|
|
Thursday, September 26, 2002
|
|
| |
In His Steps Online Book
6:53:09 AM 
|
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, September 24, 2002
|
|
| |
Remembering two inspirational stories from my early Chrsitian days: My Heart, Christ's Home, and In His Steps (which inspired the "What Would Jesus Do?" aka WWJD thing). It is so glaring to me today how both those stories so totally embody a "compartmentalization" of Jesus away from "life in the world".......that the question rarely gets asked in regards to say, the question of war against Iraq; like "Would Jesus lead a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, or even encourage us to be supportive of it?"
11:01:10 PM
|
|
|
|
|
Friday, September 20, 2002
|
|
| |
|
The connectedness of us all, and our deepest dreams, I believe, is addressed in this segment:
"What makes it a web is the fact that it has links. That's quite literally what turned the Internet into the Web. But every link says, "Here's something I care about. Maybe you will, too. So, go away from my page and go visit this other page." Every link is a small act of generosity, of selflessness. And that's what I understand human spirituality to be about, at least to a large degree. Thus, the Web's architecture is spiritual." from "The spirituality of the web's architecture" with David Weinberger - chat transcript on Spirituality.com
The things which move us and inspire us motivate us to share the excitement. This is closely related to a key element in my Theology of Church: that we all have 'gifts' given to us by God; and these gifts are meant for the enhancement of the community; specifically, for the community's mission to some segment of the world. If we could latch onto this, somehow, and take much more seriously the architecture of the Web and how it is INVITING us to fill its space with examples of this 'sharing', there would be many more ministries birthed as people discover kindred spirits via the Net that may well be somebody sitting next to them in Church.
8:23:40 AM
|
|
|
David Weinberger posts on JOHO today:
Spirituality chat: "The transcript of a chat I did at spirituality.com on the topic "The Spirituality of the Web's Architecture" has been posted here. 10:28 PM | PermaLink "
This is promising of many various blog-spirations for me. I feel the end of a blogless funk arriving. This area is where the Web's connection into "getting us connected to the Clue-giving character of the web' and the "Need to get that clue from inside the theological community" meet. Thanks again Mr. Weinberger.
I'll be posting these upcoming blogs to my "Theoblogical" section in the hours ahead.
8:10:21 AM
|
|
|
|
|
Saturday, September 14, 2002
|
|
| |
Jesus and The Kingdom of God is some thought about what David Weinberger and I talked about last week regarding theological differences/similarities between Judaism and Christianity.
4:56:09 PM
|
|
|
From e-church:
Intranets, Extranets, and Blogs. Dale Lature sums up my feelings in his entry:Getting a Clue in Church about the Web. He not only critiques church web sites but also gives good solid advice on how to actually pull it off.... [e-church com.munity weblog]
The only thing is that I haven't actually achieved it yet, since I'm still at the "seeking support" stage. We need to have access to a server that will enable us to post multiple blogs (like Radio's rcs) and the backing of the people who see the value and consider it important enough as an audience. That seems to be very slow in coming. But , I won't give up on it. Whether or not my family stays as members there (which we've been mulling over, mainly due to the feeling that we want our 13 year old son to be going to church with at least some of the people he knows in school. Going downtown to church makes that an unlikely scenario here, since we live 15 miles southeast in secluded suburbia.
I have been toying with mail to weblog features today, and having another online group I interact with (also church related) to a special category I have set up using Radio. I have also set up a category for my church. What I REALLY need now is sub-categories, and ways to set up separate mail-to security so that mail can be sent to any of the subcategories, like public contacts for different ministries, sermon archives (which would be posted as Stories in Radio), Youth Ministry (with its own subcategories). Since this is all done in XML, doesn't it seem technically possible to tweak this architecture for churches? It seems that also users could be set up with different access levels so that members could "post their own blog" to public interaction areas, but only ministry contact people assigned to "blog the ministry" of that group could be given access to blog copy for the descriptions and calendars for that group? The church office could administer the calendar for all groups and church-wide events, and eventually all this Instant Message posting, PDA-enabled posting, etc. could enter into the equation and create a truly "blogged" Church.
