One *Consistent* Voice

In a political landscape where someone's method of counting the votes changes every month or so...where "I've listened to you and in the process I've found my voice" means simply that your voice changes state by state and moment by moment...where someone else can call a person an agent of intolerance one year, and seek their favor the next...I think there's one candidate whose voice has been consistent. What do you think?

READ MORE HERE

Move over, Iron Man...

...it's Fusion Man!

This is apparently real, folks. I can't decide if it's purely cool, or if I'm concerned about the waste of fuel...though I plan to jet ski Saturday, so I'm gonna go with "cool." Clearly, if I'm to take over the world, I must obtain one of these. Bwah-hah-hah!

READ MORE HERE

Happy Day, all!

Happy Pentecost everybody - may God's Spirit be poured out on you or well up within you today...may it be a day of encouragement, empowerment, and blessing, so that you may bless, encourage, and empower others.

And hey, don't forget that it's Mother's Day! Hey mom - see you in about 14 hours!

READ MORE HERE

Discipleship Emerging, pt. 3 - Chaplaincy

As I work through this job hunting process, my thoughts have done a lot of circling around what *type* of job to look for, as I've already written about (endlessly). A calling or vocation is not a calling to a job description. I feel like being a minister *is* who I am - or who I'm called to be/become. I also think all people are called to be ministers, in some way - and that for me, what it means to be a minister is that I'm a reminder-er - my role is to remind others that they are ministers. And, I guess, to support them and equip them as they go about ministry/service/working for the kingdom in their own spheres of influence. And to remind them they're not alone, and foster community and connection between the various spheres. And...well, that's enough!

So whatever job I have at any point, it doesn't have to be identical with my calling...but it does need to be consistent. I was becoming progressively troubled as a healthcare chaplain, because my primary understanding of my calling - reminding and equipping and building up - wasn't what I was spending most of my time doing. This, as much as frustration over paperwork and evil corporate greed and governmental waste, is why I'm not a chaplain right now.

Well, being laid off had something to do with it, too.

But I'd already decided I wouldn't stay more than another year. Really. Anyway...to some extent, volunteering at my church and with the college ministry while working in hospice as a 'day job' worked. But hospice isn't really the kind of thing you can do long term if you're not really passionate about it. And while it generally worked ok, sometimes it didn't leave much emotional energy for volunteering, even though that was the stuff I 'really' wanted to do. It was frustrating to know you were doing second-best at things that were most important to you. Meanwhile, I was trying to find ways to be who I am - a reminder-er (really need a better word!) and equipper, but thinking I really ought to be around people who were going to live long enough to do something with the insights they were having...

When the hospice job evaporated, I took that as my cue that it was time to shift to doing a job that was where my heart was - in the church.

My understanding of vocation may be shifting, by the way. I still agree and am passionate about what I've said - being a reminder, equipper, and community-builder. But there's another element that comes to the surface in the last few years, an element that working in hospitals and hospices has helped to crystallize, as well as reading literature from the emerging church, and my own Bible study.

I have seen too many men and women die feeling lonely and cut off from the church…too many people die without believing they are loved, or that God intended for them, for us all, to have lives of meaning and purpose - to know that we are of infinite value.

I have watched people die who never got to the point where they trusted that. At best, I could say that because of me and even more the nurse's aides, nurses, and social workers, they at least were *told* that they mattered. More, they saw people *acting* as if they mattered. That's something. For some of my patients, there was no one else in their lives telling them those things.

We all bear some responsibility for the lives we lead, and I'll grant you that many of those folks made choices that contributed to their isolation. But so what? We all fall short, and some of us only have bad choices to start with. The fact remains, whatever else, that often hospice was standing in the gap in solidarity with those patients when no one else was. Not family...not church.

(Not to say I didn't encounter many incredible and inspiring families, and churches, and a synagogue. Sometimes things - people - work out. Sometimes they don't.)

My dream is to be a part of a church community that is not content to leave those needs in other hands. My dream is to be a part of a church that believes Jesus meant it when he said that whatever we have done for the least of these - feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, caring for the sick, visiting the prisoners and the oppressed - whatever we have done for them, we have done for Christ.

And whatever we have not done for them, we have not done for Christ.

The fact is, the church is meant to be doing this work...and when we're doing it right, no one does it better. Can you imagine showing any more love and compassion and solidarity for the desperately poor of Calcutta than Mother Teresa did? She's a model for us. Christ is the model for us.

The hospice I worked for was a business...at the end of the day, decisions about how we gave care were made with concern for the bottom line, and the value of the company's stock. The decision to eliminate a chaplain position - to go from having a full-time ministerial presence in the hospice house, to a chaplain visiting 10-15 hours a week (though I know he does 20 or more - go Tom!)...this was not a decision based on care for patients. Nor do I believe it was based on financial necessity. It was based on cutting corners...on not valuing spiritual care for the dying. Because the model of what we "had to provide" is set by industry standards of care, concocted to meet Medicare guidelines. Which is fine...but it's a different model than the model of Christ.

I know...it's just business. In our culture, that excuses pretty much anything that isn't actively illegal. But...Amos 5:10-13, 15 should speak to our culture.
They hate him who reproves in the gate,
and they abhor him who speaks the truth.
Therefore because you trample on the poor
and you exact taxes of grain from him,
you have built houses of hewn stone,
but you shall not dwell in them;
you have planted pleasant vineyards,
but you shall not drink their wine.
For I know how many are your transgressions
and how great are your sins—
you who afflict the righteous, who take a bribe,
and turn aside the needy in the gate.
Hate evil, and love good,
and establish justice in the gate;
it may be that the LORD, the God of hosts,
will be gracious to the remnant of Joseph.

