DISQUS

That seems a bit of an over-reaction, Alecia. Anytime someone responds with a big dismissal, it is hard to take anything they say in a helpful way.

"Aw shucks, let's just love" doesn't go deep enough because most people are operating with a very shallow understanding of love. Too often, love is seen as a sentiment. That is how you can get so many Christians saying they love everyone yet somehow equating that with being nice to people.

What are the implications of true love? That sort of question requires lots of painfully deep thinking.

For example: what does it mean to love Chinese factory workers? How do we even begin to really tackle this sort of complex question without an honest examination of how we spend our own money?

What does it mean to love an illegal immigrant? Or an Iraqi villager? Or my own family?

My last comment sounded lamer than I intented. I think Claiborne gets it 95% of the way. The focus on embodiment is HUGE. And that is an area where the other panelists fall short. But when it comes specifically to the question of larger political engagement, Shane doesn't really offer much to help one wrap one's mind around the issues. Greg, though he doesn't offer much in this interview, goes further down that road.

Well. Greg comes off as argumentative because he is a theologian. Shane always comes off with an "aw shucks, lets just love" approach that is endearing, but doesn't go deep enough. I think Greg offers the third way because almost everyone I know who loves Shane's stuff is voting for Obama, while Chuck's folks will vote for McCain. Greg's take is a third way because he is consistantly offering a way out of a two-party political system. Shane offers the best way for tangible action...but is usually silent when it comes to systemic questions. That is why he can fit so nicely in as a God's Politics writer and a friend of the Sojourners folks. But, from a systemic perspective, it is Greg who offers the third way. :)

Interesting. I would put Shane on the left (given his ties to the political left) and Greg as a third way (a somewhat traditional Anabaptist approach).

There is certainly a whole lot of truth in what you say, Dave. But it doesn't contain all the truth. I'd really like to hear how you reconcile what you are saying (which is true as far as it goes) with the six things markvans shared above.

To be honest, I think what you are saying comes off as a bit caloused.

Let me make an analogy. Let me say my grandfather killed your grandparents and then took over your farm, forcing your father and his family to make it on their own.

The farm passes to my father, and then to me. And let's assume that the farm is worth millions. Do you or your family have any claim? If so, when do we draw the line that says that descendants have no claim on any of that wealth?

Let us take it a step further. Let us say that you go to church with me. I am the farm owner. And let us say that because of the wrong done to your grandfather, your father's weakness and sin grabbed a hold of him and he became an alcoholic. And let us say that that resulted in a shitty upbringing for you to the extent that you had the deck stacked against you?

What are the obligations I have to you? Which are based upon the wrongs of the past? Which are based upon my kinship to you now as a fellow Christian in the present? Which are based upon common decency?

My hope is that this analogy will help to get some clarity on the issue. Maybe not much, but hopefully some.

Is there a place for the Bill Cosby-esque message of: "Don't stay a victim; take a hold of the situation and make it better for yourself?" Yes. There is. But that message isn't the whole story. And, I'm not trying to pick on you, but it doesn't mean a lot coming from you. Your statements tend towards justifying your views and defending yourself. Not once have you seemed to recognize anything worthwhile in anything else anyone has said in this whole conversation. That is, by definition, "knee-jerk." There is wisdom in what you say, but it isn't the full wisdom. One can realize taht there is more at play than a person's character. The Bible is chock-filled with all sorts of stories where the descendants pay for the sins of the ancestor. Nations are wiped out. Sin comes to fruit. Debts are collected.

Where is the balance between personal responsibility and a recognition that we all enter into the world with baggage that we did not choose for ourselves?

The ELCA is a politically and socially progressive group of people, and they are the dominant form of Lutheranism in these parts. The Missouri Synod and Wisconsin Synod are not, in any way, progressive.

Care to elaborate, Daniel? I guess you're referring to Eph. 4:29:

You must let no unwholesome word come out of your mouth, but only what is beneficial for the building up of the one in need, that it may give grace to those who hear.

and Eph 5:4:

Neither should there be vulgar speech, foolish talk, or coarse jesting – all of which are out of character – but rather thanksgiving.


The trouble with quoting these sorts of passages is that it is hard to know when they apply. And in what context "cussing" is vulgar or foolish or coarse or unwholesome. In most setting, the cuss words my grandparents would have avoided are now ok (like crap). And others (like shit) have been used in rural parts to talk about cow poop. So, when is it ok? Does it really OFFEND you to read satirical use of cussing? Is it really THAT big of a deal? I think it made a good point: this stuff isn't a huge deal, so long as you understand your audience.

Tall Skinny Kiwi posted an good article about swearing (from a biblical and theological perspective) here: http://tallskinnykiwi.typepad.com/tallskinnykiw...

Brother Jonathan,

You are most certainly correct that copyright laws have limited lifetimes. However, I am hoping to set a new precedent. There is an assumption in copyright law that works enter public domain a certain number of years after somebody dies. But, I am not dead. I am hoping to take this to the supreme court.

I'm thinking that EE has too steep of a learning curve for me. I don't have much background with REAL web-development. Wordpress is a bit tricky to learn, but I only have to tweak stuff...it doesn't require actual web skills.

