Columns: Waking up to our evangelical roots (My Disciples World column) Posted 2/13/2007 7:58:47 PM For those who embrace it, evangelicalism represents a religious, social, and even political movement that is at the core of our collective moral well-being. For opponents, it is tantamount to a four-letter word. Historically, “evangelical” has been synonymous with “protestant.” In Europe, evangelical churches are distinguished from reform churches that follow in the footsteps of the likes of John Calvin, and subsequently Jonathan Edwards. Today, the term is associated with belief in the inerrancy of scripture, the centrality of a personal conversion experience, and faith in the blood atonement of the crucifixion. Evangelicalism was once a movement more than it was an institution. In response to many of the doctrines of the Anglican Church in the 18th century, the First Great Awakening gave rise to the Methodist Church. American spiritual leaders such as John Wesley felt compelled to guide our fledgling nation back toward a Christ-centered faith, having become discouraged by the proliferation of alternative practices such as deism, which was embraced by - among others – a number of the founding fathers. While the early evangelical movement did emphasize all of the values noted above, there was also a call for what was considered a rather radical approach to social justice. This included empowering women in church leadership, the abolition of slavery, and a tireless commitment to the poor within one’s community. Rather than the movement serving as a platform for public policy, it was a reassertion of the core values of the Christian faith which, in turn, were to guide our daily lives as individuals, and as a body of faith. At the dawn of the nineteenth century, two great religious revivals took place that gave birth to yet another surge in commitment to the American Christian experience. The first meeting was at Credence Clearwater Church in Kentucky in 1900, followed a year later by a much larger revival in Cane Ridge, Kentucky. This was the spark that ignited the movement known as the Second Great Awakening, and it was from this ferment of spiritual fervor that our denomination first came to be. Again, the focus of this re-imagining of the evangelical Christian role in America was one of justice, hammering away at issues such as racial and gender equality. I had the opportunity last year to worship at the small church in Cane Ridge where this revival that included upwards of 20,000 people took place. I was with a group of young adult church leaders, and each day a different group led worship in their own cultural tradition. The evening service at Cane Ridge was led by our African-American brothers and sisters. Some of us who were not as familiar at the time with the history of the Cane Ridge revival made our way up to the balcony of the cramped log cabin structure. But before worship began, the leaders asked all of us to join them in the front. “No one sits in the balcony tonight,” they explained. It was only later that I understood why. For nearly two hours, we sang, laughed and cried together as we worshipped God. Together, we gave thanks for the blessing of community, and for the gesture of our religious ancestors who called the African-American congregants down from the balcony during that revival to worship as a united body in Christ. There are those in the young adult community who believe the Church is positioned for a Third Great Awakening. There are also some who feel our connection to Cane Ridge and the early evangelical movement is over-emphasized. For me, one who is relatively new to Disciples, it offers a connection to a religious ancestry which helps me transcend the present climate of religious partisanship and dogmatic bickering. It also serves as a charge for those current and future church leaders. Christianity’s great moments in modern history have come not when we focus on establishing boundaries of social decency, but when we challenge, and even cross over, boundaries of ignorance, inequity and oppression. We are an evangelical church, but only insomuch as we live out the radical justice to which we are called by Christ. It is in serving that we are awakened to our purpose as Christians, and it is through daily acts of justice-centered obedience that the world will ultimately catch the spark of faith which we so urgently wish to share with them. (1) Comments

'Lost: A Search for Meaning': New podcast interview on my book Posted 2/10/2007 3:42:35 PM Hi all: If you're interested, you might enjoy checking out the interview I did this morning with three LOST podcasters. They each have posted the interview on their respective sites (links can be found on www.christianpiatt.com on the "Interviews" page) and I've also posted the direct link to the feed if you want to go straight to it. You can also subscribe to at least one of the podcasts via itunes if you use that, so it will download to your MP3 player. Again, check out my personal site for links. In the near future, I will be doing a similar interview with Lostcasts (www.lostcasts.com), one of the biggest Lost podcasts in the country, so I'll be sure to alert you when this interview is up and ready. Let me know what you think. Peace, Christian (0) Comments

Columns: 'Friends of God' portrays church on warpath Posted 2/10/2007 12:13:08 PM ‘Friends of God’ portrays church on warpath Alexandra Pelosi's new HBO documentary, "Friends of God," portrays dimensions of evangelical Christianity about which many of us have heard but may have never seen. Pelosi's trek across (mainly southern) America is equally amusing and distressing. The documentary has particular relevance today, given that one of the principal figures in the piece is Ted Haggard, former pastor of New Life Church in Colorado Springs. Before getting caught in a tawdry scandal involving sex and drugs, Haggard availed himself to nearly any media outlet in the country who sought his perspective on God and morality. "This week, we have HBO with us," he says, filmed during a worship service. "Last week it was CNN and next week it’s the History Channel or someone else." Haggard believed that his open-door media policy and frank approach to proclaiming his beliefs were key to evangelism. Little did he realize that, one year after the taping of this movie, he would be caught violating his very own principles. "We say moral purity is better than immorality. We say telling the truth is better than telling a lie," says Haggard. "We are the ones with the role to say there is a moral plumb line and we need to rise up to it. That's also why secular people are so concerned when the church doesn't fulfill its own moral stand, like if a pastor falls into corruption or becomes dishonest. Even secular people want godly people to be authentically godly." Chalk it up as one more example of religious hypocrisy. There's plenty more of interest, not the least of which involves wrestling for Jesus. A group of professional wrestlers tour the country, putting on displays of strength, agility and dramatic violence, followed by a call to commit one's life to Christ. The leader of the group, a burly, sweaty man in a spandex unitard, claims that approximately 10 percent of every audience for which they perform is saved. Who knows what he bases his claim on, but he believes what he is doing works. Hot rodders for Jesus debate the age-old question: "What would Jesus drive?" Pastors in pith helmets and khakis present arguments to young children about how dinosaurs and people lived side by side, and how the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Behind one minister delivering such a talk, the words, "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it," are emblazoned in bold across a giant screen. Those 10 words summarize the theology of most of the folks portrayed in the film. One criticism of the film is that it portrays a fringe group of evangelicals that don't represent the broad spectrum of such Christians in America. However, if only the tens of thousands shown in the film alone share such militaristic sentiments, it's enough to raise an eyebrow. Throughout the film, phrases such as "cultural war" meet with seas of nodding heads and enthusiastic applause. Though it can be argued that evangelicals seized the reins of American power in recent years, there is a pervasive sense of dignified martyrdom. There is, as portrayed by the film, a movement afoot to reclaim the nation which is believed to have been founded on their own principles. One touring concert, called Battlecry, draws five-figure crowds of youth across the country, urging them to fight for what they believe, at any cost. "This country is the best country in the world," says one self-proclaimed conservative comedian. "It's better than Europe; that's why we left." Cue the standing ovation. Still wonder why the rest of the world views Americans as arrogant, self-righteous bullies? Flags and crosses blend into a single amalgam of theocratic fervor, portraying a section of our country that believes it's their preordained right to press their agenda by any possible means. After all, they’re friends of God; how could they possibly be wrong? (5) Comments

'Lost: A Search for Meaning': Thoughts on "Not in Portland" Posted 2/8/2007 10:15:01 PM Well, well, the creative team wasted no time in plot development during this episode. It appears, based upon the reatings on the Fuselage website, that most fans found this to be an excellent episode, and I tend to agree, with a qualification or two. First off, the brainwashing scene was great, smacking of Kubrick's Clockwork Orange. I played that scene twice over at 1/4 scene to catch all of the snippets on the screen. I'm not exaclty sure, however, how this kind of experiment fits in with what we now know about DHARMA. We know that DHARMA stands for "Department of Heuristics And Research on Material Applications." Heuristics is a particular learning model wherein the students learn through direct experience. However, brainwashing would seem to go very much against as heuristic learning system. Maybe it was a means of control or torture, unrelated to the greater initiative. At any rate, it was way cool. Learning more baout Juliet was a wonderful way to learno more baout the Others in general. We now understand that she came there as a recruit, but that she's been held against her will for much longer than she planned. We know she's a fertility expert, which could connect her to theories about DHARMA being involved in life extension, or perhaps developing intranatal syrums to combat major outrbreaks of some kind. Maybe the apocalypse anticipated by the Valenzetti Equation has something to do with a scenario like in "Children of Men," where rather than killing people on a massive scale, they are rendered sterile? That's my new theory and I'm sticking to it. Oh, and seeing Ethan walk by in the hall of juliet's apartment was a definite double-take moment. How long had they been spying on her??? On to the lame stuff. The whole ex-husband-getting-hit-by-a-bus thing was so telegraphed, it might as well have been sent by Western Union. And though it was reasonable for him to die, it's pretty much cliche to have a guy get hit by a bus. Why not have a giant smoke monster drag him away, screaming? Come on now. As to the "coincidence" of Juliet suggesting the very thing would happen implies many htings, but I'll wait to persume too much. Clearly, Desmond had some psychic mojo working, but I thought it had something to do with an island experience. Perhaps folks drawn to the island have these special abilities already in them, and osmething baout the project helps them unlock their existing potential. But I digress...the bus thing was dumb. Point made. I enjoyed getting to see more of Alex, and to catch her bantering with Sawyer. However, do we really need another sappy romance? I know, I'm such a guy, but I was just hoping we would be relieved of the Jak-Kate-Sawyer triangle, when now they dump another one on us. My two cents is stick to the greater mythology, keep the big story moving, and make sure the back stories of characters help us tie together some of the several dozen loose ends we have yet to reconcile. Overall, I think it was an excellent beginning. less than perfect, yes, but well worthwhile. Only six more days until another episdode; that may be the best thing of all. No more waiting! (0) Comments

