WWW.KIRTELEWIS.COM

Evangelistic Ambulance Chasing

Kirt Lewis

Download

I used to teach on this!  I would train other Christians on the difference between having a witness and that of proselytizing.  I talked about being sensitive to 'power dynamics', and how to avoid placing those who are uniquely vulnerable and dependent upon our Christian compassion in situations where they might feel compelled to embrace our faith out of fear that not doing so would jeopardize future assistance.  I regularly tried to calm the fears of my non-Christian colleagues in social work that all we were interested in was the "free and mutually desired exchange of beliefs and values" and that we were not engaged for the purpose of proselytizing.  If I might say so, I was really good at convincing myself and others that coercion never entered the picture when it came to our witness to the gospel.

The 'Missional opportunity'

But like so many other things that I have come to realize are pervasive in the con artist culture of the evangelical religion, deep down in side we all knew why we were reaching out with a meal and 'a cold cup of water' to those who were literally suffering from parched throats and empty stomachs.  And that was so we can do it all 'in the name of Jesus'.  Internally, there is language that is commonly used to describe this kind of strategic evangelism.  My favorite would have to be the phrase, 'missional opportunity'.  That sounds a lot better than the long-form, more technically accurate description of what we are really talking about here, which is leveraging the moment when people are experiencing some significant lacking or misfortune in order to use that heightened sense of need as a bridge into the all-sufficient arms of the church.

two examples

Let me share two examples.  They both have to do with taking advantage of the unique needs and therefore evangelistic opportunities surrounding people on the move.  If you really want to impress your evangelical friends, you can refer to this as 'diaspora missiology'.  

The first example has noting to do with misfortune but rather the privileged opportunity that most middle and upper-class white Americans in particular have, and that is the ability to pick up and move to another community, usually a 'better' one.  Even though this is viewed as a mostly positive transition, that doesn't mean it is not fraught with its own stresses and strains.  In particular there is always a social need that people have when they move into a new community.  New residents want to know who their new friends will be.  Well you know what that sounds like?  A missional opportunity!  We used to talk about it when I served as a pastor.  And lucky for us, we have the industry of religion to create a product that will help us to be there for our new neighbors!  Here's an excerpt from Outreach Magazine:

Every year an estimated 45 million people move to a new home, many not knowing the community yet. With the New Mover Program from Outreach, your church can easily send an invitation to these families to join the caring and supportive community at your church. This unique program allows you to mail only to the carrier routes you want, send beautifully designed postcards twice a month to increase response rates and reach families that moved to your area up to six months ago.

OK, if this first example seems like silly, b-grade salesmanship, the second example is far more serious.  As many of you are aware, my passion and career have focused on forcibly displaced peoples for the past seven plus years.  The bulk of this time was with an evangelical relief organization.  Me and my other colleagues did a lot of good work, and many of them continue to do so.  But I am now grieved by the manner in which I spoke about the unique opportunity to witness to those who had been forced to embark on the extremely painful and uncertain journey of a refugee.  I had three points in my sermons as to why a Christian should engage: 1) that our faith lineage shared a biblical legacy with those who had been forced to move (e.g. Israel's exile to Babylon), 2) that we had a biblical command to minister to 'the foreigner in our midst', and 3) we had a biblical mission to make 'disciples of all nations'.  Like I said in the beginning, we all knew that this last point was the real motivation behind our acts of love.  After all, what good is it to save a man's life only to lose their soul to the eternal flames of hell.

As one pastor said in a blog article on the International Mission Board's website...

If we truly believe that God is sovereign, then it should be clear that God is leading peoples from Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, and other places to our collective doorstep. These refugees now live in a land where the gospel is freely proclaimed. Peoples previously inaccessible are now not only within our reach; they are our neighbors. In light of this reality, we need more churches to understand that “God turns even the tragedy of forced migration into the triumph of future salvation.”

a loaf of bread for the 'bread of life'

At various times in my previous life in evangelical Christianity, I volunteered at what is often called a 'rescue mission'.  You will find these in just about every city and town in the United States.  Some of these Christian ministries to the local homeless community make it a prerequisite to attend a church service before those who are hungry can receive a free meal.  A few make it a requirement to participate in Bible studies if they want to enroll in recovery programs.  Thankfully, there are a good number of evangelicals who find this practice shameful.

But many are unwilling to confront the more subtle but still subversive and often psychologically manipulative use of the 'missional opportunity'.  I don't know.  Perhaps this form of abuse is inevitable when any religious community is beholden to absolute claims impacting the eternal destiny of human souls.  Most religions have proven that when the stakes are so high, they are willing to approve just about any means that will reach that end.  All I know is that I cannot be party to it anymore.  In contrast, faith is at its best when the sole motivation of compassion is rooted in an empathy that had it been I who was in the current shoes of my hurting neighbor, this is exactly how I would want to be loved.

Avengers: Infinity War

Kirt Lewis

So it is highly unlikely that you are reading or listening to this review in order to decide if you will see the movie or not.  As of today, May 17, Avengers: Infinity War has raked in $1,665,125,380 globally.  If you take its domestic haul and divide if by the average cost of a movie ticket here in America--$9.16 by the way--it means that over 61 million people, myself included, have packed the theaters to see easily the most anticipated blockbuster of 2018.  Well, wait a minute.  You got to take into consideration all the die-hards who saw it two (or more) times and let's just estimate the total at 50 million.  Still, that means that somewhere between on in six to one in seven people who live here in the old U.S. of A. have undergone the shared experience of watching Thanos wreak havoc on 'the world's mightiest heroes'.  So here are a couple of quick impressions before I render my buttery finger judgment.  Oh, and if for some strange reason you haven't seen it, let me give the obligatory 'spoiler alert'.

By way of a reminder, here is my film scoring system.

gone are the days...

One thought I had was that gone are the days when villains were either bumbling bufoons or amusingly evil caricatures.  Maybe my memory was jogged by the recent passing of actress Margot Kidder, who played Lois Lane in the late 70's and early 80's Superman films.  That reminded me of Gene Hackman's take on Lex Luthor.  Or consider Jack Nicholson's swing at The Joker in Tim Burton's Batman (1989).  They were sure fun to watch, but no way in hell were you ever going to see them cry, or digitally cry in Thanos' case.

