Kid Wonder

Visit the New Site Now

2008-12-29T00:42:00.005-05:00

My new site is now up and running at jasonthings.com. As I move into the world of web development, my website needs it's own URL, a portfolio section, and a clean professional look. And it will still have a blog, of course.

Take a look and let me know what you think.

(RSS readers, get the new feed at http://jasonthings.com/feed/rss )

New Site To Be Unveiled Soon

2008-12-09T15:30:00.003-05:00

Stay tuned for the unveiling of a brand new site, for my many fans.

Peter Rollins

2008-11-10T09:02:00.003-05:00

I went to the Mid-Atlantic Emergent Conference with Pete Rollins on Saturday. I have a lot of thoughts, both about the conference in general as well as about his talk in specific, but for now I'm posting this 3 minute video which sums up a lot of Rollins' style and message, which I love.

Um, Castration Is Legal?

2008-11-07T08:38:00.002-05:00

I'm not quite sure how I missed this. Bobby Jindal, mayor of Louisiana (a name we should start hearing a lot more in the next few years), signed an interesting bill into law over the summer. Apparently, certain sex offenders can now be chemically or physically castrated as a part of their sentence. The bill says,

on a first conviction of aggravated rape, forcible rape, second degree sexual battery, aggravated incest, molestation of a juvenile when the victim is under the age of 13, or an aggravated crime against nature, the court may sentence the offender to undergo chemical castration. On a second conviction of the above listed crimes, the court is required to sentence the offender to undergo chemical castration.

Jindal explained the bill,

I want to send the message loud and clear – to the Supreme Court of the United States and beyond – make no mistake about it, if anyone wants to molest children and commit sexual assaults on kids they should not do so here in Louisiana. Here, we will do everything in our power to protect our children and we will not rest until justice is won and we have fully punished those who harm them.

I mean, thanks for protecting children. But castration? Is this the Middle Ages? How can this possibly be legal?

Yes We Can

2008-11-06T11:26:00.012-05:00

I encourage you, no matter what you think of this election, to watch our next President's speech from when he lost the New Hampshire primary. I just watched it at my office at work and, after composing myself, came here to encourage anyone who reads this to do the same.

If you can't watch it, or if you'd just rather read it, the text is here. I want to highlight two specific things he said.

All of the candidates in this race share these goals. All have good ideas. And all are patriots who serve this country honorably.

But the reason our campaign has always been different is because it’s not just about what I will do as President, it’s also about what you, the people who love this country, can do to change it.

To those who cynically say that nothing will change, or who worry that we've made the wrong decision in all this, take comfort in the fact that it's up to you. The most significant promise this presidency has made is that you are in fact responsible for the change you want to see in this country.

At the campaign rally where I saw Obama speak, he said that his Presidency would fail if we didn't rise up and act. Anyone who worries about big government should understand this about our next President. The door is open for you to be the change that you want.

I know that many people would call me naïve for all this. I know there are cynics or realists who tell us that politics doesn't work this way, that it's not going to happen the way we think. That we've all been brainwashed and that nothing is ever going to be different. But I think they miss the point -- we've already begun to change. The results of November 4th, 2008, are just the wonderful, visible proof.

After all,

We have been told we cannot do this by a chorus of cynics who will only grow louder and more dissonant in the weeks to come. We’ve been asked to pause for a reality check. We’ve been warned against offering the people of this nation false hope.

But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope. For when we have faced down impossible odds; when we’ve been told that we’re not ready, or that we shouldn’t try, or that we can’t, generations of Americans have responded with a simple creed that sums up the spirit of a people.

Yes we can.

So to the person who wrote, "Nothing will change. Mark these words." I say to you -- I will mark them. I'll mark them in the same way we marked the words that said a black man couldn't possibly be elected President. And the words that said his lack of experience would ruin his campaign, that the timing wasn't right, that it couldn't be done.

By proving them wrong, Barack Obama sucked all of the sap, all of the naïveté out of those three words -- yes we can.

Why Obama, General Election Edition

2008-11-04T13:30:00.008-05:00

A Baltimore Sun reporter caught me on the way out of the polling station today, and I was happy to answer a few questions. One of the first things she asked me was, "How long ago did you make your decision?" It was an easy answer for me, because today I voted for the candidate I supported from the very beginning of the Presidential primaries.

