During his talk, Gideon defines Justice as “treating creatures according to how God created them; (forging) relationships with God’s creatures in such a way as to give them their due as what they are.”  Gideon is suggesting that Justice is relational; that in order to offer justice to someone, I must have a knowledge of who that person is intended to be in full bloom, unhindered by poverty, oppression or whatever obstacle lies in their path.

I find that idea very challenging.

Gideon goes on to say “Justice cannot be reduced to some kind of mute, rough equality.”  It is this “rough equality” I generally default to in my thinking about Justice.  Most often, even my most sincere emotional response to injustice amounts to something like “Let’s find some surplus money among us and throw it at this ‘situation’ in order to fix it.”  It is an easier kind of justice in the long run, since it costs very little.

I’m beginning to realize that the justice I normally envision is mostly a conceptual blanket which only hides the dappled, shifting landscape of creation and particularly humanity, but does nothing to legitimately heal and repair.  It’s the kind of justice that emotionally and eagerly responds to distress with the generalized idea that “we” (a word which also lacks clarity) have to make this “right” when we may not have spent the time to orient ourselves in order to know what “right” looks like in a particular place or for a particular person.

The kind of justice Gideon describes includes (in fact, requires) an intricate and even personal knowledge of the systems, cities and persons in need of justice, as well as a keen awareness of the limitations, needs and presumptions of those working for it.  A person living in Concord, CA, for instance, would need to know the city of Concord in order to do justice in Concord or for its people. But, knowing a city is an enormous endeavor; requiring great amounts of time and patience.  It is not the kind of thing one envisions doing in the moment he or she is moved to action by the sudden knowledge that Concord’s “Monument Corridor” is one of the fastest growing poverty traps in California…

(Continued in part II coming soon.  In the meantime… feel free to work on this.)

v1
It’s not about the drinking
It’s all about the being drunk
Like it’s not with whom you’re sleeping
It’s with whom you wake up

pre-chorus
It’s not about the wars you fight
it’s whether or not you win
Not so  much about being right
As not letting all the wrong ones in

Chorus
See, we all want that resurrection
But we don’t want to die
We all want that sweet salvation
WIthout the bitterness of sacrifice

v2
It’s not about forgiveness
It’s about making sure they know
You’re the one they’ve injured
You’re just too strong to let it show

v3
It’s not about believing
It’s about making it look good
So that when you lose your reason
You just keep doing what you should.

(**if you missed the FEJMILRS, there are rumors [and they are only rumors] that there will be further broadcasts.)

The first prevalent assumption among those who commented on my previous post was that I am “an idiot.” Pffssst… chyeah, right.  Am not.

The second is that I am “a jackass.”  Now, that I can buy.

Actual Assumption #1:
The “Human Element” of Religion

There was, present in many of the comments posted, the assumption that one can remove the “human element” from religion.  It’s an immensely problematic idea and here is why I think so:  Many, if not most, would agree that religion is a human construct; that we made it up. Religion is either the way we go about seeking some Divine Source we can only hope and believe is really there underneath it all or it is our poetic and philosophical effort to make lemonade from the lemons of life.  Therefore, if one ascribes to this idea of religion, then all there is to it is the human element.  We are either reaching out for “God” who couldn’t possibly have had anything to do with this circus of dogmas and funny robes or we’re deluding ourselves in order to cope with the absurdity of life.

In that light, let’s suppose that one’s entire religious practice was made up of silent meditation alone in a room in an empty building in an abandoned city whose residents had been eaten by zombies who then, themselves died from side effects of the 5-Hour Energy Drink stored in the blood streams of the very alert people they had eaten (I’m just trying to paint a picture of isolation here… stick with me). Even in that very isolated scenario, the practice of meditation would have had to be learned from someone else.  Be it face to face or in written form or by instructional video, the transference of religious knowledge or spiritual practice is always a human process; People teaching people to be (ostensibly) better people. Religion is people.

So, if religion is a human construct and you remove the “human element” from it you are left with nothing.. which would make many among us just as happy… until the zombies show up.

