(Display Name not set)May 2006 Archives

If you’re like me, the worlds of spiritual reflection and cultural relevance often meet at Starbucks, where I go for anything from solitude and reflection time to business meetings or reunions with friends. So I’m a Starbucks lover, but I’m not sure I’m ready for its latest move.

Several major publications have recently reported on Starbucks’ intention to make a deeper dent into our cultural direction and our personal decisions. “Starbucks is changing what we eat and drink. It's altering where and when we work and play. It's shaping how we spend time and money. That's just for appetizers,” says USA Today. “Starbucks has an even glitzier goal: to help rewrite society's pop culture menu.”

“The company recently announced an alliance with the William Morris Agency, a talent and literary agency that will help Starbucks identify music, film, and book projects to consider for marketing and distribution in its stores,” offers The Washington Times.

And they’re not just floating the idea: They already have licensing agreements “with most of the major record labels that will give it the ability to offer everything from Britney Spears and The Polyphonic Spree to Yo-Yo Ma and Ray Charles,” reports Business Week. “Chairman Howard Schultz, sitting casually in his office near a photo of him arm-in-arm with Mick Jagger (said), ‘Our customers have given us permission to extend the experience.’"

I don’t know about you, but I haven’t given my permission. I find myself unsure of whether I want Starbucks to be a convenient marketplace or a break from it. I can handle, "Would you like a muffin or a bagel today?” or “Would you like to sample our latest coffee?” I’m not sure I’m ready for, “Can I get you a CD or DVD with your coffee today?” I think I want a break from being sold on something.

Says the USA Today article: “Schultz says Starbucks still has to earn its stripes as tastemaker. Much as it would like to become an ‘editor’ of culture, he says, ‘one of the great strengths of Starbucks is our humility.’

That’s a nice branding soundbite, but I think Starbucks is showing more pride than humility. I’m curious to see how it goes.

"The Da Vinci Code" is finally here. The P.R. machine that had Tom Hanks and his "Da Vinci" 'do at the Oscars and trailers running for a year has succeeded. The reviews are out. Ministries around the world are spreading the word about the “fiction” of The Code. This week’s water-cooler question is, “Are you going to see it?” Next week’s will be, “What’d you think of it?”

I think the most important question will not be what we think about the film, but instead, “What do we think about its main character?” And that main character is not Leonardo da Vinci or Tom Hanks or Mary Magdalene. The main character—The One whose identity and purpose is at the center of the story—is Jesus Christ.

"Almost everything our fathers taught us about Christ is false," says the book on page 235. What do you think about that? What do I? Those questions about Him far outweigh what we think of the film. Each of us has the right—and the responsibility—to make our own decisions about who He is and what that has to do with our lives. Our decision in that regard far transcends opinions and discussions about how good this movie is.

And for me, that is the most exciting and continuing drama—the one about how God has reached out to His creation to explain and reveal who He is through Creation, the Incarnation, the Bible, and His providential acts. It is not only more lasting and intriguing than any movie, it's a drama in which you and I play a significant part.

"The West Wing" will go down in television history as one of the most wonderfully relevant shows and enduring DVD buys, even if its series finale was, dang it, such a bore.

I enjoyed reading Michael Kress’s blog piece about the series, and appreciated the reminder that the finale was coming up. What a shame that it had to be such an anti-climax, but it really had no chance to rank up there with significant series finales such as “Seinfeld,” “Friends,” and “Cheers,” and going even further back, “M*A*S*H*” and “The Carol Burnett Show.” At least when those shows ended, the “Friends” were still friends, most of the “Cheers” characters were still around the bar, and Hawkeye was still Hawkeye. Yes, those shows had transitions as well, but the new characters had become family by the time the show ended. Not so with Alan Alda’s Arnold Vinick and Jimmy Smits’s Matt Santos. They were likeable, but they hadn’t become beloved.

And what of the beloved ones? Well, the recent plotline for "West Wing" was true to the nature of the show, but it didn’t make for a great ending. The difference between the first show (aired immediately prior to the finale) and the last was noticeable, if not dramatic. The eclectic group of young politicos and youthful career wonks that initially surrounded President Bartlett had gone their different directions. Leo passed away. Toby was muted. Sam ran for Congress and ended up at a cushy law firm. Josh lost much of his charm when he went on the road. Will was less interesting when he lost Toby and Sam to banter with. C.J., Charlie, and the Bartletts endured to the end, as did Donna in her new role, but of that group, only C.J. was part of the original group of stars. (Martin Sheen’s Bartlett was barely more than a cameo until the series picked up steam).

