I just love this band. Their new cd (it’s all crazy ! it’s all false ! it’s all a dream ! it’s alright) comes out at the end of May, but it got leaked early and is all over the internet, including on youtube. It's definitely a lot different from their style on previous albums, and could even be described as 'hippie', as my friend Ryan called it in disappointment! Several of the songs are from the perspectives of animals, insects, or vegetables, which truthfully isn't TOO big of a departure for mewithoutYou anyway... At the same time, despite the apparent disconnect from "reality", the songs ask such insightful questions that I can't help asking myself "Why have I never thought of that before?" You have to listen to this amazing song/allegory/parable, called 'The King Beetle on the Coconut Estate'! Yep, talking insects and fruits...
view lyrics in pop-up window
Leave your thoughts in the comment section. I'd like to hear what you think the song is trying to convey and what points you think the band is trying to make.
And also check out this pretty cool interview with Aaron, the vocalist and writer of the band.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
questions from "The Orthodox Heretic"
Here are some of the questions that I draw from the story of "The Orthodox Heretic".
The first point the town leaders bring up is that they need to return the man to the government he escaped from so that the rest of the town is not endangered. They know that this man will be punished by the authorities, but they believe that it has to be done or the entire town will suffer. In their view, the good of many outweighs the good of one. The caretaker, however, is more concerned with the needs of this man he has rescued. His view is not a selfish one of "my good is higher than the good of all", but is completely unselfish in that he is willing to suffer to protect this criminal. He believes that as a community, the needs of the most vulnerable should be the concern of the entire town, and that nobody in the town is okay if even one member is not okay.
"The good of the many outweighs the good of the few" is a very dominant philosophy in the US, especially when it comes to the systems our country is built on. But these assumptions are currently under heavy discussion, from government to business to military to foreign aid. How does the circumstance of the few affect the many? What are alternative understandings of the relationship between the many and the few? As Christians, how do we find our position impacted by the Bible, both specific instances but also the larger story arcs of Scripture?
Another question that I find in this parable has to do with "truth" and "love". The town leaders seem to have political truth, Scriptural truth, and even God's audible voice on their side, but the caretaker appears to be completely motivated by love for this stranger, even at the cost of his own life. Now I'm not trying to create an artificial division between truth and love, but I can sure think of times where I've been stuck in a position similar to this. Is it better to have truth or love? Is there ever a time they can or should put placed "against" each other? Is it possible that both positions in this story (and in some of our daily stories) are "right"?
Finally, I think it asks the question of how to respond to people with completely different world views, especially when those world views can be backed up with the Bible. I am increasingly aware that anybody can make the Bible say anything they want, and I'm sure most of us have seen plenty of evidence for that too. Many people leave behind Scripture at this point, because they think it doesn't have anything solid or true to say and can too easily be abused or manipulated, or they cling to one interpretation of Scripture at the exclusion of any differing understanding. Take a look at the 20th century phenomenon known as "liberalism vs. fundamentalism" to prove my point. Both of these ideologies tend to be reactionary, angry, and violent (not physically (at least in the USA), but emotionally and verbally). I don't think either approach is sufficient or helpful for moving forward, and this parable forces us to address this roadblock head on.
The parable gives value to, and even supports, BOTH viewpoints, while leaving us with the awkward feeling that both parties are simultaneously right AND wrong. We can see the reason behind why each group acts the way they do, while not being completely satisfied with either group's choices. And this dis-satisfaction leaves us humble, looking for another way, open to new ideas from God, because we realize that even with the best theology and best actions, we desperately need God's help to understand and obey him.
The first point the town leaders bring up is that they need to return the man to the government he escaped from so that the rest of the town is not endangered. They know that this man will be punished by the authorities, but they believe that it has to be done or the entire town will suffer. In their view, the good of many outweighs the good of one. The caretaker, however, is more concerned with the needs of this man he has rescued. His view is not a selfish one of "my good is higher than the good of all", but is completely unselfish in that he is willing to suffer to protect this criminal. He believes that as a community, the needs of the most vulnerable should be the concern of the entire town, and that nobody in the town is okay if even one member is not okay.
"The good of the many outweighs the good of the few" is a very dominant philosophy in the US, especially when it comes to the systems our country is built on. But these assumptions are currently under heavy discussion, from government to business to military to foreign aid. How does the circumstance of the few affect the many? What are alternative understandings of the relationship between the many and the few? As Christians, how do we find our position impacted by the Bible, both specific instances but also the larger story arcs of Scripture?
Another question that I find in this parable has to do with "truth" and "love". The town leaders seem to have political truth, Scriptural truth, and even God's audible voice on their side, but the caretaker appears to be completely motivated by love for this stranger, even at the cost of his own life. Now I'm not trying to create an artificial division between truth and love, but I can sure think of times where I've been stuck in a position similar to this. Is it better to have truth or love? Is there ever a time they can or should put placed "against" each other? Is it possible that both positions in this story (and in some of our daily stories) are "right"?
Finally, I think it asks the question of how to respond to people with completely different world views, especially when those world views can be backed up with the Bible. I am increasingly aware that anybody can make the Bible say anything they want, and I'm sure most of us have seen plenty of evidence for that too. Many people leave behind Scripture at this point, because they think it doesn't have anything solid or true to say and can too easily be abused or manipulated, or they cling to one interpretation of Scripture at the exclusion of any differing understanding. Take a look at the 20th century phenomenon known as "liberalism vs. fundamentalism" to prove my point. Both of these ideologies tend to be reactionary, angry, and violent (not physically (at least in the USA), but emotionally and verbally). I don't think either approach is sufficient or helpful for moving forward, and this parable forces us to address this roadblock head on.