But what if you are just crazy enough to believe that The Divine communicates directly to people?  Luckily, I am just such a nut. So is Anne Rice. We’re nuts, Anne and I!  You see, I believe, along with Anne Rice, that God has revealed Himself to His Creation over many, many years.  We believe that the pinnacle in this long history of revelation is the Incarnation of Jesus Christ; God becoming man.  This tradition makes the elimination of the “human element” problematic in that God, with every phase of revelation over the course of history, has intentionally and consistently chosen the human element; even to the extreme of becoming human. Prophets, Priests, Teachers, Guides, Rulers, etc.. all human, as was Jesus of Nazareth.  So while we might be a ripe mess, it seems that in some strange way we are the mess God wants.

Furthermore, this same tradition shuns the individualistic practice of faith in which religion is “just between God and me.”  The instructions or teachings that have accompanied each phase of revelation are communal instructions and teachings.   The teachings of Christ in particular are teachings spoken to crowds of people rather than to individuals.  They were/are designed to create a culture of forgiveness, generosity and hope rather than just individuals marked by those traits. Christ’s methods were and are communal: He called a group of twelve people to himself and taught them as a collective. He taught the masses who followed him.  Meanwhile, despite his deep criticism of Judaism, Jesus nonetheless continued to teach within that system; in its synagogues and to the communities gathered there around Torah.  I think it’s safe to say that, even if one is unsure as to His “agenda,” Jesus sought (and seeks) to accomplish his goal by reshaping the way people live, not as individuals, but together… until the  zombies show up.

Actual Assumption #2:
The “End” of Religious Practice

Lastly (I promise) throughout the comments, there seemed to be a further assumption that the practice of religion is intended for the improvement of ones self.  Agreed… but.  That is not it’s end.  A better self is particularly better insofar as that better self can then help other selves become better selves.  There is a responsibility that comes with health, blessing and wisdom; the responsibility to pass it on. The healing of our own lives becomes a gift we have the privilege and responsibility to offer others.  But even that is not the end.

The better self helps others be better selves and they, together, become better communities which, in turn, create better neighborhoods, better cities and better cultures which eventually, hopefully and prayerfully transform the face of nations and the globe into the shape and pattern of what Jesus called “the Kingdom.” Christ’s “end” from the very beginning was to redeem all things and all people, reconciling them to the Father and instating His Kingdom on earth as a dwelling place for all of God’s creation. A dwelling place with the foundations of Justice, Mercy and Love.  Any religious (or irreligious) idea which excludes an entire people group from this vision is out of line with that vision and its Architect.  In this light, if someone really “gets it,” the last thing one ought to do is disconnect themselves from those who don’t get it. George Bernard Shaw said it thusly: ”I am of the opinion that my life belongs to the whole community and as long as I live, it is my privilege to do for it whatever I can. I want to be thoroughly used up when I die.”

DISCLAIMER: All this is only my opinion, which I will continue to force down peoples’ throats by posting it here on my own blog where you are all morally and legally obliged to click and scroll until I am through controlling you; after which point you are free to move on and linger at the far more entertaining and informative Daily Show page.. That is, of course.. until the zombies show up.

**(comments I did not post were generally those that were only insulting without offering content… also ignored were any comments submitted by Yankee fans.)

Dear Anne,

I am sure that this post is one among many responding to your announcement that you are disassociating yourself from Christianity.  You wrote that your disgust with “this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group” has led you to the conclusion that you “simply cannot belong” to us.

I feel you,  Anne. I really do.  I’ve had similar thoughts and even expressed them publicly. I don’t mind at all the desire or even the need to stand at some distance from the label of christianity.  It may well have been worn through.  But I take issue with the notion that you must disassociate  yourself from ‘christian’ people. I mean sure, we’re a motley lot.  Belonging to this family can often feel like you’ve adopted a few thousand drunk uncles.  It’s incredibly embarrassing at times and frustrating at least as often. I get it.  But I also read that you’re making your move “in the name of Christ” and that presents a rather perplexing dilemma for someone who wants to quit on people.  You see, Christ hasn’t quit on us and if you choose to align yourself with Him, then neither can you.