I explained why I favored Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton during that big primary race, and much of it applies to why I voted for him again today. But let me briefly explain why I voted for Senator Obama and not for Senator McCain (or anyone else, for that matter).

Why I Voted For Barack Obama GENERAL ELECTION EDITION
Or, Why I Didn't Vote For John McCain

First, the small reasons: McCain gets too angry too fast and has a history of flying off the handle. I want a President who stays composed. Experience as an argument in this race left the table the day Palin was asked to be VP on the McCain ticket.

More specifically,

Taxes | We've all heard the numbers but for some reason people are still worried about having their wealth redistributed. Taxes are necessary, because the government is responsible for taking care of certain things. And the reality is that the richer you are, the more you can afford to help shoulder that load for your country.
Healthcare | We're the last western country without nationalized healthcare. Our infant mortality rates are higher than most of the first world. Many of our systems are already nationalized. Other non-socialist countries are running successful nationalized healthcare programs. There's just no reason we can't find a way to provide free, good healthcare to every American.

I heard Obama say, in a speech last week, "we don't need bigger or smaller government, we need better government." Why is that never an option in these discussions?

Foreign Policy | It's not a bad thing that most of the world is hoping for Barack Obama to be elected President. It's not a bad thing that crowds of people come to see him wherever he goes in the world. Our image is damaged and could use a boost. We need a President who can inspire his own people while rebuilding relationships with the rest of the world, and I believe Obama can do that well.
Vision and Inspriation are still underrated | Tucker Carlson said, "I don’t think Barack Obama approaches politics that way. It’s like look, there’s an answer, we’re all struggling to find it, I believe I know what it is, you believe you know what it is, let’s talk about it."

I want a President who can get above the shit, listen to both sides, and make good decisions. I want someone who can act on what Robert Creamer said: "Leadership, more than anything else, is about mobilizing people into action. People take action when they feel empowered — when they are inspired."

I feel strongly about this, but I don't hate or disrespect anyone who voted for McCain. In the end, it's less about who we vote for and more about how we vote, and I hope I've voiced my opinion respectfully. But for those who share my hope for an Obama victory, I think Jeffrey Zeldman said it best in a short Twitter update.

All our hopes now rest with two young Hobbits.

Vote Obama

2008-11-03T23:49:00.005-05:00

Today could be a very historic day. He won't be perfect, but he's exactly what America needs, and I'll be hoping with every cell that he's voted in by a sizeable margin. Go vote right now.

Bumper Sticker: DEREGULATION IS NUANCED

2008-09-30T15:15:00.001-04:00

Phil Gramm did two things in 1999 that seem particularly relevant now.

1) He introduced and strongly supported the Gramm-Leach-Blily Act.

This act repealed part of the Glass-Steagal Act and officially allowed commercial and investment banks to consolidate for the first time since the New Deal.

Robert Kuttner wrote an article almost exactly a year ago explaining the effect that deregulation had on our current economic crises. Here's a snip:

quote:
The Glass-Steagall wall was devised to prevent a repeat of the 1920s' scams, in which banks made speculative investments, turned the debts into securities, and sold them off to unsuspecting investors with the blessing of the bank. With Glass-Steagall, commercial banks were tightly supervised and given access to federal deposit insurance, to keep savings secure and prevent runs on banks. Investment banks, meanwhile, were not government-guaranteed and were free to do more speculative transactions for consenting adult customers. But Roosevelt's newly created SEC subjected securities markets to much tighter structures against self-dealing and insider conflicts of interest.

2) As chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, he helped to usher in the wave of subprime mortgage lending.

In this article from the NY Times back in 1999,

quote:
In July [of 1999], the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.

The other relevant fact about Phil Gramm: until very recently, he was John McCain’s presidential campaign co-chair [source] and his most senior economic adviser [source], and continues to be an unofficial adviser on economic and financial matters [source].

Obama campaign: could you please make and run this ad immediately?

Fall Movie Preview 2008

2008-09-10T09:09:00.018-04:00

I never understand how people can hate movie trailers. Watching the big screen turn green while the track lights fade out is one of the best parts of the theater experience for me.

