You couldn't make this stuff up if you tried. I mean, down to the colors!
Found via John Gruber here.
It really is too bad that they couldn't do any better though.
-B
Alas, I couldn't find it on their site. I hope this is real.
UPDATE: This was built by Anymode, Inc. Some knock off Korean company. Samsung did, though, certify it. Awesome.
I dislike the word "call."
I feel like it is an excuse, right? I feel like if you desire to do something, you say "I feel as if God is calling me to do this" and you get your way because, who can argue with God?
Please notice that I didn't say I didn't like the idea of "call." I only said that I don't like the word "call."
I suppose that I choose to think that "call" ought better be defined by actions, rather than words. "Hey Bryant, tell us your call." I think I'd rather just bring in people whose lives I've made a difference in. I think I'd rather show them the communities I've been a part of. I think I'd rather show them the effort I've put in here or there. While articulating a call, in a verbal sense, is probably important...I tend to think that actions speak louder than words. But, as my wife always reminds me, I'm not always right.
If you're an individual seeking to work in a local church for the foreseeable future, you've probably struggled with "call" once or twice. It doesn't matter your denominational affiliation, you've thought about what it would be like to work within the local church. That probably sparked a thought in your mind about what your future might be. Most denominations have some sort of ordination system whereby you are examined by people who both know you and don't know you and asked serious questions on your theological thoughts, ecclesial thoughts, and passions and "call" into ministry. It truly does depend on your denomination as to whether or not your "call" fits into their system.
It's hard to describe "call." This is probably because the term "call" is so multi-faceted. A "call" can involve your practical talents (what you are really good at). It can involve your "spiritual gifts"(remember taking those inventories?). It can involve the way you perceive your interactions with people. It can, and often should, involve your passion for the betterment of the world and desire to see the Church reflect Christ in every way possible. I can involve your, gasp, political feelings about what is going on in our world.
And the worst part about it is probably the fact that it changes on an almost daily basis. Certain things tug at your heart. Certain things cause you to change your mind. Certain things may make other concepts more vague or more clear.
I may not like the terminology (or really, just the way that the word has been abused) but I think one thing is clear: most everyone wants to know how THEY fit into a larger picture. They want to know what they're being asked to do. They want to know how their gifts and talents are being used for the betterment of the final outcome. Without that, I believe, that we humans feel left out. We feel abandoned. We feel wasted. None of those are things that any human ever desires to feel.
One of the things about the society we currently live in is that we move so quickly that we don't have a chance to think of how to articulate our "call."
We do the things that we care about. We do them as well as we know how. But we rarely stop and think about why.
Which brings me back to my thoughts on actions as opposed to words. How do we better articulate a call? Why can't it be wrapped up in actions? Why can't we look back and see what we've done and are doing? Why don't we present that as evidence? My guess: because if we can't communicate through language, we are often lost in our world. We can't tell anyone why we are doing something. We can't explain ourselves. The way we interact with each other is through language. Because actions can be misinterpreted, we can only know someone's intent by the language that they use.
But language isn't perfect either. Humor is lost. Lying happens.
Well, if we can't use actions, and we can't use words, to give the most accurate representation of our "call," how do we know what a "call" is? How do we see the "call" in an authentic light? How do we come to a realization and portray it accurately to others?
Fruits.
We have to discern the goodness of the fruit that results. We have to judge the outcome. And by that, with a little prayer, we can probably get a head start on what it is God is "calling" us to do.
One of the things I struggle with in life is watching someone else do something that I know I can do faster and better than they are doing. I know that you deal with this too. I get frustrated when I see others making silly decisions based on their lack of knowledge at any given point. As my wife often reminds me, I'm not perfect. But I think there is a reason I deal with this. I think that it is at those moments that I can see the outcome. And I can see how point A gets to point B. I know how to make it work.
I think we all ought to learn to judge fruit. We ought to learn to see the outcome.
We can't, anymore, hide behind this wall of a "call." Reality is what it is, and we must do our best to judge the outcome of our actions and those around us. Perhaps in this way we can see what God is doing in our lives and the lives of those we touch.
When we learn to judge the fruit, we will learn what the fruit needs to be like. When we learn what the fruit needs to be like, we will be able to see how our gifts can get us there. When we see how our gifts can get us there, we can see where our place is. When we see where our place is, we will know what our "call" is. When we see all of these steps, we will be able to better articulate what God is "calling" us to do. When we can better articulate our "call" we will be able to make a bigger difference in the world. When that happens, God rejoices.
