The Euclid Avenue Church of God

If you came here through my website then you know that I am seeking a Bachelor of Arts degree in Music Technology at Capital University.  I’ve been thinking a lot about what I want to do with my degree in Music Technology.  I have done live sound, recording, mixing, mastering, but I love all of the above.  I think I would like to get a steady job at a recording studio either tracking or mixing, (or both). 

            I would like to get an internship with a large recording studio.  I would of course, start out as the small guy, and gradually work my way up with my hard work ethics and good ears.  I don’t think I would like to own my own studio quite yet, but instead work under someone until I know more about business.  I also would like to supplement my income by composing choral music.  I’ve already had several ideas written down for some pieces. 

            For my dream job, possibly when I retire, I would like to purchase an old church that used to belong to a congregation that has since been dissolved, (much like the Clifftown Theatre & Studios, owned by the University Of Essex, located in Essex, England).  I would like to transform the old sanctuary into a concert hall, holding weekly concerts for the community, (maybe even broadcast those concerts on radio or television).  During the week, the concert hall can be rented out to whoever would want to use it: recital, town-hall meeting, touring groups, and theater groups. 

            If the church is furnished with a fellowship hall with an adjoining kitchen, I would like to convert that into a large recording space, and hold recording sessions for whoever would want to record a song or an album.  The kitchen would be converted into a control room, and would be sealed and soundproofed.  The fellowship hall would have the typical “studio” goods such as headphones, XLR jacks, microphones, et cetera.    The “kitchen” would be an all-analog studio, utilizing vintage analog tape gear and outboard reverb units.  I think it would be different and special to construct plate reverb chambers, as well as room reverb chambers.

            Many churches have classrooms somewhere in their building.  These classrooms can serve a whole lot for a concert hall/recording studio campus.  Smaller studios can be installed.  They can be the natural room reverb chambers that I mentioned earlier.  Dressing rooms and rehearsal are probably a must for any concert hall.  The church offices will by converted into my office, and the office of my secretary, if I choose to have one. 

            Finally, if the church has a functional basement, I would like to convert that into either a tape storage area, or a digital recording space.  For example, the basement at my church used to be the fellowship hall, before the current one was added.  This basement has its own kitchen area that would be perfect for a control room, while the main area would be great for the main recording space.  There are even two small rooms that used to be restrooms that could be used for isolation booths. 

           I was searching the internet, and after reading a Huffington Post blog about the old Euclid Avenue Church of God in Cleveland, Ohio, I decided to explain my dream.  The church was abandoned by the congregation a number of years ago, and is sitting empty.  The Cleveland Clinic, which holds a strong grasp of a lot of the land in the area, has offered to buy the place, and tear it down.  A lot of members of the community don't agree with this.  This building is a prime example of what I would like to do when I retire. 

            The church idea came to me while installing a new sound system at my church this past year.  I wondered what it would be like to own such a large space and wondered about the benefits the community would have. As I worked out the benefits, I figured that it would be a fantastic idea, as I would be giving to the community something that was lost when the original congregation was dissolved.  I love doing what I do.  I never want to stop.  I want to record and engineer as long as I’m physically capable of doing so.

The The Christian Nobility

The following is a paper I wrote for my Reformation and Enlightenment class that I am taking at Capital University, where I am seeking a minor degree in religion.

Martin Luther: To The Christian Nobility

Jesse Harmon

RELIG 321

January 24, 2011

To The Christian Nobility

            Several things about Martin Luther’s To The Christian Nobility document popped out at me.  This paper, written in 1520, is about how the Roman Catholic Church has made reformation very difficult for itself.  He argues that secularism should do the reformation of the church.  This paper proves to the intended audience that Martin Luther was frustrated with the Roman Catholic Church and

            Luther stated, “If a priest is murdered, the whole country is placed under interdict.  Why not when a peasant is murdered?  How does this great difference come between two men who are both Christians?  It comes from the laws and fabrications of men…” I think this is because people viewed priests as the upmost holy of people.  When a priest is murdered, it’s almost like Christ was murdered again.  Luther disagrees with this.  He views priests as ordinary people, (humans), like you and me, and ordinary people were not just born into sin, but born to sin.

