Interesting Quotes

Brian McLaren on Christian Nationalism:

When people tell me that we are or have been a Christian nation, I want to ask, "When?" Was it in the colonial era or during westward expansion, when we began stealing the lands of the Native Americans, making and breaking treaties, killing wantonly, and justifying our actions by the Bible? Was it in the era of slavery or segregation, when again, we used the Bible to justify the unjustifiable? Was it in more recent history, when we dropped the first nuclear bomb and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, when we overthrew democratically elected governments in the Cold War era, when we plundered the environment without concern for the birds of the air or flowers of the field, or when we sanctioned or turned a blind eye to torture earlier this decade? Was it earlier this week, when I turned on the TV or radio and heard people scapegoating immigrants and gay people and Muslims?

---thanks to Mainstream Baptist: Brian McLaren on Christian Nationalism.


Oscar Romero On Pluralism In The Church:

A healthy pluralism is needed. We don't want to force everything into the same mold. Uniformity is different from unity. Unity means pluralism, with everyone respecting how others think, and among all of us, creating a unity that is greater than just my way of thinking.---May 29, 1977.

You, with your charismatic movement; you, with your Cursillo movement of Christianity; you, with your community studying catechism; you, with your traditional thoughts; you, with your progressive thoughts, why do you do this? Do you defend what you do because it is comfortable? Then you are going the wrong way. This is not the right thing to do. Do you do it to serve God sincerely? Well do it this way and try to understand others who are doing what they are doing for God. This is true pluralism in the church.---September 17, 1978.

---pgs. 3 and 68 of Through The Year With Oscar Romero: Daily Meditations .

See also: “A bishop will die,…”.

The Big Kahuna And Evangelism

First things first---we started our Wed. nights back up 2 weeks ago and Vick is doing the Faith And Films study again after our church-wide Winter hiatus from Wed. nights. We are doing new movies this time and started with the film, The Big Kahuna. Last night we discussed the film---anyways, here is a basic description of the film:

The Big Kahuna is a 2000 movie adapted from a play entitled Hospitality Suite, written by Roger Rueff, who also wrote the screenplay. John Swanbeck, the director, makes few attempts to lessen this film's resemblance to a stage performance: the majority of the movie takes place in a single hotel room, and nearly every single line of dialogue is spoken by one of the three actors.

Plot
Kevin Spacey plays Larry Mann, a relentlessly foul-mouthed cynic; Danny DeVito plays Phil Cooper, a world-weary average Joe; and Peter Facinelli is Bob Walker, a devout and earnest young Baptist. The three are in the industrial lubricant industry; Larry and Phil are marketing representatives and Bob is part of research and development. The three are attending a trade show where they expect to land a very important account, a rich businessman Larry refers to as The Big Kahuna. As the night progresses, Larry unleashes a torrent of scathingly funny witticisms, most directed at Bob, but finds himself relying on the newest member of the trio when their quarry invites Bob (and only Bob) to an exclusive party.

While Phil and Larry wait for Bob to bring them the news that could end their careers, they muse over the meaning of life. Bob finally returns and offers a bombshell: rather than try to sell their product, he has instead chosen to talk to the man with deep pockets about … religion. In the face of Larry's towering outrage, Bob stands fast for all that is pure and true. But Bob is unable to muster any reply at all when Phil quietly explains how he sees no difference at all between Bob's preaching and Larry's fast-talking.

Secondly, regardless of the language, which all language is socially constructed anyway---the film offers an interesting look at the question of evangelism in postmodernity. The word Evangelism comes from the Greek word "εὐαγγέλιον (transliterated as "euangelion/evangelion") via Latin "Evangelium", as used in the canonical titles of the four Gospels, authored by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (also known as the Four Evangelists). The Greek word εὐαγγέλιον originally meant a reward for good news given to the messenger (εὔ = "good", ἀγγέλλω = "I bring a message"; the word angel is of the same root) and later "good news"." Here are Vick's discussion questions:

Going back to the question of evangelism, the question is framed as such: should evangelism be as: ---part 1

---part 2 as the fundamentalists/pharisees/traditionalists/so-called keepers of orthodoxy suggest or: as the emerging/emergent/moderate progressive/liberal Christians suggest.

