"AIR BALL"

The unifying elements of cultural and sociological phenomena continue to fascinate and bewilder me particularly as they relate to organized sound and specifically music. Having experienced several Lady Jackets basketball games and watching them win each game, eventually going on to win the Division III title, I was struck by the slightly rude, but very entertaining crowd as it collectively disagreed with the referees' calls that went against the home team. The crowd would jump to its feet almost as one and roar its disapproval with a call or in some cases the lack of a certain call!

But the most intriguing event, and one that happened at every game was the group yell, "Air Ball." This was the result of a member of the opposing team shooting the ball, but, alas, the ball would miss the rim, net, and even the backboard, all in all a very sad event for the particular player. The audience, quickly sensing a weak moment, a moment of self-pity by the player, would figuratively pounce, and in one stunning unison begin to chant, "Air Ball, Air Ball, Air Ball."

This great choir of unison melody not only provided a great deal of entertainment for me, it also gave me a sense of wonder at the musical result. Everyone chanted the same notes in the same rhythm with nothing written down to do so. The music was a descending minor third at a tempo of quarter note equaling 72 beats per minute in 4/4 time. How is this possible without printed music and a conductor?

The distance between any two pitches (which are the result of vibration) is called an interval. A very low sound (slow vibrations) followed by a very high sound (fast vibrations) is considered a wide interval. The development of music has codified and systematized intervals into certain nomenclature based on the diatonic Western scale then generalized into what we know as do, re, me, fa, sol, la, ti, do. This means that every melody is actually a series of intervals organized in particular ways.

Keeping that in mind, there is a natural order of learning pitches that occurs in human beings at a young age. Small children gravitate naturally to the descending minor third, later adding an ascending perfect fourth, followed by a descending perfect fifth, and eventually adding a major second. If we apply a system to this order of pitches we get this: sol, mi, la, do, re, often called the 5-tone or pentatonic scale. Children do this naturally in play without the slightest knowledge of the musical implications. They just simply play and sing.

I recall being a young music teacher and hearing the neighborhood children chanting, "Bobby has a sweetheart," and getting so excited that I gathered the children around to tell them they were singing So, mi, la! I remember getting odd stares and subsequently having all the children run away!

In some ways I am not surprised that 2,000 people break into a chant on sol-mi with the words "Air Ball." What does surprise me, and I can't really explain, is how and why all sing the correct pitches in the same rhythm. The only explanation is that humans have a collective desire to rally together doing the same thing in the same way for the same result--irritating the opponent. But, nevertheless, it is a phenomenon and a stunning example of unification without leadership. Actually, the event probably demonstrates as much as anything, the vast fan support of the incredible Lady Jacket basketball team of 2008! Each game and the entire season was a pleasure and a joy that will not be forgotten.

The Church--Pt. III

Now for the difficult part of this series, defining and describing the functions and purposes of the Church amid the complexity of the truth and the relative diversity of the human being. Let's deal with the process of relationship building for a minute.

In open theism, there are theologians who subscribe to the concept of God's being relative, or another angle on this is that because God is love, then God is interested in developing relationships with Him. On the surface, this may sound a tad heretical in that God is certainly omnipotent and unchanging; but on closer examination the concept deals more with God's reaction to man's constant change. The argument, which I believe is a good one, is that God responds to our prayers, our commitment, our actions, and the events which occur in life. Open theism emphasizes the beauty and multifaceted nature of God being love. I find myself leaning toward this theology due to its melding of Calvinism and Arminianism, both of which have influenced my life in a multitude of ways.

To oversimplify is both a dangerous and questionable practice, but for the purposes of this essay is necessary. In Calvinism, there is little to nothing that a human can do to influence or alter God's working in the world. All has been predetermined and all is dependent on God's sovereignty and God's Grace. Calvinism has a clear logic to it that is difficult to refute on academic terms. Whereas in Arminianism, humans make all the decisions and have the free will to choose their own destiny and to determine all the outcomes. It has been said that pastors often study and believe in Calvinism but preach Arminianism to their congregations.

In Open Theism, man's purposeful embracing of God's truth and God's love can and does affect, at least to an extent, how God responds to events on earth. Man is given the free will to develop his or her own relationship with God and God reacts to man's practices, conduct, and events on earth. Perhaps the greatest example of this is the power of prayer. In pure Calvinistic tradition, prayer is valued but does not affect outcomes or God's design. In Arminianism, prayer tends to place all control on the human spirit and the human choice. In Open Theism, prayer can influence or even change God by virtue of its building on a relationship, but only because of God's loving spirit working in the world.