I recommend the chapter on communal discernment in Gordon Smith's The Voice of Jesus. Holding too much to consensus as THE way of communal discernment isn't wise, it seems to me. I think the Holy Spirit can move in a variety of ways...sometimes even though the decision making of a particular leader. The truth is, even if we just focus on the New Testament, there are a variety of methods of decision making shown.

Good as new!

Yeah, I've sensed the same sort of jumbledness. It isn't as though the posts aren't great. But I think it is like pouring a gallon of milk into a shotglass...too much at once. And my two options are to either 1) go back to the way it was, or 2) get a bigger "container."

Sure, I could make Wordpress work. People use it as a fully functional CMS all the time. I've been adding plugins to Wordpress for a while now, and it is starting to get clunky and inefficient. ExpressionEngine costs money, but once I shell out a bit of money and learn the system, I think I'll have much more powerful system that can be used as an authentic CMS. This will allow me make JesusManifesto into something like "theOoze" for Christian radicals.

:)

You say "clearly, adherence to the dictates of religion are no different than adherence to 'systems of government'..."

Why is this so clear? That is a big leap to make. I could just as easily say: "clearly, adherence to the dictates of self-inquiry is no different than adherence to religion." Is there something that much more primal...more pure...in self-inquirey than in communal inquirey? Or the gathered communal inquirey of 2000 years?

What do you suggest, Mike?

By the way...you can resist jury duty without raging. Mennonites have been doing it for a long time without so much as a frown. ;)

Its insidious. It is the fabrication of desire. And the church employs similar tactics because we buy into the myth that these techniques (manipulation of desire) are value-neutral. Too few Churches think about these things theologically...which is vital if we are to develop practices that help us desire God and treat material possessions in properly respectful ways.

Interesting enough, I find (as I look through history) that many (maybe even most) pacifists were part of an oppressed group. The Anabaptist were almost universally despised. The first three centuries of Christianity as a whole were largely pacifistic. And there have been many examples of pacifism in the so-called "developing" world.

So, while it is easy for us to say "I'm a pacifist," that doesn't mean that pacifism is a doctrine for the comfortable bourgeois.

That's ok Michael. I "like" imagination too.

Jonas,

I've been part of a denomination, but have never had any sort of individual with power "over" me or anyone in my church. The most they can do is vote to not let our church be affiliated.

It seems that you have a different relationship to hierarchy than many of us do in the US. There are ways of organizing in official and formal ways that aren't hierarchical.

I'm not sure I can draw the line between what constructs are man-made and which are God-made in Scripture. I'm not sure a line can be drawn. It isn't as though some truths in the Bible are "universal" while others are "cultural." All of Scripture is cultural. I'm not sure we can get at what the Spirit of God is saying in and through the text apart from doing some deconstruction.

After all, it is the Spirit that is authoritative, not the words on the page. And all words, as suggested in the definition you gave, have meanings determined by other words.

I think we have to deconstruct the words of the Bible in order to find the truth of the Bible. Otherwise it is a dead document.

This is a great conversation that has gone off the tracks of the original post. I'm going to move it to a new post and continue it there, if it is ok with y'all. I want others to get into the discussion...I think it's important.

Matt,

Deconstruction isn't something that one does to false things and not true things. It is something we should do to all ideas. It doesn't need to be understood destructively. It is a way of taking things apart to look at the inner workings. So, hell is definitely worth deconstructing: to understand my own assumption, to understand the biblical assumptions, to peel back the layers of the doctrine to get at the dynamic truth of what hell is...and is not.

Jesus' treatment of the Torah goes way deeper than simply challenging the popular ways of reading the Torah...he changes everything without destroying the Torah...he deconstructs the Torah. He does away with violence, he does away with eye-for-eye. This is more than just "you don't understand the words of the Torah." Jesus is reclaiming the Torah and reinterpreting it in new and frightening ways. Because the Torah was written to those that are hard of haearts and now, Jesus will write the Law on those hearts and there is no longer any need to bow to stipulations. That is deconstruction at its most profound.

On a related, but different note: why is "deconstruction" a bad word for so many people? Deconstruction is a healthy and helpful thing, if understood the right way. You could say Jesus deconstructed the Law on the Sermon on the Mount.

I'm not sure. That is my best answer. I'm not at all convinced that hell is the destination for all who die apart from Christ, since I'm not sure what "apart from Christ" functionally means. I don't believe it is like flipping a switch.

At the same time, I do believe in hell. Hell is biblical. But I'm not sure it is a place of eternal conscious torment for human beings.

I'm in process on this. And I hate the fact that for many many of my evangelical kin, the idea that I'm unsure about this somehow makes me a liberal or unorthodox.

My favorite notion about the nature of hell is the idea that heaven and hell are the same: the are both the unvarnished presence of God...the full weight of God's glory. For those in Christ, this presence is a delight, for those not in Christ, it is a terror. But even in this, there is some hope, I think, that terror may turn to delight.

So, is Z going to hell? I hope not, but don't know. I think there is more to it than a logical affirmation of particular truths. I know that there is no hope apart from Christ, but I can't see things that are hidden to me.