Friday, May 19, 2017

Chris Cornell, Gospel, and Grunge

Guest post by Grant Eckhart

Eddie Vedder is the last iconic vocalist of the grunge era still alive now that Chris Cornell is dead. Grunge music was the blood of Gex X. Both were infused with iconoclasm, institutions crumbling around them, few social safety nets which today are commonplace. And the ones we had were attached with latchkeys. We sometimes tried to hold it all together but even our otherwise reliable trapperkeepers failed us. Unlike the boomers who were used to winning and measuring success, Gen X mucked in the debris of the 1950's American Dream. Death was never tolerable but expected.

Now that the mainline church in the west is soon primarily to be led by Gen X leaders Death (of the institution) will not be prevented.

Vedder was always a bit of an anomaly in the grunge scene, not entirely claimed by his peers, commercially successful attuned more to the stadium consumer ear. His ongoing career has been a shift to a more boutique targeted audience enabling him to more or less peaceably endure.

Some Vedder Pastors will give up on stadium ambitions and be freed to minister in peace to a more modest sized community. Still accepting the umbilical cord to the institution but yielding reluctantly. The juice is in the art not the institution. Once you sign with a denominational label you are rightfully required to steward that institution. You choose a paycheck you choose to bolster the institution. This is not a bad choice, Only an ironic one for Gen X leaders. We are still commercial enough to stack bricks for something for which we have little affinity. Our reluctance shows.

The institution as we know it won't survive Gen X leadership. We are too comfortable with its demise.

If we are not Vedder we may be a Dave Grohl, changing instruments and bands. How many Gen X pastors want a different scene but don't change because this is what we're good at, get paid to do and aren't marketable with any other skill. Some are able to use their skill and influence to invent a new conversation in the church, this is useful and a potential lifeline to continued institutional subsistence and important work. But it is what it is. The same thing but different.

Increasingly our offspring don't go to a "church" because we were indifferent...not to the art of the gospel but to its exterior. Only the Vedder and Grohl like parent's offspring have any interest and even that is (d)evolving.

The Cobain, Staley, Weiland, Cornell

pastors loudly proclaim-on standing amidst the lone pulpit in the wasteland while the label and stadium fall down around them. And we don't really care. To borrow a lyric: "we're looking California, but feelin Minnesota" (except in the Lutheran Church we look Minnesotan too). The ties are not through brand loyalty but through friendships forged in the fire of shared history. This is the only reason the Christendom structures are relevant to us.

Plus where were the women? The non-whites in the grunge movement and the western church? Sure there was Courtney Love, but unsurprisingly her fame was subsumed within the iconic stature of her husband. Important artists like Sinead O'Conner were a force to be reckoned with, but ultimately even her crisp voice was shouted down by the man.

Allanis Morrisette, Bjork and others were fighting in an industry where only 10% were women leaders and where you had to be more accessible than your male competitors to truly sell. In the church the track record is similarly horrible and the women at best were grandstanded and at worst beaten down.

But the music, the art, the deep Gospel hook still tug at us. We're more or less OK banging our heads against the wall as long as we are banging our heads. It was necessary and it paid. Pain is part of it, even if it's chosen-into privileged pain. Except when we're done there will be nothing left, but the music and the rubble.

A fair critique remains of grunge music, that it was too self involved often reacting out of boredom with the bland, seeking indulgent escapism. However, because it's underpinnings were a contrast to the glam rock of the 80's it was more authentic. Authenticity wrapped in cynicism that is. Cynicism towards the institution enshrined by the lyric "the kinder gentler machine gun hand" sung by The Godfather of grunge himself, Neil Young, simultaneously exposed our Gen X crutch and our strength. The same cynicism that shielded us from caring too much about the crumbling structures around us also incubated in us a fair amount of ease with change. If change is really about the fear of loss, Gen X flew the middle finger of I don't give a f***. Other than Vedder (pictured above) all of our icons are dead. Death is a friend. It's not to be feared.

If the Gen X leadership crutch is to throw our hands up and almost revel in a warm blanket of incompetency and finger pointing, then our leadership strength is that when faced with with problems that require great change at great cost we naturally gather a few friends and unflinchingly invent a new genre.

Grunge music was birthed though networks of friends from a few Seattle neighborhoods. It was less about winning and more about collaboration with people you liked. Temple of the Dog is a great example of this. Members of several top selling grunge bands fluidly forming a new band while maintaining the former. Grunge artists by and large were also able to evolve after record sales went south (Cornell video singing I will always love you). The stadiums became fewer and farther between but they kept pressing into new territory.


With Gen X leading the church there will be waste. Money we will be given away to new kinds of church communities that will not have a good financial return on investment for the denomination. These communities will be more boutique and less Arena. More missional communities and house churches and less mega-anything. More networks which provide access to resources not disconnected from the denomination (again too commercial for that) but intimately tied to it as it disintegrates. It will be friends with a shared history from the neighborhood more comfortable in a garage than in a big room with beige trimmings. But it will be real, it will care about those outside the mainstream, it will be experimental and it will prepare the way for those pesky millennials to do something spectacular with it.

