Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
toddh
Is this you? Claim Profile »
11 months ago
in Leaving the Faith Undefended on the Jesus Manifesto
I really like the post, but I would just object to the idea that Christians are co-opting in any way the behavior of some Muslims. I think this type of response is ubiquitous and crosses any kind of cultural/religious lines when something is desecrated (i.e. the U.S. flag for some people).
1 reply
1 year ago
in Hey, I care about those poor people too! on the Jesus Manifesto
Yeah, I don't know... I hate megachurches as much as the next guy, but it did feel a little judgmental. I feel like most of the time I am pretty much just stumbling around with how to best approach this issue, especially coming from a suburban context, so I would have a hard time lampooning other people's best efforts, however misguided they may be.
We have this program in our community where churches take turns housing the homeless for one month at a time. The couple who organizes this program for our church live behind 2 gates that bar entrance to their gigantic house which is literally on top of a mountain. I have to say, I was pretty quickly judgmental of who they were and if their good intentions matched up well with how they were living. But, then again, wtf do I know about them and their story? I may wish they lived differently, but I am not them and at least they are doing something with their enormous wealth and time. So, yeah, megachurches suck, but I would say any effort is better than none at all.
We have this program in our community where churches take turns housing the homeless for one month at a time. The couple who organizes this program for our church live behind 2 gates that bar entrance to their gigantic house which is literally on top of a mountain. I have to say, I was pretty quickly judgmental of who they were and if their good intentions matched up well with how they were living. But, then again, wtf do I know about them and their story? I may wish they lived differently, but I am not them and at least they are doing something with their enormous wealth and time. So, yeah, megachurches suck, but I would say any effort is better than none at all.
1 reply
markvans
Todd, yeah...this one comes off a bit jerky, but I think it raises enough appropriate questions for me to stand by it.
I just want to push back on one sentiment: "any effort is better than none at all." That is true to a point. But that sort of logic tends to work this way: "Doing megachurch-as-usual is 15% good. It isn't the ideal, but at least it is better than nothing...so leave it be." Instead, I tend to look at it this way: "Doing megachurch-as-usual is %30 good and %15 bad. Let's try to get rid of that 15% without discouraging the 30% that's good."
I guess what I'm saying is that we can't simply let things slide because it is better than nothing. That is how the status quo becomes the status quo. That is how the prophetic voice gets lost and Christianity gets co-opted.
Our challenge (and I suspect i have a LOT to learn about this) is to be prophetic in such a way that we don't just dump on people. Instead, we exhort them into a better way.
I just want to push back on one sentiment: "any effort is better than none at all." That is true to a point. But that sort of logic tends to work this way: "Doing megachurch-as-usual is 15% good. It isn't the ideal, but at least it is better than nothing...so leave it be." Instead, I tend to look at it this way: "Doing megachurch-as-usual is %30 good and %15 bad. Let's try to get rid of that 15% without discouraging the 30% that's good."
I guess what I'm saying is that we can't simply let things slide because it is better than nothing. That is how the status quo becomes the status quo. That is how the prophetic voice gets lost and Christianity gets co-opted.
Our challenge (and I suspect i have a LOT to learn about this) is to be prophetic in such a way that we don't just dump on people. Instead, we exhort them into a better way.
1 year ago
in Biblical Economics 1-0-what? on the Jesus Manifesto
Neither Poverty nor Riches by Craig Blomberg does a pretty good job of sorting through all the conflicting messages throughout the Bible on wealth and possessions and trying to come up with some sort of synthesis. The title of the book gives a pretty good clue on where the author ends up on the issue. It certainly challenges you when you try to get too radical one way or the other.
1 reply
markvans
I would imagine that most readers of JM would fall between the radically simple edge and Blomberg's position. In regards to his book, which I've only skimmed, I have to ask: how helpful is it to look to a successful North American for a "balanced" perspective? I don't ask that simply to kick up dust here. I think we in the US should make a concerted effort to read 2/3 world voices on wealth. There are, of course, the liberationist voices...some of which are more radical than others. Justo Gonzales (who isn't a liberationist at all) has a fascinating book called "Faith and Wealth: A History of Early Christian Ideas on the Origin, Significance and Use of Money." Any other voices worth listening to?
1 year ago
in Expelled: An Opportunity Lost on the Jesus Manifesto
First, I think a person should view a movie before critiquing it. The same goes for books. That being said, I think the author of the post raises some good issues with the movie. I do think quoting this favorably goes too far though:
"Science isn’t morality. Science describes what is. Morality defines our understanding of right and wrong. Science doesn’t tell us what’s morally right and wrong. It tells us what is. It can allows us to reason from what we know, to determine the effect of an action, which can allow us to decide whether that action is morally right or wrong. But the science doesn’t tell us what’s moral."
I think that gives science just a little too much credit. Nobody gets to claim an objective, privileged viewpoint that is unencumbered by subjectivity. Not the scientist, theologian, or even the every day guy on the street. Every discourse, including "science," comes loaded with assumptions and fraught with contested viewpoints, that always have "moral" dimensions. Science can no longer be thought of as the set of disciplines that tell us "what is."
"Science isn’t morality. Science describes what is. Morality defines our understanding of right and wrong. Science doesn’t tell us what’s morally right and wrong. It tells us what is. It can allows us to reason from what we know, to determine the effect of an action, which can allow us to decide whether that action is morally right or wrong. But the science doesn’t tell us what’s moral."
I think that gives science just a little too much credit. Nobody gets to claim an objective, privileged viewpoint that is unencumbered by subjectivity. Not the scientist, theologian, or even the every day guy on the street. Every discourse, including "science," comes loaded with assumptions and fraught with contested viewpoints, that always have "moral" dimensions. Science can no longer be thought of as the set of disciplines that tell us "what is."
1 reply
hewhocutsdown
I fully understand your point, and agree wholeheartedly. The point of quoting Mark was not so much to endow science with a God-like separateness, but rather to illustrate that moral assumptions do not necessarily follow from scientific hypothesis.
Take Darwin for example, who said:
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.
You bring up a fantastic point though, toddh; science is far from the 'unattached observer' that many assume it to be; not only by it's methodologies but by its questions, it's choice of what to study, how to study it, and how to interpret the results.
Take Darwin for example, who said:
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.
You bring up a fantastic point though, toddh; science is far from the 'unattached observer' that many assume it to be; not only by it's methodologies but by its questions, it's choice of what to study, how to study it, and how to interpret the results.
This is a core part of many Muslims' identity, which is why I used it as an example; unlike the faith of Islam, this need not be part of the core identity of Christians; there is no need to defend our faith in that manner. Mohammed killed many of those who mocked him; Christ himself was killed by those who mocked him, and his disciples followed suit. The difference is striking.