An Apology for the Post-Egyptian Ownership of Domesticated Felines

by JaneAnn Kenney

Warning: Historical inaccuracies and possible anachronisms. The writer didn’t feel like doing any fact checking as it would have inhibited her creative process. 

The subject of domesticated felines (for the purposes of this essay, hereafter called “cats” with wavering regularity) is suspiciously lacking in the Jewish and Christian canons. The casual reader might assume nothing of this oversight, not even bothering to note the glaring nature of their absence. This person would not question why David did not offer Michal a cat after he snubbed her, or alternatively why no Persian breeds came strutting back with Judah from the exile. Were there mice in the stable where Jesus was born? The world will never know, because we do not have any sources to tell us if there were any mousing cats lazing about.

A plot far more sinister and nefarious emerges when we consider the great lengths that certain cat-hating scholars have gone to in order to undermine the Imago Cattī in scripture. Admittedly, there are texts that seem to confirm their bias as one considers the facts of the exodus and subsequent exiles. Fact: Israel was Yahweh’s special nation and Egypt was not. Fact: Egyptians worshipped cats. Fact: cats did, in fact, feel entitled to said worship (as many still do, even to this day). Thus it follows, if not logically then at least tangentially, that Israel chose not to own cats because to own cats would be to worship cats and so to adopt the customs of their Egyptian slave drivers, who are portrayed in Exodus as being not so very kind.

Cats are not gods; there is no evidence to suggest that they were at any time genuine deities. Indeed, among all the various diatribes leveled against the deities of surrounding cultures, whether condemnation for offering children to Molech or offering cakes to Ishtar, Queen of Heaven, not once does God seem to have sent a prophet to counter a false prophet of cats. And there is no commandment within the priestly laws that would restrict cat ownership among the people.

Consider, however, what God told Moses on Mt. Sinai: “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God” (Yahweh qtd. Exod. 20:4-5, ESV). Cats may not have been actual gods, but like icons and idols, they were images of what was assumed to be sacred, at least in Egypt. Because Israel wanted Yahweh to be faithful to the covenant he had struck with them, they were at least silent on the matter of cat ownership.
 
The question, then, becomes one of arguments from silence. Some say the Bible is silent on the matter of cat ownership, presumably because Israel understood based on experience in Egypt that such ownership would be tantamount to abandoning faith in the one true God. Others point out that the Bible also never expressly forbids the ownership of domesticated felines. We find ourselves at an impasse.

A new perspective here can help clear up the matter of cat ownership. On the subject of larger animals—lions, say—we can find some conflicting information which might help explain how Christians today can assume the right to own such creatures.

In 1 Samuel, David brags about having killed lions in his days as a shepherd. He did this because they were thieving sheep from him, possibly in cahoots with the bears: “Your servant used to keep sheep for his father. And when there came a lion, or a bear, and took a lamb from the flock, I went after him and struck him and delivered it out of his mouth. And if he arose against me, I caught him by his beard and struck him and killed him. Your servant has struck down both lions and bears” (David qtd. 1 Sam. 14:34-36, ESV). These lions (and their shaggier counterparts) were, pure and simple, enemies of both God and man.

The picture gets more complicated in 2 Kings. The Assyrians had displaced the people of northern Israel and settled foreigners in their homes. However, those new residents neither knew nor worshiped God. “Therefore the LORD sent lions among them, which killed some of them” (Anonymous, 2 Kings 17:25, ESV). The Assyrian king rightly understood that the problem was with the local God (although he would not have known to capitalize his appellation) and so he sent priests to teach the people how to be rid of the lions, acknowledging that the God of the land had sent them in judgment. Thus these lions were doing God’s bidding, punishing those people who lived in the Promised Land with no concern for the covenant.

The final piece of evidence I feel like considering is the image of Jesus as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah” (Elder qtd. Rev. 5:5, ESV). This alone should be enough to redeem at least large cats in God’s kingdom plans. If Jesus is a lion, then lions de facto cannot be evil. Given that lions and domesticate housecats of all breeds come from the same…genus? phylum? (someone in biology help me) it follows that cats are also redeemed by the Jesus-lion analog.

