The WHI episode with Dr. Sproul is on my “to listen to” list of many podcasts. I just downloaded it last night.

*edited by Starlyth 9/8/08 to fix the URL.

I agree with your assessment that Paul is not stating that there WILL be unbelievers. When I posted this I was more posting as an item of interest.

I think that there needs to be a balance between teaching the believe and reaching the unbeliever. However, I do feel that “seeker-sensitive” churches do themselves and the seeker a great disservice when the Gospel is not preached. For me the major aspect of Philip’s response that deserves consideration is in regards to jargon. Don’t assume that everyone knows what you mean when you use it.

I actually had a Sunday School class I was leading yesterday where we had an issue where the words used in the translation have different meanings now.

I guess I view this as, “don’t dumb it down, but don’t assume they know what you are talking about.”

Just commenting on the comment you posted by Philip. I don’t think one can definitely argue that 1 Corinthians 14 assumes the presence of unbelievers. Paul states:

“1Co 14:23 Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad?”

It is interesting to note that Paul does not say that all the unbelievers will think you are mad (with Paul assuming they are a normative part of the ‘congregation’), but only if an “unbeliever enter[s]“. It could therefore be argued that Paul assumes that unbelievers are not there primarily, but may, on occasion, enter.

As you say in your concluding point, it is something “important…to consider.”

I am not talking about telling everyone where I disagree with them theologically (that would be too many, sometimes even myself as I wrestle with things). This is one of those, “I know it when I see things,” which is a situation I try not to put myself into, but often do.

My primary concern is that the “mainline” churches (especially, but I’m starting to see it in my own denomination) are trying so hard to be “tolerant” and “open”, that the foundational beliefs (such the traditions you noted) are being ignored or avoided, which often leads to bad or wrong theology.

I am not talking about true humility or even fear of confrontation, but flat-out it doesn’t matter to them anymore (if it ever did), while at the same time saying it does. My concern in regards to humility is that it often leads to inaction, which can be as dangerous as overreaction.

Prayer and discernment are the keystones to all of this.

Does that help clarify what I meant?

-Ian

What is it you mean by “won’t stand for what they say they believe”?

I think you must be aware in this the difference between those who don’t know what they believe (a great many people, I fear), those who don’t truly believe it, and those who are humble about their ability to be correct.

I’d class myself in the latter. I know there are a great many ways to interpret scripture, and I don’t claim that I am infallible in interpretation. Hence, I hesitate to make absolute statements about it.

I look to tradition (not just my own, but the wider protestant, Catholic and Orthodox traditions, as well as the early church) to measure myself against, but I certainly wouldn’t ’stand for what I say I believe’ in that I wouldn’t make an ‘i’m right, you’re wrong’ stance. I can argue my beliefs, and I’ll live by them, but I wouldn’t condemn others according to my beliefs, because chances are one of the other interpretations is right and I’m wrong.

I look at it as humility.

Anyway, thanks for writing - I enjoy your blog!

No one liked being my Sunday School teacher.

Julian

With regard to the web, I suspect we just think that future of communications (Web Next, Web 3.141, Web Whatever) holds no limits but that we’ll slam into new ones… until those are “solved.” The current limit is bandwidth; truly immersing media will require much more of it.

I’m both frightened and excited.

Best,
Allen

Thank you for your considered response. My less than considered response was the result of my immediate reaction to reading your assertion that atheists have no morality. I took it personally and I should have not done so. For that I apologize.

I’m having a very difficult time engaging this subject without once again sliding into an uncomfortable disposition. Let me say for now that I value our friendship much more than I value participating in this argument. I fear I lack the necessary finesse to put my views forward in writing without causing insult. I am, if nothing else, a snark machine… and I don’t want to be snarky with you (again). Perhaps we could discuss this in person sometime.

Thank you for your patience, understanding, love and friendship.

