The world is bigger than our little corner...

Last Saturday, Cyclone Nargis struck the coast of Myanmar, hitting the area of the Irrawaddy Delta the hardest. Initial estimates of the number killed by the cyclone climbed from 350 to over 10,000 in a few hours. The most current figures estimate 23,000 killed and 37,000 still missing, many presumed dead. US observers reported two days ago that they expect the death toll will climb to over 100,000. Currently there is heavy rain forecast for many still flooded areas, and the Myanmarese military is severely overmatched for the rescue and aid tasks necessary.

The United States, a number of other world nations and private aid organizations have all pledged aid for the people of Myanmar. The country's delicate and ineffective infrastructure was totally decimated by this tragedy, leaving the people without homes, the ability to bury dead, clean water and food. Currently the Myanmarese government has been intercepting aid shipments, preventing them from reaching the people and asking for money instead of food. They are also holding up the approval of visas for foreign relief organizations, preventing them from entering the country.

Please pray for the people of Myanmar. They are a nation of 600,000 Christians, and millions of Bhuddists. This terrible tragedy will surely leave many asking how such a terrible event could occur, so please pray that they would find rest and comfort in the Comfortor, and that God would reveal himself to them in amazing ways. Pray for their physical well being and their emotional pain as they struggle with the loss of their friends, neighbors and family. Finally, pray that the doors would open for the physical aid that these people desperately need to survive, and that the Good News of Jesus Christ would follow.

Below are just three of the many organizations working toward bringing aid to the people of Myanmar. I encourage you to give what you can to their efforts.

American Red Cross
International Response Fund
P.O. Box 37243
Washington, DC 20013
(800) HELP-NOW
http://www.redcross.org

Habitat for Humanity International
Cyclone Nargis
121 Habitat St.
Americus, GA 31709-3498
(800) HABITAT
http://www.habitat.org

World Vision
P.O. Box 9716
Federal Way, WA 98063
(888) 56-CHILD
http://www.worldvision.org

When the truth really is inconvenient...

You can't throw a rock very far before hitting some celebrity, commercial or poster reminding us that we're responsible for the dangerous warming of the earth that will soon kill us all. That's why I was so surprised when I came across this article on my friend George's blog. It turns out that last year NASA admitted that a good deal of the melting and depth change occurring in the Arctic Ocean was probably not the result of global warming. Instead, the cyclical changing of oceanic rotation changes the density and depth of the ocean and affects the freezing of polar ice. From the press release: "Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming."

Now, I'm not saying that this is definitive proof that the concept of global warming is totally false, I'm merely suggesting that the time for debate is not over. The "scientific consensus" on global warming has a lot more to do with alarmist conclusions over a very short period of time motivated by the financial benefitting of a few. The NASA press release is a perfect example- after we get past all the hype, it's clear that the correlation between this melting ice and some sort of fatal warming of the globe is less than sure. But this doesn't seem to stop lawmakers in Washington (both Republican and Democrat) from imposing ridiculous restrictions on the sale of goods in the United States.

In a move one would normally expect from a socialist dictatorship, the President signed an energy bill late last year that would phase out the sale of tungsten filament light bulbs by 2012. The recommended and more energy-efficient replacement is a type of fluorescent bulb known as a CFL. The unfortunate thing about these bulbs, aside from the fact that they are much more expensive and have an undesireable shade of light, is that they contain small amounts of mercury and are classified as hazardous waste by some states, requiring special disposal. The recommended procedure if one such bulb is broken involves sealing all glass fragments in two plastic bags and evacuating the room to fumigate for 15-20 minutes.

Granted, these bulbs do save energy, and I do understand the advantages of upgrading to a CFL, despite some of the drawbacks. The issue here is that the government should not be dictating to the American people what they should buy or when they should buy it. Such an action conflicts both with the principles of a free market economy and the freedoms of democracy. I know, the first response is, "It's only a light bulb!" I agree that in the immediate sense, it's really not a big deal. But it's demonstrative of a willingness to embrace a theory that is not conclusive and impose requirements upon people without their consent or consideration. I'm disappointed in Congress for passing such a bill, and the President for signing it. Surely we can create strategies for protecting the environment that don't trample on the ability of people to choose the products they purchase.

The Green Cross, an organization "dedicated to the environmental protection of the earth" released last week its list of the top ten most polluted cities in the world. I found it interesting that for all the scolding we recieve for polluting the environment, there was not a US city to be found on the list. Two each were from China, India and Russia, with various locales rounding out the list. What seemed even more amazing to me was the following statistic from the Chinese Academy of Science: In January 2007, China ranked 100th out of 118 in terms of ecological modernization, the same ranking it held in 2004. Maybe instead of putting the screws to its own citizens, we should go after countries that really are the problem...either way, I guess I've got to get new light bulbs.

