LIFE AFTER ALL...FINALLY!

It has arrived. You can read more about it and order it online here. If you are shopping here, you can buy it in person. It will soon be available in a variety of regional book and music stores.

If you know the artists, you can purchase the disc direct. This is the recommended method, since it allows them to look you in the eyes and work their sorcery on you, seducing you into buying multiple copies for family, friends, and co-workers. It's painless, and relatively inexpensive. Of course, if you experience an erection for more than four hours you should consult your physician.

Live performances and CD release party information will be forthcoming. There are plans to assemble the entire cast from the album for at least one live show. Watch for it. Sign up for the mailing list at mincksmiller[at]sbcglobal.net.

Listening samples won't be available on the MayApple site until next week. But you can hear four songs in their entirety here.

Happy New Year.

MY CHRISTMAS JEREMIAD

The New York Times ran an article recently that was a nice companion to this column. In the article, David Cay Johnston reviewed a study conducted by the NewTithing Group challenging the assumptions that the most wealthy are the greatest benefactors for charities. The study is unique in that it looked at investment assets as part of income, rather than simply salary.

Relying on IRS data from 2003 (the most recent available), the study reveals that the "super rich" are the least generous group in our society. Here's the "take away" from the study:

If affluent young and middle-aged filers had donated as high a proportion of their investment asset wealth to charity in 2003 as did their less affluent peers, total individual charitable donations that year would have been over $25 billion higher, an increase of at least 17%.

Sure, the rich still make up an enormous amount of the charitable giving in this country, but when you consider that much of what they give does not actually go to the poor, and that they are not living out the charge - to whom much is given, much is expected - it appears that a high tide raises all yachts...but leaves those on life rafts to fend for themselves.

Do the rich have the right to use their income however they want? I suppose. Should they be forced to share the wealth? Probably not. But, at least they should have to face up to the fact that they are in it for themselves, that they are not saviors of the downtrodden. Where are the religious leaders on this topic? How come we don't hear sermons about this in our churches? Because the pursuit of individual wealth is sacrosanct. You can gain much more traction attacking gays and liberals than telling your parishioners to give away everything and follow God. If the leaders of the evangelical Right want people like me to ever take them seriously, they must address this disparity with the same prophetic fervor as they pursue the conservative agenda.

By the way, there's plenty of criticism to go around. The study shows that even the most charitable among us give at about a 3-4% range, with most of us giving in the 1% range. That's a far cry from 10% tithe I was taught growing up. My family gives over 10% each month, with the bulk of it going to Rainbow Network (I spent a week in Nicaragua and saw that the money goes exactly where it should). But it still isn't enough. When I pray, I don't pray that God will smite the wicked, I pray that God will give me the faith to do with less so I can give more.

I believe that giving is largely about bringing comfort where there is suffering; but it should also bring suffering where comfort is too much with us. It's an overlooked and underappreciated symbiosis. If our giving does not create any kind of discomfort for us, it probably isn't fulfilling the giver side of the equation.

May you have a merry Christmas. And, if you don't celebrate Christmas, may you experience the spirit of grace and generosity.

May we all learn to take less and give more.

GRADUATION

Last Friday I was reminded what I love about teaching. No, it is not the fact that I get to dress in academic regalia - fully chevroned, hooded, and topped with a 6-pointed tam o' shanter in odd imitation of my medieval forebears. And, no, it is not the semi-annual reminder that "...commencement is not an end, but a beginning...."

It is the spectacle of completion. I love witnessing the personal and corporate climax of students who are sharing a cocktail (for you, John) of emotions: the sorrow of departure and relief of completion, blended with the thrill of anticipating a future yet unknown. It's an intoxicating atmosphere. All of us are a little more real than we are during the rest of our semester groove.

It always surprises me that some of them made it. I selfishly wish some of them would never leave; but, there they go - out the door into all the rattle and the hum of the world. I always hope that more of them would take risks and tilt at windmills than will probably come to pass. Unfortunately, we work hard to tame them when they are with us. Produce, produce, produce. Too often we have driven them into submission so they can be meaningful contributors to the economy and the faith. What thrills me are the subversive glances I catch from behind mortarboard tassles assuring me that not all will go gentle into that good night. Thank you, sweet Jesus.

I have to say, the thing I enjoyed most this semester was the speech by the reigning president of the state denominational convention (the one that muscles the University). He did fine, I guess. Seemed like a nice enough guy. Managed to avoid talking about gay marriage or the secularizing influence of evolution.

But, he told a story about when he was playing football in high school. His hero at the time was Dick Butkus, famed middle linebacker for the Chicago Bears and ubiquitous shill for Miller Lite (the speaker didn't mention the latter). He claims that in the state championship game, he took a page from Butkus' playbook and bit another player on the leg, while they were both at the bottom of a particularly fierce dogpile. The captain of their defensive team brought them back into their huddle, fuming about an opponent who had bitten him on the leg!

Heh, heh. That was a good story.

Don't get me wrong, I didn't think it was particularly funny or meaningful as a graduation story; but considering the way our current evangelical leaders often end up harming those on their own teams - through lawsuits, witch hunts, and power plays - I thought it was an especially appropriate metaphor.



The dying of the light? Rage against it.

WAR ON CHRISTMAS

Have you heard? Of course you've heard. Christmas is under seige by the radical liberals. By removing "Merry Christmas" from the holiday lexicon, liberals have declared war on God, faith, America, heterosexuality, and life itself.

Admittedly, this whole "Merry Christmas" ban is out of control. Those who support it are overly sensitive and those who are aggressively opposing it are nuts. Are we to believe that God-With-Us is somehow affected by the policy of Target department stores?

