A Song That Leaves Me In Tears

I can't explain it, but I'm going to try. Every time I hear this song I begin to weep.

It's just so damn tragic. Freddy Mercury was one of the most beautiful men of the last century. If you listen to the song in light of the fate that awaited Mercury, it's enough to make the strongest man with a shred of compassion buckle.

This song does not make me feel hopeless, it's not that it brings me to despair, it only allows me to feel that which I keep bottled up; that which, as vulnerable as I can be, I do not allow anyone else to see.

I think the first thing that grabs me by the soul is the crying out to "mama". If I couldn't explain it in six years of counseling then I don't know if I can explain it now, but I'll sure as hell try.

Upon further reflection, I believe I can explain it, I'm just not yet willing to do so in my blog; but I will share a memory I have with my own mother that interconnects to Mercury's crying out. Actually, I'll share two stories (forgive the inner dialogue, I can't always get the words out of my head the way I want to).

The story begins when I was in my senior year of high school. In the month of January I wrecked my truck. Consequently, I lost my job as a delivery boy. I got a new job as a mechanic, which is what I was going to school for at the time. It was walking distance from my house, so everything seemed like it was going to be okay for awhile.

A few days later, my girlfriend broke up with me, which left me absolutely crushed. What was worse was that she did it on a Friday night at a weekend long youth retreat. It rained the entire weekend, I had to spend the weekend inside with the girl who had just dumped me. It sounds so dramatic to say now but this brought me to the brink. 

A few days after getting dumped, I got fired from my new job. My new boss explained to me the last hour of my shift that perhaps I'd be better suited for doing factory work than working as a mechanic where I'd have to use my brain.

For those of you who were lost in the detail, here is the abridged version:

• Wrecked my truck
• Lost my job
• Got new job
• Girlfriend left
• Lost my new job

And all this happened within two weeks...

And so began the months of hell. I did not eat for days at a time, I did not talk to anyone unless I had to, and then it was only to give enough of a response so that they'd leave me alone. I already hate January-March, but that winter was black and dark and hopeless. 

I'll never forget one night, as I was lying in bed unable to fall asleep, hoping that tomorrow wouldn't come, my mother came into my room and she sat down on the edge of my bed. I can't remember if she said anything, but her actions communicated more than her words could. It was enough that she was just there. For that brief moment I was not alone. For that brief moment I knew that I was not unloved.

Another time was at my wedding. During the mother - son dance, my mother looked at me and said "I'm so proud of you." Suddenly it was like all the puzzle pieces snapped together and formed a complete picture. My entire life I had felt hated by her. I know now that she didn't feel that way, but when I look back on my life I see the small boy who wanted to make mom happy; but mom was never happy. The small boy could not figure out why mom was never happy with him, but I knew in that moment when I heard those words from my mom that she was pleased with me.

While I was growing up, my mother's own heart was heavy with the burdens that she was carrying. She was abused and abandoned by the men in her life that were supposed to love and care for her (with the exception of her current husband who treats her very well). She was left by these very same men. She got along as best she could, and I know now that she loved that small boy the best way she knew how. I guess I feel a little bit embarrassed about this fact, but I wept in my mothers arms while we danced together, realizing that she was there. She was there, in that moment, and that's all that mattered.

"Mamma, life had just begun, but now I've gone and thrown it all away"

This strikes me hard for two reasons. First, I think back on moments when I wanted to die. I felt like a failure who was unloved and unwanted. His words are my words in those moments... in those memories.

But in Mercury's case, and I'm speculating here, he knew he was dying (or at least that he was going to). He knew he had contracted AIDS, and in light of that context the rest of the song is beautiful and macabre.

"Mama, I didn't mean to make you cry. If I'm not back again this time tomorrow, carry on, carry on. But nothing really matters."

The finality of death, and I have thought enough about it in my brief time on earth to have an opinion, renders all things meaningless. In rendering things meaningless, the weight that looms so heavily upon the mind is alleviated. How can I disappoint if I am not? What does it matter if they do not love me? What does it matter if I have lost my job? Others can resume their lives without the burden of me any longer. 

"Goodbye everybody, I've got to go. Got to leave you all behind and face the truth. Mama, I don't want to die, I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all."

Listen to the rest of the song, keeping in mind the plight that awaited Freddie in the years to come.

