links for 2006-06-25

0

T-Bone Burnett Between Heaven And Earth

Further to my previous post on Thursday, I got an email this morning from Joe Rhodes of the Los Angeles Magazine. He has interviewed Burnett for the July issue. The piece is not available online, but he kindly sent me a PDF of it. If you’re anywhere near LA I highly recommend you buy it and read it. There is so much about his history, music, art and spirituality.

With Joe’s permission I quote the final paragraph of the interview, because it restates and develops the quote I gave in Thursday’s blog:

“I am interested in getting away from the world of ideas and more into the world where science and religion and art are all the same thing,” he says. “I’m interested in what all those things say about life, about something outside of you and inside of you at the same time. Getting to that place between heaven and earth where, you know, it’s neither one.”

Seems to me like a healthy belief that all truth is God’s truth, leading to an openness about when and where God may speak, rather than thinking God is constricted within a religious straitjacket of our making. And of course we are called to live somewhere between heaven and earth now, in that time of overlap between the kingdom of God that is breaking in and the kingdom of darkness.


Technorati Tags: , , , , , , ,

0

There Is A God

I’ve been pondering for a couple of days the furore caused by Nike‘s poster of Wayne Rooney in crucifixion mode. Certain things we can take for granted: it would get attention and cause controversy. And attention is what you want in advertising. Footy-boots.com suggests they need the publicity right now, because Adidas are the official World Cup sponsors. It has attracted political and religious condemnation, from Labour MP Stephen Pound saying that football “doesn’t need big business trying to inject even more aggression into the mix” to the Revd Rod Thomas of the conservative evangelical Anglican group Reform saying,

“It’s quite a disturbing image and because the paint is wet, it really looks like blood. It therefore brings to mind the crucifixion to many people, and why
Nike would want to do that, I haven’t a clue, unless it is simply as a
publicity stunt.

“The trivialisation of Christ’s suffering is highly offensive to Christians and to God. This will cause real hurt to people.

“The other aspect of it is the aggression contained in it, bound
up with the flag of St George, which you might see as a throwback to
the Crusades, which is hardly going to go down well with Muslim
countries. It’s offensive on several different levels.”

And when Nike’s spokesperson says this, is there any reason to believe a single word of it? I think not:

“It was intended solely as a celebration of Rooney’s return to the
team and is based on his own trademark goal-scoring celebration,
nothing to do with the crucifuxion at all, ‘ she added.

“If we have offended anyone on those grounds, we would stress
it was unintentional and we apologise. It is not meant to be an
aggressive picture, either. It was a case of catching the mood of the
nation as everyone urges Rooney on to great things, and of course our
slogan puts it perfectly.

“The red paint is not meant to be blood, it’s just echoing the
body paint which fans cover themselves in and the rest of Wayne’s body
is painted white. It’s the flag of St George, and nothing else.

“We have had nothing but positive reaction to the poster and a
lot of people have been asking if they can buy it. We have no plans to
produce it as a poster.”

Both Pound and Thomas make interesting points that get beyond the ‘Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells’ approach, although that’s how Thomas sounds in part. It’s pleasantly surprising to hear Thomas being concerned for Muslim reactions. His comment about the imagery being offensive to Christians and to God may well be true if Rooney is being portrayed as a Messiah figure, given the headline on The Sun  on 6th June, “There Is A God” (Rooney was back kicking a ball sooner than expected after his metatarsal injury).

But in Scripture who are most castigated for doing things that are offensive to God? Is it not his followers? Just to say that an advert offends Christians is not going to do well. In fact in an age that is credally antithetical to authority, it is likely to attract even more offensive content. Oh good, we’ve offended them, let’s do it even more, goes the rather juvenile mood.

So should the Church have kept quiet? There is something deeply Gospel about bearing our insults in a quiet and dignified way. But even so I still think something should have been said, just that it should have been said in a considerably different tone. Is not the truth that we have missed an opportunity to say something about how different the Gospel is, rather than just castigate people? Could we not have said something about what the Cross means, and how it portrays a Messiah who delivers his people not by blasting them away but by truly redemptive suffering? And alongside that, could we not have modelled forgiveness to Nike?

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2

Create a website or blog at WordPress.com

Up ↑