summarizing “the Bible’s message”? I must admit, in all my readings of Scripture I’ve never concluded that its message is “Knowledge is bad.” But then again, I’m not a Nobel laureate.

It’s important to note that in the story Ms. Morrison references (the Temptation in Eden), God did not ban or censure the Knowledge of Good and Evil, but only warn the Couple about the consequences of partaking (”you will surely die” — Gen. 2:16-17). If Morrison’s intent is to parallel God’s prohibitions against eating from the Tree with censorship, the comparison falters. Why? God did not remove or “ban” accessibility to said Knowledge. Furthermore, according to Scripture and Christian tradition, it was disregard of God’s commands and pursuit of the knowledge of good and evil that corrupted Man’s nature and got us into the mess we’re in. In other words, the very thing Morrison mocks (restrictions upon conduct, a prurient interest in “hidden knowledge” and “evil”) is at the root of humanity’s problems. If the Bible is true, then Toni Morrison is more like the Serpent, tempting us to eat the Fruit, than she is some trail-blazing free-speech martyr.

It is not a surprise that these intellectual elites and literary luminaries indict the Bible as hostile to our First Amendment rights. God’s Word shines a light on their beliefs and actions, so they have good reason to denigrate and misrepresent its content. But isn’t Morrison doing the same thing with Scripture that she decries being done to her own works? She’s saying, “This is bad. This is wrong. This is misleading. This confuses people. This distorts the truth.” In other words, “People should NOT be afraid of my books. But they SHOULD be afraid of the Bible.” I suppose she could suggest we ban the Bible, but then that would really be a double standard.

Many are hailing President Obama’s speech in Cairo last week as the beginning of a new era of tolerance between America and the Muslim world. While some suggest Obama’s speech undercuts extremists, the lack of coverage on stories like THIS indicate otherwise. Islamic extremists have killed far more people in America than religious fanatics have killed abortion doctors. Nevertheless, as the Feds begin an investigation into Scott Roeder’s murder of late-term abortionist George Tiller, this news story about a Muslim convert who murdered a military recruit is swept under the rug. Why?

Ever since 9/11, the mainstream media and those of the liberal persuasion have been doing their best to downplay any connection between Muslims and their right-wing, extremist, counterparts. But unlike pro-lifers denunciation of Roeder’s actions, Muslim organizations do virtually nothing to denounce the terrorist actions of their ideological kin around the world. And Obama’s olive branch does little to force their hand. In fact, the Muslim Brotherhood, a jihadist group, praised Obama’s speech. So much for under-cutting extremists.

The truth is, these two events — Muslim convert murders a military recruit and pro-lifer shoots abortionist — reveal the hypocrisy of America’s media. So while there is an ongoing effort to connect Scott Roeder to pro-life spokespersons and groups, there is zero effort to trace this Muslim convert’s action to Islamic ideology and rhetoric. In other words, the media wants to indict the entire pro-life movement and its religious worldview as complicit in the murder of George Tiller, but it refuses to indict Islam for its militant fringe.

According to the new world order, we need not fear suicide bombers and Islamic extremists. It’s those damned pro-lifers who are the real terrorists.