Liberal Thoughts from a walk in the Seattle rain

We'll never have single payer health care in the US, but a few questions I've got after watching "Sick Around the World":

Regardless of what our bumbling federal government decides, would it be possible for state governments in Washington, Oregon and California to refuse to pay drug companies more for prescription medicine than British Columbia does, make it illegal to sue doctors or hospitals except in cases of abuse or gross malpractice, make it illegal for insurance companies to deny coverage in our states, put a cap on doctors' salaries and (especially) administrative salaries at hospitals and insurance companies, and cover insurance costs for individuals who can't afford to pay for it? What rights do states have? Could Seattle decide to do that?

Part One: An Episcopal Theology of Sex Jr.: On Pornography!!

A month or so back I posted a few times on sex, or more specifically on my attempt to develop a way to think about sexuality consistently and realistically from an Episcopalian perspective. For a while now I've been wanting to write a little more on that topic, and have been thinking that the logical next step is to try to make a few Episco-theological suggestions about pornography based on the ideas I presented in the original post. In honor of my brother and his professed love of porno joining the blog, and in the interest of continuing to post on topics of prime interest for evangelical teenage boys, I've decided that it's finally time to give that a go. My hope, as always, is to try to be faithful to reality and Anglican tradition as I see them, and to avoid saying anything that will get me fired from my youth ministry job or shunned by my friends and neighbors.

This one, I must say, is extremely difficult--definitely more difficult than coming up with some spiritual suggestions about sexuality in general--because it's an attempt to address a religious belief that I sort of made up (well, not really) to reality: that is, it's an attempt to interpret pornography through the magical seer-stone glasses of a sacramental theology of sex. This attempt is also extremely difficult (and questionable) because I'm a male, and the most troubling moral aspects of pornography from a social justice-oriented Christian perspective relate to the exploitation and objectification of women. Because of the difficulty of the topic, this is going to need to be a multiple-post discussion. With that in mind, let's dive right in...

First off, let me clarify--this discussion isn't about masturbation. I'll only go so far here as to say that I generally think that that dirty deed is morally neutral (so Christians, stop your ridiculous obsessing about it). Spoiler alert for the ladies: all healthy men--even most husbands and sexually active boyfriends--do it with some degree of regularity, and it's an (almost) unavoidable bodily function. It's gross and unwholesomely fun, but so is pooping and sneezing and most everything else we try to confine to the bathroom. Giggling nerd scientists have even recently found evidence that it's good for us guys. Spoiler alert for the men: the stats show that almost all women also do it at some point in life, though not as much as you would probably like to think, and not as frequently as you do. If God doesn't want us to masturbate, then, well, he isn't very realistic. We could of course argue about masturbation all day, but I don't want to do that here, and if you're interested here's a random link to some people that do.

What I'm more concerned about is pornography--or, maybe more specifically, imagery that is created in order to produce sexual arousal. (Those might be different things, but for the sake of simplicity let's use porno as the blanket term in our present discussion.) The usual process with this sort of discussion in Christian circles is to start from the position that pornography is evil, offensive and degrading to women, and then to try to think of things to say about why God doesn't like it and neither should you. I--being ever the pragmatist and ever the diplomat--don't want to start there, because I don't know that it's really very helpful. In my scattershot research, I have come across fewer scientific statistics in relation to porno usage than I have on inter-personal sex, but I would be willing to wager that all of the religious condemnation of porno has played a relatively minor role in actual human behavior anyway.

I think a much more interesting place to begin the discussion (monologue) is with a suggestion that was made by one of the girls at my church in our annual youth group 'sex talk': that is, that pornography is actually something that can be empowering to women, and can be a celebration of the beauty of the human body (and the qualifying 'can' is important here). I cringed when she initially made this suggestion ("No!! Don't say that!! That's the patriarchal media corrupting your innocent young mind and transforming you into a tool for exploitation!!"), but I think it might be important to hear the idea out. With that in mind, I'm going to leave this topic as I go about my business over the weekend. Feel free to share your thoughts and talk amongst yourselves...

Give Me Socialized Health Care or Give Me Death !

As a card carrying member of The Godless Liberal Heathen Club I am oath sworn to uphold various beliefs and ideas. Collectively these beliefs and ideas are known as "The Esoteric Laws of the Magnificent Kennedy" and to date there are 1,347 of them. In order to gain entrance to the GLHC, a candidate is "compelled" to memorize all the Laws and recite them from memory at an induction ceremony. The ceremony itself is a secretive affair involving a ritual baptism in John Locke's platinum bidet, copious amounts of libations and interpretive dance....but that's neither here nor there. Now I know many of you may not be familiar with these laws since membership in the club is restricted to college professors, politicians, Hollywood types and the French. So for your convenience I'm going to list a few of them for you:

1. Gay people should be allowed to get married if they so choose.
   
2. Bill Clinton was the greatest president in the history of the universe.
   
3. Destroying the environment is a bad idea and we should stop doing it.
4. Grown men should be allowed to marry farm animals and small children.
   
5. Religion has no place in (public) schools.
6. War is very bad...especially when it's declared on nouns. (i.e. drugs and terror)
   
7. Rich people should be taxed all to hell.
8. Life on Earth developed over millions of years due to evolution/natural selection.
9. Although Charlton Heston starred in many great films (ex. Omega Man, Soilent Green, Planet of the Apes) he became a real horror show later in life.
10. Stephen Colbert's speech at the White House Correspondent's Dinner is the single greatest moment in television history.

As you can see, my list is nowhere near exhaustive. Were I to copy down every Law it would take 12 hours to read and then Ted Turner would come to your house to kill you. Just know that our Laws are many and varied. And, although we DO have to memorize every one, only the most gifted members of the Club are able to combine all 1,347 tenets into a coherent world view.

But just knowing the Laws isn't enough. We GLHers are also duty bound to disseminate the Laws into society by any means available to us. Some accomplish this by infiltrating the mass media. Others insert themselves into the political world and introduce legislation that reflects GLH dogma. You'll be able to see an example of this next year when Senator Ted Kennedy introduces the Baby Fetus' For Biodiesel Act of 2009. The Act was ghostwritten by Al Gore and represents a masterful synthesis of several Esoteric Laws. Also, be sure to catch Gore's upcoming documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth II: the Quickening" in which he begins to plant the seeds for the BFBD Act before it's formally introduced.

Unfortunately I have no political or media ties so I'm forced to work with what I have: Blogs here and on MySpace. That means that, right now, you get the honor of reading (if you're still actually reading this that is) about my current cause célèbre: socialized health care! HOORAY!

I've been interested in the idea of socialized health care for some time now but lately I've really started to get obsessed with the idea of it. I think it has something to do with the fact that I currently work for a large prescription drug insurance company. I'm not going to mention the name or anything but there's a good chance more than one of you has called me and begged me to override a rejected pharmacy claim for oxycontin...you junkies! I just don't understand what the U.S.A's friggin' problem with socialized health care is. Why aren't Joe Six-Pack and Jill Sleeping-Pill-Addict out in front of the White House screaming for this? Why, as a nation, will we sit back and let the government waste billions of dollars launching missiles at poor people in other countries while millions of people here in America go without health care?