            Martin Luther talks about how the pope has been wrong before.  This goes back to Luther viewing priests, (and evidently, the pope), as ordinary humans, born into sin, and born to sin.  Luther later says, “[when] the pope acts contrary to the Scriptures, it is our duty to stand by the Scriptures, to reprove him and to constrain him, according to the word of Christ…” This should still be the case.  If someone notes an error made by a minister during a sermon, the person should go up to the minister and discuss the situation. 

            One thing really stood out to me.  Luther talks about the wealth of the pope.  He says, “In my opinion, if the pope were to pray to God with tears, he would have to lay aside his triple crown, for the God we worship cannot put up with pride.  In fact, the pope’s office should be nothing else but to weep and pray for Christendom and to se an example of utter humility…” This strikes true for me even today.  It took me a trip to an old Time Magazine photo slideshow to figure out what the garments the pope wore were called.  I had always seen the pope dressed in elaborate garments with gold sashes and jewels.  The Mitre, or the crown, is an extremely large “hat.”  The pallium is usually very elaborate, with many symbols representing different things such as Chi-Ro.  The very famous ring also comes to mind, but is not included in this slideshow.  I personally think a pope’s wardrobe should be very modest, consisting of a simple white alb, a colored vestment, (for the season), a cincture, and a small cross, (but who am I to judge?).

            Luther wrote a number of small phrases for this paper.  Some of these show the humor that Luther had.  For example, one of them was, “Next time we come to the masses… It is the bittersweet truth that the further building of mendicant houses should not be permitted.  God help us, there are already too many of them…”  Another example of Luther’s humor is this.  “We also see how the priesthood has fallen, and how many a poor priest is overburdened with wife and child, his conscience troubled…” Luther, not in this paper, once stated, “If you can’t laugh in heaven, I don’t want to go there.” 

            Luther said it best when he said he’d rather have the wrath of the world upon him than the wrath of God.  This is true today.  What may seem wrong in the eyes of society, but right in the eyes of God, i

The Gospel According to Thomas

This is a paper written for my Jesus Through The Ages course at Capital University.

Jesse Harmon

RELIG 210

January 27, 2011

The Gospel According to Thomas

[“And he said, ‘Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death.’”]

            The Gospel According to Thomas is probably the most famous Gnostic gospel out there.  I can clearly see why this apocrypha isn’t included in the present-day canon.  For this paper, I used the English translation of the Gospel of Thomas, translated by Stephen Patterson and Marvin Meyer at Misericordia University in Dallas, Pennsylvania.  This gospel, to me, seemed to be written as if someone were taking notes.  There are short, quick passages that don’t seem to connect together somehow.  It seems there should be more detail in between what was actually written down.  In this translation, also, there were many missing parts, which were stylized at the three periods in a row (for example, saying one hundred and one was translated like this, “For my mother [...], but my true [mother] gave me life").  There were several phrases in this Gospel that struck me as either important or questionable.

            The first verse I am going to talk about is the sixteenth verse.   “Jesus said, ‘Perhaps people think that I have come to cast peace upon the world. They do not know that I have come to cast conflicts upon the earth: fire, sword, war.’”  This is a radically different view than what people are used to Jesus saying.  Why would he say something like this?  Isn’t he here to save us from our sins? 

            In verse twenty-two, Jesus mentions that the only way to enter the kingdom of God is to “make the two into one.”  Could this mean marriage, since two people who were previously separated are now joined together in matrimony?