Don't get me wrong.  Thanos is bad.  He's very bad!  But for a guy who, in a proposed compassionate act of population control, sacrifices his adopted daughter, Gamora, in order to gain the power to commit galactic genocide by wiping out half of all sentient life with the iconic snap of his fingers, he kinda gets to you!  I don't know, perhaps we can blame this move away from the mostly flat 'bad guys' of the past to today's more complex, emotionally brooding types on the late Heath Ledger.  After all, he was "just ahead of the curve."

Let's not dig too deep

Beyond this, let's resist the temptation to dig too deep and read into Infinity War some larger social commentary.  What draws most people to see films like this are two things: 1) some endearing characters, who strike just the right balance between being relatably human while also possessing super-human abilities and 2) the prospect of watching said characters face a formidable foe at the risk of great loss.  And that is something Disney's Marvel movie franchise--a.k.a. the M.C.U, the Marvel Cinematic Universe--has done quite well under the steady leadership of the President of Marvel Studios, Kevin Feige.  Actually I take that back.  They had done good on the endearing characters side of the equation but not so great on the formidable foes, who seemed to be routinely discarded at the end of all the previous Marvel installments.  But boy did they make up for that with Infinity War, as evidenced by each gasp of the audience as they watched Black Panther, Spider-man, Star-lord and a host of other beloved characters fade away to ashes.  Throw in some epic fight scenes, solid special effects, and an effective score from composer Alan Silvestri, and voila, you have 1.6 billion dollars in ticket sales...and counting.

and the verdict is...

So what's my Buttery Fingers review of Avengers: Infinity War?  I'm going to give it Two Buckets.  I had a good time, was surprisingly emotional during a few scenes, and dammit I've woke up in the middle of the night at least twice trying to figure out how Tony Stark, Captain America, and company are going to fix this mess!  Congrats Disney.  You've guaranteed I'm going to continue to contribute to Bob Iger's retirement.

PRO-life When It's THEIR-life

Kirt Lewis

Download

On the surface, it's a noble position: to passionately champion 'life'.  Moving beyond the abortion debate, I hope that it isn't too controversial of an observation that a good deal of life happens after we are born.  So I would have to conclude that being 'pro-life' describes someone that cares about the rest of the story that follows once the ink has dried on the birth certificate.  And indeed for most American evangelicals, there is a strong commitment to this, only it turns out that there is a priority list and that the number one criteria for those at the top is that they don the title 'Christian'.

'Open doors'...for some

Now I'm not so jaded that I can't take some measure of joy in witnessing the reuniting of loved ones.  But when I heard about the release of three Americans who had been imprisoned in North Korea, I was pissed.  As I watched the news, it didn't take long to realize that these three individuals fit the previously mentioned criteria for those worthy enough to go to the front of the 'right-to-life' line.  In fact, they had something else that made them immanently worthy of the full diplomatic force of the President of the United States: they weren't just 'Christians', they were 'persecuted Christians'!

And who was whispering in the President's ear to remind him of his solemn duty to remember the plight of these high-priority human beings?  Well it was the evangelical Christians who helped get him elected, this time in the form of the organization, Open Doors.  Their tag line is, "Serving persecuted Christians worldwide."  Note how the word 'Christian' is in bold.  I mean, damn!  Why not italicize it, underline it, highlight it, and circle it with a red pen just to make sure that anyone else our there on the planet who is persecuted but who isn't a Christian knows that this organization is NOT for them.

Prior to their release, Open Doors USA President, David Curry, specifically advocated for the three men saying, “We simply cannot afford to let these Americans stay another day on North Korean soil, or we risk more unfortunate outcomes like what occurred to American student Otto Warmbier.”  Otto, another American who was detained in North Korea, was released in a mysterious coma-like condition in June of 2017, dying a week after he returned to the States.

Now I'm sure someone from the organization would point out that Curry only qualified these individuals as "Americans", but I think we are all wise to this evangelical game by now.  So let's move past that and focus on the real thrust of his apparent concern, that the actual survival of these men was at stake unless they were freed and returned to America.  That's great Mr. Curry!  You care about people oversees in desperate situations where it appears that their last recourse is to come to the U.S.?  Me to!  So let's talk about Muslim refugees from Syria.

"this is about humanity."

After the most recent round of chemical attacks unleashed by the Assad regime on their own people,  President Trump, apparently moved yet again by the images of children choking on weaponized toxic fumes, declared that, "This is about humanity."  So whatever his eventual response was, it would be motivated by a fundamental value for all human life.  Of course his only solution was to drop more bombs on the country.  One would have thought that by now he had been thoroughly briefed on the reality that Syrians will continue to suffer and die on a massive scale and that part of the Administration's diplomatic and humanitarian response must be the resettlement of refugees around the globe, with the U.S. leading in this effort.  But of course this would fly right in the face of his xenophobic rhetoric that resonated so strongly with his most loyal voting block, white evangelicals.  

So what is the result?  As of end of April in this current Federal fiscal year, which started last October, the U.S has received forty-four Syrian refugees.  Of those forty-four, only twenty-seven are Muslim, though the vast majority of Syrian refugees are of that faith.  According to an article in The Dallas Morning News from this past February,

In the first four months of the fiscal year, there has been a 94 percent decline in the number of Muslims resettled into the U.S. as refugees, according to State Department data. In January of 2017, as Trump was coming in, Muslim refugees made up nearly 1 out of 2 refugees arriving in the U.S. A year later, that ratio has become 1 in 10.

Now to be fair, a small handful of evangelical leaders have notably raised their voices for even Muslim refugees, though as I pointed out in my previous article, Where is the Letter to the Church?, they will do so very carefully and mostly not directed at the one group that needs to hear from them the most--that being the evangelical church.  Meanwhile hundreds if not thousands of Muslim refugees from Syrian and other countries will continue to die in camps or drown in the Mediteranian.  But hey, that's o.k. for American evangelicals.  They got their guys out of North Korea.  

The Castration of Russell Moore

Kirt Lewis

Download

In my final few years within the evangelical community, there were a few seemingly rebellious voices within that tradition to which I clung.  They offered me some reassurance that I wasn't "taking crazy pills" in my growing realization that something was terribly wrong with this significant demographic of professing followers of Jesus.  One such courageous voice that I rallied to was that of Russell Moore, the President of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission.  For those of you who are not familiar with the ERLC, it serves as the public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, the second largest Christian denomination in the United States behind the Catholic Church. 