"Carry on, carry on. Nothing really matters."

There is one last thing that grieves me just as deeply when I hear this song. I know Mercury lived a very private life. I think about what it must have been like in that time to be suffering with AIDS, and to catch wind of American Evangelicals who were telling the homosexual community that AIDS was the penalty they were receiving "in themselves" for their abomination. Take a look at John MacArthur's study bible commentary on Romans 1 if you don't believe me.

It grieves me that we would have the audacity to tell people it was their fault that they were dying a death that no one could understand or prevent.   To tell someone this while in the midst of their sexual identity becoming known to their families and surrounding communities, which often times resulted in painful rejection and abandonment, is more tragic than any Shakespearean play.

Finding the Sweet Spot

I found the sweet spot, and it doesn't have anything to do with the meaty part of a baseball bat, the center of a tennis racket, or lady parts.

Within the span of two days, I've been told that someone who is a bit more conservative in their theology thinks I'm the most liberal Christian they know. On the other hand, someone a bit more liberal thought that I was a bit too conservative for them.

Part of this saddens me, as I wish at times that I had a niche or a home in which I identified with a certain group or company, but at the same time I'm glad that I'm too conservative for liberals and too liberal for conservatives.  

I thought that this might be a good time to clearly state what it is I hope to accomplish with my writing. I hope that I am not trying to sway anyone from one camp to another (there are already too many camps, and I believe that this is our problem), but I am on a journey for the truth. Wherever that journey takes me I do my best not to shrink from what it is I find. My battle hymn in this endeavor is by Muse: It's called "Unnatural Selection":



In it, Matthew Bellamy in his operatic Freddie Mercury style vocals declares
"I WANT THE TRUTH!"

In this declaration, I strive as best I can never to tow the line solely for comfort and ease, nor never to remain comfortable in what I believe about God, because I believe that God cannot be contained; not by me nor by anyone else. This is why I seek out theologians who do their jobs in humility (there are a few of them out there).

In this endeavor I have a few rules not only for myself but also what I hope to inspire others to do. I could pontificate on what it means to accomplish my goal, or I could tell a story of someone who has exemplified it far better than I ever could. 

One of my all time heroes, a man who has been like a father to me, has some of the most conservative theological views as anyone out there. In the 80's, when little was known about Aids and HIV and how it was spread, this man ministered to the homosexual community when everyone else (including the Doctors) were afraid to touch a man infected with the virus. This man would walk in to quarantined areas and hold the hands of those dying with the Aids virus, and pray with them and tell them that Jesus loved them. Why did he do this? Because this man understood the value of every human life. He understood that every man, woman and child deserves dignity and to be treated with respect.
This man spoke out against derogatory names being used for homosexual's, and simply would not accept defamation of any person.

I hope never to forget that whatever conclusions I come to, how I treat people is the most telling story about how I view God. If I could do anything with my words, I hope that it would be to challenge us as Christians to remember that we are talking about people and not ideology. If our thoughts do not begin there... well, I think we all know and can see where it leads us. 

A Video Tour of the Think Tank

Untitled from Ryan McGinnis on Vimeo.

Anyone who knows me knows that I love to give tours. When I'm in the car with someone, I love to point out where something happened... or if you've ever been to our home, you know I like to give tours and point out all the little novelties our house has. Tours tell stories... This is the story of my office, where I spend a lot of time. It's also the story of all the thoughtful things I got for my birthday. I hope you enjoy the tour, and I hope you don't get sick from my shaky camera work.

Blessings

It looks good on paper... Marxism, Eugenics, Christianity

As my uncle once said:

History is like Shampoo. Lather, Rinse, Repeat

In being a student of the Bible, Christian history, portions of secular history, and the progression of major social and religious movements, I've come to see a common pattern at work in them all. 

When a new movement is birthed, that movement is fluid and subject to change. That movement has a new paradigm, a new idea, a new way of thinking that addresses the fears, articulates the feelings, and gives a voice to the frustration of society which is felt toward the old system that is failing society and is becoming a hindrance to progress.

When the movement begins it is widely rejected by the masses, but as it fights for its position of belonging it becomes more and more received by those who were once its greatest adversaries. 

