All Eyes Out For You

Heard any good ideas lately?

Here's one:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123431465155370931.html

Andrew Sullivan calls it wacky.  I call it smart.  Probably too smart for the Feds, but it's worth mulling over.  Anyway, discuss amongst yourselves, and I'll get back to my usual topics.

Joe Carter defines (redefines) heresy

Well, Culture 11's Joe Carter has stepped in it at least twice this past week.  First, in a twisted defense of his "beloved" Alison Krauss he stated the following about Emmylou Harris:

"The ridiculously overrated Harris may be a critics’ darling but we rural folk use her name as a shibbolith: If you claim to be a fan of country/bluegrass/Americana and use as your example Emmylou, we know you’re a poseur."

Alas, his subsequent comments indicate that he was being intentionally over-the-top, but it set of a minor feud between the Krauss and Harris factions, which are basically the same set of music fans anyway.

Generating a good deal more controversy in the blogosphere are his two posts regarding an interview Barack Obama did a few years ago about his Christian faith, and Joe's conclusion that Obama's comments undermine his authenticity as a Christian (posts here and here).  Without delving into Obama's comments directly, I'd really rather discuss the tentpoles that Carter uses to prop up his arguments.  In doing so, I'm really just discussing some areas of religious interest to me personally, and it's not my intent to rip on Joe Carter any more than has already been done.  Nor am I suggesting that I personally agree with Obama's perspective on Christ and Christianity.

I posted the following comment to Carter's second post:

"For what it’s worth, Southern Baptists don’t recite or acknowledge the Nicene Creed. I never even heard it until I attended my wife’s Episcopal church. I’m probably more “unorthodox” than most Southern Baptists these days, but hopefully that doesn’t place the state of my eternal soul in too much jeopardy.
I’m nitpicking obviously, but getting into the whole orthodox vs. unorthodox debate in the Protestant world is slogging straight into a swamp. Mormons — orthodox or unorthodox? Just curious where you fall on that one, Joe."

Joe's posts, in my opinion, lean too heavily on the notion that Christians as an inclusive community of faiths adhere to a certain set of "settled" beliefs, exemplified in the Nicene Creed and/or the Apostles' Creed (also please note my eagerness to slog back into this swamp).  I was raised Southern Baptist but actually spent my early years in a Baptist church in West Virginia, not affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention.  It should give you Southern Baptists out there some perspective to learn that our paster at my childhood church was divorced, a fact that would alone preclude even the slightest consideration for pastoral employment at an SBC church -- then or now.  I have no desire to detail my issues with the SBC, but the differences even among strains of Baptists have always been quite interesting to me.

The Baptist tradition in America is a fascinating evolution, rooted very much in the Northeastern US.  The Church only acquired its reputation as arch-conservative in the mid-to-late 20th Century, but whatever predominant associations emerged, some basic tenets have endured.  There is no central authority governing the Baptist church.  Even within the highly organized SBC, there is still a great deal of autonomy and independence between and among churches.  Thus, there is no acceptance of the Nicene Creed, for instance, which was handed down from Rome in the early history of the Christian church, primarily to prevent "misinterpretation" of the Gospel (specifically a reading of polytheism relating to the Holy Trinity).  So while on its surface, the Nicene Creed seems somewhat inoffensive (if a bit vague) to a mainstream Baptist, the acceptance of any creed handed down by man is in direct contradiction to the "priesthood of the believer," which holds that each believer is responsible for interpreting the Bible and forging his or her relationship with God.

Any decent Sunday school teacher would quickly point out that this doesn't mean you may pick and choose what parts of the Bible you accept (sorry, Thomas Jefferson).  But the gist of the Baptist faith - at least in all of my life's experiences - is that the Church is not the key to heaven.  Your relationship to Christ and the salvation of your soul is between you and God, and the Bible in the inerrant Word of God (I might add I don't believe in Biblical inerrancy in the sense that every word is literal truth, but let's not drift off topic..).