The Baptist Empire

At 15 million members strong, the SBC is a denominational empire in America's religious scene.  Though I only once briefly attended a Southern Baptist Church during my former life as an evangelical Christian, the influence this behemoth has had on the overall theology and culture of American evangelicalism, particularly the majority conservative and white wing, is arguably unparalleled.  For example, even when I was a professional pastor in children's and youth ministry, there was this consensus among fellow colleagues that when it came to indoctrinating...I'm sorry, I meant to say discipling 'our kids', the Southern Baptist publishers could always be counted on to give us 'the good stuff'.  More relevant to the discussion here, the SBC was, among all the evangelical denominations, the most fertile soil for the paranoid narrative and authoritarian ideology of the 'religious right' and its charismatic founding fathers like Southern Baptist Pastor, Jerry Fallwel.  This movement's marriage of religious intolerance and political power would become the dominant social engagement strategy of American evangelicalism for the last forty plus years as it strove to 'advance the Kingdom of God' against the evil ambitions of the 'liberal' hordes.

Now, that which I once assumed to be true has become one of my major grievances with the evangelical tradition, ultimately leading to my departure.  But before I made this decision, any glimmer of hope that flickered before me was usually sustained in part because of a few brave souls who seemed determined to take the church back to Jesus more than the radical fundamentalists were committed to 'taking America back for God'. 

Moore v Trump

So I just about jumped up and did a Hallelujah dance when Russell Moore, in an September of 2015 New York Times Op Ed, asked in its title, "Have Evangelicals who Support Trump Lost Their Values?"  If you read the article, you know that it's a rhetorical question.  In Moore's own words, "Most illogical is his support from evangelicals and other social conservatives. To back Mr. Trump, these voters must repudiate everything they believe."  Moore would again raise his voice in opposition to evangelical support for the now presumptive nominee of the Republican Party in a May 6th, 2016 Op Ed.  In it he would directly imply that Trump's campaign was leveraging, "the darkness of pent-up nativism and bigotry all over the country."  Well the Mad Titan himself wasn't going to sit back and let this rogue evangelical erode his support among the voting block that eventually would nearly single handily give him the keys to the Oval Office!  So of course Trump took to his favorite tool by which he publicly shames all those who dare oppose him: Twitter.  A few days later on May 9th, at 3:05 in the morning, he grabbed his cell and furiously wrote, "Russell Moore is truly a terrible representative of Evangelicals and all of the good they stand for. A nasty guy with no heart!"

Over the next few days a few national evangelical voices would come to Moore's defense, but it was certainly not an overwhelming response that would have caused Trump to wonder if his condemnation of a nationally recognized conservative Southern Baptist leader might sabotage his courting of particularly white evangelicals in the South and Rust Belt States.  Turns out the the shady-dealing, marriage-shedding, pussy-grabbing billionaire knew more about the parishioners in the pews than the preachers who claim to lead them.

policing their own

Well you know how the rest of the story goes.  But this left the Southern Baptist Convention in a very difficult situation.  A number of very influential leaders and certainly a large number of their members had been key to Trump's election, and a very clear assumption behind this deal was that their support would be rewarded by the new Administration granting greater access to and a prioritizing of the religious right's agenda.  I'm sure that in the minds of some of SBC leaders, Russel Moore retaining his current position would be an unnecessary obstacle to the achievement of these goals.  They knew that their new king, contrary to what 1st or should I call it One Corinthians teaches (13:5), was very adept at keeping a record of past wrongs.  The sins of Russel Moore would likewise not be forgotten.

Now for those who know the Southern Baptist Convention, you know that they prefer to do most of their church politics behind closed doors.  But this was too big to keep in the shadows.  Retired Southern Baptist pastor and former Convention leader, Bill Harrell, suggested in a blog article that the SBC "call it a day" on it's formal relationship with the ERLC.  Much less subtle than Harrell, over a hundred SBC churches threatened withholding financial support from the convention until the ERLC's problem child was dealt with.  Formal complaints and inquiries ensued.  Private meetings took place.

Then, a month after the election and in the 'spirit of Christmas', Moore published an article on his blog, apologizing for unfairly categorizing many fellow Southern Baptist and evangelical pastors and parishioners who had made the difficult choice to vote for Trump.  Still, pressure continued to mount, leading to another statement in March of 2017, this time by Moore and the Executive Committee of the ERLC.  Titled, "Seeking Unity in the Southern Baptist Convention", it strongly hinted that his Board of Directors "encouraged" an apology tour with likely the most conservative and generous donors.  The only reality that likely preserved his job was that Moore finds his popularity amongst SBC's youth and racial and ethnic minorities.  And when you are a denomination that has lost a million members in the past ten years, you tend to want to limit your PR damage among the demographic that will be the future of the church, even though the candidate you just elected seems hell bent on delaying if not reversing that societal shift away from a white dominated America.  This time, after a second public apology, it appeared enough had been done to satisfy the angry mob of those Southern Baptist leaders who had been invited, thanks to their unwavering loyalty, into Trump's inner court.  Former SBC President turned mega-church pastor and Trump adviser, Jack Graham, called Moore's second apology "gracious and unifying".  Because apparently being "divisive" in the Southern Baptist Convention is a greater sin than calling out nativism, bigotry, and the naked idolatry of power.

the silence is DEAFENING

So what has happened with Russel Moore since then?  Well, one thing is for sure and that is you haven't seen him hovering over Trump for one of his vintage prayer photo ops!  Overall, things have been very quite for Mr. Moore, with two notable exceptions.  He had to whip up support at the Convention's annual 2017 gathering to make sure that they didn't make a disastrous mistake in rejecting a proposed resolution from a black pastor condemning the alt-right.  Also, he spoke out against Roy Moore in the Judge's attempt to become the next Senator representing Alabama, in spite of the significant support he held among white evangelicals in that state.  I suppose you can add to that a very gentle suggestion that President Trump reconsider his refugee ban.  But have there been any direct and strongly worded challenges towards the Southern Baptist Church for it's collective embrace or passive approval of the nativism, bigotry and idolatry of power so inherent in Trumpism?   None that I am aware of.