My advice to you is: waste some time over the next half hour. Read my comments on the upcoming fall movies if you want, or just click the links and watch the trailers yourself (avoid the tempting HD options if you don't want to waste 3 hours on load time). It's good, old-fashioned, procrastinational fun.

Movies I'll Almost Definitely See

Miracle at St. Anna (Releases September 26th)

Directed by Spike Lee and starring Derek Luke, Michael Ealy, Laz Alonso, and Omar Benson Miller

A group of segregated soldiers get caught behind German enemy lines, and years later some weird stuff is happening that is probably related. It looks interesting, and it's Spike Lee, so I'm hooked.

Spike Lee's storytelling will make Miracle at St. Anna worth seeing.

Flash of Genius (Releases October 17th)

Starring Greg Kinnear, Lauren Graham, Dermot Mulroney, and Alan Alda

Kinnear is a college professor who invents the first intermittent windshield wiper, which Ford quickly steals from him. He and his family fight back against the establishment. I know, but it looks very good if you watch the trailer (it might be artificially enhanced by the fantastic Dave Matthews song they use, but still...)

Milk (Releases November 26th)

Directed by Gus Van Sant and starring Sean Penn, Emile Hirsch, Josh Brolin, and James Franco

Harvey Milk was California's first openly gay elected official. The story looks compelling and the actors will be great. Even Victor Garber (you probably know him from that awful Alias show) makes an appearance. I'm a sucker for a well-told historical story, as you can see from the four movies I've put in my "Must See" category.

Sean Penn gains even more liberal points for starring in this biography of Harvey Milk.

Defiance (Releases December 12th)

Starring Daniel Craig, Liev Schreiber, and Jamie Bell

I think Daniel Craig is a great actor who picks some awful movies (The Golden Compass was dreadful), but this story looks great. They could probably rename it "Don't Forget That the Nazis Are Evil", which might be a bit tired, but who doesn't love a story about a small band of rebels taking on the Evil Empire? Especially if it stars James Bond, Cotton Weary, and even Billy Elliot all doing decent German accents?

I'll Wait To See The Reviews, But These Look Interesting

Eagle Eye (Releases September 26th)

Starring Shia LaBeouf and Michelle Monaghan

When you cast these two eye-candies, it's like a secret code for "we'd just like to make a lot of money, please, kthxbye". That doesn't mean it'll be awful, but it's really hard to tell. The premise is almost exactly Matrix-like (a fantastic plot that not even Awful Reeves could ruin), which is both annoying and intriguing at the same time.

LaBeouf and Monaghan are cast with hopes of drawing a young crowd.

Happy Go Lucky (Releases October 10th)

Directed by Mike Leigh and starring Sally Hawkins, Eddie Marsan, and Alexis Zegerman

You've seen Eddie Marsan before, you just don't remember where. Hawkins plays an overly happy girl named Poppy who sees the good in everything. This one is definitely going to get the dreaded label of "Quirky Comedy" which should keep it from making too much money, but I've been known to fall for those types (favorite movie = Royal Tenenbaums), so I'm certainly interested to see what the critics say.

Happy Go Lucky is a quirky British comedy about optimism and hope.

Body of Lies (Releases October 10th)

Starring Russell Crowe and Leonardo DiCaprio

Espionage, double-cross, crooked CIA, Crowe, DiCaprio. That's enough to hook me. My only concern is: Isn't Don Cheadle in this movie? Oh wait...

Sex Drive (Releases October 17th)

Starring Josh Zuckerman, Clark Duke, Amanda Crew, James Marsden, and Seth Green

I know, the concept sounds awful. A nerdy kid who is on a quest to lose his virginity. The 18 Year Old Virgin? But here's why I might like it: 1) It's not Judd Apatow thank God, 2) Zuckerman looks like he might be funny in the trailer, 3) I have really liked James Marsden in everything I've seen him in. Watch the trailer, you might be surprised like I was.

W. (Releases October 17th)

Directed by Oliver Stone and starring Josh Brolin, James Cromwell, Richard Dreyfuss, Scott Glenn, Thandie Newton, Ellen Burstyn, and Elizabeth Banks

I am so scared of this. Haven't we driven the whole "capitalize on George W. Bush" thing a million feet into the ground? Is this a Mad TV movie? But again, actors and directors get my attention. Brolin has looked great, even though I didn't like No Country for Old Men he was great in it. And it's Oliver Stone doing one of his presidential biographies. It might be worth a look. We'll see.

