Jasie's Journal: June 2007

Saturday, June 30, 2007

Church Architecture: Does it Matter?

Premkumar D. Williams has a chapter in Everyday Theology titled "Between City and Steeple: Looking at Megachurch Architecture" that is really fascinating. He talks about the ways in which megachurches often emulate a mall or a theater (actually, a combination thereof), borrowing from culture to create spaces that are welcoming and familiar.

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

From Whence Comes The Soul?

There is a very interesting article in the IHT today as scientists continue to research the evolution of the human soul. A quote:

For many scientists, the evidence that moral reasoning is a result of physical traits that evolve along with everything else is just more evidence against the existence of the soul, or of a God to imbue humans with souls. For many believers, particularly in the United States, the findings show the error, even wickedness, of viewing the world in strictly material terms. And they provide for theologians a growing impetus to reconcile the existence of the soul with the growing evidence that humans are not, physically or even mentally, in a class by themselves.

The idea that human minds are the product of evolution is "unassailable fact," the journal Nature said this month in an editorial on new findings on the physical basis of moral thought. A headline on the editorial drove the point home: "With all deference to the sensibilities of religious people, the idea that man was created in the image of God can surely be put aside."

My question is, even if a physical basis is found for some of our moral senses, does it necessarily mean that we have evolved them and/or negate our identity as image bearers of God? Is there a chance that God created us with a certain moral compass that might explain some of the universality of human morality? A form of common grace? I don't know. I'm fairly convinced we haven't even begun to touch the complexity of creation with all of our scientific progress. It certainly raises new questions, but I don't know that the answers are quite as easy as some scientists (among others) want to offer.

Any thoughts?

Tuesday, June 26, 2007

A Generous Orthodoxy - Chapters 18-20

I feel as though I am incessantly criticizing McLaren, and it's a shame because I really appreciate the heart behind what he is doing, but I keep feeling like his desire for generosity is trampling on orthodoxy. That said, after reading chapter 18, "Why I Am Depressed-Yet-Hopeful", I was left wondering 'Hopeful for what?'. Sometimes I feel like he is optimistically hopeful in people rather than God.

His focus is on repentance, but I'm not entirely sure what he means by the term as he uses it. The dictionary.com definition is "to feel such sorrow for sin or fault as to be disposed to change one's life for the better; be penitent." Which is, of course, part of it. From a Christian perspective, I think it's deeper than that though. It's more than "being disposed to change", but I think he stops there... hence the quote on page 267:

But even when it [the Christian religion] doesn't [cooperate with the goal of the kingdom of God], that doesn't mean it can't cooperate again in the future - if it repents. The same can be said of every religion in the world.

At the risk of sounding harsher than I want to, I don't think the same can be said of every religion. I think most religions in some form or fashion are doing and saying things that are in line with Christ's teachings on ethics and morality, and in that sense I believe that they are acting in ways that are very, very good. But if repentance is tied to God, and the Bible is true, and Jesus is Lord and Savior, then to fully cooperate with the kingdom of God is to assent to certain truth claims. Repentance and heart change are, to me, inextricably linked to the work of the Holy Spirit. What do y'all think?

Chapter 19, "Why I Am Emergent", was helpful in understanding better where he is coming from. Throughout the book, I have appreciated his critique, which I think is pretty valid, of some of the problematics of Christianity, and I think he is correct in saying that we need to emerge from some of those things into a better understanding of the gospel. But to reduce sin to something that hinders emergence, "body-lusts refusing to be integrated with mental ideas in an ethical soul" (281), etc., is again going too far. My understanding of sin is much bigger than that. Again, for me he's making it about the individual instead of God - sin as something that prohibits us from self-actualizing rather than something truly evil and an affront to God.

