Showing posts with label macphisto. Show all posts
Showing posts with label macphisto. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 06, 2015

Shift Happens in the 1860s and 2010s: ecclesiological impressionism and Judas burnings

I am convinced that studying earlier eras of cultural shift/liminal transition helps us get a better handle on "this weird moment in

history" (David Dark's phrase)..

For example:

1)
I wanted to show how many of the issues we think are unique to our time have actually confronted the church for a long time. Nineteenth-century Paris was wrestling with new ideas in politics, art, terrorism, technology, sexuality, and secularism. It was in many ways the first modern city, reinvented around creativity, consumerism, and a highly visual media landscape. It was filled with competing ideologies: conservative, liberal, Christian, atheist, socialist, capitalist. It is a great period to examine in order to allow the reader to examine our own culture with fresh eyes.
It’s humbling to realize that what we see as the issues of our day are much older. When you realize this you discover that previous generations of Christians have wrestled with these questions. For example, in the mid–20th century, a whole generation of leading intellectuals and writers—T. S. Eliot, Dorothy Sayers, Evelyn Waugh, and numerous others—were concerned by what they saw as the destructive trajectory of modern culture, and returned to faith. Such stories give hope that some­thing like that could happen again. -Mark Sayers

Which, in turn, got me interested in this book:

The Judgment of Paris: The Revolutionary Decade  (1860s) That Gave the World Impressionism

Hmm, maybe we're entering an age of ecclesiological impressionism.
------------

Then there's this, from the same decade:

2)Click the read the "Judas at the Jockey Club" chapter, pp 89-14 here.

As an American in the late 1800's, owning a farm was not too uncommon, especially if that farm was located in Mexico. At this time, though, Mexico was in the Porfirian Era (1876-1911). In this certain era, Mexico was being encountered by two very different cultures at the same time: the industrial, and the traditional. These distinctively separate cultures impacting Mexico made it as what can be described as "backwards" in a sense, as Mexico was practically regressing as the world around it was moving on to bigger and better things. Mexico was so behind that "many had concluded that Mexico had yet to advance beyond chipped rocks as utensils." (p.67). Mexico at this time had locked itself in a stagnancy of its own traditions. The people were simply too anxious towards newer technology to move ahead and replace what they had known for so long.  Judas at the Jockey Club/ Austin Pabian



This brilliant and eminently readable cultural history looks at Mexican life during the dictatorship of Porfirio Díaz, from 1876 to 1911. At that time Mexico underwent modernization, which produced a fierce struggle between the traditional and the new and exacerbating class antagonisms. In these pages, the noted historian William H. Beezley illuminates many facets of everyday Mexican life lying at the heart of this conflict and change, including sports, storytelling, healthcare, technology, and the traditional Easter-time Judas burnings that became a primary focus of the strife during those years   (emphasis mine)

Following his discussion on sports and Mexican hierarchal society, Beezley moves on to Mexico’s technology during modernization and what it meant for people. Previously, Mexico had never tried to modernize; however, during Porfirian rule, this was the main concern. Before modernization, the people had rudimentary technology. The author talks about their clothes and how men and women barely wore anything before Porfirio Díaz ruled. Also, he covers field technology. The interesting thing is that even after receiving more advanced technology, the people altered it to resemble their old tools. Another new technology was that of the bicycle, previously mentioned, which showed sophistication and class according to the elites. Overall, this was a time of changing technology enforced by the government, while the people still clung to tradition.
The author Beezley follows up the previous sections, sports and technology, with the final section on Mexican traditional celebrations, in particular, the Jockey Club Judas burning episode. First, to make things more clear, the author explains what a Judas burning is. Judas burnings is a secular event which occurs after Lent and Holy Week. Artisans craft piñata type effigies, often resembling someone or signifying something, which would be burned in celebration. Before delving into the actual Judas burning to which the title refers, it sets up the history of Judas burnings and how they are celebrated around the world. He highlights places like Spain, Germany, Venezuela, and Italy. One example is how the Germans believed that the ashes from the burned Judas, if planted on May Day, could help to prevent the blight. Beliefs like this stemmed all through Europe and Latin America. Judas burnings first appeared in Mexico at around the early 16th century; however, the exact date is still unknown. Some interesting facts which the author included about the burnings were that usually the Judas effigies contained fireworks and even sometimes had live cats insides, or, they would be laced with sausages and coins. Reading about the combination of cats and fireworks really shocked me.  However, this was something that normally occurred to thrill people and give them a sense of life and death. Now, although Judas burnings were a sense of celebration, they also signified a time for social disorder. Judas burnings were opportunities to put a face on the things which they felt were oppressing them. It was a time for the world to be turned upside down and for social equality to prevail. It was a time of social reversals. The author said that, “servants and laborers of every sort refuse to work; you can neither do anything nor get anything done. The only recourse is to spend your time in the streets like the rest” (Beezley).  So, join to the streets they did, and this is what led to the Jockey Club episode.
What occurred during this fateful and last Judas burning sponsored by the Jockey Club is only one example of social disorder caused by Judas burnings. For this event, there were four Judas figures who were riding in a hot air balloon. The figures included a mulatto covered with sausages and coins, a butter vendor also covered with the sausages and coins, a singer playing the guitar covered with pesos, and a beggar also covered with pesos. Every piece of the display symbolized something. Nothing was coincidental.
So, what happened to Judas burnings and this opportunity for the people to rebel? Well, the government finally succeeded in outlawing it for a while; however, Judas burnings could not be kept quiet for very long when in 1905 there was a world economic crisis, in 1908 there were Judas burnings in retaliation. Unfortunately, the government which valued order succeeded in quieting Judas burnings by turning them into child’s activities which the author compares to the Fourth of July.
To conclude, Porfirian rule was a difficult, controversial time for Mexico. Old and new intermingled and clashed. This was portrayed through sports and leisure activities, technology, and celebrations. It was felt and rebelled against. It was a true example of liberalism and conservatism in Latin America. In the end, Judas at the Jockey Club is a book which conveys the sentiments of a people embarking on a new age.  link