Is it too soon for a George W. Bush movie?

Quantum of Solace (Releases November 7th)

Starring Daniel Craig, Judi Dench, Jesper Christensen, Olga Kurylenko, and Mathieu Amalric

Uh, it's James Bond, and the first one that Craig did was okay. I'll definitely need to look at some reviews before spending $9 on this one, but it might be an enjoyable mess.

I'll Wait To See The Reviews, But These Look Pretty Bad

Rachel Getting Married (Releases October 2008)

Starring Anne Hathaway, Rosemarie DeWitt, and Debra Winger

The Oscar buzz is apparently building for Hathaway's role in this "dramedy", but from the trailer it looks all wrong. The "gritty" parts look forced and the morals look way too in-your-face, in a Dan In Real Life kind of way (shudder).

Australia (Releases November 14th)

Directed by Baz Lurhman and starring Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman

Real life Aussie Kidman plays a British rose who makes her way to pre-WWII Australia and falls for Crocodile Dundee Hugh Jackman. Except, there's a part where Kidman tells a mystical story of her tale to a child in a style reminiscent of The Princess Bride. Oh, and there seems to be a sort of Dances With Wolves kind of cultural war story, too. You can tell that I'm a little confused about how this all fits together.

Everybody has always wanted to see a movie about Australia, right?

Nothing Like The Holidays (Releases November 21st)

Starring Freddy Rodriguez, John Leguizamo, Debra Messing, Alfred Molina, Luis Guzman, Vanessa Ferlito, and Jay Hernandez

I'm always willing to give holiday movies some leeway, because I like them for what they are. But at first glance, wow, this could be horrible. Debra Messing is pretty bad, and the rest (besides Molina, who is excellent) are either eye-candy or mediocre at best. But I've been less annoyed with Leguizamo lately, and Freddy Rodriguez has done some good work. In the end, I think it's going to be a bad movie trying to capitalize on Christmas cheer, but I don't think it's going to be as awful as you think.

Okay, These Just Look Terrifyingly Horrible

The Day The Earth Stood Still (Releases December 12th)

Starring Keanu Reeves and Jennifer Connelly

Part of the consequences of seeing The Dark Knight three times in theaters was having to see this awful trailer three times. Awful Reeves looks like his typical self, and let me remind you that this is another eco-thriller about the dangers of abusing the earth. I'm all for being green, but not for overstating the case and hoping that aliens come to warn us of our doom, especially if the aliens say stupid shit like, "If the earth dies, you die, if you die, the earth survives."

The Spirit (Releases December 25th)

Written and directed by Frank Miller and starring Gabriel Macht, Scarlett Johansson, Samuel L. Jackson, Eva Mendes, and Jaime King

This is based on Will Eisner's classic comic series from the 40s and 50s, which should be somewhat exciting. But based on the trailer alone, wow. I half expected to find out that it was just a joke trailer, with a "Gotcha!" at the end and a link to the real one. I don't even know what else to say.

A great looking poster for an awful looking movie called The Spirit.

There are a lot more movies than that coming out this fall, I'm sure. Leave a note in the comments if you think I missed something substantial, or if you (gasp) disagree with any of my expert assessments.

The NFL News Police Blotter

2008-07-15T14:07:00.003-04:00

Mr. Goodell, your zero-tolerance policy isn't working. Maybe you just need to be tougher, and meaner, and curl your lip a little more?

My New Babies

2008-07-03T11:05:00.002-04:00

I'm officially gone down the road of Mac Love.

Behold...

In Honor of One of the Greatest Comedians I Wasn't Allowed to Listen To

2008-06-25T10:00:00.002-04:00

Enjoy.

Obama Wins, Sort Of

2008-06-03T23:58:00.002-04:00

This CNN article outlines what's happened so far tonight between the two embattled candidates.

I know it's not exactly going out on a limb, but I predict that Obama will ask Jim Webb to be his running mate. The two would make a nearly unstoppable ticket, in my opinion, and I'd be surprised if he didn't at least offer it to him.

Obama Strategists Are Smart

2008-05-31T11:42:00.003-04:00

Whether you like him or not, this email I received from Obama's campaign is genius. These are the kinds of things that have made him so competitive so far.

