I think most people would probably agree that it is important to "major on the majors, and minor on the minors." The problem arises when we disagree what exactly constitutes "major".
Obama's recent speech on racial reconciliation has caused a tremendous outpouring of appreciation and support from all sides. New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof said it was "the best political speech since John Kennedy talked about his Catholicism in Houston in 1960" and that it "was not a sound bite, but a symphony." Thomas Mann, a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution called it "[a]n extraordinary speech — not because of any rhetorical flourishes, but because it was honest, frank, measured in tone, inclusive and hopeful." The International Herald Tribune quotes Paul Finkelman, a professor at Albany Law School: "This is not a reparations speech. This is a speech about saying it's time for the nation to do better, to form a more perfect union." And Margaret Carlson from Bloomberg recognized that Hillary Clinton declared that "'Words are cheap'...when she first realized that Senator Barack Obama's were anything but."
In fact, as of 2:38 p.m. on 3/20, I have only found two negative perspectives (I doubt I could ever find an neutral one). One of them is an op-ed piece by Michael Gerson of the Washington Post, who is digging unreasonably deeply to manage his conservative attack angle, and the other is Focus on the Family.
Now, I admit that when titling this post my intention was to be provocative. I obviously think that Focus on the Family is completely in support of racial reconciliation. But yesterday's CitizenLink, FotF's political activist magazine, posted an equally incendiary title: Obama Embraces 21st Century Form of Socialism. In this article, Ken Blackwell (Family Research Council Action's senior fellow for Family Empowerment) offers not one positive word towards Obama's speech other than "eloquent." Instead, Mr. Blackwell's twisted Obama's message to be a radical acceptance of government intervention in private citizens' lives. He says, "Mr. Obama again made it clear, with all his eloquence, that he still embraces these beliefs that would require dismantling the free-market system that has made our country's economy the most prosperous in all of human history."
It is articles such as these which baffle and infuriate me the most. It represents everything I detest about modern Evangelical America. While Barack Obama uses his forum to address the insidious problem of racism--a wretched sin which has plagued the U.S. from its birth--Focus on the Family chooses to gloss over this wrong to highlight a theological and political disagreement. Thus causing the precise discord against which the speech warns.
Why can't the Evangelical Right lower their holy firearms for just a moment to acknowledge the deep truth and profound Gospel implications of such a message as this? Why cannot they put aside their pet peeves about the dangers of the effects of government welfare for a brief time and contemplate the necessity for healing a deep societal hurt and fear? How does excoriating a fellow Christian's imperfections do anything but damage the message and meaning of the words of Jesus Christ?
I am sad, I am frustrated and angry...and I acknowledge that I am hypocritically and unambiguously participating in exactly the same thing I condemn here. So. I suppose I should take 10 deep breaths and start loving those fellow believers, the speck in whose eye I am not fit to remove.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Responses to Critiques of the Emerging Church, Part II
This will be a quick one.
Some people complain that "churches these days" are "too focused on the bells and whistles" and "don't preach meat" anymore. (Say that in your best granny voice...it sounds better.)
It's true that there certainly is a lot more happening visually in new churches. Video has become a major element in Sunday services, and churches have found unique ways in incorporating creative media into their worship. The worry isn't that there's too much art--the worry is that the art is supplanting the doctrine.
Actually, I don't have much to say about this, because I don't really understand the complaint. It seems to me that all denominations have their shallow churches. It doesn't matter what kind of extracurricular stuff goes on.
Personally, I really like new ways of saying old ideas. Liturgy and video coincide quite nicely into my vision of a worship service.
Do you have a different perspective? What do you think about emergent worship-styles and the messages that come with them?
Some people complain that "churches these days" are "too focused on the bells and whistles" and "don't preach meat" anymore. (Say that in your best granny voice...it sounds better.)
It's true that there certainly is a lot more happening visually in new churches. Video has become a major element in Sunday services, and churches have found unique ways in incorporating creative media into their worship. The worry isn't that there's too much art--the worry is that the art is supplanting the doctrine.
Actually, I don't have much to say about this, because I don't really understand the complaint. It seems to me that all denominations have their shallow churches. It doesn't matter what kind of extracurricular stuff goes on.
Personally, I really like new ways of saying old ideas. Liturgy and video coincide quite nicely into my vision of a worship service.
Do you have a different perspective? What do you think about emergent worship-styles and the messages that come with them?
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Responses to Critiques of the Emerging Church, Part I
Although I'm not in any kind of "inner circle"of the emergent movement, I feel compelled to give those who are a little shout-out, and respond to some of its criticisms from my own perspective. I think that I have a basis from which to speak because I have read many of Brian McLaren's books, as well as several speeches/articles from other leaders in the movement and talked with a few emergent leaders. If you happen to be from the emerging church movement and see that I don't know what I'm talking about, please let me know.