I have some pages marked in the Judas at the Jockey Club that trigger some parallels to our current ecclesiological/culture shift:

"Because the Judas burnings were not officially sanctioned by either  church or civic officials, this festival had a spontaneous and creative character. These celebrations, without official approval or support, remained outside the prestige system and manipulation of even the confraternities (Catholic lay brotherhoods called cofradias) .When a shopkeeper, a merchant, or the Jockey Club exploded a Judas it did so without a bureaucracy, without creating a Judas Day committee (except in 1893), and without giving prestige to the person who hosted the burning.  The informality of the celebration emphasized the extra-official character of the event that became the freedom of action of the people who rejoiced at the end of Lent. ...
All those who witnessed the destruction of Judas or who heard the explosions were involved.  None remained aloof.  Understanding the ritual requires that the people be seen as united participants rather than divided into actors and audience...
The Judas festivals dramatically demonstrate social reversal. Social inversions fulfill several functions; they serve as rebellious rituals, role reversals, and institutionalized clowning ...
Washing of feet took place..
..The changing location of the Judas  burnings graphically displays the struggle in Mexico between two segments in society ...medieval heritage of authoritarianism and Roman Catholicism embellished by exigency with indigenous practices. This tradition was shouldered aside by the emergent culture of capitalism and material development that promoters called Progress.  pp 95-107...

Well, there are plenty of dots to connect.  Just read that paragraph without the historical variables, lather, rinse repeat..and apply to today.

One intriguing app: the "institutional clowning" of Judas.
MacPhisto anybody?  Holy fool?

See


 Other connections to this decade and ours?
US Civil War?

Friday, April 11, 2014

Colbert the theologian/Colbert and Death of Protestant America

I totally agree with Tim: "Colberts definitely one of my favorite theologians. Seriously."






23 hrs via iOS 

What's wrong with this headline ?


  • Dave Wainscott

Thursday, October 17, 2013

doing spiritual warfare sideways, stealthily, screwtape-ily...and with a little laugh,loud fart,red horns and a bit of pink paint

Old bad joke:

  • Kid 1: Do you believe in the devil?
  • Kid 2: Nah, I think it's like Santa Claus.
  • Kid 1: What ya mean?
  • Kid 2: It's really your dad!
  •  
Old pastor's line:

  • Pastor:I don't believe in the devil
  • Congregation: (stunned silence)
  • Pastor: (dramatic pause) I believe in Jesus!"Believing in someone means to put your ultimate trust in them. I believe the devil exists alright. I just don't put my ulimate trust in him."
Navigating spiritual warfare can be a delicate balance.

C.S. Lewis caught this in the classic preface  to the classic book, "The Screwtape Letters"
(Not many books have a classic preface! By the way there is a recently unearthed alternative preface here).


There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them. They themselves are equally pleased by both errors and hail a materialist or a magician with the same delight.

How ironic that those who "do" the most spiritual warfare can wind up influenced the most by the devil.

I like Guy Chevreaux's image of waging spiritual warfare "sideways"...that is by focusing on Jesus, not the devil.  See also Jon Acuff's hilarious posts about praying to Satan and "putting the devil on notice" (sadly offline until this controversy is solved...sigh, itself possibly some spiritual warfare).

So...
You can see what a risk Bono took....commercially, with Christian fans,
and spiritually... in the 1990s, when (influenced by Lewis and Screwtape), he began taking the stage in character as the devil ("MacPhisto").  Some classic moments emerged (see posts below tagged for "MacPhisto," as well as the  MacPhisto Center Stage website).

The act has seveal profound and prophetc points:


"I don't believe in preaching at people," he told me, during a 1982 interview. A constant theme in his music, he added, is the soul-spinning confusion that results when spirituality, sensuality, ego and sin form a potion that is both intoxicating and toxic. "The truth is that we are all sinners. I always include myself in the 'we.'...I'm not telling everybody that I have the answers. I'm trying to get across the difficulty that I have being what I am."

Bono took this inner conflict on stage during the media-drenched Zoo TV shows of the mid-1990s. The key moment was when the singer morphed into a devilish alter ego named Mister MacPhisto, who wore a glittering gold Las Vegas lounge suit and cheesy red horns.

Night after night, Bono would pull some girl out of the audience to join in his "Elvis-devil dance." Stockman's book includes a fascinating account of what happened one night in Wales, when one of these dance partners had an agenda of her own.

"Are you still a believer?" she asked. "If so, what are you doing dressed up as the devil?"

Their voices hidden by the music, Bono gave her a serious answer. "Have you read The Screwtape Letters, a book by C.S. Lewis that a lot of intense Christians are plugged into? They are letters from the devil. That's where I got the whole philosophy of mock-the-devil-and-he-will-flee-from-you," said Bono.

Yes, the girl said, she had read The Screwtape Letters. She understood that Lewis had turned sin inside out in order to make a case for faith.

"Then you know what I am doing," said Bono.

But no matter what happens on stage, plenty of believers remain convinced that Bono's devil suit was highly appropriate. While the singer and his band mates have made some mistakes, Stockman said he is convinced that the controversies that continually swirl around U2 are actually evidence of deeper divisions among believers.

U2 is attacking, in word and deed, the modern church's retreat from art and popular culture.

The church "has put a spiritual hierarchy on jobs," said Stockman. "Ministers and missionaries are on top, then perhaps doctors and nurses come next and so on to the bottom, where artists appear. Artists of whatever kind have to compromise everything to entertain. Art is fluffy froth that is no good in the Kingdom of God. What nonsense."
             Terry Mattingly


Who would've guessed that Bono dressed as the devil would, among other things
(The band needing to mock-the-devil-and-he-will-flee-from-them, sell a lot of records/tickets etc)
issue a call to the church to live out the priesthood of
all believers, and serve a flat Kingdom.