Every single day at work I deal with people who are getting screwed because their insurance company drastically raised their co-payments or stopped covering some medication they need. Then, when I foolishly decide to listen to talk radio I get to hear fuckwits like Sean Hannity lie to his mush brained listening audience about how socialized health care is SOOOO expensive and how it's the next step towards all of us becoming dirty pinkos. Do you know, as a nation, we consistently spend more on health care that any other nation IN THE WORLD?! Every other industrialized nation on the planet offers health care to ALL of it's citizens yet we spend more than they due annually and millions of Americans still go without. Does that sound right to you? Does that sound like something that should happen in "the greatest country on Earth?"

I've gotten into arguments with people about this before and I swear to you that every time their counter-point is essentially, "I don't want to pay for health care for poor and lazy people." Well you know what, you already are. Why do you think your premiums keep going up? Hospitals off set the cost of treating uninsured people by charging YOUR insurance company more for YOUR operations. Then your insurance company raises your premiums to cover their loss.

Why not just eliminate the insurance companies and cut out the middle man? Either way someone is going to wind up getting your hard earned money for health care. Is it really that horrible of a prospect to think that part of what you make in a week is going to help someone out instead of making some CEO's stock increase by a fraction of a percent?

You can feel free to disagree with me if you want (if you do please do it in comment form...I'm pretty desperate for attention) but you better make a really good argument. Part of my job entails telling elderly people that the medication they need to live is no longer covered under their insurance because it's to expensive. It's pretty hard for me to be objective when I have to do that every day.

Also, if you're curious about where I got some of the information from in this blog you can look it up here, here, here, and here. I was going to provide direct links to articles and stats but I'm a typical lazy commie liberal. Besides, it's not like this stuff is hard to find.

Shayne

Awash in the sea of liberal culture...

Whew! It's been a busy week for us liberal do-gooders in Seattle! If you read this earlier post, you know that there's been a lot happening here. For my part, along with my regular work, I've spent the last six days helping out with the National Episcopal Healing Our Planet Earth Conference that St. Margaret's hosted, attending its accompanying events, and talking about its implications at church and youth group. In the process, I've been used as a prop in a liturgical dance about the desecration of Puget Sound, chatted with and taken communion from the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, Katharine Jefferts Schori, facilitated a discussion on the environment in a bar, complained about Christians with some friends in our co-op, sung songs of praise to the earth and the sea, and tried to sell the ideas behind The Genesis Covenant to a youth group. I'm disappointed that I'm not going to be able to make it to any of the Seeds of Compassion Conference with the Dalai Lama.

I know what some of you may be thinking, I understand, and I'm a little bit ashamed that I've come to fulfill the stereotypes so comprehensively. In fact, as I was standing in front of the crowd at the liturgical dance, using my body to represent man's oppressive environmental destructiveness, I had to ask myself how I got to this point. As I dramatically opened a giant glass door so the dancer could burst forth into the open air, I realized two things. Firstly, that I like to try to not care which side of the 'liberal/conservative' divide I'm on anymore (but really do), and secondly, that I really haven't changed fundamentally since my evolution-questioning, George W. Bush voting evangelical days.

I would guess that most people hit the point where they realize that they really shouldn't care which 'camp' they fall into--religiously, politically, or otherwise. We should just do, think and vote what we believe to be right, regardless of the 'movement' that we might happen to be a part of. In reality--among the young at least, but I suspect across generations--we secretly fret about what our neighbors think of us, and try to project a specific, commonly recognized image. While there might be some variety of images to latch on to, unless we're crazy we seem to always align ourselves with a particular, identifiable camp--even if we don't fully agree with the stereotypes--and privately define ourselves according to camp rules. I've always wanted to be seen as a good person (and to actually be one), so as a youth I latched on to evangelical Christianity in the attempt to do so. As an adult, that camp caused me too much cognitive dissonance, so I joined a new one in Anglican/liberal/emerging Christianity. While at heart my reasons for camp-attendance have been personal and individually determined, despite what I think I'm defining myself according to communal expectations. Hence, this week I didn't protest as much as I might have previously when asked to be used as a prop in a liturgical dance about the environment, and worked hard to see the good in what we were doing as we sang hymns to the earth in a Christian conference despite the pantheistic overtones.

(On a related sidebar which you might find interesting (but probably not as interesting as I do), along with wanting to be seen as (and be) a good person, I also don't want to be seen as mainstream (although I actually generally am). That's why as I post another blog about me (but also about you), I'm fretting about the fact that I'll just be seen as another self-obsessed 20-something blogger. But, as we all know, you're self-obsessed too, reading blogs in part to figure out which camp you want to align yourself with in order to define yourself as slightly distinctive, hip, and probably good.)

The good news is that all of our self-obsessions and camp-building are really just side-notes in the larger picture: group dynamics that affect the decisions that we make as communities, but not really what it's all about. That's why it's back to the grindstone, trying to do, think and vote in the right way, regardless of cultural alignments. And that's why now I'm going to take a timed shower in the attempt to continue cutting back on my resource usage, and then go to lunch with a deacon to try to promote ministry to people with AIDS in our community before I write a sermon on God's love for all people.

bell hooks, inequality, illness, and so forth.

Hi everybody. Along with international travel, whining about church, and gallivanting with teenagers, I've been occupying my time lately reading books by bell hooks, a black feminist sociologist and educator who I've been put on to by a couple of friends. She talks a lot about oppression, racism, poverty, patriarchy, classism, political action, art, education, and the struggle for equality, so in many ways she's the consummate liberal. Actually, wait, maybe I am the consummate liberal, because I'm a white, moving-towards-upper-middle-class patriarchal racist classist lazy male who likes to tell people that I read books by people like bell hooks. In any case, by happy, blog-producing coincidence, this morning the Seattle Times ran a short opinion piece by Jerry Large that points to a major reason that I, a well-off white male, am so intrigued by the ideas of people like bell hooks who argue and work for class equality. In essence, the research suggests that when material equality exists in a culture, and resources are distributed evenly (through whatever means), everyone benefits, not just those on the bottom.

Large's point, in short, is:

We know poverty can affect diet, living conditions, access to medical care.