What happens next? The new paradigm becomes THE PARADIGM

The second generation of the movement becomes dogmatic about the nature of what it was that there founders did. As society around them shifts beyond the reach of the initial movement, the movement must dig in its heels in order to preserve the purity of what was begun so long ago. 

The generation's that follow the 2nd generation, only being farther removed from the time and culture that initiated the movement, finds themselves interpreting the founders of that movement with a great deal of diversity amongst themselves. And so, inevitably, there is a multitude of ways one interprets the intent of the founders, and schism will soon be the result. 

Now of course, being a student of theology you may assume that I am speaking solely about Jesus and his disciples and subsequently the generations that followed known as the church, but we can apply this to any given movement in history.

For those who have read the Communist Manifesto you might find that in its day Marxism was a needed response to the social climate. As a man said to me recently however,

"Communism looks good on paper but I've never really seen it work."

 How do we go from Karl Marx to the Khmer Rouge? How do we move from the vast majority of Communists being the clergy before the time of atheistic communism (Protestants and Jews to be a bit more detailed) to: 

"I would like — and this would be the last and most ardent of my wishes — I would like the last of the kings to be strangled by the entrails of the last priest"- Denis Diderot

How do we move from natural selection to eugenics?

How do we go from a community largely consisting of Jews with a Jewish leader to a long standing legacy of anti-Semitism?

As it applies to the bible:

The chronicled experience of the first century Christians is quite revealing. When I read the book of Acts, I am no longer convinced that what I am reading is the blue print for how to do church as I once believed.

Rather, I'm beginning to suspect that the movement was fluid. Concerning content, much of what the biblical writer’s record and say seem to suggest that there was harmony and continuity of their message, but how that message worked itself out among the people was largely reactionary. The early church was flying by the seat of their pants. That's not to say that they weren't intentional. That's not to say that they weren't wise in their decisions and abiding in reliance and contingence on the Holy Spirit through prayer. It is to say that though they shared the same message, the implementation of that message was not bound by a rigid method.

Let's take the doctrine of the bible as a further example. There are a series of doctrines that serve as a sort of cyclical self validation of the bible... from the bible. So we talk about having a closed canon (that is, what books are in and what books are out). We talk about the inspiration of the authors (that is, God is speaking through the authors). Now, these are all doctrines that were formulated much later than the passages we quote to build upon them (at least as it applies to the Protestant Bible - Old and New Testament combined). True, they have been formulated based on passages of scripture, but the packaging of those passages in such a fashion came much later (and I'm talking centuries later)

When I think on the life of Paul as presented by the New Testament for further example, I see a man who was very much admittedly flawed. I see examples of him making some serious mistakes in ministry in the book of Acts, such as his breaking of fellowship with Barnabas over a mutual ministry companion named Mark. I see that as a twofold failure. I do not believe Paul, upon further reflection (and definitely if he knew he was to be canonized!) would have said that he wished the agitators in the Galatian church would emasculate themselves.

Now, before you hear me wrong, allow me to say that I love the writings of Paul, but it's clear that his theology was built upon an understanding of his experience. What he thought it meant to be a Jew, to be a Pharisee, and to hold nationalistic hopes for Israel needed to be rethought in light of what Paul later came to know and witness. The questions Paul is answering for himself and to his audience is what does Israel, the Law, and the future now mean in light of the fact that the messiah has been crucified, risen, and has ascended? Paul's theology, flowing from his new reality, was the articulation of what we now call the Gospel narrative, and its further implications. What I mean by implications is how Paul instructs the churches under his care to deal with certain situations. Paul even distinguishes when he is giving advice as opposed to when he is communicating a portion of the Gospel or the demands on one's life the Gospel now lays claim.

But in subsequent generations Paul’s words became a formulation for ecclesiology as if our churches today, in hearing Paul's words, becomes the vicarious every-church that he was addressing. Rigid dogma came later and formulated a system of infallibility and inerrancy, which caused a demand for compliance should one want to continue in the fellowship of believers. We go on to accept everything done and said by the apostle Paul without contextual consideration, even to our detriment.

I understand that I have opened a can of worms here, and that some might want to ask "well where does it end? Where is the boundary of what is inspired and what is not? When you forfeit some you forfeit all, and you have just broken down the doctrine upon which all other doctrine is built."