So where Joe gets all tangled up is his notion of "orthodox" versus "unorthodox" Christian beliefs.  No doubt, what I've described above would be unorthodox to a devout Catholic.  In fact, it would be considered heretical.  There are obviously churches that have capital-O Orthodox beliefs, and their followers should be easy to spot since the definition has been clearly defined.  But as you sift through the flavors of Christianity, particularly Protestants, you're likely to find a tangled web of contradictory beliefs and rituals that appear very odd to the outsider.  For instance, infant baptism is never performed in a Baptist church, whereas you're likely to see a grown man dunked on any given Sunday.  I think we can agree that this practice is highly un-Catholic (and most Catholics, not to mention other denominations, would fret for the soul of the Baptist infant).

My admittedly long winded point is this: when you set out define an "orthodox" Christian in relation to the predominant Christian churches in America, you simply cannot win.  Joe Carter uses the Nicene Creed as a marker and manages to ignore one of the nation's largest religions (he claims to be a "Reformed" Southern Baptist, though I have no idea what that means), not to mention quite a few others.  He took my bait and, to his credit, noted that he does not acknowledge Mormons as orthodox Christians.  But even today, we see alliances and cooperation between Catholics and Mormons in the public square (see California's Prop. 8), even though theologically they couldn't be more different.

And I don't mean any disrespect to Catholics, Mormons or any other religious faith.  When I was growing up, Mormons were unequivocally considered a cult by my fellow Southern Baptists.  I imagine that is still the case, but where there is common cause - particularly among religious conservatives - there seems to be an increasing acceptance.  I'm no longer a regular churchgoer, but somehow I still find myself identifying as a Baptist.  My religious practices most certainly are "unorthodox" to the Joe Carters of the world, but they might also be surprised how my life continues to be informed and enriched by faith.

Hopefully, I didn't offend anyone with this post.  I think we can all agree that this blog is not the place for spiritual Truth.  But my album reviews are the gospel!

UPDATE: I suppose I should add, at the risk of turning this post political, that I think Joe Carter's logic exposes a blind spot that plagues many politically-minded evangelicals.  The failure to understand or acknowledge fundamental, even critical, theological differences between even mainstream Christian denominations causes many folks in the ecumenical community simply ignore their mutual differences, in the interest of common ground and common goals.  I think that's basically a good thing, but why is it okay to ignore those differences but single out Obama's beliefs as being "unorthodox"?  I realize that's a rhetorical question.

Election Day

I won't frustrate and bore you with any of my own thoughts (you stopped in for the music, yeah?).  I'll just refer you to Christian author Donald Miller, who at least hits on some of my feelings this election year (hat tip: Jeffrey Overstreet).  Very thoughtful dissenting views in his Comments section as well.

Perhaps there's hope for civil discourse in America, after all.  Good luck and make sure to line up early!

UPDATE, 8:28pm 11/4:  Fox and ABC have called Ohio for Obama.  At 9pm, when the West Coast states close up shop, this will be officially over.  I ended up being somewhat bittersweet about this inevitable victory (more on that later?), but we're on the verge of American history.  And we're on the verge of being done with the Bush years, once and for all.  

That's most certainly change I can believe in.

The Redneck Manifesto

I think I mentioned that my new obsession is reading the LadyBlog over at Culture 11.  This collective of conservative ladies is a real stew of contradictions, but a few posts have me mulling over recent events.

Let's start with this, however.  I was born in Parkersburg, WV, but my parents are both from Lubbock, TX.  We moved back to Texas when I was eight years old, settling in my sisters' hometown of Victoria (pop. 50,000).  My dad was a chemical engineer at DuPont, being one of two large industrial employers in Victoria.  We moved from there to Orange, TX (pop. 24,000) before finally settling in a suburb of Houston (Kingwood) when I was sixteen.  I attended college back in Lubbock at Texas Tech, and my wife - a lifelong military brat - and I settled in Houston upon graduation.

