U-235

It's been in our midst for almost 3 days now (longer if you steal music off the internet), but the rave reviews are pouring in. The title of this post, in fact, is how USA Today described U2 now that Bomb is circulating. I don't need the reviewers to tell me this is truly a renewal for the band, I can hear it. I don't need their words to tell me how important this album of songs is, I can feel it. What's nice, though, is that because it is an amazing album, and the reviewers have come out in force to lionize it, Bomb will be heard and received by many more than otherwise. I mean, one of my favorite U2 albums is one of their least popular (ironically named Pop). I don't need popular appeal to validate my personal opinion, but this time they both seem to be running parallel.

I will not review the album; there's no need and I'm no authority on these things. However, as I've listened to it on constant repeat for the past couple of days, I've realized something I believe to be a truth: this is inspiration. I don't mean in some sappy, romantic notion. I mean in the truest theological sense. In the same way that the writers of Scripture throughout history were imbued with prophetic visions and stories to be told, this album (and most of U2's corpus) is inspired. God has breathed into them and they have opened themselves to write down what they've seen and heard. Don't give me any of that 2 Timothy 3:16 business. First of all, it should be clear that at the time of that writing, Paul could only have been referring to the Hebrew Scriptures as being "inspired." Second, in saying "all scripture" is inspired (God-breathed) he doesn't say "only scripture." This sort of interpretation is what's gotten us into this Biblio-idolatry mess to begin with. No, just as my evangelical friends "believe" those 66 books (and only those books) to be inspired, I can believe that so much that's been written since is also inspired. God continues to speak and create. Fortunately, some are not so concerned about "heresy" that they can open their hearts to his still, small voice, and open their hands to write it down.

Because it is inspired, it can be inspirational. If it were not God-breathed, we could find little of any worth or purpose beyond mere entertainment. However, once beyond the opening track, Bomb is rarely entertaining in the truest sense of the word. Never does the mind disengage from the powerful, prophetic, and soaring visions and messages on this disc. And that's a good thing. I'm sure the members of U2 want to be entertaining, but more importantly, it's clear from their published work that they wish to be engaging, annoying, frustrating, and revolutionary.

Unfortunately, like the Bible, many will engage it and miss the meaning that Bono seemed to have behind many of the tracks. Of course, assuming any kind of meaning is also interpretation on my part, and cannot be avoided. However, take the track "Yahweh" as an example. Next thing you know, this will be sung in some mega-seeker-sensitive-church out there. They will sing the line "Take these hands, don't make a fist..." and then walk out without even reconsidering their attitude toward the unjust violence perpetrated by their own country: both active (Iraq) and passive (Africa, India, the Philippines) violence. They will continue to be unchanged by the eternal message taught by the One they call Savior. The message so clearly illuminated throughout the entire body of U2's work.

I remain skeptical, but so much of the optimism on Bomb is infectious. This is a church I can worship with. The diaspora of U2 fans who've found something in common that goes against the flow of culture, not with it, as Christianity was meant to be. Something transcendent.

A Prayer pour Notre Temps

From one of America's foremost Christian ethicists:

Dear Lord, at our feet lie dead Iraqis, dead Kuwaitis, dead Kurds, dead Corats, dead Slavs, dead Salvadorans, dead Americans, dead Palestinians, dead Israelis, dead Jews, dead children, dead Christians--dead, dead, dead. We ask your mercy on these war-dead sisters and brothers. We ask for the same mercy for ourselves, for our failure to be your peace, to be the end of war. Save us from the powers that capture our imagnations so that we think our only alternative is war. We know we cannot will our way to peace, for when we try, we end up fighting wars for peace. So compel us with your love that we might be your peace, thus bringing life to this deadly world. Amen.

From Prayers Plainly Spoken by Stanley Hauerwas

Pravda means "Truth"

They seem to get it in Russia. How did we miss it here?