Thus we have Christ to thank for the freedom to choose whether or not to own cats today. At the Red Sea, Yahweh delivered the people from the death that awaited them as slaves in Egypt; at the cross, Jesus delivered a multitudes from the death that awaited us as slaves to sin. Just as all things are being made new, so too our relationship with cats is also being renewed. No more must we worry that speaking in higher pitched voices will be considered worship, nor that feeding them scraps from the table will be seen as a guilt sacrifice. Giving our sweet kitties preferential seating is not a mark of religious devotion, but one of wisdom and hospitality. Our cats keep us humble, and without humility we are shall not enter the kingdom of God. So then, as we go forth, let us remember to spay and neuter, for in so doing so we show ourselves good stewards in the household of God, a household that certainly owns a cat or two. 

You can ask JaneAnn about: Nashville, theology, cats. Baseball. Glacial rivers. Her stance on the color purple, and then again the existence of the word "purple." General frivolity and terrible music (for the DANCING!!). Old Stephen King novels, time zones, and toll roads in Oklahoma. She will not, however, answer any questions about that thing living in her fridge. You can follow her on Twitter @JAKof3Ts. 

You can follow On Pop Theology on Twitter @OnPopTheology or like us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/OnPopTheology. If you'd like to support what we do, you can donate via the button on the right of the screen.

Image Credits:
Image #1
Image #2
Image #3
  
You might also like:  

• What A Preacher Looks Like
• The Gnostic Gospel of Gaga
• Einstein: A Tale of Cats and Eschatology

What A Preacher Looks Like

by JaneAnn Kenney 

On the last night of February, I stood before my classmates. I shivered as I reminded myself once again, “A preacher looks exactly how I look tonight, because tonight I am a preacher.”

My divinity program requires an introductory preaching course for all its students. Since I intend to graduate, I decided to enroll this semester. It was as good a time as ever. Our final, crowning assignment was to deliver a ten-minute sermon to the class, our congregation for the night.

Our revered professor assigned us texts. Mine was Mark 4:1-20, the Parable of the Sower. What a bizarre story, especially if you read it from Mark without conflating it with Matthew. Jesus didn’t want us to understand. Well, maybe not us, but he didn’t want everyone to understand, at least initially, what it was he was saying about the kingdom of God. I preached on the last night of February, and I kept reminding myself that at least one preacher looks just like me—red hair and mascara, blue dress and heels.

That weekend, I began to imagine, for the very first time, that I could be a preacher when I grow up.

Now, I don’t know what psychologists would say (feel free to weigh in), but it seems to me that a person’s imagination is shaped early in life, for better or worse, bigger or smaller. The boundaries of what is possible at some point impinge upon imagination, such that a world of endless possibilities can result in an imagination without limits, whereas a world of few opportunities might yield only a ghost of imagination. This is not always true, but deviation does not disprove a pattern.

When I was a child, I imagined I was an architect, a doctor, a lawyer, and various combinations of these things. I was always a Christian—working with Habitat for Humanity, or doing medical missions, or pro-bono cases, or whatever was appropriate to my newest vocational fixation—but I was never working for a church. Why?

I rarely saw a woman working officially for the church until I was much older. My primary interaction with such women was with secretaries. My mother was one for a while, at the same church where my father preached. Shockingly enough, I did not aspire to becoming a secretary. And so, there was no place for me at church.

I did see a woman preach once, perhaps at an Episcopalian church, when I was young. I thought it odd, maybe sinful, but my parents had no comment on her, either good or bad, that I remember. Seems like it was nighttime, so perhaps I thought the congregation was a bit lax in their evening services. It seemed like an outlier, not a norm. We were on vacation at the time, so a woman preaching seemed like one of those bizarre things you do on vacation that you mightn’t try otherwise, like eating out every night or wearing only bathing suits and sunscreen for a week.

A myopic imagination does not realize that it has been shortsighted. The woman preaching could have broadened my view, but instead the strangeness of the situation distracted me from the revelation I had seen. The normalcy of this class many years later, however, of preparing to speak in front of classmates, of faith and scholarship meeting as they have throughout my graduate career, has finally allowed me to glimpse a new possibility for the future.