I've heard three main critiques about those churches which call themselves "emergent". One is that their "postmodern" viewpoint is philosophically and morally relativistic, and is not compatible with God as an Absolute Authority. A second criticism is that churches focus too much on the bells and whistles of services--videocasts, hip art displays, smooth music, cool pastors--to the detriment of the actual message, which becomes a shallow "Jesus loves you". Finally, all this postmodernism leads to some unorthodox, and in some cases heretical, theology.
First I'd like to point out that "emergent" or "the emerging church" is not a denomination. Every church is different, and every person has different ideas. "Emergent" is a term that was coined to describe a lot of similar ideas and attitudes that have been developing for a few years, and I kinda like it :). Simply put, the emerging church rejects a philosophically modernist approach to Christianity (a methodological, formulaic view which accepts facts as completely absolute and knowable) and instead views the Christian faith through a postmodern lens. Faith is often described as a "conversation" or a "journey"--something always to be relearned and renewed.
Postmodern relativism
I believe there are two types of philosophy--that which philosophy Ph.D.'s contemplate and generally remains in some kind of linguistic stratosphere, and a kind of folk philosophy, which us folks generally live by. I am not a philosopher and cannot debate the abstractest of postulates, but I can construct a worldview which I hope is both logical and coherent. Therefore when I use terms like "postmodern" and "relativism", I mean the people's general understanding of such terms.
John MacArthur is one person who comes to mind when I think of strong critics of the emerging church, and relativism seems to be his favorite subject. I have heard him speak very passionately about the dangers, evils, and inconsistencies of relativism, and have often been frustrated by what I see as a simplistic and incomplete understanding. Unfortunately I think this is a common understanding among conservative Evangelicals. The primary misconception is to assume that "relativism" means "nothing is True." That is indeed a complex philosophy to hold, and one that I think few people outside academia actually hold. At least, no one I know :).
I believe emerging church Christians definitely believe in the One True God who is absolutely and finally True. As C.S. Lewis puts it, "the rock bottom, irreducible Fact on which all other fact depend" [Mere Christianity, HarperCollins, 184). However, it is impossible for any of us to actually know that Fact or Truth completely, for two reasons. Firstly, the only way we could know It is for us to be equal to It, for us to be able to see to world as It sees us, and that is not the case. Secondly, and this is the more commonly referenced reason, we all have bias. All of us are shaped by our experiences, and our experiences are what we base our knowledge on.
Here is an illustration: A girl from Florida goes to visit a boy in Minnesota. When she gets there she says, "Wow, it is really cold outside!" The boy says, "No it's not, it's just right." Both of them are expressing the truth as it is relative to them. Naturally, that does not change the fact that it is 42 degrees F. 42 degrees is the objective, actual Truth. However, even knowledge of that Truth does not change the truth of each of their experiences. In order to know the Truth beyond their experience, they have to look at the thermometer, which would be analogous to the Bible. I think you would agree with me that the Bible is several times more complex than a thermometer, which is where interpretation comes in. I'll get to that in part III.
The same reasoning goes for "moral relativism." There is a universal law, which Jesus summed up very well in "Love God, love your neighbor." However, there is a lot of disagreement on what some of the rules to follow are and even more on how they should be implemented. Some things (like modesty, honor, and authority) are very different between cultures. Others (like the sanctity of life, sex, and personal property) are recognized almost across the board, but are treated differently, even within cultures and within Christianity itself.
What are the implications of a quasi-relativistic worldview such as this ? I believe it means you comes to Truth much more humbly. Knowledge does not completely go by the wayside; you still have all the cumulative experiences of your own life and the knowledge you've acquired from others. But you also know that there is always more to learn and experience. You will never stop on the journey growing ever closer to Truth. When someone is telling you something that you believe is wrong, instead of immediately rejecting his or her position, you carefully consider their perspective and really listen to what they have to say. Then you humbly embrace and lightly hold whatever conclusions to which you honestly come.
We will seek Truth all of our lives, but in the end it is not our knowledge, but our faith that saves us.
To be continued...
I've heard three main critiques about those churches which call themselves "emergent". One is that their "postmodern" viewpoint is philosophically and morally relativistic, and is not compatible with God as an Absolute Authority. A second criticism is that churches focus too much on the bells and whistles of services--videocasts, hip art displays, smooth music, cool pastors--to the detriment of the actual message, which becomes a shallow "Jesus loves you". Finally, all this postmodernism leads to some unorthodox, and in some cases heretical, theology.
