Those of you who follow this site know that I have blogged about Haggard before. I find the whole situation so interesting. Recently, Haggard was featured in an HBO special. I have seen several interviews with him in the past couple of weeks, including the one below. My take is that he actually seems to be getting perspective and maybe healing. I'm curious to know what you, my loyal readers think.
Showing posts with label tension. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tension. Show all posts
Monday, February 02, 2009
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Interesting compairson
Well, if you haven't figured it out by now, I like politics. Especially the politics of a presidential election. I love the exchange of ideas, I love debate... and I love to talk with thinking people who may have strong opinions but are willing to "play" and allow themselves to be pushed. I have not done this with my Central friends (I don't believe that is appropriate given my position), but this blog is as close as I will allow myself.
Let the truth be known, I'm actually giddy about tonight's debate. I think both candidates will come in fully armed and it will be a good debate. Let's see how that goes. It is predicted to be the most-watched vice-presidential debate in history. Some are saying the most-watched debate period.
I found this on a website (taken from "Leadership Magazine.") I thought it was very interesting an and insightful and I wanted to share it with my blog friends. You are welcome to share your thoughts or just keep to yourself.
______________________
"You can listen to every stump speech and read every position paper, but nothing compares to evaluating presidential candidates side-by-side during a debate. Their contrasting styles and views emerge in ways you hadn't noticed during the long primary season. The candidates practice their lines and prepare their strategies, but the format allows for precious moments of spontaneity and even humor. The best candidates deftly address issues in ways that lodge them in the public consciousness.
Perhaps the best example of this is President Reagan, who in 1984 famously said, "I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience." His 56-year-old opponent, Walter Mondale, could only look on in laughter.
The first debate between Senators John McCain and Barack Obama provided no such memorable moments. But it did highlight important distinctions between the Republican and Democratic candidates. Namely, McCain and Obama represent key differences between modern and postmodern cultures. Analyzing their debate through this lens reveals similarities to the church's own debates about how to respond to shifting cultures.
Obama spoke with empathy about the personal effects of the current financial crisis on Main Street America. He advocated greater oversight for Wall Street. McCain, too, said he wants oversight, but he emphasized different reasons for the crisis. He spoke of individual greed and said the government needs to hold the failed executives accountable. As the debate progressed, McCain spoke passionately about members of Congress who perpetuate the "evils of this earmarking and pork-barrel spending." McCain underscored personal morals where Obama accentuated communal values.
Obama consistently drew attention to points of agreement with McCain. He credited McCain for opposing President Bush on torture, for example. By contrast, McCain chided Obama for not understanding the issues and for displaying naïveté. He perpetuated the Right vs. Left dichotomy by describing Obama as the most liberal member of the Senate. While Obama sought to build consensus, McCain pointed out their differences.
The debate's most contentious moments came when Obama reiterated his intent to "meet with anybody at a time and place of my choosing, if I think it's going to keep America safe." Despite taking a political beating for this view from Sen. Hillary Clinton, Obama willingly contrasted himself with McCain:
But we are also going to have to, I believe, engage in tough, direct diplomacy with Iran, and this is a major difference I have with Senator McCain. This notion--by not talking to people we are punishing them--has not worked. It has not worked in Iran, it has not worked in North Korea. In each instance, our efforts of isolation have actually accelerated their efforts to get nuclear weapons. That will change when I'm president of the United States.
"So let me get this right," McCain responded. "We sit down with Ahmadinejad, and he says, 'We're going to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth,' and we say, 'No, you're not'? Oh, please."
McCain is a man of action and frank talk. Obama sees intrinsic value in engagement, which may even produce unexpected tangible consensus. You could plug in certain pastors and see the same differences.
Nationalism is a key reality of the modern world. But postmodernism prioritizes the global community. McCain hammered Obama for advocating precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, which McCain said would result in a host of horrendous consequences for America and the Middle East. He promised to seek American "victory and honor." Obama was more concerned about America's global reputation. Near the end of the debate, he shared a story about his Kenyan father writing letters so he could attend an American college. At the time, Obama said, America offered hope that hard work could pay off. "The ideals and the values of the United States inspired the entire world," Obama said. "I don't think any of us can say that our standing in the world now, the way children around the world look at the United States, is the same."
In their exchanges, Obama called McCain by his first name, drawing attention to his personality. McCain never reciprocated, indicating respect for Obama's office but not necessarily for Obama himself. This difference highlighted Obama's preference to question McCain's judgment and prudence as McCain drew attention to his own experience and record. McCain even mocked intuition and President Bush when explaining his views on Russia.