These skills I’m learning, these books I’m reading, I like it. I appreciate this kind of work, what happens before the sermon. The frustration proceeds from my expanding imagination: How am I to explore this possibility? Where is the place for a twenty-something woman to try preaching without accepting a pulpit? How does a potential woman preacher in the Church of Christ discern what may or may not be a call? What if my interest is mere curiosity or worse, contrariness, a simple desire to stick my tongue out and prove that I can?

Here I am in seminary; I am qualified to preach, but what is qualification to preach? I believe in calls to ministry, whether preaching, youth, campus, foreign missions, and all other creative options. This is why, when thinking about where I want my career to go, I might rather flippantly think about working as an editor or as a literacy advocate or things of like ilk, but ministry of any kind is not a mantle to be accepted lightly. Ministries do not seem the sort of thing to try on, so to speak, except perhaps in that intern-role that is so popular in both missions and youth ministry. Where is the internship for a young preacher, unsure of her own motivations? This is the exercise in futility—to learn that which cannot be used, to enjoy that which must not be enjoyed, and then not even understand what it means to have enjoyed it.

Having now delivered the sermon, I find that my mindset has changed. I cannot speak of a closed imagination. The doors have been sprung open. What if I was really doing this with my life?

The issue, sadly, stems from my very gender. Upon hearing me preach, some will be all the more impressed because I am a woman. Initial hesitance will be overcompensated for in over-exuberance. Others will not even hear me because I am a woman. These might stand up quietly and leave, their silence a judgment against the voice coming from the pulpit. Those in the first group will seek me out, set me as an example (if they find my sermonic voice even mildly adequate to the task), encourage me to continue to grow and preach, come and do; the second group will shun me, question my integrity, my commitment to scripture, to the Church, and even to God.

I don’t relish this role. My gender is not incidental to my being, but neither do I consider it a basic qualification or inadequacy for any task that is set before me. I should not become a professor of discrete mathematics, not because I am a woman, but because I haven’t studied anything past calculus, and that was nearly a decade ago. I’ve not done the necessary work. The same would go for piloting a plane, performing surgery, leading a corporation, even becoming part of an interpretive dance troupe, much as I would love it. There are many things I simply am not qualified for, not as a woman, but as an uneducated person. Yet, I could have become qualified for these things had I so chosen, and for some vocations the window is not yet closed (sadly, dancing is not one).

Preaching, on the other hand... I have studied the text closely and my background in reading poetry and literature in other contexts helps me in this task. I enjoy the discipline of reading the commentaries, considering the text in its original language, mulling over its difficulties, its historical context, and all sorts of other considerations. All of this must find outlet. Perhaps I will write, as I am doing on the book of Joshua and as I am doing at work. Perhaps I will teach, if I go on to a Ph.D., or perhaps in a Sunday school class somewhere if I do not. Then again, why shouldn’t I preach? Because in many circles, the mere fact of my gender will prevent me. I cannot qualify myself, and not even a call from God will change the hearts of men.

I say men, and some men are part of the problem, but women aren’t off the hook here either. I’m part of this problem. For years, I have accepted circumstances as they are, accepted some vague notion of not offending the weaker brother. I have to say, sometimes that weaker “brother” needs to be offended. Like when his or her weakness means we continue in systems which do not bring God’s kingdom closer as we have been taught to pray “on earth as it is in heaven.” There’s nothing we’re doing in the church which should not be striving to be more like the most realistic version of the kingdom if we take this prayer seriously.

My imagination for my future has changed, but my actuality has not. If I choose to explore the implications of this short class, then I choose a hard road, a path less traveled in my tradition. Yet, I imagine the day when manhood and womanhood are recognized and celebrated in each individual, as expressed in each individual, without becoming a restrictive idea of what either one means, what gender roles may lawfully be embraced or must be rejected.

