Disqus - Latest Comments for MikePC

Re: More about the Wheaton College Controversy and Christian Higher Education

Mike Clawson — Sun, 10 Jan 2016 20:02:06 -0000

Excellent thoughts Roger. I've also noticed the current "open season" you describe. I'm curious though, was it better before? You've been around these circles longer than I have. Were the heresy-hunts less common or less intense in years past? And if so, how and when did this start to change in your opinion? I mean, I was a student at Wheaton back when Stan Jones first kicked out a professor for his views on evolution - this was in '98 I believe. But were things less volatile in the 80's or early '90s? I'm curious.

Re: Everything You Don’t Know About Tipping

Mike Clawson — Thu, 19 Nov 2015 15:05:12 -0000

You didn't address the one major tipping conundrum that I have: are you supposed to tip the people who bring you drinks at a buffet restaurant? I often eat at China buffets and the like, and usually just get a glass of water from a "waiter" at the beginning. When I'm done they bring the check and a fortune cookie, but usually I have to go and pay at a register up front. So should I leave some kind of tip for that person who brought one glass of water and the check? Seems kind of silly to pay them for not doing much at all, but then I worry that they're making the same sub-minimum wage as other servers, and getting even more screwed by working at a buffet where they rarely get tipped. What say you?

Re: Stretching the Evangelical Tent Right and Not Left

Mike Clawson — Sun, 05 Jul 2015 20:24:48 -0000

Excellent post Roger. As always, I greatly appreciate your keen observations on the current state the evangelical movement. Very helpful analysis of a disturbing trend!

Re: Oh Happy Day!

Mike Clawson — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 11:48:00 -0000

I was told that I had "simply been transformed by the endless indoctrination of godlessness by the mainstream media" and that my "moral compass has a broken needle."

Re: A Conversation on New Wave Emergence

Mike Clawson — Sun, 01 Feb 2015 16:16:04 -0000

I'm sure you can find out about most of it with just a bit of digging. Some of the controversies are still current and ongoing. Some of the problems that I have seen simply involve the privileged and generally unaware spaces many of us were emerging from, and how long (too long some would say) it took us to recognize and correct for that privilege.

Another problem may be that we stayed so long in a deconstructive phase, that we missed some opportunities to rebuild something new and beautiful and healthier. Of course the flipside of this is that many people do need time and space to express anger and to deconstruct. But at the same time, the emergent movement, I think, should be pointing ahead to something better, not just backwards at what's gone wrong.

Others have had personality clashes with certain leaders or voices in the movement, and have been hurt by their arrogance or tendentiousness. While I have never personally been among those who think that any particular personalities in the movement have any more status or influence than we collectively choose to give them, I do think we can be more careful in the future to elevate a wider range of voices and make sure that the negative personality quirks of a few don't become, in the eyes of some, representative of the movement as a whole.

Does that help?

Re: A Conversation on New Wave Emergence

Mike Clawson — Sun, 01 Feb 2015 11:47:04 -0000

I like the language of "New Wave." That is what I see going on too. And I agree Steve, it has to build on what has gone before - the good and the bad - to learn and do better, not just disconnect from it.

Re: Is Rob Bell This or That?

Mike Clawson — Wed, 03 Dec 2014 14:03:25 -0000

There is, but it's hardly behind the scenes. They do their excommunications right out in public.

Re: In Praise of Empires

Mike Clawson — Thu, 30 Oct 2014 12:24:42 -0000

I don't know if I agree with your conclusion here Tony, but it is funny that I was just talking about this very issue in my Scriptures class this morning, and showed that very same Monty Python clip!

Re: Five Reasons You Probably Shouldn’t Attend a Christian Seder

Mike Clawson — Tue, 15 Apr 2014 20:43:07 -0000

Good article Tony. Rebecca Cynamon-Murphy (a former leader of the Chicago Emergent Cohort) has written a very similar one as well: http://www.religiondispatch...

Her perspective adds even more weight to the argument by the fact that she is married to a Jewish man and has been actively engaged in navigating the challenges of an interfaith family. Hope you and your readers will check out her article!

Re: This Is an Important Moment for Progressive Christians

Mike Clawson — Wed, 26 Mar 2014 14:35:27 -0000

I'm curious to see who in this movie is the "villian". The way I typically read the biblical narrative, God tends to come across as the villian...