It will be, and only be, at this point that we will stop hiding behind the wall of our "call." Because then, and only then, that word will begin to mean something again.
It is not only important, it is imperative, for the the future of the Church for this to happen in the life of every single Christian.
-B
...but I'm constantly reminded about the nations around the world where people aren't treated like people. Instead, they're treated like puppets. Many citizens of North Korea worship their history of dictators who have oppressed them for years.
I'm reminded of this when I glance around the world on Google Maps and see the oddity that is the lack of information on North Korea. When the government gives out no information about their nation, the chances that heinous crimes against humanity are being committed and that the inalienable rights (especially life and liberty)are being revoked are very, very high.
I'm not one of those "America has to spread freedom across the lands" kind of crazies, but I think that all humans deserve the types of opportunities that I received from my life here, in my parents' house, in America. When I see these pictures, I know that that simply is not happening.
My heart aches for the citizens of North Korea and other nations where the leadership does not work for the people, but rather, works against them.
And by the way, that "all humans deserve" line refers to domestic humans as well as humans abroad. The guy down the street who is holding a sign that we all try to ignore deserves every shot I got, not because he is an American, but because he is a human.
-B
NOTE: I use the term "nation" here intentionally, in contrast to "country." I think most of us define "nation" as a group of people, many of which most likely share a common heritage, ethnicity (very literally, "nation"), race, and mindset. I recognize that many states (meaning countries) block off immigration and emigration with their borders, but I also know that some of the brainwashing that occurs is kindled by the idea that starting over simply doesn't seem like a reality. To start over means to leave family, friends, work, life, and all and move. Some are willing, but many are not. It is an interesting dynamic, isn't it, that sometimes the nation holds people in oppression just as much as the often evil leadership does? I think it is worth an in-depth study.
Great essay, I thought. And oh, the animation. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7E-aoXLZGY&hd=1]
Found via Andy Ihnatko (On Google+. I'd include a public link, but I can't figure it out.)
-B
I tried to post this to Facebook as a status, but Zuck has a moral conflict against posts longer than 420 characters. I felt like this was important to share. John Adams on innocence and guilt in society:
It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished. But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, “whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection,” and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever.
(Found via John Gruber via Andy Ihnatko)
Page of quotes can be found here.
This was obviously key to the founding fathers' thoughts on our legal system. I like it a lot. How wise.
The problem in our society today is that because of bias in the media and our own sick desires to see people punished and "brought to justice" is that it is impossible for presumption of innocence to become a reality. The jury showed today that we can still have presumed innocence. If only the rest of America could react in the way that today's jury did.
-B
Some things become immediately clear when big news occurs. When Osama Bin Laden was killed, people celebrated in the streets. When Michael was acquitted, people burned his albums. When OJ was acquitted, well, I don't remember what happened...I was in second grade.
But when the verdict was read that Casey Anthony was not guilty of anything more than lying, Facebook and Twitter took to doing what they do best: providing user-biased-commentary on events that the writer generally knows very little about.
Society, as a matter of history, generally disregards systems. They riot, they fight, they write music, and some societies even go on suicide missions. They do what they, as one person or one small group, can to make a change in society. At that point, society may or may not change ("progress" is really a relative term) how it functions. Moreso, it may or may not make a change to the system.
I'll probably take flack for this, but as I made clear when I wrote about Rev. DeLong, I am a fan of the system (whatever the current form of it looks like). Why? Because we, as a society, have to trust the system to decide things for us. We have to trust something in order to keep from killing each other left and right. Ask any leader who has ever decided something that wasn't popular. Now, I also have a conflict of interest, because I am also a fan of progress. But I think that progress comes through actions (with any luck, non-violent) of those within the system. They make arguments about why something should or shouldn't be the way it is, and then votes are taken so that a democracy can do its best job to decide the best and move on.
More or less, I say follow the rules. If you want to make a change because you think something is unjust or wrong, do so, but do it in the way that is set up. It's the societies that do not allow citizens to voice opinions that I would rather rail against. They oppress people, and that is wrong.
But America, for the most part, does not oppress its people. It has systems set up to decide things. We must follow those systems (and that still stands for someone who wants to change the system).
