The Bird & Babe Public House

We offer pithy pontifications by the pint-full, and the best brain-food this side of Blogsford. There's no cover charge, and it's all you can eat/drink (although we strongly encourage moderation). Like any other pub, we always appreciate a good tip.

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

American Idol/Japanese Silence

Though I am no fan of American idol, I have usually dismissed the ridicule dished out by its judges as somehow justified because I assumed that the people auditioning were simply trying to get on TV….perhaps reproduce William Hung’s success. However, I heard an interview with an American Idol producer which said that this year they are specifically targeting the “deluded wannabees.”


As I sat in my car letting these words reverberate with me as I drove to work, I realized what the producer was saying. “We are looking for people who have either been lied to or failed to realize themselves that they are not good singers. We are going to put them on national TV, humiliate them, dash their dreams, rip their hearts out, and reduce them to tears. Why, do you ask…because the viewing audience at home will get a laugh out of it.”

As I realized that the a major part of the appeal is the shameful joy we take in mocking other people, I was reminded of a quote from the book Silence by Shusaku Endo:

“Sin, he reflected, is not what it is usually thought to be; it is not to steal and tell lies. Sin is for one man to walk brutally over the life of another and to be quite oblivious of the wounds he has left behind.”

American idol trashes people’s lives and justifies it because it is done in an entertaining and humorous way. It is teaching us to savor other people’s misery. Or, perhaps, it is just selling us the misery we want to see. Either way, you can count me out.

So what do you think?

Read more

Sunday, January 14, 2007

Relative Objectivity?

This sort of relates to Drewdog's last post...

It seems to be a common phenomena that two people can agree on the Bible as the supreme source of truth and yet come to opposite conclusions on a wide variety of issues. Some examples are:
  • Age of the earth/Genesis flood
  • Modern application of the Old Testament laws
  • Moral issues such as alcohol, abortion, gambling, dancing
  • The correct content for a Gospel presentation
  • Role of women in the Church
  • Speaking in tongues
  • Style and content of corporate worship
  • Method of observing Christian "Holidays"
  • Mode of baptism
  • End times events and timing
  • The ultimate hope of the Christian
  • And much, much more...
Pose these questions to 10 well-read Christians (people who are not Biblically illiterate) and I'm sure there will be anywhere from 2-10 different answers. What's more, in many cases, there will be bitter animosity and suspicion towards those who hold opposing views.

In response, the counsel I hear most often from respected Leaders is:

In Christianity, there are essential and non-essential beliefs. In the spirit of unity, we should not divide over non-essentials.

So the essentials are undeniable, right? Well, most mainstream Christian Churches express generally similar beliefs about the Trinity, Resurrection, Bible, and Eternity, but even here there is some variation (Grace, BBC, Saddleback) and a lot of subjects are not addressed.

But assuming that the essentials are basically similar, the net effect is that almost all of Christian faith and practice is defined by the individual. This isn't quite relativism (because Christians generally that truth is objective), but for all practical purposes, it is very wishy-washy. At the end of the day, it seems that everyone is pretty much on their own.

There have been selected times in the past when believers were more unified, but perhaps, this is the way things are meant to be at this time. Each person is accountable to God for their actions. Yet, the chaos seems to be somewhat unsatisfying.

I hope my analysis is way off and one of you wise guys can help.

Read more

Thursday, January 04, 2007

Kyrie Eleison

I recently heard two different sermons from two very different churches, and I was appalled at both of them. In one of the sermons, the pastor nonchalantly told a story of his lesbian sister and the trials and doubts she faced while trying to adopt a child with her partner. Need I say more? In the other sermon, the pastor mentioned that abortion is not mentioned in the Bible and is therefore a matter of opinion, over which Christian brothers and sisters can reasonably disagree. Again, need I say more?

Here's the deal: The first sermon I mentioned was at a mainline church, and the second was at an evangelical church. I happened to be with friends at both of these services, and I was amazed at the disparate responses of my friends to each sermon. Let me explain. When the priest mentioned his lesbian sister, my friends were so upset that they wanted God to exact His wrath upon the man right then and there, but when the evangelical pastor asserted that the genocide of millions of precious unborn human persons (my exact words, not his) is a matter of opinion, these same friends didn't even bat an eyelash!

Why was I one of the only guys in that evangelical service who wanted to tear my clothes and heap ashes upon myself? Why does it seem so clear to me that the abortion statement is just as, if not more, heinous than the lesbian statement?

Please hear what I'm not saying. I'm not saying that since abortion isn't that big a deal, therefore homosexuality shouldn't be a big deal. Nor am I letting the episcopal priest off the hook for making his statement. Rather, I think the fact that both of these ideas are present in the Church (no matter what type of church utters them) should be a cause for serious lament among all Christians.

Kyrie Eleison.

Any thoughts?

Read more