April 2004 Archives

As if he has any clue (which he does not), Richard Land says on the Frontline special last night that "the left doesn't think God has a side on these issues"....and I said aloud to the TV screen: "Yeah they do, it's just that they think you're on the wrong side".....which is true for just about every social policy issue there is.....due to his (and much of the SBC Leadership's) view that spirtual values are largely confined to personalistic issues, and that "God has ordained the magistrate" to work his purposes in all the "political and social" areas of life......in this case, the "magistrate" is the Bush administration, on whom the Religious Right heaps their blessing, further alienating the deeply spiritual people who care about the social and economic chasms between us in this country. These caring folk have learned to dismiss Christianity as they have seen it at the hands of the Religious Right. I don't believe they are rejecting Christ at all, but only a pale , distorted imitation of it; one which is almost indistinguishable from a crass nationalistic, triumphalism, filled with macho calls to "bring it on". Sojourners.com has a quote of the week:

"My view and the view of the British chain of command is that the Americans' use of violence is not proportionate and is overresponsive to the threat they are facing."

- A senior British Army officer in southern Iraq. Source: Christian Science Monitor

A blog I just found while looking for blogs that are possiblybeing updated from and during the UMC's General Conference in Pittsburgh this week and next, brought up this hit: from Worldwide Pablo

It includes a quote from William Sloane Coffin:
When he [Bush] calls himself a Christian, I think he should remember that it was the devil who tempted Jesus with unparalleled wealth and power. What does that say about Bush’s dreams about wealth and power? He has reversed Biblical priorities by making our economic policies be about helping the wealthy to acquire more wealth while abandoning the poor.

I also found this one: Chuck Currie: Views on faith and politics from a United Church of Christ Seminarian. His post yesterday, an interview with William Sloane Coffin, which was linked to from the Worldwide Pablo blog I mention above, brought me to Chuck's blog, which looks like I will be blogrolling as well. He has a few apparent common interests (like Sojourners, Blogging, and Church). Also, featuring an interview with Coffin, whom Al Mohler considers to be a dangerous liberal, makes it even more of a must-read.

The whole scenario stinks of the trappings of "Empire". Find a "national faith" that isn't too speciifc, talk about "Jesus of the heart" and you can, in the case of many, easily ignore and dispose of and denigrate the Jesus of the masses, the Jesus of justice, the Jesus who told us to love our enemies. You can wrap all of the justifications up in the flag festooned with a cross, and talk about how we're making the world a more godly place in the end, but you're simply not allowing the WHOLE Jesus to change your heart. You're simply using Jesus to put a divine blessing on what you already belive, and what you really want.

Now one can either a Democrat or a republican, and do either; follow the "Jesus of the Heart" (that is, as the "heart" is portrayed by those who speak of Jesus and the heart in individualistic and "inner" terms, and speak little if at all about the ways and places in which the Inward and Outard Journey intersect; and how NEITHER the Inward NOR the Outward are healthy without the other.

Frankly, I tire of the Democrats reciting the mantra "a Womans's Right to Choose", since that clearly refers to abortion, and seems to suggest that there is no responsibility for that unborn, potential life that they have had a hand in creating. No less a responsibility for the woman as for the man. But to say "it's her choice" seems to cloud the more uncomfortable details about the value of life (or even a "potential life", which as a precursor and prerequisite to unquestioned life, has its own special level of sacred-ness.) I do not agree with the "pro-lifers", because they are hypocrites, in that they define life only in terms of abortion issues, and ignore the "choice" the US and other war-making countries in carrying out campaigns that they KNOW will cost the lives of innocent people, regardless of age. But I absolutely shudder at the phrase " a woman's right to choose" because it seems to imply that the Choice is more important than the life. I am not a fundamentalist on this. I simply feel that both sides oversimplify the issues. So where does that place me on the political spectrum?

The previous two posts about the reports on PBS's NPR that I posted previously tonigh led me to check the Sojourners site, and found this:

Frontline, April 29 9 ET The Jesus Factor-- the report/documentary that inspired the NPR interviews that I just listened to.

(Richard Land, one of the embarassing Southern Baptist leaders who is in a position of "Ethics Commentary".....a shallow replacement for what once was an actual ethical dialogue within SBC-dom in the Christian Life Commission, is now speaking on NPR.....it's now 7:21 pm CST)

One NPR reporter on the story from the previous post: Religious people were comforted by the idea that Bush claimed to feel "called to be president", and the "secular people" were concerned. Well, you have to consult OTHER Christians. Not the "Religous Right", but the "Right Christians" as one website calls itself (a site for the "alternate vices" in Christendom --- usually branded as "liberal" or apostate by many of the Religious Right groups.)