Supporting Evidence

Previously, I stated that I no longer considered myself an evangelical. This man does, and I present his views as the tip of a very large (and in his case, gluttonous) iceburg of reasons why I cannot associate the teachings of Christ with the likes of him. I know that "evangelicalism" is a large -ism with a spectrum of views and beliefs. However, at the core, most evans have the same views. Consider how the election was won: "moral" values. Apparently, Jesus really was white, wealthy, and sub-urban.

Although he may look too fat to be able to get his foot above his breasts, every time Jerry Falwell opens his mouth the foot goes right in. "In the name of Jesus!" I'm sure I need not state why his words and ideas are such an affront to the Gospel.

Ungracious? Sure, but who cares? I'm forgiven!

Election Reflections: A Victory

I don't feel a sense of defeat today; at least about the election results. Rather, I feel truly fortunate and thankful to have been able to vote. My vote was not necessarily for anyone as much as it was a matter of principle. As such, my vote was a success. However, I do feel a sense of loss, of disconnect, of abandonment, and alienation, from the community in which I was formed and raised. Cut adrift. I blame no one, I was not cut adrift, I have cut myself. I cannot continue to be identified with a false way, a counterfeit gospel.

It is therefore official: I can no longer consider myself an "evangelical" in the current sense of the word. I find I most closely identify with the concept of Dave Tomlinson in his book The Post-Evangelical. It's strange leaving because fundamentalism and evangelicalism were home, they were secure. They always had answers, that was their real strength, that's what's so attractive about them. It's a wild and unpredictable world out there. You never know what's going to come your way. Guess I'll just have to trust God. As a recovering evangelical that will take some practice.

But, as I leave, I wish to look back, to reach back with compassion on those who still find themselves in the pre-critical phases (the "oral" phase if you will) of fundamentalism. I continue to be concerned about those who don't vote out of thoughtful, gospel-formed principle. I continue to be disturbed (deeply) by Christians who can cast a vote for a "known commodity" in the form of an incumbent who has clearly violated the direct teachings of their savior. It is impossible for me to believe that Jesus would have condoned any of the violence perpetrated against the people of Iraq. If he would have, then he is simply not a consistent witness to himself and is therefore not worthy of devotion.

I continue to wonder why Christians say they feel like they "have" to vote for a Republican regardless of their view on the war because only the Republicans are "pro-life." I wonder why no one has noticed that the rate of abortions has gone up dramatically during the past 4 years after dropping drastically during the Clinton administration. Probably not wise for the White House to mention that during the election season.

I continue to be disturbed about how evangelical Christians can be so greedy as to vote for someone whose tax cuts don't even benefit them (unless, that is, if they happen to be in the top 10% or so of the nation's wealthiest people). How can they really think that it's right for them to vote for policies that allow them to hoard money to the detriment of the humans that live just down the street? Do they really believe in a Jesus that would have lived in relative luxury while even one person in the same town had to go without food, health care, clothing, and basic provisions? Again, if he would have, then he is simply not worthy of devotion.

But evangelicals have come out in droves this election to state that they believe their "Messiah" would have wanted it this way.

So, I finish with a thoughtful passage from John Howard Yoder, in "The Way of Peace," from He Came Preaching Peace.

Christians whose loyalty to the Prince of Peace puts them out of step with today's nationalistic world, because they are willing to love their nation's friends but not to hate their nation's enemies, are not unrealistic dreamers who think that by their objections they will end all wars. On the contrary, it is the soldiers who think they can put an end to wars by preparing for just one more.

Christians love their enemies because God does so, and commands his followers to do so. That is the only reason, and that is enough.

No one created in God's image and for whom Christ died can be for me an enemy, whose life I am willing to threaten or to take, unless I am more devoted to something else - to a political theory, to a nation, to the defense of certain privileges, or to my own personal welfare - than I am to God's cause: his loving invasion of this world in his prophets, his Son, and his church.

Quote du jour 2

"Either this is not the gospel, or we are not Christians."

-- Thomas Linacre (1460-1524), upon reading the gospels late in life for the first time.