We May Not Think Our Judicial System is "Just"...

...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.

20110708-104211.jpg

20110708-104225.jpg

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.

"Language" by Stephen Fry

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

Schmoyoho

They're at it again. The newest creation: [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sP4NMoJcFd4&]

and, the infamous (and incredibly annoying) original

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTTwcCVajAc&]

Yes, I downloaded their app. I'll let you know how it is.

-B

John Adams on Innocence

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

Casey Anthony and Our Broken Society

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.

Selling Your Information, or, Google+

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

Final Cut Pro X = iOS

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:

  • I do not own Final Cut Pro X (I don't have the extra income to make a $300 purchase, especially for software I don't use on a regular basis)
  • I have read extensively on the new product (when Apple releases a "dud," it is always intriguing) and have considerable experience with Final Cut Pro 7 (though I am in now way, form, or fashion, a "professional" at Final Cut Pro).
  • Apple is a 90-90 company. Apple makes decisions based off of what 90% of the people want/need to do 90% of the time (I didn't come up with this myself, I stole it from Alex Lindsay, founder of the Pixel Corp).
Because of these things above, I've come to one basic conclusion: most who are criticizing the product (no matter their prestige in the video editing world) do not understand Apple as a company.  After all, Apple makes some seemingly-crazy decisions on a regular basis. They seem, under Steve's leadership, to be doing ok.
It is my goal here to draw comparisons between Final Cut Pro X and iOS, as Apple has made strategic decisions with both of the products.  I do, in fact, think that iOS is indicative of the direction and market Apple is pursuing. I think these decisions parallel, in many ways, the decision that Apple has made with Final Cut Pro.  It's not a clean analogy by any stretch of the imagination, but I think it has some ring of truth to it.
It's hard to remember the first iPhone now. But, not too hard.  There were no direct competitors.  Today is the four year anniversary of the launch of the original iPhone. Let's compare some features that we take for granted now, shall we?
The original iPhone had:
  • no multitasking (this is true of the original iPad as well, when it first released)
  • no third-party applications
  • no home screen backgrounds
  • no Microsoft Exchange support
  • no front-facing camera (the original iPad didn't have any cameras)
  • no 3G support or coverage
  • an audio jack that required an adapter for a regular headphone set
  • no intelligent way to deal with notifications
  • no push notifications
  • no user-replaceable battery (still true today)
Slowly, thanks to adequate competition from Android, Apple has added a majority of these over the past four years. Slowly, but surely, Apple has redesigned some of the most basic features in Mac OS X to work in ways that are best suited for the mobile environment.  Many argue whether these are the best strategies or not, but no one argues whether or not they are working...they are.
Because here is what happened with iOS: Apple wanted to make a mobile phone (Steve has discussed on stage that this actually started with the pursuit of a tablet device). It was important that this device be radically different than anything within the market.  Because the original idea came from a tablet form factor, a big candy-bar shaped piece of glass seemed like the best idea. If they could implement a worthwhile digital keyboard (and they did), then the full glass front would prove to be a great solution.  Apple had a leg up on the competition for two reasons:
  • they saw a new phone not as a mobile phone, but rather as a mobile computer.
  • they already had a phenomenal proprietary operating system.
The enabled them to start the iPhone OS with a strong foundation: Mac OS X.  This was, in fact, one of the points in Steve's original keynote when he introduced the iPhone. Here was the problem though: no one was going to use a mouse to navigate the iPhone's screen. Because Apple makes decisions often based on minimalism or simplicity, they also threw out the idea of using a stylus. Steve has said it before: When you throw out the stylus, you have to use your finger. Mac OS X was built so that someone could have the precision of the tip of a cursor.  Without a stylus, you don't have that precision. You have a finger tip, which is much, much cruder.
Apple, taking the foundational elements of Mac OS X, designed a completely new interface to the iPhone's operating system. It is important to understand this distinction. When Windows 7 went "touch-enabled" Microsoft did little more than make it a bit easier for a hardware manufacturer to add a touch screen. A touch experience on Windows 7 today is more than painful (try it and you'll see). Apple took a different approach. The rewrote EVERYTHING so that it would work with the point of a finger. iOS (originally called, iPhone OS) required Apple to, more or less, start over.
And start over they did.  If you look at the history of iOS, it becomes obvious that people at Apple sat down in a room and said, "If we were going to reinvent computing, what would we do different?"  You can imagine that they thought of things like malware, spam, viruses, ease of writing, finding, and downloading apps, battery life, the file system, price, etc. Little by little, with their own unique approach, Apple has fought each of these things. If there are features that people want/desire on an iPad or iPhone that their computer has, Apple slowly implements those features in a way that suits the device that they're running on.  It hasn't been perfect, but it is hard to argue that it hasn't worked.
So, how does this relate to Final Cut Pro?
Final Cut Pro 7 (the older version, just replaced with FCPX) was a 32-bit application. Apple has migrated most of their apps to 64-bit over time. Final Cut Pro was one of the last. And Final Cut Pro was on old product. Somewhere along the line, I imagine that it was decided that to take FCP to 64-bit, a significant amount of re-coding was going to need to have been done. Here is a big change, and it needs to be re-written to work well (sound familiar?).
One must imagine that at some point someone working on this re-coding said, "If we're going to re-write this anyway, why don't we just start over?" as if to say, "If we were going to reinvent movie editing, what would we do differently?"
And so they did. They did this a while back with iMovie. Now it was time for Final Cut Pro. So, they re-wrote it, from the ground up.
We can make a strong argument that Apple is willing to enrage 5,000 high-end professional users in order to satisfy 2 million new users.  That argument would be valid.  We can argue that they lowered the price to entice new users to come.  That argument would be valid.  We can argue that most of Hollywood is already using AVID and is unlikely to switch (editors get very quick and comfortable with editing environments that they know and love).  That argument would be valid.
But my argument is that they're starting over.
There are a lot of things that they've done well this time:
  • Distribution and licensing is much easier as it is handled through the App Store.
  • Stepping up from iMovie is much, much easier with the new FCPX.
  • Many of the extra features that used to exist in stand-alone applications are now well-integrated into the Final Cut Pro experience.
  • Magnetic timelines have made it so that non-educated or non-experienced users can easily perform tasks that used to be a burden.
  • The user interface resembles iMovie so that all of their products have a seamless workflow to them.
  • Rendering is done in the background so that the editor doesn't have to worry with telling the computer to re-render every video edit.
  • Final Cut Pro works works much better with Motion (so much so that using Motion to create FCP Title templates is much, much easier) than it ever did.
  • Everything is 64-bit.
  • Final Cut Pro renders footage more useful now that it has facial recognition built into its logging of clips.
  • Many, many more new features.
The two biggest complaints from the high-end professional world have been:
  • The interface is too foreign (unchangeable and too much like iMovie Pro)
  • It doesn't import old timelines and projects.
Apple has said that the second one is simply impossible. Many might ask, why would Apple go forward with a project that wasn't compatible with the old one? The answer is easy: when there is something better in the future (and for Apple, this is much better) a few sacrifices sometimes need to be made. Remember when the iMac released without a floppy disk drive? Yeah, that didn't work for them at all...
iOS was a complete re-write, leaving out key features until they could add them in a way that made sense.  Final Cut Pro X is a complete re-write, until they can add the features users want in a way that makes sense.  It's a compromise that Apple made to please tons and tons of amateur video editors at a low cost, knowing good and well that the high-high end market may react because it is...different.
It's almost like asking a computer programmer to write an app on the original iPhone.  They'd probably laugh.  When you asked why they were laughing, they'd say, "It doesn't have the right tools."  To which you would reply, "yet."
Does this hurt their growth in the high-end professional market? Probably.
Does it help their growth in the low-end amateur market?  Without a doubt.
The high-end market is tiny.  The low-end market is huge.
Can you really blame a company for making any different of a decision?
People really seem to like their iPhones and iPads.
-B

