Poor sister-in-law. She doesn’t get much press here at SHLOG.COM. I’ve mentioned just about the whole family tree in some way or another but not Kathy Lineberger , Becky’s youngest sister, the most pitiful twig of the bunch really - the single one who never gets to share her Dr.Pepper and french fries, never wakes up in the middle of the night and breast feeds...anyone...ever, never frets over toilet seat position or wet towels on carpet, never hurries through a visit to the restroom while tiny hands knock and voices ask repeatedly from behind the locked door “Are you going number one or two?”, always listens to the coolest most current music as loudly as she wishes and always goes to the movies...always...sometimes more than once a day. We hate her...I mean, pity her for this.
Like so many single people, who are usually lying liars, she beams and spunkily answers, “Fantastic!!,” when we ask how things are going. But we hear the tears pooling behind the curtain of her fained exuberance. Oh sure, sometimes life kicks a nut into her nest, like when she was asked to style me (buy all the clothes with my label’s money, cut my hair, put some gel in it, pull it periodically, say “looks good” a few times, and sit a lot) for my first and third album photo shoots. But that was but a single solitary shining red#7 Crunch Berry in an otherwise bland drab Peanut Buttery life.
Pathetic. No matter how much she tries to convince everyone that she’s “doin’ great.” Great indeed.
I ask you, how great can the life of a barber be? And that’s what she is. Let’s don’t kid ourselves. A barber. “Image Consultant.” “Stylist.” These are just masks she wears upon her pain, rainbow and blue sky fancy-pants linguistic smoke and mirrors, code words for “I’m a miserable BARBER. I cut hair. It sucks. I want to die sometimes.” Seriously, how full of wonderment and satisfaction can a life spent with magazine cover gracers be? How uninspiring must a job that is never the same from one day to the next leave someone? How many late night talk show hosts and movie stars and rock n’ rollers can one really converse with before chunking it all to manage a Sally Beauty Supply? Really? It’s only a matter of time. Jerry Curl and Dippity Do - that’s the future, I fear. “Fantastic,” she claims.
And I suspect the more miserable she becomes the more she feels she must work in search of any salvation from her ho-hum existence. And work she does: hair for Vertical Horizon when they appeared on Conan O’Brien, wig styling for The Dukes of Hazard, styling for Robbie Seay’s photo shoot, Faith Ford’s hair for Faith and Hope, hair for All My Children, hair for Priscilla Presley and Christie Brinkley and lots of others. Hair. Hair. Hair. Celebrity. Hair. Hair. Hair. Big pay check.
That’s no life. That’s a death sentence...in Texas...with a brick and no blindfold.
You know, her job really, now that I ponder it - no, her whole life - yea, might make her the most pathetic and needy person this Christmas season - a time when we’re to reach out - no - reach DOWN to the downtrodden - or maybe it should be OUT to the downtrodden to avoid the redundant use of “down” - anyway, it’s the season when we’re to reach beyond our own stockings full of pleasure and prosperity and offer a leg up, a place to crash, a free meal or two to our sisters-in-law (literally and metaphorically speaking) or anyone else we know who is, again, truly pathetic and dying inside from mediocrity or highlight fumes. And I guess that’s why we - Brian, Amy, Becky and I have decided to open our door to Kathy this year - tomorrow night I hope - then remind her of the bed time routine, kiss the kids goodnight and run away, leaving her alone with a whole house full of the joys she’s so lacking. Running everywhere. Eating from HER plate. Knocking on the door while SHE goes number one or number two. She needs the happiness we figure, the spice, some kool-aid and Cheeto in her otherwise bland lobster bisque and white wine life.
Merry Christmas, Kathy. What’s ours is yours. Don’t wait up.
I bow before Brant Hansen after reading this genius post on his blog. Who cares if I or you or anyone else agrees with the point he’s making. This is satire and sarcasm at it’s finest. After forcing my wife to read it ("Who reads blogs? What IS a blog?") she exclaimed, “This guy works for ---FM? Why?” Interpret as you will. In her own way it was the highest of compliments. Then, “You KNOW him?” It was as if I was bestest friends with a Beatle. I got major cool points (More than I got for moving to Nashville). We made out. Again, thanks Brant.
Read now. Bow later.
[Blackmail photo of Brant in “Creed Position” courtesy of the 1990’s when he fronted a band called Farewell To Juliet. A reminder to us all that Google never forgets.]
Last night I hurriedly prayed with my kids before bed time.
“God, thank you for helping Gresham and me feel better today. And thank you for a warm house and hot water and food to eat. Amen.”