Here's how our legal system works: One person is on trial for doing something that breaks the law. They have the right to have a lawyer. Then, the state has a "prosecutor" who tries to prove their guilt. Then the person on trial's lawyer defends against the guilt. 12 people listen to all the evidence, think about it, listen to all the arguments, and then go back into a room and talk about it until they come up with a verdict. More or less, the lawyer with a better show wins. We all would hope that that winner would be the person is "right." But, what we forget is that "right" is often a matter of bias, is often vague, and is rarely agreed on by multiple people.
That's the system. If you don't like it, I heard North Korea is nice and welcoming.
So, we could say that the justice system is broken. And it is.
But, it's only broken because our society is broken. We build our lives on lying to each other. We get ahead by stabbing friends in the back. I'm not saying that it is good(obviously I think quite the opposite), but it is reality. So my question is: why should we expect our legal system to be any different?
One of the things that the Bible makes pretty clear (I think) is that justice belongs to God. Jesus calls on us to not judge others. But see, the Bible isn't a prerequisite to being an American. So we have to judge others. Because if someone takes someone else's life, do they deserve to keep theirs?
And we do that in the best way possible. If you look at our American legal system over others, we're doing ok.
And we have one more kink in the cable in America. Not only is our society built on lies, cheating, and general deceit, but we have the media to spin everything for us. And it's convenient, because we find out about mothers who are accused of killing their 2-year-old daughters, stuffing them in a trunk, dumping their bodies, and then not telling anyone for 31 days.
And everything has a cost, including convenience. The cost is that we hear "facts" third or fourth-hand. We hear them in a way that excites page views and more channel subscribers. We hear them in a way that catches your attention. There is no doubt that Nancy Grace has used this story to increase her ratings. I appreciate that she is so disgusted about this death and has made it her goal to spread love and accountability. But know this: she makes money from what she does. And she makes more money if her shows gets high ratings. So what she's doing isn't bad (in fact, spreading awareness about the death of children is great) but her view and premise is biased.
Which is why I get upset when I look at the tweeting world and see so many people drawing judgment on Casey. Because no one I personally know spent every day in that court room. And those who watched online or watched via news programs did not get a clean view of what was going on. And even if you had sat in that courtroom every day, you wouldn't know exactly what happened because you're getting the information from people who get paid to show their information in a way that makes them "win."
So, as long as rhetoric draws people to vote for you, we will be a broken society. As long as people murder and lie, they will be able to get away with it. As long as lawyers paychecks are on based on their performance, we will never truly understand justice.
I kind of have a feeling that Casey did it. But what do I know? I only ever watched the news.
We just do the best we can and respect our system so that we can, as a society, maintain some semblance of fairness and justice.
We have nothing more than that.
Like in the Rev. DeLong case, I am convinced that no one wins. Caylee is dead. Casey will never be able to go in public again. The entire Anthony family has been accused of horrible things. No one, including our society, wins.
-B
Well, maybe Baez wins.
So the newest Google product made its way unceremoniously to the public's eye yesterday. We all had a feeling that it was coming.
This is the way Google does things isn't it? If they have something they are fairly confident in (Google Music, Android, etc) they talk about it at their developers conferences, much like Apple does. However, Google also does a lot of experimenting with products. These they often release under the radar, hoping that the blogosphere will take care of it.
And, they do.
But it also always seems to be these products that seem the creepiest.
I must be clear before pressing on though: I do an awful lot of bad-mouthing of Google and their products. But GMail, without a doubt, is still the best email system in the world...Google is easily the best search engine in the world...Google Docs is still the best way to collaborate on documents in the world (but, really, that isn't saying much)...and the Google contacts, calendar, and ecosystem is currently the best free way to keep your life in sync. Google puts out a ton of great products. I don't happen to like Android as much as iOS, but Android is a REALLY strong mobile operating system and each time I pick up one of my parents' phones, I am pleasantly surprised. So, I hate on Google a bit too much, but there is no denying that most of what they do is quality work; it just doesn't have the style, elegance, or seamless user experience that Apple has come to be known for...yet.
And Google's newest product is...Google+.
Google+ is, very simply put, an attempt at creating a better version of Facebook and Twitter. It takes ideas and concepts from both and uses them in nice, new ways.
Given Google's previous work in the web app space, they have a fair chance. Given Google's previous work in the social media space, they have no chance at all.