            One of the longest verses in the entire gospel is number sixty-four.  This short story goes on to describe people leaving a dinner party because of other commitments.  However, the host asks his slave to go retrieve other people off of the street so that they might have dinner with him.  This is a very good metaphor for our relationship with God.  The host, God, invites many people to his dinner party (his kingdom).  The people leave the party, saying they have other things to do (leaving the faith).  The slave, Jesus, goes out onto the streets (the world) to gather more people to come eat at dinner (kingdom).  This was one of the most striking and hard-hitting parables for me in this gospel.  Notice how the host didn’t tell the slave to go find the same people.  He told the slave to go out and bring in new people.  This reminds me of Mark 8:11. “[Jesus said in the synagogue in his hometown,] and if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, shake the dusty off of your feet when you leave, as a testimony against them.”  If people refuse to believe, move on to the next town. 

            Finally the very last verse (which apparently was added later according to Patterson and Meyer) says, “Simon Peter said to them, ‘Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life.’ Jesus said, ‘Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven.’”  When I read this, I was instantly reminded of my dear mother.  My mother wears the pants in the house.  She’s the one who owns the house, the property, and all the cars.  Mom is the one who pays the bills and takes care of everything in the house.  She especially did this when my father was in the hospital at the Cleveland Clinic in 2010 for a much-needed liver transplant.   My father was first admitted to the Cleveland Clinic in October of 2010 after he developed a very serious infection.  He pretty much stayed at the hospital until after the start of 2011.  During that time, she had to take a leave of absence from her work at a hospital in Logan, Ohio, and take care of him and the animals at our house (she drove the one hundred miles or so every three days).  I don’t know if this is what Jesus meant when he said the females should become like the males in order to enter the Kingdom of God, but I do know that my mother put her health (and life) on the line at times in order to help my dad out (I was very fearful for a while that she might have a heart attack because of the amount of stress she was under).   

            I’m not sure how I feel about this gospel.  I don’t know if it should be included in the canon or not.  There are several interesting points in this gospel, and several not-so-interesting points. 

Works Cited

Patterson, Stephan. "The "Scholars' Translation" of the Gospel of Thomas ."             Misericordia University. Polebridge Press, 1992, 1994. Web. 26 Jan 2012.

The Gospel of Luke and the Good Samaritan

The following is a part of a series of papers for my Jesus Through The Ages class at Capital University.

Jesse Harmon

RELIG 210

January 23, 2012

Gospel of Luke and the Good Samaritan

            The Gospel of Luke is actually one of two parts, (the other being the book of Acts).  As I mentioned in a previous paper, the Gospel of Mark was written as if it were a newspaper article by a person of few words, (like me).  The Gospel of Matthew, however, was written by a tax collector to convince the Jews to believe in Christ.  The Gospel of Luke was written as a story, with long, intricate passages, detail a lot about Jesus’ life.  I believe this gospel describes Jesus the best.  Matthew, to me, viewed Jesus as a teacher.  Mark viewed Jesus as a savior, and Luke viewed Jesus as a friend.  Luke is by far the longest of the four gospels.  It has been said that the author used two sources; Mark and another source called Q.  There are several passages that are unique to Luke that are not in any other synoptic gospel.

            My favorite parable of the whole Bible is the story of the Good Samaritan, (Luke 10:30-37).  This story is unique to Luke.  A traveler was beaten and mugged on a road.   A priest walked by, but didn’t help him.  It’s interesting to note that Jesus spent almost no time describing the priest, as if to say the priest wasn’t important to the story. A Levite also walked by, but didn’t help him either.  Finally, a Samaritan helped the poor man up and paid for a stay at an inn.  Samaritans and Jews generally didn’t like each other particularly well, so this was a strange, but beautiful occurrence. 

            I think this story is perfect for explaining Jesus as a person.  It talks about loving one’s neighbor as oneself.  This is my interpretation of this story.  The Good Samaritan, a metaphor for Christ himself, is helping out his neighbor, or God’s people.   The mugged man was a metaphor for people who have fallen away from God.  Jesus came to save the Jews and bring them eternal life.  The robbers, who were not described, are a metaphor for the temptations and sins of the world.  The Good Samaritan came to save the man from death, (apparently this was the same interpretation of Augustine).  This proves that Luke viewed Jesus as a “friend.” 

