there’s little more i can add to the conversation surrounding monday’sboston marathon bombing. we’ve collectively mourned the loss of lives, searched for answers to why this happened and watched the explosion footage over and over in disbelief. when these senseless tragedies happen, we’re left with a lot of talk and very few answers.

it’s unlikely, then, that a comedian would add some worthwhile words of wisdom. but that’s exactly what patton oswalt did in a facebook post monday afternoon. quite frankly, i’m not that big of a fan of patton oswalt, but his words transcended whether or not i laugh at his jokes or watch his movies. i’m including his entire statement here. he writes,

yesterday morning, the theological wing of the twittersphere exploded when audio surfaced of rob bell affirming same sex marriage. while speaking at grace cathedral—an episcopal church in san francisco—he was directly asked about his stance on gay marriage and he offered the following response:

“I am for marriage. I am for fidelity. I am for love, whether it’s a man and woman, a woman and a woman, a man and a man. I think the ship has sailed and I think the church needs — I think this is the world we are living in and we need to affirm people wherever they are.”

truth is everywhere.

so was i reminded yesterday when i happened upon a tweet from @Buddha_Insights (via damien echols):

https://twitter.com/Buddha_Insights/statuses/295849109473091584

file this tweet in the category, “shots fired”. in this case, (whether it’s intentional or not) the shots flew in the direction of christianity. and, quite frankly, the shots are fair. (as well as this one, but that’s another post altogether.)

on march 25, 2003, derek webb officially flipped the switch on his solo career with the release of his debut album, she must and shall go free. the album was a call to action and critique of the modern church which signaled a solo journey that would be characterized by controversy and an unpredictable evolution.

i have a good friend who forbids his elementary-aged child from attending his parents’ church. he’s spent quite a few years working through what he feels like was a deceptive religious upbringing. now a church leader himself, he doesn’t want his child to be exposed to beliefs in a church setting that he views not only as wrong, but as his experience has proven, hurtful.

simply put, he fears a process of deprogramming with his child.

though i absolutely understand his feelings, i’ve felt like he was a little too overbearing with his probhibition.

now, though, i’m moving toward his point-of-view.

for those who use twitter, you’re likely familiar with the following series: type a tweet, delete it; type it a different way, delete it; repeat these steps until you finally just give up. sometimes, you just know that however you say something in 140 characters, you’re not gonna adequately convey your feelings and/or you’re gonna do little more than just anger or offend people.

in an old testament class in seminary, we spent nearly two months talking through and studying just the first two chapters of genesis. seemingly straightforward, the multiple version of the story (yes, versions plural) told in those chapters are a poetic way to describe a complex history of all created things.

that class was the first time in my life that i began to get a clear understanding of the historical, cultural and literary context of the opening scenes of genesis.

simply put, it’s when it became ultimately clear to me that there is no possibility of a literal understanding of the creation story.