The final question is not “Should a woman preach?” or even “Is it okay for women to lead?” because these questions are too small. The real question, the actual question, is “What does God’s kingdom look like?” If we continue to imagine a kingdom in which people are divided by nation and language, we know we are in error. Why then do we imagine the kingdom will be divided by the basic distinction: man or woman?

I imagine the day when all of God’s children are freed to serve God and one another as they have been gifted and called. I imagine a day when the church I see before me lives and loves as God’s kingdom here and now as we hope to see it in the great and terrible day of the Lord. Maranatha.

You can ask JaneAnn about: Nashville, theology, cats. Baseball. Glacial rivers. Her stance on the color purple, and then again the existence of the word "purple." General frivolity and terrible music (for the DANCING!!). Old Stephen King novels, time zones, and toll roads in Oklahoma. She will not, however, answer any questions about that thing living in her fridge. You can follow her on Twitter @JAKof3Ts. 

You can follow On Pop Theology on Twitter @OnPopTheology or like us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/OnPopTheology. If you'd like to support what we do, you can donate via the button on the right of the screen.
  
You might also like:  

• The Gnostic Gospel of Gaga
• Einstein: A Tale of Cats and Eschatology
• Reflections on Ecclesiastes at a Gazillion Feet (Approx.)

The Gnostic Gospel of Gaga

Image via Amelia Adina

by JaneAnn Kenney 

What is the message that Mama Monster is preaching to her little monsters? I present for your consideration the none-too-contrived and barely subtle Gnostic Gospel of Gaga according to her new single (with R. Kelly—didn’t realize he was still a thing) “Do What U [ugh SIC] Want.” Allow me to skip certain portions of the song because—let’s be honest—it’s a bit repetitious. Also, allow me to preface by saying my first thought when I heard the song was, “That’s so Gnostic!” and then it got more complicated, and then I decided I was right the first time. Thus:

I feel good, I walk alone/But then I trip upon myself and I fall/I, I stand up, and then I'm okay/But then you print that shit/That makes me want to scream.

Despite the seemingly simple syntax of this verse, I’m not entirely certain what she means to say. Part of the problem is that she has embraced her inner angsty thirteen year old who doesn’t want to tell her best friend, who we'll call "Casey," that feelings have been hurt outright, and so couches her frustration in “you know who you are” language. It’s like when Irenaeus talks about the “certain men [who] have set the truth aside, and bring in lying words and vain genealogies.” Paul does the same thing with his supposed super-apostle. Can we all agree to stahp it?

Certainly it feels good to walk alone sometimes, but then Gaga falls of her own doing (probably the heels) and doesn’t have a buddy around to help her up. Yet, she staggers haltingly to her feet in those enormous heels (why?) and feels alright. Keeps walking. The real issue here is when she addresses me. What shit did I print? This is the first (and last, most likely) time I ever plan to write about her. What have I printed?! I’m terribly sorry to have forgotten, because it was either so hurtful or so infuriating that she just needs to scream.

Image via Andrea Wilson

Then again, maybe she is not speaking in the second-person singular, but the second-person plural, which might suggest that Gaga is actually referring to a collective entity and not just my mercurial temperament. Certainly her penchant for over-the-top wardrobe and styling has raised eyebrows, ruffled feathers, etc., from her entirely steak-dress to that time she desecrated Minnie Mouse by murdering her boyfriend in the Paparazzi video. (I really didn’t choose balanced examples, huh?) All levels of the press want to know what Gaga is wearing (or not wearing; so much booty!) and then praise or vilify her choices. This, more than my slights, likely makes her want to scream.

So do what you want/What you want with my body/Do what you want/Don't stop, let's party/Do what you want/What you want with my body/Do what you want/What you want with my body.

If the previously-discussed publications from the journalism peanut gallery are what Gaga has in mind, then this might actually be a worthwhile message. Fine, analyze what I’m wearing, she says, tear it apart. Wonder why I insist on these shoes that make mobility seemingly impossible, criticize my make-up for detracting from my natural allure, wonder at my ever-changing hair. Do what you like, because all you are doing is looking at skin, and having chosen to present myself this way, I am willing to allow you to discuss it, ridicule it. Do what you want with my body. Your words do not measure my worth or the worth of any other person.