The area of Open Theism that remains in question for me is God's knowledge of the future. Perhaps due to my upbringing, training, or academic logic, I am more comfortable thinking that God has determined all future events and I cannot really affect those results. But I think I will defer conclusion on this abstract concept until such a time as truth reveals itself.

Let us return to the church. A church that subscribes completely to Calvinism has no need for evangelism other than to fulfill God's obligation and scriptural mandate. The could mean that the church spends its energy in study of scripture and in worship with no other purpose than to worship. While there is nothing wrong with this practice necessarily, it does seem to lack in emotional application to God's truth in the world. On the other side of the coin, a church that practices Arminianism tends to rely on its own work ethic and the sheer ability of humans to guide, shape, and form the church in whatever manner it so chooses. While this places much of the responsibility on church members, it also could and rather suspiciously may avoid the central purpose of believers corporately worshiping God.

This means that the church, replete with a myriad amount of personalities, expectations, concepts, and ideas, must come together in prayer, study, and intentional worship of God by unifying its purpose. In doing so, the church exists to create a commonality of learning, applying truth, and worshiping God. This makes the many ministries, events, meetings, classes, services, and fellowships to have a sense of relationship building within a community of believers. In open theistic practice, believers develop their loving relationship with God, thus improving and developing their relationship with each other, for the same goals and purpose, and all done with excellence. But whether you subscribe to Calvinism, Arminianism, or Open Theism, there is no doubt that our honoring, our worshiping, our Christian conduct should be God-centered.

Ultimately, then, our community relationship with God should be a priority and that it be done prestigiously and comprehensively, bringing us back to the act of church and its worship of God the Almighty. Regardless of the diversity of personalities, concepts, interests, education, and, yes, value systems of the individuals, when we come together as one body in church, we do so as a collective dimension of our need and requirement to build our loving relationship with God. How to do so is where it all gets sticky!

The Church--Pt. II

In the first installment of "The Church" I concluded with the idea that the church is primarily for the believer. In many ways this concept is naturally understood, yet for an evangelical Christian, it is a little difficult to accept in its entirety. If the church's prime mission is to evangelize to the non-believer, then it has failed and may continue to fail. When scripture tells us to go into all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the father, the son, and the holy ghost, God was not necessarily telling the church but rather encouraging the people, and I think there is a stunning difference between the church and the people. The church has an institutional obligation and responsibility to the people whereas Christian people have a responsibility to God. This becomes an important distinction later.

It is the very nature of being evangelical that has given wings to Protestant denominations and resulted in a large number of churches throughout our country and particularly in the Southern region. The emphasis on evangelicalism, that is reaching out to share the gospel, encouraging a relationship with Christ, becoming a part of a community, seeking to bring people to salvation, and making a difference individually as well as collectively, has been an invaluable tool to shaping our society and specifically our churches. The very essence, however, of being evangelical, which in and of itself has its roots in scripture and provides core foundations for our essential tenants, also places an added responsibility to the practices of the local church.

Please don't misunderstand. I am not advocating an abolishment of evangelicalism by the churches, for to do so would be to attempt to alter radically the very nature of what it means to be a Baptist church. We learn, we worship, we reach out, we transform ourselves so we can be a part of transforming other people. We are to be a light to the world and work to guide and lead people to discover the truth through Biblical teaching. That is who we are. What I am asking, however, is should our evangelical nature find fruition in the daily practices of the church? Or, instead, should we consider church as a training ground for fellow Christians and a worship center for believers? If so, I believe, this would make the church a less complicated and perhaps more consistent institution.

Every morning, I pray and then exercise. I exercise for many reasons, most of which are selfish. I hope to look a little more fit, I hope to have a little more energy, I hope to be healthier and maybe live longer, and I hope to be a little more effective of a leader of other people. I also read voraciously, drink lots of water, and work diligently to improve myself in some way. It is hoped that my efforts at self-improvement make me a better witness and allow me to reach out to other people in a multitude of ways. If we look at our churches in the same way, the church should be about worshiping, training, and teaching its membership. Adding the complexity of making the church's main purpose to evangelize and to attract non-believers to its walls, adds a great deal of complexity and "stickiness" to its objectives.