"I looked into Mr. Putin's eyes, and I saw three letters, a 'K,' a 'G,' and a 'B,'" McCain said. "And their aggression in Georgia is not acceptable behavior."
Not everything in the debate can be framed as the difference between a modern and postmodern worldview. But like our church debates, a little awareness about perspective goes a long way toward understanding. The November election's results may help church leaders gauge the mood of their own constituencies. A tougher challenge is knowing when and how to confront those cultural assumptions for our own good and for the sake of the gospel."
Let the truth be known, I'm actually giddy about tonight's debate. I think both candidates will come in fully armed and it will be a good debate. Let's see how that goes. It is predicted to be the most-watched vice-presidential debate in history. Some are saying the most-watched debate period.
I found this on a website (taken from "Leadership Magazine.") I thought it was very interesting an and insightful and I wanted to share it with my blog friends. You are welcome to share your thoughts or just keep to yourself.
______________________
"You can listen to every stump speech and read every position paper, but nothing compares to evaluating presidential candidates side-by-side during a debate. Their contrasting styles and views emerge in ways you hadn't noticed during the long primary season. The candidates practice their lines and prepare their strategies, but the format allows for precious moments of spontaneity and even humor. The best candidates deftly address issues in ways that lodge them in the public consciousness.
Perhaps the best example of this is President Reagan, who in 1984 famously said, "I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience." His 56-year-old opponent, Walter Mondale, could only look on in laughter.
The first debate between Senators John McCain and Barack Obama provided no such memorable moments. But it did highlight important distinctions between the Republican and Democratic candidates. Namely, McCain and Obama represent key differences between modern and postmodern cultures. Analyzing their debate through this lens reveals similarities to the church's own debates about how to respond to shifting cultures.
Obama spoke with empathy about the personal effects of the current financial crisis on Main Street America. He advocated greater oversight for Wall Street. McCain, too, said he wants oversight, but he emphasized different reasons for the crisis. He spoke of individual greed and said the government needs to hold the failed executives accountable. As the debate progressed, McCain spoke passionately about members of Congress who perpetuate the "evils of this earmarking and pork-barrel spending." McCain underscored personal morals where Obama accentuated communal values.
Obama consistently drew attention to points of agreement with McCain. He credited McCain for opposing President Bush on torture, for example. By contrast, McCain chided Obama for not understanding the issues and for displaying naïveté. He perpetuated the Right vs. Left dichotomy by describing Obama as the most liberal member of the Senate. While Obama sought to build consensus, McCain pointed out their differences.
The debate's most contentious moments came when Obama reiterated his intent to "meet with anybody at a time and place of my choosing, if I think it's going to keep America safe." Despite taking a political beating for this view from Sen. Hillary Clinton, Obama willingly contrasted himself with McCain:
But we are also going to have to, I believe, engage in tough, direct diplomacy with Iran, and this is a major difference I have with Senator McCain. This notion--by not talking to people we are punishing them--has not worked. It has not worked in Iran, it has not worked in North Korea. In each instance, our efforts of isolation have actually accelerated their efforts to get nuclear weapons. That will change when I'm president of the United States.
"So let me get this right," McCain responded. "We sit down with Ahmadinejad, and he says, 'We're going to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth,' and we say, 'No, you're not'? Oh, please."
McCain is a man of action and frank talk. Obama sees intrinsic value in engagement, which may even produce unexpected tangible consensus. You could plug in certain pastors and see the same differences.
Nationalism is a key reality of the modern world. But postmodernism prioritizes the global community. McCain hammered Obama for advocating precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, which McCain said would result in a host of horrendous consequences for America and the Middle East. He promised to seek American "victory and honor." Obama was more concerned about America's global reputation. Near the end of the debate, he shared a story about his Kenyan father writing letters so he could attend an American college. At the time, Obama said, America offered hope that hard work could pay off. "The ideals and the values of the United States inspired the entire world," Obama said. "I don't think any of us can say that our standing in the world now, the way children around the world look at the United States, is the same."
In their exchanges, Obama called McCain by his first name, drawing attention to his personality. McCain never reciprocated, indicating respect for Obama's office but not necessarily for Obama himself. This difference highlighted Obama's preference to question McCain's judgment and prudence as McCain drew attention to his own experience and record. McCain even mocked intuition and President Bush when explaining his views on Russia.
"I looked into Mr. Putin's eyes, and I saw three letters, a 'K,' a 'G,' and a 'B,'" McCain said. "And their aggression in Georgia is not acceptable behavior."
