There is an interesting article in this morning’s New York Times about a new-ish (these things happen so quickly these days that the time frames are all askew) Internet celebrity, Augustina Vivero – a.k.a. Cumbio.
It seems this 17 year old came to fame through flogging – the phenomina of posting photos of oneself and friends on photo sites (like Fotolog or Flikr) to generate comments from others. Of course, marketing people picked up on all this, which didn’t hurt her catapult into fame. Did I say that she is 17? She wrote a book about her life… documentaries are being produced… her film producer brother is working on a reality TV show of her and her friends. Thousands show up when she is around.
The article is entitled, In Argentina, a Camera and a Blog Make a Star
As the article explains, people are used to someone becoming famous through TV or sports, but not the Internet. Well, yes, for older folks that may be the case. For younger generations where the Internet or online culture is like breathing air, nothing strange. Even terms like “online” make little sense anymore. The reality of the no longer noticed or phenomenal interface between people living within wireless systems is simply taken for granted – always has been, always will be, what’s the deal?
What is going on with the hoards of teens involved in this? According to Cumbio, “People don’t understand what this is all about… where people are posting photos and bringing people together and having fun.” Floggers are not “like hippies or punks, who had ideals of fighting to change the world,” said Maria Jose Hooft… who wrote on the Argentine youth subcultures. “Floggers don’t want to change the world. They want to survive, and they want to have the best possible time they can.”
Here is the kicker quote, I think, about the phenomina around Cumbio from the documentary maker: “‘What the floggers really want is the opposite’ of their online relationships, ‘to have that touch, that contact with each other.’” That’s why there are regularly upwards to 25 or more young people hanging out in the family home (a working class home).
“The only factor becoming scarce in a world of abundance is human attention.”
– Kevin Kelly
How do we engage this? Do we hear the music of life?
“‘I’ll have fun with this while it lasts,’ she said, ‘When it ends, well that’s that. I’ll still have the photos.'”
Category Archives: politics/culture
The Noble Purpose
“And what if it was true that the Sisterhood no longer heard the music of life?” (342)
“Without noble purpose we are nothing.” (344)
Quotes from “Heretics of Dune,” part of the Dune series by Frank Herbert.
What is the Church? What is the noble purpose presented to the Church? Has the Church lost its ability to pursue the noble purpose? Does it no longer understand what resonates within the hearts and desires and pain of the world? Does the Church no longer hear the music of life?
Again and again, when we so entangle ourselves within the systems of the world, mistakenly thinking that they are the conveyors of the noble purpose, the justifications for the noble purpose, or the reasons to continue in the noble purpose, we have already lost, already failed.
It is first the discovery of the One behind the noble purpose, and in so discovering firstly we will understand true and not contrived justifications of, reasons for, and ways for conveying the noble purpose that prove that we have not lost the ability to hear the music of life.
There is no real solace in thinking that our purpose rests in purely temporal form or purpose. The Cure of Souls is the first priority. All else, while vitally important to the noble path, are secondary. The second cannot occur without the first, and the first cannot be fully realized without the second. We try and try and try to reorder the process differently according to our own design born of limited understanding, but in the end we get no where. The noble purpose is clouded and diminished, stripped of its power, and we are left deaf.
It’s Bible!!! That settles it!
The way we engage and use Scripture is consequential to the way we deal with one another and experience this thing called the Christian life. If one believes that the Bible is divinely inspired (in whatever form) or that it simply has profound impact on a lot of people within the Christian faith (and to an extent Christian-influenced culture), then the way the Bible is interpreted and applied is important, perhaps of the utmost importance. When dealing with the deep differences of belief concerning the interpretation and application of Scripture, there are rarely stolid arguments or debates. As a matter of fact, as we witness in our own society in these times, the debates are more often than not full of vitupertive accusation and condemnation. (Usin’ new words soes I don’t forget ’em)
The machinations that we witness between this Christian group and that one, this Diocese and the rest of them, that Province and the other bunch over any number of theological and social issues imbibe deeply from the worst of human proclivities. We act as if we know little about or understand little of the meaning of God’s directives to us in Scripture – how are we to treat other people? How are we to be a different example of a different way to the rest of the world that revels in negativism and destruction?
So, I was wondering how Christians during the 1800’s dealt with the divisive and destructive issue of Slavery. How did Christians deal with Scripture? How did they deal with one another in their different interpretations and applications of Scripture? How did all of this work through society? If we remember the Civil War, we will know. There are lessons to be learned from the history of this period that play out in our own controversies in these days, particularly dealing this the gay issue that is tearing apart families, communities, denominations, and whole Communions.