Aligning yourself with Christ means aligning yourself with Someone who not only declared his love for all God’s children (believer or not), but suffered and died in order to establish and maintain a relationship with those children.  It is this redemptive sacrifice that defines His love as characteristically His.  Having chosen to follow His example, it seems that at least part of the redemptive sacrifice you are being challenged to make is to associate and identify yourself with this shabby batch of miscreants who are often quite bad at practicing the religion you love.  It comes at the cost of your ego and likely some book sales.  But that’s the nature of sacrifice; it costs you. It will cost you if people see you as being family to those “anti-gay, anti-feminist, anti-artificial birth, anti-Democrat, anti-secular humanism, anti-science” types among us.  Just as it costs Jesus to be seen as their Savior and Lord. Just as it cost him to be seen with prostitutes and whatnot.  It is the same social role-play with a different set of cultural lenses on. All your statement does is trade in “bigots” for “whores” when the heart of Christ is that they’re both beloved of the Father.

It’s simply reasonable that if you set yourself against people who set themselves against people you are only adding to the friction. If part of your issue with christianity is it’s exclusivity, you aren’t helping by only including those who “get it” the way you do.  True christian inclusivity means embracing the homosexual and the gay-basher in the same embrace; working for the release of the oppressed while praying and working for the redemption of their oppressor; loving the beautiful game of baseball and yet, somehow, also loving the Yankees.  It means loving the Lord with all of yourself and also loving those who grossly misrepresent Him.

I think you’re smart, Anne. I think you’ll hear some thoughtful feedback and realize you stepped across a line and might have to retract your statement.  You will also likely have to speak directly with Christ about the way you roughly labeled and dismissed the ones He’s drawn to himself and suffered to love.  Lucky for you, lucky for all of us, He’s incredibly forgiving and eternally patient.

In the name of Christ,
Justin McRoberts

Here is part two of why Aimee Mann’s “Save Me” is on the album:

In the same way that Aimee Mann’s work has guided me towards a responsible undoing of my expectation/temptation to resolve songs, the cultural counterpart to this same thought also resonates with me.  Despite having grown up outside a particular religious tradition (raised by wolves) I had been somewhat culturally trained to think of “being saved” as a specific kind of resolution; particularly that it was something very final… something that happened in a singular moment with a one-time agreement.  Like chancing upon a lifetime membership to my Happy Place.

The odd thing about this understanding of “being saved” is that, since I’ve followed Jesus, it has all the more grated against my experience of life and faith.  My ‘conversion’ didn’t take place all in a moment and certainly has been a happy experience at times but never consistently.  My being “saved” never felt like something snapped into place after which I was then on my way.  I’ve experienced the waxing and waning of actual change in my life and the same waxing and waning of faith that my life’s change is authentic and lasting.  Less than a one-time agreement, it’s been more like fits and starts, in all honesty.

Sara Miles, in her book “Take This Bread” writes: “Conversion isn’t a moment: it’s process and it keeps happening, with cycles of acceptance and resistance, epiphany and doubt.”

A process of cycles and seasons.  That sounds like it.  Something more like the growing of a branch connected to a vine.. born invisibly, growing in shoots and perhaps too quickly… needing to be pruned.. growing again and bearing fruit.. but then.. Fall.. Winter and the long, dark hope that Spring will come again, bringing a greater abundance of fruit.  The work of a good gardener, salvation is not the magic and surgically sterile removal of my life from “this world” or even the mystical transcendence of my own base humanness.  It is the strange, messy and (dare I say) unfinished business of becoming a complete human being… one like Jesus.

How does a FEJMILRS work? It works in 3 easy steps…

1. SUBMIT: your questions and requests over Twitter before Friday, Aug 13. The top 10 questions will be answered in no specific order.