From: Steve Hildebrand
To: Jason Rhodes
Date: Sat, May 31, 2008 at 10:19 AM
Subject: "Democrats Win Landslide Victory"?

Jason --

You'll like this.

This morning someone forwarded me an email sent by the arm of the Republican Party that raises money for their Senate candidates.

The subject of the message was "Democrats Win Landslide Victory," and the writer, Republican former Senator Bill Frist, admits: "I have a real fear of waking up to this headline after the elections this fall."

He goes on to explain fears among Washington power brokers about Barack Obama's grassroots support and voter registration efforts.

He's right to be worried -- we're bringing new people into the process, and Obama supporters are organizing in communities across the country like never before.

But it can't happen without your support. Frist was raising money ahead of tonight's financial reporting deadline -- the same deadline we face.

This is the last opportunity to have your donation counted for May, and the last chance to have a meaningful impact on the final three primary contests.

Make your donation of $25 count right now:

https://donate.barackobama.com/maydeadline

Here's a little bit more from Frist's email:
From: Senator Bill Frist, M.D.
Date: Thu, May 29, 2008 at 3:59 PM
Subject: "Democrats Win Landslide Victory"

Dear Republican Supporter,

I have a real fear of waking up to this headline after the elections this fall. [...]

In key states, news accounts indicate Democrats are outpacing Republicans registering voters. We also know Barack Obama's campaign is utilizing the Internet to raise record amounts of money to support his campaign and Democrats nationally ... all in the hope that new voters and record resources will produce a Democrat landslide victory this fall.

There's so much at risk, and conservatives I talk with from all across the country are feeling the rumblings of "what could be." [...]

[...] I ask for your immediate help in supporting Republican candidates running for U.S. Senate by making a contribution of $10, $25, $50 or even $100 to the NRSC. [...]

What's amazing about this message referencing Barack Obama is that it's not from the McCain campaign. It's not even about the presidential race.

It's about the forces of the status quo, who don't want to change the way Washington works, worried about the prospect of ordinary people taking their rightful place in a political process that is too often dominated by lobbyists and special interests.

They've seen the writing on the wall, and they know that when Barack is the nominee, we're going to continue building a movement for change to elect Barack Obama and bring about change from the bottom up at every level of office.

There are only a few hours left before tonight's reporting deadline, so please give whatever you can now:

https://donate.barackobama.com/maydeadline

Thank you,

Steve

Steve Hildebrand
Deputy Campaign Manager
Obama for America

Firefox 3 Download Day

2008-05-29T12:59:00.005-04:00

Mozilla is releasing Firefox 3 soon (no date announced yet) and they're trying to set a world record for most downloads in a day. (HT: WaSP)

If you already use Firefox, click the banner above and "pledge" to download on Download Day -- you'll get an email reminder in case you don't hear about the release date when it's announced. If you use Camino, Safari, Opera, etc. as your browser, download Firefox 3 anyway, just because you care. If you use IE, well, you make me sad. Download Firefox 2 right now. (If you happen to use IE 6 or below, you make Baby Jesus cry.)

Pete Rollins Answers

2008-05-28T11:12:00.003-04:00

Pete blogged about people's tendency to stay in churches even when they don't agree with how they are being run. It was a challenging post, but I was confused by his definitive point. Is the only option for those who don't agree to leave the church altogether, until they find a church with which they can agree on everything? My implication is that such a church doesn't exist, so it isn't much of an option.

I asked Pete that question in the comments. He responded in a new post today.

I really enjoy a lot of what he's said, including in particular:

The wager is that, by stepping into the unknown and having the courage to start something that one does not really have any idea about, something truly emancipatory may take place.

...a choice not between two positive alternatives but rather between one linguistic system and a step into the unknown.

I am saying that not knowing what ought to be done is to already know what ought to be done. In other words, ‘I do not know what I should do and I must step out and do it’! This is not then some commitment to do ‘church’ better by either improving it or starting a new one. For this reconfiguring will still be taking place in the very waters that sustains it. It is not a saying ‘no’ to one known in favour of another known, rather it involves saying ‘no’ to one known in favour of the unknown.

Go read the rest of his post to fully dig into it!