'Lost: A Search for Meaning': "Lost" book review in Pueblo Chieftain Posted 2/4/2007 10:13:16 AM Piatt clearly not lost as he examines program's meaning By AMY MATTHEW THE PUEBLO CHIEFTAIN Even though it permeates nearly every facet of our world, it's easy to dismiss pop culture as irrelevant. True, it's often nothing more than the most recent superficial fad, something that never will have true impact on our lives. Sometimes, however, something that appears to be a fad actually has depth. In his new book, "Lost: A Search for Meaning," Pueblo author Christian Piatt explores the connections between the ABC television show "Lost" and theology. As he demonstrates, it's a large and intricate web - not what one might expect from a hit TV show. (Piatt writes performing arts reviews and a weekly religion column for The Pueblo Chieftain.) "Lost" is, on its surface, the story of a group of people who survive an airplane crash that leaves them stranded on an island. Their first reactions are to figure out where they are and why they are there. Aren't those the most common questions among those searching for life's meaning? Fans of "Lost" know the show is crowded with symbolism. Numbers - specifically, the numbers 4, 8, 15, 16, 23 and 42 - have multiple meanings that are good for some, terrible for others. Piatt points out that numbers and other symbols, such as the cross, have great significance in religion. Piatt explores other areas where the program and theology intertwine, among them fate, salvation, faith and reason. Each chapter in the book can stand on its own and the reader doesn't need to be a "Lost" devotee to understand it, although the book will definitely hold more appeal for fans of the show. Piatt takes care to explain the characters and relevant plot points in detail. He recommends discussion topics, reading material and specific "Lost" episodes (the series’ first two seasons are available on DVD). Piatt clearly has spent a great deal of time poring over the DVDs, not to mention the time spent searching other sources. His knowledge of theology is extensive, but while he presents a wonderful amount of information in understandable terms, those portions of the book often read more like an academic paper. A more conversational approach in those sections would have improved the 120-page book, perhaps making it more accessible to readers. "Lost" is not an easy show to watch. There are no quick resolutions; most apparent endings merely lead to more questions. It requires, and spurs, much thought. Piatt does a commendable job of showing how very similar this fictitious, but not superficial, TV world is to the vast, often unknowable, world of theology. (0) Comments

Columns: Two years out, and Obama’s already getting trashed Posted 2/4/2007 10:04:23 AM Two years out, and Obama’s already getting trashed By Christian Piatt The Pueblo Chieftain We've all witnessed the early political positioning of many likely presidential candidates for next year’s election. Most of the high-profile contenders so far are on the Democratic side, though several Republicans have thrown their hats into the ring. It’s amazing that a day doesn't go by that we don’t hear something from one of the handful of frontrunners, causing me to wonder how sick of it all we'll be by the time it's all over, nearly two years from now. No wonder we seem to resent politics. It takes way more of our time, energy and money than it deserves. Evidently, however, some people feel like they have no time to lose. I got one of the most troubling and offensive e-mails this week that I've received in a long time about the most formidable male Democrat in the pack, Barack Obama. Many people are ecstatic about his campaign, which is rare for a freshman senator these days. Abraham Lincoln came from the same state and had about the same degree of political experience as Obama when he ran for president, but the political machine is a different animal today. Generally there are rites of passage through which one must progress to reach center stage, but Obama has been catapulted into the spotlight following his 2004 Democratic National Convention keynote address. There's no denying that Obama has intense charisma, a strong intellect and a way with words that makes certain of our current leaders pale by comparison. It's also clear that he's relatively young at 45 years old, and that he lacks the experience of many of his opponents. Had the e-mail I received focused on these points, or even on his positions on the war, ecology or human rights, I would have respected it, whether I agreed or not. None of this was included, however. Instead, this missive, which has been forwarded to God knows how many people, sinks to a level of character assassination that was hard for me to believe, especially before the primary races have even geared up completely. His middle name "Hussein" is mentioned three times, and at one point, the e-mail even "misspells" his name as "Osama." No joke. It's also mentioned that his father is Muslim and his mother is atheist. It talks about his parents' divorce, says his mother married another "radical" Muslim, and that Barack attended a Wahhabi school as a child. According to the anonymous author of this e-mail, this is where all of the terrorists that attack America are trained. Yeah, the guy's name is Hussein, which is one of the most common Muslim names in the world. The effort seems to be to associate him with Saddam Hussein, simply because they have the same name. I suppose, by this rationale, we should condemn everyone with the last name of Jones, since Jim Jones ruined that one for everyone. Also, the claim that Obama went to a Wahhabi school simply is a lie. He attended a madrassa for two years, which is no different than any other religiously affiliated school. Some will suggest differently, but there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. It appears to me that an intelligent, powerful black man scares the hell out of some people. This sort of polemic has more to do with melanin than it does ideology or family history. The e-mail alone would not be enough to raise my ire, but Fox News actually has carried a report about this. When such ignorant, hate-based slander becomes national news, it's the sign of a broken system, and unfortunately, it's only going to get worse. It's been said that great minds dwell on ideas, while average minds contemplate events. Meanwhile, feeble minds are content to focus only on other people. Clearly, this e-mail falls into the latter category, but the Internet has given it legs. While the information superhighway has created a more egalitarian forum for the exchange of information, it also places a greater burden upon each individual to discern the difference between thoughtful ideas and garbage. I hope the majority of the country can tell the difference, and that it matters. (0) Comments

Columns: Two Steps Forward, One Step Back Posted 1/31/2007 3:17:43 PM Anyone who follows church politics knows that homosexuality is one of the most divisive religious issues we face. The Episcopal Church is on the brink of a national split, based principally on this issue. Meanwhile, just up the road, a mega-church is still reeling from the news that their leader engaged in some form of homosexual extracurricular activity. Like a phoenix from the ashes comes a summit to be held in, of all places, Colorado Springs. Religious leaders and thinkers from across the sociopolitical spectrum will come together for three days to discuss homosexuality and the church in a respectful, thoughtful environment. The purpose of the event is to begin engaging in constructive dialogue about something that threatens to divide an already weakened Christian community. Despite how you feel about sexuality with respect to scripture, it’s in our best interest as Christians to deal with this in a matter-of-fact way. For some, it’s a moral wedge issue. For others, it’s a call to justice and equality. The idea that both parties will take the time to discourse about their beliefs - and even their differences - is encouraging. My only wish is that the debate could move beyond the conceptual level, though this is better than nothing. As long as we’re simply discussing issues and ideas, we’re not likely to get much further than agreeing to disagree, with an amicable willingness to coexist. If the summit included first-hand accounts from gay and lesbian clergy, or from family members of gay people, we’d start to get past ideology and begin dealing with the flesh and bone of the matter. After all, we’re talking about people, not issues. Still, the face time offers hope, suggesting that some Christians still are willing to share a table together, even if they don’t see eye to eye. Then, just when you thought it was safe to wade back into the religious waters, a volley is fired over the bough. The Southern Baptist Convention still claims that women should not be allowed to preach or lead churches, based upon a verse in I Timothy, wherein the author - who some claim is Paul - says, “I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent.” The issue entered the media spotlight this month when Dr. Sheri Klouda, a tenure-track professor of theology at Southwest Theological Seminary since 2002, was fired on the grounds of her gender. Under the leadership of Paige Patterson, the seminary’s current ultra-conservative president who was hired after Dr. Klouda became a professor, the school is returning to a “traditional, confessional and biblical position that women should not instruct men in theology or biblical languages,” according to Van McClain, chairman of the Southwestern trustees. Clearly, I have a strong personal bias about gender roles in the church, but it’s hard for me to imagine that we still discriminate in any professional role based upon body parts. It’s tragic to justify oppressive, discriminatory behavior “because the Bible says so.” I also believe it’s un-Christian. The Bible tells stories about men selling their wives into slavery, fathers giving up their virgin daughters to angry mobs, concubines and teen marriage. Shall we observe these traditions, “because the Bible says so?” Everything from indentured servitude to genocide has been carried out with one hand on the Bible. That doesn’t make it right. I’m glad we’re making progress in some arenas, but the fact that we are still contending with such issues as sexual orientation, ethnicity, socioeconomic status and gender in the church is disheartening. Some might say I should be happy with any development at all, but I expect more from the church. (1) Comments