Why the biography, you ask?  I'm gettin' there, cowboy.  But first let me direct you to several recent posts over at LadyBlog:

• "Hell Cats" (by Wendy Sullivan)
• "He Shall Be Levi" (by Amber Bryer-Wotte - UPDATE: see fellow Texan Bryer-Wotte's clarification in the comments section) 
• "All Palin All The Time" (by Sloane Burgdorf) 

Now it's worth noting that LadyBlogger (and D.C. resident) Burgdorf already called me down once for not being, um, "classy" in their comments section (for which I apologized, though I think my veiled reference to Bristol Palin was not that bad).  So I thought I'd get all classy over here.  On the "Hell Cats" piece, I may have completely missed the point (approve or disapprove?).  But the second piece is a real study in both "conservative female" thought and the current wave of Sarah Palin fervor.

What strikes me about the tone of these posts, not to mention the overall tone of this week's RNC, is that I feel that a lot of these folks view rural America, Southern America, Western America and small-town culture in general as a dying, exotic - and uniformly wonderful - feature of these United States.  Wendy Sullivan even left The Big City for rural Kansas to be a freelance writer and farmer (after she stopped worrying about her next pedicure).  The Bryer-Wotte post, however, really set me off because of its fawning over Levi Johnston, Bristol Palin and, implcitly, their "situation."  I guess after James Dobson signed off, these nattering ninnies decided that celebrating the "hot" Levi and the spreading of his seed to the Palin clan was a pretty slick move.

I think all those lattes and Activia have gone to some of the LadyBloggers' brains because in REAL rural-Southern-Texan culture, Levi would not be commended for standing onstage at the RNC.  Marianne Brennan added this in the Comments:

"He’s a lot more of a man than a lot of people with better manners."

Yeah, whatever, Marianne.  That little dipshit is latching onto his one decent hope to get out of rural Alaska, by attaching himself and his spawn to the Palin clan.  Hey, I give him credit for dumb luck.  This is the same party that wouldn't allow Mary Cheney's long-term partner onstage, right?  My gut feel about many of these LadyBloggers is that, like many Republicans, they live in big cities in the Northeast and long for some remembered (or imagined) small-town life.  Because if they knew anything about the South (or whatever), they'd know first that Levi might've gotten his ass kicked by Track (and maybe Todd), then he'd be taking Todd's old job on the North Slope.  Let's check back with Levi in five years or so before we start telling him how great (and hot) he is.

The point of this disjointed rant is that many of these Republicans I saw on the TV this week are utterly without an idea of how to govern this nation.  But what they do have is a strange hatred of America's big cities (where many of them live).  They had Rudy Giuliani of all people calling the Democrats "cosmopolitan" Wednesday night.  Sarah Palin is in their book the most exotic of creatures - hunter, athlete, fisherman, small-town mayor, mother of five.  Come to think of it, she is quite exotic.  But I dare say she is not at all representative of the experience in which most Americans live everyday.  Does that mean she can't be the VP?  Sure it doesn't.  Does it make her uniquely qualified?  Of course it doesn't.

I've got deep affection for Texas, and I romanticize the Deep South and the West as much as the next redneck.  I love Larry Brown and Cormac McCarthy novels, I love redneck rock and country music (REAL country music, not the carpetbagging shit that Cheryl Miller writes about over at Culture 11.  I was also raised in the Southern Baptist church, and though I love and respect many things about my Christian upbringing, I also got to see a lot of the backbiting hypocrisy of so-called Christians.  It didn't shake my faith, but it opened my eyes about religion.  I don't mind at all that this week the evangelical Republican base has embraced Bristol Palin's pregnancy.  But pardon me if it feels just a touch hypocritical, coming from a group of people who have been wagging their judgmental fingers at us for decades.