Also, I feel like he's fairly manipulative in avoiding critique. On page 285 it sounds like if you don't agree with him, you must be a modern, exclusivist, absolutist, colonial Christian. I resent that, and I don't think some of his statements to that effect are helpful in promoting the dialogue he wants. And I don't know about this whole pluralistic relativism as chemo for the ailing church thing. We need a corrective, but I find the drastic swing to add confusion, not clarity. I tend to agree with Horton (285) that is can be polarizing, "present[ing] you with only two options: a non-emergent gospel that is definitive, clear, sure, and certain, or a 'radically indeterminate' anything-goes gospel that means anything, and thus is worth nothing." How do you guys feel?

At least he acknowledges that "no emergence is perfect" (284) and that he's not attempting to propose a form that "finally gets it right" (285).

Finally, chapter 20, "Why I Am Unfinished", concludes the book with his final thoughts on orthodoxy. Again, I have to disagree with his notion that it's all about the journey and reducing orthodoxy to being a "way of seeing and seeking" (293). Why can't we hold a truth both with confidence and humility? Why must we choose between arrogance and knowing nothing? Is that even true humility? I'm not saying that my (or anyone's) understanding of orthodoxy has Truth boxed up with a bow. But I think we know more than McLaren wants to claim.

Okay, that's it. That's the end. Can't say I loved the book as a whole, but I do think he had some good points to make and that it was worth reading. What did y'all think? Love it, hate it, really don't care either way?

I'm going to take a break for a few weeks and hopefully people will be able to catch up and comment if they want, and then I'll post some ideas for another book, if there are any takers. It's been fun, y'all!

Monday, June 25, 2007

The 40 Day Fast

The blogger at The Secret Life of Kat has organized a 40 day fast, with a blogger on each day, from June 22nd to July 31st, posting a bit about a cause/organization who is meeting an area of need in some part of the world and fasting for that day. The line-up is on the right hand bar of the blog. If you get a chance, definitely check out Brant Hanson's post titled The Worst Place In The World, where he talks a bit about Compassion International's work in Calcutta. What a great idea!

Friday, June 22, 2007

Innocence Regained

April recently posted about innocence, and it got me to thinking about the relationship between innocence and ignorance. She was responding to a comment made on a post by Mountain Mama that included a picture of two young children and some bottles of alcohol, with the commenter observing that he/she thought it was sad that children would be exposed to such things.

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

More New Gloves

I haven't been doing much knitting lately, but I just finally finished a pair of green fingerless gloves. I designed them around a vining cable I thought was kind of fun (out of the Vogue Stitchionary book). Whatcha think?

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

A Generous Orthodoxy - Chapters 16-17

I can't disagree with pretty much anything McLaren says in Chapter 16, "Why I Am Green". I think he hits a very important point on page 234, where he talks about the doctrine of the fall eclipsing the doctrine of creation in much of Western Christianity:

…if, due to an exaggerated doctrine of the fall, God’s creation loses its sacredness as God’s beloved artwork, we have magnified human sin beyond sane bounds – and in fact added to its sad effects.

I think this out of kilter view of creation/fall has affected so many other aspects of spirituality as well. For example, one of the hurdles I encountered at l'abri was learning that being a Christian didn't mean I had to completely lose myself, or become nothing (because I was fundamentally evil because of the fall), but instead it meant finding myself and becoming more fully 'me' by embracing my status as a beloved creation of a good God. Pretty drastic difference. Instead of valuing ourselves, our neighbors and creation as bearers of the goodness of the Creator, we have devalued and distorted them through this myopic view of the fall. Which is not, as McLaren also rightly notes, to ignore the doctrine of the fall, but rather to put it in its rightful place.

Another key point he touches on is the lack of perceived continuity between the world we're currently in and the world to come. I believe that, to quote Belinda Carlisle, heaven is a place on earth. That the earth will be renewed/restored, and that what we do now matters. Part of the cultural mandate in Genesis is to take an already good creation and make it even better. In a sense (and I can see a thousand ways this could be misconstrued) we can take it with us. I'll pull a McLaren here and leave it purposefully vague and see if it generates any discussion.

