A declamation of John Fugelsand.

Will Christians please stand up for the REAL Jesus.

A little while ago I saw a quote from John Fugelsand (a comedian and actor) posted on Facebook. It  was labelled, "an amazing rant", and seemed to be both "liked" and applauded by a number of people. On the surface, it looked fairly benign. Further examination however, reveals a litany of inaccuracies and populist viewpoints.

Here is the quote as printed in the Huffington Post. Which also quoted Fugelsand as saying "God is a sociopath". A statement I have a great deal of trouble with. For now I'll just deal with this one and examine it a piece at a time.

"Jesus was a radical non-violent revolutionary who hung around with Lepers Hookers and Crooks.
Wasn't American and Never spoke English.
Was anti-wealth, anti death penalty, anti public prayer (M 6:5) But was never anti gay, never mentioned abortion or birth control and never called the poor lazy.
Never mentioned torture, never fought for tax cuts for the wealthiest Nazarenes, never asked a Leper for a copay.
And was a long haired, brown skinned, homeless, community organizing, anti slut shaming middle eastern Jew."

"Jesus was". The first two words are troubling. They put Jesus firmly in the past tense, which can only really apply to certain life events, i.e. He was  born in Bethlehem. He was crucified. To apply the past tense to his character and views is to suggest that he changed. The correct view of the nature and character of God is that he is "unchanging". Mal 3:6. To say "Jesus was" is to consign him to history. Just another good man, like Ghandi or Mandela.

"Radical non-violent Revolutionary". No, wrong again. One people group of the time that were keen to align themselves to a messianic figure were the Zealots. They sought a violent overthrow of Roman oppression. At no point did Jesus align himself with their cause. As for non-violence, well he did make that whip and made a mess of the corrupt money-changers' trade.

"Hung around with lepers, hookers and crooks." No, an incorrect point of view. Yes he did go to the home of Simon the Leper, Matt 26:6 and Mark 14:3. It is most probable, however, that Simon was a leper that had been healed, most likely by Jesus. Under Jewish Law, as a leper, he would have had to live outside of the community, away from his family, definitely not in his own house. Visiting a leper would have made Jesus unclean and excluded him from temple worship. Simon is identified as "the leper" in the same way that the other Simons were identified, "the sorcerer" "the zealot" "of Cyrene" and "Simon Peter". It is the same for the numerous Marys we encounter. The correct view here would be that these groups of people sought Jesus out, underwent a radical life change, and then followed him. Jesus in no way ever condoned their continuing to be "hookers and crooks".  The only exception here would be Judas Iscariot. Jesus knew full well his corrupted duplicitous heart, but knew also his key role in the greater plan.

"Wasn't American and never spoke English". At the risk of sounding juvenile here. Well d'uh, nice going captain obvious. At this point in history neither the English language nor the USA existed. I get the point though, this is an attack on the American church, rather, the more fundamental side of it that claims to be the sole arbiter on all things Biblical. So he's not being pro Jesus here, he's attacking his church.

"Anti wealth". No. A reference to the rich young ruler, the camel through the eye of the needle. A common assumption. But wrong. The full context is the position the acquisition of wealth takes in your life. If you have riches only for your own sake, then you live selfishly. This is a point made very clearly throughout the Bible.

"Anti Death Penalty" This comment is tied to the "Anti Slut Shaming" comment at the end. Wrong again. Jesus could not countermand the laws of God. The very same laws he exhorted others to obey.
What he did was demonstrate what grace looks like, he places mercy above judgement, remembering that he will act as judge in the end. Until then his mercy is available to all.

"Public Prayer". Wrong, Jesus himself prayed publicly on many occasions as well as privately. What Jesus warned against was false piety. A self righteous religious expression that was performed solely for the approval of others.

"Torture, tax cuts and copays." Coupled with public prayer, this is a political statement. It has nothing to do with Jesus. While I am not familiar with the term "copay" I gather it is some U.S Medicare/Obamacare arrangement. Yet when Jesus healed the Lepers he commanded them to show themselves to the priest, and make the sacrifice that the law requires for their cleansing. Sounds sort of like a medical examination with a payment attached to it?

"Anti-gay, abortion, birth control". While these were not current topics in the time of Jesus' ministry, it draws on a weak assumption. Just because Jesus did not address an issue, that does not mean that the rest of the Bible, (the other 62 books) doesn't either. There is a proper theological process for interpreting scripture. It was ignored, in this well rehearsed poorly researched statement.