#whitecismaleperspective #whitewesternchurch #grungerock #ripchriscornell #unresearchedopinion


Thursday, May 18, 2017

On Fidget Spinners

There is, in my experience, a perpetual quest during childhood to discover things with which one can mess. Some of these are found objects. Others were marketed to children.  An exhaustive list would be impossible, but items I've played dexterity games with over my lifetime include:

Yard sticks
Pencils
Rubber bands
Paper
Paperclips
Bottles
Sticks
Paper plates
Cards
Coins

So it came as something of a surprise to me that cultural critics have been especially harsh on the most recent fad, the fidget spinner (for the origin story, read here). My kids are into it right now, just like they were into bottle flipping a few months ago. These crazes go through the schools, passing like memes or viruses. 

Here's the most hilarious quote:
A top is a toy requiring collaboration with the material world. It requires a substrate on which to spin, be it the hard earth of ancient Iraq or the molded-plastic IKEA table in a modern flat. As a toy, the top grounds physics, like a lightning rod grounds electricity. And in this collaboration, the material world always wins. Eventually, the top falls, succumbing to gravity, laying prone on the dirt… Not so, the fidget spinner. It is a toy for the hand alone—for the individual. Ours is not an era characterized by collaboration between humans and earth—or Earth, for that matter. Whether through libertarian self-reliance or autarchic writ, human effort is first seen as individual effort—especially in the West. Bootstraps-thinking pervades the upper echelons of contemporary American life, from Silicon Valley to the White House. … The fidget spinner quietly attests that the solitary, individual body who spins it is sufficient to hold a universe. That’s not a counterpoint to the ideology of the smartphone, but an affirmation of that device’s worldview. What is real, and good, and interesting is what can be contained and manipulated in the hand, directly.
Perhaps Ian has forgotten his childhood altogether, but I haven't. And we played with lots of toys you manipulated without allowing them to touch the ground. Like the Whee-lo.

Bogost fails to notice that children trade toys, and share them, toss them around, discuss them. In this way the fidget spinner is quite the opposite of an individualistic toy. It's popular because kids talk about it with each other, and share them. [they also drop them, frequently, so they do in fact touch the earth.]

If nothing else, Bogost's theorizing here gives cultural criticism a bad name. It's embarrassing. If anything, the self-congratulatory level of this rhetoric is solitary, so sufficient in the universe it doesn't even need to take account of the actual fidget spinner and the playful children who play with them.

Bogost also gets the economics of the fidget spinner wrong. He blames them as an example of the get-rich culture of late capitalism, but oddly enough, the fidget spinner is that phenomenon that is truly distributed, no one brand, no special inventor. Everybody is making them. Everybody is playing with them. You can even 3-D print them yourself.'

Finally, Bogost seems completely insensitive to the needs of those with disabilities. Denigrating fidget toys will likely lead to their banning, and banning fidget toys actively harms kids with disabilities.


Certain dexterity toys have been especially memorable in my own life, and I recommend instead of reading much criticism about them, you might just want to play with them a bit. Favorites include the Whee-lo (already mentioned), the Kendama (see below), and the Yo-Yo. There are dozens more, both retro and modern. All of them basically do the same thing: they allow you to practice dexterity skills within certain constraints.
The Whee-lo -or- Magnet Space Wheel
Kendama

In general, I agree with Nathan Robinson, who writes in defense of liking things. Sometimes it's just fun to like things. It's okay to just play, and inevitably in a culture that communicates in large groups (as children on the playground do), fads will develop.

This week it will be fidget spinners. Next week they'll be back to Pokemon. Sometimes, the adults will get in on the game. For my money, just writing this blog post has me inspired to get back into juggling fire, or playing with my diablo.

A Victorian mother and child playing with a diablo



Tuesday, May 16, 2017

On the apprehending of bodies

I have this basic thesis: bodies are the "matter" of theology for the 21st century.

Our current practices around deportation are increasing the disappearance of brown bodies.

Our most humane urban communities are recognizing the necessity of declaring sanctuary for bodies.

Tragically, white men think they can get together in back rooms while wearing ties and make decisions about women's bodies.

States still think it's a good idea to execute bodies in spite of the body of evidence proving the barbarity and injustice of the practice.

Racial justice organizers are recognizing the necessity of expanding the meaning of sanctuary to cover not just undocumented bodies. Sanctuary encompasses multitudes.



You know, I'm a pastor who has studied incarnational theology, preached on the body of Christ, holds to the doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I believe in embodiment.

But I don't think I've considered the body as a locus of Christian theology, perhaps the locus for Christian theology, until I started hanging out with faith communities that radically emphasized it.

Turning points in my theological worldview have included the crossFerguson, climate change, and Jesus' sexuality.

I think of the trans community and its expansion of our sense of gender identity. I'm mindful of #blacklivesmatter and their commitment to the value of black and brown bodies.