I bet the real devil really hated that.
As well as the critique of ecclesiology that Mac (no mean theologian) sideways-ly suggested:
"...the word 'effective' has led many churches astray. Because our goal is that God's power and purposes be at work through our weaknesses, we can concentrate not on the results, but the means in the very gifts of God's tabernacling...
As Yoder Nefeld points out, 'this is why alternative cultural forces of truth, justice and peace are so important. When they are yielded by a community that is in Christ; then its very life is exorcistic.'

The church's call is to exorcism, not effectiveness.
Perhaps one of the most recalcitrant spirits that needs to be exorcised is that of needing to be effective."





Surely the band's background in the charismatic renewal  (as mixed a bag as that was, they  almost drowned) helped give them the language and experience  to deal fairly directly (sideways?) with the devil in Berlin:

During the tour you'll also play the Olympia stadium in Berlin, the place Hitler built for the Olympic Games in 1936. At the moment, people are arguing over whether to begin the Olympic Games of the year 2000 in that same building. Do you have strange feelings when you play in a monument to Nazi architecture??

Bono: I think it's important to go to these places. The Hansa Studios, where we recorded Achtung Baby, was used both by the Allies and the SS as a ballroom. And when we went there you could ask yourself: Are there still any demons here in the room? We had the sense that if there had been any demons, music had driven them out. I think fear of the devil leads to devil worship. And I don't want to give fascists power to the extent that you might be afraid to go into a building where they once were. We have the same here in Ireland with provisional IRA -- and they're probably much better organized than the neo-Nazis. They're a paramilitary group, they have a network and they're fascists. They don't represent a majority, either in the south or in the north of Ireland. Even among Catholics in the north of Ireland they don't represent a majority. I think we need to stop speaking about these people in hushed tones -- we should laugh at them. I would paint the stadium in Berlin pink [laughs]. That's what I would do.   link
When they got there, it seems like they were a bit surprised at how intense and thos places and prinipalities felt.  Some versions of the story even hint at some kind of exorcism service/prayer.
Somewhow they sensed were there to sent to subvert .

Even the  "Achtung, Baby" album title was a sidways exorcism, subversive salute/mooning of Hitler/the devil:
U2's soundman Joe O'Herlihy used the phrase "achtung baby" often during the work on the album in Berlin. The phrase is used first in the Mel Brooks film The Producers, about the making of a musical called "Springtime for Hitler", a guaranteed Broadway bomb. The name was chosen so that it could not be taken seriously, deflecting focus from the serious lyrics on the album and thus protecting U2 from further critical attacks like they received with Rattle and Hum. "Achtung" is the German word for "attention", so the title translates to "Attention, Baby!" - an utterance of warning.
Bono actually says "achtung baby" in the album, during "The Fly" - it's about two minutes into the song. This is clearer on its live versions: Bono shouts "achtung, baby!" right before the Zoo TV screens flood the audience with images and cheap philosophy. link

That "flooding" and overkill with images was a reverse and subversive spiritual warfare..not too subtle but still stealthily sideways.

It's a mocking of a devil who is so dumb he probably didn't even know he was being casted in the cast, cast aside and cast out .  It was a prophetic punch, laugh, mock...maybe "loud fart" (great phrase by another "pastor" of U2, Eugene Peterson.

And if you're offended, there is ancient precedent for farting  sidewise as a spiritual warfare technique: see this...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





By the way, both Pope Benedict (Pope to hold Mass in Berlin's 'Hitler's Stadium') and Hitler himself (video: Hitler Finds Out U2 Tour Gets Postponed) 
have stories to tell. (:







Monday, December 17, 2012

Reading Rohr with Bono: half-naked elevation, necessary decadence and life-giving drink with the devil (without moving in with him)


This astonishing section  (and astonishingly nowhere online until I hit "publish") of Richard Rohr's book, "Adam's Return: The Five Promises of Male Initiation
below deserves to be read slowly, prayerfully, carefully....

and soundtracked to U2;
and with the following for context and contexture:

1)Thoughtful U2 fans will recognize  resonances of 1990s U2 (especially "Elevation" and "Mysterious Ways" as well as famous/infamous Bono quotes  about Catholic Carnival,   flesh/spirit, "a drink with the devil," incarnation, joy, beauty, sex  etc etc)  all over this reading.  See "Elevation leads to Vertigo 2.0,"  and blogs by  Beth Maynard  Tim Neufeld  for more).

 Bono, as  the extraordinary theologian Miraslov Volf  himself has said, is an "extraordinary theologian (of grace)".

 One almost wonders if the man and his "elegant wife"  in the last paragraph are not actually/  literally Mr. and Mrs. Paul  "Bono" Hewson; it is all so Bono/esque.
At  least  wonder how many "amen"s  a reading of a random line of this text would solicit from Bono.

2)Please don't hear what Rohr is NOT saying.  Don't write him off as a heretic.  Read well.
 Example: the concept of flirting..sometimes literally... with the line (flirting with the line, itself) as a spiritual discipline/"necessary training."

3)The book is on the topic of "male initiation," so the male/man language is not intended to be sexist.
It should be considered/read on the flow of the whole book.  Buy it yesterday, and buy one for Bono and wife.

Enjoy:



Do you  think  St. Francis really stopped being the king of the parties?  Do you think David of the dance, the psalms, the harp and the many women ever stopped being erotic?  Could Rumi, Kabir, Tagor or Hafiz  have possibly written their sacred poetry if they were not sensuous and sensual men? Did St. Phillip Neri  really stop telling jokes and drinking wine?  Did Mozart ever stop having fun?  Did the cloistered contemplatives not know joy?  I don't think so.  They just moved joy and pleasure to the highest level, which is the highest definition of a mystic.  The contemplative, or saint, is the most refined and highest level of the lover archetype.