Columns: Bottom line: Love trumps gender roles for kids Posted 1/21/2007 6:14:53 PM James Dobson wrote a Dec. 18 editorial in Time magazine about Mary Cheney, her pregnancy and her plan to raise the child with her partner, Heather Poe. Dobson wastes no time building a body of scientific evidence about why this is inappropriate. Three decades of social science indicate children are best off when raised by a male and female, both of whom are their birth parents. Though he concedes the couple undoubtedly will love their child, he goes on to argue that “love alone is not enough to guarantee healthy growth and development.” He quotes several sources, from Dr. Kyle Pruett of the Yale Medical School to Psychology Today. Most indicate that both male and female caregivers offer unique pieces to a child’s overall upbringing. Dobson is right. Love alone doesn’t guarantee healthy development. He’s also right that it’s best to have both a male and female role model for children. My graduate work was in child development, and I would not argue with either of these statements. He then uses these premises to assert that not only childbirth, but also adoption, is “the purview of married heterosexual couples.” Finally, we get to the essence of his position: Gay people don’t deserve to raise children. He softens his claims with verbal buffers like “with all due respect,” and “Focus on the Family does not desire to harm or insult . . .” If I were she, I’d be insulted. Granted, all of the research does suggest that children do best with male and female figures. This, however, does not mean that both role models must be birth parents. The leap from scientific evidence to his desired endgame is fallacious. Second, though love is not enough to guarantee positive development, there is no other combination of factors that will guarantee this either. Just because someone is raised by their birth parents does not guarantee they will receive the care and love they require for optimal development. A couple in our family decided to adopt a girl into their existing family of four, more than a decade and a half ago. She is black and the other family members are white. There was some discussion about the challenges this could present, both for the parents and the child. They went ahead with the adoption anyway. Less than two years later, they received a call that the same mother had another child, whom they also adopted. True to expectations, their life together has not been perfect. Though they sought out an African-American woman to be their adopted grandmother, they lack some ethnic identity with their family of origin. But they’ve definitely fared better than they would have with their birth parents, one of whom has disappeared, and one of whom is dead. Before you start your letter to the editor, I recognize both that the couple I’m referring to is a married heterosexual couple, and that the situation involves adoption rather than artificial insemination. Would I prefer that Ms. Cheney would adopt? Absolutely. There are enough children in the world in need of a loving home that I consider this a more reasonable alternative to artificial means of getting pregnant. Is it my right to tell her what she can do with her reproductive system? No more than she has a right to tell me what to do with mine. Dobson’s argument holds water in a perfect world, which we don’t have. Ideally, every child would be born into a family where they are wanted, anticipated and loved before they take their first breath. What children need more than anything else is love offered generously and modeled. Whom the parents love is secondary to the need for the love to be healthy and real. As for a father figure, Dick Cheney will soon have plenty of time on his hands. As soon as he hears that baby gurgle in his arms, my guess is he’ll be the proudest grandpa in the world. (1) Comments

Columns: Is life like hell without faith? Posted 1/13/2007 11:53:57 AM Is life like hell without faith? The Pueblo Chieftain Online My wife, Amy, and I have been in Pueblo for nearly three years, trying to grow a new church. Had we known how hard it would be, we might have opted for an existing ministry. Starting a new church is one of the most emotionally volatile experiences we can imagine. It’s easy to get hung up on the number of people who show up on any given Sunday. It’s hard not to take it personally when someone says they will come, and then they don’t. That, or they come once every few months and consider themselves regulars. Both of these scenarios happen all of the time. We’ve heard nearly every excuse for not coming to church that could be imagined, to the point that we don’t hear them anymore. We believe we have something to share that’s worth people’s time, but we can’t make them do anything. Some people said they really wanted to come, but that meeting in our home where we originally began was too intimate for them. When we moved to the college they still didn’t come. Some who felt the CSU-Pueblo campus was too far away hedged. We’re now located on the southwest side of town, and they still don’t come. Dozens of people said they’d come if we had services in the morning, so last week we had our first morning worship. None of the new people came. Why should they, after all? There’s a growing perception that faith can happen in a vacuum, that we don’t need community to nurture our connection with God. As Amy said in a recent sermon, many people find their spiritual nourishment on a mountaintop, in a book or by the ocean. While these things are useful and perhaps even inspiring, when you need an ear to listen or a shoulder to lean on, a book is no consolation. No matter how much you love the divine creation of the outdoors, a mountain just can’t love you back. Author Anne Lamott concedes that she makes her 14-year-old son go to church. She says it’s one of the only places she knows of where he can see people loving God back. We learn about our spiritual ancestry by learning from the wisdom of others. We understand compassion and humility by seeing it modeled. We can’t learn the value of a community of faith if we’re so isolated that we never take the risk of sharing what we believe. Church can really suck. I’ve been hurt by church, as have many people, but this is no excuse for walking away. We don’t abandon our families simply because we have hard times, do we? Do we quit our job every time we experience conflict? Maybe some people do both of these, but it’s a sign of one’s character to see how they respond to hardship. Do you withdraw, or do you allow yourself to be vulnerable? No one has to go to church, though some churches are based upon the very opposite precept. Somehow they have a corner on salvation, and without them, you’re outside the circle. Lamott’s response: Religion is for people who are afraid of going to hell, and faith is for people who have been there. Fear is a terrible reason to go to church. As Lamott says, we’ve all been through hell, in one form or another. Still, we feel like we shouldn’t burden other people with our problems. In an increasingly do-it-yourself society, a communal approach to healing is hard to comprehend, let alone embrace. It’s risky, scary and will demand more from us than sitting on our butts, thinking up reasons not to go. Church isn’t about getting a weekly dose of religion. It’s about realizing faith by living it together. You’ve been through enough. It’s time to stop thinking of reasons why you don’t deserve to be loved, for God’s sake. (1) Comments

Columns: Robertson Spins "Prophet" Into Profit Posted 1/6/2007 7:59:32 PM Robertson spins ‘prophet’ into profit Pat Robertson claims that God gave him a message during a prayer retreat. The perennial figurehead of the 700 Club says the divine missive warned of an imminent terrorist attack on American soil in 2007. Whether or not the threat would be nuclear was unclear. Whether it involves reports of superhuman strength or condemnation of Louisiana residents for exacting God's wrath in the form of hurricane Katrina, Robertson finds regular excuses to thrust himself into the limelight. If said attack does transpire, Robertson's self-proclaimed status as a modern prophet is given credibility. If not, his faithful are sure to go along with whatever reason he comes up with for the hand of terror being stayed. Most likely, this will involve a sufficient supply of prayer, Christian piety and a demonstration of faithfulness in the form of pledges to his media empire – oops, I mean, ministry. Robertson has been hit-and-miss with his previous God-given predictions, yet his spotty record as the Farmer's Almanac of eschatology has done little to affect his stature. It seems the man can do no wrong in the eyes of millions of advocates, no matter how hateful, self-aggrandizing or deluded his claims are. Does that say more about him or about us? It's with some reticence that I commit this much space to talking about someone who I consider to be nothing but a charlatan. Each time his critics go on the attack, it only raises his profile to greater levels, suggesting that his rhetoric is worth the ink. What is worth discussion is our insatiable need to know, to lay claim to a magic lens that will peer into the future, giving us a Godlike perspective on the universe, and subsequently some greater sense of control over the outcome of things. Growing up, a lot of my friends were particularly interested in the prophecies of Nostradamus. I too bought a book of his writing and eagerly tried to connect historical occurrences to his ominously vague prognostications. Even today, people continue to use this sage's predictions in an effort to determine the trajectory of our collective fate. There's one little problem with all of this, however; Nostradamus predicted the world would come to an end at the dawn of this millennium, rendering any predictions beyond the year 2,000 facetious. Biblically a prophet doesn't have a .500 average. They're either a conduit for God's truth or they're not. Those who claim to be prophets without such a divinely ordained gift are called false prophets. We've been duly warned of the consequences of investing our faith in such characters. Also, prophets aren't just fortune tellers. Prophets are more broadly defined as proclaimers of truth, inspired by the word of God. This includes calling B.S. on those who would seek to mislead people with false hopes, misplaced fears or other human-seated motivations and desires. Here are a few of my own predictions, just for fun. Global climate patterns will continue to spiral into chaotic and destructive patterns as we continue to ignore the signs of ecological instability, right in front of our noses. We will reduce our military presence in Iraq over the next few years, but the place will be a mess for decades. The Middle East will never achieve the kind of peace we think they should have in our lifetime, or our children's lifetime. Terrorists indeed will continue to target us as long as we are the biggest kids on the block. It's always been that way. Some day we will have a non-white and non-male president, but neither will happen in 2008. Finally, energy prices will continue to creep upward until we figure out it makes better financial sense to seek alternatives more aggressively and conserve non-renewable energy sources. Here's hoping these predictions offer you a bit of the solace you seek in the new year. Feel free to send any checks you had planned for Pat Robertson my way. (0) Comments