Allen

I agree that far too many pastors have to deal with more than they have to, need to, or deserve to. I have been told, by a “vocational” minister, that he wouldn’t do it if he were not called by God to do so, and I think that often, that’s all a pastor has.

I didn’t want to comment on this immediately after you posted, but I was also working on class stuff.

With all due respect and love, perhaps you might wish to rethink your premise instead. Upon what is your (or the atheist) morality based? That is the question.

There has be a strong presupposition by people such as Pete Stark, the SCA, Hitchens, et al that says see we are okay (such as your argument) therefore all is fine. However, you were raised in a strongly Christian environment almost from birth. Despite your unbelief, that is very much a part of who you are. Christopher Hitchens was also raised in such in an environment, and calls himself a cultural Christian.

Much of the argument in regards to morality cannot be truly experienced as we already have an overriding “morality”, which, granted, is quickly changing, which is also the point.

So let’s start with a blank slate. Somehow we have two tribes, neither have a moral code (doesn’t work in reality, I know). One is “bestowed” Christian morality, one is bestowed atheist morality. You and both know the general nature of Christian morality (although it is far too rarely practice fully, including by me), and have a general idea of what the tribe would look like.

What would the atheist tribe look like? What is morality?

Check yer premise, pardner.

“Give a man fire and he’s warm for the rest of the night. Set a man on fire and he’s warm for the rest of his life.”

Now that I know how it really goes, I’m going to have to stop handing out matches.

Back in the day, I remember being told that we had to do “more” to witness; the world couldn’t afford “casual Christians.” I was never sure what I was supposed to do other than grab a soap box and start preaching in the middle of the shopping mall.

…which I would have done had I become sufficiently bored.

…okay, it’s more of a guideline than a rule.

I think the point that actually both you and Fr. Oakes make (coming from different directions) is that the current self-proclaimed/anointed evangelists of atheism are indeed caricatures of the worst of the breed of both supposedly religious nutcases and the atheist ones.

In the case of Dawkins and Harris (and the others like Singer), they are so busy trying to destroy faith that it has become hatred, and they have now transformed into the very thing they say they hate.

Father Oakes is using his own caricature of atheism to attack the caricature of Christianity that some atheists spout. I too was taken aback by Sam Harris’ comment about some ideas being so dangerous that their adherents must be put to death. But that’s the funny thing about atheism… it’s NOT a unified, shared, rigorously codified set of beliefs — no matter how much Harris, Dawkins and the rest want to make it so.

So, by all means, attack the absurdity of the well-published professional atheists; but don’t assume that you’re attacking atheism.

Human beings are capable of the most grotesque behavior towards one another. Sometimes these behaviors are undertaken in the name of God and at other times they are undertaken in the name of some other philosophy — or seemingly none at all. People can be cruel and unfeeling and, as humans, we’re all masters of justification after and during the fact.

I’m sure that sometimes you open your browser and read about this or that Christian doing something because he knows it to be the “Christian” thing to do… and you scarcely recognize the motivation. Well, consider that sometimes I read about this or that atheist doing this or that… and I wonder the same thing.

my $0.03.

-Allen

I’m pretty sure I didn’t make my point well at all in the last paragraph. I’ll have to think about it.

As to your comment “…sound like those of some older gentleman from…”, that was exactly the point.

One thing is certain. We can blame the demon alcohol and — mind you, not many other people are going to agree with me — that darned jazz music for these events. And don’t get me started on today’s so-called “modern” haircuts the young men are wearing.

All joking aside… (finally), I’m not sure I quite wrapped my head around the point you made in the last paragraph. Maybe I have a different perspective on the very real struggles that Christians have because I was raised among them. When I see a Christian “stumble,” I understand what is going on. On the other hand, when I see a vocal and public scold go down for the very thing he was preaching against, I point and laugh.

Shiny!

When the revolution comes, I’ll probably be on the phone or something and miss the whole thing.

Thanks again.
Luis Monge
Dole Organic Program.