Chapter 17, "Why I Am Incarnational", has some good points on inclusion vs. exclusion, which we touched on a bit before in some previous chapters. I appreciated the way he presented it on page 247: "Jesus threatened people with inclusion; if they were to be excluded, it would be because they refused to accept their acceptance." I also liked the way he expanded on the "I come with a sword" teaching of Jesus. What did you think?

The distinction he makes between love/acceptance and approval is an important one (see page 250). I often think of the way that we are loved by God, wholly loved and accepted as we are, but at the same time called to change. I think transformation is often rooted in love. When I am accepted by someone I usually want to be more acceptable to them- be worthy of their love, however if I am met with disapproval and judgement, I tend to write them off and even the good critiques they have of me might get ignored. Engaging in respectful dialogue seems to be one of the most important ways we can show love for people, and I think he's on to something with the notion of confession being a crucial ingredient. He also mentions humility, and I agree that if we come to the table as 'teacher' and not as 'learner', we've missed something.

I guess my main critique of this chapter would have to be that again, I think he may be taking it all a bit too far. On page 260 he says:

I must add, though, that I don't believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many (not all!) circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu, or Jewish contexts.

and then on page 264:

...I do hope that all who feel so called will become Buddhist followers of Jesus... I don't hope all Jews or Hindus will become members of the Christian religion. But I do hope all who feel so called will become Jewish or Hindu followers of Jesus.

I guess it all hinges on what he actually means (particularly by "Christian religion" and "contexts"); he's very vague here and doesn't offer anything of an example of what a Christian Hindu might look like, for example. My initial feeling is that one can't be both. There are very different truth claims. Tension is good, but contradiction and incoherence are not. But if he's simply saying that one can be a Christian in a non-Western context, or come from a different background and talk about God with a different vocabulary, well, that just seems self-evident. Just as we in the States need to critically engage with our culture, Christians in other parts of the world need to do the same. How did y'all read this? I'm really not sure what he's advocating.

Okay, I'm stopping here. Next week I'll try and finish up this book, and then take a few weeks off for discussion to continue (where are you guys?). I know life is busy, and it's tough to get to this stuff. But if anyone is interested, I'd love to do another book. Let me know!

Monday, June 18, 2007

The Birthday Blues

Yesterday was my birthday (I turned 31), and it was a bit of a weird one. I woke up practically in tears; not sad or depressed, just emotional. I still don't know what that was all about - I like Kay's notion that sometimes we're just so full we overflow - but I ended up choosing to spend the bulk of the morning and early afternoon lying in my favorite field by a little waterfall and pool reading Harry Potter and sniffling. It was actually pretty good... for a while I became engrossed in just watching the earth outside of my blanket writhe and move with the universe of life in the grass and below. First I was awed, and then I got a little grossed out and starting thinking about how much we need to invent special field-lying blankets with an impenetrable perimeter that the buggies can't cross. Also? I got a little bored and made faces into the camera for a while. Good times.

Upon returning home, I ran into Gwen, and we headed back up to the targets for beer and chocolate. I love that girl - talking with her is one of my most favorite ways to pass time, and it was a blast to relax in the sun and chat about everything from the philosophy of logic to boys.