It is strange that the West has largely created cultures of conspicuous consumerism when it took as its ultimate hero and God figure a  poor and simple man.  You would think our God figure would be Dionysius or Pan.  Why do most Eastern or Native peoples of the world  consider the West to be greedy and materialistic?  Why do we produce such a high rate of physically addicted people?  Why is the search for affluence and pleasure our main concern?  Could it be because we have not blessed the good side of joy and pleasure?  Now it comes back and bites us from behind.  When I consciously seek a certain amou8nt of creature comfort in my life, I find that it satisfies me, and also will never satisfy me.  That is a very life-giving and creative tension to live in.

I  do not find the same kind of approach and avoidance attitudes toward pleasure in Hindu countries. among most Jews, and surely not among Native peoples.  The lower part of a man was not paid his dues or given legitimate permission in Western Christianity.  As many say, sexuality and sensuality is our ever-recurring and "unhealed wound,"  Like petulant schoolboys, we Christians sneak all the fun we can at the expense of underdeveloped countries, our neighbors, and the health of our own bodies and souls.  We feel duly guilty about it all, but we usually don't stop.  We priests deny ourselves sex, but then we insist on four-star hotels and restaurants.  Carnival in Catholic countries became a necessary decadence to justify receiving the ashes the next morning.  Something has not come to balance inside us, and we remain schizoid.   We go to the outer world for our daily pleasures, but we  seldom allow them to bring us to God, or even to ourselves.  We remain split.  Flesh is bad and Spirit is good in our terrible dualism.  Yet the Christian religion is supposed to be incarnation-a love affair between flesh and Spirit.  It  is really quite strange.

Ours is the only religion in the world that dares to believe that God became flesh.  The only religion that chews on the flesh of God has a very sensuous, sexual symbol for the transformation of the lover; we call it the Eucharist.  Christianity says that God is Love but does not appear to really enjoy the lover.  Despite all the Bach masses, Baroque churches, incense, vestments, and luxurious art, we still made our religion into a moralistic matter instead of a  mystical joy.  Our operative God image was much more a banker, a judge, a timekeeper, or an accountant, but seldom a real lover--in any sense that the normal man understands.  Like Michal, the daughter of Saul, we despise David for dancing half naked in church (1 Samuel 6:16); we look away from Shakers, Pentecostals, and holy rollers.  Religion should be a proper and dignified thing, we think.  The hot sins for the Baptists and Catholics
are always associated with the body.  This is no religion of incarnation.

Frankly, it is the Hindu sacred poets, Sufi mystics like Rabi'a and Rumi, the Christian saints like John XXIII, Hildegard of Bingen, Franc is of Assisi, Julian of Norwich and Therese of Lisieux, or Jewish masters, like the Baal Shem Tov, Abraham Heschel, and Martin Buber who seem to have met a lover God.  The mystics of all religions know this lover God, but they are never allowed to set the tone for the ordinary Christian, Jew, Hindu or Muslim on the street.  We are all lost in law, custom and holy wars, which largely nullified any chance of a love-based ethic for any of the three monotheistic religions.  As Paul said so strongly, reliance upon moralisms makes grace impossible (Galatians 3), and it even leads to the death of the soul (Romans 7).  Moralisms keep us making lists for God instead of making love to God.

In short, if religion does not integrate and validate the sensual, pleasure-loving, erotic part of a man, it takes devious and destructive directions.  If you do not bless it and bow to it, it turns on you and controls you, as we have seen in the recent pedophile scandal.  If you bless it, it shows its limited value and longs for something higher.  The most loving men I have met, the most generous to society and to life, are usually men who have a lusty sense of life, beauty, pleasure and sex--but they have very realistic expectations of them.  The smaller pleasures have become a stairway and an invitation to higher ones, almost by revealing simultaneously their wonderful and yet limited character.  They offer a first taste but then create a taste for something more and something higher.  This is the necessary training of the lower archetype.

The true lover wastes no time in guilt and no time in gluttony either.  As Dome Bedde Griffiths said,  "Sex is far too important to eliminate entirely, and it is far too important to do lightly.  The only alternative is to somehow 'consecrate' it."  I am personally convinced this is true.  The man who took me recently to a four-star restaurant with his elegant wife, while speaking excitedly about the food making love to him, is the same man who talks passionately about refugees, injustice and Third World issues, and he has passed these passionate concerns onto his children.  He is the lover I am talking about. -Richard Rohr, Adam's Return, pp.  128-131.

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Bono goes over my head...this time literally

image credit
I had my wife's camera for the first time at the U2 concert in Oakland, so I didn't have the night shot settings right...which means the members of U2 glow in most of my videos (that will preach!)..

Having said that...

Here at the bottom of page is my  Oakland "Miss Sarejevo" clip... a profound song about  moving ahead with something as earthly and "unspiritual" as  a beauty pageant even in the midst of war and violence.  Official music video helps context:


A few things hit me after Oakland:

1)Lyric change to "is there a time for synagogue?"....Bono loves Jewish imagery more than we might realize...
2)On that note, I noted for the first time that the repeated lyric references to "is there a time for..."
connects well to open of the repeated lines of the concert's narrative arc/liturgy/leitourgia: "What time is it in the world?" (commentary on that here and  here and here)
3)Bono...after singing  the bridge of the song (the Pavorotti section), rides the literal bridge he was on, right over me.  Bono loves to connect with fans, but often with his more prophetic stage acts (from MacPhisto to the more subtle ones) and theological references, he goes way over the fans heads...like he literally did mine  in the video here. (:



 ss
--

Documentary, "Missing Sarajevo":

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

"makeup so thick it resembles a death mask"

As you might guess, I am not a huge fan of Pat Boone's music, nor was I a member of The Moral Majority.
 
