www.cheetahsp.com
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Friday, February 1, 2008
The Bible and the Gospels
Excerpts from www.powells.com/review/2008_01_21.html
Taking the Gospels Seriously, A Review by Bill McKibben
This review covers two books:
unChristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks about Christianity...and Why It Matters, by David Kinnaman
The Scandalous Gospel of Jesus: What's So Good about the Good News? by Peter J. Gomes
The gospels have always been a difficult foundation on which to build a movement, in that they call on Christians to do things they might rather not - voluntarily right the balance between rich and poor, or turn the other cheek.
For Christians, what we call the Bible is only the means to a deepened understanding of what Jesus called the gospel, or glad tidings. In our zeal to crown Jesus as the content of our preaching, we have failed to give due deference to the content of his preaching.
That preaching has several important dimensions. First, it is a doctrine of reversal - of the poor lifted up and the rich laid low. It's not just that the meek will inherit the earth, a sweet enough sentiment, but that the powerful will lose it.
In Jesus' words: "How terrible for you who are rich now, you have had your easy life. How terrible for you who are full now, you will go hungry." Jesus takes sides, and usually he is found on the side of the oppressed and unlucky.
It is easy to understand why the church, once it became an important social force, chose to deemphasize this core idea. It is no accident that although Jesus came preaching a disturbing and redistributive gospel, we do not preach what Jesus preached. Instead, we preach Jesus.
The gospel is radical in other ways as well, particularly in the constantly repeated call to love your neighbor as yourself. Usually, we take "neighbor" to mean somebody very much like ourselves, bound by the same experiences and expectations, and living in proximity. Jesus, however, clearly had something different in mind.
Challenged by a lawyer to define "neighbor," Jesus answers with the story of the Good Samaritan, who was not a neighbor by any conventional definition, religious or ethnic. Jesus makes a new and transforming definition of neighbor. Proximity and kinship no longer sufficiently define who the neighbor is, and thus they no longer define those to whom obligations are due. The neighbor is the one who has opportunity to do good to one in need.
There is, if one takes any of this seriously, an obvious political message. As a nation, we have been starving for words that move and inspire us - instill hope, not fear - and suggest the highest purposes for the common good.
40% of Americans aged between 16 and 29 are have an overwhelmingly negative perception of Christianity. 87% find it judgmental, while 85% say it's hypocritical.
This shouldn't be a great surprise. So much of the modern evangelical phenomenon lacks real content. To judge by many of its books and star preachers, the faith is mostly about bringing people to Christ and then, when they've arrived, making them feel good about the decision, with a consumerist faith that bears little resemblance to the gospels. 75% of American Christians believe that the phrase "God helps those who help themselves" is found in the Bible, even though it's pretty much the opposite of "love your neighbor as yourself."
It's not clear what you're supposed to do once you've heeded the altar call, other than tithe and evangelize. What substance there is has often come in the form of opposition to "immorality" - and it's this ceaseless judgmentalism that young people in particular are noticing and disliking.
Its most admirable practitioners have begun to sense this, and to move, sometimes tentatively, in new directions. Rick Warren, author of The Purpose Driven Life, has turned his suburban ministry more and more toward confronting the problems of the very poor. "My dream is that thirty years from now, the church will be known more by what it is for than what it is against. For some time now, the hands and feet of the body of Christ have been amputated, and he's been pretty much reduced to a big mouth. We talk far more than we do. It's time to reattach the limbs."
It turns out that the antipathy of the evangelical churches toward homosexuals is the single biggest reason that young people are starting to turn away from them. Because of their opposition to homosexuals, outsiders cannot picture the church as the loving community of believers Jesus envisioned. It's hard for outsiders - and even many insiders - to see it as anything other than hateful.
The Bible texts usually adduced to show that gay sex was sinful were in fact commentaries on sexual violence and prostitution. They came against a backdrop of biblical prohibitions on everything from hair-cutting to shrimp-eating, and in general had nothing to do with what people of that era couldn't easily have conceived of - committed, caring relationships between people of the same sex.
Those who attempt to use biblical standards to read gays out of full participation in the church make the Bible a tool of oppression, the church an exclusive fellowship of shared prejudice, and the glad tidings - the gospel that Jesus came to proclaim - a mockery. The gospels don't mention homosexuality. It seems to have been a topic of little interest to Jesus.
