Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Unregistered
aliases
- Jonathan Brink
- jonathanbrink
- Jonathan Brink
- Jonathan Brink
- Jonathan Brink
- jonathanbrink
- jonathanbrink
Jonathan Brink
Is this you? Claim Profile »
2 months ago
in We Need a Christian Ethic of Blogging on (Ir)religiosity
Blake, I truly get what you are after here. But I would only suggest that a list of ethics can only be a pale reflection to the call to love. It's simpler too.
1 reply
Blake Huggins
I see what you mean. I'm personally a little suspicious of traditional ethical system for precisely that reason. They tend to be disembodied, scientific systems and codifications that are thought up outside specific circumstances and contexts. I guess what I'm getting at with our blogging behavior is that remember who we are by taking seriously the call to love and to be a people of reconciliation and ask ourselves before we hastily click the submit button if we will truly be reflecting the image of God through our words. For what it's worth, you are one of the best examples of that that I know of in the blogosophere. Keep it up!
2 months ago
in Nonviolence Doesn’t Exist on (Ir)religiosity
I think you and I drank the same kool aid this morning.
I think violence ultimately comes down to the destruction of dignity. Any act that harms or destroys a persons dignity is thus violence. It can be very subtle. So I would say the opposite it not non-violence, which defines it in terms of what it is not, but instead love, which defines it in terms of what it is. Love to me is any act that validates, holds, or restores a person's dignity.
I think violence ultimately comes down to the destruction of dignity. Any act that harms or destroys a persons dignity is thus violence. It can be very subtle. So I would say the opposite it not non-violence, which defines it in terms of what it is not, but instead love, which defines it in terms of what it is. Love to me is any act that validates, holds, or restores a person's dignity.
1 reply
Blake Huggins
Dude, I literally just saw your post for today. Are we tracking together or what?
I agree with you. Violence can be very subtle. The whole conversation surrounding the Origins project is, I think, a perfect example. My hope is that we can broaden what it is we mean when we speak of nonviolence because for so long it has only referred to resistance to physical violence. Which is fine. But it's so much bigger than that.
I agree with you. Violence can be very subtle. The whole conversation surrounding the Origins project is, I think, a perfect example. My hope is that we can broaden what it is we mean when we speak of nonviolence because for so long it has only referred to resistance to physical violence. Which is fine. But it's so much bigger than that.
3 months ago
in Violence: A Working Definition on (Ir)religiosity
In reading the definition, I found myself backing off a little and asked why? And my first thought was the it's missing the word dignity. And here's why.
Damage isn't necessarily bad. When Jesus cleared the temples, it can be argued that he was doing the money changers a favor by pushing them out of their own destructive behavior even though that was not the essential point. If I damage someones stuff and it was that stuff that was keeping them from restoration, it doesn't seem to be violence.
But when I add the word dignity the your definition it gives it a very distinct meaning. Damage and injury are now deeper issues.
Just my thoughts. :-)
Damage isn't necessarily bad. When Jesus cleared the temples, it can be argued that he was doing the money changers a favor by pushing them out of their own destructive behavior even though that was not the essential point. If I damage someones stuff and it was that stuff that was keeping them from restoration, it doesn't seem to be violence.
But when I add the word dignity the your definition it gives it a very distinct meaning. Damage and injury are now deeper issues.
Just my thoughts. :-)
1 reply
Blake Huggins
This is interesting.
Part of me wants to completely agree with you. Of course dignity is lacking! To do violence toward another person must involve an infringement upon, or outright displacement of, that person's dignity as a human being.
But on the other hand when I think about Jesus's incident in the Temple, I want to maintain that it was in some sense 'violent' (and I'm using the scare quotes here because it obviously wouldn't be the same type of dignity-removing violence you speak of). When I think about the whole Temple system, the busyness that was involved and the high number of people present (especially around Passover time) and then think about what it might have felt like for someone to enter into that normalcy and essentially turn it on its head, I can help but think that it would feel like a violent act...at the very least a jarring and abrasive act. Somehow it seems that calling what Jesus did the Temple as 'not being violent' removes some of its harshness.
I don't know. It also makes me uneasy. To say that Jesus did something 'violent' almost seems violent in itself. But again, I would want to draw stark contrast between that and the erasure of a person's dignity. The violence (if it can even be called that) that Jesus does in the Temple certainly doesn't hurt anyone, it simply exposes and unmasks and oppressive and violent (!) system.