After draining a liter of beer between us, we headed back so I could take a much needed shower before heading out for the big event of the day, an 8-course dinner in France. Karryn and I share a birthday, so we decided it would be fun to do something really nice and out of the ordinary. The eight of us (Kay, Karryn, Gregg , Richard, Karen, Paul, Veronique and I) arrived in St. Gingolph for our foray into the high life at about 7, which seems early, but we're talking about a four hour meal here. It began with hors d'oeuvres (V called them pigs in blankets, but I'm almost certain they were much fancier than that) and a lovely white wine, followed by a small serving of gazpacho, and then we progressed into our menus (coupled with an incredible red wine. Dining with Paul and Veronique is always a treat - they really know how to pair things). I started with a tomato/basil/goat cheese concoction that was amazing. Other items at the table included foie gras (blech), salad with quail, sesame seed covered fish filets, lobster, etc. I should have written down the descriptions, as I'm not doing them the slightest bit of justice, but they were all beautiful and delicious. Everyone had at least 2 entrees before heading to the 'main' course, which included fish in a tomato butter sauce, lamb, beef filets that Richard claimed required neither knife nor teeth they were so tender, and lots of other things I'm forgetting. When we thought we could handle no more, they rolled out the cheese cart, and everyone picked 3 or 4 cheeses to try. Paul teased us a bit, as apparently you're supposed to pick several things and move from mild to strong, but everyone at the table got solely seriously stinky cheese. But holy cow, it was tasty. No sooner were those plates taken away than they pulled up the dessert cart. Again, we were able to choose several of them to try. I went with a strawberry tart and an interesting cake that had a hazelnut/almond creme filling. V got a creme caramel that he swears is the best thing he's ever put in his mouth, and the strawberry and basil salad was also a hit. And then, just when we were certain it was over, they brought out little trays of candies and blueberry tartlets and macaroons. By the time it was all over, we could scarcely move, but nobody minded.

This photo on the ride home pretty well captures how I felt by the end of the day: blurry and tired, but very very happy. Another great birthday in Switzerland. I am blessed.

Sunday, June 17, 2007

Happy Father's Day!

Happy Father's Day, Dad! Thanks for being our fearless leader on many an adventure through the world and through life. I can't believe we survived... ;)

I thought this photo was great... it highlights one of the (many) traits I have gotten from you - we both have our mouths open, undoubtedly 'helping' Adrienne take the picture. Heh.

Friday, June 15, 2007

There's A Goddess In DC!

Sajani, a 10 year old girl from Nepal (and the earthly manifestation of the Hindu goddess Kali) is visiting Washington this week, according to the IHT.

I had no idea that these child goddesses of Katmandu even existed. According to the article, they are chosen from a Buddhist caste when they are about 2, and the Hindu deity inhabits them until they reach puberty, at which point they retire. What does she think of her life as a goddess?

"There's nothing I don't like about being a goddess," Sajani said through an interpreter. Then, thinking about her typical day, when she has to rise early for her family and others to pray to her, she added, "It was difficult when I was younger to get up at 4 to bathe for the morning prayers."

I can't help but feel a bit sorry for her, even though she likes the life and "cries with her mother over the loss of her life as a goddess" in a few years. What a responsibility for a child!

Sajani never gets into trouble. In fact, her family worships her, and if she is in a bad mood, it "becomes a major drama because it's considered bad luck"

Can you imagine if your every mood had such an impact on the people around you? I guess it's a good thing the goddess leaves at puberty... can you imagine the chaos as the hormones kicked into gear?

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

On Art...

"In the Western tradition of individualism there is the assumption that art can grow out of a personal or a cultural disease, and triumph over it. I no longer believe that... A work of art that grows out of a diseased culture has not only the limits of art but the limits of the disease - if it is not an affirmation of the disease, it is a reaction against it. The art of a man divided within himself and against his neighbors, no matter how sophisticated its techniques or how beautiful its forms and textures, will never have the communal power of the simplest tribal song."

-- Wendell Berry, in The Hidden Wound

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Generous Orthodoxy - Chapters 13-15

Knowing little about the Anabaptist tradition outside of the fact that Amish and Mennonite folks belong to it, I found chapter 13, "Why I Am (Ana)baptist/Anglican", interesting. On page 208 McLaren channels Wendell Berry (who he recommends in a footnote, as would I) in saying:

They realize that community involves proximity, and that proximity involves land, and that our ties to one another can never be separated form our ties to the land, the watershed, the local economy in which we live. They have an instinct about the deep ties between community and sexuality, community and freedom, community and economics.

