"some day this will make a useful anecdote"


i am a couple days late putting fingers to keyboard on this, but, you know, work got in the way. whatareyougonnado? the daily show used to be appointment televsion for sarah and me, back when we weren't old and didn't feel like the next day would be ruined completely if we didn't get in bed by 9:00. only since caroline has arrived have i really felt this way. felt that as soon as the girls are in bed, that we should follow suit immediately. if not? we would be exhausted by 3:00 p.m. the next day and entirely incapable of functioning as a family by the time we all got home. the low battery light flashing on one parent can be worked around on some evenings. if sarah and i, both, are ready to be plugged into the wall in combination with hannah whining and caroline hungry? hurt feelings can ensue. easily. but i digress.

i was up and alert monday night at daily show time and the first segment seemed to be pulled directly from my "i couldn't have said it better myself" folder. here's a link.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=166074&title=gaffe-in

it's perfectly pointed and funny, just like any classic jon stewart "monologue". but the point that pushed my buttons the hardest comes at the 7:10 mark. after barack obama's recent casual remarks commenting (he admitted that they were broad, stereotypical comments) on the process of midwesterners' decision-making, of course he was raped by the political pundits. and maybe he should've been. he should know by now to measure every word or else. and the comments in question were lazy at best. that being said, the stance big news media took on this day was to paint obama as an "elitist" and paint that as a bad thing. i'll let the clip speak for itself the rest of the way, but the last two minutes of stewart's rant summed up my feelings on the battle between obama and clinton as well as issues within our current structure at humc.

the definition of elite has not and will not change. the connotation definitely has. i have thrown the word "elitist" around in a negative way, so i am just as guilty as the next guy. but the idea of being a leader in our society and our churches (at least, the societies and churches that are struggling) seems to have been watered down to the idea of who can be the best "everyman". the "all things to all people" guy that never gets around to making any big and tough decisions for the greater good of the residents/membership because he is too bogged down with all the minute and day-to-day decisions that the congregation asks of him/her. the classic definition of not being able to see the forest for the trees. as stewart posits, why wouldn't the country want a leader that has a vision for a new and more peaceful world? why wouldn't we want a leader that has a vision that he/she believes in and feels as though they are capable of moving the country in what they perceive to be the right direction? why wouldn't big news want that too? why? because it's hard. and it doesn't make for good tv to agree with candidates that, deep down, i believe want to make america a better place.

and again, bringing it back local, why wouldn't our congregation want a senior pastor that was willing to bring a message of change from the pulpit, ask us to accept that message, own it and move forward? quite frankly, i think we do. but dcd (pastor chris) has fallen directly in line with the last four appointments huffman has received (including my biased favorite, john rutland) and is too afraid to push us in a certain direction because he's been afraid that we might leave some behind (that, or they've had no direction, themselves. same result either way). granted, this is a common problem for any church suffering from dwindling numbers and relevancy. the priority becomes saving those aboard the sinking ship instead of finding a new boat, a boat that will sail to somewhere and not slowly take on water in the same place it's always been until it's too late.

the country and the church are just as much to blame as our "leaders". i admit that. we've gotten used to asking for "what will get us by" instead of "what's best". but if our leaders are willing to play a role in that play, are they really leading or just characters whose fate is defined for them? i hope that obama or clinton have a chance to change the course of their current direction.

and i pray that humc and their leader may soon understand that we are currently swirling in a whirlpool. the good ship "disciples in action: making and growing disciples"'s fate has been sealed.

we need a new boat.