The enduring thing about "The West Wing" will be the nature of its themes and topics, and the dialogue which focused on intelligent issues of government, such as laws, policies, departments, little known facts, and current events (especially in its early years). It examined presidential decision-making and policies in almost every show, notably “A Proportional Response,” “The Short List” and “The Lame Duck Congress.” It looked at governmental procedures (“The Stackhouse Filibuster,” “Ways and Means”) and examined the relationship between faith and leadership (“Shibboleth,” “Two Cathedrals”). It took a hard look at some of our more ridiculous but enduring traditions (“The Leadership Breakfast,” “The U.S. Poet Laureate”) and inserted the occasional and artful dose of Latin (“Eppur Si Muove,” “Posse Comitatus,” “Post Hoc, Ergo, Propter Hoc).

I also appreciated President Bartlett's memorization of scripture and his reciting of it in the midst of policy discussions. Such leadership is not--and has never been--a violation of church and state, and was part of the finale, via his discussion with his successor, Pres. Santos, about the tradition of including a Bible quote in the Inaugural speech.

At the end, President Bartlett was looking out the window of the former Air Force One when asked by Mrs. Bartlett what he was thinking about. “Tomorrow,” he said. I wish it would have been, “What’s Next?”

This week's Boston Legal again took several shots at the George W. Bush administration, especially on the topics of abortion, womens' rights, Bush's random out-of-step-ness with society, and our alleged patriarchal approach to foreign policy.

It got me--a Bush-loving Republican--to thinking about two things:

1. This show doesn't even veil its attempts at taking direct shots at our president every week; and,
2. I really like this show.

How is it that I can tune in week after week to something that is sure to take a direct shot across the bow at the policies of our government? This week it was abortion. Last week it was Tom Delay, corruption, lobbyists, money, and illegial aliens. In other recent weeks, it's been gun control, victims' rights, racial profiling, Bush's serveillance campaign... the list goes one. At some point, the show has blatantly supported just about everything a typical Bible-believing, God-fearing American would stand against: adultery, fornication, homosexuality, polygamy, laziness, and gluttony (and that's really just for starters!)

And then this week, it hit me: I discovered the answer. I know what makes this show so attractive: civility.

"Boston Legal" manages each week to put our nation's political issues--as well as its moral ones--on display in the context of humor we can laugh at, relationships we can empathize with, and civil dialogue we can follow. The dramatic absence of anger and bitterness mixes with the presence of humor and love in a way that could create honest discussions of important matters if we'd let it.

There was a day when I could disagree with you and you could disagree with me and it didn't mean we couldn't like each other, love each other, fight for causes together, go to church together and raise our families together. Today we are so quick to label each other as red or blue, liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, Christian or not... except for a few moments each week when we find ourselves in relationships--or viewing a rogue TV show--where agreement isn't a prerequisite for civility.

And the spiritual power of personal responsibility and unconditional love can be released there.

One of Beliefnet’s news stories this weekened was about Emily Saliers, a lesbian who is one-half of the singing group The Indigo Girls. She was invited to be a speaker at the United Methodist Women's Assembly this past weekend in Anaheim, Calif.

I think the most important issue isn’t about homosexuality, celebrity, culture, religion, or Methodists. I think it’s about how many of us strongly believe in something like “love the sinner, hate the sin,” as our expression of Christian love. As a phrase, it summarizes the kind of love Jesus expressed and modeled as well as what many of us long to humbly and non-judgmentally live out in our own lives. The problem is that we also must form associations, contracts, commitments, governances, companies, and other entities that must draw real boundaries and stand for real convictions.

There are a significant number of women in the United Methodist Church who were glad she was on the speaking program because they believe the church should be more open and inclusive regarding the homosexual lifestyle. There are also many in the denomination who believe homosexuality should not be condoned in any way by the church and wanted her disinvited. There are still others who don’t have a strong opinion either way as much as they don’t think this kind of controversy is what the annual renewal conference is supposed to be about. Still others love the media attention it has drawn to the event because this is obviously a current and debated issue in the church.

The question of homosexuality and the church’s treatment of both the issue and the people struggling with it is certainly a significant one. Inclusiveness is a value, as is church interpretation of doctrinal purity, which on this issue says the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. The church also stands strong in its commitment to “social witness against the coercion and marginalization of former homosexuals.”

I think it’s easier said than done, as is most anything that is truly spiritual.

Just before going to see Mission: Impossible III, I caught glimpses of the teaser trailers for both Superman and Casino Royale (the newest 007 sequel). That turned out to be a good thing, since these trailers gave me something to...

I’m a Bruce Springsteen fan who’s had some fine spiritual reflections—and many moments of enjoyment—courtesy of Bruce’s music and writing. Usually it happens when the E-Street band is behind him, so I wasn’t necessarily excited about his new CD, "We...

Most docudramas, miniseries, and movies “inspired by actual events” are too long, too dramatic, and stray too far from the facts. “United 93” isn’t one of them, and I must disagree with my colleague, Michael, who wrote that he didn't...