I would respond by saying that I believe firmly that the Spirit indwells the community of believers. The scriptures tell us this. And if the Spirit is among the people, I believe that just as Paul spoke in context concerning different churches under his care, in light of the reality of the Gospel, we ought to be fluid in how we discern what our congregations are doing, decisions that we must make for our lives, the direction with which we must head, and how it is we relate to the world around and outside us.

Some might say that this is a spiritual approach in which any leader or group can say "I have a word from the Lord" and exploit others. Truth be told, I have seen just as much abuse taking place from "Bible believing, Bible preaching" churches as I have in Charismatic circles.

I feel that this is very important, because I believe the alternative (locking into rigid form), only serves to hinder the cause of Christ. I fear that it causes us to believe that because we have mastered a system of theology, we have mastered God. I fear that it causes us to believe that because we can preach on what it means to be a humble servant of God we ourselves have somehow become humble servants. And I fear that having done this, we have become very proud of our theology, which is exactly that... ours.  

I've rambled enough. To say anymore would require another post.

Have I made my case, or have I spoken ambiguously? If my point is clear, what are your thoughts?

Weep For Yourself My Man You'll Never Be What Is In Your Heart

I'll never be what I could be. Perhaps I will never move beyond the chains of fear that bind me. Fear has stolen every meaningful victory in my life, and has crippled every opportunity for success.

Failure: I am a failure, and I have failed those who have depended on me. I have failed the church, your bride, your prized possession. I could not be the man that I was asked to be. I was not good enough, and my inadequacies had a cost.

I am an implement of destruction. I am a master of chaos. I am an unrealized dream. I am an unmet ambition. No matter how far forward I move, I am dragged back to the dark cell of panic I so feverishly strive to claw my way out of.

You, Lord Jesus, are my refuge... my safe place, and you have lifted me up when I was brought low.


You have called me not to be successful but faithful. In the weak efforts of my diligence O' God, you bask in my accomplishment, you rejoice in the work of my hand.

If only for a moment, Father, if only for an instance you have rewarded what little faithfulness I could muster, and have brought blessing through me. I will bless your name Father, and sing your praises for the work that has come through your merciful hands.

Blessed be the name of the LORD

Stockpiling Theological Ammo

I’m not even going to pretend like I’m not pissed off about something. I’ve been working on covering the dangers of proof text theology for some time, but just the other day I found myself at the business end of someone else’s theological machine gun. Passage after passage was sent flying my way in an effort to debunk what I had just got done saying. 

Now, I know I’m harping on this because this is how I used to do theology. Truth be told, I have done exactly what was recently done to me. I talk about it in this post.

Here’s the scenario. We’re in a class on leadership. At the end of the night, I raise my hand and ask the question “do you think that it might be a little self important for us to believe that the health and stability of a congregation or group of people is contingent on whether or not one man prays or reads his bible?” A brief dialogue between my Professor and I ensued and then the conversation was about to move on.

Suddenly, a hand is raised and a voice from the back says: “Concerning the statement…” and then the gentlemen went on to restate my question. After restating my question, this man proceeded to give every verse about a leader praying in the bible that biblegateway.com or Logos could find for him. His conclusion after his biblical compilation was finished? “I believe that it’s important for our pastors and elders to pray and read their bibles because the bible tells us that it’s important.”

Fortunately for me, my professor saw me throw my eyes into the back of my head and proceed to say to myself… well, it’s not important what I said, nor was it very nice. But after this man emptied his magazine into what he perceived was a challenge of biblical wisdom, my professor jumped in before I could, saying “I don’t think that’s what Ryan is saying at all…” and then went on to articulate my point better than I was able to.

The problem with proof text theology is… well there’s a number of problems.

• Assumptions: Proof text theology makes a number of assumptions. For example, look at how Mark Driscoll answers this question on Homosexuality:

The way Driscoll answers this question feels a bit swanky to me. The passages that are used are now being heard in light of the question that was posed: that is, “is homosexuality a sin?” When Driscoll does this, it doesn’t matter what the passages say in relation to the questions the biblical authors may be trying to address, what matters now is that Driscoll is using them to prove a point… his. 

For example, when Driscoll emphasis’ that marriage is between a man and a woman by drawing on the creation account of Genesis, do you think that the author(s) of Genesis were addressing the issue of homosexuality or even had it in mind when the union of Adam and Eve was being narrated? This leads me to my next point.