But this bold column  that Cal Thomas (former head of Falwell's Moral Majority) wrote in defense of Pat Boone's  brilliant (temporary, 1997) "heavy metal" era is priceless.

Pat Boone had some fun tweaking his squeaky clean and Christian image, and recorded an album of metal songs (accompanied by folks like Dio and Blackmore).  And  even (jn a MacPhisto-like move) appeared alongside Alice Cooper (also a deep Christian, in case you didn't know) in leather biker gear
at the American Music Awards.

Video here:


Watch the video, and (other than the typical dumb scripts at award ceremonies), and decide if you would agree with TBN..

Who, a result, cancelled his "Christian" show. 

Cal Thomas responded:
Man is not supposed to live by bread alone, but in the matter of the cancellation of singer Pat Boone's cable TV program, "Gospel America," it would appear that for some TV evangelists, man does live by bread quite a bit.

The owner-hosts of the Trinity Broadcasting Network dropped Boone's show when viewer-contributors threatened not to send more money because Boone wore a homogenized "heavy metal" outfit to promote his cleaned-up album...

Which is the more offensive image:  Pat Boone in a modified heavy metal outfit, or some overweight religous TV hosts who sit on overstuffed couches,with makeup so thick it resembles a death mask, and tacky sets that mimic the interior of Graceland?  Boone demonstrated uncommon Christian charity in his response to the show's cancellation.  He said he judged the harder rockers without even listening to their music or trying to understand them as human beings with value.
-Cal Thomas, complete column here, it's a must read




...and all this was before the scandal broke..

Tuesday, June 14, 2011

Bono: "Don't lose your faith in this holy clown/idiot"

It has been fascinating to follow the changes in the prophetic prayer rap Bono has been adding to live versions  of "Moment of Surrender" in the last couple years.   But I was pretty sure I heard a new and intriguing twist the other night in Oakland.  Frustrated that I didn't think to record it, and that the full version wasn't on YouTube yet....I was thrilled that St. Seth (who was there with us), pointed out a recording...that proves I heard right.

Some history, and then the recording..

The first (?) version  appeared out of nowhere on Saturday Night Live (NBC has taken it offline),
and  wasn't incorporated into concerts for awhile,
but by the time of the Rose Bowl concerts, captured in the DVD here below (see 5:40ff), it showed up, and showed up emotionally (see comments at "Moment of....Prayer Rap").


It usually goes something like this:

Life is short…it’s the longest thing you’ll ever do
The worst, the curse was that your dreams come true
God is a mirror in which each man sees himself
Hell is a place where you don’t need any help
When I first met you, your face was like snow
Wherever you went, I wanted to go
Your face, your grace, your can of mace
Your case as you put it down
8:17 on the ground
Your faith in a clown
Don’t leave me now, Lord, in this song
Don’t leave me now
Alone in this song 

One of the hot debates was " Was he saying 'clown," 'crowd,' crown,"??.... I usually opted for "clown";
hoping he was drawing (again) from the "holy fool" tradition and referring to Jesus and/or himself as the clown..

"Holy fool" backstory:
Bono: (Paul McGuinness) would sit me down and say, “You have what it takes. You must have more confidence in yourself and continue to dig deeper. And I don’t be upset or surprised when you pull something out of the depth that’s uncomfortable.”
Assayas: So you discovered things that, on first glance, you’d rather have kept hidden? What were those?
Bono: The gauche nature of awe, of worship, the wonderment at the world around you. Coolness might help in your negotiation with your world, maybe, but it is impossible to meet God with sunglasses on. It is impossible to meet God without abandon, without exposing yourself, being raw. That’s the connection with great music and art, and that’s the other reason you wanted to join a band: you wanted to do the cool thing. Trying to capture religious experiences on tape wasn’t what ypu had in mind when you signed up for the job.
Assayas: What about your own sunglasses, then? Do you wear them the same way a taxi driver would turn off his front light, so as to signal to God that this rock star is too full of himself and not to hire at the moment?
Bono: Yeah, my insincerity… I have learnt the importance of not being earnest at all times. You don’t know what’s going on behind those glasses, but God, I can assure you, does. (53-54)


Sans glasses, still wearing wisdom, and more irony than one might think. It’s just been properly retooled and “dreamed up again” for a new millennium. He’s still a:


“Holy Fool,” which is a wonderful tradition of the Eastern Church who periodically pops up here in the West. In the Russian tradition, some of the saints would do almost anything to avoid being perceived as saints. One of them kept offering to wrestle bears so people would think him a nut and not praise him as a saint. In the West, St. Philip Neri acted goofy, partly because he enjoyed being a goof and partly to throw people off the scent of his sanctity and keep them from gushing over him. When offered a cardinal's hat, he proceeded to play football with it. Currently, we saw something of the Holy Fool in Forrest Gump a few years ago. All such fools have one thing in common: they know they are not wise. Similarly, those who are convinced of their innate wisdom are invariably great ninnies. It's far better to be a fool for Christ than to be a fool on one's own. Today, thank God for the folly that is his wisdom.