So it seems to me that the church's main purpose is to reach out to believers and to teach those believers to in turn reach out to non-believers. If this is true and right, then it stands to reason that activities such as worship, Bible classes, and ministry should be driven primarily by the teachings of Christ. How to formulate the specific details of each leg of the church including worship becomes the central issue facing churches today, and not only is it a central issue, it is also a potentially divisive one. And that is why churches must get its house in order by concentrating on its current membership of believers in order to then accomplish its ultimate evangelical mission.

Unfortunately, this is not a simple endeavor for any church, and involves the seeking after Biblical truth as well as an awareness of people and their needs. We will address the myriad facets of human personality and how that relates to worship later. For now, I continue to posture that while a church must train its members for evangelism, its prime directive should be to provide Biblically based experiences for the believer.

The Church--Pt. I

I feel compelled to join the bandwagon of bloggers currently writing on the church, its role, its purpose, its past, and its future. I don't expect to add much new to the wealth of great writings that exist currently and historically, but at the same time, writing helps formulate and clarify my own thoughts on this complex, yet glorious institution--The Church.

Yesterday, as I was making my 2nd of 4 trips from our place to town and back (see earlier blog), I stopped at a traffic light of a busy intersection and heard someone yelling. I looked over to see a handsome fellow in a white shirt, tie, pressed jeans, boots, and Cowboy hat, holding a Bible, and pacing back and forth. He had a pleasant but intense look on his face, appeared to be in good health, and quite confident in himself.

He was using his full voice and zealously insisting that "Mohammed is dead. Joseph Smith is dead. Jesus Christ is alive." He would occasionally quote scripture and remind those sitting at the traffic light that the Bible was the word of God. At first I was put off and assumed the man was looking for a handout. But on closer examination, I decided he was honestly attempting to get the message across to those who could hear. As he yelled, I found myself looking at the other drivers, some older, most younger, wondering if they also were somewhat uncomfortable with this experience; and as I glanced around, I had the distinct impression they were not sure how to respond to this yelling stranger on the street corner. Most people seemed almost too frightened to even glance his way and his message, although nothing new, was a little too direct for the average person.

In my typical manner, I began to analyze this unusual situation and came to several conclusions. One, it is this man's right and privilege to express himself as he sees fit. He was hurting nobody, taking up little space, not electronically amplifying his words, nor using any kind of special physical tactics of any kind in his delivery system. He was not indecent, profane, frightening, ugly, or infringing on my rights in any way other than being loud. I was not forced to look at him nor to even listen to him, and if I chose, I could easily have made my radio louder than his voice. He was simply a man committed to sharing his view of the truth and hoping to make some kind of difference in the beliefs of others.

Two, he was not worshiping God, he was not interested in surrounding himself with others of like views, and he was not seeking solace, comfort, answers to a problem, or deep Biblical exegetical study. He was doing what he felt was his responsibility to share the truth and to evangelize the Gospel. Three, I do not know whether he was effective, but I do know that I spent the rest of the day thinking about what he said. I was totally comfortable with a literal interpretation of his words, but maybe less comfortable with the implications although I certainly do subscribe to the basic tenants of his message. Mohamed, the person, is no longer alive. Joseph Smith, the person, is no longer alive. But Jesus Christ rose from the dead and ascended into heaven according to scripture. Of course, these statements are certainly not without their potentially explosive possibilities; but taken literally, and with strong Christian faith, they are simply expressions of truth and belief.

Maybe the exclusionary overtones of this lack of tolerance of other views bothered me a touch or maybe the almost extreme insistence of these views left me a shade unsettled. Or maybe the fact that one either agrees completely with his implications or disagrees completely, left me wishing for less polarity and dichotomy in his content. This may be a character trait since I am drawn more toward dialectic examination of complex issues, rather emotionally-based platitudes of generalized conclusions.

Of course there is also the possibility that nobody was affected by his revelations and in fact his mode of delivery was exclusionary and did not help his cause in any sense. If this is true, then his time and energy were wasted, and all efforts were in vain in which case a less aggressive approach to expressing oneself and making a difference becomes paramount to the end. Yet I cannot determine how effective was his delivery system. This I do know, the message is readily available but is only heard by those receptive to hear it (notice I am avoiding the discussion of Arminianism versus Calvinism which would be counterproductive to my purpose for writing).