Taking the Gospels Seriously, A Review by Bill McKibben
This review covers two books:
unChristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks about Christianity...and Why It Matters, by David Kinnaman
The Scandalous Gospel of Jesus: What's So Good about the Good News? by Peter J. Gomes
The gospels have always been a difficult foundation on which to build a movement, in that they call on Christians to do things they might rather not - voluntarily right the balance between rich and poor, or turn the other cheek.
For Christians, what we call the Bible is only the means to a deepened understanding of what Jesus called the gospel, or glad tidings. In our zeal to crown Jesus as the content of our preaching, we have failed to give due deference to the content of his preaching.
That preaching has several important dimensions. First, it is a doctrine of reversal - of the poor lifted up and the rich laid low. It's not just that the meek will inherit the earth, a sweet enough sentiment, but that the powerful will lose it.
In Jesus' words: "How terrible for you who are rich now, you have had your easy life. How terrible for you who are full now, you will go hungry." Jesus takes sides, and usually he is found on the side of the oppressed and unlucky.
It is easy to understand why the church, once it became an important social force, chose to deemphasize this core idea. It is no accident that although Jesus came preaching a disturbing and redistributive gospel, we do not preach what Jesus preached. Instead, we preach Jesus.
The gospel is radical in other ways as well, particularly in the constantly repeated call to love your neighbor as yourself. Usually, we take "neighbor" to mean somebody very much like ourselves, bound by the same experiences and expectations, and living in proximity. Jesus, however, clearly had something different in mind.
Challenged by a lawyer to define "neighbor," Jesus answers with the story of the Good Samaritan, who was not a neighbor by any conventional definition, religious or ethnic. Jesus makes a new and transforming definition of neighbor. Proximity and kinship no longer sufficiently define who the neighbor is, and thus they no longer define those to whom obligations are due. The neighbor is the one who has opportunity to do good to one in need.
There is, if one takes any of this seriously, an obvious political message. As a nation, we have been starving for words that move and inspire us - instill hope, not fear - and suggest the highest purposes for the common good.
40% of Americans aged between 16 and 29 are have an overwhelmingly negative perception of Christianity. 87% find it judgmental, while 85% say it's hypocritical.
This shouldn't be a great surprise. So much of the modern evangelical phenomenon lacks real content. To judge by many of its books and star preachers, the faith is mostly about bringing people to Christ and then, when they've arrived, making them feel good about the decision, with a consumerist faith that bears little resemblance to the gospels. 75% of American Christians believe that the phrase "God helps those who help themselves" is found in the Bible, even though it's pretty much the opposite of "love your neighbor as yourself."
It's not clear what you're supposed to do once you've heeded the altar call, other than tithe and evangelize. What substance there is has often come in the form of opposition to "immorality" - and it's this ceaseless judgmentalism that young people in particular are noticing and disliking.
Its most admirable practitioners have begun to sense this, and to move, sometimes tentatively, in new directions. Rick Warren, author of The Purpose Driven Life, has turned his suburban ministry more and more toward confronting the problems of the very poor. "My dream is that thirty years from now, the church will be known more by what it is for than what it is against. For some time now, the hands and feet of the body of Christ have been amputated, and he's been pretty much reduced to a big mouth. We talk far more than we do. It's time to reattach the limbs."
It turns out that the antipathy of the evangelical churches toward homosexuals is the single biggest reason that young people are starting to turn away from them. Because of their opposition to homosexuals, outsiders cannot picture the church as the loving community of believers Jesus envisioned. It's hard for outsiders - and even many insiders - to see it as anything other than hateful.
The Bible texts usually adduced to show that gay sex was sinful were in fact commentaries on sexual violence and prostitution. They came against a backdrop of biblical prohibitions on everything from hair-cutting to shrimp-eating, and in general had nothing to do with what people of that era couldn't easily have conceived of - committed, caring relationships between people of the same sex.
Those who attempt to use biblical standards to read gays out of full participation in the church make the Bible a tool of oppression, the church an exclusive fellowship of shared prejudice, and the glad tidings - the gospel that Jesus came to proclaim - a mockery. The gospels don't mention homosexuality. It seems to have been a topic of little interest to Jesus.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Net Neutrality
(Excerpts, Michael Weisman, Seattle Times)---Network neutrality means freedom to compete honestly, freedom to innovate and, ultimately, freedom to express ideas.
Net neutrality is summarized in three principles: nondiscrimination, interconnection and access.