Columns: Christmas spirit persists, sometimes in spite of us Posted 1/3/2007 3:55:18 PM At the beginning of advent, I wrote about our apparently futile efforts to keep our three-year-old son, Mattias, focused on the central message of Christmas. Though we shared the story with him daily, he continued to insist that Santa was the most important thing about Christmas. Every day, we sat down at the dinner table and lit the advent candles and read the meditation from the advent book. He’d make it a paragraph into the story before squirming onto the floor or sticking his fingers in the melted wax. It’s enough to make a parent wonder if anything is sinking in. Then, a few days before Christmas, Mattias crawled up into his chair at the table and, pointing to each of the five candles in the advent wreath said, “Look dad! All around the Jesus candle is peace, hope, joy and love.” On Christmas morning, he gasped when he came down the stairs to find an empty milk glass and cookie plate by the fire. He squealed when he found his dinosaur beneath the tree. Then, before playing with any of his new toys, he headed to the dining room table to help light the candles. I’ve heard plenty of cynicism this year from any number of people about commercialism devouring the true meaning of Christmas. I’ve shared in the tirades about obligatory stuff-swapping and grudging acceptance of yet another Garfield necktie or fruitcake log. How, after all, do antlers that play “Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer” remind us of a child born on the fringes of Bethlehem? I tire of the superficiality and glitter as much as anyone, but to be honest, I’m almost wearier of the complaining about how we’ve lost our way amid the gifts and tinsel. I’ve appreciated the stories I’ve read over the past few weeks about the quiet generosity that often goes unnoticed, all around us. A woman in Spokane jumped aboard a public bus, along with a cloth satchel filled with envelopes. Before anyone on the bus could identify her, she handed Christmas cards out to everyone on board, each containing a $50 bill, and jumped back off to head to several other buses. No one ever figured out who the mystery woman was, but in the end, she had distributed thousands of dollars to people she had never met. In Pueblo, scores of churches and community groups joined together to buy gifts for needy families, troops stationed overseas, and to collect clothing and supplies for children abroad. These people will forever be anonymous to those who benefit from their generosity, and they won’t receive so much as a tax break in most cases. On Christmas day, more than a hundred volunteers took time away from home to feed hundreds of homeless and otherwise isolated people at the Union Depot in what has become an annual tradition. Everyone involved found benefit in the experience according to the Chieftain article, pointing to the fringe benefits of charity for the giver. Sure, we can all get caught up in the hoopla of the holidays. We eat too much, spend more than we should, and sometimes forget the point. We can find plenty of reasons to believe we’ve gone astray, but in some ways, the Christmas spirit persists quietly around us whether we acknowledge it or not. Much like the child born to dazed and bewildered parents two thousand years ago, the spirit of Christmas doesn’t impose itself upon the world. It works steadily and quietly whether it’s recognized or not. It whispers amid the shouting, revealing itself one relationship at a time. Christmas may not look exactly the way we think it should, and we’ll never purge ourselves entirely of the material pageantry. As I watched my son blow out the Christ candle for the last time this year, I’m reminded that people are basically good, despite my inclinations to believe otherwise. (0) Comments

Columns: Mysterious faith holds modern lessons Posted 12/23/2006 10:52:34 AM Mysterious faith holds modern lessons In the past few years, I've become interested in the unique cultural history of the region from Southern Colorado through northern New Mexico. I'm particularly fascinated by the stories I hear of devout lifelong Catholics who also embrace certain practices and symbols identified with Judaism. These so-called "Crypto-Jews" are plentiful from here to Santa Fe, N.M., and perhaps most interesting is that many of them have no explanation for their curious religious traditions. Many houses are adorned with Stars of David, menorahs, and some men even wear the traditional yarmulke head covering. One relative of mine says they know of a number of people who have attended Mass faithfully every Sunday, but not before going to temple the evening before. There was a recent piece in The Pueblo Chieftain about a new book on Crypto-Judaism, which is one of many on the subject. The prefix "crypto" suggests something secretive about the faith practice, which may seem strange at first glance. After all, Jesus was a Jew, right? In claiming Christianity, don't we also, in many ways, claim Judaism as our religious ancestry? What's with the culture of secretiveness? Actually, there's plenty of historical justification for this somewhat underground religious phenomenon. During the time of the Spanish Inquisition, from the 11th to 13th centuries, Jews were driven into Turkey if they refused to convert to Christianity. Even well into the 15th century, such persecution took place, as exemplified by the Alhambra decree of 1492, expelling all Jews from Spanish territories, and endowing all of their property to the Spanish throne. Disheartened by increasing intolerance throughout Europe, some Jews fled to Spanish and Portuguese territories in Mexico where they believed they would find a more tolerant atmosphere. These immigrants were called conversos because they publicly claimed Christianity while still privately practicing Judaism. As their numbers grew, concern about their collective influence on Mexican culture followed. By 1497, all Jewish children in Portuguese territories were ordered either to be converted to the Christian faith or become property of the empire. By the 16th century, the public practice of Judaism was outlawed in Mexico City, and new "blood purity" laws barred any new migrants in Spanish territories of Mexico if they could not prove their families had been Christians for at least three generations. During this time, the Spanish Empire reached well into what is now the U.S. Southwest. Crypto-Jews fled north into these frontier territories in search of a safe haven where they could practice their faith in peace. By this time, many Jews practiced both Christianity and Judaism, partly out of self-preservation and also because dual religious identity had become a family tradition over several generations. Today, many people my age or my parents' age whose descendants are Crypto-Jews practice their faith more openly. However, there is a lingering atmosphere of mystery surrounding an aging generation that still carries with it many enigmatic practices from this culture of Jewish refugees: Catholics who observe Sabbath, icons of Judaism within devoutly Catholic households, and a residual secrecy from a time when one's beliefs could mean the loss of all individual rights, or worse. Now we face an atmosphere of increased religious polarization, particularly between Christians and Muslims. As certain ethnic groups are disproportionately profiled and religious organizations face increased scrutiny in the name of national security, we are reminded of the historical precedent set by this ancestry of Crypto-Judaism. We may purge ourselves of the superficial symbols and public practices which we find most threatening, but in the end, there is no government authority that can change the heart of a person of faith, regardless of the religious discipline they claim. (0) Comments

Columns: Religion's role: Draw lines, or cross them? Posted 12/9/2006 5:26:16 PM Religion's role: Draw lines, or cross them? By Christian Piatt Last week yielded a number of memorable events which might not seem particularly related. However, upon looking back, they all got me thinking about where organized religion fits in matters of justice. Friday, December 1st marked the fifty-first anniversary of when Rosa Parks earned the moniker as the "mother of the civil rights movement." Her defiance of the Jim Crow laws that required her to concede her seat to a white passenger pushed her into the public spotlight, helping pave the way for the likes of Rev. Martin Luther King. A lesser known, but similarly significant, event took place five years earlier in New Orleans. Jerome Smith, ten years old at the time, removed the screen placed between the black and white passengers on a streetcar. He was subsequently boxed on the ears by an older black woman on the car for disrespecting the white travelers, though she later embraced him in private, urging him to never stop in his struggle for equality. Smith later became the founder of the New Orleans Chapter of the Congress on Racial Equality. Last Thursday, Pope Benedict XVI completed his trip through Turkey, a predominantly Muslim country, with a visit to the famous Blue Mosque. He removed his shoes, entered silently and prayed alongside the local cleric in an ongoing effort to express his respect for Islam. His fence-mending mission was seen as a significant step forward in repairing the rifts caused by his remarks in October, deemed offensive by millions of Muslims. Finally, December 1st marked World AIDS Day, reminding us that nearly 40 million still live with HIV in the world today, including more than 2 million children, and almost twelve thousand new infections every single day. Though most religious institutions remain woefully silent about the HIV pandemic, others have taken the opportunity to teach the world a lesson. Pat Buchanan calls AIDS "nature's revenge on homosexuals," and Jerry Falwell claims the disease is "proof of society's moral decay." Though it is not a popular public position today, it wasn't so long ago that politicians and religious officials alike celebrated the sanctity of segregation. I have a friend who told me recently that his grandmother used to believe that separation of the races was ordained by God, as taught in her church. It took someone like Rev. King, from within the racist, religious status quo, to finally push for change. Pope Benedict took a risk not only in traveling to Turkey to begin with, but also in worshipping within a Mosque. He could have been harassed by locals, incensed by his previous insensitivity. Instead, the world breathed a sigh of relief as his trip was concluded in peace. There are those who believe it is religion's responsibility to draw the boundaries of propriety within which the rest of society should operate. Others feel it is their spiritual calling to step across some of these same lines, drawing cries of heresy from the ones making the rules. This moral tension changes form over time, but it never goes away. Siddhartha Gautama shocked his stewards by leaving the safety of his father's palace, along his journey to become the Buddha. Jesus challenged the authority of the Pharisees to the point that they played an integral part in his arrest, trial and crucifixion. Religious leaders historically play both sides of the fence on many major societal issues. I'm not necessarily claiming the righteousness of one position over another, but as one who places Rev. King, Jesus and Buddha higher on my list of role models than Rev. Falwell and Pat Buchanan, I'd say there's still room for a few agitators within the church. (1) Comments