Re: This Is an Important Moment for Progressive Christians

Mike Clawson — Wed, 26 Mar 2014 14:33:49 -0000

Excellent question! It's tricky though, right? What race/culture should best be used to depict a mythological story written by an Ancient Near Eastern people group? Is Noah "Jewish", or is that too anachronistic? On the other hand, whatever Noah is, he's definitely not "white", so yeah, Russell Crowe was probably a bad choice. (Then again, Russell Crowe is usually a bad choice for any movie IMHO. But that may just be me.)

Re: Shit Only Matters If It’s Matter

Mike Clawson — Thu, 10 Oct 2013 21:35:36 -0000

Good stuff Tony. Thanks for sharing! I'm with you. Resurrection matters because bodies matter. Because matter matters. Because embodied suffering matters. Too much theology, both conservative and liberal, seems to preach the opposite these days. I'm sorry, but I just don't want a dualistic, disembodied theology. I like Yoda as much as the next geek, but the fact is I am this crude matter, and it is the matter itself that makes me a luminous being.

Re: God Doesn’t Know What You Think God Knows [Questions That Haunt]

Mike Clawson — Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:21:42 -0000

I think the problem is that people assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually, from a non-linear, non-subjective point of view it's more like a big ball of wibbily-wobbley, timey-wimey... stuff.

;)

Re: The Mutuality 2012 Synchroblog

Mike Clawson — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 18:39:57 -0000

Julie Clawson also contributed to the synchroblog, though I don't see her listed above. You can find Part 5 of her series on "Discovering Christian Feminism" here:
http://julieclawson.com/201.... Links to parts 1-4 are included in that post as well.

Re: Rachel Held Evans | Evangelicalism, neo-fundamentalism, and the next generation

Mike Clawson — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 00:10:04 -0000

Thanks for the shout-out Rachel! I'm glad you appreciated my Neo-Fundamentalism article.

I actually recently presented it at the American Historical Association annual meeting in Chicago, so I hope your readers understand that it is intended as a scholarly article and not as mere "name calling". Of course no one these days would willingly accept the label "fundamentalist" for themselves (in fact, Mohler, Piper, and Driscoll have each written specifically defending why they don't think they are in fact fundamentalists - and I address these arguments in the longer version of the paper), and yet within academic circles the term has very specific and important meanings, and it can't simply be discarded just because it has more recently acquired negative connotations in the popular media. In a sense, the whole point of my piece is simply to say that "if it looks like a duck, and talks like a duck... and even if it doesn't want to admit to being a duck...". But again, the point is not mere labeling or name-calling, but to provide a helpful heuristic category for understanding what has been going on.

Re: Am I Part of the 99% or the 1%? (Scattered Thoughts on #OccupyWallStreet and Global Poverty)

Mike Clawson — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 23:48:49 -0000

Good thoughts Kurt. I appreciate that you were able to point out the disparity in wealth between Americans and the global poor while also still affirming the OWS movement. I've encountered too many others who think that this insight is somehow an excuse to stop calling out Wall Street on the injustices of the system they have created. What such an argument misses is that the same system that creates gross disparities of wealth between the 1% and the 99% in America, also creates the even more extreme disparities of wealth between Americans in general and the global poor. Therefore, by protesting this unjust system, we are not only standing up on our own behalf, we are also standing in solidarity with those others as well. For this to benefit all of us, however, we will have to be careful not to settle for a few limited concessions designed to placate our anger, since such concessions would likely benefit only middle-class Americans while leaving the system itself in place. We need to carry on with these protests until we achieve deeper and more thorough changes to the system itself. That will be good news not just for the 99% in America, but for the 99% everywhere.

Re: Am I Part of the 99% or the 1%? (Scattered Thoughts on #OccupyWallStreet and Global Poverty)

Mike Clawson — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 23:36:21 -0000

There was one guy somewhere who advocated for this on his blog (I saw it, but I can't remember the URL), but he made it very clear that it was his own idea and that he didn't speak for the whole OWS movement. Of course, Fox and the rest paid no attention to that disclaimer, and instead talked up this one blog post as if it represented the "official" OWS demands.