Having lived in smaller cities (though I would not call them "small towns"), I've seen the dark underbelly of those places as well.  I always loved the people but was happy when I made it to a high school that had a lot to offer.  I'm proud of my modest public college education, but I wouldn't hesitate to send my daughter to Harvard or Yale if she had the opportunity.  "Ivy League" and "intellectual" are dirty words in Republican circles these days.  There's nothing wrong with having humble roots, but there's something terribly ignorant about resenting others for their educations.  Never mind the fact that it's a fucking farce since much of the Republican establishment have silver-spoon roots in the same system.  I'm not knocking smaller towns - they have plenty of wonderful features as well - but they, like almost anyplace in America, they have their own less-appealing qualities as well.

Where I went wrong (read: liberal) is anyone's guess (I am the black sheep of my family, at least by their standards).  I love the Second Amendment, but I also love the First and Fourth.  Hooray for the NRA and the ACLU!  I love Larry McMurtry and Jane Austen (I know: books = "elite")!  I love Johnny Cash and Grandmaster Flash (okay, stole that from Kid Rock)!  I love Chardonnay and Budweiser (well, I don't love Budweiser, but I'll drink it; Coors Light tastes like piss, however, and only an idiot would try to get shit-faced on piss).  So maybe I'm a Redneck Elite or something, but I'm sure I'm no more or less full of contradictions than the next American.  I've never lived on the East or West Coasts, but I've lived in some diverse locales.  They used to say, "Texas is like a whole 'nother country."

So let me suggest that Americans of all political persuasions embrace their small-town roots, or simply just root for small towns.  They are an important and vital part of our national fabric.  But about 80 percent of us live in big cities to pursue success beyond that of our parents.  That used to be Republican value.  Now it's simply mocked and derided to score political points.  I get tired of all this "real people" talk as if any person's life is any more or less "real" than the next (except maybe politicians, who seem uniformly more out of touch than the rest of us).  By all means, America, keep your romantic notions, but keep them out of our political reality.

 

UDPATE:  Freelance-writer-part-time-farmer Wendy Sullivan rips Heart's Ann and Nancy Wilson a new one for not allowing "Barracuda" to be co-opted by the Palin - I mean, McCain - campaign.  Her reasoning?  Chicks should stick together.  I guess real women can only vote for McCain-Palin now.

UPDATE II:  After a lengthy absence, I added Alabama Ass Whuppin' back to my list of recommended reading (aka "My Peeps" -- see left sidebar) because Lord knows the world needs more unapologetic Redneck Liberals - and Drive-By Truckers fans!

Culture 11's James Poulos

A couple of must-reads from Culture 11's James Poulos, here and here.  It's worth noting that Culture 11 has been a pretty strong enclave for Palinheads the past few days.

BTW, I couldn't agree more with his take on McCain's speech.  He's a deeply decent guy, and I thought the midsection of the speech was very moving.  But he is affiliated with a deeply messed up political party.  The Dems ain't no great shakes, but the Republicans need a cleansing of Biblical proportions.

Only in America...

Andrew Sullivan notes a bizarre moment during Giuliani's speech tonight when his line that Obama's meteoric rise could "only happen in America" was met with derision by the convention audience.  Douche-y though Giuliani is, I think he actually meant it as a positive note, but the crowd misinterpreted his intent.

That sorta sums up the Republican Party right now.  There's this desire to excite the base but control the "narrative."  Do you suppose that McCain intended for his VP pick to actually be more popular among the party faithful than he is?  I think deep down McCain wants to take the high road at times, but there is obviously a belief in his campaign and party that that roads leads to defeat.

The one-two partisan punch of Giuliani-Palin was an intriguing choice tonight.  Palin is certainly a woman of considerable accomplishment thus far - with a meteoric rise of her own - but she certainly hasn't earned the right to be that openly mocking of Obama.  Exactly how many votes has she received outside of Alaska?

As for Rudy, I don't think he's the right guy to be driving home the "cosmopolitan" line.  Seriously - you were mayor of which city, Rudy?  And accusing the Democrats of being sexist?  That's a hot one.  Or does Rudy have his wandering eye on Sarah now?

 

UPDATE:  Just in case anyone is interested in some facts.  I know, I know - Stephen Colbert hates it when facts fly in the face of The Truth.

 

UPDATE II:  I see I wasn't the only one who gave Obama another 100 bucks this morning.