But inequality puts stress on people at every level. Poor people suffer most, but so do wealthy people in societies where there are large gaps between rich and poor. High-income white Americans have higher rates of diabetes, cancer and hypertension than poor people in England, according to a study reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association two years ago. (Read the whole article here)

In essence, rich folks trying to "protect their money" by voting against upper-class or big business tax increases (and consequently improved social programming) are shooting themselves in the collective foot. Even if they do end up with greater material wealth, their overall health and quality of life decreases with the increase in resource and social disparity. This sense was palpable in the air for us in (more equitably organized) New Zealand, and Angel's studies in Nursing and Public Health have been pointing our thoughts in that direction for a few years. (In fact, Angel's favorite professor Steven Bezruchka was Large's source for the article.) We both see a healthcare system with equal access for all as one necessary battle in the struggle for a healthy and just society, but the point here is bigger. In fact, material and social equality--or at least relative equality--would be beneficial for all of us, and would play a significant role in improving physical, mental, and social health across our society. To put a bit of a spin on MLK's well-known quote, poverty and oppression anywhere are a sociologically measurable threat to wealth and happiness everywhere. So, bell hooks, even though I might be a part of your problems, I'm listening to you because I think your ideas will help me out in the long run.

There is a PBS Documentary series on this topic airing now called "Unnatural Causes ... Is Inequality Making Us Sick". (Info online here) Feel free to argue with me, but you should really watch the series, which should provide a lot more fuel for Large's and Bezruchka's position. I'm hoping that they post the whole series online in the near future.

Tying the knot?

Back in May '07 (or sometime thereabouts) my former mentor Ann Redding had her priesthood put on hiatus due to her admission to the Seattle Times and the Episcopal Church that she was both a Christian and a Muslim. That is, she'd undergone a religious conversion of sorts, and now was practicing in two different spiritual systems. Now I'm working for an organization called Multifaith Works, which functions according to the assumption that there are inherent similarities between faiths that lead us to compassionate action. As part of my preparation in that job, I'm reading stories by people who practice Islam and Buddhism and the Bahai faith, and generally recognizing the similarities between them and myself. On Monday, I went to a session from our Diocese that pointed out Episcopalian boundaries--that is, what is essentially required of a priest in our tradition. In the midst of all of this, the Church and I are trying to decide if we want to get married. If we do so, these days it doesn't necessarily mean forever, but a bad marriage is always messier than a bad dating relationship, and there are going to be some consequences if we decide to get a divorce.

Right now our hesitancies are centering around our respective personality quirks. Even though she sometimes tries really hard not to, the Church has this inherent tendency to be controlling--to need to tell me who I need to be. In Seattle she's mostly gotten over her need to define strictly my theological perspective, but she's still not past her tendency to be nitpicky about the way I behave, and the way I should organize my faith and practice. She doesn't want to be embarrassed, and so tends to be uptight with worry that something from my evangelical past might come out in public, I might not say the right things at our worship service, or I might not genuflect towards the appropriate leader. Although she says she doesn't, I know she often questions whether I'm good enough for her.

For my own part, I know that I cause problems with my tendency to be non-commital. Even though I'm generally happy with her now, I have this impression that she won't look as pretty ten years from now, seeing her day in and day out. I'm a faithful kind of guy--I'm not going to cheat on her--but I can't guarantee that this will last forever. If it works, great, if it doesn't, I'm not sure I'm willing to sacrifice my happiness, or my family's happiness, for hers. The problem is that I know I have options, and I'm not sure that I can't or won't find something better.

There have been a few warning signs in our relationship. I already know that a lot of my friends don't like her, and I'm sometimes embarassed to introduce her in public. She's a little snooty, and though she's generally discreet when she's been drinking she can be obnoxious and offensive. She tries to be tolerant, but I'm worried that its just not in her nature as an institution with boundaries and principles. I sometimes think that we'd be better off as just friends, but at this point I've concerned that that sort of relationship won't work for us. We've either got to get married or break up: flush the toilet or get off the crapper.

For now, we're treading water and seeing if this will work. If she starts talking about having children, I'm out of here, but for now I'm willing to see if we can work things out. The Church may be a whore, but for now she's still my girlfriend.

My Sermon from Feb. 17

When I told a friend that I was preaching this Sunday on the Gospel passage that includes John 3:16, they laughed and asked if the church was trying to lob me a softball or something!

This verse is, after all, the Bible verse--the one that guys in clown wigs hold up on signs at baseball games, and the one that every young evangelical knows by heart: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

As a young Christian, this was in fact one of my favorite passages from Scripture (as was, actually, the reading from Romans today on justification by faith). It's the Good News--God loves us so much that he was willing to die for us. God has offered us salvation, and death isn't the end of things! Who doesn't like that message? It’s so powerful: I mean, during Lent, it's essentially the message that makes us willing to give up chocolate and TV for 40 days! On a Sunday in Lent—each of which is supposed to be a “mini-Easter”—this is just the sort of message that we should be reflecting on and celebrating.

My biggest curse in life though is an annoying tendency to try to view both sides of things, and Lent is a time for reflection on both the light and dark sides of life. Because of that, I have to point out that this passage also has some other, more challenging, connotations.

Essentially, that's because this isn't just one of the most well-known, and hopeful, passages in Christian scripture, it's also one of the easiest to interpret in a rigid, formulaic and judgmental manner. You know the thought process: crudely put: "What you have to do to be saved is believe that Jesus is the Christ—if you do, you’ll go to heaven and if you don't, you're going to Hell." Taken on its own, that is what John 3:1-17 can seem to suggest, (and I think that’s what the guys with the signs are usually trying to point out).

I’m particularly aware of this polarizing aspect of this Gospel passage because that’s where I’ve come from: my early religious training was in a church that was explicit about the belief that Christians are “saved” and non-Christians aren’t. For a time, I was gung ho about that idea myself: I ruined at least two of my teenage friendships by indelicately insisting that my friends were going to hell unless they became Christians. In one case I actually tried to convert some friends to this belief via email. That’s a really stupid idea, by the way. Their response was predictable—one was hurt and angry and the other stopped talking to me. Through a long and very Anglican process of engagement with Scripture, Tradition and Reason that’s not where I am anymore, but it’s still an important part of my personal history.

Whether or not this particular mode of belief is part of your theological past or present, it is important that we’re engaging with this side of the Christian message as we reflect on the significance of Easter. It’s obviously a message that many people view as essential to Christian belief, but it’s also an aspect of our tradition that we levelheaded, moderate Episcopalians often don’t like to confront. At some point we have to decide what the significance of the Easter story is—for ourselves and our neighbors, and for the world community as a whole.

In my opinion, that significance is actually stated succinctly in the verse after John 3:16, which suggests that “God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him”. That verse doesn’t usually make it onto the billboards (not enough space, I guess?), and unfortunately doesn’t always bear itself out in Christian attitudes either.

I can’t define your belief for you, but theologically, in the light of reason and this verse and others like it, I tend to lean towards the camp that suggests that Christians should believe—or at very least hope—that God will figure out a way to redeem all of us. Maybe more importantly though, from a pragmatic perspective it seems that in a world of political and religious conflict Christians should be seen more often working to “save” the world than voicing our “condemnations”: we should be more about acting for redemption and less about whining about other peoples’ problems.

