Open question to anyone this applies to:
Why do you or don't you stay in the Southern Baptist Convention in the face of continuing fundamentalist leanings? (i.e. the 1999 faith and message).
Friday, October 2, 2009
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
politics shmolotics
I am reminded of the old mxpx song "teenage politics, too confusing. politics shmolotics, too confusing!"
I recently had an entire issue of the SEMI (the student magazine I edit) devoted to the California propositions. Almost all of the articles I got were related to the apparently nation-widely popular prop. 8. Yikes.
Things got hairy because Fuller has a specific stance regarding homosexual genital contact, and this issue is related to that one. So, we had to go through many steps to ensure that this one was okay for publication. I really hope that it was productive. I tried to get a good balance of articles from various perspectives. I think much of the media does a disservice to all by classifying evangelicals as sheep who all have the same view. We are different! Stop being lazy and research the news! James Dobson does not represent all Christians, nor does Jim Wallis.
The issue was intended to promote conversation. I want the community to move past yelling at each other, and/or assuming certain political views are so clearly supported by God (by both sides). For if we are to seek more unity as the kingdom, we must realize that we can disagree on things. We can disagree, and communicate clearly, but not always end up excommunicating each other. I hope.
This being said, I was approached by a few people on campus curious about my personal choice for the vote. Wow. That made me nervous. Partly because of some almost automatic journalistic instinct. Partly because of how I can see both sides of the issue. And Partly because of how my answer (no matter what it would be) would doubtless cause judgment in the asker.
I end with a question.
Can we Christians, as the community of God, discuss political issues in an effort to become more unified?
I recently had an entire issue of the SEMI (the student magazine I edit) devoted to the California propositions. Almost all of the articles I got were related to the apparently nation-widely popular prop. 8. Yikes.
Things got hairy because Fuller has a specific stance regarding homosexual genital contact, and this issue is related to that one. So, we had to go through many steps to ensure that this one was okay for publication. I really hope that it was productive. I tried to get a good balance of articles from various perspectives. I think much of the media does a disservice to all by classifying evangelicals as sheep who all have the same view. We are different! Stop being lazy and research the news! James Dobson does not represent all Christians, nor does Jim Wallis.
The issue was intended to promote conversation. I want the community to move past yelling at each other, and/or assuming certain political views are so clearly supported by God (by both sides). For if we are to seek more unity as the kingdom, we must realize that we can disagree on things. We can disagree, and communicate clearly, but not always end up excommunicating each other. I hope.
This being said, I was approached by a few people on campus curious about my personal choice for the vote. Wow. That made me nervous. Partly because of some almost automatic journalistic instinct. Partly because of how I can see both sides of the issue. And Partly because of how my answer (no matter what it would be) would doubtless cause judgment in the asker.
I end with a question.
Can we Christians, as the community of God, discuss political issues in an effort to become more unified?
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Street Art...
In art there is always a debate over nomenclature. what is art? is "piss Christ" art? what about snapshots? does art have to be aesthetically pleasing? Graffiti art is not just territorial nonsense, it can also be good social commentary, and impactful on society.
But sometimes I get so tired of lame graffiti. Tags of gang affiliation, poorly drawn letters or whatever. Some of it is barely passable as art, or no more visually stimulating than much of the modern junk that only makes sense after you read the statement. Banksy (http://www.banksy.co.uk/) makes me remember why this stuff is cool. Art invading life makes art actually impact you. fun.
http://www.banksy.co.uk/
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Abortion Reduction: Jim Wallis
The following is from the sojourners blog, and I pasted my own clarification from facebook...
What is the Meaning of “Life”? — Seeking Common Ground on Abortion Reduction
by Jim Wallis 10-13-2008
For too long abortion was seen as the only “life” issue in our culture and politics, but there is a growing conviction among Christians that poverty, disease, war, the health-care crisis, human trafficking, the death penalty, nuclear weapons, and the worldwide deaths of 30,000 children every day from preventable causes are also key life issues.
Sojourners and I have advocated for a holistic and “consistent ethic of life” approach for years, and it is good to see the broader life issues receiving more attention. However, I also believe our nation is ready for a new kind of politics and leadership on the issue of abortion.
The abortion debate has too often been used to score political points, rather than to identify what kinds of church practices and public policies could actually prevent and reduce abortions. But with a tragic 1.2 million abortions a year in the United States, Christians must work together to stop the politics of blame and work toward common solutions.
While many Christians disagree on the legal questions surrounding abortion, together we can and must pursue practical steps that actually reduce abortion rates. Three-fourths of women who have an abortion say a primary reason is that they cannot afford to raise a child, so reducing poverty and supporting low-income women is a good place for our candidates to start.
Recent research affirms that social and economic support for women and vulnerable families are effective solutions to lowering the abortion rate, including greater access to health care, poverty reduction, adoption reform, and pre- and postnatal care.