Sidenote: Congratulations to Nate on his marriage a few weeks ago, and an early congrats to BDub on his upcoming wedding...when you guys get the chance, post about how your lives are going!

Remember You are Dust, and to Dust You Shall Return

Yesterday was Ash Wednesday, a unique fast day that has its origins in a penitential time observed by the early church. Although in the middle ages the Roman Catholic church tooled around with Lent a bit, making it more like we know it today, the season still affords a wonderful opportunity to "strip away," as my priest said, the layers of callousness that have distanced us from God. Part of this is an awareness and confession of the sins that have caused this distance, and an admittance of our mortality. Death, repentance, the hard stuff of faith: Ash Wednesday beckons us to these.

I was late and, as usual, the attendance is small, though my church is huge. I took a seat on the back pew, a good fifteen rows behind the next occupied pew. The season originally was a time when repentant believers, who had been separated from the church through "notorious sin," as the prayer book says, observed a season of fasting with sackcloth and ashes before reinstatement on Easter. I felt a little of the distance they must have, back then - removed from the main congregation, not with the choir I am used to singing with, a little ill-feeling, a little late and disoriented. How little comfort there was in the liturgy!

Although Jesus warned us against trumpeting our piety like the hypocrites, we continue to mark our foreheads with this ash cross. Perhaps only the girl at the Culver's drive-thru, my parents, and fellow parishioners saw me, but millions saw Tony Reali, host of the ESPN show "Around the Horn," marked with ashes yesterday. Is it because we are trying to let people know we are holy, are pious? No; or, at least, it should not be.

It is not a brand saying, "I went to church," but rather, an admittance of our brokenness, our sin, our need for God in a world which is beyond Him in many ways. We are comfortable, affluent. God is a political slogan, or a quaint idea, or something that fits in with my social life. Observing Ash Wednesday and Lent gives us a chance to say, "I am weak, but thou art strong." Through Lent, we proclaim to others the reality of God: bigger than we can imagine, more intimately concerned with our lives than we could ever dream, more loving than we could ever know. This road leads to the cross, and on it my sin, nailed forever, and the promise and hope of new life in Christ, not just for me, or for the people in the pews, or Christians everywhere, but for all of the cosmos.

Remembering who we are and seeing ourselves in His plan is the beginning of God's kingdom. I pray that this Lent, whether or not you are observant of it (for it matters little), the kingdom comes near to you and me.

A Poorly Researched Post on Guns

I can already tell you right now the substance of this post is "read the November issue of National Geographic."

Environmental issues, especially relating to food, supply chains, and conservation are remarkably important to me. Anyone who has stepped inside a high school recently and seen the overdeveloped fifteen year-old girls has seen the effects of bovine growth hormones in the meat we eat.

Not only food quality, but food source is important. The "supply chain" mentality of Wal-Mart and other retailers demonstrates our sorry lack of available local food at a reasonable price in most parts of the country. The "factory farms" where much of our meat comes from also pale in comparison to the quality of life most local farm animals enjoy.

Finally, conservation. If we don't set certain parts of our land aside for forestry, parks, and farms, the hope of having easy-to-get, local, affordable food can never become a reality. Let's not forget conserving our watersheds, rivers, lakes, streams, etc.

What does this have to do with guns? Believe it or not, the most powerful and effective conservationist group in this country is not our government (though a tip of the hat to Teddy Roosevelt is in order), but groups like Ducks Unlimited, groups that were started and are maintained by hunters.

Hunting may be a "macho sport" to some but it is actually an ancient and honorable way of life that is more in harmony with nature, environment, and wild animals than is anything about the modern food industry in the U.S. As hunting decreases in popularity, conservation groups will shrink and it will be harder to secure lands for the enjoyment and hard work of human beings away from the next big-box retailer. There was a remarkable article in National Geographic on this in November.

In addition, a hunter is someone who can secure high-quality meat at an affordable price from a local source, bypassing the supply chain. Wild deer, squirrel, grouse, woodcock, elk, etc. is guaranteed 100% antibiotic and growth hormone free.

I hope by this point the interlocking nature of these issues is apparent.

Although I would not say that I "like" guns, I eagerly look forward to the day that I can own a high-quality hunting rifle with which I can secure meat for my family, all while taking part in a process of natural life and death, a process which, like the seasons, is part of the give-and-take of life in this fallen planet earth.