Interesting…

I applaud the author for not suggesting the government should treat both with civil penalties but is instead recommending a kind of economic response.

Meanwhile, I’ll watch or not watch what I damned well please.

I’m often critical of the “hair on fire” hyperbole surrounding carbon emissions but I see nothing at all wrong with people (and the industries they support financially) voluntarily cutting emissions. It’s a shame our government makes that more difficult.

And, yes, neither major party has the market cornered on bureaucracy. The smart road to hell is paved with good intentions.

While I understand the desire to rebel against social networking, the basic lack of understanding that this happens everyday whether we want it to or not saddens me. It is only by being open to it (or at least not directly opposing it) that we will ever gain any advantage because of it.

How much is has to do with TE is questionable? It sounds like a social network of companionable silence, which is a good thing if that is the goal.

“NOSO is a real-world platform for temporary disengagement from social networking environments. The NOSO experience offers a unique opportunity to create NO Connections by scheduling NO Events with other NO Friends.”

“These ‘NO’ events, called NOSOs, take place in designated cafés, parks, libraries, bookstores, and other public spaces. Participants – whose identities remain unknown to one another – agree to arrive at an assigned time and remain alone, quiet and un-connected, while at the same time knowing that another ‘Friend’ is present in the space.”

As for your skit, those that are IT Admins seem to have those conversations with workers all the time…

Seems to me the employers look at offering chaplains as yet another employee benefit along side coverage for mental health services and vision care. From my perspective, as long as visits to the chaplain aren’t compulsory, this is a check in the “plus” column for those who would want to take advantage of the offering.

I’m thinking it would go something like this…

Chaplain: “What can I do for you today?”

Employee: “The printer in Logistics…”

Chaplain: “Yes, I know the one. It’s a PrintSmart CopyCenter 2400 with full duplex, collating and stapling. What seems to be the matter with it?”

Employee: (whispering) “I think it might be possessed. Can you help me?”

Chaplain: “I’m afraid not, my son. You see, exorcism services are reserved exclusively for ‘Pious Plus’ card holders. Your plan has a higher co-pay and it doesn’t cover equipment-related possessions, apparitions and Force of Darkness Protection. Says so right here in the employee handbook.”

Employee: (shaking) “But what am I going to do? It keeps looking at me with that blue READY indicator. Plus, I honestly think it stole my lunch.”

Chaplain: “I’ve done all I can under the contract. Perhaps you could speak to someone in benefits.”

Employee: “But sir…”

Chaplain: “Look, I’m very busy. I have many other…”

Employee: “…have you ever wondered which printer was used to produce those handbooks? Notice anything unusual about the stapling?”

Sad.

Summary: Man spends all of his time with a virtual “wife” in SecondLife, ignoring his Wife in RealLife.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118670164592393622.html

There’s an air of sensationalism to the piece when really what’s going on here is not much different than other kinds of marriage-destroying obsessions (pool hall, car club, clarinet playing, etc.) Mostly it’s just sad but probably not representative of most SL players.

Disclaimer: I haven’t yet bought a Cyber Harley. No place to virtually park it.

But you want to know what I took away from all of that? “Sacrament Machines” would be a killer band name.

Your reaction is much more measured than theirs and the author’s; I think it is a sane one. If I had a child* I would encourage her to read and to use her imagination but I would also want her to know the difference between fiction and reality.

For instance, if she picked up a book on the occult and started trying to “cast spells,” I’d have to explain to her that the spells were a made up part of the story. Additionally if she started reading a book about a man being crucified and later “rising from the dead,” I’d have to explain to her that some people just can’t do without an afterlife myth.

If she tried to turn water into wine I’d ground her for a week. Water into beer… well, now that would be something worth exploring!

Mmmm…. white magic beer.

* Children all around the world thank their lucky stars I’m not raising them.

Maryland’s law results from the twisted logic of the majority that would deprive children of a mother because that’s the way the adults wanted it.