2. WATCH: live via Twitcam Wednesday night August 18 6pm PST. The stream will be accessible through Justin’s Twitter page. Or watch the session when it re-airs on FOX this Fall.**

3. RECEIVE: If your question is answered during the session, you will receive a $2-Off coupon for any digital album at the McStore.  Keep posted at Twitter or Facebook for further details.

(**FOX airing pending FEJMILRS being picked up by a production company and inking a contract with FOX… so.. you should probably just watch it on Wed, Aug 18.)

Here is part one of why Aimee Mann’s “Save Me” is on the album:

Magnolia is one of the only movies I have ever gone back to the theater to see.  Cast with the likes of Julianne Moore, Phillip Seymour Hoffman and WIlliam H. Macy, there really isn’t a weak performance anywhere in the movie (unless you hate Tom Cruize instinctively,… which is really more about you than the movies you see).

I watched Magnolia the first time with my wife and some friends.  Our friends didn’t care much for the film, commenting that it was “bizarre,” “pathetic,” and “unlikely.”  We agreed that those were accurate descriptions but, to the contrary, Amy and I both thought those were exactly the elements we enjoyed most about it; it was so much like life as we knew it.

Along loving the story, the cinematography and the performances, I also fell in love with the movies soundtrack and in doing so, discovered Aimee Mann.  (little did I know she was the vocalist for the band Til Tuesday, whose single “Voices Carry” echoed through my head through much of the late eighties).  My understanding is that much of the Magnolia’s motivation and theme is derived from Aimee Mann’s music.  In fact, a few of the character Claudia’s lines are directly lifted from Aimee Mann lyrics.  In one case, she turns to Officer Jim Kurring, who is desperately in love with her and says

“Now that I’ve met you
Would you object to
Never seeing each other again.”

…which is the opening line to the song “Deathly”; a song I seriously considered covering for Undone. Instead, I chose the “Save Me.” which was written specifically for the film and is one of the the most pivotal songs in my musical history.

Much of its importance to me is strictly musi-technical.  Its darker tone, melancholy mood and seemingly-too-slow tempo don’t add up to “Save Me” being a downer song at all.  In fact, Save Me is incredibly catchy and has plenty of the energy one would want in a pop song.  What was revelatory for me was that It’s life and energy are not fabricated by bright, shimmery guitar tones or an uplifting, major-chord-driven chorus.  The song is alive because of the tension within it; a tension that never resolves but keeps the song trudging from verse to chorus to bridge and and and on.  This element was liberating for me as a writer.  I could leave a song “in the dark” as it were and let go of the temptation to force a feeling of resolution in lyric or in tone.

Until I let “Save Me” sink into my skin a bit, I didn’t quite recognize how strong the temptation to “resolve” a song actually was. I believed, as do most young artists, that I was being entirely authentic and transparent in my work.  But even looking at my 2000 release “Father,” an album ostensibly about wrestling with my father’s suicide, I could see very clearly where a few of the songs were somewhat forced; at least in the way I finished them… as if I was tying together broken limbs with pretty bows and wrapping paper.   Mann’s work guided me to see that art’s job was seldom to resolve.  More often, a great work affirms the mysterious nature of the human experience just as it is, which is a form of redemption in and of itself.  In this light, I would even go so far as to say that to force a resolution is to give in to the fear that a true resolution might not be there at all; that I must create or even fake it.  It strikes me that this is what is most disappointing about much art in the christian marketplace.  Not that it’s cheesy or even that it’s particularly bad; what is most disappointing is that it is insincere.  I wanted to distance myself from that temptation and the machinery that is angled toward giving in to it.

My 2002 release “Trust” was, as a whole, inspired and fueled by the musical revelation I found in Aimee Mann’s work.  From guitar and drum tones to chord progressions and even lyric choices, Trust was shaped by the freedom to leave songs in the dark; to create a tension and allow that tension to sustain the life of a song and even an entire album.

You can listen to a full length video preview of my “Save Me” at the top of this blog.
You can pick it up at iTunes or at my Online Store.