To me this holistic and simple way of living is a fabulous ideal, and one that we've largely lost as our community becomes increasingly global and our ties to nature and each other are getting frayed (sometimes severed). I don't think that this way of life necessitates isolation from culture, though. It's easier to look backwards and romantically reminisce about the 'good old days' than to use our creativity to imagine new ways of living in our current context. A task that I don't think Christians (myself definitely included) have put enough energy into. Although there are a couple of really great books on the subject out there, notably Michael Schut's Simpler Living, Compassionate Life.

I also share McLaren's appreciation for the beauty of liturgy in the Anglican church. I've never attended a church with a more traditional liturgy (excepting they Catholic masses I attended as a child on Easter Sunday with my Granny), and I feel like I've really missed out on something. (Dad - if you read this, what were some of your experiences growing up Catholic and then now going to a non-denominational church? What's your take on the value of liturgy?)

I thought Chapter 14, "Why I Am Methodist", had some good things to say about spiritual formation, and the importance of forming groups and communities that can encourage and disciple each other, imaging the 'mountain ascent' rather than the all too common "redemption and lift" (p. 217) that results in a hierarchy that leaves people stranded, frustrated, and stagnant. One of my frustrations in general with this book (and this chapter) is that he gives a brief overview of the history of a tradition and pulls out its strengths (which is great), but doesn't really talk about the beliefs of the tradition itself. I guess it makes sense as he obviously doesn't want to focus on doctrine, and I know the purpose of the book isn't to serve as a primer on denominations, but it would be nice to get a better handle on what he's claiming he is. It just seems incomplete to me.

"Why I Am catholic", chapter 15, has some helpful things to say. I agree with his sad statement that "you can only know the unity of the church by believing it, not by seeing it", and I, with him, hope that "the more we believe in and perceive that unity, the easier it will be to grow beyond the disunity." (p. 222) But I still quibble with his constant assertions that 'right' is completely trumped by 'good' (see page 223). On the one hand, if we are 'right' we will be 'good' - right relationship based on truth lends itself to right action. But I feel as though he's lessening the importance of Truth - the referent for the action. I think that's a bad understanding of Christ. What do y'all think? Am I misreading him here?

His critique of some of the 'heartfelt' prayers of Protestantism (p. 226) made me laugh because I definitely recognize it. It's made me prize the beauty of my Book of Common Prayer so much! What do y'all think of written prayers vs. spontaneous ones?

As always, there is much that I left out. What did y'all think? Anything you found helpful, agreed with, disagreed with? The Mary issue is a huge one (see p. 228) - what are your thoughts? Or the idea of sacrament (April, I know you have something to say on this!)? I really hope to hear from y'all below!

Monday, June 11, 2007

Sock Puppet Theater

I had my high tea last night, and for the activity I decided to host an evening of sock puppet theater. We all split into four teams, and each team had to come up with story idea, which we then swapped around so you had to do someone else's story. After about half an hour of creating puppets and putting together scripts, they performed them. They were amazing... the stories were varied: Francis and Edith Schaeffer's courtship, something about hippie kids and a guy named Gestapo (still not sure what was going on there...), a re-enactment of a night out at El Gringo's (a local dance club) by the workers, and my favorite, a quest by the group Frodo and the Fellowships to take down the evil James Blunt. I've got the video of this one below... you can see the other ones on youtube if you are interested. Oh, and the award for best puppet design has to go to Chad, who created this version of Gregg V, complete with cigarette, sunglasses and a fly fishing rod.

Sunday, June 10, 2007

Sunday Funnies

Committed by Michael Fry

And Bugs Bunny starring in 'The Case of the Missing Hare'

Saturday, June 09, 2007

Ethical Art?

Friday, June 08, 2007

The New Olympic Logo

Most of y'all have probably already seen the new and hideous logo for the Olympics. According to Luz, there is even a petition to get it changed which received almost 50,000 signatures. But my favorite take on it is from the inimitable Jon Stewart. The video is below...