Then Gresham prayed...and prayed…
“Thank you for Nonnie and Geedaddy and Granda and Papa and Mimi and Papaw. Thank you for Gabriella and Penelope and Mommy and Daddy. Thank you for Nathaniel and Natalie and Philip and Olivia (the cousins) and Uncle Brian and Aunt Amy and Beth (teacher at church) and my room, blue like a truck and carpet and fan and Jancey (our Compassion International child) window and trains and cars and saxophones. And thank you for macaroni and chicken and table and chairs and juice and mayonnaise and ketchup. And bears and wolfs and Bagwell (Brian’s dog) and Brandon (a friend of cousin Philip’s) and Jaime and Julie (neighbors of Brian’s) and Shannon (another neighbor). Thank you for suitcase and bed and blanket and floor and cup and sun and cereal bars and grass and our van and Chick-fil-A and mayonnaise and Chuck E. Cheese and McDonald’s and...”
Apparently, there’s a lot more to be thankful for than I thought. But we’re a little sleepy this morning. Thank God for naps.
(By the way, this divine lesson came from the child sage who, five minutes prior, was streaking around the house singing “We wish you a merry poo poo.” Mysterious ways indeed.)
LUKE 2:1 In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world.
Augustus. Born Octavius, adopted son of Julius. Heir to the throne of the great Roman empire. Julius was so proud of his boy, and himself, that he forged a coin in Gaul, distributed across the empire, to honor them both. On one side, the face of Julius. On the other, the face of Octavius. Written across both were the words, “Divine Caesar and the Son of God”.
Powerful men are often in love with themselves. That’s nothing new. Megalomania is as common among the famous as flies among the poor. But few call themselves gods. And Julius wasn’t the only one adoring himself and his offspring this way. Emperor worship was the national religion, most fervent in Asia minor where the greatest number of Christians, followers of a rival Jewish king, would one day lose their lives for refusing to honor Caesars and their empire. Julius was a god to his people. A full fledged god. Capable, so they thought, of controlling the earth below and the sky above, capable of creating and sustaining their very lives,
But his own life wouldn’t last forever. And when Octavius ascended his father’s throne he dubbed himself “Augustus.” Not the humblest of names. No, Augustus means “worthy of reverence and worship.” Like his father, Augustus reigned as god over his kingdom.
Until 17BC, when a strange star appeared in the sky. The great Roman thinker and writer Virgil interpreted the sign for him. “The turning point of the ages has come.” Utopia is on the horizon, the dawning of a new and great era has arrived, through the great Augustus.
Now, there were shepherds watching their flocks and an angel appeared to them with a different interpretation. (LUKE 2:10-11) “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord.”
“Christ”. The rescuer.
“Lord”. Emperor. King. The King.
This was the day the Jewish prophet Isaiah had written of, the day power changed hands on earth. “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” (Isaiah 9:6)
“Government.” Power. Rule. Not a system. Not a senate or an office. The ultimate authority. The right to reign.
“On his shoulders.” Passed on. Bestowed upon. The power and position that Caesars believed they held, that dictators crushing the Jews for centuries wielded, the authority and control exercised by mere mortals sitting on thrones inherited from Fathers and Mothers - this mantel is handed to a child heralded by the night sky Caesar claims to conduct.
A new King. A new kingdom. The kingdom of God lying in a manger, growing in Nazareth, learning from the rabbis, wearing his prayer shawl, preaching in the synagogue, “"The Spirit of the Lord is on ME, because He has anointed ME to preach good news to the poor. He has sent ME to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” (Luke 4:18-19)
Revolution has come to a manger, come through a Jewish rabbi born to a virgin in the Middle East. And an empire, a god, a savior, is overthrown. A new kingdom for the poor of spirit, the mourning and the quitters that would outlast the reign of all Caesars has come.
So great would the Christ’s influence be that one man, a follower of his named Peter, would announce, “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12) Peter. A revolutionary like his Master. What a rebellious pronouncement he made. Rebellious? Yes. For before Peter ever spoke these words about Christ, Augustus had written them about himself on Roman coins, “ Caesar Augustus. There is no other name given to men by which we may be saved.” Peter reminded us all, for all times in all nations, that only Christ saves the oppressed, the sick and the sinful.
What the nativity scene dimly lit on our mantles fails to capture for us is the defiance, the seditiousness of the Christ Peter knew well. The placid figurines leave us wondering why anyone would want to kill this precious child. Remember though. Asleep on that hay is the King of kings come to do through his people what no Caesar could, come to bow every knee, erase every border, destroy every flag, save every soul, free every captive, feed every stomach, open every eye, right every injustice - and do so by giving up His own life, not by taking another’s.
Wonderful Counselor. Mighty God. Everlasting Father. Prince of Peace.