But whether one believes the message or not, here is my conclusion of our friend's evangelism technique. I contend his method, while unorthodox and independent, is perhaps more effective in reaching people who do not know the basic teachings of the Gospel, than are the churches with their worship services on Sundays. For his message finds the people where they are, shakes them up a bit, and leaves them thinking. A church service could accomplish the same result but only if those same people were in attendance. This could mean, then, that a church's purpose is not necessarily for the non-believer, but in fact, is there to serve the needs of the believer.

Robert E. Lee Holden

My uncle, Dr. Robert Lee Holden, passed away recently in a nursing home in San Angelo, TX at the age of 77. He was my father's sister's husband and good friend to my Dad. He had served in the military, taught public school, and had spent most of his career as a college professor of education at Angelo State University. I was named after him.

Apparently, my mother not wanting to have "family" names, as opposed to my Dad who was committed to naming me after a family member, was caught unaware of the fact I was named after my uncle until it was too late! Little Robert Lee Tucker entered the world in 1960 named after his Uncle, an Uncle who married my Aunt Patsy at a fairly young age and remained successfully married for 59 years! But I recently discovered more to the story of my uncle's name for, much to my surprise, Dr. Holden informed me about two months before his passing that he was actually named after the great Southern general Robert E. Lee. While I have been asked many times if I were named after Robert E. Lee, I readily denied such a connection since, to my knowledge, none existed.

Dr. Holden, Bob as we affectionately called him, was in fact originally named Robert E. Lee Holden which is what it states on his birth certificate. The E. is not spelled out at all making it not representative of anything more than a letter. This apparently created a problem for Bob as a young enlistee. His officers kept demanding that he tell them what the E stood for in his name. He kept insisting that it stood for nothing more than a letter. Finally, in frustration at the constant harassment, he elected to drop the E from his nomenclature and subsequent correspondence. The result was that nobody question the E any longer and few people associated the famed general with Dr. Holden.

Yet, there is no denying or revising history. I was named after my Uncle who was named after Southern General Robert E. Lee, son of Revolutionary war hero General Henry "Light Horse" Lee. Whether the E is dropped from his name or not does not change his roots and, although somewhat superfluous, may indeed inadvertently contribute to one's own leadership qualities or at least tenacity for a cause. In the case of Robert E. Lee, although his position may in retrospect have been a touch misguided, he was indeed a remarkable leader with great courage, fortitude, and wisdom. For my Uncle, Dr. Robert E. Lee Holden, as a public school teacher and eventually college professor, his leadership was demonstrated in the classroom. For me, named after my uncle who was named after the General, I feel a sense of legacy pervading my thoughts and actions. It is hoped I continue to represent leadership qualities in the classroom, in college administration, in music performances, and in my Christian walk.

An Effort Unrewarded? Maybe Not!

My story begins on a Saturday morning as I was delivering 4 bales of hay to my 2 donkeys, 2 llamas, and 2 goats. I drove my pickup down to the gate and unloaded the hay only to see the horrifying sight that was to occupy my attention for the next several hours. The bigger of the 2 llamas had barbed wire wrapped around her stomach and her legs.

I quickly grabbed my wire cutters that I keep close for those times a goat gets stuck in the fence near a post and requires some cutting to get free, and reached out for the llama, grabbing the barbed wire and hoping to get a chance to snip some of it. Unfortunately, my quick reaction caused her to jump and bolt away. I chased her to no avail and realized I needed some rope, bigger wire cutters, and some help.

I jumped in the pickup, called my oldest son to come help, and headed to my 2nd feed and agriculture store for the day. I purchased bigger bolt cutters, some rope, and some sweet feed that I hoped would be enticing for the llama. As I drove, I wondered why the llama didn't know that I was simply trying to help, not hurt. I also found myself swearing at the fence builders for leaving loose strands of barbed wire lying around.

Upon my return, my son and I chased the llama around the field, no easy task considering the amount of cactus and mesquite that pervades our "ranch," trying to get a rope around her neck so that we could keep her still long enough to remove the barbed wire. But our efforts were in vain. He did point out that she didn't seem to be in pain. I wondered about that, however, since my experience with animals has been that their faces do not seem to register emotions. This has actually bothered me for several years and I would like to analyze this fact at some point. Nevertheless, whether she was in pain or not, I felt oddly responsible to at least remove the barbed wire from around her body.