This, of course, really is good news. Less daring than Gaga, I present myself in ways which hopefully do not invite much comment beyond “Are you allowed to mix metallics?” As an expression of one’s personality and mood, appearance can be liberating, and whatever anyone thinks of that really has no bearing on value. Fun stuff.

Then again, maybe she was talking to me, Second-Person Singular? Despite the outrage of whatever I penned, Gaga is giving me permission to use her body however I want. Although flattered, I think my idea of a party will not be tip-top on her list, seeing as how the highlight of my cosmetic year is wearing false eyelashes on New Year’s Eve. That said, I would give her a nice make-over, maybe dye her hair a dark auburn, some full bangs and a shoulder-length bob. Simple make-up, and some classic red heels.

Image via Stephen Carlile

Write what you want/Say what you want 'bout me/If you wanna know that I'm not sorry.

It’s awfully nice of her to give me permission, but once again, I am confused. Why isn’t she sorry? She did miss my birthday again this year, but so did a coupla other people I’ve spoken to recently, so I can let it slide, I guess. Don’t know why she’s not sorry though. Kinda harsh, actually. I’m going to assume she’s talking about someone else, probably a Tabloid of Ill-Repute.

Ah, here it is again: Do what you want/What you want with my body/What you want with my body.

The cheese doesn’t get really binding (real thing; educate yourself) until we get here: You can't have my heart/And you won't use my mind but/Do what you want (with my body)/Do what you want with my body/You can't stop my voice cause/You don't own my life but/Do what you want (with my body)/Do what you want (with my body).

Is Gaga letting us think and speak however we want about her, or is she letting us do whatever we want to her? The answer, really, may be “yes.” However, let’s consider past lyrics from Lady G. From Lovegame: “I'm on a mission,/And it involves some heavy touchin' yeah./You've indicated your interest,/I'm educated in sex, yes./And now I want it bad,/Want it bad./A love game,/A love game.” From Bad Romance: “I want your drama/The touch of your hand/I want your leather-studded kiss in the sand/I want your love.” Then again, we have Born This Way: “I'm beautiful in my way/'Cause God makes no mistakes/I'm on the right track, baby/I was born this way/Don't hide yourself in regret/Just love yourself and you're set.”

I guess what I’m saying is that Gaga can be overtly sexual, but she’s not worried about it. The music in combination with the videos in combination with her self-presentation is all meant to cause a labyrinth, and I, unwitting fool that I am, have fallen in. On the one hand, this could be quite a reassuring message: against materialism, superficiality, the ideals of beauty for both men and women. Certainly if these are intended, then Gaga is on to something, and with her anti-bullying platform it is certainly possible that she intends these things. However, given her penchant for overtly sexual content, it is at least as likely that Gaga intends for you (me? him? her? I don’t know any more) to gratify sexual desires with her body as much as one pleases and in whatever way that one pleases so long as no one expects her to change on anything other than a physical or chemical level as a result.

Image via Zennie Abraham

Despite all this, there is still an argument to be made for a fully-developed Gnostic gospel at work in Gaga’s body of work, not least in this song. Paul may have been battling proto-Gnosticism in Corinth, but this has developed in 2,000 years into a fully-matured worldview. St. Irenaeus is really my go-to guy here, but first: let’s discuss the heresy. With these lines suggesting physical and sexual permission without intellectual, emotional, or even spiritual repercussions, Gaga promotes the prominent Western heresy of the separation of soul and body. The apparent belief is that it doesn’t matter what happens to her body as long as the one who does it cannot access her heart, her mind, or her voice. In fact, she has made these other components of herself totally off-limits. I may be able to dress down her wardrobe as I see fit, but I’d be forced to leave her mind and heart out of it. The voice, like God’s spirit hovering over the darkness, will not be stilled by mere corporeal injunctions.