Re: Reflecting the Image of God

Mike Clawson — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 14:12:32 -0000

Perhaps there isn't much difference between "neognostics" and your "true evangelicals." In my experience, most evangelicals tend to operate with an essentially gnostic conception of the soul. Your own statements here are an excellent case in point.

Re: Rachel Held Evans | We’re Civil as Heck, (But we’re Not Going to take it Anymore)

Mike Clawson — Sat, 27 Aug 2011 21:54:04 -0000

To Karl's reasons, I'd also add that many of us sometimes speak out in anger in order to give voice to the numerous people who feel the same way, but, for whatever reason, don't feel they can express it openly. For every offended person who wants us to "tone it down," there are at least as many who send a private email saying "Thank you for saying what I've been thinking and couldn't articulate."

Anyhow, I agree Rachel, we need both. And I'm glad you still feel called to speak into the evangelical world. I hope you will be able to do so for some time to come. However, don't be surprised if, the more you speak out on behalf of the voiceless and oppressed in that world, no matter how calmly or respectfully, the less you yourself will be allowed a voice there. In the end, I really don't think it has much to do with tone. If you are disagreeing with someone's deeply cherished beliefs, or calling out a sin that they are guilty of but don't want to agree is actually a sin, they are going to perceive you as "hostile and angry" no matter how nicely you say it. I think your experience with these recent posts of yours is an excellent case in point.

Re: Embodied Theology

Mike Clawson — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 10:52:21 -0000

At least you're honest about it.

Re: Rachel Held Evans | We’re Civil as Heck, (But we’re Not Going to take it Anymore)

Mike Clawson — Tue, 23 Aug 2011 12:25:10 -0000

Hey Rachel,
I think you're right that anger is often counter-productive to producing real change and I really like your list of constructive responses. At the same time, anger is also often a necessary step in the process of uncovering the wounds of sexism and helping women (and men) identify the sources of their oppression and begin to heal from them. I think we need to be careful not to expect people to "get past" their anger too quickly. Doing so runs the risk of minimizing and silencing their very real hurts. Not to mention that being told to sit quietly, submissively, and above all, not to show your anger, is one of the major ways that women have been pushed down and marginalized in our culture (which, I would suggest, is a strong contributing factor to the kind of feedback you have been receiving for your recent posts - you were far nicer to Mark or Donald or whoever than many of us guys have been to them over the years, and yet you seemed to receive far more criticism for speaking up - i.e. not just for what you said, but for the very fact that you said anything at all - than we would have). That being the case, sometimes letting themselves get angry is exactly what many women need in order to overcome this false message that nice girls don't rock the boat.

Just my .02...

Re: Bible Reading and Social Progressivism

Mike Clawson — Tue, 02 Aug 2011 22:17:34 -0000

You raise some good questions. It may be that Franzen's conclusions are indeed faulty. As I noted in my post, they are at least counterintuitive for many. However, my point in the post was not about agreeing uncritically with Franzen's findings, but simply to say that in my own personal history at least, it was the case that increased Bible reading led to a shift towards more socially progressive views. Whether or not my own experience is as widely shared as Franzen claims, I couldn't say.

Re: Bible Reading and Social Progressivism

Mike Clawson — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 17:07:48 -0000

Well, the Religion Department where I'm at is more progressive since they ended up with all the liberal Southern Baptist rejects during the fundamentalist purges of the SBC back in the nineties.

The rest of the school is pretty conservative though - including the sociology department what with Rodney Stark's influence and all (though I do like that they also have regular visits from Peter Berger).

And Kenneth Starr (yes, that Ken Starr) is the University President after all. :(

Re: Bible Reading and Social Progressivism

Mike Clawson — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 12:07:35 -0000

If those kind of factors where wholly determinative, then I'd have to say that my own personality traits and "innate predispositions" seem much more likely to incline me towards fundamentalism (which is probably why I was happy as one for so long). I'm not a likely type to be a postmodern liberal, and yet I became one anyway.

Re: Bible Reading and Social Progressivism

Mike Clawson — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 09:40:11 -0000

One would have first believe in things like "innate predispositions" in areas of complex discourse like morality, religion, and politics. That's far too much of a leap of faith for even me to buy into. ;)