I remember telling others several times that I thought that Russel Moore's voice was "prophetic" in the run up to the 2016 election.  My opinion hasn't changed on that.  What has become obvious to me is that the Southern Baptist Convention is not a friendly place for prophets.  The term is noticeably absent in the previously mentioned March 2017 letter from the ERLC's Board of Directors.  To recognize that someone has a prophetic voice is to demand that the words they speak be given real attention and result in real reform.  So I suspect that Moore has been given very clear directions on the limits he must honor when expressing his personal convictions, unless he is not interested in having a significant professional future in the nation's largest Protestant Evangelical denomination.

cast out

Last month (April 2018), a private meeting of fifty influential evangelical leaders gathered at Wheaton College to talk about the future of evangelicalism in America.  The group was largely made up of those who shared a deep concern for the trajectory of this Christian tradition in light of the election of Trump.  Conspicuously absent was Moore, arguably the best known voice on the matters they were there to discuss.  However, the nature of the concerns expressed in the e-mail invite were that the, "support of ‘eighty-one per cent of self-identifying white evangelicals’ for Donald Trump is a call to self-reflection on the current condition of Evangelicalism."  So I'm pretty sure that Moore's Board and other senior SBC leaders strongly encouraged him to be 'busy' during this time.  Or perhaps there was another reason why Southern Baptists told Moore not to participate.  After all, as the Bible clearly teaches in Deuteronomy 23:1, "No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord."

Armchair Imagineering

Operation Iraqi Freedom Journal - Part 5 (Letters from Children)

Kirt Lewis

Download

In this installment of my Operation Iraqi Freedom Journal, we take a break from my actual journal entries and experiences to remember something that was very special to me and my fellow soldiers, that being letters I received from children while deployed oversees.  Perhaps times have changed and the experience is significantly different now.  As of the writing of this post, fifteen years have passed.  Modern technology at times kind of feels like dog years; for every actual calendar year that passes, computers and communication mediums advance seven years ahead.  Not like we didn't have email way back in 2003!  It's just that my experience was the early days of the Iraq War when we were all thrust back into the "stone age" when writing a letter required taking an actual pen and putting it on real paper.  In addition to this laborious task, patience would also be called into action.  Letters would typically take two to three WEEKS to get from the U.S. to wherever we were located and the same was true of a reply's return journey back home.  So when the First Sergeant walked in, hearing those words--"Lewis, you got mail!"--was like an early Christmas.  And while I was fortunate to get lots of letters from people young and old, correspondence from kids did something for us that I don't know can be put fully into words.

play as an alternative to war

I had a thought not too long ago as I pondered the state of our world and the perpetual wars and violence that plague us.  I wondered if children held a key to reversing our seeming addiction to unleashing war's unspeakable and wide-scale pain and suffering on each other.  Their simple solution?  Playing.  Now I'm not trying to romanticize children too much.  I have two children, age three and eight.  I know that they tend to fight from time to time.  But mostly they just want to play.  In fact, playing often trumps other adult-mandated responsibilities, like homework and doing chores!  That aside, I think we could all agree that if this world was a little bit more preoccupied with playing, then perhaps we would have a little less time to kill each other.

Iraqi kids doing armpit farts

Playing is the universal language of children.  I observed it when we engaged with Iraqi children.  Ever cupped one hand and placed it under your other arm's pit and then flapped that arm like a chicken?  Yes, simulated flatulence is hilarious no matter what part of the globe you are on.  I'd like to force some of our diametrically opposed geopolitical leaders to stand across from each other and perform this simple exercise.  I have to believe that this would result in some progress. 

Perhaps that is why a tent full of grown men in a war zone seemed to enjoy these letters so much.  It's as if for a brief moment, we were reduced to little boys and didn't have to worry about the grave dangers we were facing as 'grown ups'.  It's in the hope that you might rediscover the same innocent playfulness that underlies each message that I now share these letters with you.  Or in Michaela's words, "Have a good time at the war."

Click on each image to enlarge.

View fullsize

Who is She Trying to Convince? (pt.1)

View fullsize

Who is She Trying to Convince? (pt.2)

View fullsize

If Freddy Krueger had Sex with a Watermelon...

View fullsize

Wait! Which Picture is Sponge Bob?

View fullsize

Fun with Stickers (pt.1)

View fullsize

Fun with Stickers (pt.2)

View fullsize

Happy Valentine's Day (pt 1)

View fullsize

Happy Valentine's Day (pt.2)

View fullsize

I Hope You Win (pt.1)

View fullsize

I Hope You Win (pt.2)

View fullsize

Are We Having Fun Yet? (pt.1)

View fullsize

Are We Having Fun Yet (pt.2)

View fullsize

Winner of the Scariest Card Goes To... (pt.1)

View fullsize

Winner of the Scariest Card Goes to... (pt.2))

View fullsize

If Rumsfeld and Bush were Ducks (wide-angle)

View fullsize

If Rumsfeld and Bush were Ducks (close-up)

View fullsize

Out Motto for Operation Iraqi Freedom

#Me - The Psychology of Selfies

Kirt Lewis

Download

That's The Chainsmokers' 2014 hit song, Selfie.  As of the publishing of this piece, the song's music video has amassed an astronomical five-hundred-and-twenty-five million views on YouTube alone! 

But as crazy as those numbers are, check these out!

• "1,000 selfies are posted to Instagram every 10 seconds"

• "an average millennial is expected to take 25,700 selfies during their lifetime"

• And while this number technically is smaller in comparison to those statistics, one study discovered that between March of 2014 and September of 2016, one-hundred-and-twenty-seven people had accidentally DIED while taking a selfie!

What is driving this phenomenon that is at times an even fatal habit?

"narcissism, psychopathy, and machiavellianism"

As reported in Psychology Today, one study analyzed 1,000 men between eighteen and forty years old to see if there was any correlation between taking selfies and what they called the "dark triad" of psychological disorders, those being, "narcissism, psychopathy, and machiavellianism."  Several additional studies that included both men and women came later, with the results published in a follow up piece titled, "What is the Real Link between Selfies and Narcissism?"  Both concluded that especially for men, there was a modest correlation between increased selfie-taking and narcissism.  Yet while researchers agreed there needs to be, well you know, more research, it does appear that aside from certain obvious cases--yea, you know who you are!--most of us who take selfies are not narcissistic psychopaths!

I'm dating myself here

O.K., so I am officially old enough to remember a day and age when you could NOT take a picture without pointing the camera at someone else besides your self.  It was just physically impossible!  Then cameras came along with a timer.  Remember sitting your digital camera on a tripod or propping it up on anything stable and then sprinting to get into place with your other friends or family members, anxiously striking a pose before that blinking red light turned off?  But technology marches on, and with the dawning of the smart phone and their front and back side cameras, a whole universe of digital self-chronicling possibilities has opened up.  So what does the exponential growth of selfies say about ourselves if it doesn't point to a pandemic of dangerous levels of self-absorption?

people just want to...