This quote from the movie critiques the former view and accepts the later view of believers building relationships with non-believers as Jesus does in the Scriptures:

Phil Cooper: "It doesn't matter whether you're selling Jesus or Buddha or civil rights or 'How to Make Money in Real Estate With No Money Down'. That doesn't make you a human being; it makes you a marketing rep. If you want to talk to somebody honestly, as a human being, ask him about his kids. Find out what his dreams are – just to find out, for no other reason. Because as soon as you lay your hands on a conversation to steer it, it's not a conversation anymore; it's a pitch. And you're not a human being; you're a marketing rep."

For more ideas about the movie see: The Big Kahuna.

Postmodernism And You Can't Do That On Television

It was silly and absurd, it was irreverent and slap-sticky, it was otherwise known as 'that slime show'---for me, You Can't Do That on Television (YCDTOTV) brings back memories of childhood summers spent at the beach. Before we got cable at home in Laurinburg, in the mid to late 80's---the beach house was the only place to watch Nickelodeon and boy did my sister, brother and I enjoy watching Nickelodeon at the beach, while eating our Kid's Cuisine meals.



Anyways, Justin Cammy, who was a cast member from 1983–1985 and who is now a professor of Middle Eastern and Jewish Studies at Smith College had this to say about the show:

[edit] Cast comments
Cast member Justin Cammy, now a professor at Smith College, described the show like this:

“ You Can't Do That on Television was the first post-modern children's program of my generation. It subverted all recognizable forms and deconstructed the pre-teen's understanding of such important institutions as the family, the school and the video arcade. When the schoolteacher did not know any better than to call Milton's masterpiece "Pair of Dice Lost", the program functioned as an ideological clarion call to future college students like you who would go on to demand the displacement of an ossified Western canon with more relevant investigations of low culture.

Continued from original source:

A.M. FitzGerald: How would you describe the show?
Cammy: "You Can't Do That on Television" was the first post-modern children's program of my generation. It subverted all recognizable forms and deconstructed the pre-teen's understanding of such important institutions as the family, the school and the video arcade. When the school teacher did not know any better than to call Milton's masterpiece "Pair of Dice Lost," the program functioned as an ideological clarion call to future college students like you who would go on to demand the displacement of an ossified Western canon with more relevant investigations of low culture. Several years ago a student who will remain nameless--her name was Jen--handed in a pictoral interpretation of the essay question in place of a ten-page paper. I instantly knew that she had gleaned her air of entitlement and complete disrespect for all forms of academic propriety from being a nightly fan of "You Can't Do That On Television." Although I failed her, it was the proudest moment of my life.

Here are some videos of the show for you to decide how postmodern the show is or not:

---YouCantDoThatOnTelevision - PovertyAndUnemployment1985Part1

---YouCantDoThatOnTelevision - PovertyAndUnemployment1985Part2

---YouCantDoThatOnTelevision - PovertyAndUnemployment1985Part3

And here's an episode with Justin Cammy in it for good measure:

---You Can't Do That On Television - Divorce 1 (of 3)

---You Can't Do That On Television - Divorce 2 (of 3)

---You Can't Do That On Television - Divorce 3 (of 3)

So what are your thoughts?

What Can We Know Of The Truth?

