Ah, Wednesday...Double holiness day here at SNU: chapel in the morning and an empty campus in the evening because we're all at church. Little do they know....
First, a response. In preparation for these next comments, it would be good for you to read the second and third comments on yesterday's post.
Jbeezy seems a little worried about the exact definition of "sin." The problem here, as some of the more intellectually astute among you may have realized, is that "sin" is not easily, if it can be at all, qualified. Some traditions define "sin" as trespassing on the laws of their divine while others expand the operational scope of "sin" to include transgressions against humanity. To some, "sin" is commited in action, to others, the crime exists only in thought. [Which, if I do say so myself, is rather Orwellian.] Regardless of how you choose to define "sin," the concept is not one that can be easily nailed down.
So, when we are encouraged by whatever esteemed orator we happen to be listening to in chapel to "confess our sins before God," I get a little confused about what exactly they are attempting to say. I suppose it could reasonably be assumed that the definition of "sin" expounded on our campus would follow a Biblical delineation, but even that is vague at best. So when I am confronted with the charge that I am pretending to be too holy by claiming not to have "sinned," [which is not what I said] or when I am asked to define "sin," I can respond in the same way. "I'm not sure exactly what you are saying."
Enough psychobabble, on to chapel.
This morning's chapel marked the long awaited return of...drumroll please...the Godfather of Soul himself, James Brown. [Ow! I feel good!] Oh, wait. Not that James Brown. Damn. All I really need to say here is that, "These are the days of Elijah." Yep. [Just to clarify, in case JBeezy is still wondering, if there is sin in the world, the foremost example of it was the authorship of that song.]
I also especially enjoyed the overtly brooding rendition of a Negro Spiritual we were treated to this morning. [Please, sweet chariot, swing lo and carry James home.] Apparently Ben Folds is not the only one who can show us what it's like to be male, middle-class, and white. Next time you perform please sing "Nobody Knows the Trouble I've Seen." I'm sure no one can understand the sorrow of a suburbanite like you.
Oh, by the way. I heard you singing. You sounded great. And God liked it too. [ha ha ha]
A letter:
Dear Mr. Gibson,
Please stop telling me how to do my job. If this trend continues the next time you are asked to speak in chapel, I will shoot you with a bb gun from the tech booth.
Love,
The Video Tech
A challenge:
Reverand Gibson, I hereby challenge you to take the stage in chapel and preach a sermon that the students in attendance have not already heard fifty times. I challenge you to move beyond the hell-raising and condemnation perpetuated by preachers of your father's generation and actually push people to grow in their spiritual lives. I challenge you to have an original thought. I challenge you to think more deeply about why an individual ought to commit their life to Christ and actually provide support, beyond the assertion that humans are inherently broken, sinful, and weak, for your argument. I challenge you to a walk-off. [Age before beauty, goat cheese.]
Your spiel today reminded of a scene from Mean Girls. You just need Jesus. Ok? Everybody take some rubbers.
The wax is melting.
"Keep near me and you will be safe."
Daedalus
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Oh, snap. You're even getting personal. Not holding shit back, now are we?
I wish I was on campus this semester, just to see people's reaction to this. Any knowledge on whether or not Brad has seen this yet?
Let's hope he has. Keep at it, my friend. Keep at it.
You know, if you were to talk to me in person, I would be willing to listen to what you have to say. My hope is that others would be as well. It's no secret that chapel and SNU have their problems, but I'm disappointed to see one of the few people to speak out about it have to be in the form of an anonymous blogger. At that, a blogger that only attempts to be offensive. If actual change were to amount from this instead of a lot of pissed off people, I'd be shocked. Which is too bad, really, as we could certainly use it here at the university. Drop the blog, and approach it in a way that might make a difference.
MLP - Thanks for the props. I'm sorry to hear you're not on campus this semester. Coming back? I hope? No knowledge on Brad yet. We'll just have to wait and see.
Justasanonymousasyou - Quality sarcasm [seriously]. I always appreciate honesty. As for standing on my position like a woman should, I do. Frequently. I can't tell you how many times I have presented legitimate concerns about chapel to Brad. Nothing changes. I can only hope that the chapel committee does something eventually.
Joeyg37 - I am saddened to hear that you are disappointed. I am disappointed in that I feel at our university it is necessary for it to be done in this manner. SNU has a LONG history of censorship. The first amendment does not exist on this campus. Pick up a copy of the Echo sometime and really read it. I guarantee all you will find as far as campus news pieces are PR fluff. [And that's just a small example.]
I am not SNU's first blogger. Several who have come before me did so under their own names, which I admire greatly. They were asked to stop voicing their opinions. Several were asked by the administration to leave the university.