I Used To Want a Segway...

...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

The History of Duke in the NBA Draft

Another great montage by the good folks at Blue Devil Nation. Great stats, great players, great history.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOwFOZTA9wU&]

I've been criticized before for not understanding what it is like to go to a big college or university. I've been accused of not knowing what it's like to see people in the cafeteria that go on to play for millions in professional sports. On Thursday, that all went out the window. I saw Nolan on a regular basis in the Divinity School and Kyrie and Kyle on numerous occasions around school too. Kyrie was the number one draft pick and probably one of the best players we've seen in awhile. Yeah, I think I qualify now.

I never have paid much attention to the NBA before. I think that's all about to change.

-B

Conan on Final Cut Pro X

Apple released their new professional grade Final Cut Pro X. Problem is, it isn't professional grade. They've received some...negative press from the professional editing world about it. Conan, though, had the best take on it.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxKYuF9pENQ&]

In reality, the fact that they could make this video actually speaks highly of the product. It's nice work.

Apple doesn't have many business disasters. This might be their first in a while. Here's to hoping that they can figure out some way to please those with the loudest voices.

-B

When a Woman Loves a Woman

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

Incompatible with Christian Teaching

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:

  • immorality including but not limited to not being celibate in singleness or not faithful in a heterosexual marriage.
  • practices declared by the UMC to be incompatible with Christian teaching, including but not limited to: being a self avowed practicing homosexual; or conducting ceremonies which celebrate homosexual union; or performing same-sex wedding ceremonies.
  • crime.
  • failure to perform the work of the ministry.
  • disobedience to the order and discipline of the UMC.
  • many others including sexual abuse, sexual misconduct, harassment, and racial or gender discrimination.

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.

Everything is a Remix: Progress and Innovation

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.