It’s actually a pretty exciting time in the Church, because you do see a lot of places where we are moving in that direction: Christians of all persuasions are beginning to get on board en masse, for instance, in the efforts to protect the environment and end poverty. The “emerging church” movement—which you should look up if you haven’t heard of it—is in large part an attempt to live in a redemptive way in our culture and world. As I’m sure you know though, we’ve still got some work to do. Maybe we should start printing up some John 3:17 signs before the Mariners season?

In any case, as we prepare to celebrate Easter, I am personally trying to bear in mind the fact that the Gospel—the “Good News—can easily be turned into a message about condemnation, manifesting itself in an “I’m in/you’re out” kind of mentality. That in itself deserves a significant amount of penance and fasting. On the flip side, I’m also trying to remember, and I hope you will too, that the “Good News” of Christ is probably much better and all encompassing than I tend to assume. Despite our own petty prejudices and uninformed opinions, once again “God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him”.

Castro resigns...

Commenting upon Castro's resignation, and the hope for change in Cuba, GW says that if Cuba remains much the same, "political prisoners will rot in prison and the human condition will remain pathetic in many cases". He must have been talking about our prison at Guantanamo Bay...

Can We? Confessions of an American Cultural Heretic.

I'm simply not willing to have this particular kind of hope yet. Call me a radical or a skeptic:

I don't believe in individualism, and I don't believe in the free-market--at least not the entirely free market. I don't believe in the goodwill of private industry, left to its own devices, and I don't believe in American superiority. I sure as hell don't believe in the military/industrial complex. I don't believe in private medicine, and I don't believe in your right to sue your provider. I don't believe that the way we've organized ourselves politically is the best we can do, and I don't think corporate lobbies should be allowed a place in government. I don't believe that private organizations are the best equipped to meet social needs, and I don't think that care for our neighbors is best left to the churches. I don't believe that rags to riches is really what America is about. I don't believe in patriotism and I don't believe in nationalism. I don't believe in upper classes and lower classes. I don't believe it's every man for himself. I don't believe that the homeless are lazy. I don't believe that the choice is between the environment and big business. I don't believe that change is really all about hope.

I do believe in a well-regulated and well-organized big government. I believe that taxation can provide better funding for our social support system than tithes. I believe that we have to finally get pragmatic. I believe that America is in no place to claim the title "greatest nation in the world". I believe in well-regulated, government organized and run healthcare systems, transportation and housing infrastructures, student loan programs, and universal public education. (I believe in doing away with private education all together). I believe that we're all in this together. I believe that social oppression is real. I believe that the privileged have a responsibility to the unprivileged. I believe in high taxes. I believe that a non-military solution can be found to almost every problem. I believe that minorities are still getting screwed. I believe that we don't usually change until someone makes us. I believe that we spend twice as much on healthcare as any other country, but get worse outcomes than every other developed nation and several third world countries. I believe that 45 million Americans can't afford to go to the doctor when they get sick or injured. I believe that America has to stop comparing itself to dictatorships with no natural resources, and start comparing itself to countries with similar GDPs per Capita. I believe that will open some eyes. I believe in fair trade. I believe that we are in the midst of a major environmental crisis. I believe that we can figure out how to live without cars. I'm worried about our stockpile of nuclear weapons. I believe we have to take care of our neighbors, personally and nationally. I believe that we could do much better with the resources we've got.

Every candidate in the presidential race this year is a political moderate. Whoever gets elected, steps will be taken in the right direction, but I'm just not convinced that America--or our potential leaders--are really committed to change that will make a difference. Uninspired, I caucused for Hillary because in my estimation her policy moves the furthest towards pragmatism and justice, and I'll vote for Obama when he wins the nomination because he at least gives us a foundational belief that we can change things, if not policies that will really solve the problems. America, though, needs a serious wake up call, and I can't believe that we generally don't see that. We've dug ourselves into a hole, and we have to get serious about change if we're going to dig ourselves out.

Church Leaders and Narcissism

For those of you who've been following the Mars Hill/St. Mark's situations, here's some interesting info from Wikipedia on Narcissistic Personality Disorder, submitted without comment: (link)

DSM Criteria
A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:[1]

has a grandiose sense of self-importance
is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brillance, beauty, or ideal love
believes that he or she is "special" and unique
requires excessive admiration
has a sense of entitlement
is interpersonally exploitative
lacks empathy
is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her
shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes
(see also: Full list in DSM-IV-TR)

- Lifetime prevalence is estimated at 1% in the general population and 2% to 16% in clinical populations. 50 to 75% of those with this diagnosis are men.

- Hypothetical Causes

The etiology of this disorder is unknown, but, according to Groopman and Cooper[3], factors identified by researchers as possibly contributing to this disorder include:

An oversensitive temperament at birth
Overindulgence and overvaluation by parents
Valued by parents as a means to regulate their own self-esteem
Excessive admiration that is never balanced with realistic feedback
Unpredictable or unreliable caregiving from parents
Severe emotional abuse in childhood
Being praised for perceived exceptional looks or talents by adults
Learning manipulative behaviors from parents
Some narcissistic traits are common and a normal developmental phase. When these traits are compounded by a failure of the interpersonal environment and continue into adulthood they may intensify to the point where NPD is diagnosed. It has been suggested that NPD may be exacerbated by the onset of aging and the physical, mental, and occupational restrictions it imposes

Pathological narcissism occurs in a spectrum of severity. In its more extreme forms, it is narcissistic personality disorder. NPD is considered to result from a person's belief that he or she is flawed in a way that makes the person fundamentally unacceptable to others. This belief is held below the person’s conscious awareness; such a person would typically deny thinking such a thing, if questioned. In order to protect themselves against the intolerably painful rejection and isolation that (they imagine) would follow if others recognised their supposedly defective nature, such people make strong attempts to control others’ view of them and behaviour towards them.

Psychologists commonly believe that pathological narcissism results from an impairment in the quality of the person’s relationship with their primary caregivers, usually their parents, in that the parents were unable to form a healthy, empathic attachment to them. This results in the child conceiving of themselves as unimportant and unconnected to others. The child typically comes to believe that he or she has some defect of personality which makes them unvalued and unwanted.

Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) is isolating, disenfranchising, painful, and formidable for those diagnosed with it and often those who are in a relationship with them. Distinctions need to be made among those who have NPD because not each and every person with NPD is the same. Even with similar core issues, the way in which one's individual narcissism manifests itself in his or her relationships varies.

To the extent that people are pathologically narcissistic, they can be controlling, blaming, self-absorbed, intolerant of others’ views, unaware of others' needs and of the effects of their behavior on others, and insistent that others see them as they wish to be seen. They may also demand certain behavior from their children because they see the children as extensions of themselves, and need the children to represent them in the world in ways that meet the parents’ emotional needs. (For example, a narcissistic father who was a lawyer demanded that his son, who had always been treated as the "favorite" in the family, enter the legal profession as well. When the son chose another career, the father rejected and disparaged him.)