The final section is a bunch of fairly obvious, needless statements, a couple of points he finally gets right. Jesus was a middle eastern Jew.
I do take issue with the "anti slut shaming" part of it. Jesus would never have used such a derogatory term. It says more about Johns view of the adulterous woman than it does about Jesus. Jesus offered her forgiveness, not harmful insulting labels.

In the end, these views offer us a politically correct Jesus, the Jesus people are comfortable talking about. These are incorrect assertions based on ill-founded assumptions. There is very little of anything by the way of truth here.

Captain Corelli's Mandolin

This is another one of those book verses film dilemmas.

When I first heard of the movie I thought "Chick Flick." I haven't seen the movie in total, just a snippet somewhere in the middle, it didn't grab me. But, once again I found myself with a book that I wasn't likely to pick up because of the movie. This time, it was a present from my wife.

I was pleasantly surprised to discover that the author, Louis De Bernieres, is a multiple award winning writer. So again, my new criteria, to only read award winning books and writers, was satisfied. A little bit of research revealed that the author did 26 or so rewrites of the book because he wanted to get the story right, he wanted to be faithful to the people and history of Cephallonia. It has all the flavour of an extremely well researched book. Touching on; music, medicine, history and culture, and always, with the authority of someone very well acquainted with their subject.

De Bernieres writes in many voices; male, female, goatherd, musician, doctor, priest, soldier, Greek, Italian, German and others. There are two chapters devoted to Mussolini, one, in the voice of "Il Duce", elevating himself in marvellous pomposity and self delusion. While another pillories the dictator with delicious irony and mock praise. It is the voice of one that has had the veil torn away and now sees the unclad emperor in all his naked transparency.

There are parts of this book that are reminiscent of Hemmingway's "A Farewell to Arms". But this is a much better telling, a far richer landscape. It was a book that at times I couldn't put down, and at others was loth to continue. It is a book rich with humour, and yet it is appalling. It makes us laugh at our own humanity, and at the same time it disgusts us with our "Inhumanity". It is, in many ways, a true Greek Tragedy. In the midst of calamity we laugh. In the midst of joy we despair.

When reading "A Farewell to Arms" I deduced the outcome about two thirds of the way through. Yet  with this book I was genuinely reluctant to reach the end, because I wasn't sure. I felt as though the writer had gone too far from a possible "happy ending", and was just tying up loose ends. I thought he had left clues, while always I was missing the obvious ones. I thought the story was about one theme of continuity and moving on, something from the past being carried into the future. But I was wrong, and I am glad I was wrong. It is many themes, it is many stories. It speaks to a past and a future.

I only have one small criticism. And that is, that this book has the hallmark of a writer a little bit too in love with his own vocabulary. He uses highly descriptive words when simpler will do just as well. Then you realise maybe he's just in love with some new words and keeps using them all the time, whenever they can justifiably fit in. That kind of writing annoys me and smacks a bit of literary pride. If a word or phrase satisfies the ego more than the story, it shouldn't be there.

I recommend you read this book, but don't stop there, read his other works. I'm going to read more of De Bernieres. Because his ability to weave a story is stunning.

Book Review. Marley and Me.

There are certain actors, that for me are a kind of "no go zone." I'm quite sure you're the same. If they're the star of a film, you probably won't go and see it. For me, one of those actors is Owen Wilson. Jennifer Aniston falls into a similar vein, but has at least attempted some films with more weight to them. So naturally, I didn't bother to see the movie release of Marley and Me. I don't have a grudge against Owen Wilson, I just don't rate him as a serious actor. I find him one dimensional, and I don't think he's good enough too carry a film, especially one with so much emotional weight as this.

With all this bad publicity running around in my own head, I wasn't likely to pick up the book. But it was recommended to me by someone in my writers group. When I saw it in a second hand bin I thought I should give the writer a chance.

Lately, I've been reading a lot of books that have gone to film. Mostly, films are a poor interpretation of the writers intention. They do not convey the heart and weight of the story. In future, if I want a good story I may just pay the equivalent of a movie ticket on a book.

Which brings me to this book.

John Grogan  is an award winning journalist and columnist. So it's a pretty good bet that he knows how to write a story. He does, and he does it very well.

He wrote Marley and Me in 2005, it was a best seller. The film was released in 2008. So yes, I am a little late with the review, but let's continue anyway.