Why Conversation Is Better Than Argument

2008-05-27T09:03:00.013-04:00

Adrenaline splashes the walls of your stomach, your blood pounds hard in the tips of your fingers and your face is flushed with color as you close an air-tight case.

It's the Arguer's Rush, and I looked for it in all my conversations, waiting for someone to step into the dance so I could push back. But lately I've been avoiding the dance entirely, and not because I agree with people more, either.

In fact, I'm much more likely to respond to someone's challenge with a nod of my head and something like, "Good point, I disagree, but good point." And to the expert arguer, that's a maddening response. She wants me to pick up my sword and swing. I might believe differently, but she wants me to prove it, usually so she can tear my proof apart. It's not surprising that over time I stopped falling for it.

I still love argument, but I'm being drawn more and more to conversation. And I think that conversation is different than argument (and better) because of a few of the assumptions that arguments make.

Argument assumes that there's only one right answer. Each side tries to prove that they're right and you're wrong. If both sides are partially right AND wrong, the argument is a waste of time. Conversation can include various ideas without the assumption that only one is right.

Argument assumes that the right answer is represented. Two arguers aren't going to consider that they're both wrong. Conversation can withstand the suggestion that none of the participants know the right answer.

Argument assumes that the better arguer is right. This is why good arguers love to argue, and why I'm less likely to respond to a request for examples and proof. Just because you can quickly dismiss them doesn't mean you're right. In conversation, the best arguers can be deflected by an off-topic suggestion, acknowledging a good point they made, or saying the magic words: "I don't know".

Argument assumes that everyone thinks they're right. When you enter into an argument with someone, you're telling everyone listening that you're 100% sure about what you're arguing. Conversation can allow people to suggest any idea, no matter how loosely held, to explore the breadth of the topic.

Of course, conversations can do all of the things above, and become arguments. But an argument is grounded in these assumptions while a conversation can fully exist without them. And that's my argument for why conversation is better than argument. Perhaps you'd like to have a conversation with me about it in the comments section below?

Terror Alert Level Red

2008-05-21T15:01:00.003-04:00

This rumor, no matter how unlikely, is the greatest threat to America that the world has ever seen.

Michael Bleecker Said It

2008-05-20T14:07:00.020-04:00

We don’t worship to raise money, attract crowds, heal human hearts, recruit workers, improve church morale, give talented musicians an opportunity to fulfill their calling, help marriages stay together, evangelize the lost among us, motivate people for service projects, etc. To the degree that we “do worship” for these reasons, to that degree it ceases to be worship.

~Michael Bleecker, of The Village Church in Highland Village, TX
(taken from his comment on my What Is Worship post)

More thoughts from me later.

Free Sitepoint Photoshop Book

2008-05-19T13:42:00.012-04:00

Um, it's only available for another twenty-some days, but it's a free eBook from Sitepoint. Even if you think you don't need it, download it. Free books are proof that God exists.

I Don't Understand Why We Need A Manifesto

2008-05-19T10:25:00.009-04:00

There's been a lot of blogging about the document, drawn up by a group of evangelicals, known as the Evangelical Manifesto. You can read the summary here, or the full length thing here, or go to its very own blog here.

They list three major mandates for Evangelicals:

Reaffirm our identity. Evangelicals are Christians who define themselves, their faith, and their lives according to the Good News of Jesus of Nazareth.

This isn't exactly revolutionary, is it? It even admits, later on, that "to define our faith and our life by the Good News of Jesus is [not] unique to us," which is something I'm glad to see added. But I think I'm confused about the point of this... point.

Reform our own behavior. Always reforming, if you will.

This is a really good principle to live by, especially when it comes to religion. All religions.

Rethink our place in public life.

I can't help but think that this might be better accomplished by less manifestos.

I don't really want to complain about or denounce the document. I'm actually quite thankful for a lot of the things said in it, especially in the way things were said in a lot of places. I'm just not sure I understand why we needed it.

Tony Jones Asks Good Questions

2008-05-19T09:52:00.005-04:00

I wasn't sure, originally, if I was interested in Tony Jones's book The New Christians when I first heard of it coming out. While wasting a few hours feed surfing and clicking through to other sites, I found an unedited video of Jones interviewing a guy who goes by the online name of "Pastorboy" -- an evangelical pastor who's been consistently vocal in his anti-emergent sentiment. I was so intrigued by the interview that I went out and bought the book that day (and really enjoyed it, too).