            The author of the Gospel of Mark wanted to get the facts out quickly.  Mark’s book is only forty pages in my Bible, (which is called the Bible Across America).  My Bible has devoted seventy-two pages to the Gospel of Luke.  Other stories in Luke that aren’t in Mark are when Jesus visited the Temple as a child, the lost coin, the lost son, the ten lepers, and the story of Zacchaeus.  There are many more stories of course in Luke that aren’t in the others, since Luke is a historical account.

The Gospel of Mark

The following is part of a series of papers about the Gospels that I have written for my Jesus Through The Ages class at Capital University.

Jesse Harmon

RELIG 210

January 18, 2011

The Gospel of Mark

            Jesus was having a bad day when Mark chapter 3 was read.  First, a fig tree didn’t bear any fruit for Jesus to consume, so he cursed it.  Then, he went to the temple and cleared it of all vendors. 

12 On the following day, when they came from Bethany, he was hungry. 13 Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see whether perhaps he would find anything on it. When he came to it, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. 14 He said to it, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." And his disciples heard it. 15 Then they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling and those who were buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the moneychangers and the seats of those who sold doves; 16 and he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple. 17 He was teaching and saying, "Is it not written, "My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations'? But you have made it a den of robbers." (Mark 11:12-17 NRSV)

The Gospel of Mark is the shortest Gospel in the canon.  Mark was written like a journalist would release a story.  It was written to get the basic information out quickly, skipping over small details that didn’t need time spent.  The story of Jesus clearing the temple is obviously important.  Up until this time, we really only saw Jesus as a caring and compassionate teacher.  This story shows that, although Jesus was fully God, he was also fully human, able to experience the feelings that humans have.

            The images in the stain glass windows at Saint Matthew Lutheran Church, where I attend church, show Jesus as loving and caring.  In one window, he’s holding a small child, possibly after healing the child of some sort of ailment.  There aren’t any windows that show Jesus turning over tables and smashing stuff that I know of in the church.  A theory on why Jesus cleansed the temple was to provoke his own execution.  He knew he had to die for our sins, and he was trying to give the Pharisees an excuse to execute him.  The temple authorities knew they were stealing from the poor.  Jesus states in Mark 10:21, “21 “You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.”  The temple authorities were doing the exact opposite.  This must have angered Jesus greatly. 

            I selected this story because it focuses on the human element of Jesus.  As I mentioned before, Jesus was fully God, and fully man.  Jesus experienced temptation, (Mark 1:13).  Jesus felt compassion, (Mark 5).  Jesus thought about death, (Mark 8-9).  He discussed divorce, (Mark 10).  He was good with kids, (Mark 10).  Jesus felt anger.  These are all things that are unique to humans.  I’m always tempted by chocolate.  I like volunteering.  I’ve thought about death.  I’ve discussed divorce.  I love kids.  I have been angry at times, (just ask my roommate!).  These qualities make me human. 

            What surprised me the most was how Jesus acted out.  He could have just walked up to the authorities and calmly said what they were doing was not right.  He could have stood on a podium and give another parable about how the temple needs to be cleansed.  Instead, he did what would grab people’s attention.  I’m kind of glad he did what he did. 

            

In Praise of Folly, 1509, Erasmus

I wrote this blog as a paper for my Reformation and Enlightenment class at Capital University, where I am getting a minor degree in religion.

Erasmus: In Praise of Folly
Jesse Harmon

RELIG 321

January 17, 2011

In Praise of Folly (1509)

            I’ve decided that I should write this paper while reading the Desiderius Erasmus document called In Praise of Folly.  This document was originally written in 1509.  Erasmus was a strong critic of the traditions and beliefs of organized religion. 