The emphasis on the importance of the voice, the mind, and the heart in contrast to the body is the very heresy that St. Irenaeus and others spoke against. The emphasis on the mind of the believer to the detriment of the body led to all sorts of strange activities, from neglect and ascetic abasement of one’s own body to an excessive revelry in activities like—dare I say it?—sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll. Though we cannot find the soul in our medical books, what happens to the body does have its effects upon the soul. We need not look very far to find examples of persons who have been abused in one way or another and suffer holistic trauma as a result.

Most of the rest of these lyrics are pretty useless for theology, and I’m willing to blame R. Kelly: Early morning, longer nights/Tom Ford, private flights/Crazy schedule, fast life/I wouldn't trade it in/'Cause it's our life (now let's slow it down...).

I don’t know Tom Ford. I could Google him, but I don’t want to use up all my internet money on senseless crap like that. The gist is R. likes his life.

I could be the drink in your cup/I could be the green in your blunt/Your pusha man, ya I got what you want/You wanna escape all of the crazy shit/You're the Marilyn, I'm the president/And I'd love to hear you sing, girl.

Image via Yne Van De Mergel

R. Kelly continues with his… flow? The problem with this verse is his comfort being the physical drink, the physical green, a pusha, and the president, but I’m not sure how Gaga is going to feel about being told to sing. You can have her body, after all, but not her voice.

Some more chorus, rude words, moving on.

A hook? A bridge? I’m not sure: Sometimes I'm scared I suppose/If you ever let me go/I would fall apart/If you break my heart/So just take my body/And don't stop the party.

This is the heart (get it? get it?) of the matter. This is where it seems most clear that the song is primarily about pure sexual conquest. Gaga professes a belief that I (or is it R. Kelly, or the man represented by R. Kelly? The use of second person is so confusing). can take her body and not stop the party without breaking her heart. Based on other parties (poker parties, love game parties, dancing parties, etc.) I unapologetically assume this party is not a “let’s rat on everything Gaga wears” party but instead a sort of Eddie Izzard “swimmy swimmy, splashy splashy, chasey chasey” party. I’m just sorry to be the one to tell her it’s not true.

The body matters. What happens in the body matters. What happens to a body matters, even after it has died. If this were not so, there would be no point in God becoming incarnate and then allowing himself to be crucified as a human, in the flesh. It is totally senseless. Why not take a mental flogging, or simply send the Holy Spirit into hell for a few hours? Instead, Jesus was born and lived in a body which he still lives in, glorified as it is. This is gospel—there isn’t a single aspect of our created beings which God does not want to redeem. He willingly demonstrated the worth of the body by dwelling among us.

At the end of the day, I have done exactly what Gaga wanted: I have taken her art seriously, in spite of its presentation and apparent blithering idiocy. Agree with me or don’t, but I think I’ve argued the main points to a standstill. Or not. At this point, I’m still debating pronouns. 

You can ask JaneAnn about: Nashville, theology, cats. Baseball. Glacial rivers. Her stance on the color purple, and then again the existence of the word "purple." General frivolity and terrible music (for the DANCING!!). Old Stephen King novels, time zones, and toll roads in Oklahoma. She will not, however, answer any questions about that thing living in her fridge. You can follow her on Twitter @JAKof3Ts. 

You can follow On Pop Theology on Twitter @OnPopTheology or like us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/OnPopTheology. If you'd like to support what we do, you can donate via the button on the right of the screen.
  
You might also like:  

• Einstein: A Tale of Cats and Eschatology
• Reflections on Ecclesiastes at a Gazillion Feet (Approx.)
• Laments for Lent

The Best of On Pop Theology 2013

by Ben Howard

It's almost the end of the year and if I've learned anything from the internet it's that lists are the best-est thing in the whole wide world. With that in mind we wanted to take this time to highlight the best of what has been written and recorded here at On Pop Theology.

Since the beginning of the year we've published 158 essays from 24 different authors and produced 45 episodes of the On Pop Theology podcast. Some of these have been deeply philosophical, some deeply personal, and some have embraced an absurdism that borders on unhinged.

I cannot express how grateful I am to all those who've worked with us over the past year and to all of those who've taken the time to read and listen to the things we've worked to create. I especially want to thank podcast producer Brandon Schexnayder, my co-host Jesse Moon, and my other co-host, editor, and sounding board Sebastian Faust for all the hard work they've done in putting together what you see here.