Now, on Jones's blog, he's posted a series of related webisodes, and the latest (#5) includes clips from the interview I saw. It's worth watching, but I've included one of my favorite segments below the video. Great questions to think about.

Pastorboy: The trouble that people from my worldview kinda really have with emergent is they don't understand it, they can't nail it down, they can't get it.... Where we have a problem is when there's kinda some squishy or untidy language that's being used. I think a lot of problem has to do with there's no real statement of faith.

Tony Jones: But the Bible doesn't have a statement of faith.

PB: The Bible is a statement of faith.

TJ: Okay, but why can't I just say then, that's my statement of faith? Why do I have to give you another one? Why isn't that one good enough?

PB: It is good enough. But there's parts of the statement of faith, like for example, who is Jesus?

TJ: Okay, I'd say, Jesus is who the Bible says Jesus is.

PB: Okay, but let's nail that down.

TJ: Why? That's my question! Why?

Wise Words For the Church From 37Signals

2008-05-14T10:28:00.003-04:00

Jason Fried is often asked how his company created the culture that they are widely known for. His answer is one of those unexpected (maybe we should start expecting them) sermons from the Secular World. You should read the whole extremely short post. An even shorter snippet is below.

“What do you recommend we do to set up an open, sharing company culture like yours?”
My answer: You don’t create a culture. Culture happens. It’s the by-product of consistent behavior.
...
Real cultures are built over time. They’re the result of action, reaction, and truth. They are nuanced, beautiful, and authentic.

What In The World Is Worship? (seriously, tell me)

2008-05-09T08:43:00.009-04:00

I've been leading worship for various groups and churches for about eight years. I enjoy the interaction I have with the people who are there worshiping with us, I enjoy the making of music especially with a good band behind me, and I've at times enjoyed the emotional response that seems to come from some intense encounters with God.

In fact, it was worship that brought my wife and I back to the church after a year-long sabbatical. Now leading for a small church plant in Baltimore, we're being faced with some decisions that require a lot of thought. And when I think a lot, I write.

The Background

Matt Redman banned music worship from his church for a month because his pastor was worried about it. Redman led his church out of that time with a new song he'd written called "The Heart of Worship", where he sings, "I'll bring you more than a song for a song in itself is not what you have required." And on they sang.

I've heard people express concern that consumerist society drives us to come to worship services looking for what they can bring us, rather than what we can bring to God. I've often reacted to these concerns by wondering what, in fact, we really can bring to God that he doesn't already have. But it's evident in almost any successful church you see that worship is driven entirely by what people want. There's often little difference between a rock concert and a worship service, besides maybe a lack of quality in the worship service that comes from an attempt to emulate the popular Nashville sound.

A friend named Ben in Minnesota leads worship at Solomon's Porch, a church trying to rethink church. To get away from the spell of Nashville emulation, Ben and his friends there decided they'd write all their own worship music, and let it come out of the community where they live. And rather than keeping the worship to a 20-minute set at the beginning of the service, they try to let each service use music wherever it's needed and natural, "recognizing that that's how we really function in life, listening to music in a variety of different ways and reasons" Ben explained.

Darren Hufford argues on The Ooze today that worship has become an emotional addiction for churchgoers. At one point he says, "New Testament worship is actually a "consummation" of a marriage relationship between the individual and God. In other words, it is not a corporate event, and for Heaven sakes we don't need a leader!" It got me thinking -- we really do think of worship as an individual me-and-God event that we sort of do in the midst of other people, strangely. But is it really an individual event, or should it be?

All of this is especially relevant to the situation we, as in my church, find ourselves in. Having just found a permanent location right in the heart of Baltimore city, we started having service last Sunday. And as you might expect in an urban set up, we have neighbors above and below our space. So even though our drummer bought extra special quiet sticks and we kept the electric guitar amp down as low as we could, we were still way too loud and received a complaint or two the next day.

And all of a sudden, all of these issues are presented to us on a platter -- what does worship look like, how necessary is music, what can we do to rethink worship in the context we're in, how can we coexist in tight quarters with our neighbors and respect their right to coexist there without being taken advantage of?