Columns: Have yourself a merry little Saturnalia Posted 12/2/2006 10:44:19 PM We waited until the weekend following Thanksgiving to adorn the living room with our fake tree, stockings and a half dozen or so Nativity sets. My son, Mattias, who is 3, can hardly wait. I've caught him un-decorating the tree several times so far, and he already found - and unwrapped - one early gift from his aunt. My wife, Amy, and I are in ministry, so we like to think our kid looks at Christmas differently. We've told him the story of Jesus' birth a number of times, but when we ask him what Christmas is about, he happily says, "Santa!" The jolly, old fat man and I may go a few rounds this year. Although we celebrate Christmas on Dec. 25, most religious historians believe Jesus was more likely born in the spring. Late May seems to be the most popular estimate. But the early Christian Church saw an opportunity to co-opt two popular non-Christian holidays by placing their "Christ's Mass" celebration at the same time. Before Christmas existed, a celebration known as Saturnalia took place from Dec. 17 until Dec. 25. The 17th was the recognized birthday of the god Saturn, and the 25th marked the birth of Sol Invictus (the undefeated sun), the god celebrated for reclaiming daylight after the winter solstice. The festivities were marked with an exchange of gifts, along with much drinking, gambling and carousing. While rejecting the debauchery, Christians held on to the tradition of gift exchange, making it part of our new Christmas tradition. A Persian religion known as Mithraism also jumped into the mix, claiming Dec. 25 as the birthday of its god, Mithra, who was identified closely with Sol Invictus of the Greek tradition. Although Christians were third on the bandwagon, the spread of Christianity through the Roman Empire in the third and fourth centuries A.D. gave it a strong foothold. Not everyone was fond of the idea of celebrating Jesus' birth with feasts and gifts. Origen, one of Christianity's earliest leaders, denounced the practice as contrary to Christian principles. However, Constantine saw an opportunity to reconcile varying views of Jesus with an official holiday. Christmas became an official Roman holiday in 350 A.D., helping to assert the position that Christ was divine from birth, not just following his baptism. It would be another 1,000 years, however, until Christmas became a holiday synonymous with large-scale celebration. King Richard II put on elaborate feasts, reminiscent of the festivals Christmas had originally recreated in its own image. In the 17th century, Christmas was all but outlawed, condemned by puritanical powers as hedonism disguised by a thin veil of piety. Many early Americans also looked sourly upon Christmas as part of the Anglican tradition they preferred to leave behind. By the 19th century, it became the stuff of romantic nostalgia, depicted by Charles Dickens and other scribes as a time for family, sharing and celebration. Soon, retailers saw an opportunity, and, well, the rest is history. It's easy to get disenchanted about such a sacred day being consumed by consumption. But it helps to know that our modern-day merchants aren't the first to mold Dec. 25 into something other than what it first was. After all, how often do you hear people wishing one another a happy Saturnalia, or a merry Sol Invictus? When you peel back the political layers and hoopla, it's easier to see Dec. 25 as just another day. Christmas happens whenever you recognize it. If you feel too distracted by all the other stuff, try celebrating Christmas on May 25 next year. It's probably more historically accurate, and that way you'll have it all to yourself. (0) Comments

Spirituality Survey - Time's running out! Posted 11/28/2006 10:04:32 PM Hi all: We only have a few more days left for our young adult spirituality survey. We're gathering data for our upcoming book, due out next summer, called "MySpace to Sacred Space: God for a New Generation." If you are at least 18 and no older than 40, and identify yourself as Christian, agnostic, atheist or "spiritual but not religious," we really need your input. We have a goal of at least 1,000 respondents, and so far, we only have 675. We're trying to close the survey by December 3rd, so please hit the link below ASAP to take part. Click here to take survey It will take about 15 minutes to complete, and feel free to skip any question for which you can't find a suitable answer. Not all questions fit every person, so just answer what you can. Thanks for your help, and please pass this along to anyone else who might be interested. Peace, Christian Piatt (0) Comments

Columns: Note to self: Everyone believes, but not easily Posted 11/28/2006 3:21:36 PM I've been asked to write a book with my wife, Amy, on young adults, their relationship to spirituality and the institution of church. We created an online survey to gather the opinions of this broad group labeled as 'young adults.' I've tried to reach out to a number of groups with which I might not otherwise have much of a connection in an effort to diversify our results. I joined an online atheist and agnostic discussion group, engaged them about some matters of spirituality, and invited them to take part in our survey. To say that it has been a learning experience would be an understatement. I experienced some expected resistance and suspicion at first. They have a name for folks who inveigle their way into the group, only to push an agenda. They call them trolls. Eventually, I convinced a significant contingency that I was not a troll, and that I really wanted their opinion. Within a week, more than 100 members of the group took the survey. Following the initial flood of respondents, I received several very critical e-mails, informing me of the inherent religious bias of my survey, and of the group’s decision to forgo any further involvement. Me? Religiously biased? You guys don't know who you're talking about, I thought to myself. I'm the guy who takes it to the religious establishment more often than not. I'm not the one you're really mad at, I wanted to explain. Instead of running to my own defense, I tried to sit back and really understand the criticism. Some was politely thoughtful, some even moderately supportive of my efforts. Some was outright mean. But the point was basically the same: There were cases in which they felt like I didn't give them a chance to answer in a way that reflected what they believed. It was very important to them that their beliefs were understood accurately, and that my perspective of them was appropriate. I've begun to realize how incredibly outside the institution of church this group of folks really feels. There's a sort of presumption that because someone is agnostic or atheist, there is an absence of belief, rather than an alternate presence of one. In fact, atheists comprise a wide scope of beliefs, from humanists to pagans and beyond. They're actually as diverse in their world views as we, within the church, tend to be. I also figured out pretty quickly who was interested in dialogue and who was posing questions more as verbal weapons. Interestingly, those falling into the second category made me feel much like I did in a recent encounter I had with a "churchy guy" who accosted me to discern my views on everything from baptism to the Trinity, once he learned I was a church leader. The experience reminds me how easily we wear our beliefs as tools of exclusion, prejudice and ignorance. I realize I, too, am guilty of this, thanks to the atheist crowd who pointed this out. It reminds me of the words from a song called "Belief" by John Mayer: "Belief is a beautiful armor, but makes for the heaviest sword. Like punching under water, you never can hit who you're trying for. Everyone believes, from emptiness to everything. Everyone believes, and they're not going easily." It's in our nature to believe, even if it's in emptiness. Ironically, that's just as important to some people as my belief in God, this presence to which I cling, yet have never seen. I have a way to go to understand faith in the absence of something, but they have my attention. (1) Comments

"Lost" book now available Posted 11/27/2006 6:58:29 PM Hi all: Just a quick note to let you know my book, “Lost: A Search for Meaning,” is now available. It’s my first book, published by Chalice Press, and it’s a theological commentary on the television show, “Lost.” You can get it at any Cokesbury bookstore in the country, you can order it at any major book retailer, or you can order it online. Here are some online options: www.amazon.com (enter my full name or “Lost a Search for Meaning” to pull it up, or follow this link right to it http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/082722138X/ref=pd_rvi_gw_1/103-7187087-6113438) www.chalicepress.com www.barnesandnoble.com (Again, enter my name or the full title) www.bordersbooks.com (Same here – name or title) I will be doing various speaking/signing engagements in Pueblo, Denver, and maybe even in Texas, so keep an eye out for those. Also, let me know if you have somewhere in mind where I should do a talk. I’m also going to do an 8-10 week series on the book at our church, starting in January. Check at www.milagrocc.org for more details about this. Thanks, and I hope you enjoy the book! Please let anyone on your contact list know about it, particularly if they’re into theology and/or “Lost.” Christian Piatt (0) Comments

Columns: There is no 'I' in 'Prayer' Posted 11/20/2006 5:47:34 PM There is No 'I' in 'Prayer.' By Christian Piatt Originally printed in the Pueblo Chieftain newspaper I was with my wife, Amy, in Mexico last week for vacation. She found a small store, sandwiched between a convenience market and a show shop, which sold more religious paraphernalia than I ever knew existed. Amy was particularly drawn to the milagros (Spanish for 'miracle') which are little metal emblems, stamped in Italy - and I assume blessed by priests - with the images of various saints, scriptures and other religious icons. She enjoyed poring over the scores of glass jars, selecting just the right 'miracle' for friends and family back home. When we went to the front to pay, I ducked to avoid a clothes line, hanging just over the counter. Although I am of average height in the states, I feel like an adolescent to big for his body in many Mexican structures. The line was covered in hundreds of rosaries, the small strings of prayer beads used in the Catholic tradition. Right next to the rosaries were clothespins holding the most recent scratch-off lottery tickets for sale. Now, that's interesting product placement, I thought. Although I'm sure the proximity of the prayer beads and lottery tickets was coincidental, it got me to thinking about the reasons we pray. Last year, Newsweek and an online service called Beliefnet joined together do conduct a prayer survey. When asked, "What do you think is the most important purpose of prayer?" The most popular answer at 27 percent was "to seek God's guidance." Close behind that were along the lines of giving thanks and drawing closer to the Divine. Lagging far behind at an anemic nine percent was "To improve a person's life." Call me a skeptic, but I think this survey reflects a lot more about what we think intellectually about prayer than what we actually do. At the risk of beating a dead horse, I feel the urge to revisit the Prosperity Gospel concept once more. I'm not suggesting that we're all praying to win the lottery, although it's my guess that more than one in ten sends up a good word when the Powerball creeps up over $100 million. From personal experience, I like to think that I make prayer a regular discipline to help strengthen my spiritual connection, but often times, I find myself forgetting to make it such a regular habit: that is, until I need something. The explosion of the popularity of what I call "self-help Jesus" spirituality, from the eighties and on into the new century, suggests I'm not the only one. Such teaching has many champions such as Joel Olsteen, Joyce Meyer and the Copelands. It's quite a system, really. The principal is that God want's the world's righteous to prosper (materially), and that one of the main ways you show your faithfulness, aside from praying for affluence, is to give significant amounts of money to these ministries. This comes in many forms, including outright gifts, as well as book sales, lecture admission fees and more. I don't know if Joel Olsteen sells T-shirts at his gigantic rallies, but it would not shock me. The effect is self-evident. If you're not growing in material abundance, you're not working the system right. Duh! It's easy to castigate such a distortion of the gospel that not only fits so easily into the greedy value system of modern America, but also makes its proponents incredibly rich. It's not wrong to ask God for things. The Lord's Prayer teaches us as much. But Jesus asks only for daily bread, not the whole stinking factory. Also, the whole prayer is in 'we' language. Nowhere in his prayer is the first person ever introduced. If Jesus was around today, what would our modern-day Prosperity Gospel mavens tell him about his life of poverty? They'd probably tell him to pray harder, or maybe say he just wasn't giving enough. (0) Comments