I'll conclude with a theory that predates even the invention of the first camera.  It's not complicated and at its heart it isn't a bad thing.  In fact, the only way it becomes a bad thing is if this basic human need isn't met!  This deficit then fuels the "dark triad" and probably the rest of the identifiable psychosocial illnesses produced by human brokenness.  So what is that need?  Well it turns out that it doesn't matter who is taking the picture. In the end, people want to be seen.

Can Faith and Institution Coexist?

Kirt Lewis

Download

I'll be honest right off the bat.  I don't have a personal answer to that question.  My gut instinct is that I am skeptical that it can.  For those of you who have been following previous pieces I have published, you know that I use the terms 'faith' and 'religion' to mean entirely different and antithetical things.  The common phrase, 'organized religion', just seems to fit perfectly with what inevitably happens when a once vibrant faith succumbs to the call to institutionalize itself.  So is that the problem?  Is faith allergic to formalized structure?

the three 'P's'

In a recent two part series, we saw how both organized government and religion can, without the proper safe guards, succumb to the allure of power and greed.  But when it comes to faith, is there really any way to safeguard it from devolving into a moldy bureaucracy once institutions are introduced?  So I began to tap into my inner propensity to sermonize and of course came up with three points that all started with the same letter.  Each represents realities of institutions that, when introduced to faith, lead me to wonder if it is indeed impossible for the two to coexist. Those three 'P's' are POWER, PROPERTY, and PAYROLL.  I feel like I spent a fair amount of time recently on power, so in this piece I want to briefly focus on property and payroll.   Besides, I love how specific and practical they are to the every day life of religious institutions.

property

When it comes to property, I once drank the Kool-aid and as a result labored towards improving current church facilities or securing new and improved ones.  I and my other fellow believers would qualify our zeal with a statement about how we knew that the 'church is really the people' and that this space is just a 'tool' for serving God's purposes in our community.  But our relentless commitment to securing these brick and mortar instruments of Divine mission now makes those words feel just a little disingenuous.  How do you guard the ideological purpose of a church, mosque, synagogue, or temple from the eventual obsession with preserving the space as a comfortable couch of the established congregation or as some kind of historical and artistic artifact?  And according to one 2013 study, the price at that time to build an average size church building was close to three million dollars.  Isn't that effectively storing up for ourselves "treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal"? 

PAYROLL

Then what about payroll?  Man, is it nice to have someone who is paid to make sure that somehow faith stuff happens!  O.K., that's perhaps a little unfair and cynical.  I was a paid pastor for a good number of years, and I'd like to think that at least some of that time was spent furthering some genuine faith activity and growth.  I'm now convinced that allot of it also just furthered a religious 'dog and pony show', but not all of it!  But what about the challenge of maintaining an environment where spiritual leaders can lead when their livelihood is at stake?  How do you avoid self-censoring when a spiritual leader knows that his or her conviction might lead the board to reconsider cutting their next paycheck?

the perfect storm and the 'circle of life'

When you combine these two--property and payroll, or a parish and its priest, a church and its pastor, a mosque and its imam, or a synagogue and its rabbi--you have, essentially, the identity of a religious community.  Conversely, when you do not have these you have, in the minds of most congregants, the death of a parish, church, mosque or synagogue.  No wonder members of a religious institution, large or small, grieve so deeply and go to such great lengths to avoid, if at all possible, the dissolution of their formal entity.  But does this really have to be the case or is there another way?

Mufasa laying some 'circle of life' wisdom on Simba in Disney's 1994 'The Lion King'

Now maybe I am making too much out of all of this.  Perhaps you are saying, "Oh Kirt, it's just the 'circle of life'!"  I get that.  And I don't think I am an anarchist.  I do understand the helpfulness of some structure in living life together on this planet with businesses and governments and such.  But still I wonder, if can we perhaps imagine a different way to exploring faith in community apart from incorporating, having keys and an alarm system, or professionalizing spiritual leadership?  I don't know my friends.  Like I said at the top, I don't have any answers here, only questions.  One thing I am convinced of is that these are questions worth asking.

Church $ State: Part 2 - White-washing Prophets and the Kings Who Lead Them

Kirt Lewis

Download

Biblical Background

It was the Prophet Ezekiel (22:27-28), in the context of predicting God's immanent judgement on Israel, who lamented not only the unjust and cruel behavior of the nation's political leadership but also that, "Her prophets whitewash these deeds for them by false visions and lying divinations" and "They say, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says’—when the Lord has not spoken."  Later Jesus was likely alluding to this imagery when he said, "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead..." (Matthew 23:27).

Access, Agenda, and Affluence - who is really in charge?

In Part 1 of this series, I challenged both the value proposition and the constitutionality of public subsidies for religious congregations.  Now for the vast majority of clergy and their congregations, I assume that the defense of their tax breaks is motivated more by an assumed inherent right as well as fear of the financial loss that would ensue should these benefits be eliminated.  But other so-called religious leaders, the kinds of which Ezekiel and Jesus spoke to, are driven by something deeper.  There you will find a lust for unparalleled access to the halls of power, the authority to mandate their agenda, and the affluence that comes with being richly rewarded for their political loyalty.  I would argue that ultimately this is all self-deception, an illusion of control, and that like Satan tempting Jesus, the end result is a one-sided deal where Kings clearly rule over the prophets who endorse them.

'nothing new under the sun'

That religious leaders would provide theological cover to a political agenda is nothing new in American history.  The whole concept of 'manifest destiny', which is still an ideological stronghold among conservative 'Christians', is sourced in an errant conviction first articulated by John Winthrop, who served as Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony.  Historian Donald Scott notes that it was there that Winthrop drew a direct parallel between the covenant God made with Israel and the oath being taken by himself and his fellow colonizers.  In return, they received the Divine gift of the land which they called 'New England'.  Both he and later the legendary preacher of the First Great Awakening, Jonathan Edwards, would apply to the promise of this new America the words Jesus used to describe his disciples--that they were to be a "city...set on a hill".  Tragically the application of this commission from God led these chosen people to either actively support or passively approve the great atrocities their government would execute, such as the mass genocide of Native Americans.