That is, I suppose, the thing I have come to believe is at the heart of America’s strength as a Nation. As the philosopher Bernard Henri-Levi notes, America…

“…never was  and never will be founded on the continuity of a race,..  the solidity of a soil, or on an intrinsic autochthony or even a shared history.. “

Instead, we are a nation…

“… forged by people of diverse origins who had nothing in common but this sharing …of a desire and an Idea.”

We are a people whose roots are tangled up in the Idea that a diversity of thought strengthens us just a diversity of culture enriches us.

If your celebration of America is peppered with the notion that certain opinions, certain philosophies and certain people must be silenced or defeated (or deported) in order to enjoy your America, your celebration is… well, unAmerican. It is a vast, complex and truly great conversation we have entered into and entertained for over 230 years; it’s energy is provided by the tension between cultures, opinions, theories and world-views. No, we do not always carry the conversation well; but we are exactly at our worst when we  react poorly; when we receive the differing political, religious and philosophical thoughts of another as ONLY a threat to our way of life and not, at least in some way, an enrichment of a diverse, growing and still young nation.

Don’t get me wrong: I am no dualist. I believe in one, uniform, whole, encompassing Truth which pervades and permeates all life, space and time… I just don’t think we arrive at anything resembling that Truth by silencing, much less insulting the “other guy.”  I believe, in fact, that discovering that Truth or coming to an understanding of what is good for a people happens best in the context of a sincere and spirited conversation; one with the foundation of “a decent respect.”

Happy 4th of July.

My time with Re:Generation church on Sunday was such a time.  I was there to share a few songs and tell some stories about the work Compassion is doing in the lives of children living in poverty.  But in all honesty the best stories told on Sunday night in Oakland were not stories I told. They were stories folks shared with me or stories I was witness to that evening; stories that are part of that peoples’ larger story.

Here are 2 of them.

The first is was from a family whom I will refer to as the “Jetsons” in order to preserve their anonymity.  As their three children were growing up, the Jetsons sponsored three children through Compassion; one for each one of their children.  Among the three was a beautiful young girl from The Philippines with whom they really connected.  We will call her Judy Jetson. Judy wrote well in English which allowed the Jetson kids to really know her.  When she turned 18 years old, Judy graduated and moved on from the Compassion program.  The Jetsons hoped, as do all sponsors whose kids graduate, that her path would be made straight into a healthy and fruitful adulthood.

Years later… this year in fact,.. the youngest Jetson boy received a message over Facebook from Judy. She’s living in New Jersey and doing extremely well.  She had been searching for her Compassion family since arriving in the US and, thanks to Facebook, finally found them. She expressed her deep thanks for the years of faithfulness and wanted the Jetsons to know that her path was in fact made straight in great part because of their love and faithfullness.

The Jetsons sponsored another young girl from The Philippines Sunday night.

The second story  is about a young girl who grew up right there in Oakland.  A dancer and an athlete, this young lady (whom we will call Shakira) was struck by encephalitis just about a year and a half ago.  The past 18 months have been an emotional and physical challenge like none other for both her and for her family; grand mal seizures, loss of memory and on and on..

Sunday night was Shakira’s first evening out in a long while, since most of her seizures happen at night.  She stood at the table for a while and finally turned to her parents with a packet for a younger girl in hand, saying “I want to sponsor her.”

“You’ll have to use your allowance money” her mother warned, kindly.

“I know” Shakira said “but I’d just be spending that money on myself.”

Shakira receives $40 each month as an allowance.  Sunday night, on one of her her first nights out after months of suffering, she chose to invest $38 in the the Kingdom of God, supporting, encouraging and loving another young girl in her time of need.

These are the kinds of stories that sustain me.  Sure, I am moved by the fact that over 1 million kids have been rescued from poverty by the love and faithfulness of Compassion sponsors. But more and more, it is the new life I see in those sponsors themselves that inspires me.

If you would like to sponsor a child with Compassion International, the process is very easy, the organization is trustworthy and the sacrifice you make sincerely changes the life of a child as well as your own.  Click here to sponsor a child.

** (If you live near the SF Bay area or on the West Coast anywhere feel free to contact us here to book a show or speaking engagement.)