Thursday, June 07, 2007

Everyday Theology

I just started reading Kevin Vanhoozer's new book, Everyday Theology, and I'm absolutely loving it. Part of the Cultural Exegesis series published by Baker Academic, it aims to equip Christians with the skills necessary to both read and write cultural texts. The 'proof text' he cites for this endeavor is Matthew 16:1-3:

(1) The Pharisees and Sadducees came to Jesus and tested him by asking him to show them a sign from heaven. (2) He replied,"When evening comes, you say, 'It will be fair weather, for the sky is red,' (3) and in the morning, 'Today it will be stormy, for the sky is red and overcast.' You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times.

What does it mean to interpret the signs of the times? For Vanhoozer, it means becoming culturally literate. We must learn to understand culture before we either embrace or reject it, and he proposes a multi-dimensional/multi-perspectival methodology by which to do it.

He spends some time defining what culture is, distinguishing it from society and nature: it is "a lived worldview". Functionally, culture does four main things: it communicates, orients, reproduces and cultivates nothing less than our vision of the meaning of life. It is part of our spiritual formation, whether we are aware of it or not. As such, it is vital that we extend Anselm's notion of theology as "faith seeking understanding" to culture, attempting to understand it on its own terms, but with the added dimension of faith.

So what does that look like? Vanhoozer proposes a couple of grids through which we can read cultural texts. Biblically, we need to view it in the context of creation, fall and redemption. Doctrinally, we can seek understanding in terms of the incarnation, general revelation, common grace, and the imago Dei. To be culturally competent we must keep an eye on the worlds behind, in, and in front of the texts (ex. producers, products and consumers). What does all that mean, exactly? Well... read the book. ;)

I love that he speaks in terms of texts, narratives, drama and discourse. It highlights the dynamic nature of the thing, the fact that it is constantly moving and changing. In addition, he asserts that we are not passive consumers of culture nor relegated to being 'mere' readers of it, but that we are also responsible for writing it. If history is "the document of humanity", what are we adding to the story? As Christians, are we producing texts that are redemptive and pointing towards the kingdom of God, or merely retelling the stories of our times?

A final thought: On page 32 he states that "We need to guard what enters and inhabits our hearts. We should be dwelling in the real world displayed in Scripture, not the counterfeit worlds projected by other, non-canonical texts." What struck me as I read it was that I think often we have that reversed. I know I do. Which world is our real world? (Just to clarify: this is not pointing at all in the direction of gnosticism. Read it a few times. Let me know what you think of the idea.)

As I go through this, I'll try and post a bit on each chapter. I hope y'all find it as interesting as I do!

Wednesday, June 06, 2007

New Live Writer!

If any of you use Windows Live Writer for blogging, they have released a new beta that incorporates lots of fun things like Blogger categories, syncing of local and online posts, etc. Hurrah! (Yeah, I know, I'm a nerd)

Water

“Learn to live like a lotus, untouched by the filthy water it lives in.”

We watched Water a few evenings ago, a Hindi language film set in India in 1938. It follows the story of Chuyia, a seven year old girl whose husband (child marriages were common at the time) died and who was consequently sent by her family to live in poverty in an ashram, the fate of Hindu widows (still a common practice). At the ashram she befriends a young woman, Kalyani, widowed at 9, who is being sent across the Ganges as a prostitute to brahmin men by the cruel and unhappy head of the widows to help finance the place. Kalyani meets and falls in love with a man who is a follower of Gandhi and willing to defy tradition, and they plan to marry. Well, it doesn't end well...

Tuesday, June 05, 2007

What Be Your Nerd Type?