By the way, what is a greeting anyway? Do we offer greetings to declare our socio-political sympathies, or do we offer them as a salve for the wounds of those who struggle through this life? If your "Merry Christmas" is an instrument of cultural warfare, if you are more interested in the content of a greeting than the content of a poor person's cupboard, then I know a place you can stick it. The sun doesn't shine too brightly there, and your "Merry Christmas" will find company with the all the religious cliches that are meant to declare your allegiances without helping anyone much. "I'll pray for you" is there. "God bless you and God bless America" is growing old in the darkness. If you rummage around in there you might find a "Smile, Jesus loves you."

If you want to fight a war on Christmas, why don't you put your efforts into banning this:

This is a photo of my terrified wife sitting in Santa's lap at Heer's department store in 1966. It's a wonder she made it out alive! St. Nick looks like he is about to send Prancer and Vixen to the liquor store for a refill of high octane egg nog.

Alcoholic, pedophile Santas should be banned.

(If this particular Santa was played by your grandpa, I'm sorry. It's just...do I really have to explain? The guy looks waxed. Maybe he was the president of the Kiwanis, but he looks like he's got a snootful of MD 20/20.)

Seriously, if you want to strike a blow for Christmas, why don't you declare war on the greed and materialism that is enfolding your family? If you want to fight a war for Christmas, do like the original St. Nick and give away all your riches to serve the poor. If you want to fight a war for Christmas, learn to forgive this December and quit looking for people to blame.

Don't talk to me about wars against language if you can't find the time and resources to give something to the least of these. God is not impressed with your righteous indignation. You may get Sears to reinstate their holy greeting, but the weak will still huddle in the cold while your nephew plays with his new Xbox.

God, forgive us.

Visit us this season with a new sense of hope, and a bountiful dose of grace.

Merry Christmas.
And Happy Holidays.

UNCLE

I quit.

This will be my last post on this topic. They win.

I am taking the dog out of the fight, even though a fair amount of fight remains in the dog. It's just that I have come to the conclusion that there would be no value in furthering the conflict, other than some narcissistic fulfillment of a primal skirmish-urge. I ain't skeered, just tired. And lonely. And wondering how one remains loving and faithful in a struggle for justice. As our president (of the US, not the University) says, "It's hard...it's hard work." I don't want to become some angry, twisted activist; especially if the battle is futile.

The University has been circulating a message that goes something like this:

1) Dr. H is not being "fired;" he is loved and valued by the university.
2) He and other senior faculty were approached last year with a retirement offer; Dr. H refused.
3) He was approached again this year, and he accepted.
4) We can't talk about the details of a personnel issue.
5) No one is being told what to teach in class.

That's a very different version of the story than the one I heard. But Dr. H has decided to remain publicly silent on the matter. I respect that. There is something elegant, even monk-like about exiting the stage free from the need to answer all the questions. Just like the Dylan he so enjoys.

You always said "People don't do what they believe in,
they just do what's most convenient, then repent."
I always said,
"Just hold on to me, baby, and hope the roof stays on."
("Brownsville Girl")

For the record, I have not been threatened or intimidated. And, I haven't reread everything, but I don't think I retract anything I have said on the matter either.

Who knows, maybe it's not all over; but for now, I'm going on to talk about other things and tilt at other windmills.

For instance, some of you have been asking about this: There will be major album release news within the week! We deliver the goods to the printer tomorrow. Sample mp3s and online ordering info coming soon.



Is that Freedom Rock? Well, turn it up.

WHERE'S THE REACH?

My last post clearly sparked some interest.

Since the date of that entry, "The Reach" has registered well over 2,000 unique visits to the site, over 5,000 page views, with about 150-200 visitors a day. Regular and returning readers hail from such places as the UK, Germany, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Thailand, Japan, Singapore, Australia, South Africa, Brazil, Canada, and a bunch of other global locations I have forgotten - not to mention the heaviest traffic from all corners of the US, with a growing cluster of visitors near the University. Apparently I am being "outed" by super sleuths.

By the way, if my knowledge of your location is unnerving, don't worry, I can't tell who you are, just where you're network is located...oh, and what you're wearing.

For the record, I continue to maintain my anonymity and to protect the identity of the school, because my purpose is not self-promotion or aggression. I clearly have some pointed things to say from time to time; but the intent is not to harm, but to reach.

Speaking of reaching, where's the reach on this topic? Those of you who have been around awhile will remember that the original purpose of this site was to boost reaching over grasping. If all this discussion achieves is the polarizing of supporters and detractors, victors and vanquished, I will move on to other topics. Sure, it's fun to watch a dog snarl and try to pull an old sock out of your fist (although it's arguably more fun to watch a dog try to find her way out from under a blanket), that's just novelty, a parlor trick. I'm not interested in just creating spectacle here. If all you want is polarizing media, switch on Hannity or Franken. I want our conversations to matter for more than boundary work.

Clearly the topics of intelligent design, academic freedom, and Christian higher education are compelling to lots of people, but where does all this get us? If your interest is in wounding your opponents, please leave me out of it. If my interest is scoring more more hits on my site, I could achieve a better result by abandoning conversation for porn.

So, where do we go from here? Do we just retreat to our predictable corners: conservatives over here, liberals over there? Do we blindly defend an idea or a university simply because we like them? What do we say to each other? How do we say it?

How do we reach each other through all this? While I deeply appreciate all the supportive comments - public and private - that I have received on this topic, there's something immensely more satisfying about seeing those who are separated by ideology or allegiance come together through their common interest in reaching beyond their grasp.

How do we make our world? How do we treat each other in times such as these? Where's the reach?