Columns: Hope or Wishes? Joy or Happiness? Posted 11/15/2006 3:23:07 PM Anyone who has watched the movie A Christmas Story understands the tenuous and fragile nature of wishes. From the beginning, young Ralphie is obsessed with getting his hands on a Red Rider bee bee gun, complete with a compass in the stock, for Christmas. Adults repeatedly warn him of the dangers of shooting his eye out, and scheme after scheme is foiled. Finally the blessed day arrives, and beneath the tree, he finds the object of his desire. He dashes outside to give it a try and, with his first shot, shatters his glasses and narrowly misses shooting his eye out. Pueblo falls victim to some of the same fantasies. Hardly a week goes by that I don’t open the paper to read about this rumor or that about a new business that promises to lift us from our economic sluggishness. Some of them work out, but often times, these stories dissolve into the ether, never to mature. I too follow such starry-eyed longings. My friends know I’m a fan of Chipotle, the Mexican food restaurant, to the point of obsession. I got in the habit of eating there at least five times a week when I lived in Denver and Fort Worth. Now, at least once a week, I drive an hour each way just to chow down on a monster burrito at the nearest Chipotle in Colorado Springs. For two years, I have heard rumors about a store opening in Pueblo. I was so convinced by the most recent anecdote that I drove by the prospective site to see how far along the construction was. Once again, my hopes were dashed as the signage for yet another payday loan store was being secured to the front. The word “hope” as used above actually is misused. Ralphie, Pueblo and I all get focused sometimes on outcomes, over which we have less control than we would like. These outcome-based longings actually are wishes. Hope is something greater, and thank God, it transcends physical results as we assess them. Hope is universal across the religious spectrum, but we generally confuse this with wish-fulfillment. Examples of this can be found in the “Prosperity Gospel” messages of religious hucksters, promising wealth if you get right with God, and also send them a monetary token of your commitment. Whenever we pin our faith on outcomes, we’re setting ourselves up for disappointment, and we’re setting God up for what we perceive as failure. It presumes we know what we really need, and it also assumes God is more concerned with what’s going on around us than what we’re experiencing within. Fulfillment of wishes does bring happiness, in some cases. However, this feeling generally is fleeting, as we realize we replace one want with another, or that the thing we expected to fill the void we carry around didn’t do the trick. Beware of any religious leader who tells you God wants you to be happy. True, we’re called to joyfulness, but like the difference between wishes and hope, joy transcends the bumps, bruises and abuses of daily life. Things around us don’t have to change for us to have hope. Our ever-growing wish list doesn’t have to be satisfied for us to understand joy. In fact, the more we focus on wishes and happiness, the less hope and joy we’ll have. Real hope doesn’t ebb and flow with circumstances, and joy isn’t a mood: it’s a state of being, transcendent of any suffering, disappointment or unfulfilled expectations. Now, that’s a gift that keeps on giving. (0) Comments

Columns: Faces of death: Coffee to Halloween, we're all obsessed Posted 11/15/2006 3:15:39 PM Faces of Death: Halloween to coffee, we're obsessed By Christian Piatt This Halloween was the first time my son, Mattias, truly enjoyed all of the excitement available. He insisted on dressing up as Dash from the movie, The Incredibles. I swallowed my disdain for children acting as walking media billboards and conceded. It made him happy, after all. I noticed that, the older the kids got, the gorier and more frightening their costumes became. Pumpkins and superheroes gave way to horror movie icons, dismembered zombies and other mavens of mayhem. It's all a thin façade. Even in moments when I feared Mattias would be scared by the ghouls, he plopped a handful of candy into their bag and proclaimed, "You're not scary. You're a nice monster." Across the city, there a are symbols of our morbid fascination with death. Even in the front yard of Mattias' day care center, they have mock graves, mounded up with fresh dirt, complete with skeletal hands, reaching for unsuspecting prey. Cartoon ghosts, makeshift graveyards and haunted houses reveal that we're terrified of death, yet we have no idea how to talk about it. Recently, I listened to the testimony of a cancer survivor who had undergone extensive chemotherapy. The most frequent question she received during her treatment had to do with her hair loss. Few had the nerve to ask about her physical suffering, he fears, the risk to her life, or even the more violent side-effects of the poison they pumped through her veins to annihilate the tumors. After all, when your fighting for your life, she suggests, isn't your cosmetic appearance a little farther down on the list? An article on the anatomy of the human taste bud in The New Yorker explains what takes place in our brains when we experience flavors. Our gustatory system actually is a critical survival mechanism, attuned to telling us what is safe to eat and what is toxic. Those things that are sweet, savory and salty generally include nutrients our bodies crave. Spicy and bitter foods, however, send immediate warnings to the brain that we may be ingesting something that can harm or kill us. The resultant chemical response is a rush of endorphins, similar to a "fight or flight" experience. Though the initial prompt is to respond quickly – in this case, spit out the offending morsel – the following endorphin effect is quite pleasurable. This causes us ironically to crave spicy or bitter food, along with other adventurous and life-threatening activities. We can even get a voyeuristic thrill out of watching others risk life and limb. If this wasn't the case, the new "Jackass" movie that features sophomoric acts of self-abuse would not have grossed nearly $70 million. We spend billions of dollars celebrating a holiday that glorifies death, and we flock to movies where alligators snip at the genitalia of deviants. We even crave the bitter nectar of our morning coffee, sipping our "cup of death" so-described by The New Yorker article, just to help us feel ironically more alive. The caffeine doesn't hurt either. As innately mortal creatures, we long to understand our end in its many expressions. We make jokes about it, scare ourselves in safe doses and take curious pleasure in the suffering of others: as long as it's not too real. The moment the shadow of death looms too closely, we retreat into a paralytic state. We avoid even saying the "D" word. Churches often capitalize on this collective neurosis to make the transcendence of death the cornerstone of their ministry. Who hasn't been approached with the age-old question, "if you died today, do you know where you would go?" The answer for all of us is "no," and that's scary. We believe a number of things, but knowledge suggests a direct line into the mind of God. We're better served when our churches provide opportunities to learn how to safely grieve, discuss loss and death, and to explore the mysteries of what exactly lies beyond. The best we can hope for is a faith in the promise of something better, and a commitment to making the best of life, simply for the sake of life itself. (0) Comments

Spirituality survey update - 500 posts and counting!!! Posted 11/15/2006 12:26:46 PM Hi all: Just a quick reminder following up on my last post. My wife and I are writing a book on young adult spirituality called "MySpace to Sacred Space: God for a New Generation." The name was changed a bit by the publisher since last post, but the content remains the same. We're wanting to get the feedback of upwards of 2,000 young adults baout their spiritual views. To date we have a little over 500. Please take a few minutes to follow this link, take the survey and PASS IT ON to anyone you know who qualifies. Here's the link: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=923292831812 The only criteria are: * You must be at least 18 and no older than 40 * You must identify yourself as "Spiritual, but not religious," Christian (however you dfeine it), agnostic or atheist. I have been pointing out to folks who take the survey that there may be some questions for which you do not feel you have an appropriate answer. feel free to skip anyquestion you cannot comfortably answer. The survey should take 15 minutes to do, and I really appreciate anyhelp you can offer! And remember...PLEASE pass the link along! Thanks, Christian (0) Comments

Spirituality survey for a new book - Please help! Posted 11/4/2006 8:26:10 AM Hey folks: My wife, Amy, and I have contracted with Chalice Press (the same publisher for my book on "Lost") to write another book on young adults and spirituality/religion. The working title is "MySpace to Sacred Space: Young Adults in an Aging Church." It's due out in July or August of next year, and we're in a heavy research phase right now. We've created an online survey, and we'd love to have your opinion. It'll take about 15 minutes to complete, and the only qualifications for taking part are: *You must be no younger than 18 and no older than 40 *You must identify yourself as Christian (Catholic or Protestant), Agnostic, Atheist, or "spiritual but not religious," however you define that. We'd really appreciate it if you could take a few minutes to participate and share your opinion. We really, REALLY do want the opinions of those not involved with church, and we do want honest answers, not just nice, warm fuzzy ones. Here's the link: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=923292831812 Finally, please send this link along to any friends or family who also fulfill the two requirements. We'll be gathering data for about a month, or until we hit about 3,000 responses, whichever comes first. Thanks and tell us what you think!!! Peace, Christian (0) Comments