The parable gives value to, and even supports, BOTH viewpoints, while leaving us with the awkward feeling that both parties are simultaneously right AND wrong. We can see the reason behind why each group acts the way they do, while not being completely satisfied with either group's choices. And this dis-satisfaction leaves us humble, looking for another way, open to new ideas from God, because we realize that even with the best theology and best actions, we desperately need God's help to understand and obey him.
some thoughts about "The Orthodox Heretic"
A couple weeks ago I posted the video clip of a parable from Peter Rollins new book "The Orthodox Heretic". One of my friends, Matt, commented on the post and asked me to post some of my thoughts about the story. I didn't want to right away, for a few reasons. I didn't really know what I thought about it. That's kind of why I posted it.
I think the intention of the parable is not to declare some truth about God or people or religion, but to force us to think about something we otherwise probably wouldn't think about (or maybe even ignore because we don't WANT to think about it). I think the temptation is to dissect the story and try to place it into a category that gives us some form of stand-alone truth, or make it fit the mold we expect it to fit. But that's not what the story is about, and if we do that, then the story loses it's power.
I've listened to it a few times and I'm never comfortable with it. It doesn't resolve nicely. It doesn't offer a clear division between the "good guys" and the "bad guys". It doesn't try to give simple answers to complex questions. Instead, it asks questions that are difficult and frustrating. But at the same time, they are questions that align pretty closely with paradoxes I keep running into in my own walk with God.
Here's a couple observations:
He doesn't set the town leaders/religious people against the care-taker. Both disagree completely on how to handle the situation, but they treat each other with respect, civility, and love throughout. Both groups are shown to be people who honor God and take obedience very seriously (yes, even in the very last scene).
Notice that the "criminal" is charged with being critical of both the state and the church, and yet a God-follower takes him in and cares for him.
Peter has said in other places that the main question behind this parable (and his entire book) is (and I'm paraphrasing) "What do you do when in order to obey God, you have to disobey God? What do you do when in order to keep your beliefs, you have to betray your beliefs? What do you do when in order to remain "orthodox", you have to take a "heretical" position?"
The idea is that Christianity is constantly at odds with itself, because it is an institution that is against all institution and a religion that is against all religion. That Christianity draws a circle around who is in and who is out, and then immediately demands it's followers to leave the inside and go to the ones who are out, so in a sense those who remain "in" the safety of the circle become the ones who are now "out". It is full of what seems to be contradictions, and we Christians have caused immense amounts of pain and confusion because we try to ignore the contradictions and build a nice safe theology that tries to make everything okay. Now that in and of itself is worthy of a whole series of blog posts, but I don't want to get side tracked by spending any more time on that now.
I've got some of my own questions that were raised from this parable, and I'll post them next time in order to make this shorter and (hopefully) slightly more readable. The good news is that I've already written it all, so I'm not going to bail on you half way through like I did with the Great Emergence series...
I think the intention of the parable is not to declare some truth about God or people or religion, but to force us to think about something we otherwise probably wouldn't think about (or maybe even ignore because we don't WANT to think about it). I think the temptation is to dissect the story and try to place it into a category that gives us some form of stand-alone truth, or make it fit the mold we expect it to fit. But that's not what the story is about, and if we do that, then the story loses it's power.
I've listened to it a few times and I'm never comfortable with it. It doesn't resolve nicely. It doesn't offer a clear division between the "good guys" and the "bad guys". It doesn't try to give simple answers to complex questions. Instead, it asks questions that are difficult and frustrating. But at the same time, they are questions that align pretty closely with paradoxes I keep running into in my own walk with God.
Here's a couple observations:
He doesn't set the town leaders/religious people against the care-taker. Both disagree completely on how to handle the situation, but they treat each other with respect, civility, and love throughout. Both groups are shown to be people who honor God and take obedience very seriously (yes, even in the very last scene).
Notice that the "criminal" is charged with being critical of both the state and the church, and yet a God-follower takes him in and cares for him.
Peter has said in other places that the main question behind this parable (and his entire book) is (and I'm paraphrasing) "What do you do when in order to obey God, you have to disobey God? What do you do when in order to keep your beliefs, you have to betray your beliefs? What do you do when in order to remain "orthodox", you have to take a "heretical" position?"
The idea is that Christianity is constantly at odds with itself, because it is an institution that is against all institution and a religion that is against all religion. That Christianity draws a circle around who is in and who is out, and then immediately demands it's followers to leave the inside and go to the ones who are out, so in a sense those who remain "in" the safety of the circle become the ones who are now "out". It is full of what seems to be contradictions, and we Christians have caused immense amounts of pain and confusion because we try to ignore the contradictions and build a nice safe theology that tries to make everything okay. Now that in and of itself is worthy of a whole series of blog posts, but I don't want to get side tracked by spending any more time on that now.
I've got some of my own questions that were raised from this parable, and I'll post them next time in order to make this shorter and (hopefully) slightly more readable. The good news is that I've already written it all, so I'm not going to bail on you half way through like I did with the Great Emergence series...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)