Presidential Pontifications

I've been thinking about the upcoming primaries a lot recently, and wanted to post a few thoughts. While I am very excited to see how Iowa, New Hampshire and Super Tuesday turn out, I was disappointed to learn that our primary here in Kentucky is not until May 20th, the third from the end of the primary string. I guess someone has to be in the back of the line, but maybe I'll just move to Iowa instead.

I saw this on MSNBC's Morning Joe (one of the few morning news programs I recommend) and thought it was a master stroke on the part of the Huckabee campaign. Whether you love it or hate it, Mike Huckabee seems to be clear and honest about his reason for the season.



He's leading in many national polls, and while I certainly don't think he's the perfect candidate, he seems to have struck a cord with a lot of people.

I was reading on Ron Paul's website last night, mainly because I want to know more about this guy who has such dedicated supporters that they can raise $6 million for his campaign in 24 hours. For more than half of those who donated, this was their first donation to the Paul campaign, and I can't help but think there's something to this guy. I am sure my Libertarian friend will be overjoyed that I am considering this candidate, but I am still hesitant to offer him my wholehearted support.

I encourage all of you to at least visit his issues page and read up on him. I like his passion for shrinking the federal government and putting more money in the hands of businesses and citizens. It's refreshing to hear something that Republicans have moved away from more and more in recent years. But while I agree with Paul in many areas, he seems (and even states in his Privacy Issues section) to believe that the Orwellian "big brother" is our most formidible foe. While I would tend to agree that many of the laws and policies passed since the terrorist attacks of September 11 have limited our privacy, and I should have the right to exist without the government tracking me, I am less concerned about big brother and more concerned with the pleasures of our Brave New World.

In the book Amusing Ourselves to Death, Neil Postman suggests that the death of our society will not be as a result of to government's banning books, but instead the conscious preference of citizens to watch TV instead. The band Switchfoot articulates Postman's greatest fear well, "I don't wanna read the book, I'll watch the movie." Postman's book is a must read, and I hope you forgive my digression.

My concern about Ron Paul is that he'll have very little support for any of his policies if elected, and furthermore I don't know that totally removing government from the equation is the answer. Do I agree with him that the size of the government should be drastically reduced? Absolutely. But the government exists to govern, and sometimes I wonder if Paul's idea of government may leave the United States without some necessities. Certainly this is not a change that could be made overnight in any case, and I certainly applaud Paul for his consistent libertarian stance, but I am just a little wary. That being said, I would be very happy if he won the nomination, and while admitting that I don't fully grasp his political objectives and philosophy, I just worry about the feasibility of his ideas and the efficacy of their implementation.

There's still plenty of campaigning to go, and I don't know about you, but I am looking forward to seeing how it all turns out...

Miles Davis, the Man

Over at a friend's house the other night, we were discussing music, specifically the music of Miles Davis. Though this friend is a trumpet player, I am proof that you don't have to be much of a musician at all to be hip to what this man was doing: creating a body of music that is one of the most revolutionary of the 20th century.

Miles covered so many different facets of jazz during his career that it's almost impossible to find someone who isn't a fan of at least one of them. He is sort of the jazz musician for people who don't like jazz, much like C.S. Lewis was the "apostle to the skeptics" or Bernstien the "conductor for the classical illiterate."

Now, Miles the trumpet player covered a lot of moods with his playing, no matter what the context - bop, hardbop, modal, 'new thing,' fusion, whatever. In our discussion of Miles my friend pressed on me his copy of Miles' autobiography. I took it home and devoured it in about 24 hours.

Much like his moodswings on trumpet, Miles the man had a lot of the same going on. He could be a winning personality, a loyal friend, or a womanizer who wasn't above hitting his girlfriends and wives. He had an idiosyncratic personal philosophy but always stuck to it, no matter the context or situation.

Miles: The Autobiography is a stunning bit of oral history (the music evolved from a series of lengthy interviews conducted by journalst/poet Quincy Troupe, who then organized them into a book). It captures the jazz scene in the forties - the ascendancy of bebop and the days of "the Street" in New York - like few others have, especially critics. Miles speaks authoritatively in a voice which is authentically black. What is and isn't "authentically black" is a point much debated in the media by people with varying levels of self-interest in the debate. I don't know much about what it means to be black, but I do know that Miles was about as authentically black as one could be.