But all that aside, I can't review Google+ yet. I CAN say that it looks very promising. But, it is missing many more things (and I mean this almost literally: in the thousands) to be able to compete with the monstrosity that is Facebook. But, for what it is and where it is, it is very, very good.
Here's my fear: how does Google make its money?
Google's revenue is based almost completely in advertising (something like 96% of its revenue). This is no secret to the world. This is why when your mom emails you about buying your dad a tie, you see ads about ties in the bottom of your gmail. Google is using what should be private, sensitive information to advertise to you within not just search results, but your email client and many other things.
Facebook has received a lot of criticism in the past about how much information they have of yours and how they use it to make money. And don't try to sugar-coat it: Facebook is doing the exact same thing that Google is doing. But Facebook has much more than sensitive information within in an email: they have your name, address, phone, email, likes/dislikes, political status, pictures, friend lists, location, etc.
But, up until this point, Facebook hasn't had my email (though they are actively trying to change that), calendar, contacts, etc. They have had sensitive information, but they haven't had all of it.
And Google saw that omission.
And they wanted in.
So they designed a sleek new social network, so they could get that information, easily. What's the easiest way to get someone's information? Don't steal it, you can go to jail for that. No, ask them for it. Don't worry, if you give them a cool video chat feature, they'll want it so badly that they'll give it to you.
Call me a fanboy or just old-fashioned, but I'd rather the company I rely on not get their revenue from advertising (with influence from my information). I'd rather they get their revenue from me buying their shiny gadgets. Because in that way, they don't have an interest in finding out more about me, they only have an interest in making better, more attractive products. It still works like...the free-market capitalistic society was designed to work.
It is true that Google isn't "selling your information." No, not in the way that we have always thought about it. They're not selling our phone numbers to telemarketers. And that information isn't really being "shared" with others other than Google. But really, it's not too different. That information may truly be "private" by the world's previous standards, but I have a feeling that our definition of privacy is being redefined on a daily basis. And I also have a hunch that we haven't even seen the beginning of the problems our addiction to social media networks will cause.
Eric Schmidt was asked recently, "Should we be scared that Google knows too much about us?" To which he responded, "Would you rather us know about you or the government know about you?"
Neither, Eric. But if I had to choose, I'd choose the one who wasn't making billions of dollars from that knowledge.
Oh, the world we live in.
And yes, I'm still going to give Google+ a try. I'm addicted, just like the rest of us.
-B
Amen. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFMd-nHTUFA&]
-B
Apple released the new version of their professional video editing software Final Cut Pro. The older version is Final Cut Pro 7, the new version is a huge step forward...X. Within hours of the release, the critics came out in droves. They have been not only negative, but they've also used this to pass judgment on Apple as a company and the decisions they've chosen to make.
I need to make a few things clear before I move on:
...but then I saw this on the Today Show. This is like some "holy crap we are living in some sort of robot-controlled-future time" stuff.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0109liIZGQ&]
Ok, maybe not so futuristic but if I'm not doing this by the end of the year, I'm going to be so mad.
-B
Well, the trial is over. Because of the lack of updates on Amy DeLong's own website and the slow moving articles from UMC.org, I found out about the trial verdicts in the same way that most of you did. In the same way I found out about Michael Jackson's death. And in the same way most of the world found out that the criminal mastermind who hired people to fly planes into our buildings had been killed: Twitter.
So, though the UMC has posted pictures of the trial, the important worship services before and throughout the trials and sentencing, it is important to note that I, nor many who read this, have any clue about how this all shook out exactly. Some tweeters were there, and helped us along the way but taking their word for it. But trying to understand and really "get" what happened in that church without being there is like...well, a little reading the Bible in English. You mostly get the idea (and even exact quotes) but so, so much is lost. 140 characters just doesn't quite do it.
If you're looking for more "reporting" than Twitter can give you, just check out UMC.org and various other sites for as much info as you can find.
Story, as I hear it, is that she was acquitted 12-1 that she was a "self-avowed practicing homosexual". From what we all hear, she refused to answer some of the questions regarding this, citing that they were being asked in an accusatory manner. I see her point. But I also think that true "evidence" exists that is published by Rev. DeLong that submits that she is "guilty". I'm happy for Rev. DeLong because this verdict means that the person she loves hasn't held her back from pursuing her calling.
She was, though, guilty on the other charge...as we all expected. I think I made it clear last time, Amy broke the rules.