Columns: Spiritual but Not Religious: Your Own Personal Jesus Posted 10/28/2006 11:33:58 AM Brian, the pastor of a new church in Plano, Texas, works evenings at a coffee shop to make ends meet. His wife stays at home with their children, and their church is not to the point that it can support a full-time pastor. As coffee shops grow in their social importance, pastors like Brian are realizing the value of spending time there. Some ministers have started book groups, knitting circles and even one-on-one counseling sessions at the corner coffee shop. Starbucks has become an extension of twenty-first century ministry. As Brian prepared a drink for a young customer, they got into a discussion about occupations. He mentioned that he was the pastor of a church, to which she replied that she was spiritual, but not religious. “Hey,” proclaimed Brian with a smile, “I’ve read a lot about you!” In his book, Spiritual, but not Religious: Understanding Unchurched America, Robert C. Fuller says that one-fifth of the American population identifies themselves as “spiritual but not religious.” Approximately one in two Americans who do not attend a church identifies themselves in this way. This means there are sixty million people in this country who feel some affiliation with a higher power, yet who are not connected to a religious organization. This is enough to make any pastor’s mouth water. The issues with reaching these folks in a meaningful way, however, are complex. Prior to the 20th century, says Fuller, the two terms “religious” and “spiritual” were used almost synonymously. This was partly because people considered spiritual life to be a public, shared experience. Since then, spiritual experience – along with many other experiences – has become increasingly private. While churches historically have been built to accommodate a corporate worship experience, the values of the culture around it have moved away from the model we still use. Another big issue is a negative perception of church. From emotional, physical or sexual abuse to a more vague sense of alienation, people have been hurt by church. There is accountability for both parties in this case. Many churches still are reticent to engage people about the pain they’ve experienced in church, and chances are the last place people want to do this is at a church. However, negative past experience isn’t an excuse to give up on organized religion. I have been hurt by church too, but I’ve also been hurt by family, friends and pretty much any other group of which I’ve been a part. Generally, we don’t walk away from these, so why should church be any different? Walking away not only means that the person who was hurt loses the chance to find healing from the source of their pain, but it also allows the harmful dynamics within the church to continue. Finally, research shows that most people who identify themselves as spiritual but not religious don’t see the church as the only means – or even the best means – for spiritual growth. The perception is that we’re not doing our job in offering a large contingency of the public what they feel they need to be spiritually enriched. We need to ask ourselves whether making connections with people is more important than our church membership. If we could meet weekly with a group of people at the coffee shop, but who would never attend our church, would we invest the time? Those who solely measure success by worship attendance and giving totals will continue to struggle to reach this group of sixty million. Ministry to this group may not pay the bills, but it’s as important as any work we do within our institutional walls. (0) Comments

Columns: Intelligent design makes a mockery of science Posted 10/22/2006 9:13:55 AM Intelligent design: Making a mockery of science By Christian Piatt (This column originally appeared in the Pueblo Chieftain newspaper) I listened to a sermon series on intelligent design recently. The minister went through the many sophisticated organs, cells and systems within the human body, and after each example, he pulled out a coin. He went from cellular mitochondria to the visual cortex, pointing out each time how unlikely this system was to occur by accident. Each point was punctuated by another coin. Many systems within the body are built upon preceding ones, and conditions had to be just right for us to become what we are, he pointed out. By the end, he had fifteen coins laid out on the lectern. The odds of flipping those fifteen coins and having them all land heads-up was about one in thirty-three thousand. How much more unlikely, then, are we to be here? That depends. If you believe in infinite time and space, then you have to accept the concept of infinite probability. Given time and space without boundary, it's reasonable to expect that everything that can happen ultimately will. This would include earth, humans, and other forms of intelligent life. At this point, we can't say how big or old the universe is, any more than we can claim whether or not this is the only universe there is. For all we know, there are millions of other universes that existed before ours, or maybe they even exist in parallel to ours right now. If time has a beginning and an end, or that there are limits to the boundaries of the universe, our existence becomes less likely the product of random chance. Asking 'What are the odds?' alone doesn't really bother me, although I think it’s a weak argument for the existence of a Creator. But this same argument is the cornerstone of many proponents of teaching intelligent design in our schools, as an alternative to evolution. There's one big difference between evolution and intelligent design: the former is science and the latter isn't. For an idea to be part of the scientific body of thought, you first have to develop a hypothesis and test it using scientifically recognized processes. If your findings support your initial hypothesis, you share your findings with the rest of the scientific community and allow them to try to replicate your results. Over time, if your hypothesis continues to be supported, it becomes a theory. If evidence arises later that challenges the theory, it's either changed or discarded. There's no such thing as a scientific absolute. We only have theories waiting to be disproved. Some may cry foul, claiming that intelligent design can't be tested like this. After all, if we can't prove the existence of God, how can we prove that any of the resultant byproducts are of God's hands? That's why intelligent design isn't science. Although I believe personally that God created the universe, I don't confuse my beliefs with the human-conceived scientific system. There are places in school for discussions such as these, including philosophy and comparative religion classes. I also think each family can impart their beliefs to their children, both at home and at church. But to cloud our understanding of what science is, promoting a religious agenda under the thin veil of scholarship, threatens to contaminate both science and faith. Some scientists are guilty of making a religion of science. They confuse theory with fact and proclaim the human intellect as the prevailing standard by which all things must solely be measured. Aristotle, the father of modern science, wisely recognized the limits of science and logic. Thomas Aquinas later claimed that this point where logic breaks down is where faith helps complete the picture. The difference is that both Aristotle and Aquinas knew not to confuse faith and logic, and both understood the limits of each. The current creation-versus-evolution debate suggests that we haven't evolved toward a greater truth in the meantime. (Christian Piatt's new book, "Lost: A Search for Meaning," is available for pre-order at most online bookstores now.) (0) Comments

Last Night's "Lost" episode Posted 10/19/2006 11:47:15 AM Last night's episode was another good one, although I found it a little more confusing than the others this season. Locke's sweat lodge scene was excellent. It was very creatively portrayed, and tied back in to Locke's spiritual quest on the island. It was the beginning of his new enlightenment, of sorts. Also interesting was that he built the sweat lodge within the framework of the church Eko and Charlie are building, thus merging multiple faith traditions in a sense. In doing so, he acknowledges it as holy ground, and as a place appropriate for communicating with the island. I enjoyed Locke's back story, although I had a hard time pinning down the timeline of when his time in this compound took place. Was this after his experience with his dad and subsequent loss of his romantic relationship, or was it a flashback. He looked pretty young and had hair, so I'm inclined to think it was earlier. But the point was he continues/continues to seek 'home' and 'family' in any context, and also that he's no killer, even if he fancies himself a hunter. He's basically good. I think that will be important down the line as the lines continue to blur between good and evil, and I think this dynamic will be especially poignant with respect to the others. Now, about the head guy at the compound - James I think - wasn't that Mr. Friendly from the Others? That kind of blew my mind, although I'm not sure how it all connects together yet. One thought I had was that perhaps this ties in to the many open questions we have about the Others on the island. Could it be that, after revolting against Dharma, they set up a remote drug-growing business on the island? This could explain a few things (stay with me, as I know it's a stretch): *It would explain the reason why they want to stay isolated from the world, even if they do have contact with it and can go back and forth. *It would explain how they have the funding to create their little utopian society, without being subsidized any longer by Dharma. *The tropical climate is perfect there for growing drugs. *They evidently have scientists in their midst, who would know a thing or two about biology and chemistry. *It would be an interesting connection, to have Locke eventually connect face to Face with Mr. Friendly, and realize he is trying with the Others to re-create the utopian compound community they once had before, as shown in last night's episode. If this is the case, I think the big revelation in this mini-season COULD be that Locke discovers the Others, and ultimately decides to join them. He's already decided never to leave the island. I think in the end, the Others have more noble aspirations, like capturing the healing properties of the island in some formula a la Ponce de Leon, but dealing in drugs could be seen as a means to an end. Finally, the cave scene was pretty interesting. Lots of skeletons in there, one of which had a Dharma logo on its clothing. It looked pretty rugged, though, and that combined with the toy truck he found suggests that this was a group of the 'Other' Others we've suspected exist. Remember a while back where we'd see the feet of adults and kids wandering through the jungle, all of whom looked pretty rustic and dirty. My theory is that these Others were actually the subjects used in the research experiments conducted in the cages. I think maybe their escape has some connection to "The Incident" referred to in the training videos with Dr. Marvin Candle/Wickman. Perhaps they escaped, and many were hiding out in this cave. They could have been killed by the bear, or somehow trapped their purposely by the Others. I think there are still some of them wandering around, and at some point Locke or one of the survivors now being held by the Others will have more contact with them. I think this is how we will really find out what the Others are up to. (0) Comments

'Lost: A Search for Meaning': Book for sale online now. Posted 10/17/2006 4:17:32 PM Just a note to let you know my book, "Lost: A Search for Meaning," is up for sale now online. The publisher said this morning that the books may be done at the printer as soon as two weeks from now, so hopefully pre-orders now won't have to wait very long for their copies. You can purchase directly from the publisher at the following link: http://www.cbp21.com/ProductDetail.asp?ProductID=2834 This is cool not only because you help out a smaller publishing house by buying direct, but they also offer a 20% discount. If you feel more comfortable with Amazon, you can go to www.amazon.com and enter "Lost: a Search for Meaning" or my name (Christian Piatt), and it should pull up. Today, the book summary, endorsements and cover art were not showing up for some reason, but it will order just fine. Although it's a little more expensive this way, it does help to boost my sales ranknig, which generally leads to more sales. Personally, I don't care how people get a copy, as long as they read it! You may also have the book ordered at any bookstore. If they have a hard time finding it, let them know that Ingram, Spring Arbor and - I believe - Baker and Taylor (three of the biggest book distributors) all are carrying it. Please let me know if you have any problems with any of these. If you're in my local area, I'll have copies too. If you have any other questions, feel free to drop me a line. I'll post another note when it's officially available. Keep in mind this is a pre-order situation, so it will take 2-3 weeks (if all goes well) before you get it. Thanks, Christian (0) Comments