1 Corinthians 3:18: Let no one deceive himself. If any one among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise.
-Mark Shea, Daily Cathloc Exchange Devotional, Aopril 1, 2005

He’s still a holy fool, just more stripped down and streamlined. Far more subtle, no devil mask. But how is is that, on this current tour, he can dedicate “Running to Stand Still” to the troops in Iraq with a straight poker face, let alone without a McPhisto/devil mask to make the irony obvious? Does no one get it? Has anyone booed? No, they applaud what they perceive as patriotism (and they are partly right) and miss and misunderstand the subtle point (War is an exercise in death; in futility, and in standing still). Applaud is what they should do……but for another reason altogether: the singer has just brilliantly and understatedly (!) pulled off a holy fool moment. And dismantled death even. Even if not many “get it.”
-link



A couple years ago, Towers commented on my blog:


I would venture an as yet unspoken theory that Bono is in fact saying "8:17 on the ground - your faith in a clown" as a reference to 1.) the approximate start time of the concert..? 2.) the clown as himself. Picture - it's 8:17, the crowd is on the crowd, ready for 'Space Oddity' and lift off with 'King of your Love' and the drum roll of 'Breathe.' Everyone's enthralled. In keeping with the themes explored in 'Stand Up Comedy' (sadly unplayed as yet) perhaps Bono is here having a go at the idea that people place faith in rock stars who, despite pomp and circumstance, are essentially clowns.  -see comments here,  Towers,  
I agree that it is likely 8:17 (and not A-17 as many think), as originally every song on "No Line" included a time reference...and Towers' guess is as good as any in context.

So..

what i thought I heard in person the other night  was  that "Don't put your faith in a clown"   had become "Don't lose your faith in this clown" (Either way, Bono would be meaning himself, unless he pointed upwards, which I didn't see.
Here is the audio, check out 7:58..it's pretty clear:


LATER NOTE: FINALLY FOUND A FULL CONCERT VIDEO VERSION.  HERE IT IS, pick up the video at 5:45 mark: (Note: I make the case that you can often tell when Bono's about to move into a prophetic section...you can watch his hand start to shake or swirl...LOL, I guess he's been to Toronto.  see below and especially "Without You" at Slane here):

I realize he could be praying that GOD would not lose his faith in "this clown"=Bono.
He sure assumes a posture of prayer as soon as he finishes saying it the last time.
--
Considering what happened next...which was amazing:

..definitely one of the highlights, check out what happened at the very end as the band meets Wojtek,  This whole thing felt prophetic as I watched it, as if the guest was sent to bring a blessing to the band and to the U.S with his visit...and gift to Bono.  Of course, it is yet another refreshing example of how U2 honors fans......and a reminder that Beth is right: Bono does not bring only girls up on stage:



             - link: "Wojtek flew twenty hours...without an airplane")

...suffice to say I haven't lost my faith in either clown.
When Bono was 'foolish' enough to let Wojtek up on stage, it was holy foolishness.
When someone holds up a sign that says "Bono: I flew 20 hours to be on stage with U2,"
and Bono is humble and holy enough to let it happen..

..wow, once some folks travelled  eight hours to meet me..That was holy and humbling enough.

Story:

We were minding our own business, teaching for a small group at our church by the brothel (see both here) in  Huancayo, Peru...when these men  (video below) showed up unannounced.

No one knew them, so Ken greeted them and found they has somehow heard from the grapevine that we (some special gringos) were in Huancayo; they had travelled for eight hours on mountain roads, on the chance that we might be able to pray/commission them for their ministry: they run an intercession/outreach center  from the poorest apartment complex in the country.

Sometimes when North Americans teach in Latin America or Africa, the locals think we are especially anointed, or will blow on them/knock 'em down like the televangelists on TBN.  This was different.  They just felt like we had something for them.


-Link: "you travelled eight hours to meet US!?"

Count me a holy fool.

I even wore a clown suit once..maybe I'll buy it back..story and photos here..

Oh...

if the "holy fool" language trips you up, would it trip you up more to use the phrase "idiot"?:



I would love to browse the books by Bono's bedside.
We have long known he has read
Eugene Peterson (some see direct Peterson inspirations in this album),
Brennan Manning (great story)
Phillip Yancey (great story) ../


We have just confirmed a long suspicion he has read John of the Cross!

Why would he not be referencing Dostoyevsky's "The Idiot" in "Crazy Tonight"s use of ":idiot" language?
The title character is not only a Christ-figure, but his development was influenced by the "holy fool" tradition (which Bono directly utilized in the 9os).  -full story

Tuesday, March 02, 2010

Voyeurism and Advocacy: Small Photos and Big Screens

Upon posting this photo (click this to enlarge) of a family living in a drainage pipe under a road in the Philipines, Randy White articulates something I feel whenever I post one of my similar pics:




it seems like there is a fine line between voyeurism and gathering the information, personal experience and perspectives necessary to be an advocate.


Or maybe it's (also) another reason:
I once titled a post "Maybe if I post this pic, I'll have to look at it" (click title to see the pic).



Note to self:
Be an advocate to self...sometimes.

Consider the band Delirious, who wrote these lyrics, responding to a heartbreaking visit to India:

I stare in the eyes of this flesh and bone
I'm a tourist here so tomorrow I go home
I try to make sense of the things I've seen
Between the poverty and the five star dream.
-
lyrics


Of course the irony, which the band was well aware of, is they then went on tour to sing those lyrics....and the rich Americans in the audience can dance to the music.

Maybe as it has to be and should be.

Could be that irony is the only way...whether the subtle irony Randy White mentions as he posts a photo of the drainpipe family.

Or even the full-blown irony of U2 in the 1990s: over the top satire, kitsch.....pretty much prophecy. Bono has always said that celebrity is currency. In the 90s they used that currency subversively...and at great risk....to project huge images, dress up like the devil...

..and to the point:

..give the stage and platform, while in Chile, to the literal "mothers of the disappeared,"...

all while Bono is dressed in a suit of lights.
all while the largest TV screens in history projected their images and subverted their shame.

All this from the band that took once projected, and once played Sarajevo while staying at the five star dream at night.

Voyueristic? Exhibitionist?
or
"gathering the information, personal experience and perspectives necessary to be an advocate."


I don't have U2's platform.
I don't have Randy White's.
I don't even have the largest TV screen in history.
Or the highest Technorati authority on earth.