The feeling I get from the people I worship with is that they would like to keep the music and just make it softer, maybe lose the drums and electric instruments altogether but continue with the music worship we've all grown to love. I would be more interested in deconstructing worship and trying to see if there are other ways at getting at it that don't involve music at all, perhaps, or involve it in new or different ways. Talking to a new friend about it yesterday made me think, "Why don't I just go ahead and try that then?"

Which leads me to the next question that seems to have stumped a lot of people. Matt Redman sings "I'll bring you more than a song" but their worship is predominantly music. Solomon's Porch writes their own songs, but they're still doing music. And Hufford spends a lot of time talking about what worship shouldn't be, but doesn't recommend much in the way of what it should be. What does worship without music look like? (And don't say feeding orphans.)

When I think about what I'd like to do, I have trouble coming up with very much. My entire church life has consisted of music worship, as has most anyone's who grew up in the church in this generation. Leaving it behind for the sake of being different is a waste of energy and full of its own prides and nastiness, none of which I want. But when the situation presents itself so clearly, as it has in our circumstances, I want to step out but have trouble knowing where to step.

If you have ideas, I'd love to hear them.

New Churches As Social Networks

2008-05-05T14:03:00.018-04:00

Minnesota pastor, author, and blogger Doug Pagitt recently said,

I think that Christianity is fundamentally a people movement that we should understand in social networking theory, not a belief system that we distribute through institutional applications and franchising models.

It's an interesting idea--that Christianity should be understood as connected people, not as distributed beliefs. That who we are as a church is based around who we are as a group of people and how we connect to one another, and not focused primarily on the common beliefs we hold.

But wait, I hear the concerned masses cry out: people have to agree on a set of beliefs to be a Christian church. Make the set as small as you like, they demand, but you can't entirely remove "belief system" from what it means to understand Christianity. I think that's true.

But no social network can exist without some degree of commonality among its members. The Pomeranian Lovers' Facebook Group doesn't require proof that its members love Pomeranians. But what Pomeranian hater would want to join such a group? And what harm would it do to the goals, mission, thrust, and objectives of the group if he or she did?

These kind of questions are really about belief management styles, or so I'll call them. Social networks have a passive belief gate, letting in anyone who wishes to join, but trusting that a) people who don't share the beliefs and vision of the group will be unmotivated to join and b) that if people who don't share those beliefs do join, no harm is done. Group members will understand, for instance, that a Pomeranian Lovers' group will have events geared toward their love of Pomeranians, etc.

In contrast, traditional evangelical churches usually use an active/aggressive belief gate, allowing visiting members to observe the service for a time with no belief obligation before urging them to make a commitment (become a member), involving a signed agreement to the church's beliefs. And liberal churches often use no belief gate at all, unless the beliefs are more social justice oriented.

For years the churches on the right have aggressively pursued this sort of orthodoxy in their congregations, while churches on the left have adopted inclusivity-at-any-cost, to the point of pretending there are no beliefs that hold their group together.

What many of us are beginning to realize is that the people who don't want to be shoved into a box of pre-packaged beliefs are equally disinterested in joining a beliefless club.

Even senseless social networks (like Facebook's "10,000,000 People Challenge" whose sole purpose is to get ten million people to join) are drawing from people's desire to be part of something bigger than themselves while working toward a common goal, no matter how trivial.

The challenge for the new, dare I say emerging church is to understand how to become a network that clearly displays its common beliefs without making them a requirement for membership. There are folks who are doing this, and doing it well from what I can tell, and my inbred inclination is to contact those people and ask them for a bottle of their strategy to use in my own franchise of their successful church model.

But that's exactly how it doesn't work. This kind of network springs up from its surrounding environment. The more you talk to other people, the more inspired you become, in theory, to see how their general ideas (or sometimes their opposites) will play out in your own neighborhood context.

That's why the franchise model is less effective for this kind of understanding of church. The aggressive belief gate is meant to be portable, allowing churches to send out church plant franchises without too much worry that they'll misrepresent the beliefs of the larger church. But when you slide a shiny membership application in front of many new church-goers, they look at many of the questions and scratch their heads.

"Well, I'm sure I don't agree on everything about God with everyone who goes here. But I'm here because I want to continue to explore all those things with you all. Is that enough?"

Part of being a people's church is knowing how we'll answer that question.