The punishment was a bit of a slap on the wrist but anyone who might have either expected or hoped for something more substantial probably wasn't being realistic. She was assigned to a 20-day suspension (seems to me like a "think-about-what-you-did" scenario) and to write a document for some sort of presentation at General Conference 2012. I really like the second penalty. I think it'll take her passion and put it into a position where it can actually make a difference, and possibly...a change. That's great.
I've received quite a bit of negative feedback in regards to my first post, as many who sit clearly on the side of Rev. DeLong have seen my post as a means of arguing against homosexuality. I wasn't. I was only saying that Rev. DeLong broke the rules. Even in my remarks regarding her baptism, I wished to point out that the movements against her have simply been to maintain fairness.
I have heard many "unjust rules were meant to be broken" ala MLK Jr arguments. Politically, I actually agree. I have made it quite clear that I think that God loves all of God's children. What I neglected to make as clear is that I see, as I think you should, a difference here in the political argument as opposed to the religious argument. The United States says that all are equal. So, all should be equal. Rosa Parks, MLK, Malcolm, X, and many many others fought for this cause. They were jailed for their efforts as well. And they were in the right. The laws of the USA were acting in opposition to some of the founding documents of this country. Many of them cleverly snuck in religious references to their arguments, but that argument was a social argument regarding a matter of US policy and law. It was against the rights of the African Americans to treat them in the way they were bing treated. All men are created equal.
What's perhaps most confusing about the homosexuality "issue" in today's society is that it is once again a political issue on the state side with a lot of religious rhetoric thrown back and forth. Who decides the rules for the country and states? The founding documents and then instances of precedents and bills passed in Congress. Who decides the rules for the church? The church, in whatever way each church chooses to rule itself.
The UMC has a way of going about this. Prayerfully, spiritually, and Biblically: the Book of Discipline is decided on. It's decided on by a vote. Which means that a MAJORITY of the people in the UMC elected delegates who decided to keep the current BOD language regarding homosexuality that existed prior. To break these rules, knowingly, is more than just to say "you are wrong", it is to say "your interpretation of the Biblical scriptures doesn't count because progress must be made." I personally believe that God's grace is available for ALL. The difference is: I don't see where this instance changes that that much.
Then there is the part about Amy's agreement with the UMC. Rosa Parks didn't make any agreement with the US. Because the whole situation of Civil Rights was born out of oppression at the start, it's not even fair to say that agreement was based on taxes and public services rendered. But Amy did agree to something. And the church agreed to something. The fact that Amy was a homosexual was something she knew about. And she broke the rules.
Which is why I think that the slap on the wrist of 20 days does nothing more than show others that they can do the same thing, if they're willing to take the penalty. This opens up a whole new world of interest. Had it been a stronger penalty, two things might have worked better (for all involved): the Discipline (and the inherent Bible-based decisions that have to come from that) might have been put to the use that it exists for, and the Biblical interpretations of all involved would actually have been dealt with in a way that made all feel like their voices were heard. What this might encourage (and to note, may or may not be good or bad...history gets defined by the "winners") is a whole bunch of pastors who believe so strongly in one idea that they're willing to break the covenant they made with the church. To me, that's a big idea. Biblically, breaking covenants is looked down upon. I must be clear: I think is is very, very different than Rosa Parks.
The Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence are very clear in (most of) their language. The Bible really isn't. It was written by many many people over a long period of years; many of which seem to, at times, have different ideas about discipleship, salvation, grace, and faith. To make it worse, church history is even more messed up than the US's history is. It is because of this that we are at this juncture today.
One thing is clear to me, though: in this church trial, no one really wins.