End of the day - I feel called, compelled, to find a way to minister to the lost and least, the overlooked and neglected...to serve as a reminder that they are loved, that there is purpose and meaning for their lives, to help them find community. My dream...whatever my job...is to be a part of a church community that embraces that, not as an occasional project, but as the meaning of our lives - the working out of our calling - the source of our joy.

READ MORE HERE

Iron Man - Review

So I went to see the "Iron Man" movie Monday night, with Robert Downey Jr. as an inspired choice for Tony Stark (see Stark here in this picture from the comics - Downey looks just like him), Gwyneth Paltrow, Jeff Bridges, and Terrence Howard. Official synopsis, short version: "Billionaire industrialist Tony Stark builds a high-tech suit of armor and leads a double-life as the superhero, Iron Man." Don't click "Read More" if you don't want spoilers.

I liked it! I liked it a lot! No, it's not great literature, but it's a good move. Very well-cast actors with very good delivery from all (although Howard wasn't in enough of it to get a real sense of him...but I imagine he'll be much bigger in the sequel), a good strong story, great effects, good human interaction as well as great action sequences, plenty of humor...and I'd actually rate it a cut above the generic "yeah this was a good movie and I liked the popcorn too" flick. (That's the kind of movie you enjoy going to see at the movies but it has no deep impact and not much re-watchability.) The movie lightly but definitely asks some troubling questions about weapons development and war profiteering, and the role of U.S. or multi-national corporations in profiting off of weapons trade. (Did you know that, of 25 major conflicts going on in 1999, 20 of them had he U.S. supplying weapons to one or both sides? And that the U.S. creates and exports more than 50% of the world's weapons?)

Iron Man's a classic superhero. *You* might not know that, but he is. He's about 45 years old, contemporary with Spider-Man, Hulk, and the Fantastic Four. He's a founding member of the Avengers, alongside the Hulk, Thor, Ant-Man and the Wasp, and neo-founder Captain America. He, Thor, and Captain America are the Avengers "Big 3", and Iron Man is unquestionably one of the big guns of the Marvel Universe, in terms of power, smarts, and influence over other heroes.

Oh...you don't know who the Avengers are? They're equivalent in lots of ways to DC's Justice League. Marvel's Fantastic Four has more name recognition with non-comics fans than the Avengers, but in the comic universe, the Avengers are the premiere super-team.

So Iron Man's big. He's never had much name recognition outside the comics, but he's had his own action figures and appeared in cartoons and video games. Now, he's on the big screen, and doing well.

Doing very well! Robert Downey Jr. was an inspired choice, and not just because of his look. Iron Man's alter ego, Tony Stark, is a rich playboy who was probably the first superhero to be an alcoholic. Downey (oddly enough) is able to carry off the booze-swilling, womanizing, ultra-rich vibe perfectly - while still having lots of charm and likeability, somehow, just as Stark in the comics manages.

Speaking of the comics, it's nice to see the source material adapted (not slavishly copied) with such respect. Lots of *details* are changed, but everything "feels" right - they've nailed the spirit of Iron Man. A rich womanizer who nevertheless is likeable - and has a sense of responsibility for the common good, and definitely a sense of responsibility for how his inventions get used. The aspect of the plot where he was hunting down and destroying his weapons to prevent others from using them echos the classic "Armor Wars" storyline from the comics. There were lots of other little "Easter eggs" scattered throughout - stuff a comic geek would recognize and be excited about, but that weren't a) stupidly obvious, or b) obscure to non-comics folks. For example, the Asian/Middle-Eastern chr that kidnapped Stark was bent on taking over Asia, and headed an organization called "Ten Rings" - an obvious reference to classic Iron Man foe "the Mandarin", a Yellow Claw variant with ten rings that give him various powers. This guy was "just" a soldier-type, but he was pretty intense - and he seemed set up pretty clearly to be the (or at least "a") villain in the sequel. I think that guy's importance was clear to everyone - he just was a little more significant if you got the comic reference - which is the way it should be with a comic book movie.

Iron Monger was a good choice for villain in this movie. Superhero movies take note - you need a supervillain! Much as I love the original Superman movie *and* Superman Returns, both are marred by not really having real challenges for Superman - not like fighting Zod and co. in Superman II. The Hulk movie was like that, too...of course, that movie was flawed in dozens of other ways too, and the CGI Hulk looked retarded...Spider-Man and the X-Men made great transitions to the movie screen, and part of that was having good villains.

Anyway, Iron Monger was a good choice. Good, fun movie. Iron Man's sort of like James Bond amplified - better gadgets.

Make sure you watch the credits - there's a closing scene that'll excite you if you know enough!

And by the way...tons of comic inspired movies coming out this summer - including a sequel to the best Batman movie of all, Batman Begins, which should be great. And Marvel's announced a sequel to Iron Man already (told you), plus a "Thor" movie (for next summer)? and forthcoming "Captain America" and "Avengers" movies, too. And is the new Hulk movie coming out this year? The last one stunk, imo, but this one is (wisely) ignoring that one and starting from scratch, and Edward Norton is playing Dr. Banner (the Hulk's alter ego), which he should be great at! I hope this movie has some of the "heart" and substance that the old tv show with Bill Bixby did - he was great at communicating the pathos of Banner's Jekyll/Hyde situation. That show also showed the generally non-evil nature of the Hulk, having a creature of rage and destruction that was harmless if left alone...that's always been a part of the Hulk's tragedy, too. Hope the movie will capture some of that...and have better looking CGI!

Go see Iron Man!

READ MORE HERE