As I see it, the same reasons that people have for being enthued about the KM (Knowledge Management) functions of weblogging can be similar reasons for church people to be excited about bloggiing. Even more so, actaually, since some businesses can do just fine without KM as a strategy, while churches , inorder to be what the Church is, HAVE to enable KM, because it is a simple point of theology that seems to be lost in so many churches: the church's mission iis to enable mission (this is an emphasis of and modus operandii of The Church of the Saviour). In other words, the people are called by God to gather together IN ORDER TO DERIVE their call. God constantly calls. (Because the world constantly changes, and needs arise that need our help. For me , it has to be something to do with helping the Church awaken to the communication tools available to it, and specifically , today, in this whole weblog/Web Service/coming "Smart Mob" era. There is a structure to the "Weblog tool set" that encourages and "reveals" the things of its writers which really light a fire under them (and so I blog as I learn and as I see what is emerging in this as a ripe opportunity for the Church.
Thanks e-church (and Tim) for stirring me to more "blog-alia" NOw what we need is more "translators" of this brand of "glossolalia" so that movement can happen on making this happen.
3:28:38 PM
|
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, September 10, 2002
|
|
| |
|
IN this link, AKMA asks:
"Christianity offers too many examples of "our way or the highway" interpretations of Scripture, but aren't those schismatic gestures warranted, if not outright required, by a rigorous application of integral hermeneutics?"
I would say No, because the catch is whether or not we are too sure of the accuracy of our interpretation......the risk is often great that we mistake the "Word of God" for our own interpreation of it.... and this is the problem that fundamantalists often fail to admit or realize.
In other words, it's fine to believe in ONE intent of the writer, but just don't be so sure that you have some special way of knowing that which those who disagree don't have (at least obvious to you----- "you" meaning anybody who presumes to know they have the only legitimate and correct interpretation)
And in case it's not clear from this.....I think I come down on a very similar stance as AKMA does on this one. At least from what I've read so far.
11:32:16 PM
|
|
|
This article (click the link above to see it) is the utmost in conceited, self-righteous, judgmental smugness exhibited time and time again by this disgrace of a seminary president. SBC people ought to be ashamed to have this cocky buffoon as a seminary president. Here he basically questions the spiritual values of generations of Southern Baptists who don't believe in the witch hunts which placed him in a position he clearly has no spiritual credentials to possess. He has no humility, and he is a pawn posing as a Christian leader. I would laugh , and often do, until I realize how sad it really is.
How the theological climate of any one church or denomination can insure the sexual fidelityof ANY ONE of its members is a ridiculous issue to even draw a correlation. One always hopes that people reared in a spirtual climate absorbs those values, but the failings of one do not bear on the rightness of that theology. And to call into question the legitimacy of the faith of a whole generation of Southern Baptists, who were around before you, Al Mohler, is such a crock. I look at the smug, self-assured smirk you exhibit and I cringe at the "witness" this must be for all of America , and as representative of the many Southern Baptists who still try to walk humby with their God. Your God, on the other hand, you seem to have mixed up with somebody who looks like you; that's the dominant impression I get.
I offer this link to the article you wrote as an example of the garbage you often spew, and the majority of those who read it will recognize it for the extremely vile representation of spirtual pride and contempt that you you seem to be proud of spreading. Link to the vile filth
10:30:51 PM
|
|
|
|
|
Monday, September 09, 2002
|
|
| |
|
I had written : I also wanted to ask: Could I post the email you sent me along with the two replies I sent you afterward? I thought it appropriate that I clear that point up that you called to my attention.
Dave W: I guess it's ok. I look pretty snippy in the msg I sent you, but, what the heck
I reply: Not at all, from my view. When I saw your first reply, I was immediately repentant, being so proud as I am of how universal I consider muself to be ---- and how easily I can slide right over and sit at the feet of a guiding spirtual leader of other "traditions" such as Gandhi, who I thought had more "Christian" morals and faith than the vast majority of Christians, or the Buddhist monk Hanh Thich Nhat (who wrote a book , among others, called "Living Buddha, Living Christ". Its' funny (not really), that I have another article that I titled "The Cosmic Christ" that I use to describe what I see as the working of God in all cultures, even those who have not been "mission" targets of Christian missionaries. And , in the context of this discussion we are having, is inappropriately named as it has "Christ" in its name. It's really about how the whole idea of "the Christ" in a Christian setting is one of "God revealing", and that this "revealing" has been in action from the get-go, and that God is in constant effort of "self-revelation", and is engaged EVERYWHERE with ALL people and cultures.