I do have a red blog, three chords, a few photos from mission trips to post, and the sometimes ironic, authoritative truth to tell...

Go back to the top, click to enlarge that photo of the drainpipe dwellers, so you can look into their eyes. Click this to read their story, so you can look into their soul.

You know you want to.

Monday, February 08, 2010

the one who has years to hear


Re: the Christian Scharen interview excerpt below:

I think the 4th line from bottom may be a typo (or transcription mistake; see the mistaken Switchfoot reference, etc)..."didn't have the years to hear," when it was supposed to be "ears to hear"....but how prophetic the "years" comment is. It sometimes takes years to get deep enough in God to hear the "obvious" Christian content of the U2 1990s material...

and years to get over everything you have heard about that being the decade that they "backslid," and everything the church has taught us about the message "must be direct.":



JC: Would we even be having this conversation, and would you have written this book if U2 had signed with a Christian record label, way back when?

CS: I don’t think so. They would never have gotten this big, for starters. Not to say I wouldn’t have written a book about a Christian rock band. My whole intention of writing this book was how big they are, and the fact that there are a lot of people who like the band but don’t necessarily get it. I was in New York City last night talking to a bunch of seminary students, and even among pretty Christian folk they said “you know, I’d liked U2 for a long time but after I read your book, I went back and I was like ‘wow, this whole sort of deep conversation with God that was going on during the 90s that I totally ignored, I thought they’d gone off the rails and weren’t Christian anymore. Now I realize all the complexity of what was going on then in their Christian journey.’ So a real disconnect between what U2 has been up to and people’s perception of that, and understanding of that. And in some cases I’ve heard directly that that’s a gift for people’s faith to be able to go deeper, and be nourished by that.

JC: I’ve seen so many examples of that, where people had no idea and to me, they’re bolder than any Christian rock band in the ‘Christian’ industry with what they say - they’re so real. When All That You Can’t Leave Behind came out, a local critic called them hypocrites for never talking about their faith, and yet the music is informed by their faith.

CS: Somebody asked me last night - he was quoting Franklin Graham, but he used that [same] critique…

Quoting Franklin Graham?

Yes. Just saying, if their commitment to poverty and their orientation as a band is so Christian, why don’t they directly proclaim Christ? And we were listening - we were talking about U2’s use of the genre of lament. Most explicitly drawing on lament Psalms and scripture and also sort of writing songs that fit that mode even if they’re not directly referencing Scripture, and one of the ones we listened to was ‘Sunday Bloody Sunday’ and that song ends with “the victory Jesus won.” I mean, it’s just an absolute clear declaration of the victory of Christ in relationship to the troubles of this world. And that’s not the only place; there are clear places in their catalog, where they’ve just said, ‘you know, this is it - this is where we’re coming from.’ Early on, and recently. And people, I think, just don’t have years to hear it. If you listen to the song ‘Playboy Mansion,’ it’s a parable of grace: 100% right out of John’s Gospel. But people don’t have the sensibility of art, and the sort of creative presentation that they use. It’s not in a sense absolutely direct.

-link

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

"An authentic Christian is a non-Christian in the Christian sense of the term."




Remember when System of a Down released an album called "Steal This Album"?

I don't recommend stealing the book "The Fidelity of Betrayal:Towards a Church Beyond Belief," by Peter Rollins (I highly recommend
buying it an any price, would almost require it for churchfolk)..

but in the spirit of faithful betrayal, one wonders if Rollins would suggest we betray it once we read it (ah, the" impotence of irony," again):
"Christianity...exhibits a somewhat disconcerting vertigo-inducing rupture at its very core, a divine rupture that gives it the form of a religion that asks us to betray our faith tradition precisely so as to affirm it in the deepest and most radical manner." (162)

"..Christianity, as a religion without religion, would seem to demand that we always be prepared to betray our religious systems precisely so that holy water will never be detached from drinking water and communion bread never divorced from daily bread." (182)

"...Hence the description of an authentic Christian as a non-Christian in the Christian sense of the term." (184)
Buy the book already...or at least steal this legal sample chapter PDF.

Tuesday, February 03, 2009

aren't these two always related?

This paragraph, especially the sentence I have in bold print,  from "The Pope's Denial Problem," (a Newsweek article on the pope's  decision to include and ordain holocaust deniers):
:

The crucial change brought about in the everyday life of Catholics by Vatican II was the dropping of the Tridentine or "Latin" Mass and its replacement by services in the vernacular. The crucial change brought about in the relationship of Catholics to non-Catholics by Vatican II was the abandonment by the church of the charge of "deicide" against the Jewish people as a whole: in other words, the dropping of the allegation that the Jews bore a historic and collective responsibility for the torture and murder of Jesus. The two changes, perhaps unfortunately, were and are related. The old Latin form of the Mass included a specific Good Friday prayer for the conversion of the Jews, who were in some versions of the ritual described as "perfidious."

The Pope's Denial Problem
By Christopher Hitchens

...causes me to ask about the connectedness of the two changes in the broader sense.

In other words:

Doing and being church "in the vernacular,"  in the language/culture of the people is simply being incarnational/missional.
Is doing church this way and means related to the church freeing itself from ethnocentricism/perjuidice/racism/anti0Semitism/holocausts?

I am sure it is, but help me connect the dots.

How do we default to prejudice, bounded set-edness, koinonitis, and racism 
as an inevitable byproduct of "doing church in an unknown language," especially be us clergy types?

Hmmm, the proposed answers to "what factors caused the Holocaust" may be related here?
Don;t systems always kill the "other"?

As MacP once said...sorta:

"Goodbye all you neo-Nazis...I hope they give you...uh, grace...after you reoent and make amends"

Time for a temple tantrum?  If so, how do we our violence peacefully (or our peacemaking violently?)?