Marley and Me is his own, or rather his dogs story, in fact it's both. Actually, it encompasses the whole family, and as Marley grows, so do they. The Grogan's wanted to try raising a dog before they tried being parents. If raising the worlds worst dog is an adequate primer for parenthood? Well I don't know about that. What I do know is this. It is a story of; joy, frustration, grief, celebration and life. It is heart warming and heart wrenching.

Marley is a big lunatic goof ball of a Golden Labrador. He will barge his way through the screen door of your heart, and leave fur balls behind. He was expelled from obedience school, but wins hearts everywhere.

Grogan has written this story with warts and all honesty. He let's us in, even into the most personal moments of deepest despair. If he's pulled any of his punches, he hasn't pulled them by much. He will make you laugh out loud, then give you a moment to cry. You will do both and won't be able to put this book down. Even when you know it's going to hurt if you continue. But he doesn't leave you there, in the end he lets you recover. He gives the reader hope. It's not a happy ending, but it is a healthy one.

After reading this book, you probably shouldn't go straight out and buy a dog. But if you love a good well written story, you should definitely go out and get a copy of this book. I'm certainly glad I did.

The Emotional Cloud.

In our enlightened modern society, it has become increasingly difficult to have a simple little thing like, an opinion.

It used to be said, "Never talk about Religion and Politics." Well that list seems to be growing. Now it is nigh on impossible to hold an opinion publicly on any number of newly taboo, hot button topics. Subjects such as; Climate Change, Asylum Seekers, Same Sex Marriage, Euthanasia, Abortion, Indigenous Rights and many more.

Dare to express an opinion that is contrary to the accepted mainstream view, i.e. the one that is  most loudly trumpeted in the media by the overly vocal minority activist, and you get labelled "Hater," in a flood of intolerant backlash. It matters not if your views are indeed hateful or not, it has been expressed, and it differs to theirs, that is enough.

There have been many instances in the past year, of people being publicly castigated, even persecuted for their traditional views on marriage. Orson Scott Card, and the CEO Of Mozilla for instance. They have been labelled "Hateful" simply because they hold an opinion, dared to express it, or acted on the conviction of their belief.

But this is not a new phenomena, and it is not unique to a select few. It is common to all of us. We view life through an emotional cloud. We attach identity to issues.

A common joke in journalism, I'm sure you've heard it, says. "Never let the facts get in the way of a good story."

Well I fear we tend to do just that. Why don't we take the opposite stance. Let's try this.

Don't let a good story get in the way of the facts.

This was highlighted to me recently, in one of those tedious emotionally charged posts that circulate in social media.

This one was about some guy in Africa, who worked with Elephants. The post was wrought with highly emotive details about how all these Elephants walked for "days" to stand at his property to mourn his death. A beautifully told story. But it wasn't true. Well the part about his death was true.
Then I looked at the comments below the post, because quite honestly, I smelled a rat. Sure enough, there were comments from people that had bothered to do the research, and proved the inaccuracies in the tale.

Predictably, there was a backlash, comments along the lines of. "I don't care what truth you have dug up from wherever, it's a beautiful story." Yes, but it's not true. That's the problem, the story got in the way of the facts.

We all do it. We attach too much importance on a fictional T.V. character. We take ownership of an issue, we hold to a particular political party, a football team or code, and all else fades from view. Our attachment clouds our vision, worse, it clouds our ability to reason.

I'm about to take a very treacherous journey into the unknown. I'm writing a book, it's my second, but this one's a novel, my own creation. Today, I finished the second draft. Like most writers, I'm very close to it, too close in fact. So I have to submit it to some first readers. I no longer know if it is a good story or even well written. I've read and reread, rewritten, edited, scrapped bits, added other bits and generally spent so much time staring at the words that I am no longer certain. I have to let go. I have to entrust this thing to others. I need an objective view.

I'm writing this today, to remind myself, to step out of the emotional cloud, and face the facts. Whatever they may be. Hopefully, it will make me, and my writing, stronger.

MUSICAL LANDSCAPES

At about the same time I was discovering my musical "ear", I was also learning how to read topographical maps. I loved those maps, I loved looking at contour lines, landmarks, rivers, roads and just about every other feature they displayed. Even more than that, I loved walking over the same land I saw on the maps. Walking in the bush around the escarpments, over rivers, down gorges and up the ridge lines. Finding the campsites we had planned. At times the plans went somewhat awry, usually the fault of the weather, I also love weather maps, and pay closer attention to them now.