First I'd like to point out that "emergent" or "the emerging church" is not a denomination. Every church is different, and every person has different ideas. "Emergent" is a term that was coined to describe a lot of similar ideas and attitudes that have been developing for a few years, and I kinda like it :). Simply put, the emerging church rejects a philosophically modernist approach to Christianity (a methodological, formulaic view which accepts facts as completely absolute and knowable) and instead views the Christian faith through a postmodern lens. Faith is often described as a "conversation" or a "journey"--something always to be relearned and renewed.
Postmodern relativism
I believe there are two types of philosophy--that which philosophy Ph.D.'s contemplate and generally remains in some kind of linguistic stratosphere, and a kind of folk philosophy, which us folks generally live by. I am not a philosopher and cannot debate the abstractest of postulates, but I can construct a worldview which I hope is both logical and coherent. Therefore when I use terms like "postmodern" and "relativism", I mean the people's general understanding of such terms.
John MacArthur is one person who comes to mind when I think of strong critics of the emerging church, and relativism seems to be his favorite subject. I have heard him speak very passionately about the dangers, evils, and inconsistencies of relativism, and have often been frustrated by what I see as a simplistic and incomplete understanding. Unfortunately I think this is a common understanding among conservative Evangelicals. The primary misconception is to assume that "relativism" means "nothing is True." That is indeed a complex philosophy to hold, and one that I think few people outside academia actually hold. At least, no one I know :).
I believe emerging church Christians definitely believe in the One True God who is absolutely and finally True. As C.S. Lewis puts it, "the rock bottom, irreducible Fact on which all other fact depend" [Mere Christianity, HarperCollins, 184). However, it is impossible for any of us to actually know that Fact or Truth completely, for two reasons. Firstly, the only way we could know It is for us to be equal to It, for us to be able to see to world as It sees us, and that is not the case. Secondly, and this is the more commonly referenced reason, we all have bias. All of us are shaped by our experiences, and our experiences are what we base our knowledge on.
Here is an illustration: A girl from Florida goes to visit a boy in Minnesota. When she gets there she says, "Wow, it is really cold outside!" The boy says, "No it's not, it's just right." Both of them are expressing the truth as it is relative to them. Naturally, that does not change the fact that it is 42 degrees F. 42 degrees is the objective, actual Truth. However, even knowledge of that Truth does not change the truth of each of their experiences. In order to know the Truth beyond their experience, they have to look at the thermometer, which would be analogous to the Bible. I think you would agree with me that the Bible is several times more complex than a thermometer, which is where interpretation comes in. I'll get to that in part III.
The same reasoning goes for "moral relativism." There is a universal law, which Jesus summed up very well in "Love God, love your neighbor." However, there is a lot of disagreement on what some of the rules to follow are and even more on how they should be implemented. Some things (like modesty, honor, and authority) are very different between cultures. Others (like the sanctity of life, sex, and personal property) are recognized almost across the board, but are treated differently, even within cultures and within Christianity itself.
What are the implications of a quasi-relativistic worldview such as this ? I believe it means you comes to Truth much more humbly. Knowledge does not completely go by the wayside; you still have all the cumulative experiences of your own life and the knowledge you've acquired from others. But you also know that there is always more to learn and experience. You will never stop on the journey growing ever closer to Truth. When someone is telling you something that you believe is wrong, instead of immediately rejecting his or her position, you carefully consider their perspective and really listen to what they have to say. Then you humbly embrace and lightly hold whatever conclusions to which you honestly come.
We will seek Truth all of our lives, but in the end it is not our knowledge, but our faith that saves us.
To be continued...
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
P.S.
I just wanted to make clear that what Spitzer did was not your run-of-the-mill sleaziness. He was a huge anti-prostitution zealot who was simultaneously violating his own code. It's hypocrisy and lies, and bad bad stuff.
Isn't it funny (meaning "weird") that the things people protest against most are the things they most frequently dabble in?
Isn't it funny (meaning "weird") that the things people protest against most are the things they most frequently dabble in?
Monday, March 10, 2008
Spitzer, Schmitzer
Spitzer was caught making plans to visit a prostitute. And the media is freaking out!!!! I feel like the only one who is not surprised at the governor's faux pas. After all, he's a politician and a businessman. As far as I know, he's not practicing any kind of conservative religion. If he was anyone besides the governor of New York and people found out, it would be kind of sleazy, but nbd.
Of course, the real story is the fact that there is all kinds of hypocrisy going around. Spitz apparently was a big hooker-fighting kinda guy, and here he is patronizing the establishment himself. Journalists (many of whom are familiar with the business, I'm sure) are reporting on this like it's murder rather than a misdemeanor charge.