• Proof texting makes us bad listeners:

What were the assumptions this man in my class made about what I had said? By the end of his discourse, you might have thought I said “piss on prayer,” “piss on reading your bible”. You would have thought I said I was against pastors praying for their congregation. Instead of asking for a clarifier, instead of asking me to elaborate on my point to make sure he fully understood, he proceeded to educate me on what he thought I said. 

There was no love in his rebuke, so what was it about? Having done theology in a similar way, I can only speculate that it was a demonstration of dominance, a moment of spiritual penis measuring if you will. 

Also, perhaps in his mind it was a defense of biblical truth. Here’s the irony: if he cared about biblical truth he would be more interested in preserving his fellow brother than defending his dogma.

• It makes us poor communicators and interpreters of the biblical narrative:

Continuing with the theme of homosexuality, I’d like to throw out a provocative quote. You may agree with what is said or you may not, but I’d like you to consider the method which is used by this author to arrive at his conclusion. This is a series of questions recently asked of Brian McLaren, one of which was whether or not homosexuality is a sin: You can read the full article Here, but below you will find his response:

Q: "Very plainly, do you think the Bible says homosexuality is a sin? A simple yes or no will do, not a paragraph about a more human sexuality. (That is a pretty ambiguous term that doesn't say anything.)"

R: Very plainly, I do not not think that what we mean by "homosexuality" (an inborn or innate same sex attraction) would have even been a category in the minds of ancient people, any more than they would have a category called "democratic republic" or "capitalism" or "aspergers syndrome" or "biodegradable products" or "upward mobility."

My sense is that you would like me to say whether I follow the traditional approach that applies Leviticus 18:22 and five or six other verses to conclude that homosexuality is wrong. I do not. I think the whole point of the New Testament is that the kingdom of God initiated by Jesus breaks down old dividing walls - of religion (Jew/Gentile), economics and class (slave/free), and gender (male/female). And I hope you read the chapter in my book which includes a lengthy reading of Acts (especially Acts 8) ... where I show the incredible courage of the early church in crossing those boundaries to include what had been excluded previously. That's why I am for full inclusion of LGBTQ people, without stigma or second-class-citizen status. I believe this is in harmony with the deepest moral teaching of the Bible, which is expressed most powerfully not in the ten commandments but in the great commandment, and not in words on a page but in Christ himself, Word made flesh. Again, I imagine you'll disagree with some if not most of what I've said here ... but I share it in hopes that you'll maybe go back and read the book a little more carefully, and that you'll better understand what I'm saying and why. That way you can disagree both intelligently and charitably.

I think McLaren’s point is a good one. If you want to build a theology by stringing together a series of passages to answer your question, you’ve strayed from good interpretation and thoughtful engagement.

To continue on with the example, consider the portrayal of homosexuals in the bible. Let’s think on narrative of Lot in Genesis. His town is known as a place in which all the men in the town come to his home to rape and defile angelic beings. If I compare this with any number of those whom I know with same sex attraction, I find the two images irreconcilable. 

As McLaren asks, did the ancient mind know what we know now? There’s example after example of ways in which Christians have had to reinterpret entire portions of scripture after scientific discoveries were made (sounds like a good post for another time). If it can be determined that people are born with same sex attraction, it will only be a matter of time before we will have to embrace a different hermeneutic.

If this is the case concerning homosexuals, there’s an entire set of questions that Driscoll’s reductionistic approach does not satisfy, and in essence he has painted himself into a corner. If God created us with desires that can be satisfied within the covenant of marriage than we have no excuse for being “fornicators” or “adulterers”. But if a person is born with an innate same sex attraction then we cannot condemn them for making a choice as a sinner, nor is it consistent to expect them to go through life with said attraction and have no way to satisfy those desires as can a man and woman within the covenant relationship of marriage.

Proof texting does not leave room for such questions. To the compiler, the answer seems obvious, black and white, crystal clear. To do this is dismissive, simplistic, and does not take serious the complex realities around us. We come off looking like fools when we do this.

It simply doesn’t do the bible justice to quote a series of passages to arrive at any given conclusion. It may do you justice, but it does a great disservice to the bible we value.

And concerning our proof text stockpiles: Let us value conversation over correction; it’s the only real way that correction can ever be truly valued.