Not everything in the debate can be framed as the difference between a modern and postmodern worldview. But like our church debates, a little awareness about perspective goes a long way toward understanding. The November election's results may help church leaders gauge the mood of their own constituencies. A tougher challenge is knowing when and how to confront those cultural assumptions for our own good and for the sake of the gospel."
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Conversation
I found this post by my friend, Andrew, interesting for a number of reasons. If you want to go and chime in on the discussion, feel free. I would love to hear what you think.
Monday, March 03, 2008
"The Envelope Please..."
Well, it turns out that Paul is a liberal.
Okay, a "progressive."
I scored a 66 one time and a 68 another (After reflection, I changed my answer to a question). It seems that Andrew wins the lunch. For the record, I really wanted to give it to SJW because her husband is a good kisser AND she was the first one gutsy enough to guess my score-- and was pretty darn close. But she did give a range, which felt like a copout... and Andrew guessed right between my two scores. So Andrew it is. (But I will invite SJW, her husband and daughter over for dinner as a constellation prize when we all stop being sick. And Beth gets honorable mention for the line, "I smell chicken." She ought to get something for that!)
I was honestly surprised about falling in the "progressive" camp. I'm still not sure I would define myself that way, or, that if held up to a someone who claims to be progressive, I wouldn't appear like a conservative. I guess it is all relative. Looking at the questions, there is a REALLY big difference between someone who scores a 68 verses a 90. Huge. But I did score higher than a couple of my colleagues who I thought much more liberal than me... which I found interesting.
This has been my story for a couple of years now. I often feel like a man without a theological home. The conservatives don't want me because I'm too liberal. And the liberals don't want me because I'm too conservative. I find myself standing with people in both camps, and sometimes repulsed by both camps. And to be honest, I often feel isolated among my colleagues who fit in these nice, neat little boxes.
On top of that, for some reason anymore, I really resent being labeled. I don't like to be put in boxes.
I spoke at an event in the fall, and when I went to register, I told them I was one of the speakers. They said, "Okay, are you conservative or liberal?" And I said... "yes."
[long pause]
[strange look]
[awkward pause as she waits for me to say more]
I mean, it does depend on what you are asking, right? I'm liberal in my use of chocolate, pizza toppings and love for my wife. I'm conservative in my use of mayo, my dress and anything having to do with Yanni. We actually got into a little fight because I refused to be put into a box so that they could put me into a discussion group.
But as much as I don't like to be labeled, I honestly think I have a particular fear of being labeled "liberal." Largely because all my life I have been taught that "liberal" is a theological cuss word.
Theological Liberals don't love or believe in Jesus.
Liberals don't believe in the bible. Liberals are "them."
But... see, here is the thing: I DO love Jesus and I DO believe in the bible... maybe more now than ever. I think I have a MUCH higher reverence for the bible than many of my more conservative colleagues. I just don't use the same words to describe it as I used to use.
My journey since seminary has been trying to reconcile what I read in the bible with...well...uh... what I read in the bible. I mean, we are all okay with reading James. Phillipians makes us generally feel really good. But then there are those tricky things. The "problem passages."
As Scot said, I'm fascinated "with the portions of the Bible we don't tend to read, passages like the story of Jephthah. Or how God was on the verge of killing Moses for not circumcising his son, and his wife stepped in, did what needed to be done, and tossed the foreskin at Moses' feet, and God let him alone."
"I have become fascinated with what goes on in our heads and our minds and our traditions (and the latter is far more significant than many of us recognize) in making decisions like this. What decisions? Which passages not to read as normative. The passages we tend not to read at all."
For the record, I still don't think I'm in the "theological liberal" camp. I know theological liberals, and I'm not one of them. I feel very comfortable in the moderate camp. In fact, in many ways I'm still a theological conservative.
But why does the Bride of Jesus Christ have so much fear? Why are we so afraid of having the wrong answers? And does this fear say something more about our faith, than which theological box we are stuffed into?
P.S.
I am thinking of going through some of the questions and talking about why I answered the way I did. If I get enough encouragement, I may do that. But I think I have said what I wanted to say.
Okay, a "progressive."
I scored a 66 one time and a 68 another (After reflection, I changed my answer to a question). It seems that Andrew wins the lunch. For the record, I really wanted to give it to SJW because her husband is a good kisser AND she was the first one gutsy enough to guess my score-- and was pretty darn close. But she did give a range, which felt like a copout... and Andrew guessed right between my two scores. So Andrew it is. (But I will invite SJW, her husband and daughter over for dinner as a constellation prize when we all stop being sick. And Beth gets honorable mention for the line, "I smell chicken." She ought to get something for that!)