Is it bad? Sure, it's bad. It's bad for the persons involved as well as their families and society in general. (So you can see, I'm not pro-prostitution). But does a story like this deserve the panting, drooling reporters it gets? Doubtful. However, I am interested to see how long it will take for the book to come out, Uncovered: The Night I Almost Spent With Eliot Spitzer.
Of course, the real story is the fact that there is all kinds of hypocrisy going around. Spitz apparently was a big hooker-fighting kinda guy, and here he is patronizing the establishment himself. Journalists (many of whom are familiar with the business, I'm sure) are reporting on this like it's murder rather than a misdemeanor charge.
Is it bad? Sure, it's bad. It's bad for the persons involved as well as their families and society in general. (So you can see, I'm not pro-prostitution). But does a story like this deserve the panting, drooling reporters it gets? Doubtful. However, I am interested to see how long it will take for the book to come out, Uncovered: The Night I Almost Spent With Eliot Spitzer.
Mommy Brain
On Friday the NYTimes published an article entitled Maternal Instinct is Wired Into the Brain. It reported the results of a Tokyo study where 13 mothers, all with 16 month old babies, watched videos of their own babies and others both smiling and crying while they were in an MRI machine. The mothers had very different brain waves when they saw their own children than when they saw others, and a stronger reaction to cries than to smiles.
Although this is an interesting study, I was kind of surprised it got NYTimes attention. 13 women is quite a small number, and the article doesn't say that they were randomly selected. I wonder, also, if they chose babies that were 16 months old in order to skip over chances of postpartum depression?
It does seem *obvious* that mothers are "hard-wired" to love their own children (even if they can't stand anyone else's!), but my humble opinion is that laypeople should be cautious when analyzing a study of this size. Narrow, shallow scientific findings are often contorted to mean things their creators never intended them to mean, and zealots eagerly seize them to be used as bludgeons in political arguments.
On the other hand, three cheers for brain studies :). They never cease to come up with something fascinating.
Although this is an interesting study, I was kind of surprised it got NYTimes attention. 13 women is quite a small number, and the article doesn't say that they were randomly selected. I wonder, also, if they chose babies that were 16 months old in order to skip over chances of postpartum depression?
It does seem *obvious* that mothers are "hard-wired" to love their own children (even if they can't stand anyone else's!), but my humble opinion is that laypeople should be cautious when analyzing a study of this size. Narrow, shallow scientific findings are often contorted to mean things their creators never intended them to mean, and zealots eagerly seize them to be used as bludgeons in political arguments.
On the other hand, three cheers for brain studies :). They never cease to come up with something fascinating.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
The Joy of Facebook Quizzes
The complete list of Facebook quizzes I have taken (to date) follows:
These quizzes can pretty much only be described as, well, shallow and dumb. I am surely not any of the Lost characters (thank goodness!)...and nevertheless I was thrilled when it let me know "You are Sawyer"! The awesome thing about Facebook quizzes is that it always lets you take the quiz again if you don't like your answer. The not-so-awesome thing about this particular quiz was, I loved my answer, but then when I tried to take the quiz again, it kept telling me I was Juliet! No way am I that traitorous, untrustworthy female android of Ben Linus's! This quiz sucks.
Let's take another!
And so it goes. Happy minutes spent analyzing my inner TV character. I can't think of anything better to do.
Oh, and if you want to know what my Dr. Phil's personality test result is, feel free to take the quiz yourself. I'm sure you'll figure it out :).
- What Lost character are you? (Sawyer? Awesome!!)
- Which Hero are you? (Mohinder Suresh? That's kinda weird.)
- What city should you live in? (Tokyo. Yeah right.)
- Could you pass the US citizenship test? (With flying colors, baby!)
- Right brain v. left creativity test (Right brain--was there any question?)
- Dr. Phil's personality test (What? You're kidding me!)
- Which Jane Austen heroine are you? (That girl from Mansfield Park...I can't really remember that book.)
- Which American accent do you have? (Northern, of course.)
These quizzes can pretty much only be described as, well, shallow and dumb. I am surely not any of the Lost characters (thank goodness!)...and nevertheless I was thrilled when it let me know "You are Sawyer"! The awesome thing about Facebook quizzes is that it always lets you take the quiz again if you don't like your answer. The not-so-awesome thing about this particular quiz was, I loved my answer, but then when I tried to take the quiz again, it kept telling me I was Juliet! No way am I that traitorous, untrustworthy female android of Ben Linus's! This quiz sucks.
Let's take another!
And so it goes. Happy minutes spent analyzing my inner TV character. I can't think of anything better to do.
Oh, and if you want to know what my Dr. Phil's personality test result is, feel free to take the quiz yourself. I'm sure you'll figure it out :).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
