Transforming Theolgy has a fascinating interview with theologian Delwin Brown. I must admit I've never heard of him before this. That is unfortunate, because I enjoyed watching him speak on the following questions:
Why does theology matter?
What is truth?
Why should I be a Christian and not a humanist?
How can you hold to Christian particularity without becoming absolutist or running into relativism?
What is the biggest weakness of progressive theology?
What does God's future mean for our present?
What did God do in Christ that we couldn't do for ourselves?
Whose problem is sin?
What is your favorite film?
I admit I was a bit surprised with where he went with original sin, but overall a good interview.
My friend Gnarf just put together a StackExchange Q&A site for WoW called EpicAdvice. It's very cool. Since the StackExchange platform is in beta and free, I decided to put one together for ECF-Net.
The StackExchange platforms is very community driven. I've snagged a TED vid for the ECF-Net blog entitled "Clay Shirkey on Institutions vs. Collaboration" that may help if the idea is difficult to grasp. Basically, it is for the community, by the community. As people gain standing in the community, they are able to do more things (such as edit posts). The more the community trusts someone (based on the quality of their interaction), the more power the community gives them.
This is an experiment. Its longevity may be determined by whether I can afford to keep it up once the beta ends and StackExchange starts charging. Hopefully, it takes a while before that begins, and I am able to gather enough people for the site to become self-sustaining.
I came across this TED talk recently. It does a good job of portraying the cultural shift that I'm working with. Watch, and then consider the implications for the future of "Christian community."
It seems that everyone on the face of the earth has seen this but me. Regardless, I'm posting it here. Humor is an important part of theological inquiry. It keeps us from taking ourselves too seriously.
Again and again, the bigoted perspective that calls homosexuality a sin in the eyes of God has reminded us that the American Psychological Association (APA) hasn't said that homosexuality is necessarily genetic. Okay, so that means that there are also social factors at work in tandem with genetics. This would not be surprising.
The biggest issue in the reminder is their approach toward gays and lesbians that follows. Since the sinful impulses toward homosexual sex can be replaced with holy impulses toward the opposite sex, evangelical/fundamentalist psychologists feel justified in leading gays and lesbians struggling with sexual identity to programs that help them overcome their sinful (sic.) nature. Recent developments within the APA distinctly threaten that position.
It's about time. It is well known the psychological damage "reparative therapy" does to human beings. It is immoral and destructive, and in some cases life-threatening or life-ending. I recognize that part of the framework from which a psychologist must operate is her or his belief system, even if that is a form of fundamentalism. Yet, I believe that psychologists need to be evaluated as to whether they are capable of operating in the psychological field ethically. This evaluation needs to includes their ability to suspend their own theological judgement of right and wrong in order to ask what is best for the patient. If those are their beliefs, then they need to be held accountable for effect that those beliefs have on the health and wellbeing of their patients. I'm glad the APA has taken this stand.
And, note that the vote was 125-4. That's not even close to "debatable" within the community.
A few years ago I read Peter Rollins' How (Not) to Speak of God. Ever since, I have been a fan. The stuff he does is parallel to the work I am trying to do with Eclectic Mass. Here's a glimpse into what he's all about.
By the way, I snagged this from a new blog I just discovered called Progression of Faith. There's some good stuff over there. I recommend it.
"Oh, don't be afraid of a little water." I remember my mom saying that to me when I used "it's raining out" as an excuse to not do something in the yard, like pick things up. Apparently, there are those out there who like to say the same thing about waterboarding. Maybe it's not unlike a little extra water hitting you in the shower. And it's a controlled environment, so it's not really dangerous. Moreover, if you know that it's going to end, all one has to do is endure a little discomfort for a spell.
That's radiohost Mancow's stance. Or at least it used to be. In order to "prove" that waterboarding isn't torture, he allowed himself to be waterboarded. After six seconds, he changed his tune. (I would link to the video on that page directly, but for some reason it keeps registering as "page not found.")
Well, maybe this isn't really a legitimate test of whether waterboarding is torture. After all, it's not like Mancow has been trained to resist interrogation. That's why I've also added the link to a Jessie Ventura spot on Larry King. Ventura has been trained, and he's very clear that not only is waterboarding torture, it's also dangerous.
It turns out that it's easier to say that waterboarding is not torture when one hasn't experienced it. But once one has been hit in the face with that raw experience, something changes. No longer are we able to distance ourselves from the madness, thus insulating ourselves. Immersion forces us to identify with the other. And once the power of identification claims us, it's amazing how our perspectives change.
Posts
<