I knew I needed some panels, so I made my 3rd trip to town to yet another store to purchase some corral panels needed to "capture" my elusive friend. I bought two panels thinking I could use the current gate as one of the ends of my little make shift corral. My thoughts on this 3rd trip were more utilitarian and less philosophical as I envisioned capturing the llama and fixing the problem. Arriving back home, I lifted the panels out of the pickup and placed them in position only to recognize my plan was not going to work without another panel. 

On the way to town to buy another panel, I reflected on how I was making my 4th trip for the day to help the animals. For not the 100th time, I wondered about my competence in raising farm animals especially considering the time and money spent for little to no gain. Yet, I knew without a doubt that I would not quit this particular objective to rid that poor animal of the chains that enslaved her through no fault of her own. As I made that commitment, I also began to reflect on how many times we are enslaved by bonds that do not allow us to reach our full potential as people. We are often restricted by a multitude of sources both immediate and far-reaching. In fact, it is of supreme value to operate within the confines that surround you but to be successful in spite of and maybe because of those very barriers. Such is life!

I returned to the "ranch" and set up the 3rd panel, got the family out to help me, and anxiously awaited the moment when the llama would walk into my ingenious structure, and I would then fix this problem. But she remained outside the walls and all our efforts at encouragement only resulted in her moving away from us. My frustration at this problem was reaching epic proportions and I wondered how my blood pressure was going to handle this when I glanced near the llama and saw something on the ground. I walked over to it only to find the entire strand of barbed wire had unwrapped itself and fallen off!

The goal, to remove the barbed wire, was met, but my efforts had not contributed to the goal. 4 trips to town, lots of money, lots of stress, concern, fear, anger, and frustration had all amounted to nothing. Yet the goal had been met. I think there is a lesson in here somewhere but I don't know where. Do you?

If you know the lesson, please share it with me!

Why Can't He Sing?

Having grown up in a family of singers, I unfortunately was not blessed with a beautiful voice; yet I was blessed, if one can call it a blessing, to have a great zeal and love of singing along with a general love of music. My somewhat nasal sounding, rattly voice does not deter me from frequently applying my love of music and the "natural" instrument God has given me to a multitude of circumstances, including but not limited to, showers, driving, walking, shopping, and maybe thinking out loud (much to the chagrin of my friends.) But the question on the table today is not about me but rather about Joel, our 18 year old autistic son.

He has never sung a note. He loves music and discusses it frequently (I smile as I think about this morning when he said, "How about 'I'd Do Anything'?" Not understanding his question at first, I remembered discussion in the car the day before when we were trying to decide the best song from the musical "Oliver!") and with great interest. He has a special love for organ music and hymns but also gravitates to marches played by a band. A musical highlight for Joel is getting to hear a march played on the organ. With his enjoyment of organ music, comes frequent practicing on the organ and the piano with most of the music being hymns of various types and in various keys.

So why doesn't he sing? Is it due to a fear of failure or does he actually lack the ability to sing? I have heard a few people who could not seem to match pitch, which implies a judgment on my part, but I do not think I have encountered someone who simply cannot do it. Obviously, a person without the ability to speak would also lack the ability to sing. But this also brings to mind the odd cases of people who stutter when they speak but can sing without hesitation (Mel Tillis, and Carly Simon to name two). Yet, those people and there are many, can and do sing with success and more importantly, enjoyment. The obvious answer to this mystery is that singing requires a slightly different part of the brain than speaking. But is it really that simple?

There has been much research relating psychology and singing that reference the benefits of singing for mental health, for physiological gain, and for general peace and welfare of the individual countenance, and I find this to be generally true for most people. Singing is a creative venture that requires memory, expression, emotional cognition, depth of thought, a sensitive awareness of the environment, and sense of goal-direction and purpose. We sing as an expression of our feelings, our deepest thoughts, our emotions, as a way to put shape and form to our joys and fears, our optimism and our sorrows. Singing does all that and more. But, coincidentally and unfortunately, the act of singing uses all the faculties that are missing or weakened in autism--a disability that tends to affect the ability for creative expression of emotions.

So Joel does feel what we feel and experience what we experience, but when he tries to express those events in an emotional way, he gets blocked by the weakness in the central nervous system, that area of the brain that allows and encourages the outer expression of feelings. He cannot sing because he cannot demonstrate his deepest emotions. Are they in him? Yes, without a doubt. He cares, he fears, he loves, he worries, he reaches out, and he is comfortable in his skin. But he cannot sing and while it is hard to understand, it is simply a characteristic that makes him who he is--Joel Tucker.