SEE THE COMMENTS ON THE PREVIOUS POST REGARDING MARTIN LUTHER KING’S QUOTATIONS TO SEE WHY AND WHERE BRANT ASKED ME THESE QUESTIONS:
BRANT ASKED:
“Is your [brand of pacifism] one that holds that our nation, or any nation, should not use force to defend itself, or innocents in other nations?”
MY ANSWER:
I don’t know. Here’s what I think though. I think this scenario of nations using violence to defend themselves or other innocents is fantasy. I don’t know that it has ever happened in modern history - that I’ve learned of. I can think of no situation in which violence was used by a nation to defend itself or save the innocent in which that was the ONLY motivation, and the result was that harm came to the “guilty” and armed only. It’s just not a real situation you’re asking about.
But, in case that seems like a dodge, while I don’t know for sure what God would say in such instances, I can find no loophole for such instances in the teachings of Christ, the example of Christ, Paul’s Epistles, the teachings of the early church or the examples of the battling Jews of the Old Testament. So, no, using violence to end violence is not just. Or, to paraphrase Martin Luther King Jr, to think we can arrive at peace through war is like thinking we can arrive at purity through fornication.
BRANT ASKED:
“Is your [brand of pacifism] one that holds that police should not use force to defend the innocent?”
“Police” is too general a term. It does not factor in one’s faith, one’s relationship with and commitment to God. I do not, as a Christ follower, expect those outside the Church to be moral and do not judge them or expect them to behave virtuosly in any way. Moral expectation is reserved for fellow Christians, beginning with myself. (This is why it’s odd to me when folks boycott non-Christians for acting like non-Christians). So, to answer your question and change it a little, no, I do not think Christians should use force with the intent to harm, punish, kill, cause pain to another human being regardless of what it is that human being is doing. The intent matters. So, no, I do not think a Christian should be in an occupation that requires them to be violent in order to fight violence. Tertullian, an early church bishop, instructed that Christians who are part of the military should be disciplined out of the church even if they do not bear arms in the course of their duties. That’s how strongly many early Christians believed the teaching of Christ to be against violence.
BRANT ASKED:
“If so, and given that you believe we have political responsibilities to advocate for justice—understandably—will you advocate for the eradication of police and military?”
MY ANSWER:
I don’t know how you’re defining “political” but if you mean political in the nation-state/government involvement sense, the answer is an emphatic no. I have no “political responsibilities to advocate for justice” in that way. I do not vote. I do not pledge allegiance. I do not respect our flag over any other. I do not live for or die for a nation and have no faith in impotent governments incapable of legislating beneath skin, in the soul where law must be written in order for justice to be lived naturally. There is no such thing as justice without Christ and no government can therefore create true justice - only the Church.
Romans 13 says there will be governments (local magistrates, police etc) that have swords (weapons) and will use them to punish those who break their laws. Some use this passage to say Paul is prescribing them to do so, that he is commanding government to punish the law breaker with force. IF he was doing this in Romans 13 (and he isn’t) then the scope of this punishment and violence is, using only this passage, only local, within the borders of that magistrate’s territory. But Paul is not being PREscriptive here. He is being DEscriptive. This matters immensely - the context. He is warning people to obey the laws of men when they don’t cause us to break the laws of God because 1)we don’t want to cut our lives and our impact for the kingdom of Heaven on earth short by getting our heads chopped off. That would be stupid. 2)we should represent Christ well by being respectful and civil and not causing unnecessary problems for society. Following Jesus will bring us enough problems of it’s own without adding to them with negligence and petty law breaking. Die for a good reason, the right reason, the Gospel of Christ, Paul seems to be saying. Don’t die by the magistrates sword over some avoidable infraction. He’s warning us. He’s not saying Hey, magistrates feel free to make any rules you want and kill your citizens if they break them - God doesn’t mind. This is especially true when we read Romans 12 and THEN read ROmans 13. There’s a fishy chapter break thrown in there that really confuses things. Romans 12 ends by talking about how vengeance and punishment are God’s job and that we should love always, even those who harm us, and never seek revenge. THEN the magistrate is contrasted against that, against OUR Christian way of living.
So I admit that police and the military do much much good, when they’re not violent. Traffic laws are not God laws but they help society work better and don’t go against God’s laws so, sure, let’s have them and let’s enforce them with fines. Laws against murder, rape, theft - same thing. They make society safer and don’t break God’s laws so, again, have those laws and enforce them. But don’t use violence in the process of law enforcement.
The obvious follow up question to all of this that I’d ask myself is “So what do you suggest instead of violence mister unrealistic high horse hippie? How do we defend folks and enforce laws without using violence? What’s your alternative? How would YOU stop Hitler or Sadaam or Osama?”
Great question. How would you answer?