A Church I'd Go To

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:

  • A welcoming, inviting atmosphere
    • I often tell people that I can tell whether I want to be a part of a community or not within the first minute and a half. It has nothing to do with how the parking situation is, although churches that have weird parking situations and manage it well stand out. It has nothing to do with the worship space.  It has to do with whether or not I feel welcome.
    • Within that minute and a half, you must be greeted. You must be welcomed. You must be spoken to.  Hopefully, they'll hook you up with a nametag.
      • I think we've all experienced that awkward moment when there is someone new in the middle of a room of old and everyone kind of wonders who will make the first move.  We ought to be clear on this: that shouldn't ever be the case in our churches. We are all guilty of it on one level or another.
    • This is a perfect time to help a new person easily get acquainted with the way the time of worship (or whatever stands in its place) will run. In 2011, like it or not, comfort is an important thing for potential church goers.  Make someone feel out of place, they're not likely to return. (Please spare me the "but church should be a time of stretching, molding, and challenge" arguments. They're not relevant to new comers.)
  • A simplistic, well organized, thoughtful, meaningful time of worship
    • Some churches use pre-composed liturgy. Some create a new order of worship every week.  Some do a little bit of both.  Whatever the case, the order of worship should make sense (which means that if you are straying from lectionary readings, etc...be sure to make sure that the order of worship fits the theme, texts, and MAKES LOGICAL SENSE).
      • It should be abundantly clear that I glean this from an Apple-centric way of viewing the world.  Apple has had huge success by having all of their business moves seem to at least appear simplistic. Logic, too, is key.
    • Transitions are key in a worship service, I think. (Please spare me the "church services shouldn't be produced" arguments.) In 2011, "dead time" means "awkwardness." THIS IS DIFFERENT THAN SILENCE. Silence can be very, very good. But when leadership doesn't know what's going on, it's not meaningful silence.  It's distracting.
    • I don't always buy that the music should be split up because standing for long periods of time is painful, but I'm often wrong. There are many options available to the planners so that you don't have to sing seven songs in a row. Whatever you plan though, have a plan. When you half-ass it, you aren't fooling anybody.
  • A solid community
    • Some churches are huge.  Some are small. Contrary to popular belief, it does not matter about size as much as it matters about community.  Many, many churches that are huge in numbers have strong communities within themselves and everyone feels like they're a part of something. (Think of it like attending a large public University, most students need to find SOMETHING to belong to).  Many many small churches speak negatively about each other behind others' backs. When people visit the church, they want to feel like people know each other, but they aren't clique-y.
    • Prayer requests, etc are awesome opportunities, I think, for the community to be solidified.  People like knowing what's weighing on one another's hearts and they are, many times, more likely to lift it up in worship than mention it as an aside within another conversation.
    • Don't rush other things.  Allow those who wish to talk and catch up with one another to do just that. Fellowship is extremely important in the growth of a church.
  • Inspiring, creative leadership
    • Hitler was a bad man. But, in a very strict and technical sense, he was good at his job. Barack Obama was good at campaigning. Jesus was good at his job.  Osama bin Laden was good at his job. Steve Jobs is good at his job. Walt Disney was good at his job.
      • Some of these were good for the world.  Others weren't. All of them were inspiring leaders. They were all, also, well-spoken charismatic speakers.  People want to follow that...like it or not.
    • We all know when someone is and isn't an inspiring leader. Being charismatic and inspiring isn't always a recipe for success, but it certainly helps.  When people are feeling down or tired, they need a pick-me-up.  When people are doing well, they need affirmation. This is reality, and it's a reality for churches.
    • Creativity is key. Being stuck in a rut is not suitable for relevant ministry and it sometimes takes a little moving and shaking to get things done. This often takes place in today's churches within technological creativity. This is mostly good, but it doesn't have to be done in this way. Be creative in all aspects of your leadership.  If it still makes some sort of clear, directional, logical sense, it's probably ok.
    • This also includes being a good manager of people and staff.
      • I waver back and forth on whether or not I  agree with the "Pastor as CEO" model. More times than not, though, I come back to it.  Pastors have to be honest with staff members who aren't cutting it.  Pastors have to be honest in each and every situation. I truly believe that if the staff is dysfunctional, it will become apparent to new-comers to the church far faster than you would have hoped.
    • This leadership (in all aspects of the church) has to truly care for people.
      • Some of the biggest time-taker-uppers for pastors are hospital visits, funerals, weddings, and counseling. If you've ever experienced even a hint of any of them, you'll quickly realize that they're all blessings in their own unique ways. However, when a pastor doesn't truly care for or about people in tough or difficult situations, it's evident to everyone.  It's truly a calling and, I think, a necessity.

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

"I'm a Comedian First"

[vodpod id=Video.11387818&w=425&h=350&fv=] Jon Stewart on Fox News Sunday.

I'm surprised he did this. Because he did though, we have many great quotes.

"I'm not denying that there is liberal bias in the media, but you're suggesting that there is an equivalence between Fox News and ABC and I thinks that's absolutely...silly."

-B