All of this and more represents an awakening. So I am not surprised that a recent feature article in The Christian Century proposed that the next reformation would be a reformation of interpretation not of a text, but of bodies, asking a simple question: Who decides what my body means?



It's no surprise many Christians resist a reformation in our reading of bodies. Although they don't know it, the majority Christian community is now itself in the position the Roman curia was in during the Reformation. They're the establishment. They want the authority. Yet here comes the voice from Wittenberg, announcing a great insight, "You can translate the body and read it for yourself."

The great insight in our day is that we do not need to wait for some authority somewhere to interpret our body for us. The body is a gift, and our receipt of it is the freedom to interpret it. This parallels the Reformation insight concerning Scripture, which translated the biblical text into the vernacular and made the preacher and community the authority for interpretation of it.

So too today base communities are claiming their freedom to interpret their own bodies, to name them, to identify the very language they will use to name the body.

This new reformation isn't over. It's just begun. But it is revolutionary. In the meantime, those in authority are scrambling to regain control of the very thing they've enjoyed for so long: the control of other bodies. The authorities think they can just grab other people's bodies for their own purposes.

The new reformation declares: God loves free bodies. You don't get to possess other bodies, or make money off your neighbor's body. Your neighbor's body is your responsibility to protect and love, not claim.

Friday, May 05, 2017

The end of religious freedom #occupytheswamp

In real terms, how the Presidential Executive Order on Free Speech and Religious Liberty will work.

Let's say, for example, that a wealthy supporter of Steve Womack realizes that Clint Schnekloth, pastor of Good Shepherd Lutheran Church in Womack's district, has a relatively influential media presence and a moderate-sized congregation of active community leaders and voters.

So this wealthy supporter quietly approaches the pastor for a coffee.

Donor: "Pastor, I'd be willing to make a sizable donation to your church if you would moderate your public voice opposing Womack on some issues. Heck, if you'd be willing to voice support for Womack in his re-election bid from the pulpit, I'd even double my contribution."

Pastor: "Well, you know for ethical and legal reasons I've typically only advocated from the pulpit on policy issues. That would be a big change. How big of a donation are we talking about?"

Donor: "I don't know. Ten thousand dollars?"

Pastor: "Well, I mean, if you REALLY want me to support Womack, perhaps we should be talking closer to $50,000. That would help us launch a new worship location. I know the new EO on religious freedom reifies the current practices around tax-exemptions, but it would still be a big shift for us."

Donor: "How vocal would you be willing to be in your support of Womack?"

Pastor: "Let me pray about it."

Donor: [Okay, that was a good start. Now let's go schedule some meetings with the mega-church pastors.]

This is a hypothetical conversation, obviously, but it does offer a scenario that illustrates precisely how religious freedom is compromised by freeing up political speech (especially in support of candidates) in tax-exempt organizations, rather than protected by it.

Donors would LOVE the opportunity to make tax-exempt contributions to political campaigns, and what better way than through the churches? In fact, it sounds like a win-win-win. Those with money get to support a candidate for public office; the church is strengthened financially in its ministry of care in the community; clergy gain greater latitude in what they can say from the pulpit.

However, this is purchased freedom. It's liberty occupied by cold hard cash. If currency is free speech, then certainly this is a win for free speech.

Once big donors know they can influence politics through tax-exempt organizations with no fear of penalty, they WILL do so, and the only thing maintaining the integrity of proclamation in such a situation will be the internal integrity of the pastor approached with such an offer, or the boards that hire them.

Certainly, at this point the EO is more bark than bite. But it's a bark that will be heard. It signals even more clearly than heretofore that not only does the state lack the will to prosecute religious violation of tax-exempt status, but that they are instructed not to prosecute it.

The gloves are off. Money is now speech. And even if a blog post like this may come across not as hypothetical analysis, but as a fishing expedition inviting such donations, it really doesn't matter much now.

Many churchgoers will assume the solution to this conundrum is simple. Make church apolitical. However, Christians are hard-pressed to find any example of apolitical faith in their Scriptures, and so if they practice faith in such fashion, they will find themselves abandoning their own tradition.

Christianity is not apolitical. It is instead a counter-politics. Jesus did not preach a spirituality detached from politics. He proclaimed the kingdom of God.

Citizens United already freed up big money to influence politics directly in ways it hadn't before, protecting the donations of corporations as a form of free speech. Now the capitalists are occupying religion also, turning absolutely everything into neoliberal politics. Donald Trump isn't draining the swamp. He's occupying it, and sucking everything else into it with him.

Everything is politics now, and religious liberty is precariously situated, sinking into the mire all the while under false pretense. It's like we're being pulled under, and meanwhile the captain is confidently proclaiming, "It floats. We've never been more sea-worthy!"

The counter-politics of the gospel rests easy enough in its Lord to know there's actually another ship, sailing by the power of different wind. It's a ship that cannot be bought, because it is already free. Working out in practice how that ship sails, and how to live on it, is the constant and compelling work of the church.

--
Here is a letter from Presiding Bishop Elizabeth Eaton on the executive order.