            The first thing that I notice Erasmus saying is that the leaders of the church are, “…so blessed by their self-love as to be fully persuaded that they themselves dwell in the third heaven…” This obviously shows that he thinks the leaders of the church at that time are ‘holier than thou.’  He goes on to say that the leaders were, “…looking down from high above on all other mortals as if they were earth-creeping vermin almost worthy of their pity.”  I’m sure that those statements offended a lot of clergy back then, which I assume he’s talking about. 

            Erasmus says that the church is worshiping the idols of Jesus, instead of Jesus himself.  He states that they’re worshiping a “charcoal sketch drawn on a wall,” instead of Jesus himself.  I think this still happens today.  I even fall victim to this.  My church, Saint Matthew Lutheran Church, has a lot of stained glass windows depicting the story of Jesus.  There are many brass and gold crosses around the chancel that I get caught up worshiping those idols instead of the Lord himself.  The church I used to attend, Mt. Olive United Methodist Church -- from what I remember -- didn’t have stained glass windows or very many crosses.  I guess that church probably felt the same as Erasmus.  People tend to worship the object, instead of the meaning behind the object. 

            Erasmus goes into detail about the very reason the Reformation happened.  Church officials were distorting and contorting the word of God by making it seem to fit their agenda.  When asked about this, the skeptics were immediately called heretics.  He also goes on bashing how people with degrees are the only ones who were able to read Scripture and interpret it however they wanted.  Martin Luther translated the Bible into German so that all can read it.  I agree. I believe all people should be able to have access to the very thing they’re bound to and taught from.  Don’t get me wrong though, we need people with degrees to help us sort out any questions we have, but we also need regular people, without theology degrees, to keep the degree holders in check.

            Again, Erasmus is talking about how church officials seem to take tradition to the extreme.  He talks about various aspects of a monk’s wardrobe: how many knots are in each shoe, the cut of the hood, how long the hair is, the amount of sleep one should get.

            He goes again into holding traditions over scriptures.  “The majority of them rely so much on their ceremonies and petty human traditions that they think one heaven is hardly a fitting reward for such merits, never quite realizing that Christ will scorn such things and will require the fulfillment of his own precept, namely charity.”  I’m very ‘old-school’ when it comes to churches.  I used to not believe in stadium mega-churches, chairs, electric guitars, secular sounding songs with no theological basis, and television screens.  I prefer theologically based hymns, pews, pipe organs, and sermons about scripture.  Although I still think liturgies are a very import part of worship, (since they’re scripturally based), I’ve come to realize that many contemporary worship services are just as important as traditional services, (although I do not like them myself).  Tradition should not be held if people are just going to go through the motions.  For example, my church, a few years ago, quit using the liturgy from the old green hymnal, The Lutheran Book of Worship.  We instead started using an outside liturgy, which angered many people.  I heard complaints about how the songs were not the same and how they had to learn new tunes all over again.  It was obvious to me that these people had fallen into a motion that they just did week after week after week, and not giving any thought as to what the liturgy is actually saying.  

“I myself once heard an eminent fool – I beg your pardon, I mean scholar – who was going to explain the Holy Trinity in a sermon before a large audience.  To show that his learning was far above the ordinary and to meet the expectations of the theologians among the hearers, he invented a completely new approach – namely, to start with the letters, syllables, and the whole word, then to take up the agreement of the noun and verb, adjective and substantive, to the amazement of many listeners, some of whom muttered to themselves that question in Horace “What is he driving at with all this damned nonsense?”

            This jumped out at me right away.   I knew as soon as I read the sarcasm that this would be great reading.  He continues to say that the way the explanation was set up was to give a clearer picture of the Holy Trinity than something a mathematician could come up with by drawing a picture in the sand. 

            From what I can tell, Erasmus was tired of corruption.   He seemed to predate Martin Luther, but had a lot of the same issues with church officials.  He was risking his life writing this document, so he had a lot of courage.  I think he has a lot of good points.  However, only Martin Luther was nuts enough to actually take action against the church and post his thoughts and eventually break away from the church and start a new one.