This rather lengthy quote from Mark Noll’s book, “The Civil War as a Theological Crisis,” published in 2006 by The University of North Carolina Press. Noll is a professor of Christian Thought at Wheaton College (a bastion of American-Evangelical higher education, a good school!) currently the Francis A. McAnaney Professor of History at the University of Notre Dame.
“This mode of argument became more elaborate and more definite when other Bible believers took up Scripture to attack slavery. Crucially, as Larry Tise and others have pointed out, biblical defenses of slavery were once widespread throughout the Western world; they were put forward by both Catholics and Protestants, both Europeans and North Americans. Nonetheless, by the mid-nineteenth century, the force of the biblical proslavery argument had weakened everywhere except the United States. There, however, it remained strong among Bible believers in the North as well as among Bible believers in the South.
“It was no coincidence that the biblical defense of slavery remained strongest in the United States, a place where democratic, antitraditional and individualistic religion was also strongest. By the nineteenth century, it was an axiom of American public thought that free people should read, think, and reason for themselves. When such a populace, committed to republican and democratic principles, was also a Bible-reading populace, the proslavery biblical case never lacked for persuasive resources. Precedents provided by the books of Leviticus and Philemon were only part of the picture. [Earlier, Noll detailed Thompson’s defense of slavery using passages in the above two books that detail the relationship between Hebrews/Christians and their slaves.] Protestants well schooled in reading the Scriptures for themselves also know of many other relevant texts, among which the following were most important:
- Genesis 9:25-27: “And he said…” (For the sin of Ham, who exposed his father Noah’s nakedness, Ham’s descendants through his son Canaan were to be owned as slaves by descendants of Noah’s two other sons.)
- Genesis 17:22: “And he that is eight days old…” (God sanctioned and regulated the slaveholding of the patriarch Abraham, father of all believers)
- Deuteronomy 20:10-11: “When thou goest forth…” (God sanctioned the enslavement of Israel’s enemies.)
- While Jesus abrogated many of the regulations of the Old Testament – for example, those allowing for polygamy and easy divorce – he never said a word against slaveholding.
- I Corinthians 7:21: “Art thou called…” (While a Christian slave may welcome emancipation, that slave should net chafe if emancipation is not given.)
- Romans 13:1,7: “Let every soul be subject…” (The Apostle Paul urged Christian believers to conform to the Roman imperial system, which practiced a harsh form of slaveholding.)
- Colossians 3:22, 4:1: “Servants, obey…” (The apostle regulated the master-slave relationship, but did not question it.)
- I Timothy 6:1-2: “Let as many servants…” (The apostle explicitly taught that the conversion of slaves did not provide cause for even Christian masters to emancipate those Christian slaves.)”
There is no end to how we manipulate and contrive meaning from Scripture as we force it to support our already conceived beliefs and convictions. How are we to treat others, again? How will they know we are Christians, again? How do we “rightly divide the Word of God,” again? And Americans, here we go again (or rather, why don’t we learn our lessons the first time rather than God having to put us through the same situations again and again until we do?).
Another viewpoint
In response to the Internet-spread article “The Collapse of Evangelical Christianity” by Michael Spencer (read his response to the controversy he started) that I blogged about yesterday, comes this piece by Mark Galli, the senior managing editor of Christianity Today, and a professed Anglican (although I don’t think he remains in The Episcopal Church).
The piece is entitled, “On the Lasting Evangelical Survival”
There is plenty of statistical work that shows that the post-Baby-Boomer Evangelicals are departing from what has become American-Evangelicalism – the politicized Religious Right advanced socio-political agenda and perspective or feel-good mega-churchism. See Barna’s research in the book “unChristian.” (There is a lot more evidence, but I just don’t have reference on me.)
I agree with Galli, however, that there doesn’t seem to be significant evidence that these disaffected Evangelicals are migrating en mass to Orthodoxy, The Church of Rome, or even as Galli would like to see, Anglicanism. A slow counter-movement of a good number, yes (I’m one of them), but not mass movement. Some are delving into Emergent stuff and House Churches, etc. Regrettably, what generally happens is that young people leave to no other church, but simply drop out.
The Collapse of Evangelical Christianity
I’ve been saying for some time now that American Evangelicalism will enter a significant decline, if not collapse, in the near future. I say this primarily because American Evangelicalism has aligned itself with political conservatism – a wedding of conservative theology with conservative socio-politics. (Equally so, conservative politics via the Republican Party has been absorbed into the politicized Religious Right. To be a Christian one must be a far-right Republican. To be a “real” Republican, one must adhere to the Culture War social agenda.)