-B
A note regarding this post: I am and have been close with several self-avowed homosexual people within my lifetime. It is my personal belief that God loves all of God's children and calls upon all of us to act and behave in the same way as God has demonstrated through Jesus' life here on earth. I do not claim to understand the homosexual lifestyle (as it simply does not describe me) and choose not to judge the lifestyle because of my extreme lack of knowledge regarding the topic. I do, however, think that our culture is on the verge of a gender and sexual orientation crisis that has been snowballing for years. I think that if the Church does not handle such a crisis with grace, mercy, and love, we will not only have disobeyed God's will for us, but we will have lost (please define "lost" however you'd like, it will still be true). My opinions listed below are indicative of my own observations of the said situation at the given time, with as much information as I felt like I could find. I would hope that they do not anger any readers, as I have attempted to choose the words carefully so as to be inclusive, yet honest, with describing and arguing a very difficult situation that no one quite knows the "right" answer to. I have attempted to be mindful of those that I know and love while writing this post, because if at the end of the day I have angered people close to me, I have lost. If at any point you disagree or wish to point out my own ill-thinking, please express this to me in a way that embodies the grace, mercy, and love referenced above. Rev. Amy DeLong of Wisconsin is on trial in the United Methodist Church for "chargeable offenses" according to Paragraph 2702 in the United Methodist Book of Discipline. The Book of Discipline is edited, morphed, and revoted on every four years by delegates from each of the Annual Conferences within the United Methodist Church. For those uninterested in church procedure and polity, it reads a lot like a phone book (do they even still have those anymore?).
The story of Amy goes something like this: she fell in love with the United Methodist Church around the time she was in college. She began to feel a call to pursue ordained ministry. By the time she had affirmed that call and applied to seminary, she fell in love with her partner, Val. You can read Amy's account of her story here.
Then, in 2009, "Amy officiated at a Holy Union for a same-gender loving couple."(Link) She then reported about it in the annual required report that pastors must submit. She was called in to meet with the Bishop and she explained what she had done and described to the Bishop her on-going relationship with her partner, Val. The link at the top of the paragraph has the rest of the story's timeline. Given what you've read so far, you can put the pieces together.
What are the offenses against Amy? The Book of Discipline (remember, decided on by United Methodists worldwide) says you can't do that.
The Book of Discipline lists the word "homosexual" 17 times. It lists "gay" seven times. It lists "lesbian" three times. In regards to homosexuality in general, the Book of Discipline says this:
The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers this practice incompatible with Christian teaching. We affirm that God's grace is available to all. we will seek to live together in Christian community, welcoming, forgiving, and loving one another, as Christ has loved and accepted us. We implore families and churches not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends. We commit ourselves to be in ministry for and with all persons. (Paragraph 161, F)
Basically, the UMC implores individual churches to love and care for homosexual people, but still considers the practice of homosexuality "incompatible with Christian teaching."
Rev. DeLong, though, at this point isn't guilty of anything. She's cited as guilty of charges under PP 2702.1b. Paragraph 2702 refers explicitly to reasons that a bishop, clergy member, local pastor, clergy on honorable location, or diaconal minister may be tried. Here's what it lists:
Short and sweet: Rev. DeLong broke the rules.
So, according to the Book of Discipline, she is being charged with breaking the rules. Sounds fair, right? When she was ordained as a pastor, she agreed to hold to the rules. She didn't.
Obviously Rev. DeLong didn't take nicely to this. She has employed help and a defense system including the recently popular www.loveontrial.org.
Here's what I don't understand: why is she angry? Obviously, she is on the verge of losing her job (one that she loves and feels called to). I guess that makes sense. But, we musn't forget: she knowingly did something that she was consciously aware was against the teachings and rules of the church. When you have a private job (remember, churches are private institutions) and you break the rules of that job, your employer has the right (and the responsibility) to remove you from your position at their own discretion. This issue is often compared to the Civil Right's issues in the 50's, 60's, and 70's. I don't personally think this is a fair comparison in this instance because Amy has a private job. Martin Luther King went to jail. Amy will not. The government has no rules about her own ordination. If she loses this trial, she is not going to go to jail. The best argument that she has is that the UMC shouldn't legally be able to ask you whether or not you are gay in order to be employed. (It is worth noting that I noticed this during my recent investigations into the ordination process of the UMC. The church does background checks--expected--but also financial checks, health checks, marriage checks, etc...things that other businesses in the private sector are not legally allowed to base employment choices off of.)
However, the reality remains the same: she agreed to hold to a value and behavioral system. In exchange for her agreement (and hard work), the church agreed to give her a job, insurance, and a house for the rest of her employable life. Setting aside any spiritual aspect of the role of the pastor (of which there is obviously much of), she didn't hold to her side of the deal.
If you read her material on www.loveontrial.org, you'll notice that she is a talented speaker. She has a gift for writing sermons and has a real heart for ministry. I feel for Amy. She's in a tough situation. There's not a great way out at this point, except to gain a following and leave the UMC in a big way. If she can gain followers, perhaps she can make a difference in the future. I personally wonder, that if this is where she is, why is she still so "called" to the UMC? If I felt as if a church body wasn't including me, I'd look somewhere else.