One only has to consult sources like "Sojourners" to see how many of the beliefs that many Christians hold about the morality of war and certain kinds of approaches taken by the military (and thewy just mentioned Jim Wallis' expressions of concern about Bush identifying America with some "divine apppointee" to correct the world's problems (which is OK as a concept, but how one mixes and justifie's one's policies and decisions with "theological approaches" and "selective interpretations" (as well as questionable eschatology).

I find it difficult to listen to the way they are describing and "analyzing" the faith of George W. Bush, beginning with the quote from Bush himself (a recording of his anwering a question about what his faith means. It went somethng like this: "Christ changed my heart", which is, of course, fine, as long as you don't stop there. A questioner asked: "Can you explain that a little more?" Bush replied went something like this: "To those who don't know what I'm talking about, it will be hard to explain." That's where I get extremely uncomfortable with a faith that under these contexts, seems impractical and leaves most of life untouched; if it cannot be identified as to what lifestyle changes it encourages; what "new perspectives" it brings, and how a "life in Christ" affects ALL of life, including the polotical and social, then there is a perception problem. This is precisely why many "secular folks" remain so. If Christianity is perceived to be some private affair (which is precisely what Bush's response encourages his audience to think ----- the continued emphasis on the phrase "Christ changed my heart". Well, if your "heart's desires" cannot be expressed in any verbal way; cannot be described in terms of how one's outlook on life is different and changing; then I question the perception of what "the heart" is. It becomes an abstract, purely pietistic expression, which frankly, I do not blame many in society for rejecting.

I'm still listening (NPR). The thoughts are still coming. It is being observed that Bush has asserted that "Religion does not affect his "policy decisions".......huh? So why is it that the Religious Right supports him? (one answer is that the Right has completely blurred many platform/faith issues).

Trying to upload a picture (using Upload File), I get the following two errors (one or the other)

Got an error: CGI open of tmpfile: Permission denied (MT Error)

The Page cannot be displayed (Browser error page, with the usual instructions IE gives me)

The directory chosen is the LocalSitePath, images/uploads, which has write permissions (this is on a Windows server, which has full permissions for that directory for IUSR....however, the IWAM user does not...but I do not know what the IWAM user is, and the file permissions panel my ISP gives me does not list that account in the permissions list, so I can't change it even if I wanted to)

Any ideas out there?

With all the job hunting and independent projects I had going on over the past 3-4 months, I had laid down the mantle of exploring and "revisting" Virtual community. It's time to take it up again. But, for the next couple of hours, I'm going to my daughter's softball game. An article on SmartMobs got me to think ing about this. Later.

I don't know about others, but from the almost complete absence of "people I know" who actually pay for this stuff at these prices, I assume that MLB's attempts to make a business out of offering "online MLB live games" has been a dismal failure. I used to listen to WLW via their website, now MLB doesn't allow them to do so. They want to charge $14.95 to listen to the games , and a whopping 14.95 a month for video.

Now I'm a huge baseball fan. But something just doesn't work for me here It seems they need more "try before you buy", on ALL features, and make this available every month (like 1 day per feature...or 12 hours......something.) Nothing like "whetting the appetitite" for luring paying customers. It seems to me that MLB could also offer free radio broadcasts for one team, and use that avenue to market directly to baseball fanatics and also for Team focus and items of interest to THAT team (including deals on tickets for going to the games, or for subscribing to things like Extra Innnings...and vice-versa.

With me being in Nashville, and my team (the Reds) being in Cincinnati, I used to love being able to listen to the WLW radio broadcasts, and I would be doing that alongside whatever else I'm doing in my office. Now that broadband is "in", the offerings and tie-ins would be unlimited. Right now, it's all too mysterious and too steep for what we can "experience" of it.

I haven't been blogging much. I've been working on my txes, interviewing for a job, going to second interviews, and then expecting an offer. The offer came this past week, and I am starting tomorrow. I'm not going to name the place, only say that it is in Web development, and in Nashville. I am excited about it, and also anxious (all the usual feelings about new places, and wanting to live up to expectatons, whatever those might be).

Thanks to all of you out there who have posted encouragements over the past year, and keep me in your prayers as I transition. Being unsure about where my next income was coming from was a different kind of stress, one which I do NOT prefer to the kind that comes with venturing into a new place...but both have their stress factor. I am optiisitic about this new place. They've already been doing good work, and I feel a re-affirmation of my gifts and talents.