It is because of this that I feel it is necessary to remain anonymous. And, as I said to justasanonymous..., when real issues are brought to Spiritual Development they are rarely addressed [at least to my knowledge - please let me know of any legitimate success stories].
When our school allows differences change will be made.
Ouch...just as I was formulating some thoughts in hopes of a productive discussion, you had to make things personal.
Can we please grow up a little?
Dear Mrs. Daedalus:
I'm trying to understand your latest post here, perhaps you can explain it more a bit more later.
From what I can discern, on the one hand, when people ask about definitions of sin, you admit it's hard to qualify, You also note that it's not a concept that one can easily nail down.
Correctly, you assess your own problem: "I get a little confused about what exactly they are attempting to say." But that's good, since your confusion is pretty obvious. Admission of a malfunction is the first step to fixing it!
In the end, when it comes to sin, you're unclear, by your own summary, of what someone is exactly saying, even going to the point of calling it "psychobabble." That's a strange position, since if talk about sin is psychobabble, you must know something about it -- namely, that it's a psychological issue. This is an amazing insight for someone who just a moment earlier said it was hard to qualify, confusing, and hard to understand when somebody defines it!
On the other hand, you seem very clear about actually challenging someone to "push people to grow in their spiritual lives." So let's see: you have no idea what someone is saying when they bring up 'sin', but you're all about knowing what someone is saying when they bring up 'spiritual'.
So, uh, maybe you could say a bit more about how spiritual talk is not just one more style of psychobabble. After all, you're the one using this language, and I'm not sure but that you're likewise confused about what exactly you're trying to say.
'Spiritual' -- that's pretty funny sounding talk. What could she mean by that word?
In Christ,
And His Dad,
~b
Again, I post.
I have to admit that some of the personal attacks are unneeded. But, to be fair, it does make for entertaining reading. I do agree, though, that people might take you more seriously if you withhold those attacks, though. (That's unfortunate, really.)
As for the whole anonymous thing, I can speak from experience. Taking aim and providing legitimate criticism towards anyone on campus is a big N-O. You'll get shot down super-fast. And, I think it's clear from the writing of said blogger that this person is no idiot. I'm sure they've thought through the repercussions of revealing identity. Let's be good Christians, shall we, and not be so quick to cast judgments and jump to name-calling.
If this blog can do anything, it can open up a public forum (hopefully free of hypocritical yelling and name-calling) and help us improve chapel. For it's definitely true that the only people who can improve SNU are the ones who love SNU. Don't hate, in other words.
One last thing...last year I was the opinions editor of the Echo. (And, yes, Daedalus, I'll be returning in the spring.) I say that to show two things. One: The censorship of the Echo is a very real thing. It is, in fact, a PR machine. We're not allowed to write whatever we want. And, as an editor, I understood that and followed directions. Two: I wrote a column last year about chapel and how I thought it could be improved. There were many, many people who told me they agreed.
All in all, what I'm saying is this...be nice, everyone. Do as your beloved Christ would do and love instead of hate. Let this be a good thing for the campus, not a bad thing.
Watching from afar,
Marcus Powers
Daedalus - Just thought I'd mention I appreciate and respect the response you gave me. I will admit to being quite angered by the personal comments upon my initial discovering of the blog, but I had calmed down somewhat after I posted my comment. I think if you continue writing in the manner that you did to me, that this blog could definitely encourage some productive thinking about chapel as Marcus was saying. I think the discussion thread here is starting to become a good example of that.
-Joseph
Marcus, we miss having you in Imel this year. Thanks for swooping in from across the country to defuse some of the tension!
Although Amber "Daedalus" Jackson is not a real person, I think it's safe to assume that there is someone real enough behind that moniker. So I will also assume that our anonymous writer has the capacity to feel compassion and empathy for her fellow students.
Daedalus: I appreciate the fact that you are being honestly critical of chapel. As the community of students for whom the institution of chapel is in place, we have both the right and the responsibility to take it seriously, and to hold it to continuously higher standards. I also understand why you have chosen to remain anonymous. Unfortunately, we are not as free we sometimes think to express open criticism. (I, too, have been told that I am overly denunciatory of chapel and Spiritual Development.)
Considering this, I believe that there are many--both students and faculty/staff--who work very hard to ensure that chapel is a positive, edifying experience for us. Most of those who lead music, speak, or preach during chapel have spent hours in preparation and prayer, so that they can have a positive impact upon those in attendance. I can vouch for this, as one who has occasionally been on stage during chapel.