(Irony, noted)
There is one more thing, though. In a sermon Rev. DeLong gave the other night, she said this:
You see, they don't want my ordination back, they want my baptism back. They don't want me included. They don't want me to feel beloved. They don't want the Holy Spirit to be poured out on me and they certainly don't want God saying, "Amy, in you I am well-pleased." They aren't after my ordination. They're after my baptism. They're saying God's grace isn't sufficient. (Link)
I see that Amy is in the midst of perhaps the most emotional time in her life. I get that she is using the argument that the UMC is being a legalist and she is being "spiritual." I see why she says what she says. I don't always agree, but I can see where she is coming from.
But, in the quote above...I think she is wrong. The Book of Discipline explicitly states that homosexual people ARE to be welcomed. Remember the "implore" line above? They do want her ordination back, not because they have a political stance, but because the General Church agreed that that was what was required. To let her keep her job after what she is done is not being fair to her, it's being unfair to the rest of the church.
They do not, in any way, want her baptism back. I can see why she might feel that way, but to explicitly state that the church is unable to keep her from being a Christian is not only a misrepresentation of the situation but it is also extremely out of line.
My only hope is that somehow some sort of reconciliation can come out of this. I'm not sure the church is completely right. I'm not sure that Amy is completely right. Somehow, the Church is going to have to learn how to deal with the changes in culture in order to continue to be effective witnesses for Christ in the world.
Here's to hoping that actually happens.
-B
ADDITION: I don't like the "incompatible with Christian teaching" language. Not because I don't think it's true (who defines "Christian teaching" anyway?), but because I think it is only used to call out the homosexual lifestyle explicitly. I personally think that divorce is incompatible with Christian teaching, (and in a strict sense, MUCH more than homosexuality) and yet the UMC ordains divorcees every year. I go to school with several. If the UMC were to not allow self-avowed divorcees to be ordained, hell might break loose. There are many many options and times when divorce is the right situation. When divorce is the only way out of an abusive or unhealthy situation. I do not choose to judge those times. I simply wish to point out that the "incompatible" language does not include all things, as it should.
This is the third installment in the "Everything is a Remix" series by a guy named Kirby. These are VERY well done and if innovation, progress, and the future of creation are of any interest to you, you ought to sit back and watch this for 11 minutes. Make sure you stay until the end, after the credits. [vodpod id=Video.11432879&w=425&h=350&fv=]
It is, without a doubt, an interesting take on the world and the progress within it. It is true that Apple did not outright invent Graphical User Interfaces (most people ought to be aware that it was a visit to the Xerox campus that changed Steve Jobs. He has been quoted as saying, "They showed us three things that day but I didn't see the other two. I was so caught up with the first thing that I missed the rest of the presentation.") Apple did, however, innovate in many ways. As the video points out, they made things easier, they made things make more sense. Those are innovations. They innovated in price, too, which made it more acceptable to the commercial market.
I don't think anyone doubts that one company or person has created things that were simply unheard of before. Some do, however, have better methods of creation and presentation that truly allows something to become...new. Apple has done this in computers since the late 70's. Disney has done this in animation and theme parks since well before that.
This quote from Henry Ford can be found at the end of the video:
I invented nothing new.
I simply assembled the discoveries of other men behind whom were centuries of work. Had I worked fifty or ten or even five years before, I would have failed.
So it is with every new thing. Progress happens when all the factors that make for it are ready, and then it is inevitable.
To teach that a comparatively few men are responsible for the greatest forward steps of mankind is the worst sort of nonsense.
-Henry Ford
-B
John Gruber says Kirby "nailed it." I think I agree.
I've had a somewhat rare opportunity for a young person such as myself. I've helped start two churches. Both had much in common. Both were very different. Because of this, I often reflect on what it is that draws people in to a church. If you've never started a church before, you won't realize the ridiculous amount of work, effort, and energy that goes into moving people into a building. And no, it's not for the mere idea of having a big church; it's about evangelism and sustainability.
First, though, a note: though "house churches" have garnered more of a following in the past years, it is difficult for them to support full-time ministers. I actually think that house churches are great ideas, but I don't necessarily think they're going to negate the idea of large church communities that make huge impacts on the community and world around them. I think that in many ways house churches can be connected to larger organizations to help shape more and better disciples.
