I annually re-post this as reminder to fix my eyes on the prize:
Ten Things To Do Before I Die:
1. End genocide.
2. Stabilize the Middle East.
3. Master a foreign language.
4. Eradicate one disease, pathogen or virus.
5. Alleviate unnecessary human suffering.
6. Write one well-written and scholarly book.
7. Promote racial unity, diversity and reconciliation
8. Experiment with micro-loans
9. Provide clean water for those who don’t have it.
10. Finish school dang it.
1 person likes this post.
I’m just curious.
I have ideas and definite opinions on this attached to definite figures, but I’d like to hear from you whether versed or not in the whole business of starting new churches. How much money should be required to start a new church?
I’ve been observing friends and colleagues who are planting churches around the country lately, from the suburbs to the city to what i’ll call the ‘hood. I don’t think “the hood” needs much definition; it’s usually neglected by the city, developers (unless gentrification is happening) and it’s often peopled by persons of color (although not always). Crime can be often an issue, and life there aint always easy, and poverty is common. At any rate, the question is, what are the implications of planting a church there? Read more…
1 person likes this post.
Had an interesting discussion with one of the profs here @ Regent recently, a mainline evangelical seminary in Vancouver, British Columbia (Canada). The gist of it was: as a professional academic (or professional student for that matter) in at times hostile environments (I think of the demythologizing atmosphere of most liberal theological schools), how does one keep one’s evangelical heritage and faith intact? Now it’s not the losing of faith that I’m concerned with, but more so the maintaining of theological commitments and convictions. His answer was simple; remember. Remember your context, community, and charter, all the whiles being fully aware of your environment; (actually he didn’t put it like that I’m just synthesizing – he just said something to the effect of “remember”) but I think that’s a good reason why many of the strongest orthodox theologians stayed in the safe via media of orthodox thought; their contextual faith communities. And in my theory, most of these are largely pietistic in origin.
1 person likes this post.
This is just fantastic. I think James Cone hits the mark with laser precision here, particularly the differing philosophical epistemologies. Thoughts?
The difference in the form of black and white religious thought is on the one hand sociological. Since blacks were slaves and had to work from sun-up to nightfall, they did not have time for the art of philosophical and theological discourse. They, therefore, did not know about the systems of Augustine, Calvin, or Edwards. And if Ernst Bloch is correct in his contention that “need is the mother of thought,”1 then it can be said that black slaves did not need to know about Anselm’s ontological argument, Descartes Cogito, ergo sum, and Kant’s Ding an sich. Such were not their philosophical and theological problems as defined by their social reality. Read more…
While this film has received rave reviews I have reserved criticism both positive and negative for it – positive in that it’s brilliantly written – the dialogue is believable, carries w/o a strong sense of fakeness, and is intelligently argued all throughout (on a fantastically minimal budget, for that matter). But that’s where things went sour for me; despite the intellectual survey of history, anthropology, biology, philosophy, and finally religion – there is a strong a priori undercurrent; that is to say – Bixby – the author – had an agenda – and a strong one at that. As a person of faith I can say I wasn’t offended so much by the sacrilege of the movie as much as its strong bias against Christianity – almost evangelistically so. When Christians are portrayed as dull, or closed-minded, or fundamentalistic, I can already tell the trajectory of the movie; It aims to insult. Fair enough, we have given our fair share from our own kin; but if the movie is attempting an intellectual survey at least it can be a little more respectful and objective towards its sources rather than submitting to quaint New-Age caricatures of re-hashed Jesus Seminar.
Now that the Deadly Vipers controv has died down I can comment in retrospect and objectively.
More so than the controversy itself I think I’ll comment on the emerging asian-american consensus that is arising, a vociferous element that has finally gotten in touch with its angry side, its unabashed and bold calling out of the “white man” and its strong presence on the internet. I would say the DV controv is in some respects the hallmark event that congealed the solidarity of this movement, a sort of historic moment in my opinion. I see strengths and weaknesses of this incipient movement: Read more…
I know this is a charged debate, nonetheless, this guy’s story needs to be told.
Ju Hong’s story presents another dimension to the immigration debate, one of the children of illegals. Deporting these hopeful and aspiring ones, in some cases promising individuals with a bright future shows that comprehensive immigration policy can quickly wash over the particulars, lumping all immigrants into a mass of modern-day untouchables. The rhetoric is charged:
“I don’t understand. You willfully overstayed your visa. You violated the law, and committed a crime by you own admission. You are displaying bad manners and making thing worse for other Koreans who wish to “visit” the USA. I have no sympathy or respect for someone like you…”
Read more…
Some thoughts spurred on by my readings in feminist theology (a req for hermeneutics) as well as a spate of blog posts lately by perceptive and insightful writers. I’m realizing in many ways how complicit I am in the domineering of the opposite gender. Now I don’t just mean overtly sexist behavior or speech, but rather a complicity that comes by being part of a system, a culture, a way the world works. I’ve found naming the problem is not enough. Elitist intellectualisms don’t solve the problem either. My wife would remark how I tend to pride myself that I am progressive intellectually but really am in truth, quite conservative in outlook and practice, showing just how much I am ingrained into a way of life that is patriarchal, Korean, hierarchical, oppressive. So yes, I am part of the problem, sexist, an oppressor just by nature of the way of life I perpetuate. How are women truly liberated by my work as a pastor? I’m not sure yet but I know that it’s going to be more than just leaving the toilet seat down.
The first thing I noticed: “The Visitor” – the word is singular, not plural. Watch the movie and indeed, you begin to wonder: who is the visitor here? While it is true that the theme of the square, stuffy, middle-aged white man in a suit who finds his soul with an infusion of Third-World soulfulness can come across as sentimental and condescending, McCarthy has created a believable world, setting up his despondent protagonist in a believable manner – the Man - is broken. And he finds his healing among immigrants – illegals for that matter. That is when the story takes an interesting political turn as he re-finds his voice, his anger, his passion, his life. One would think the charitable benefactor the hero of this story, thus repeating the condescending and predictable narratives that we’re used to. But remember: he is broken – so alone. He’s the hero, but he’s also the Visitor – which shows the helper / helpee distinction is blurred. No theology of condescension here; rather – a theology of ascent.
Recent Comments