This is the biggest question of our day. Here is what John Armstrong with my thoughts (in italics) has to say about the subject:

"Propostional" Truth, "Objective" Truth and the Debate About What We Know and How We Know It

God chose to reveal himself ultimately through Jesus Christ. (I agree.) This does not mean, however, that he did not also use words. Jesus is the ultimate "truth" but this does not mean there is no other truth source. We encounter Christ via revelation but this comes through the Holy Scriptures. (I have to add this revelation through the scriptures happens via the Holy Spirit as Jesus is God's self-revelation to man and we encounter this Spirit in the scriptures through an act of the Divine Mediating Agent of Grace.) This involves both our mind and our heart. (And spirit.) I have said the same over and over again but some still think I am saying something that I am not saying thus they regularly challenge my approach to theology and truth. Several comments that have appeared recently on the posts made on this site have chosen to hear me only with an epistemology that is modern and, in my judgment, very flawed. It would take a course in epistemology to sort all this out and this is not the place to teach such a course. I would suggest the following readings with which I have a great degree of sympathy:

1. Who's Afraid of Postmodernism? James K. A. Smith (Baker)

2. How Postmodernism Serves (My) Faith, Crystal L. Downing (IVP)

3. The Myth of Certainty, Daniel Taylor (IVP)

4. Longing to Know: The Philosophy of Knowledge for Ordinary People, Esther Lightcap Meek (Brazos)

5. The Drama of Doctrine, Kevin J. Vanhoozer (Westminster/John Knox)

These books will give you a very good insight into how I am using terms and why philosophy cannot be divorced (entirely) from these commonly used words that we all assume have a meaning we completely agree upon as Christians.

There are two elephants in the room: truth and proposition. Truth, fundamentally, comes only from the One who is Truth. It is rooted in revelation. Human ideas never perfectly conform to that Truth, never. Truth is grace, truth comes by grace, never by reason. This is basic to my epistemology.

....
This indeed is the emerging paradigm that the church finds itself in. Read on:

Some who post have asked me a number of questions. I have provided a framework for my thought process, but not explicit answers. Am I dodging the questions. The tone of these posts suggests that I am. We are back to the notion that I am hiding something and thus I am dangerous.

Do I believe in inspiration? Of course I do. Do I believe the Bible is trustworthy? Most certainly. And where does anyone ever get the idea that I am suggesting we cannot rely upon written Scripture? I never asserted anything of the kind, not even close. The reason I do not answer all of these suspicious questions is that they reveal the questioner doesn't understand what I am actually saying and wants to prove me wrong by using a check list of various "objective" truths. We have a different theological method but I doubt we disagree about the core truths of Christianity at all. So why bother? For one reason, we need a more humble approach to knowing if we are to be effective in the world we now find ourselves in. (I am not calling my opponents arrogant people! Read the statement clearly.)

We can know God in Jesus Christ with deep assurance. We can know this with our minds and our hearts both. What I deny is the kind of certitude that is associated with modernistic philosophy, which is in the background of a great deal of "evangelical" epistemology, thus my repeated statements about "we" and so forth.

Again, I am happy to say more, time permitting, but interested and fair-minded readers can see that I am not denying the truth of confessional Christianity in the least but rather denying some of the ways we argue for it and about it. I reject the method of many conservatives, and their epistemology, but not the faith in any meaningful sense.

Read The Full Post: Here or Here.

Wikipedia Article Of The Day: 09-18-08

So this seems interesting:

Anekantavada is one of the most important and basic doctrines of Jainism. It refers to the principles of pluralism and multiplicity of viewpoints, the notion that truth and reality are perceived differently from diverse points of view, and that no single point of view is the complete truth. Jains contrast all attempts to proclaim absolute truth with adhgajanyāyah, which can be illustrated through the maxim of the "Blind Men and an Elephant". In this story, one blind man felt the trunk of an elephant, another the tusks, another the ears, another the tail. All the men claimed to explain the true appearance of the elephant, but could only partly succeed, due to their limited perspectives. According to the Jains, only the Kevalins—the omniscient beings—can comprehend objects in all aspects and manifestations; others are only capable of partial knowledge. Consequently, no single, specific, human view can claim to represent absolute truth. Anekāntavāda encourages its adherents to consider the views and beliefs of their rivals and opposing parties. Proponents of anekāntavāda apply this principle to religion and philosophy, reminding themselves that any religion or philosophy, even Jainism, that clings too dogmatically to its own tenets, is committing an error based on its limited point of view. (more...)

What are your thoughts about it and how it may relate to the Christian view of postmodernism and Emerging/Emergent Christian ideals?