Now, to the lists!

Best Posts of the Year

1) Preying in the Name of God by Sebastian Faust

"And so I shall say to a system that preys on the poor, that trades on the trusts of the weak, ascribes goodness to greed, reckons faithfulness by a widow’s last farthings: Be scattered. Be broken. Be flung into the sea. And it shall be so. Now go. And do likewise."

3) What We Talk About When We Talk About Rob Bell by Ben Howard

"Rob Bell's new book will or will not sell. His television show will or will not be picked up. His words will or will not affect someone, and the conversation we're having here, the conversation about Rob Bell, about whether or not he matters or what he means, will not affect that. A conversation about Rob Bell's importance, or the importance of any person or movement, is really a conversation about the ways we've tied our meaning, our viability, to this conversation."

4) Silver Linings Playbook, Mental Illness, and the Church by Rachel Donegan

"My bipolar disorder won’t disappear anytime soon, because without a major medical breakthough, I’ll most likely have it until the day I die. My specific type is marked by rapid shifts in mood, ranging from hypomania, where I am boiling over with both exuberance and anger and will post twenty tweets in three hours, to severe depression, where I won’t want to talk to anyone and getting dressed is a marked achievement. There is no 'cured' per se, just 'stable.'"

5) The Disparate Worlds of Warring Minds: The Epistemology of a Government Shutdown by Ben Howard

"This isn’t a schism of ideology; its roots lie deeper – they are more entrenched, and less examined. In an epistemological divide, reconciliation can never have winning as its goal. The gap between the disparate worlds of warring minds can only be bridged through the authenticity and vulnerability of legitimate relationship. We must encounter the other, and though we find she is not the same as us, we must deign to see her as similar. We must humanize those we so often demonize."

6) Prayers to a Dark God by Sebastian Faust

"I’ve been thinking about that. So has Rilke. Somewhere around Ash Wednesday, our prayers, our meditations, comingled. Rilke began. I followed. We prayed to a different God than so many of the people round about us. We prayed to a dark God."

7) The Lie They Tell About Emma Watson and Me by Lyndsey Graves

"I've spent days and months of my life beating myself up for not being extroverted, ten pounds lighter, an early riser, more photogenic, more spiritually disciplined, concerned about strangers, or for not having a louder voice. And if I’m honest, in these areas of my life, if I can only accomplish the bare minimum, that’s me doing really well."

8) A Place in Sedona by JaneAnn Kenney

"We speak sometimes of the thin places, the places where heaven and earth meet, places where we hear echoes of eternity and feel the goodness of creation as though it had not fallen. Being in Sedona, I remember stories which are not my own—of my parents before I changed their lives in Alaska, if you can believe it, and of another people for whom places were important, marked with rocks to say “this is Beth-El”. In this place, my hopes for my life are peacefully swallowed up in my hopes for the future of humanity and the greater creation."

9) Rule Number 1: Your Faith Lies by Ben Howard

"Sometimes the things we whole-heartedly believe turn out to be wrong and that’s an incredibly difficult thing to admit. When our faith leads us astray, when our faith lies to us about the reality that actually exist, we look everywhere else for answers. We blame our parents, the church we grew up in, we blame God for not being the God we originally believed in. It’s hard to bear the tension that comes with a faith that can only ever be incomplete and fallible."

10) In Defense of Miley Cyrus: The Art of Wrecking Balls and Sledgehammers by Ben Howard

"This song, like any good pop song, is a construct, a product of the culture that creates it. And this particular song was birthed of a culture that is deeply confused by the relationship between physical and emotional intimacy. This is the art of our culture and it is good."

Best Episodes of the Year

1) Dick Cheney Sounds Like the Devil

Ben, Sebastian, and Jesse dig into the terrible, awful concept of hell, but in a fun way with jokes.

2) A Diverse Church For People Just Like You w/ Christena Cleveland

Ben and Jesse sit down with social psychologist and author Christena Cleveland to talk about issues of race and diversity in the church.