In this context, that of the theological relationship between Jewish faith and Christian faith, there is , and should be, a much more intimate relationship, but the refusal of many Christians to understand what I have tried to express (and many others) about how the same truths can be "realized" within the bounds of many "revelations", has made "Christ" the dividing point, rather than the "interpretation (or in some cases, RE-interpretation which leads to life" which I believe Jesus sought, as well as many other "reformers" or "renewal advocates" within Judaism have done throughout the ages). While I believe Jesus was somewhat unique and had a historically and theologically significant perspective and authority, I doubt he had the kind of "new religion" that resulted in mind (particularly as it evolved into such a thouroughly Western and "American" expression).
My "theological evolution" quip was, in the same kind of context, an effort to debate an often made "Christian" assumption that other religions must be held to a standard that we do not require of our own: ie. That there be no signs of a conquesting attitude in the Scriptures, and so we must hold ourselves to the light of scrutiny and face the accusations as to why, say, in the book of Joshua, we see a command attributed to God to kill all the inhabitants of a city. I jump to the Christian "later" tradtion because this is the one that should be most authoritative for the Christian audience, not because we can't find answers much earlier, as with the prophetic books or stories of forgiveness and responding and showing compassion to the enemy that we find also in the "Old" testament. Jesus is obviously the authoritative figure in legitimizing any "interpreting" of Hebrew Scriptures in light of a higher ethic---- higher in the sense of being "higher" than the conquesting figure we see in some stories as the land of Canaan was taken--- (and which as I affirmed before, this "higher ethic" came to him from his own Jewish traditions and his explorations of them under the guidance of many teachers------ one story in the Christian gospels speak of how the teachers "marveled" at how well and deep the young Jesus understood).
>>>For me it is *the* question that defines the difference between Christianity and Judaism: (generalizing here!) Jewish truth is tribal while Christian truth is universal. Not a conflict of ideas but a conflict of hermeneutics. Much harder to resolve and, frankly, way cool-er.
That does sound way-cool, but only promising unless I know more about that. MY first reaction is that you are comparing tribal and universal as the latter is better and that Christians consider themselves "universal"....but I'm not sure at all that I get that message as you meant it------not that I wouldn't understand how you could get that impression, cause I think I do------and the same for the hermeneutical question------
Anyway, I'm gonna blog this stuff and the people I imagine as being my "readers" (since there don't seem to be masses of people coming to view my stuff) will enjoy and appreciate.
I appreciate your taking time to respond, and am really glad you got me "churning again" on the issue of just how "universal" or "cross-cultural" the revelation of God can be imagined......it seems to me that the commuinications channels such as the Net can (emphasize CAN) help to promote a more "ecumenical" and "reciprocal appreciation" frame of mind between the world's religious traditions.
Dale
5:21:35 PM
|
|
|
Dale,
I understood and appreciated (in both senses) that the message of "Hijacking" was one of tolerance. I've become overly sensitive to a(generalized) Christian assumption that Christianity is a completion of Judaism, but -- and I'm going to flounder trying to express this -- not because I think that this constitutes an anti-Semitism that should be reviled. It can, of course, be the basis of anti-Semitism, but that belief by itself isn't, and I hope I didn't sound like I was accusing you of anything. Rather, I find the issue incredibly rich intellectually. For me it is *the* question that defines the difference between Christianity and Judaism: (generalizing here!) Jewish truth is tribal while Christian truth is universal. Not a conflict of ideas but a conflict of hermeneutics. Much harder to resolve and, frankly, way cool-er.
WRT AKMA, you should check my weblog today! :)
-- David W.
