Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Everybody's Got an Opinion

It is, in a way, exciting for a new Lutheran museum to open up in the headquarters of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. I like museums of most kinds--even the SPAM museum. I'm one of those unusual people who enjoy learning about various parts of history, and yes, I do read most of the signs posted around as I look at the exhibits.



Anyway, you can read about the opening at the Post-Dispatch website, and see some pictures. Go soon--most newspaper websites will allow content to be seen only for a while before a person has to subscribe. Before you leave the news story and look at the pictures, however, take a gander at the comments left by readers. As of the writing of this post, there are twelve comments.



The comments start off commendably, thanking the LCMS for the work the Human Care arm does. From there, it degenerates. Only few of the twelve followed Thumper's advice: "If you can't say something nice, don't say nothing at all." It seems to be an exposition of post-modern society. We cannot dialogue like civilized people; we have to insult and make blanket statements with nothing to back it up. We blurt out whatever we want without showing someone in love (or at least tact) how and why we disagree. If one wrote similar comments about a disenfranchised, minority, oppressed, or racial group, there'd be an uproar; maybe it's just okay to do it to the Lutherans. . . Maybe the SPAM museum is a cult museum too. . .[walking away humming, "SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM; SPAM, wonderful SPAM. . .]

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Let's Go to a Show


We have season tickets to the Muny in Forest Park again this summer. It's a pretty good lineup this summer. As an aside, one Muny employee told me that because of the economy they wanted to have shows that were popular to be more of a draw.

Last week we got to see Godspell. I had never seen the show before, but was aware that it is based on one of the Gospels. It is based on the Gospel of Matthew, yet includes the story of the Prodigal Son, which is found only in Luke. I found the first paragraph in the program's write-up about the show very interesting:

John-Michael Teblak conceived of Godspell as a master's degree these at Carnegie Mellon University in 1970. His inspiration for the show came from a disheartening church experience on Easter Sunday of that year. Struck by the lack of joy in the service and the hostility of his fellow churchgoers, he sought to create a show that wold capture the love and happiness of the Gospel according to St. Matthew.

Wow, what does it say for a church when a person is so disappointed in Easter worship that he feels compelled to write a musical to make up for it? Especially one where Jesus and the 8 characters are supposed to be "clowns" and spend the show building a community.

The show was well-acted, and the cast sang very well. The production was well-done. The show was disjointed at best. If community building was the point, I missed that. It was more like a drawn-out VBS skit trying to teach Matthew-John at one sitting. The parables and stories were presented, but without context or theology to tie them together, one was left on his/her own to get out of it whatever one wanted. The Good Samaritan scene did have a bit of a moral to it, of course: "Be nice to people;" which, if you ask pretty much any Higher Things pastor, is not the main thrust of that parable. The Prodigal Son came closer to the main idea. The son who turns away is not the son we think. The "crucifixion" scene fell flat. Jesus was lashed to the sides of the gazebo, so at least there was a cruciform aspect, but the line, "O God, I'm bleeding," was a statement of the obvious, and the follow-up line, "O God, I'm dying," seemed to be there only to let the audience know that that what was supposed to be happening. The resurrection was glossed over--did he rise, or was he just back for the finale and curtain call--it was hard to tell.
All in all, I'm not surprised that there was no corporate sponsor for this show (although someone missed an opportunity there). I also don't plan to rush right out and see it again. At least this week's show is something nice, funny, and takes no theological translation: The Music Man. Harold Hill comes to the Muny. . .

The Art of Debate


I enjoy art fairs. I prefer art fairs which have more artistic artists as opposed to art fairs which fall more under the category of craft fairs. I enjoy looking at the the amazing ability and creativity of the painters, photographers, and others; and sometimes I see some pieces wonder "Why would anybody want to buy that?" I really like looking at the jewelry, but almost all of it is out of my price range. . .

I was recently at one of the biggest art fairs in the country, which is actually multiple fairs held simultaneously. We spent the better part of two days looking at the different booths, and saw some amazing artwork. At one booth I found some reasonably priced jewelry and was planning on making a purchase. The vendor had other ideas.

My husband was with me and wearing a shirt which read "Dare to be Lutheran". Apparently upon reading this, the vendor wished to engage in a religious debate. As I perused the gems and inquired of prices, the vendor began this conversation:

"Do you think I could dare to be Lutheran?"

"You could," my husband responded. Meanwhile, his parents had fled the conversation

"What if I dared to be Buddhist?"

"That might be a problem," my husband said, as I wondered what the vendor was driving at.

"What if I dared to be Baptist?"

"That might be okay."

"What if I dared to be Catholic?"

"That might be okay."

I attempted to deflect the conversation by asking about the merchandise. He brushed me off with some non-committal answers and then finally cut to the chase.

He informed us that he was Buddhist and that they were taught things without "all the dogma." He said that as a Buddhist one could believe whatever one wished. At this point it seemed that he was attempting to drag us into a conversation ridiculing us for believing in doctrine, theology, and closed-minded ideas. He then commented, "We teach critical thinking. You ever hear of that?"

At this point, I bit my tongue, put down the necklace at which I was looking and said, "I'll think about it, thank you," as we walked away.

Now, one might say that we did not "Dare to be Lutheran" or make a proper Christian witness. One might say we should have engaged in debate with this man. Maybe. Maybe not. In this case, it seemed he wished to cut us down to size. He was likely not interested in hearing what it meant to be Lutheran. The statements on my bitten tongue regarding critical thinking being a hallmark of Christianity would probably have fallen on closed ears.

If I were brilliantly witty, I may have been able to win him over with a convincing discourse; however, as I tell my students, there is a difference between arguing and debate. Debate is two opposing sides working to present their respective positions. Arguing is two opposing sides talking past each other. One is mental, one is emotional. Love and Logic talks about frontal lobe (the reasoning lobe) thinking vs. brain stem (fight or flight) thinking. It seems to me that to continue the conversation would have been two brain stems trying to reason together--not profitable. Speaking of not profitable, I hope the vendor did not engage all those who came to his booth in the same manner, else he would have lost more sales than just mine.