These traits will lead overly narcissistic parents to be very intrusive in some ways, and entirely neglectful in others. The children are punished if they do not respond adequately to the parents’ needs. This punishment may take a variety of forms, including physical abuse, angry outbursts, blame, attempts to instill guilt, emotional withdrawal, and criticism. Whatever form it takes, the purpose of the punishment is to enforce compliance with the parents' narcissistic needs.

People who are overly narcissistic commonly feel rejected, humiliated and threatened when criticised. To protect themselves from these dangers, they often react with disdain, rage, and/or defiance to any slight criticism, real or imagined. To avoid such situations, some narcissistic people withdraw socially and may feign modesty or humility.

Though individuals with NPD are often ambitious and capable, the inability to tolerate setbacks, disagreements or criticism, along with lack of empathy, make it difficult for such individuals to work cooperatively with others or to maintain long-term professional achievements. With narcissistic personality disorder, the person's perceived fantastic grandiosity, often coupled with a hypomanic mood, is typically not commensurate with his or her real accomplishments.

The exploitativeness, sense of entitlement, lack of empathy, disregard for others, and constant need for attention inherent in NPD, adversely affects interpersonal relationships. Individuals with NPD frequently select as mates, and engender in their children, "co-narcissism," which is a term coined to refer to a co-dependent personality style similar to co-alcoholism and co-dependency. Co-narcissists organize themselves around the needs of others. They feel responsible for others, accept blame readily, are eager to please, defer to others’ opinions, and fear being considered selfish if they act assertively.

- Theories on Narcissistic personality disorder and shame
It has been suggested that Narcissistic personality disorder may be related to defenses against shame.

Gabbard suggested NPD could be broken down into two subtypes. He saw the "oblivious" subtype as being grandiose, arrogant and thick skinned and the "hypervigilant" subtype as easily hurt, oversensitive and ashamed.

He suggested that the oblivious subtype presents a large, powerful, grandiose self to be admired, envied and appreciated, which is the antithesis of the weakened and internalised self that hides in a generic state of shame, in order to fend off devaluation, whereas the hypervigilant subtype, far from fending off devaluation, is obsessed with it, neutralising devaluation by seeing others as unjust abusers.

Jeffrey Young, who developed Schema Therapy, also links shame to NPD. He sees the so-called Defectiveness Schema as a core schema of NPD, next to the Emotional Deprivation and Entitlement Schemas. The Defectiveness Schema is compensated with three Schema Modes (coping strategies):

Surrender: Choose critical partners and significant others; puts him- or herself down.
Avoidance: Avoids sharing "shameful" thoughts and feelings with partners and significant others due to fear of rejection.
Overcompensation: Behaves in a critical or superior way toward others; tries to come across as perfect.
Note that an individual with this schema might not employ all three schema modes.


- Treatment and prognosis
Though there is controversy in the profession, most psychiatrists and psychologists regard NPD as a relatively stable condition when experienced as a primary disorder. James F. Masterson's A Therapist's Guide to the Personality Disorders: The Masterson Approach outlines a prominent approach to healing NPD, while discusses a continuum of severity and the kinds of therapy most effective in different cases. Typically, as narcissism is an ingrained personality trait, rather than a chemical imbalance, medication and therapy are not very effective in treating the disorder. Schema Therapy, a form of therapy developed by Jeffrey E. Young that integrates several therapeutic approaches (psychodynamic, cognitive, behavioral etc.), also offers an approach for the treatment of NPD.

It is unusual for people to seek therapy for NPD. Subconscious fears of exposure or inadequacy are often met with defensive disdain of therapeutic processes.

Pharmacotherapy is rarely used. In a review of the literature, one patient responded to Wellbutrin.

Because NPD contributes to negative, stressful life experiences characterized by the mental health field as "clinically significant distress" or "impairment", co-existing conditions of depression and anxiety are typical.

Underwhelmed at the Caucus

So, I had my first Caucus experience yesterday, and my vote officially contributed to the sending of two delegates from our district for...

Hillary Clinton!



Obama-mania was in full swing in our district--he got 7 out of 9 delegates, but I ended up standing my ground on Clinton.

I'm under the impression that about 50% of the country hates Hillary, but I just couldn't bring myself to vote on something other than the issues. There's no way I could vote for another Republican in this election (or in any election for the foreseeable future, until their policies shift 180 degrees), and I'm cynical about the value of Obama's charisma. Is America really going to be united, and what about his leadership would represent real change? He's a party-line Democrat with policies that aren't as well fleshed out as Hillary's. He's an Icon that a lot of people seem to be projecting their hopes upon, but where does that get you in the American political system?

People don't like Hillary b/c she's old Washington, but ultimately, who cares? It's important to be inspired, but the change that really will make a difference in the US will be policy change. I don't particularly have a problem with Obama's policy positions--he's moving in the right direction--but he either doesn't go far enough or hasn't fleshed out his ideas enough on the issues that matter to me (healthcare, the environment, foreign policy, social safety nets for the poor, LGBT equality, Iraq, immigration, eroding civil rights, the recent consolidation of power in the executive branch, etc.). Hillary simply has a much more developed sense of what she's going to do to make changes. Obama may be more electable, but I just can't get over the hump of thinking that all of the hope and inspiration will be pretty useless once he gets in the White House (look at the Bill Clinton policy legacy--another pretty inspiring guy--and a whole lot of people have been pretty inspired by W at some point or another), and that his policy positions simply aren't refined enough.

We'll see how things shake out. Obama still won the state, but the race is unpredictable at this point.

The impossibility of hope?

The human mind comes to truth about complex situations by organizing disparate data into a cohesive unit. When you realize the key to the interpretation of all of this complex data, there's frequently a moment of clarity: an "Ah Ha Moment" when it all clicks (Einstein talked about this when he came up with the theory of relativity, and I could almost feel it happening when I was working on my thesis). Sometimes the click signals a revelation of truth, and sometimes the click is overruled at a later date by new data.

Today, I had one such moment that I hope you can overrule, ironically when I was in conversation with some of the most compassionate people I know, at Multifaith Works.

Americans have as much opportunity, or more, as any other citizens on the planet. Our GDP per capita consistently ranks as top five in the world. We're as educated as anyone in the world. We're a democratic country, where decisions are made freely by the population, and our leaders are chosen directly by the people. Yet, 45 million people go without health insurance. The leaders we choose let children live in squalor. We're happy to let veterans live on the street without support. In every other industrialized country, people do better than we do.

The problem isn't an inadequacy of resources or freedoms. Ultimately, the way it shakes out, the problem is that we care at least a little bit less about other people than they do in other developed countries, and a little bit more about ourselves.

A Green Lent

Interesting blog here about adopting green disciplines for Lent.

I like watching spiritual disciplines change with the times. Something resonates here.

Politics

Does anyone think it's disturbing that a guy who doesn't believe in evolution is a strong competitor to be our next president? Haven't we learned anything in the last seven years?