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

simulacra-kklesia (part 5/cinco): todo es duende y spiritual

I don't know why I like reading Watchman Nee in Spanish.

Maybe because it's knowing the work was translated from Chinese into English and then into Spanish made the product either:

-a copy of a copy of a copy at least three generations removed from the original...thus having lost much in translation

or

-by some Spiritaneous serendipity saved from "lost in translation" or simulacra, and in a sense "even better than the real thing,"

I am not the scholar to judge, but intuitively, it feels like it reads the writer's heart.

So i picked up Pascal's Pensees in Spanish. At our gathering Sunday, it was there on the coffee table as the rabbi dude and I were talking. I opened the book to a random "pensee," (#648) and read:

"Dos errores: 1. Tomar todas cosas literalmente. 2.Tomar todas cosas spiritualmente."

Translation:

"Two errors: 1. To take everything literally. 2. To take everything spiritually."

Of course, this was originally written in French, so we face a similar third gen factor.
But I bet the translation worked. Spanish is closer to French than my ruddy English, anyway.

Tweaking the language a bit, but hopefully meaning the same thing:


Either we believe

it's all spiritual


or we believe

everything is spiritual.

The second is life; the first death.

"It's all spiritual" is the old/new docetic/gnostic heresy. Can't go there, matter matters.
"God likes matter, " C.S. Lewis said, "he made it."

"Everything is spiritual" is good theology (See the Rob Bell videos by this title here. It's good TV, if not quite Zoo TV)and duels dualism.


I would venture that music is the primary means of
overcoming simulacratic (and socratic) nature of our times and church.
Only then will we hear and feel the need to pray God yanks us out of our commercialism and complacency.

But not just any music.

Musical metaphor that is:



  1. lament (see Well-Ended Stories That Don't End Well)

  2. honest
  3. spiritual

as opposed the the normative and formative repertoire of church as usual:

  1. happy-clappy (hear Bono speak to this is a delightful and devastating audio quote here:
    and then dare to pray Jesus' gut-wreneching prayer here: ""The Lord Be With You...Even When He’s Not")

  2. untruthful (see CCM makes you lie)
  3. religious (Our only real enemy, the one who came to "steal, kill and destroy" in the context of John 10:10 is not the devil...he is nowhere mentioned in that section, no matter what we preachers have told you...but the religious person/false teacher.)
All three need to be refused and defused. Maybe we can get started by reading (singing along to in full MacPhisto drag):
Back to the top:

Maybe the Spanish language/culture is the key anyway. A careful reading of this post on

might suggest that a Spanish mindset inherently "gets" that religion lies;
and that holy simulacra can lead us to the One who leads us into all truth.

The well known playful pun on the word 'papa':

--"pope" and/or "potato"--

may be telling that Sapir and Whorf were right.

One more helpful Spanish connection




At their worst, U2 comes off with bombastic pretension. At their best, they achieve what very few artists in any genre can: they create work with a sustained intensity that transforms the particular into the universal. U2 has that rare ability to communicate what the late Spanish writer, Frederico Garcia Lorca called 'duende'; that "mysterious power which everyone senses and no philosopher explains" (In Search of Duende, 1998, New Directions.)


"I have heard an old master guitarist say: 'Duende is not in the throat; duende surges up from the soles of the feet.' Which means it is not a matter of ability, but of real live form; of blood; of ancient culture; of creative action."
Searching for the duende in the music of U2 may seem like the ultimate form of sycophancy or pretension, but as Miles Davis once so elegantly riffed, so what? No other band from the past two decades has so consistently given listeners reason to believe in the transcendental power of rock 'n' roll. U2 has the primacy of duende's "creative action" to thank for it.
..Lorca believed duende recreated familiar forms:
"The duende's arrival always means a radical change in forms. It brings to old
Planes unknown feelings of freshness, with the quality of something newly created, like a miracle, and it produces an almost religious enthusiasm."

...Few other bands come close to these dizzy heights. "Sometimes" is pure duende.
Lorca also stated "with duende it is easier to love and understand, and one can be sure of being loved and understood." U2 acknowledges that "tonight", as in other moments, weakness may overcome strength, but that's OK- everyone has those moments. It's in this realization that "Sometimes" crosses from the particular to the universal, cutting deep into the heart's core to pull out an emotional response that has nothing to do with Bono's father, but everything to do with our shared vulnerability as fragile living beings.
Music of this caliber and class feels as primal as shelter and food. U2 is keeping duende alive in their sound. All we can do is listen. by David Kootnikoff ,
link



Twice the writer observed U2's movement from particular into universal, as characteristic of duende. You may remember that Wathrall noted this same progression (and its opposite) about the band and found it characteristic of post-simulacra elevation.
Maybe they're the same thing:


It's very tempting to understand U2's exemplary postmodern song (on which, in good postmodern fashion, I shall isolate and focus on here), "Even Better Than the Real Thing," as a celebration of the very postmodern condition Baudillard characterizes as the triumph of the simulacra.....but heard in this communal register, the erotic meaning of the lyric, "I'm gonna make you sing" has when...addressed to a particular lover becomes transformed, elevated into a celebration of communal singing as an ecstatic experience that transcends even the feeling of real love between individuals (This universalization of love-by which U2 seeks to transmute the entire audience into a belived--works, as Plato decribes in The Symposium by generalizing from the particular; it is thus striking that Bono sometimes performs the same gesture in reverse; by bringing a particular audience member on the stage to sing to her personally, as a particularization of the general audience he seeks to reach through her. With the very idea of an esctatic experience transcending personal love, we tread, I would suggest, into the territory of the holy.....Christianity itself was born out of such a fundamental attunement of universal love....without imposing borders. (91-93)



So more on that in parte siete of this series manana..

Oye, there may be uno, dos, tres, catorce parts to this after all.







*

*


*



*