6:52:35 AM
|
|
|
David,
I wanted to add that it was obvious to me that you would be in sympathy with my views, and so I felt reasonably certain that you would appreciate what I had to say there.
I am and I did :)
I also realized that I made another reference to "Old testament" in my reply recognizing how I had implied what you caught. Just habit , I guess.
FWIW, it was the phrase "theological evolution" that caught my attention.
Although, I wanted you to know that my views on how Jesus was related to God has more to do with Jesus' own Jewish faith, that didn't just "fall out of the sky", but was , in large measure, passed on to him. I tend to think that God speaks to us in and through community, > which, from my theology, is a pretty Hebrew view of spirtuality as I understand Judaism.
Yup. Absolutely key. But not (as I'm sure you know) purely subject to the whims of the community, but rather tied to the text and, more important, to the interpretative tradition and its modes of practice.
I tend to seek a lot of sociological insight in my quest to better understand what spirtuality means.
I also wanted to ask: Could I post the email you sent me along with the two replies I sent you afterward? I thought it appropriate that I clear that point up that you called to my attention.
I guess it's ok. I look pretty snippy in the msg I sent you, but, what the heck. |A reply from me for this message
-- David W.
6:46:17 AM
|
|
|
second email
David,
I wanted to add that it was obvious to me that you would be in sympathy with my views, and so I felt reasonably certain that you woudl appreciate what I had to say there. I also realized that I made another reference to "Old testament" in my reply recognizing how I had implied what you caught. Just habit , I guess. Although, I wanted you to know that my views on how Jesus was related to God has more to do with Jesus' own Jewish faith, that didn't just "fall out of the sky", but was , in large measure, passed on to him. I tend to think that God speaks to us in and through community, which, from my theology, is a pretty Hebrew view of spirtuality as I understand Judaism. I tend to seek a lot of sociological insight in my quest to better understand what spirtuality means.
I also wanted to ask: Could I post the email you sent me along with the two replies I sent you afterward? I thought it appropriate that I clear that point up that you called to my attention.
Dale
6:40:21 AM
|
|
|
|
|
Sunday, September 08, 2002
|
|
| |
|
Dale,
Thanks for the link. I hope it's obvious that I'm in sympathy with your views, which you express well.
...Although I'm not much sympathetic to the implication (or is it my inference?) in "Hijacking" that the "old" Testament needs the new one to be completed, that Christianity is more evolved than Judaism. Am I reading you wrongly, and this on the first day of the new year?-- David W.
I reply:
David
My apologies. Of course I was guilty in that article of what you sensed. I did a Bart Simpspon ("doh!" as I realized how it had totally escaped me that you would pick up on that: I had not thought about how that statement in my article (I think this is the one to which you probably refer:"
"to view certain "questionable inpirations" as "under a higher principle", that put forth by Jesus."
would present itself to one of the Jewish faith. I see it clearly now, however, and want to clarify that immediately: and I need only "adjust" that same thought to the "higher" consciousness of say, the Hebrew Prophets and the justice themes found in the later stories. I guess my real intent was to address a "Christian" audience that is leaning toward "blaming Islam" rather than the distortion that the terrorists represent. Many of these people (the exclusivist Christians) need reminding that there are traditions within our canon (some of which happens to fall in the Old Testament side, and the most often quoted examples of the passages that depict a militaristic God) that we are hard pressed to "defend" --- and then there are what I call the "more mature" conceptions of the faith which certainly were in existence in pre-Chrstian Jewish theology as well, (and from whom Jesus drew for his own edification) and that are obviously of a different flavor than the "war stories" of the early conquests.
Thanks for your posing that question, and for pointing us over to AKMA (whom I had already blogrolled via your frequent dialogue with him).
Dale Lature
The next reply is here (posted the next day)
8:24:15 PM
|
|
|
|
© Copyright
2002
Dale Lature.
Last update:
9/29/2002; 11:02:45 AM.
This theme is based on the SoundWaves
(blue) Manila theme. |
|
| September 2002 |
| Sun |
Mon |
Tue |
Wed |
Thu |
Fri |
Sat |
| 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
| 8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
| 15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
| 22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
| 29 |
30 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Aug Oct |
|