More recent in American history, we've seen this stubborn cancer return in the form of the mostly evangelical 'religious right'.  Ronald Reagan would follow in Winthrop and Edward's footsteps and famously quote the same "city...on a hill" Scripture on the night before his first election and again in his last day in office.  He showed a masterful ability to woo evangelicals, convincing them that his political philosophy was both a cure to their worst apocalyptic nightmares and the key to their most cherished post-millennial, utopian dreams. Like all effective politicians, evangelicals would be the hero in Reagan's narrative of a resurgent America as long as they expressed their faith by voting for himself and the Republican party.  The actual teachings of Jesus would increasingly take a back seat, soon to be replaced by the pyrotechnic preaching and prognostications of talking heads on Fox News and the anxious voices of conservative radio, many of them religiously affiliated like Salem Media Group's nationwide network of stations arrogantly called 'The Answer'.

kings need an insider

But for all of this to work, Kings need to find a man on the inside.  Using the Christian Scriptures, you need someone who thoroughly rejects Jesus' teachings that serving others is the way to greatness.  Someone who will flagrantly ignore any parts of their sacred text that will interfere with either the prospective King's assent to power (i.e. election), or the agenda the newly-installed ruler wishes to execute.  And for Donald Trump, one man truly lowered himself to the occasion, that person being the Reverend Franklin Graham, son of the late American icon, Billy Graham.  Graham deftly went about, touting his non-partisan commitment to God's agenda, which just so happened to mirror the fear-mongering rhetoric and bigoted policies Trump kept trotting out, such as their ban on all Muslim immigration.  Trump and Graham teamed together to brilliantly play on the conspiracy theories surrounding those evil 'liberals' that really were just cover for the anxiety that mostly white evangelicals were experiencing at the demographic loss of social and political clout.  All those foreigners and gay people were getting in the way of their manifest destiny.  In contrast, Trump promised to give back to them "power" and "Christmas".  Meanwhile, Graham launched out on his "Decision America Tour" to unite Christians in praying for our nation, though one of the key objectives was to get people out to vote.  He didn't have to explicitly endorse Trump; he used just the right kind of language and the psychologically trained evangelical audiences connected the Pavlovian dots to the hysteria of the religious right's narrative, a story that has been drilled into their heads for the past forty years via Focus on the Family, The 700 Club, and Liberty University to name a few.  The end result was Trump getting a whopping 81% of the white evangelical vote, effectively delivering him the White House.

the subjects are rewarded

Then corrupt Kings do as they always have done for their loyal subjects: give them just enough rewards to numb them to their moral compromise.  Reverend Johnnie Moore of the Southern Baptist Church bragged about how the "front door" of the White House was always "open"--ACCESS.   Jay Sekulow, who has now gone on to be one of Trumps lawyers, was as giddy as a school boy when Trump announced his de facto Muslim travel ban--AGENDA.  But what about AFFLUENCE?  Well if you are a political novice you have likely heard of the phrase 'crony capitalism'.  The Business Dictionary defines it as such:

An economy that is nominally free-market, but allows for preferential regulation and other favorable government intervention based on personal relationships. In such a system, the false appearance of "pure" capitalism is publicly maintained to preserve the exclusive influence of well-connected individuals.

Well now feast your eyes on 'crony religion-ism'.  Because after the Presidential Inauguration Committee identified a surplus of unspent funds from the money raised for Inauguration festivities, where do you think a chunk of that went?  One million dollars to Samaritan's Purse, the humanitarian organization led by none other than Franklin Graham.  Hey, that's $999,800 more than the present day value of thirty pieces of ancient Roman silver coins!  Hopefully some of that will help with Graham's annual compensation of $713,846.  Of course it was for hurricane relief and I'm sure that none of what Graham effectively did for Trump prior to the election was a factor in this decision.

saving faith from $

So we end where we started.  In Part 1 I began by saying that, "Nothing converts faith to religion quicker than a perceived need for power or money."  So what can we do to try to limit the likelihood of this happening?  Well on the private side, we can begin by being more discerning when it comes to giving to religious organizations.  We can start by inquiring as to how effective they are with our charitable donations.  And certainly if there is evidence that leads you to believe they are engaged in crony religion-ism, I highly recommend you inform their Board that if it doesn't stop your checks will.  But I want to conclude by returning to our initial focus on the public subsidization of religion and some actual legislative proposals that I think would go along way in preserving faith and advancing a more honorable government.

1. Property and income (donations or sales revenue) tax breaks would only be available for congregations and clergy in proportion to their investment of property space along with program expenses, to include supplies, equipment and paid staff hours, to the general welfare of their communities. This charitable activity must be clearly separated from any effort to evangelize the beneficiaries of the congregation's services. Churches may be randomly audited by the IRS to ensure that those claiming such a deduction in taxable income and assets are in compliance. If it is proven that a church has falsely claimed tax deductions, they will repay the taxes owed and as a penalty lose the ability to claim tax breaks for the following year.

2. Conservatives are always expressing their desire to simplify the tax code. I'm down for that! So let's eliminate smaller subsidies for religions organizations, such as the housing deduction for clergy as well as their ability to opt out of Social Security or Medicaid.

3. Any tax subsidy is forfeited should the clergy and congregation engage in distinctly partisan activities during official church services. In other words, Congress and the President need to preserve and ensure the full enforcement of The Johnson Amendment.

4. No funds associated with the office of a specific politician or a political party can be 'donated' to a charity, religious or secular. So, for example, if their are future surpluses for Presidential Inauguration Committees, use it to pay down the national debt and not to payback your religious buddies.

5. Also in Part 1, I affirmed the value of partial public funding for public-private partnerships which further common social and educational services. However, I believe that strict adherence to full non-discriminatory practices should apply to faith-based organizations receiving public funds. There are two primary applications to this. 1) Any staff who is funded in part or in whole for the purpose of delivering social services or education must not be required to adhere to that particular organization's faith or lifestyle expectations. Should a faith-based organization desire that a particular staff position be filled by someone who shares the organization's historic faith convictions and lifestyles, that position must be funded entirely from their own private resources. 2) There can be no discriminatory qualifications for potential beneficiaries of a social or educational service that is funded in part or in whole with public money. So for example, as long as a prospective student is not enrolling in a ministerial degree whose faculty and support staff are fully funded by private revenue, the religious school is not allowed to refuse admission. If they do, they are in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and will be banned from receiving Federal (Pell) or State public grants.

6. Pass legislation that would make it clear that Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 includes an individual's desired sexual orientation. This would include eliminating the currently allowed exemptions.

I've commented elsewhere that tampering with idols can be a very dangerous business and I'm pretty sure that these proposals do exactly that.  But if we are really concerned about the condition of faith and government, I think it is high time we addresses the financial relationships that exist between the two.  It seems like when either gives the other money and favors, they both end up being lazy and greedy.