I want to say more about this, but I'm just thinking 'out loud' here. I feel like I should be able to draw a clearer contrast. If not, it might be best to drop that direction altogether. I don't know. What do you think?
Part of me wants to completely agree with you. Of course dignity is lacking! To do violence toward another person must involve an infringement upon, or outright displacement of, that person's dignity as a human being.
But on the other hand when I think about Jesus's incident in the Temple, I want to maintain that it was in some sense 'violent' (and I'm using the scare quotes here because it obviously wouldn't be the same type of dignity-removing violence you speak of). When I think about the whole Temple system, the busyness that was involved and the high number of people present (especially around Passover time) and then think about what it might have felt like for someone to enter into that normalcy and essentially turn it on its head, I can help but think that it would feel like a violent act...at the very least a jarring and abrasive act. Somehow it seems that calling what Jesus did the Temple as 'not being violent' removes some of its harshness.
I don't know. It also makes me uneasy. To say that Jesus did something 'violent' almost seems violent in itself. But again, I would want to draw stark contrast between that and the erasure of a person's dignity. The violence (if it can even be called that) that Jesus does in the Temple certainly doesn't hurt anyone, it simply exposes and unmasks and oppressive and violent (!) system.
I want to say more about this, but I'm just thinking 'out loud' here. I feel like I should be able to draw a clearer contrast. If not, it might be best to drop that direction altogether. I don't know. What do you think?
4 months ago
in Asses for Jesus on (Ir)religiosity
Blake, I literally just read this yesterday as I was sitting in my "building". ;-P
Jer 9:23 This is what the LORD says:
"Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom
or the strong man boast of his strength
or the rich man boast of his riches,
24 but let him who boasts boast about this:
that he understands and knows me,
that I am the LORD, who exercises kindness,
justice and righteousness on earth,
for in these I delight,"
declares the LORD.
Jer 9:23 This is what the LORD says:
"Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom
or the strong man boast of his strength
or the rich man boast of his riches,
24 but let him who boasts boast about this:
that he understands and knows me,
that I am the LORD, who exercises kindness,
justice and righteousness on earth,
for in these I delight,"
declares the LORD.
1 reply
Blake Huggins
Isn't it funny how that always happens. ;-)
4 months ago
in Falling into the Heresy of Orthodoxy? on (Ir)religiosity
The concern for me in orthodoxy is always the mandate that "we" will think for "you". And I just don't buy that anymore.
1 reply
Blake Huggins
Right on. I think that is exactly what he is addressing.
6 months ago
in Transformational Architecture: What is Evangelism? on (Ir)religiosity
I have the book to read but thanks for the encouragement to pick it up soon.
I don't really evangelize anymore. I came to the conclusion a long time ago that what Jesus was doing was inviting people into a followership that led them to a kingdom, not to something that happens just after we die.
I don't really evangelize anymore. I came to the conclusion a long time ago that what Jesus was doing was inviting people into a followership that led them to a kingdom, not to something that happens just after we die.
1 reply
Florin
I am totally with you. If there's any "evangelizing" being done ... well, that must be God doing it, it is His deal. We're to create a safe space to just be.
6 months ago
in What I Read in 2008 on (Ir)religiosity
Rob's book is a subtle text play on the title. Look at the corners of each box. It's says, "Jesus wants to save Christians."
1 reply
blake
bingo! i read that there was something going on with the cover pattern a while back and i've been trying to figure it out since then. that's pretty cool.
6 months ago
in Whopper Virgins? on (Ir)religiosity
I just thought it was pandering and stupid. To sexualize your own name doesn't make sense in the long term from a marketing perspective. I thought the King guy was creepy but this is just stupid. The Whopper is okay by itself but with the word virgin after it, it immediately becomes a symbol of a penis. So we get large penis and virgin.
Sex usually sells but not when it makes me want to throw up.
Sex usually sells but not when it makes me want to throw up.
1 reply
blake
yeah, i'm with you there jonathan. the sexual imagery is, to me ( a while male mind you!) offensive. not just in the connection to cultural imperialism, but also in the act of eating itself and the selling of a "product." the King (perhaps an apt name in this case) not only legitimizes american hegemony but perpetuates sexual exploitation.
i don't eat meat anymore. when i did i was actually a fan of burger king. were i still doing that i'd probably reevaluate my decisions.
i don't eat meat anymore. when i did i was actually a fan of burger king. were i still doing that i'd probably reevaluate my decisions.