St. Mark's Cathedral and Mars Hill Church

I'd planned on cleaning the house right now, but I have a blog post that's been just itching to get out for several weeks now. It's no wonder that my wife hates me:

Seattle (my Seattle anyway) has two religious organizations that really matter: Mars Hill Church (denomination, hipster baptist) and St. Mark's Episcopal Cathedral. (Full disclosure: my membership is at St. Mark's, and I have a lot of friends at Mars Hill.) The two places couldn't be more different, but have interestingly gone through parallel leadership crises in the last year. In both cases, two well-respected senior leaders were dismissed under the ultimate authority of the most senior leader--Mark Driscoll at Mars Hill and Robert Taylor at St. Mark's. I'm convinced that there's an interesting religious lesson in the processes and aftermaths, and I've been trying to sort out what that lesson is.

The players in the two dramas couldn't be more different--Mark's a rugged "muscular Christianity" type, and Robert is a liberal gay South African champion of the homeless. The leaders dismissed at Mars Hill were straight white male elders named Paul and Bent, while at St. Mark's they were both women--one a lesbian liturgist and the other an African-American academic who later made headlines by declaring "I am both a Christian and a Muslim". You couldn't have planned a better typecast for the liberal/conservative divide.

In both cases there was a strong congregational outcry, and some degree of media attention (a Google search will turn up what you need), as well as a general series of non-answers from Church leadership about the why's and how's of the firing processes. In both cases nothing terribly exciting or controversial has come out. To me, the disimpassioned observer, it just looks like there were probably simmering personality issues, and leaders were removed when the opportunity arose. In both cases the leaders apparently acted irresponsibly and shortsightedly in their method of dismissal, and in neither case has their been sufficient explanation given to the congregations for the firings. Interestingly, both cases have drawn up discussion about the nature and legitimacy of present church authority structures, which are relatively different between the two congregations, but which both seem to concentrate too much power at the top.

There are some intriguing differences in the way members of the congregation have responded, and the issues that have risen to the top in the processes. Again, you probably couldn't have scripted things any more stereotypically:

The Episcopalians at St. Mark's have been mad about money. The dismissals, firings, layoffs, whatever you want to call them were initially attributed to a budget shortfall: pledging was down $100k, so something had to be done, and thus leaders were removed. That was okay with some people, but when it came out soon after that Robert had also recently received a significant raise to somewhere in the range of $150-200k annually, and that the dismissed leaders were being underpaid prior to their dismissal, there was the proverbial tempest in a teacup. (Incidentally, St. Mark's didn't make their budget available to the public until after the layoffs, which is really unusual for a church, and seems generally sketchy to me.) Still, a lot of the ongoing arguments at St. Mark's are centering around money and the proper use of it.

The Baptists at Mars Hill are mad about the sinfulness of Mark's behavior. (Immediately prior to the firings, he suggested in a sermon that he'd like to punch a couple of his elders, which I think is just classic.) There's a big ongoing dialogue at The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill which generally focuses on whether or not Mark acted biblically, and whether he's a righteous individual, and whether he's allowed his ego to lead him away from promoting Jesus. Also, whether maybe it is the fired pastors who need to repent and return to Jesus.

In the end, who's handled things better? I don't know. I have much more respect for Robert than for Mark, and really see him as, at least in some ways, a sort of tragic figure in all of this. He's made some mistakes that he might not be able to dig his way out from under, and a lot of people (including me, and Ann, who I consider a mentor) were significantly hurt by the firings. However, he has done really important things for the Seattle homeless community, and the worldwide Anglican community. He's got a closed leadership style, but I think generally is a good person. (Again, full disclosure, I personally like and respect Robert, and have maintained an amiable relationship with him throughout the process.) Mark just seems like a narcissist (note--this was changed from "punk" on 2/11/08, due to further investigation). He's grown some big churches--gotten some people to heaven if you think that's how it works--but also has generally promoted arrogance and misogyny as spiritual virtues, and seems to lead like a bully. He's got a great sense of humor, and I could see having him as a buddy (at least until we got in a fight about religion, homophobia, or whatever), but don't really trust him in church leadership because he's got such an authoritarian bent. You could see this sort of thing coming at Mars Hill a mile away.

At a congregational level, it seems to me that neither group has really known how to deal with the problems coherently. The Episcopalians are calling in help from the top, and the Baptists have a revolt simmering at the bottom. There has been significant opening of communications at St. Mark's between the leadership (vestry) and the congregation, which I think has been generally positive. At Mars Hill? They dumped a huge document on the congregation explaining the bylaws and partially addressing concerns, but haven't made any real changes. In both cases, some feel reconciled to the leadership, while others have left, or are in the process of leaving.

Where's the lesson in all of this? I don't know. You can't win? Don't put people on too high of a pedestal? Liberals and conservatives both have their problems? I don't know. I would like to say that this has been less of a spiritual crisis for St. Mark's than it has been for Mars Hill, because we don't beatify our leaders, and we don't see them as a sort of direct mouthpiece of God. I'm not entirely convinced that that's true though. Certainly it's true for some, but for others this has been a real crisis of faith. Maybe it's a foundational characteristic of any type of religion to place faith in leadership, as well as in God. That, of course, is a precarious position to put oneself in. Maybe that's just a step along the stages of faith, and this sort of crisis is actually beneficial to help people stop beatifying other humans? Maybe, ultimately, disappointment is the inevitable cost of hope?

As a St. Mark's Christian, I like to think of myself as above the petty disputes of the Mars Hill Christians. Of course, through all of this, I've seen that I'm not, and St. Mark's is not. Hopefully, on the Mars Hill side, they'll also see that there's "no one holy, not even one". I'm definitely going to keep arguing with the fundamentalists and the homophobes, but I guess it's good sometimes to step down off the high horse and remember that my people aren't always so perfect either. We are of course still way smarter...

How does one move from homophobe to homophile?

I've got a few minutes before I have to leave to pick Angel up from clinical, and a lot of mental detritus to clear out, so I'll post a blog from church.

As mentioned yesterday, most of the people I'll be working with at Multifaith are gay males. (It is an AIDS organization after all.) Most of the people are also religious, in some sense or another, since it is also a religious organization. At the staff retreat I went on last week, we spent most of our time getting to know each other by "telling our stories"--that is, talking about the major events of our lives that have brought us to where we are. It was a really interesting way to start off a new job (though not one I'd want to repeat, say, in the warehouse), and with such a concentrated combination of gay people, religious people, and folks in recovery of various sorts, there were a lot of intriguing and emotional conversion stories.

I told the story of my conversion from Evangelical protestantism to emerging/liberal Anglicanism, but the story I didn't tell was of my conversion from homophobe to, well, homophile. It runs parallel, and I think it probably will resonate as a sort of step by step movement from what religious people generally are (and shouldn't be) to what religious people generally aren't (but should be).