Columns: How much faith does it take to be an atheist? Posted 10/14/2006 12:14:40 PM How much faith does it take to be an atheist? By Christian Piatt Originally printed in the Pueblo Chieftain Newspaper I love National Public Radio. I might as well wear a scarlet "N" because I'm such an NPR nerd. Every Friday, the show, Talk of the Nation, does a "Science Friday" special. This week, they interviewed Richard Dawkins, who is an evolutionary biologist, an atheist, and author of the book, The God Delusion. He is articulate and moderated in his comments. However, he's unequivocal about his belief that God does not exist. A caller made an interesting point about atheism, suggesting it takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to believe in God. He said that you must be willing to depend completely on your own human experience and intellect to categorically reject even the possibility of the existence of God within a potentially infinite universe. Basically, you have to have faith that, in our inestimable smallness and relatively subjective experience, we have enough information to claim God could not exist, even beyond our sphere of understanding. Dawkins labeled this as a specious argument, pointing out that there are plenty of other things most people don't believe in, including fairies, Thor, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster (look it up online – I'm not making it up). However, it is only in claiming a disbelief in God that one is branded as arrogant or bitter. We disbelieve any number of things, so why should God be any different? So there I was with two compelling but opposing arguments, left to sort out what I thought on my own. But the more I thought about Dawkins' position, the more I took issue with it. First, one distinct difference between belief in fairies and belief in God is a matter of numbers. There may be a few people who claim that fairies exist, but of the six and a half billion people on the planet, it is estimated that between five and six billion claim to have faith in God. This is not a matter of majority rule; just because most people believe something doesn't make it right. However, when a vast majority of the human species claims a common belief in a Creator, it places more of a burden on those who seek to confront the majority opinion. Faith is, by definition, not based in reason. However, those who deny God's existence are depending on reason for their position. This places the burden of proof on the atheist. Second, there's a unique characteristic about the popular understanding of God that sets God apart from other mythical beings. While people may believe in anything from aliens to ghosts, the general consensus is that God is the source of all creation. Therefore nothing else that we could argue could have more of an impact on our worldview, our values and understanding of who we are than the existence of God. To compare the question of God's existence to that of fairies or characters popularized by the internet is to diminish the relative place of God within our cultural anthropology. I don't want to discourage discussions about the existence of God. However, it always should be approached with the reverence and gravity it deserves, even by self-proclaimed atheists. We should all have the opportunity to grow and be enriched from one another's understanding of the universe. I'm guessing most atheists have something to teach me, but in order to sit at the same table, we all should be willing to take something away from the conversation, other than what we brought with us. (0) Comments

School shootings: we asky why, but seek peace Posted 10/8/2006 11:22:23 AM School shootings: We ask why, but need peace By Christian Piatt (Originally printed in the Pueblo Chieftain newspaper) On Monday, Charles Carl Roberts entered a peaceful one-room Amish schoolhouse with the intention of slaughtering all of its young female occupants, as well as himself. As of Monday afternoon, four children, a young teaching assistant and the attacker all were dead, with five more still in critical condition. In a call to his wife, and in notes he scribbled out prior to the attack, Roberts evidently was acting on some two-decade-old grudge, seeking revenge for some injustice he suffered some time back. Reports reveal that Roberts may have had a history of sexually abusing children. Roberts was not Amish, and seems to have no particular connection with the community or the school he attacked. It is thought that his choice of targets was based more upon convenience. This is the third attack in a school setting in a little more than week, and the whole string of incidents smacks of the Columbine shooting, which occurred in Denver several years ago. My wife, Amy, was a youth minister in Denver at the time, and one of her girls was a friend of the shooters. She spent weeks counseling the girl, her family, and others who were less directly affected, yet impacted nonetheless. The first question that most people begin with has something to do with why such a senseless, violent event has to take place. How does the human mind end up accommodating such diabolical notions? How divorced from one's divine spirit must one become to even consider the murder of children? How does someone so young, with so much ahead of them, determine that their time on earth is complete, to be cut short by their own hand? I've found that there are no satisfactory answers in cases such as these, and I'd go so far as to suggest we’re not really seeking answers. What we want is to reclaim a sense of peace. Such things cannot ever be understood, any more than an act of so-called "justice" could satisfy the survivors. No matter what, we're left with pain, confusion, anger, despair, and in some cases, abject hatred. So how do we go about rediscovering a sense of peace amid so much suffering and bloodshed? After all, it's not a natural part of the human condition. Those who ascribe to the "everything happens for a reason" mindset have a particularly difficult time with such tragedies, as they must reconcile what they believe about God's plan with such horrendous human-made consequences. The only way we find peace is to try to transcend the very humanity of the experience. At the essence of life is suffering, and if that is all we lay claim to, it's all we're left with. But in acknowledging that we not only don't understand life sometimes, but that we also cannot control it, we are relieved of the curse of why’s and how's that get us nowhere closer to the peace we desire. Ironically, this transcendence, for many, is found in a community of faith. For the Amish, the very bonds that hold them together are the same ones that marry them to their faith. The two are inseparable. Yet even when this peace-loving and peace-living community is encroached upon by the violence of the outside world, you hear no cries for retribution. You don't even hear complaints of the unfairness of life. What we witness is a community that comes even closer together to support one another, to remember and begin the slow healing process. No one can make sense of these recent events. We may never completely understand Roberts' motivations, and even if we did, we would still live with the stain of his murdering binge. However, the prayerful, peaceful response of those who suffered the most - as unnatural as it may seem - makes all the sense in the world. (2) Comments

"Lost" episode one: what we learned Posted 10/5/2006 10:49:47 AM First off, I was very pleased with this episode. It revealed a lot about the Others, filled in some back story on Jack, but left plenty to look forward to (no surprise). So, what did we learn last night? The Others have some kind of weird suburban Stepford kind of community going on. However, right on the perimeter of the neighborhood are a series of cages and experimentation facilities. At one time or another these have held bears, but they obviously work for humans too. Clearly, the Others have contact with outside society, or t least their amenities. They have a book discussion group, and the one they were discussing last night was a Stephen King title, so my sense is they get access to recent stuff. Also, things like fresh bacon, the coffee press on Fake Henry's table, etc, not to mention the Oxford shirts and khakis, make them far from a primitive society. Did anyone notice some of the Others who were not present in this community??? wonder where they are. Speaking of Fake Henry, we learned his name actually is Ben, and he's definitely in charge. I theorize in my upcoming book about whether or not he and his group of Others were capturing Sawyer, Jack and Kate to create an alliance in order to fight another group of others. However, at this point, they're treating Jack and company more like animals than allies. Jack's prison cell is underwater, and they referred to an aquarium. Apparently it's a station, called the Hydra, where they do work with sharks and dolphins. Jack asks Juliette, his caretaker , about their connection to the dharma initiative, and her only response is "that was a long time ago." I think we can assume at this point that the Others in this community in fact were part of Dharma, and most likely she schism between them and the rest of Dharma likely took place during the "incident" in the 1980's, referred to in the orientation videos. Did anyone else notice the tattoo on the inside of Jack's forearm? It looked like some cartoon version of a constellation. Either I've been under a rock during the first two seasons, or this is something new. Lots has been made of his tat on his shoulder, and of course, we now know that it's actually real. If he keeps getting inked, they'll have to bust out the airbrushes, or they'll have lots of back story to create to explain his body art. We get to see a little more about Jack and his craziness surrounding his marriage, including his attack of his father, which led to Christian falling off the wagon after 50 days of sobriety. It allows for a little more compassion for Christian, and adds some more tragic flaws to our hero character. Finally, the case file they have on Jack is interesting. Could this all be information they've picked up by observing him and eavesdropping on the island, or do they really have contact with people on the outside who have this information. Certainly, Ben's (Fake Henry's) congratulations of Juliette for her good work with Jack suggests they're trying to find something out from him or use him for some purpose. What it is we don’t know yet. I have one thought. It's possible they get all of the nice stuff they have through air drops, just like the survivors found. Perhaps the Dharma folks are dropping this stuff in, and the Others actually don't have access to the outside on their own. The other possibility of course is that they do have contacts off the island, and that they simply choose to be there. The serenity of their community before they witness the breakup of flight 815 overhead suggests they're perfectly happy there. I have my suspicions, however, about how tied in to the outside they really are. Any other thoughts or theories are certainly welcome. Christian (0) Comments

'Lost: A Search for Meaning': Free PDF chapter coming soon Posted 10/4/2006 11:17:04 AM FREE "Lost" Book chapter coming soon I've gotten formal approval from the editor to place a free chapter of my upcoming book on my website in PDF format for download. I submitted the final changes today, so as soon as they make these last corrections and get the whole thing converted to PDF, I'll post the chapter. I'm open to suggestions as to which chapter to post. I can only do one, but let me know which one you'd want to read most. The chapter titles are: 1. Numbers and Symbols 2. Light and Dark 3. Saved…from What? 4. Others 5. Faith and Reason 6. Fate and Destiny 7. The End is Near 8. Purgatory Let me know your preference. Once I get the files, I'll post it on www.christianpiatt.com. Peace, Christian (0) Comments