What Be Your Nerd Type? Your Result: Literature Nerd Does sitting by a nice cozy fire, with a cup of hot tea/chocolate, and a book you can read for hours even when your eyes grow red and dry and you look sort of scary sitting there with your insomniac appearance? Then you fit this category perfectly! You love the power of the written word and it's eloquence; and you may like to read/write poetry or novels. You contribute to the smart people of today's society, however you can probably be overly-critical of works. It's okay. I understand.
Social Nerd
Gamer/Computer Nerd
Drama Nerd
Artistic Nerd
Musician
Science/Math Nerd
Anime Nerd
What Be Your Nerd Type? Quizzes for MySpace

A Generous Orthodoxy - Chapters 11-12

I don't have a ton to say about chapter 11, "Why I Am Charismatic/Contemplative". I agree with him that both streams have something to offer, and that the contemplative stream also offers great joy, even if not in such an energetic way. One of the things I love about the contemplative tradition is that it very much does, as he says, locate the heart of spiritual experience in the "very center of normalcy" rather than outside of it. Most of my 'spiritual experience' (which perhaps conveys a sharper divide than I would like between the secular and the sacred) has taken place in the midst of my everyday activities, so that every-dayness of spirituality makes sense to me.

I wouldn't question McLaren's experience, but one thing that stood out to me reading the chapter was that maybe he's airbrushing spirituality a little bit. He makes statements like "one of these 'somethings' is taking place, or is about to take place, or has just taken place nearly all the time" (p. 175) or that he feels "nearly always... so rich, so blessed, so sincerely full of 'enough'" (p. 180). That doesn't so much gel with my experience. There is great joy, sure, but I find spirituality to be more of an ebb and flow than that. One of the things I love most when reading the contemplatives (like Nouwen, for example) is the openness about both the mountaintop experiences as well as the deep, deep valleys. One of the quickest ways to lose credibility is to offer a spirituality that can't deliver, and I think he's walking the line a bit closely here.

One thing I was thinking about as I read this chapter was how the notion of slowing down and relaxing as a means to knowing God fits with our culture of busyness, where productivity is often seen as the ultimate good. Do y'all have a difficult time just sitting without feeling lazy or guilty or that you should be doing something?

Y'all, I'm sorry. There's a good chance that I'm being overly harsh on chapter 12, but I really struggled to get through some of it. I sincerely applaud McLaren's desire for unification. Unity in the church is one of my most fervent prayers, and I see him really working to achieve that. But I think he's just going further than is required to do it. It started poorly for me with the chapter title itself, "Why I Am Fundamentalist/Calvinist". No. No, he's not. And the thing is, he doesn't have to be. I am not a Calvinist. I agree with him that the doctrines of Calvinism are much more nuanced and rich than simple determinism, and Reformed intellectual history and scholarship are certainly deeper than any other branch of Protestant Christianity. I admire that. But I can affirm the goodness in a tradition and seek dialogue without obliterating all lines. It's okay. It's not ungenerous or unloving. I agree with lots in different traditions and I have been intentional about incorporating unfamiliar practices into my own spiritual life, because I truly believe that my own tradition is in many ways impoverished by not doing so. But that doesn't mean that I can claim those traditions, and most members of those traditions probably wouldn't want to claim me. The lines exist. Ignoring them does not make them go away. And it's okay. Unity does not require homogeneity.

There is much more in this chapter worth discussing: what did y'all think of his reforming of the TULIP acrostic (I found it odd that he didn't even mention for the most part it's actual meaning to an actual Calvinist)? What did you think about his comments on p. 184-185 regarding the path of spirituality? How do the 2 fundamentals of Christianity, love of God and love of neighbor, work as far as mission in our pluralistic context?

But here I shall stop.... see you in the comments!

Monday, June 04, 2007

Talent Night

Kay hosted high tea this evening, and after gorging ourselves on vast quantities of crepes, we had a talent show down in the chapel. It was spectacular... lots of musical acts and a bit of poetry. One of my favorite moments was when Jo, a student from South Africa, introduced a reading in Afrikaans, directing us by a small game of Simon Says to shut our mouths and close our eyes. She then read some portions from Cry, the Beloved Country, painting a beautiful picture of South Africa for us. I posted some videos on youtube, and I'll put them below if you would like to see our wonderfully talented students performing. My camera doesn't do great videos, but you should get the gist...