Because I do a lot of contemplation about this, I thought I'd begin to compile a list of what it is that makes a church "successful". I choose not, at this time, to define "success" except to say that growth, outreach, and mission, in my mind, are necessities. This list isn't built off of what the churches I have been involved with have done well, nor are they based on what the churches didn't do as well. Admittedly, there is a bit of both in the points below. However, there are also some observations that I've made from other churches I've visited as well. Also, this list isn't complete (could it ever really be complete?). I invite you to join in with your additions and thoughts in the comments.
Things that I think churches (especially church-plants) ought to strive for:
There are many, many more. I think, though, that this is a decent start. There are some obvious omissions and I am sure that you'll disagree with some of what I said.
Here shall be my challenge to you: submit your feedback (both more suggestions and corrections) to me through the comments below. I'd like to make this a working list. I'll update the post (and mark it, giving credit to the authors) with additions that I think are fruitful.
The Church will only change if we change it. I believe that the Church has been ordained to change the world.
-B
Gaga's got a new video. It's brilliant. So deep. So inspiring. So well-written. So perfectly executed. [vodpod id=Video.11139720&w=425&h=350&fv=]
She's received quite a bit of negative press for this one(But that's not that different for her, is it?).
In all honesty, she can do whatever she wants. If she chooses to write a song while taking shots with her dad on the piano after her grandfather died, then tell everyone that the song is about her grandfather (ought to be sentimental, right?), then dress in scant leather and basically have sex with poles and brick walls for the video; she has the right to.
But here's what I think happened:
Now, that is fast. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xS2ZipMM2Oo]
In case you're curious, the cheapest iteration of that Mac will cost you $2,699.00
Only available on the 27-inch model.
-B
John Gruber posted this video earlier on Daring Fireball today. Believe me, it is worth your precious time. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdHTlUGN1zw]
I am constantly amazed by the incredible amounts of ingenuity and time that go into animation. I am more amazed day by day by how much Disney has led the animation industry with technological innovations since its inception. I suppose that Gruber's comment sums it up the best:
Using technology to tell better stories, and make better movies. He’d have loved Pixar.
The amount of technology that Walt Disney had employed in his company since the beginning to make the products (both the films and theme parks) better had passed many many others. There are not many companies in the world that have such artistic and technological approaches woven together to create not only great products that sell, but also pieces of art.
The only other company that I think compares to the Walt Disney company in these regards is Apple. They have lots of things in common with each other: a different outlook on how the current marketplace could be changed by innovation, company held secrets (they wouldn't have been able to afford the land for Walt Disney World any other way), expensive prices, well thought-out market strategies and plans, very few huge mistakes (Michael Eisner had to be one of the biggest), and well-intentioned and marvelous leadership.
There is one more thing though: Magic.
All of the technological innovations that each company employ go to one thing: to make the way that the user interacts with the content magical. With Disney it was making a seemingly 2D artistic rendering come alive by seeming...real. When Disney set out to create their theme parks, they wanted the guests to feel as if they were ACTUALLY IN some sort of fantasy land. It work so well that others copied it.
With Apple it is making communicating, interacting, and accomplishing work with a seemingly difficult computer as easy as possible. They introduced an entire new way of computing so that the personal computer could change the way people interacted with everyday life. They did it again with the iPhone. And again with the iPad. This, also, worked so well that others copied it.
There's a bit of magic inside of both of these companies.
My only concern is that Disney's outline since Walt's departure may be foreshadowing the outline of Apple after Steve's departure. We all know how Walt left his company. We all know what happened next to Disney. I don't want that to be the way that Steve leaves Apple.
-B
I should have never opened my mouth. All day today, I've received text after message after email about wanting me to give people iOS 5 for their iPhone or iPad. Technically, I broke the NDA that Apple developers have to agree to in the first place. If you were one of these people, don't be offended, but I can't get it to you.
First, I'm not technically a developer. I've been using a friend's account. One that he graciously let me log in to. But it costs $99 a year to do it and he, not having produced any apps, finally saw that it didn't seem to be worth the money.
I've considered paying the fee to be a developer, but I no longer live in a situation where I can be the only one making financial decisions, and it doesn't make sense for me to pay for the account at this point in my life.
So, I'd like to fill you in on what it takes to get a beta iOS release onto your phone:
As if you really needed one.
-B