The ruling does not “deprive the children of a mother.” (Talk about twisted logic!) It was the father, the egg donor, and the surrogate who “deprived” the twins of a mother. It doesn’t sound like either woman is particularly interested in being their mother. That’s not the court’s fault, no matter what one thinks of the law “logic.”

If I were one of the children, I would be concerned about having access to medical records for the purposes of knowing what diseases I might develop later on in life. If only I had known earlier about my mom’s “transformations” during a full moon, for instance. So many high school dates messed up!

I know, I know… this was supposed to be a hit piece on the Maryland’s wacky equal rights laws and on the moral degradation of society in general. I completely agree that we need to get back to traditional values as a society — back to a time when wives were property and children were chattel. Good times!

Speaking of children… nope, not yet.

I’m not sure it says as much about materialism per se as it does about a cranky dude who doesn’t want to share.

Before we pile on too much, however, consider that a good deal of the din we hear is coming not just from “professional” pols and 24/7 shouting matches but also from enthusiastic bloggers. The wall of sound feeds on itself now that any of us can generate our own political noise by way of our blogs, podcasts, and web sites (Oh my!). Information junkies — those who voraciously consume “professional grade” information blasts — create screamfests of their own; cultivate and energize new disciples who often, in turn, start their own noise generation facilities. The result is a loud, dissonant surge of white noise.

(Ironically Colson is a part of the problem when he spews forth from platforms such as ClownHall and WorldNutDaily. I doubt he sees it that way.)

OK, so we agree that there’s a lot of noise out there and that people often get swept up in the excitement of it all, sometimes to the exclusion of other things that Colson feels are important. I, for instance, once went a week without bathing, eating, sleeping or feeding my family because of an intense online Sopranos discussions surrounding their series finale. (Won’t someone think of the CHILDREN?!)

Fortunately our technology offers solutions for “taming” the beast — and it is this very technology, I think, that contributes to a problem germane to your Technological Enervation meme: Filters.

RSS aggregation makes it possible for you and I to follow hundreds of blogs a day. It’s a brilliant (and really simple, hence the name) method for rolling up a lot of unrelated information into manageable chunks. The chunks can be filtered, sorted, and categorized to create a “custom” news source tailored for a specific individual’s taste. Cool? Yes. A potential problem? Possibly.

Filters keep out competing ideas, which can lead to news consumers getting a very narrow view of the world. To be sure this “idea filtering” is a self-imposed reaction to information overload, but it’s also myopic in a way. The result is a loud, narrowly focused blast of sympathetic noise (which, as it turns out is how one critic described the sound of a band I once played in). This, I think, has a “cocooning” effect. It separates as much as it unites. It sharpens points of discontinuity where there was once nuance of opinion and, unfortunately, sets us on edge with one another.

And that, in my opinion, is one way technology impedes the development of social connection.

I have to stop now because TT is watching Doctor Who nearby and I don’t possess an adequate filter for that.

You may have the gist of the definition I want. Kudos to you. I may have to tweak it, but I’m glad you suggested it. It really helps to have someone else read your stuff…sometimes.

-Ian

Is “damaged” in this context a past-tense verb (”he damaged my car”) or is it an adjective (”the hubcap is lying next to that damaged car”)? Are the attempts damaged or are the relationships damaged?

Mind you, I’m not being pedantic here. You’re a much better writer than I am. I’m just not a very good reader sometimes.

As for the gist of the definition if I may paraphrase, I think you’re saying, “Online relationships are no substitute for real-life relationships and, further, communication technology is often a impediment to both kinds of realtionships.” Perhaps it would be clearer to leave alone the sub par quality of online relationships and limit your definition to the deleterious effect technology can have on all relationships. It is, I think you would agree, the relationships that are being enervated — no matter where or how those relationships are formed. Technology is the agent.

Whew…. uh, I do go on sometimes, don’t I? Don’t mind me. I’m a philosophy major. If I were a business major I’d want to know where is your mission statement.