Republicans and Democrats must learn to work together on this issue – tell the presidential candidates to lead the way, beginning at this Wednesday’s debate. We must look forward to the day when both poverty reduction and abortion reduction are nonpartisan issues and bipartisan causes.
Both Senators McCain and Obama have offered themselves as agents of change, anxious to transform the culture in Washington. They could start at Wednesday night’s debate by offering a comprehensive “life” agenda and committing to work with both sides of the political aisle to dramatically reduce abortions in the United States.
Despite their differences over issues of choice, both the Democratic and Republican platforms open up the prospects for serious abortion reduction. And Christians could and should hold both political parties accountable for protecting human dignity and life from “womb to tomb.”
With the final debate Wednesday night, there is still time to ask the candidates to cross old divisions and support life and human dignity.
Sojourners will continue working with both Republicans and Democrats in the next Congress to push for common-ground efforts to reduce the number of abortions in the United States.
4 comments
Ben Cassil wrote
at 7:17pm
Obama usually talks about reducing unwanted pregnancies, and sometimes also talks about reducing abortions. By this he is not usually talking about more regulations on the methodology of abortion, instead he is referring to an overall attempt to reduce abortions and unwanted/unplanned pregnancies through things like reducing poverty, protecting single mothers, better sex education, and other stuff... although I personally think abortion is ridiculous, morally and religiously outrageous, legally and socially it is more of a gray area. As such, it can be dangerous to focus solely on overthrowing roe v wade (im not saying this is what you're saying, im just spitballin), when such a goal is a) possibly unattainable, b) overlooking the root causes of crisis pregnancy. I'm not saying we should negate the rights of the unborn, but maybe we should take a wider look at the issues of life ethics in all spheres.
What is the Meaning of “Life”? — Seeking Common Ground on Abortion Reduction
by Jim Wallis 10-13-2008
For too long abortion was seen as the only “life” issue in our culture and politics, but there is a growing conviction among Christians that poverty, disease, war, the health-care crisis, human trafficking, the death penalty, nuclear weapons, and the worldwide deaths of 30,000 children every day from preventable causes are also key life issues.
Sojourners and I have advocated for a holistic and “consistent ethic of life” approach for years, and it is good to see the broader life issues receiving more attention. However, I also believe our nation is ready for a new kind of politics and leadership on the issue of abortion.
The abortion debate has too often been used to score political points, rather than to identify what kinds of church practices and public policies could actually prevent and reduce abortions. But with a tragic 1.2 million abortions a year in the United States, Christians must work together to stop the politics of blame and work toward common solutions.
While many Christians disagree on the legal questions surrounding abortion, together we can and must pursue practical steps that actually reduce abortion rates. Three-fourths of women who have an abortion say a primary reason is that they cannot afford to raise a child, so reducing poverty and supporting low-income women is a good place for our candidates to start.
Recent research affirms that social and economic support for women and vulnerable families are effective solutions to lowering the abortion rate, including greater access to health care, poverty reduction, adoption reform, and pre- and postnatal care.
Republicans and Democrats must learn to work together on this issue – tell the presidential candidates to lead the way, beginning at this Wednesday’s debate. We must look forward to the day when both poverty reduction and abortion reduction are nonpartisan issues and bipartisan causes.
Both Senators McCain and Obama have offered themselves as agents of change, anxious to transform the culture in Washington. They could start at Wednesday night’s debate by offering a comprehensive “life” agenda and committing to work with both sides of the political aisle to dramatically reduce abortions in the United States.
Despite their differences over issues of choice, both the Democratic and Republican platforms open up the prospects for serious abortion reduction. And Christians could and should hold both political parties accountable for protecting human dignity and life from “womb to tomb.”
With the final debate Wednesday night, there is still time to ask the candidates to cross old divisions and support life and human dignity.
Sojourners will continue working with both Republicans and Democrats in the next Congress to push for common-ground efforts to reduce the number of abortions in the United States.
4 comments
Ben Cassil wrote
at 7:17pm
Obama usually talks about reducing unwanted pregnancies, and sometimes also talks about reducing abortions. By this he is not usually talking about more regulations on the methodology of abortion, instead he is referring to an overall attempt to reduce abortions and unwanted/unplanned pregnancies through things like reducing poverty, protecting single mothers, better sex education, and other stuff... although I personally think abortion is ridiculous, morally and religiously outrageous, legally and socially it is more of a gray area. As such, it can be dangerous to focus solely on overthrowing roe v wade (im not saying this is what you're saying, im just spitballin), when such a goal is a) possibly unattainable, b) overlooking the root causes of crisis pregnancy. I'm not saying we should negate the rights of the unborn, but maybe we should take a wider look at the issues of life ethics in all spheres.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Where Soul meets Body
So we just did a 2 part issue of the SEMI that was all about body/soul dichotomy. This is an issue that I don't often think about, and I think it is one that many of us take for granted.