I was honestly surprised about falling in the "progressive" camp. I'm still not sure I would define myself that way, or, that if held up to a someone who claims to be progressive, I wouldn't appear like a conservative. I guess it is all relative. Looking at the questions, there is a REALLY big difference between someone who scores a 68 verses a 90. Huge. But I did score higher than a couple of my colleagues who I thought much more liberal than me... which I found interesting.
This has been my story for a couple of years now. I often feel like a man without a theological home. The conservatives don't want me because I'm too liberal. And the liberals don't want me because I'm too conservative. I find myself standing with people in both camps, and sometimes repulsed by both camps. And to be honest, I often feel isolated among my colleagues who fit in these nice, neat little boxes.
On top of that, for some reason anymore, I really resent being labeled. I don't like to be put in boxes.
I spoke at an event in the fall, and when I went to register, I told them I was one of the speakers. They said, "Okay, are you conservative or liberal?" And I said... "yes."
[long pause]
[strange look]
[awkward pause as she waits for me to say more]
I mean, it does depend on what you are asking, right? I'm liberal in my use of chocolate, pizza toppings and love for my wife. I'm conservative in my use of mayo, my dress and anything having to do with Yanni. We actually got into a little fight because I refused to be put into a box so that they could put me into a discussion group.
But as much as I don't like to be labeled, I honestly think I have a particular fear of being labeled "liberal." Largely because all my life I have been taught that "liberal" is a theological cuss word.
Theological Liberals don't love or believe in Jesus.
Liberals don't believe in the bible. Liberals are "them."
But... see, here is the thing: I DO love Jesus and I DO believe in the bible... maybe more now than ever. I think I have a MUCH higher reverence for the bible than many of my more conservative colleagues. I just don't use the same words to describe it as I used to use.
My journey since seminary has been trying to reconcile what I read in the bible with...well...uh... what I read in the bible. I mean, we are all okay with reading James. Phillipians makes us generally feel really good. But then there are those tricky things. The "problem passages."
As Scot said, I'm fascinated "with the portions of the Bible we don't tend to read, passages like the story of Jephthah. Or how God was on the verge of killing Moses for not circumcising his son, and his wife stepped in, did what needed to be done, and tossed the foreskin at Moses' feet, and God let him alone."
"I have become fascinated with what goes on in our heads and our minds and our traditions (and the latter is far more significant than many of us recognize) in making decisions like this. What decisions? Which passages not to read as normative. The passages we tend not to read at all."
For the record, I still don't think I'm in the "theological liberal" camp. I know theological liberals, and I'm not one of them. I feel very comfortable in the moderate camp. In fact, in many ways I'm still a theological conservative.
But why does the Bride of Jesus Christ have so much fear? Why are we so afraid of having the wrong answers? And does this fear say something more about our faith, than which theological box we are stuffed into?
P.S.
I am thinking of going through some of the questions and talking about why I answered the way I did. If I get enough encouragement, I may do that. But I think I have said what I wanted to say.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
The 7 deadly sins... and exactly who is committing them.
Well, not really.
I found this article interesting. It is obviously bogus as it would be impossible to measure this per city... but the concept is interesting. I think I need to do a series on the 7 deadly sins, as they touch of things we often want to overlook as sin.
But first I need to lose 100 lbs.
I found this article interesting. It is obviously bogus as it would be impossible to measure this per city... but the concept is interesting. I think I need to do a series on the 7 deadly sins, as they touch of things we often want to overlook as sin.
But first I need to lose 100 lbs.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
You've heard of road rage?
Now... it's water rage.
Sometimes you really have to wonder about people.
______________________________________
Man faces court over water-rage attack
1:24pm: Grandfather dies after being punched and kicked for watering his lawn.
Ken Proctor, 66, was watering his front lawn on Formosa Street in Sylvania, about 5.30pm yesterday when another man, 36, who was walking past the house, allegedly challenged him about water restrictions. The two argued and Mr Proctor turned the hose on the other man, wetting him,
police said. The 36-year-old allegedly attacked Mr Proctor, punching him, pushing him to
the ground and then kicking him.
Sometimes you really have to wonder about people.
______________________________________
Man faces court over water-rage attack
1:24pm: Grandfather dies after being punched and kicked for watering his lawn.
Ken Proctor, 66, was watering his front lawn on Formosa Street in Sylvania, about 5.30pm yesterday when another man, 36, who was walking past the house, allegedly challenged him about water restrictions. The two argued and Mr Proctor turned the hose on the other man, wetting him,
police said. The 36-year-old allegedly attacked Mr Proctor, punching him, pushing him to
the ground and then kicking him.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Highlighters
"You guys are all into that born again thing, which is great. We do need to be born again, since Jesus said that to a guy named Nicodemus. But if you tell me I have to be born again to enter the kingdom of God, I can tell you that you have to sell everything you have and give it to the poor, because Jesus said that to one guy too.