“The secular indoctrination of a generation that has grown into adulthood is bearing fruit. Unless one receives a strong religious grounding in a religious school and/or religious home, the average young person in the Western world is immersed in a secular cocoon.”

The above might be statistically correct (he uses the word “average,” so I’ll assume he’s already crunched the numbers and simply forgot to footnote the study). My admittedly anecdotal experience is that many of the atheists and agnostics I know (including myself) came from backgrounds with “strong religious grounding.” Later in life we found that to be lacking.

Perhaps those are the exception to the rule? I honestly don’t know.

Oh, and the Dennett book rocked. I won’t bother with Dawkins’ and Hitchens’ rants since telling your opponents that they’re idiots is neither enlightening nor constructive.

I see these books being “bestsellers” as being a sign that there are many more of us connecting and beginning to see a better world is possible.

“The Secret” though, is utter hogwash.

Regarding General Pace, I also agree that it was stupid of the administration to shy away from putting the him through another round of hearings just because he expressed a personal opinion about homosexuality — one that is in line, I might add, with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy as set in place by a Democrat of all people. I think that both the policy and the General Pace are mistaken, but I also think Pace was being consistent to the written rules of conduct as they currently stand and to his personal beliefs about morality when he made his comments. The administration gave up on him.

(I thought those guys didn’t read polls. Heck, they’ve got people in all six branches of government, what’s the problem?)

However, Allen, I would like to point out that while the majority of presidents have been self-called (I question more than a few statements of such) Christians, many of those that they have nominated, for example, have been destroyed for having religious beliefs. The forced retirement of General Pace only the most recent example.

Also, while the “hate crime” laws currently on the books mostly only affect actual crimes, there was one recently, that failed (barely) to pass, that would have made it a crime for a pastor to say, for example, “homosexuality is a sin.” I think what is happening is that people look at those “hate crime” laws as a way to shut down speech that they oppose, and currently those issues are abortion (you must be pro, else you hate women), climate change (you must believe that mother nature has nothing to do with, evidence not withstanding), and other “liberal” (I hate using that word, because this is in truth, very un-liberal) pet causes of the week. Even the ACLU is supporting these stupid laws.

First, dead is dead, and murder is murder, self-preservation is the only motive that matters, not whether the victim was of the wrong religion, sexuality, gender, nationality, skin color, whatever.

At this point, I don’t believe most people who oppose hate crimes laws would use them against those that do support them, however, power shifts are inevitable, and those that crave power will use the law (not the spirit of the law, but the letters in black and white) to silence anyone they oppose.

It completely boggles my mind that a person who says that a pastor’s sermon is a hate crime thinks that someday the same twisted logic (or lack thereof) will not apply to them.

There is an institutionalized despising of faith in both the media and ivory tower institutions. Saying out loud that your are a person of faith (especially Christian faith) can destroy your career, or at best completely stall it out. However, oddly enough, the U.S. voter has truly embraced that, and I doubt they will, although the percentage of difference that will and won’t will not be sigificantly different soon, if it isn’t already.

As for the “attack on our faith in the public square,” I think we’re seeing some hopeful signs of relief. I’m optimistic that in a few more years and with some serious campaigning, we’ll someday see at least a few Christians holding high office in this country. Maybe even President! Someday. Be patient.

Jumbo shrimp?
Guest host?
Which is it!?

And I hadn’t given any thought to what fundamentalist Muslims might do if given a chance to someone who claimed to have one foot in both camps. If I understand the situation correctly, converting to Islam in some countries is sort of like visiting a roach motel: you check in but you don’t check out. The door only swings one direction.

“He who smelt it, dealt it.”

(Yes, I’m still 12 years old.)

When I was about 10 years old I told my dad, “I don’t know what I want to be when I grow up but I know for sure I don’t want to be a pastor.” He replied, “I’m not sure if that makes me happy or sad.”

In short: pray for your pastor and his family.