The steps generally went like this in my own personal life:

1) Buy in to teaching that the Bible is God's Word, and that God's word teaches that you shouldn't be gay. God says it, I believe it, that settles it. Please leave me alone, you gross fag. Stop looking at me in the locker room. I know what you're thinking.

2) Identify being gay with "bad people" out there--outside of my social circle--who for some reason decide to do something that I think is gross--i.e., gay sex. Think they just need Jesus. Try real hard to "love the sinner, hate the sin".

3) Become convinced in college that sexual preference is probably partially genetically influenced, and certainly not a "choice" in the normal sense of the word.

4) Come to the conclusion that, hey, we're all confronted with personal weaknesses which are frequently sinful. By the accident of genetics, I like the ladies (which is of course sinful outside of legal western marriage), some like the men. Thus, genetics doesn't make doing gay things (gay sex, lisping, eating lots and lots of really chocolatey things) any less sinful--or gross in my hetero small town Ohio sensibility.

5) Stop buying in to teaching that the Bible is God's Word, since evolution happened.

6) Realize that it's questionable that the Bible even talks about Homosexuality in it's modern sense.

7) Still think gay sex is gross and unappealing, and thus leave unquestioned the assumption that God doesn't want us to do gross gay butt things.

8) Watch "Angels in America" and realize that the gays are people too.

9) Decide that I'm going to stop being a hater/homophobe and that my biases were mostly based on a gut feeling of "yuckiness" and ignorance.

10) Decide to join the Anglican/Episcopal Church formally, since it generally says that it's alright to not discriminate against gay people, if you don't want to, at least in America.

11) Move to Capitol Hill

12) Establish a social circle that is about 75% gay/lesbian.

13) Make other people mad with my suggestions that being gay should be okay, even if the Bible seems to say otherwise.

14) Get a job with Multifaith Works, thus diving even further into the subculture which I used to view as evil and gross. I'm definitely not in Camden anymore.

15) Suspect that my friends might think I'm secretly in the closet, what with my career path (priest) and super-gay social circle, and general lack of continued homophobia.

Religion and Reality

So, I've been mulling over in my mind lately the question of how connected religion is with reality, in the wake of the Mars Hill Dialogue, and also my reading of Jon Krakauer's "Under the Banner of Heaven", which is about a fundamentalist Mormon who murders a few people under supposed direction from God. (You should read that, especially if this post interests you. It's a fascinating case study on religion in general and Mormonism in particular. I've become a bit of a Krakauer Acolyte).

You hear people argue a lot that religion isn't "rational". In my own Western experience anyway, I'd tend to disagree with that. While there are some folks who aren't terribly concerned with whether or not their belief is reasonable, I think for most people the perceived rationality of a religious system is just as important as it's efficacy in providing them with good feelings and a happy life. A religion is, in part, a lens through which we view the world, and if it doesn't make sense in the world we live in, it'll be discarded or altered. Theologians and scribes have, of course, spent thousands of years hammering out the rational structure of our various religious traditions.

What critics are suggesting when they say religion isn't "rational", I think, is that it isn't actually connected with reality. Those are in some ways two different things. What you find in systematic theological studies is that research tends to happen, broadly, in two camps: some work to hash out the internal coherence of a religious system (for example, "How does Jesus' death affect the salvation of humanity?) and others work to hash out the coherence between a religious system and our experienced reality (for example, "how can you reconcile belief in creation with scientific observations about nature?"). Some completely rational religious people, I think, can be sucked in by the "internal coherence" thing, satisfying themselves with the way a religion's doctrines lock together, and virtually ignoring the question of whether their religious system corresponds with experience outside of the system. The guy in "Under the Banner of Heaven" fell into that trap, and so do the young earth creationists.

Most people don't do that though, I'd say. Rather, religion that lasts tends to be internally coherent, AND to correspond with popular perceptions of the nature of reality. That's why religion changes over time with culture, albeit slowly. We've stopped viewing the world as flat, so we no longer (literally) believe that God exists in a realm beyond the sky.

The problem for religious folks, I think, is that they often can't seem to keep up with the overall growth of knowledge, and in fact sometimes seek to impede or deny that growth where it calls their fundamental belief into question. That's why Christians tend to identify as "conservative", and we still have young earth creationists and people who hold a magical worldview, protecting scriptures and beliefs from the prying eyes of history and science. In America, the dominant Evangelical Protestant stream of American Christianity has been extraordinarily successful in resisting the growth of knowledge where it conflicts with the doctrines of religion, and now is a system of belief that's generally internally coherent, but is in many places seriously out of touch with modern (and undeniably true) understandings about reality. Things are changing somewhat though, which helps to explain the success of Rob Bell at the other Mars Hill Church, who is my new favorite Evangelical and the anti-Mark Driscoll in a lot of ways. It's definitely possible to have a system of belief which is Christian, and which corresponds with history, science, and psychology and the other social sciences, but it will look much different than American Evangelical Protestantism.

Those who are fortunate enough to be Anglicans are somewhat ahead of the curve on these things, though we're generally so averse to proselytization that most people don't know it. Scripture, Tradition and Reason (not necessarily in that order) are the pillars of our faith, and that has generally played out to mean that the mind, reason and learning are allowed to constantly re-evaluate our belief system. You hear that there aren't many great Anglican theologians, but I think the truth is that we don't express our theology in the same terms--we don't seek to systematize as much as we seek to formulate and re-formulate. That's why we're frequently out front on theological issues, and often condemned as heretics by those who are more locked in to traditional beliefs. I've developed a lot of faith in the Anglican way of doing things, and am worried that the Communion as a whole might be drifting away from reason with the rest of the world.

The follow-up question is whether religion is a good thing, or whether it would be better to do away with it. That one is tougher, and the American example tends to argue for the latter solution. But then, the American example also tends to suggest that we should do away with government, television, business and Twinkies. Thankfully, you don't have to base your whole view of reality on the American example.

Spiritual maturity, Mars Hill, and me making people wish I'd shut up.

Last night I went to a party at a friend's place, and as conversations inevitably do when I'm at parties, discussion turned towards religion. Inevitably my opinions lined up more with the non-religious folks than with the religious folks, and even more inevitably I ended up taking a few frustrated pot shots at Mars Hill, Seattle's indie rock macho-man megachurch where most of the religious folk in the room attended. I really try not to be abrasive in these sorts of situations--respecting other people's opinions, giving people room to grow, and all that--but I'm sure I stepped on some toes. Mark Driscoll, the pastor at Mars Hill, is an easy target in a lot of ways because he's big and public and loud and obnoxious, and he's theologically very conservative. Though I think he's a generally sincere (and funny) guy, he's also got a bullying leadership style and has more than his fair share of misogynistic and homophobic tendencies (preach as he might about loving the sinner and hating the sin). I'm sure at some point I called him nasty names. (I know. I'm sorry. I shouldn't do such things, particularly around his acolytes who are also my friends. If I do, I should at least keep my comments under my breath, or pretend like I'm sneezing when I say them. "ah ah ah chewbigot!")