Moratorium lifted! Half-baked political rants resume!

Wow, that didn't last long.  Maybe our good buddy A Free Man talked me out of it.

Anyway, I pledge to keep my opinions temperate and let some better writers do my heavy lifting for me.  I'll simply link to some of the things that are tickling my brain.  Read - decide.

But first let me say, the Sarah Palin thing is way out of control.  The press is in a frenzy (so is Andrew Sullivan), much of it valid, some of it not.  But in any case, McCain will not dump her under any circumstance.  He simply can't without throwing away the religious-conservative base and looking like a fool.  It's the duty of the press to give us more information about her, but I'm not sure we need it all TODAY.  At the end of the day, this will still be McCain vs. Obama.  Let's at least hear Palin's speech tonight.

There are some interesting things that have emerged, however, from the firestorm.  I like Alan Wolfe's angle in the The New Republic.  A similar thought had occurred to me.

If you want to get a full measure of the schisms that plague the Republican base, you should check out some of the posts over at Culture 11.  I especially like the LadyBlog posts, which reflect a real diversity of female conservative perspective.  I even got into a short-lived pissing match with one of their bloggers, but I think we made nice in the end.

Also, some surprising and extremely sober reactions over at BeliefNet, lest you think Christian opinion is uniformly fawning for Palin.  Here's a good 'un.  Sometimes the comments are as interesting (maddening?) as the articles.

Did I manage to not sound like a member of "the angry left?"  Feel free to suggest additional reading in the Comments section!

Not that you care...

...but I wanted to let you faithful readers know that I'm sweaing off any politically-oriented posts until after the election (if not forever).  You might have noticed that I pulled down a post from late last week.  It didn't really seem to draw much attention, but upon re-reading it I just decided I didn't care for the tone of it, and frankly, I don't want to traffic in controversial topics on this blog (hint: abortion).  Anyway, I apologize if I offended anyone, though I very much stand by the opinion expressed.

In the wake of the Sarah Palin nomination for McCain's VP slot - and the accompanying chorus of praise from right-wingers - it's plain to me now that my political views are light years away from those of many folks.  I won't be changing any minds over here, and thus I see little point in spewing my opinions on such matters over here.  At the end of the day, all we can do is vote.

After the rumors and facts this weekend, it occurs to me that political discourse in this nation is hopelessly doomed if conservatives and liberals alike cannot move past the temptation to exploit nearly anything for gain.  Simply pointing and yelling, "Well, they started it!!" isn't likely to tone it down either.  But it's important to realize there are real people that get caught up in this nonsense.

So to you and your respective candidates, good luck!  And watch plenty of Daily Show - it'll keep you sane.

Further evidence that John Rich is Nashville's anti-Christ

As if Big & Rich weren't lame enough, John Rich recently produced Jewel's surely-awful "country" debut album (no, I didn't hear it nor do I intend do as Mrs. K has a household injunction on all music related to Jewel).  

Oh, and Rich wrote a campaign song for John McCain.  At least Rosanne Cash set him straight about the Man In Black (aka her dad).  As if John Rich knows a damned thing about what Johnny Cash would or wouldn't think about anything on God's green earth.  Though he probably would think that Big & Rich suck ass.

John McCain: Old fart

From Fox News:

“Women in America not only take care of the children, manage the household budgets and balance the pressures of work and family, they also run the enterprises that keep our country running,” McCain told the nearly 500 strong, female-majority audience. “There has been enormous progress. That progress, by the way, is far from, far from complete…we have not done enough, we have not done enough.”

I suppose it goes without saying that John McCain is an old fart, but geez, ya old geezer.  Ever occur to you that many married couples today share those responsibilites, along with earning dual incomes?  And that maybe fathers also balance the pressures of work and family?  To take nothing away from families who do separate those duties.

There are many valid reasons to consider McCain over Obama, but one thing Obama has going for him is he's not a hopelessly out-of-touch fossil.

UPDATE:  Yep, he's old.