Nondiscrimination means all data are treated the same; a bit is a bit is a bit. This is the heart of digital convergence. Data traffic is transported across a network without regard to where it comes from, where it's going and what it contains. Nondiscrimination restrains the network operator from discriminating for or against traffic on the network, including its own.
Interconnection means that every network (data, Internet, mobile telephone, landline telephone, etc.) has a right to connect with every other network at reasonable commercial rates. Without interconnection, there is no "network." The Internet is often described as a "network of networks." The "network effect" says that networks increase in value as they grow; interconnection accelerates the growth of network value as well as value to consumers, content producers and our society.
Access means that any user on the network has the ability to reach any other user on any other network, without discrimination or interference. "User" also means devices, such as modems, telephones, computers, fax machines or fileservers.
These three principles are the reason the global Internet can exist.
"Tiered service" violates the principle of nondiscrimination when a network operator degrades traffic on the network to make preferred traffic "work better." The purpose of degrading traffic is to force customers to move to services owned and operated by the network owners. Research has conclusively demonstrated the best way to cure bottlenecks is to build better networks.
Peer-to-peer applications were invented as a bandwidth conservation tool because the networks in the U.S. are so underdeveloped for the needs of the consuming public. P2P is a workaround to contend with this situation, by avoiding large downloads that really would clog the network and slam file servers. Network operators throttle down P2P traffic because it often comes from applications like video or VOIP that compete with the offerings of Comcast, AT&T and others. The irony is these programs help protect networks from needless downloads and redundant traffic.
Whether you call it network management, application discrimination or an improved user experience, all the opponents of network neutrality mean one thing: stifling competition and innovation.
http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=mikeweisman24&date=20080124&query=net+neutrality
Net neutrality is summarized in three principles: nondiscrimination, interconnection and access.
Nondiscrimination means all data are treated the same; a bit is a bit is a bit. This is the heart of digital convergence. Data traffic is transported across a network without regard to where it comes from, where it's going and what it contains. Nondiscrimination restrains the network operator from discriminating for or against traffic on the network, including its own.
Interconnection means that every network (data, Internet, mobile telephone, landline telephone, etc.) has a right to connect with every other network at reasonable commercial rates. Without interconnection, there is no "network." The Internet is often described as a "network of networks." The "network effect" says that networks increase in value as they grow; interconnection accelerates the growth of network value as well as value to consumers, content producers and our society.
Access means that any user on the network has the ability to reach any other user on any other network, without discrimination or interference. "User" also means devices, such as modems, telephones, computers, fax machines or fileservers.
These three principles are the reason the global Internet can exist.
"Tiered service" violates the principle of nondiscrimination when a network operator degrades traffic on the network to make preferred traffic "work better." The purpose of degrading traffic is to force customers to move to services owned and operated by the network owners. Research has conclusively demonstrated the best way to cure bottlenecks is to build better networks.
Peer-to-peer applications were invented as a bandwidth conservation tool because the networks in the U.S. are so underdeveloped for the needs of the consuming public. P2P is a workaround to contend with this situation, by avoiding large downloads that really would clog the network and slam file servers. Network operators throttle down P2P traffic because it often comes from applications like video or VOIP that compete with the offerings of Comcast, AT&T and others. The irony is these programs help protect networks from needless downloads and redundant traffic.
Whether you call it network management, application discrimination or an improved user experience, all the opponents of network neutrality mean one thing: stifling competition and innovation.
http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=mikeweisman24&date=20080124&query=net+neutrality
Monday, August 13, 2007
Why do they hate us?
When addressing the question: Why do they hate us?, President Bush consistently responds: They hate us for our freedoms.
Apparently, Bush has decided that the solution is to assign Cheney and Gonzales the task of eliminating these freedoms as quickly as possible, so they will no longer have any reason to hate us.
Apparently, Bush has decided that the solution is to assign Cheney and Gonzales the task of eliminating these freedoms as quickly as possible, so they will no longer have any reason to hate us.
Tuesday, January 9, 2007
Iraq & 9/11
Tony Snow says President Bush knows the public is anxious about the situation in Iraq, but emphasized that "Americans don't want another 9/11."
Well, duh. Americans don't want another Hurricane Katrina either, and that has about as much to do with Iraq as does 9/11.
Well, duh. Americans don't want another Hurricane Katrina either, and that has about as much to do with Iraq as does 9/11.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)