3) On Women in Ministry w/ Jen Thweatt-Bates

Ben talks with Jen Thweatt-Bates, theologian and moderator of Gal328.org, an organization working for gender equality in Churches of Christ.

4) The West Wing Musical Extravaganza

This episode is dedicated to the greatest political television show in history and, in particular, the greatest fictional president, Jed Bartlet.

5) On Modesty, Dating, and Being Single in the Church w/ Emily Maynard

Ben sits down with writer and blogger Emily Maynard to talk about modesty culture, "Christian" dating, and being a single twenty-something in the church.

Ben Howard is an accidental iconoclast and generally curious individual living in Nashville, Tennessee. He is also the editor-in-chief of On Pop Theology and an avid fan of waving at strangers for no reason. You can follow him on Twitter @BenHoward87.  

You can follow On Pop Theology on Twitter @OnPopTheology or like us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/OnPopTheology. If you'd like to support what we do, you can donate via the button on the right of the screen.
  

You might also like:  

• Your Favorite Movie Needs More Pandas
• A Series of Outright Lies About Prayer
• How to Write A Controversial Blog Post in 5 Easy Steps

An Announcement About the Future of On Pop Theology

by Ben Howard

Things have been a bit quiet here over the last few weeks. You may have noticed.

I thought it might be time to explain that, because that silence is about to come to an end.

Over the past few weeks I’ve been working behind the scenes with my friend and editor, Sebastian Faust, as well as a number of others, to re-imagine what exactly On Pop Theology will look like for the next month, for the next year, and what we hope to achieve going forward.

The blog will remain very similar. We have a wonderful team of regular contributors working with us. Some, like Charity Erickson, Lyndsey Graves, and JaneAnn Kenney, you’ve read here often. Others, like Lane Severson and Jared Byas, will be newer to you.

The podcast is where we’re really hoping to shake things up.

As always, there will still be interviews with people we find interesting and noteworthy. In fact, we would very much love to hear your suggestions on who you’d like to hear us interview. I can’t promise anything, but I’ve tried some bizarre things in an attempt to get a guest before. Aim high.

Also, our more avant-garde studio shows with Jesse Moon, Sebastian, and myself will still be a monthly feature. If you’ve listened to those episodes, you’ll know we’re game for pretty much anything.

More importantly, we’ll be bringing you two different types of podcasts this year.

In the first, we’ll be trying to explore difficult and complex societal issues. We want to learn about and talk about the hard things and we want to work with the people who understand those topics. 

For the second, we’ll be focusing one episode a month on a particular book of the Bible. Our goal is to bring in some of the most knowledgeable Biblical scholars to lend us their expertise as we try and understand how to read the Bible responsibly, respectfully and justly. 

Here’s the part where we need your help, and it’s two-fold.

First, we need your ideas. What do you want to read about? What do you want to learn about? What questions do you have? You can leave a comment here, contact us on Twitter at either @BenHoward87 or @OnPopTheology, or send us an email at onpoptheology@gmail.com.

Second, we’re asking you for money. While the podcast isn’t expensive to produce, it’s also not cheap. Our budget for the show this year is almost $400 which covers web hosting and equipment. If you like the show and can spare $5 or $10 to help us cover the costs, we would be deeply grateful.

We’ve added a "Donate" button to the sidebar on the right. Just click there and you can donate whatever amount you’d like via Paypal.

I’ve said before that On Pop Theology, both the blog and the podcast, is one of the most enjoyable things I’ve ever done. I love doing this. I love being creative, I love working with creative people, and I love being able to share that creativity with you.

You are all wonderful! Happy Thanksgiving!

Ben Howard is an accidental iconoclast and generally curious individual living in Nashville, Tennessee. He is also the editor-in-chief of On Pop Theology and an avid fan of waving at strangers for no reason. You can follow him on Twitter @BenHoward87.  

You can follow On Pop Theology on Twitter @OnPopTheology or like us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/OnPopTheology.
  
You might also like:  

• On Sharing the Things I Love
• On Entitlement
• I Didn't Grow Up With Saints