[And he paused in awkward silence]
"But I guess that's why God invented highlighters, so we can highlight the parts we like and ignore the rest."
[Rich Mullins speaking at a chapel service in Wheaton, IL.]
A while back, I was looking through the bible I had in college. I was looking at the things I had written in the margins, the passages I highlighted (my campus ministry was big on highlighters). But mostly I was looking at the questions I asked. And I was struck by something. Most of them were questions I don't ask anymore. Not because I have the answers, but because I have bigger questions.
Many of my questions in college were about "them." Other people. ("What about the person on the island of [Bowa Bowa] who doesn't hear about Jesus?") Or they were about theological issues ("How can people NOT believe that adult baptism is necessary for salvation!!! It's right there in the bible!" AUTHOR'S NOTE: I was in the Church of Christ at the time.)
I "used" the bible a lot...reading it topically on subjects like baptism, predestination, homosexuality, women in ministry...mostly to prove the things I was being taught at the time (Which is strange if you think about it).
Back then, we called it "defending our faith." I'm not sure what I call it now.
I loved highlighters.
Now I'm older. Maybe more cynical, but probably just more awestruck by the Uncaged Lion ("...He is not a tame Lion...but he is good.").
Maybe I like letting The Lion out of the cage more. He never really belonged there in the first place...
And apparently the "cage" didn't hold him anyway. (1 Cor. 15:54)
But what that means is that, more and more, I keep running into This Lion in random places. He is not contained by my little study guides. He sneaks into my life... sometimes he prowls into the places I would least expect Him. My worry, my eating, my understanding poverty, my understanding of my poverty in riches, my relationship with my neighbors, my buying patterns, my relationship with the earth and the environment. Rather than Him being all consumed that I looked at pornography (my big college struggle), He asks me to question why pornography exists in the first place. Why do we live in a world that objectifies people? Why do we think that lust satisfies? What about the young girls (and boys) who are objects of the porn trade?
The questions are bigger, and they are not as easy to answer... there are not enough highlighters. And the answers don't fit into the study guide blanks. Sometimes they seem at odds with them.
It was easier when it was just me, my bible (and study guide!)...
And my highlighter.
[And he paused in awkward silence]
"But I guess that's why God invented highlighters, so we can highlight the parts we like and ignore the rest."
[Rich Mullins speaking at a chapel service in Wheaton, IL.]
A while back, I was looking through the bible I had in college. I was looking at the things I had written in the margins, the passages I highlighted (my campus ministry was big on highlighters). But mostly I was looking at the questions I asked. And I was struck by something. Most of them were questions I don't ask anymore. Not because I have the answers, but because I have bigger questions.
Many of my questions in college were about "them." Other people. ("What about the person on the island of [Bowa Bowa] who doesn't hear about Jesus?") Or they were about theological issues ("How can people NOT believe that adult baptism is necessary for salvation!!! It's right there in the bible!" AUTHOR'S NOTE: I was in the Church of Christ at the time.)
I "used" the bible a lot...reading it topically on subjects like baptism, predestination, homosexuality, women in ministry...mostly to prove the things I was being taught at the time (Which is strange if you think about it).
Back then, we called it "defending our faith." I'm not sure what I call it now.
I loved highlighters.
Now I'm older. Maybe more cynical, but probably just more awestruck by the Uncaged Lion ("...He is not a tame Lion...but he is good.").
Maybe I like letting The Lion out of the cage more. He never really belonged there in the first place...
And apparently the "cage" didn't hold him anyway. (1 Cor. 15:54)
But what that means is that, more and more, I keep running into This Lion in random places. He is not contained by my little study guides. He sneaks into my life... sometimes he prowls into the places I would least expect Him. My worry, my eating, my understanding poverty, my understanding of my poverty in riches, my relationship with my neighbors, my buying patterns, my relationship with the earth and the environment. Rather than Him being all consumed that I looked at pornography (my big college struggle), He asks me to question why pornography exists in the first place. Why do we live in a world that objectifies people? Why do we think that lust satisfies? What about the young girls (and boys) who are objects of the porn trade?
The questions are bigger, and they are not as easy to answer... there are not enough highlighters. And the answers don't fit into the study guide blanks. Sometimes they seem at odds with them.
It was easier when it was just me, my bible (and study guide!)...
And my highlighter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)