Yesterday, a friend who is preparing for an upcoming chapel presentation confessed that she is worried about the criticism you will give her. So far, your blog posts have been overwhelmingly negative concerning nearly every aspect of chapel, and it's likely that my friend will receive a similar review. It hurts me to think that this person might also be a friend of yours, who you will mercilessly betray from behind your mask of convenient anonymity.
All this to say...yes, your butt is covered. No worries there. But as one with a relatively loud voice in the SNU community and public forum, I hope that you will also recognize your responsibility to be fair and kind toward your fellow students. I agree with Marcus, and hope that this blog can be a positive thing, rather than divisive. Let's work together as the student body, rather than rip one another apart.
Let's love instead of hate.
Shane S.
Thanks, Shane, for voicing your concerns. I am sorry that I have made your friend apprehensive about taking the stage in chapel. My intent was not to create a fear in the SNU community of my words, but to instead spark a creative dialogue.
The individuals that I poke fun at in chapel receive that treatment because I feel that they are not making chapel an edifying experience for the other students. As college students, we need to be challenged. We need to be pushed into new intellectual arenas. We need chapel to be worthwhile.
So, tell your friend not to worry. And, as long as they present something that is forward thinking, challenging, and honest, they will not have to.
I think that in the process of attacking the posturing and self-glorification that I will whole-heartedly admit happens in chapel services at dear old SNU, I believe you have inadvertently lampooned the sincere efforts of Christians whose understanding of the faith might not be as intellectually driven as yours. I am not personally a fan of the musical stylings of James Brown, and I have heard Wayne's sermon perhaps one too many times, I find it fairly easy to believe that these men did what they did with the intent of glorifying God, and as such I will not mock their efforts.
As far as James' "suburbanite sorrow", the fact that you attend SNU means that the probability of your experiencing anything other than similar sorrow is low.
And, if you knew Wayne Gibson you would know that his sermon, although not my (or apparently your) cup of tea, was certainly deeply thought through. As far as his assertions regarding the state of humanity, there is no reason to find faith in God, other than the fact that there is something fundamentally wrong with the human animal. If we didn't need salvation, there would be no need for a savior.
To The Wanderer.
Christian faith must be intellectually driven. Without such a foundation, and taking into account the present incarnation of the church, faith becomes little more than self-delusion. "The unexamined life is not worth living."
I would also like to respond to your last sentence: "If we didn't need salvation, there would be no need for a savior."
Does humanity need a savior? I am not so ignorant or optimistic to believe that humans are inherently good-natured, but I ask again, do we need a savior? If you think we do you then you must objectively ask whether or not the savior proposed by Christianity is the only model that can adequately fill that role.
These are the kinds of questions I would like to see wrestled with in chapel.
Daedalus:
"Christian faith must be intellectually driven."
I completely agree. I, too, attend a Christian university (near SNU, but not SNU) and am dissatisfied with the Christian propaganda that is supposed to pass as spiritual edification. I, too, am searching for my own answers in the midst of incomplete, presumptuous, illogical or hypocritical beliefs.
I will say that I am not even close to finding the answers. One, I am limited by the scope of experience of a 21-year old (I imagine you're within a few years of me.) What my experience does tell me, however, really isn't about WHAT to think, but HOW to think.
I've learned that no person, religion, or institution has a monopoly on truth. Not Christianity, not the Nazarene persuasion, not the Buddhists, not even the great and holy person who is typing this sentence (gasp!) That's why dialogue is so important (here's kudos to you.)
I've also learned that the majority of humans I've encountered don't like it if I attack them personally (something about the caveman instinct of self-defense.) That's why I can't stand politics as of late, especially the blatantly false ad hominem attacks by the McCain campaign.
The best chance to make progress is to discuss ideas themselves, not people's implementation of those ideas. Then one can better implement them. I believe this is what the Wanderer is getting at. Not everyone is capable or willing of putting him/herself through intellectual strain on matters of faith. They should, but they don't.
I've learned to agree to disagree on some things (emphasis on SOME.) To quote the Brothers Karamazov, one must "Love life more than its meaning."
That is NOT what The Wanderer was getting at.
I've never attended SNU. I've never even been to Oklahoma. But I do know this.
The writers, producers, and comedians of SNL never got anywhere by being quiet. Or caring who they offend. But then again, the audience of SNL actually understands what is being produced and not to take it too seriously. The sarcastic humor you bring your opinions is definetely entertaining.
And stirring campus is probably needed- if it wasn't, it wouldn't be happening. Stay true to yourself.
I like how you choose to respond to comments that you can handle, unlike Montgomery's. Please respond to his.
Post a Comment