Eschataologically, the talk of seperation of soul from body in theology has always been a little unsettling to me, but I usually end up in a place where I thin it is possible, and Biblically supported. But I still feel that body and soul are to be bound together.
My friend Eugene interviewed Nancey Murphy on the topic. She is a self proclaimed "non-reductive physicalist." it is an interesting view. She is an expert in neurobiology, philosophy and theology. Her view is basically that there is no soul, it is simply an influence from Platonic thought. She argues that there is no biblical basis for the idea of the soul, or an idea of body/soul dualism. She basically is joining her scientific evolutionary knowledge and her theological knowledge to come up with a physicallist perspective. She is careful to say that humans are still special creations, and capable of communion with God, but they do not have souls. Her view (if I understand it) is that there is no "heaven" where disembodied souls will retire, but rather an eschatalogical hope of God reconstituting the body, probably in the the same way as Jesus in the Gospels.
So I just wondered what you all think.
Eschataologically, the talk of seperation of soul from body in theology has always been a little unsettling to me, but I usually end up in a place where I thin it is possible, and Biblically supported. But I still feel that body and soul are to be bound together.
My friend Eugene interviewed Nancey Murphy on the topic. She is a self proclaimed "non-reductive physicalist." it is an interesting view. She is an expert in neurobiology, philosophy and theology. Her view is basically that there is no soul, it is simply an influence from Platonic thought. She argues that there is no biblical basis for the idea of the soul, or an idea of body/soul dualism. She basically is joining her scientific evolutionary knowledge and her theological knowledge to come up with a physicallist perspective. She is careful to say that humans are still special creations, and capable of communion with God, but they do not have souls. Her view (if I understand it) is that there is no "heaven" where disembodied souls will retire, but rather an eschatalogical hope of God reconstituting the body, probably in the the same way as Jesus in the Gospels.
So I just wondered what you all think.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Keeping Mum
I just watched this movie, "Keeping Mum." It was a really good one. You should watch it. Why? Here's a few reasons:
1. Rowan Atkinson (Mr. Bean) AND Patrick Swazye
2. Genuine Comedy
3. Great characters
4. Realistic exploration of humanity and relationships.
5. There is at least 3-4 minutes of reading from Song of Solomon. Seriously.
If there wasn't nudity, this would be a superb film to spark disscusion in a Bible study/small group.
1. Rowan Atkinson (Mr. Bean) AND Patrick Swazye
2. Genuine Comedy
3. Great characters
4. Realistic exploration of humanity and relationships.
5. There is at least 3-4 minutes of reading from Song of Solomon. Seriously.
If there wasn't nudity, this would be a superb film to spark disscusion in a Bible study/small group.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Missions
So I am just finishing up an issue of the SEMI that was centered around missions, and I felt like throwing some of the ideas out there that I have been thinking about as far as missions go.
Short-term (and long-term) missions are often more beneficial for the people traveling than the intended "targets." (I hate that term. It's as if we are shooting heathens with Jesus bullets)
Why is it that when I step out on a mission, or to teach, or to evangelize, I feel as if I am fulfilling the kingdom work? Isn't my life as a whole to be a witness to the inbreaking of the kingdom? I mean, when I encounter someone on a mission trip, my heart goes out to them, I wonder how I can communicate Jesus to them, I selflessly (or as close to selfless as I get) look towards their needs in the stead of my own. Why am I not this way all the time? When the begger outside of Panda Express asks me for money, I do not give out of selflessness, or out of real love. If I do give, it's out of obligation, or guilt, with Jesus' words ringing in my ears.
My point is basically that missions can do a us a great favor in reminding us of how our attitudes should be all the time. The Great Comission in Matt can be translated "as you go." Missions are not something you do, somewhere you go. They should be something I/we live.
Short-term (and long-term) missions are often more beneficial for the people traveling than the intended "targets." (I hate that term. It's as if we are shooting heathens with Jesus bullets)
Why is it that when I step out on a mission, or to teach, or to evangelize, I feel as if I am fulfilling the kingdom work? Isn't my life as a whole to be a witness to the inbreaking of the kingdom? I mean, when I encounter someone on a mission trip, my heart goes out to them, I wonder how I can communicate Jesus to them, I selflessly (or as close to selfless as I get) look towards their needs in the stead of my own. Why am I not this way all the time? When the begger outside of Panda Express asks me for money, I do not give out of selflessness, or out of real love. If I do give, it's out of obligation, or guilt, with Jesus' words ringing in my ears.
My point is basically that missions can do a us a great favor in reminding us of how our attitudes should be all the time. The Great Comission in Matt can be translated "as you go." Missions are not something you do, somewhere you go. They should be something I/we live.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