His rhythms, cadences, and language is startling similar to that captured by many Southern authors like Ernest J. Gaines and Carson McCullers (or even Faulkner). I have always thought that the book The Member of the Wedding by McCullers sounded like the blues in its language, and man, after reading Miles' book, I know what that means. There is something unique about certain experiences in this country that can only be had by people in certain situations. McCullers understanded what it meant to be young, female, white, confused sexually in the small-town South, and Miles knew what it was like to be successful, famous, and black in a country still coming to terms with endemic racism. Both put this across in such a way that helped the person outside of the context to understand it.

The book isn't perfect: Miles' frank discussion of his life paints him for the complex, often troubled person he was; he certainly wasn't someone I want to emulate in many areas. He gets a few details wrong about musicians he played with, and he comes down unreasonably hard on many others, especially white musicians. Say what you will about the black origins of the music - and this is undeniable - it has always been blended with European styles. To say that white cats like Lennie Tristano and Dave Brubeck were "okay, but were just copying black shit" is to listen with a pair of tin ears. Certainly they are two of the most unique stylists and conceptualists the music has produced, and their lack of wide influence comes from, in my opinion, their whiteness. (In all fairness, Tristano's slim recorded output also hurts.)

Tangent aside, the book was a refreshing and eye-opening dip back into the jazz world, and especially into the world of Miles Davis: a sonic landscape singularly shaped by a man who pursued his muse unrelentlessly.

Mike Huckabee and Jesus

I heard a short bit today on a question Mike Huckabee was asked at the debate last night about his position on abortion and the death penalty. While he was cogent about why abortion is wrong, let's not be ridiculous: not he, nor anyone else as President will really bring about a change in abortion policy. The church's task in this issue isn't political, but far closer to what Stanley Hauerwas has articulated in his essay, "Abortion, Theologically Understood."

It was also interesting to hear him defend capital punishment. The argument, which should be familiar to all of you, ran something like this: there are certain types and instances of crime so heinous that those who commit them should be deterred from commiting those same crimes again and that society as a whole should see this as a sort of example as to what committing these crimes can do. There was also a throwaway line about how a qualitative difference between abortion and the death penalty was that society was condeming the criminal to death because of his actions in life, while the innocent fetus isn't even granted the chance at a life by abortion.

I allow for latitude in interpretation for those New Testament passages that some use to support capital punishment, but I think it very queer that the Governor would suggest that society condemns this man to death. I certainly don't! I don't know that it is the responsibility of any Christian to decide whose time it is to die, especially if they are outside of Christ's grace (or they appear to be). I don't think that government can "love its enemy" but I am beginning to wonder if support of the penalty by Christians allows us to do so. (This is where prison ministries would step in, truly an example of a consciousness alternative to the one put forth by the government being embodied by those of the Kingdom.)

Huckabee followed up the question "Would Jesus support the death penalty?" by saying, in effect, that Jesus was too smart to ever run for public office. Although many in the audience laughed, and no doubt some commentators will see it as a clever throwaway line, it gave me over to wondering if enough Christians ask themselves what exactly the political aspect of Christ's ministry was. Certainly the tired canard that he was apolitical has poorly served the church, and he has been used to prop up certain positions on any given place on the spectrum that scripture certainly wouldn't indicate that he would support. (Not that I think Huckabee does this. He seems an all-around genuine guy.)

It's not just that He was too smart: it's that He was working towards a new understanding of what power means. Power isn't found in elected office, not that Jesus could have ever held such an office, being a first-century Jewish peasant in a Roman-controlled world. But overthe floundering beliefs of his fellow Jews and against the mad, brutal power of Rome, trying to put forth its version of "peace and prosperity," Jesus articulated a different sort of Kingdom reality: a world where if your neighbor asks you for your shirt, you give him your cloak, too; where the meek, the poor in spirit, the peacemakers, are blessed; a reality that is about who He is and what he did for us on an otherwise normal day 2,000 years ago.

On that reality, truly the only reality that is, Jesus hung all of our sins and effected a change the cosmos that will break forth fully on the day of His return to earth, in full power and glory, the Church's beloved, broken lamb, raised up to draw all people to Himself.

If the Church would immerse herself in that thought, it might make politics seem pretty silly for awhile. But if we take Him and His cross and go out into the world, the necessity of articulating the nature of the Kingdom of God over the feckless in our churches today and against the new empire of our government will be ever present before us, and our task will be set: nothing short of the Church helping break in that Kingdom reality into this broken world. Not into the hills around Jerusalem in fear and trembling of the day of the Lord, but into the streets in joyful expectancy of His coming.

This Advent, think about the Kingdom.