Most people in Seattle look on Mars Hill warily, I would guess, as a place that's teaching a worldview that's out of step with Seattle's good sense and progressivism, but lots of Christians around the country and blogosphere look at it as a model example of the way for churches to attract the youngsters (most of the congregation is under 30). To me, I'm like whatever dude. I've seen enough megachurches to know that Mars Hill really isn't anything unusual. Like most megachurches, it opens the door with a good show (their music is probably the most appealing Protestant church-music I've heard), appeals to predominant American Protestant conservative religious instincts, and is founded on the charisma of one really good preacher. These places are a big feature of our modern religious landscape.

Some megachurches are more problematic than others though. At all of these places, the preacher basically plays a celebrity role, and for some reason we Americans have a hard time questioning our celebrities' opinions. With our spiritual celebrities, we act as if they're smarter or holier than us (because they have a public leadership role? because we don't want to go to the trouble of sorting out issues on our own? because we all want there to be someone who's got the answers?), and we follow their lead. When they screw up, as they inevitably do, we're shocked. We thought they knew it all and were completely trustworthy. Come to find out they're just like us, only with shinier suits and more time to think up jokes for sermons.

Now, the best religious leaders know this, and do their best to guard themselves against the temptations of power. They hand over power to others in important areas. They're honest about their shortcomings. They realize their limitations. They openly promote the questioning of their ideas. They distinguish their own ideas from "the divine word of God". They try not to give people the impression that Angels delivered a message to them while they were in the shower, and that all must obey or go to Hell. Sometimes they make mistakes and disappoint, but when they do so, people generally tend to be prepared and understanding. Laity in these congregations tend to be spiritually mature as well, because they are given the ability to sort issues out on their own rather than doing what the pastor tells them. (A good definition of spiritual maturity, I say, is being wise enough to not do what the preacher tells you to.)

The worst religious leaders, on the other hand, consolidate and guard power. They discourage questioning. They take charge of committees. They micromanage. They bully and abuse. They give people the impression that they somehow know the absolute truth--either God delivered it to them first hand, or they've found it plainly written in Scripture, such that it can't be brought into question. (I think this is frequently a reflection of sad insecurity, by the way.) If the leader is charismatic enough, the upside of this approach is that lots of people will tend to treat them as an ultimate authority, and will do what the Angel's suggested to the pastor while he was in the shower for fear of Hell or retribution. People may or may not actually believe what the leader says, but they'll generally obey (at least publicly) because they like the dude and want to be identified with him (and it's almost always a him). These types of leaders tend to polarize, because they attack the people that disagree with them. They also tend to hurt their congregations, because they're ultimately going to screw up and disappoint the people who looked to them as an emissary from God. Or, they'll drift into the cult leader role, and actually lead their followers to do things that are self-destructive. These sorts of churches, I think, do almost nothing to encourage actual spiritual growth--they tend to encourage conformity and moralism, and produce guilt-ridden followers.

By this point, you've probably figured out where I'm going with this. Whatever my theological disagreements with the Mars Hill crowd, and Reformed Evangelical types in general, the heart of my concern is with the leadership style and the church culture there (and at a lot of churches). From what I've gathered, (full disclosure: I've only been there once, but I do follow their blogs, occasionally watch webcasts, follow their media coverage, and have lots of friends who go there) the senior leadership there leans pretty heavily towards the controlling side. They like the whole "absolute truth" from above thing, generally discourage questioning, operate behind closed doors, and so forth. People are ostracized and excommunicated, and all that sort of fun stuff. I think that's abusive, whether it's intended to be or not. (As that old Nazi Will Smith pointed out, even Hitler thought he was doing the right thing, so I'm really not that into the "good-intentions" argument). In the end, Mark Driscoll strikes me as the linebacker on the high school football team who pushes people around to make his buddies laugh, and then apologizes when he gets called out on it, as if he didn't know what he was doing. He wants everyone to like him, but he also wants everyone to do what he says. I really don't have a huge problem with Evangelicals, per se, I just can't deal with this kind of leadership behavior.

And he's always making fun of Episcopalians.

Is it April Fools Day?

You have to be kidding me! $1.5 bloody billion. I really don't know what kind of country I'm living in anymore. It's like National Lampoon's 1984.

"Feds share coupons to help TV transition

By JOHN DUNBAR, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 23 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Millions of $40 government coupons become available Tuesday to help low-tech television owners buy special converter boxes for older TVs that might not work after the switch to digital broadcasting.

Beginning Feb. 18, 2009, anyone who does not own a digital set and still gets their programming via over-the-air antennas will no longer receive a picture.

That's the day the television industry completes its transition from old-style analog broadcasting to digital.

The converter boxes are expected to cost between $50 and $70 and will be available at most major electronics retail stores. Starting Tuesday, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration will begin accepting requests for two $40 coupons per household to be used toward the purchase of the boxes.

Viewers who have satellite or cable service will not need a box.

Congress, in ordering the transition to digital broadcasting, set aside $1.5 billion for the coupon program, which will fund 33.5 million coupons and other costs.

The giveaway basically works under the honor system.

The first 22 million coupons will go to all households that request them. That includes a residence that gets cable service for one television but has a spare TV that still uses an antenna, for example.

The rest of the coupons, however, are meant only for those who do not subscribe to a pay-television service.

The Nielsen Co. estimates that 14.3 million households, or about 13 percent of the 112.8 million total television households in the nation, rely on over-the-air television broadcasts for programming.

Tony Wilhelm, director of consumer education for NTIA, said the agency expects to have enough coupons to satisfy demand. "We think the high number will be 26 million," he said. "Low end is 10 million."

Members of Congress have criticized both the National Telecommunications and Information Administration and the Federal Communications Commission for their work on the transition to digital television.

In November, the Government Accountability Office, Congress' investigative arm, released a report that concluded there is "no comprehensive plan" for the transition.

Most of the concern rests with public education campaigns. While Congress allocated $1.5 billion for the coupon program, only $5 million was for education. The Association for Public Television Stations reported in September that 51 percent of participants surveyed were unaware that the transition was taking place.

Since then, the broadcast industry has announced a voluntary public education campaign. The FCC is circulating a plan among commissioners that would make public education efforts by broadcasters mandatory.

Congress ordered the transition to digital broadcasting to make more efficient use of the publicly owned airwaves.

On Jan. 24, the FCC will auction off the spectrum currently used for analog television. That portion of the airwaves will be sold to wireless providers and is expected to bring in as much as $15 billion. A portion of the spectrum will also be dedicated for use by emergency responders."

(Righteously Indignant Update: For the record, that $1.5 billion is 300 million more than the US government gives annually to fight Malaria, a disease that is highly preventable and kills almost a million people a year. So we can watch digital fucking TV. Americans hate socialism because their only experience of government is of the US government.)