The EAST Side of Disneyland - Part 2

Kirt Lewis

Download

Welcome back to this two-part series on the possible future of the East side of Disneyland.  If you haven't done so already, please make sure to go back and read or listen to Part 1 before you continue with this post.Postscript to Part 1

Before we look at my ideas for what Disney can do with the East side of my favorite place on earth, I wanted to share briefly a few more thoughts on Fantasyland.  I mentioned in Part 1 some of the rumors that are out there, chief among them the possibility of razing the Fantasyland Theater in order to make room for one to two additional attractions.  For whatever it is worth, I recommended that the top candidates be Disney World's Seven Dwarfs Mine Train, Enchanted Tales with Belle and the Be Our Guest restaurant.  While it would be great to see 'all of the above', I took a little time using Google to see if the footprints of these attractions could (approximately) fit within that area and unfortunately they do not (see below).  Perhaps Imagineers could get creative and dig deep (literally) to bury the queue for Enchanted Tales, but I still doubt all three can fit in this space.  If you had to choose between the three, which one would you go with?  Click here to take a Survey Monkey poll (it includes a space where you can add your own suggestion if you don't like the options I came up with).  Poll closes once it hits 100 participants so don't delay to make your opinion known.  I will share the final results on the my social media accounts (Facebook, Twitter and Instagram).

and now for the main event...

OK, so let's move on to the big enchilada, and that is the future of the East side of the park.  Without further ado, here is what I would like to see.

First of all, a whole lot of demoing would go down that would make what happened to the North-West side of the park in preparation for Galaxy's Edge look like child's play.  From the former Carousel of Progress turned Innoventions turned Star Wars Launch Bay building up through Autopia, Finding Nemo's Submarine Voyage and all of the Monorail that weaves through this area, I recommend they scrape it clean down to the bare dirt.   Additionally in Tomorrowland, all of the remaining old PeopleMover track and the Astro Orbiter would be completely removed.  The structures that currently house Buzz Lightyear Astroblasters and Star Tours can be salvaged but completely gutted and likely heavily re-skinned.  Same with the interior spaces that used to hold the Starcade as well as the former home of Captain EO and Honey I Shrunk the Audience, the Magic Eye Theater.

Once we have wiped the slate clean, what should move in? 

Tomorrowland 5.0

First of all, I'm going to include here links to a great video Fastpass Facts made on legendary Imagineer Tony Baxter's never-realized vision to reboot Tomorrowland as well as an article by the Theme Park Tourist website.  I think they provide some amazing background on this part of the park and I will shamelessly steal a few components from Mr. Baxter's brain.

So let's start with what I will call Tomorrowland proper, which includes it's entrance from the end of Main Street through the end of the large structures that dominate the South-East part of Disneyland (Star Wars Launch Bay, Space Mountain, etc.).  Before we talk about specific attractions, let's first consider the overall aesthetic or theme.  As I see it, there are two routes they can go:

1. Update it to a Tomorrowland 5.0 (yes, along with the original opening day edition, there have been three identifiable re-launches of this space) or...

2. Rename it, according to Baxter's vision, as Discoveryland. While it was not a full realization of his concepts, Discoveryland in Paris is worth checking out as it does reflect some of Baxter's ideas, especially with Space Mountain: Mission 2 and the 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea walk-through.

Personally, I favor an updated Tomorrowland.  There is just something about the word 'tomorrow' that has such deep history and resonates so strongly with a core value of Walt Disney, best reflected in the lyrics to the theme song of the original Carousel of Progress: "There is a great big beautiful tomorrow, shining at the end of every day."

I still think that it can incorporate some of the retro ideas that Baxter was trying to highlight in order for the land to be more timeless and for its iconic Space Mountain to not seem so out of place.  Perhaps this attraction can be recast as part of a museum-like corner to the rest of this hyper-futuristic space.

When I posted Part 1 in a Disneyland Facebook group a few weeks ago, one person shared the brilliant idea that the overall aesthetic of an updated Tomorrowland could match that of Wakanda in the recent Black Panther film.  I loved the kinetic feel of the city with what looked to be magnetically driven ('maglev') trains for mass transit, yet also with nearly car-less streets packed full of pedestrians.  It also felt lush, something that is very much the trend in environmentally sensitive urban development which now often feature rooftop gardens and parks.  The end result is an interesting juxtaposition of steel, concrete and glass along with lush, green vegetation.  The goal is a 22nd century version of Babylon's Hanging Gardens.  The online trade magazine, Architectural Digest, did a whole piece on the potential for Wakanda-like cities in the future.  Of-course there wouldn't be an explicit connection to the movie as we all know that Marvelland will be soon arriving next door over at DCA. But Tomorrowland 5.0 can certainly borrow from the inspirational aesthetics of Wakanda.

The City/Civilization of Wakanda in Marvel Studios' Black Panther (2018).

What about attractions?  Well this updated Tomorrowland could very well by synonymous with Technologyland with a focus on areas of exploration where the dream of discovery drives curiosity.  These domains to investigate could basically be described as the worlds of small, digital and up.  I probably won't score many points for creativity, as you will see that all of these concepts have links to past attractions and concepts.  Nevertheless, here they are...

• Why not re-introduce an Adventures through Inner Space attraction? Originally it was supposed to be a part of a literal Scienceland, which aligns with the theme of exploration. I bet with today's special effect wizardry they could do some mind bending stuff to give riders the illusion of shrinking. They just need to come up with a crisis of some sort to drive the story-line of the ride. As far as location, this would fit well with a simulator type attraction and therefore could make use of the existing Star Tours space. It could focus on exploring parts of the microscopic world which could, like Star Tours, feature multiple scenarios to avoid predictability and encourage multiple returns to the ride. A challenge to this idea would be if they decided to do something similar in an Ant Man attraction over in DCA (though I have not heard rumors to that effect).

• While the sequel didn't capture the magic of it's original 1982 flick, no one could argue about the stunning visuals of Tron: Legacy. Again, tying in nicely to the theme of advanced technology and exploring 'digital space', I think there is some promising ride concepts to be explored here beyond Shanghai and soon the Magic Kingdom's Tron Lightcycle Power Run. But if Disney Execs wanted to save money on development, they could probably find a way to fit this roller-coaster in around where Star Wars Launch Bay and Autopia's loading area once stood. Plus we all know how they love attractions built on movie franchises. And while Tron 3 has stalled, there is still some hope that it will return and pick up steam. Side note: Any way they could incorporate an End of Line Club restaurant into this attraction like Pirate's of the Caribbean's Blue Bayou would be phenomenal.