My journey of discovery into music was pretty much the same, it was mapped in part by some, in particular my older brother, who had gone before me. My brother introduced me to Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, Jethro Tull and many others of that same era, but there were some that left a lasting impact. And for very good reasons.

Neil Young's Harvest. Mike Oldfield's Tubular Bells. Yes, with Close to the Edge. Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon. These Albums perhaps had the greatest impact. The music was layered, authentic, it was the work of people that were willing to craft their work, rather than just pump it out. I was thinking today about some of the songs on Harvest; Old Man, Alabama, Words, A Man Needs a Maid to name a few. I can't tell you what it was about these songs, they were all different. But they all impacted me.

Tubular Bells is perhaps a bit obvious, or is it? Was it just an epic piece of work that quickly became the favourite go to piece for movie makers? Certainly the music has shifting moods and many big moments. Was it the astounding idea that one person wrote the music, played every instrument in that recording and did the recording himself? Possibly. There's nothing like a bit of (truthful) mythology to galvanise the attention of your audience. Or perhaps maybe, the music is just brilliant.

Yes, and their Close to the Edge Album. The Roger Dean artwork on many of their album covers is certainly a drawcard. But you don't listen to the artwork do you? No, the music must speak for itself.
Yes is not to everyone's liking, but they got my attention. Was it the music, again so layered and multi faceted? The dreamscape lyrics that took you into the fantastical artwork? Many of my contemporaries were less than tolerant of my love of this band, they dismissed the songs as too long, maybe the music was too complex. Yes' style was often described as, symphonic rock, playing "pieces" rather than songs. Their first three albums however had more of a Jazz-Fusion feel to them. Their first drummer Bill Bruford, like Charlie Watts, was a Jazz drummer. Their sound however changed and evolved. They survived a horrible period in the late 70's. Today they still play the music that marked them out from the mainstream crowd.

Pink Floyd need no explanation, they were more than ground breaking, they were earth shatteringly brilliant.

Back to the beginning. My musical ear was developing at just the right moment. Otherwise I might not have known how truly awful Disco really was, it was so in authentic, it was fast food pop. Driven by the gods of commercial wisdom and trend setting. Pop music for me, comes under the same umbrella. It's Mills and Boon with a tune.

The other night I was watching Les Mis',the one with Hugh Jackman. I had an epiphany, of sorts. I realised that truly magnificent music requires serious engagement, both from the listener as well as the writer. Isn't that true though of all writing? To write a song, or a musical score and then to perform it with some sort of justification requires a serious investment of yourself. At the time of the Beatles explosion on the music scene, the majority of popular music in America was written by just a handful of people. Imagine that, an entire market controlled by just a few people churning out the same diet of paint by numbers 3 minute 20 second pop gruel.

If you haven't made the investment, why should I buy it? You have to earn my audience. Pop music and it's current trend of performance criteria. Well see for yourself. Any live music performance that needs massive stage productions, bevies of dancers and performers, has just one purpose. To dazzle you beyond your ability to recognise a bad song. If the music itself is not enough to hold my attention, then it's not good enough. You know the saying about putting lipstick on a pig? Yeah, it's still a pig.

My firmest belief about music is this. There are two types of people. Those that put music on. Those that listen. Listening requires stillness, a willingness to shut out all else, to expose yourself to it, to absorb it into yourself, music must connect. Switchfoot front man John Foreman penned the lyrics. "If we're adding to the noise, turn off this song". A bold statement, if it doesn't connect? then leave it.

SO, where is my landscape today? Well it too has evolved. I still eschew mainstream pop. My choice of artists has evolved somewhat, I now include Many classical pieces to my playlists. But there is one group I have recently fallen in love with that pushes all the right buttons for me.

Future of Forestry. The name comes from a C.S. Lewis poem. The group had a previous incarnation as "Something Like Silas". What can I say about the music? Multifaceted? Layered? Innovative? Yes all of these, but there is more. Artistry, thematic, a shifting landscape. No one album hints at or echoes another. Front man Eric Owyoung refuses to be tied down to a style, constantly changing instrumental emphasis. But there is something more to it, the most important of all. It engages. Sometimes you want to dance, to cry to stand on the top of a mountain and shout to the heavens of its magnificence. It breathes as if a life of its own. This music is topographical, it is contoured and multi featured, it takes you places, places you want to visit time and again. When you go there, you're less likely to be seduced by the latest new sensation, you're content to stay.