• As far as exploring space, in a nod to the old Mission to Mars or EPCOT's Mission: Space, let's bring in an ultra-realistic space flight simulator to compliment the more campy and retro Space Mountain. As far as Mars goes, yes Elon Musk ambitiously wants to land the first human being on the Red Planet by 2025, but that is an extremely rosy prediction and risky endeavor. As he said in a 2016 interview, "It's dangerous and probably people will die." NASA and other space agencies don't see this realistically happening for another 20-30 years, so that should mean a reasonable shelf life for this ride. Plus there is some scientifically grounded dreaming around traveling at the speed of light and possibly even faster. Perhaps a space flight simulator bypasses Mars all together and takes us to the most distant reaches of the know universe in a few minutes.

• While somewhat controversial, especially at the time, Disney might consider tapping into its dark side and bringing back something along the lines of Disney World's retired ExtraTERRORestrial Alien Encounter. A permanently scary attraction to compliment the seasonal Ghost Galaxy overlay of Space Mountain would be deliciously attractive for fright fiends and some nice counter-programming to Disney's usually kid-friendly fare.

A few other ideas worth considering would be...

• Reviving something similar to the Monsanto House of the Future as either a walk-through or a brief live presentation on the most cutting edge technologies. This kind of attraction doesn't need much space and isn't a people-eater, but park goers enjoy these places out of the sun where they can sit and relax for a few minutes, like Great Moment's with Mr. Lincoln or DCA's Animation Academy. Hell, I bet they can even get a corporate sponsor which again makes the bean counters happy.

• Or here is a really outlandish idea: A Tomorrowland Hotel that would be accessed via the Monorail through a dedicated entry at the new Disneyland Transit Center (more on that in a a few minutes). People would pay a premium price to stay in rooms overlooking this part of the park with dedicated and early access to Disneyland every day of their visit.

• And for those who just can't let their fond memories of the PeopleMover go, perhaps some of the track is renovated for an attraction that similarily weaves around Tomorrowland, again adding to the space's kinetic activity.

So those are my thoughts on what I called Tomorrowland proper.  What about the rest of the land that used to belong to Autopia, the PeopleMover and Monorail's winding tracks, and Finding Nemo?

World Expo

I'm tentatively dubbing this new part of Disneyland the World Expo, though I'm sure it could have a catchier handle.  But we will leave the branding to the marketing gods.  The general concept is to tie as much of the 'four corners' of the earth together in a uniquely themed area featuring multiple e-ticket attractions and great ethnic food and unique merchandise options.  Unlike EPCOT's World Showcase, this land would not have a developed look but rather one that feels more remote, inviting guests into a more exotic experience.

Tying into the globally comprehensive It's a Small World and the European-based Matterhorn of the Swiss Alps, two additional E-ticket attractions would be built to the east with a multi-ethnic marketplace or bazaar for food and other internationally themed merchandise.

Here are my thoughts on possible attractions:

• A Mulan ride would boarder the north end of the new Tomorrowland. The show building would be buried under a portion of the green Himalayan mountains while using forced perspective to depict the Great Wall of China snaking across the peaks. I believe this would instantly become an iconic visual for this new land.

• North of this would either be an Aladdin or Lion King attraction. Again, the actual show buildings would be covered, either with a desert-like queue leading to the Cave of Wonders (perhaps the famous Pyramids of Egypt are incorporated, again using forced perspective) or an African Serengeti environment leading to Pride Rock.

A diamond-shaped marketplace would feature food and merchandise in keeping with the attraction that each side faces, whether that be African, Arabic, Asian or European cuisine and collectibles.  Perhaps two-sided archways in-between each of these environments could serve as visual barriers to the other 'lands' within this World Expo, though it could be interesting to see such radically different settings within one's peripheral vision.

The new Disneyland Transit Center

So one of the big questions some of you are likely asking is, "What about the Monorail?"  Well going back again to trends in city planning, multi-modal transit centers continue to be built around the globe as the future of mass transportation.  By definition, they bring together two or more modes of public transit under one roof in order to make it easy to transfer to other systems which then opens up access to more destinations.  How cool would it be to have a full or semi-enclosed, futuristic-looking transit center with a time-traveling turn-of-the-20th-century locomotive pulling in to the ground floor while elevators and escalators take passengers up to a second floor Monorail station.  And perhaps if a portion of an updated PeopleMover is reborn, there is a place to transfer to this on the second floor as well.  For those disembarking, they will exit the station to views of the previously discussed Wakonda-esque Tomorrowland.

I once again went to Google to see how this might work.  I took the tightest turn in the current Monorail track and shifted it south.  The Monorail might need to discreetly pass through the edge of a show building or two but that is very doable. 

Added Bonuses to the new and improved east side of disneyland

There are a few added bonuses that I see coming from these major changes.  First is an improved queue for The Matterhorn.  With a new Alps-themed skin to the north side of the building that currently houses Buzz Lightyear and the Galactic grill and perhaps a tunnel entrance from the new Tomorrowland into the World Expo, gone are the days of the glaring contrast of these lands.  Plus, a more scenic and interactive queue can be built where part of Nemo's ocean was located, eliminating the boring chain switchback line that now exists.

The best secondary bonus to a new Tomorrowland and World Expo is to the Disneyland Railroad.  What happens now once you depart the ToonTown station and It's a Small World feels like you have pretty much left the park and gone backstage.  You get treated to the glorious sights of the switch for both the train and Monorail which leads back to the maintenance building.  Prior to this is my personal favorite, the lone sign extolling 'Agriculture'.  Then you return to the park at what is quite honestly a pretty generic Tomorrowland station.  Replacing all of that could be a tunnel with discreet views of the new Aladdin, Lion King or Mulan rides, much like riders experience when they go through Splash Mountain.  After exiting this, the train would pull in to the new Tomorrowland Transit Center only then to leave and visit the Grand Canyon and then travel back in time to Primeval World.  These improvements, along with the much enhanced journey along the Rivers of America, would really make the entire Disneyland Railroad seem like an attraction of its own.

what do you think?

Well there you have it!  While I usually don't enable the comments section on most of my blog posts, I'm going to make an exception for this one.  So please feel free to comment below with your thoughts.  What do you like?  What do you think won't work?  What are your own ideas?  I would love to hear it all.  Until next time, so long fellow Armchair Imagineers!