This kind of thing has already happened in the past with Mainline Protestantism – a merging of liberal theology (Social Gospel) and liberal politics (more currently manifest through identify-politics and political-correctness). Mainline Protestantism collapsed because the social and political overwhelmed or actually replaced the theological – social action became more important than relationship with God and the worship of God.
Interestingly, the Democratic Party did not fall pray to liberal theology in the same way that the Republican Party has been overrun by the Religious Right. It was a different time.
American-Evangelicals have not learned the lessons of history, and now they are condemned to repeat it.
There is an interesting article in The Christian Science Monitor – once and perhaps still a Gold Standard for the international social and political reporting – entitled The coming evangelical collapse
The article begins:
We are on the verge – within 10 years – of a major collapse of evangelical Christianity. This breakdown will follow the deterioration of the mainline Protestant world and it will fundamentally alter the religious and cultural environment in the West.
Within two generations, evangelicalism will be a house deserted of half its occupants. (Between 25 and 35 percent of Americans today are Evangelicals.) In the “Protestant” 20th century, Evangelicals flourished. But they will soon be living in a very secular and religiously antagonistic 21st century.
I want to comment on a couple points brought up by the author:
• The emerging church will largely vanish from the evangelical landscape, becoming part of the small segment of progressive mainline Protestants that remain true to the liberal vision.
I don’t think this will happen! For one thing, those involved in the Emergent Conversation are Evangelicals, even if of the next generation of post-modern different-kind-of-Evangelical than that which is reflected in the Cultural War prone Religious Right. Mainline Protestant liberals are entering into a “Post-Christ” existence that looks far more like Unitarian Universalism than a traditionally understood Christ-centered Christianity and that won’t stop (even as their ever dwindling numbers drive them further into obscurity) – the Emergent folks aren’t going there.
• Two of the beneficiaries will be the Roman Catholic and Orthodox communions.
I think this is where Anglicanism can play an increasingly vital role, if we are able to maintain our Christian distinctiveness and not fall prey to the dividing and reactionary forces – if we resist the compulsion to become like American-Evangelicals or Liberal Protestants! Frankly, were not doing a very good job resisting the temptation. (Much of our current Episcopal Church leaders certainly fall in line with Liberal Protestantism and are unrelenting in their push to remake the Church in their own image, but many of these people are entering retirement age! The next generations of Episcopalians are not like them, thank goodness, as the post-Baby Boomer Evangelicals are not like their parents in their religious experience and expression.)
Faith in American will certainly look different in the next 20 years (and I think 20 more than 10). The triumphalism of Baby-Boomer American Evangelicalism will certainly take a beating. Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy will maintain, if not grow, but I doubt they will have a significant impact on the unChurched and increasingly secular people – they will not be viewed as a place to explore faith due to their dogmatism.
Again, by the nature of Traditional Anglicanism where a historic Gospel is proclaimed and seeking and questioning are truly engaged and dealt with and were a comprehensiveness is welcomed in our common life, this seems to fit well with the sensibilities of up and coming generations. Will we be able to take advantage of this for the sake of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the reconciliation of us all to God, or will we continue down the road we are currently on to our own division and destruction?
Math fail
This is just sad, but it is what we get when we think that a child feeling good about him/herself (self-esteem) trumps actually learning something – like math! Now, I never applied myself concerning mathematics because I don’t like it, but I hope I am not this bad. I just switched from Verizon to another carrier. I’m glad. This comes from the Fail Blog, which can be hilarious!
Stimulous Bill and Religious Activities on Campuses
The Stimulus Bill that is making its way through the Congress contains a provision to provide funds for the renovation of facilities and buildings on public and private college and university campuses. Fine. The issue I have is that those funds cannot be used for any building that allows religious stuff to go on within it.
So, if a Student Union provides space for student organizations to meet and fairly and equally allows religious student groups to use the facilities along with all others, none of the stimulus money can be used to renovate that Student Union. What will happen is that the many administrators will simply forbid those student groups with a religious purpose from using the facilities while continuing to allow all others to do so. This is discrimination against students of faith, and I’ve seen it attempt attempted many times.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that this is unconstitutional – I think it was the 2001 Good News Club v. Milford Central School where the court declared that restricting religious speech within the context of public shared-use facilities is unconstitutional.
As of yesterday (Feb. 9th), here is the prohibitions on the use of $3.5 billion designated for campus facilities:
(2) PROHIBITED USES OF FUNDS. No funds awarded under this section may be used for – (C) modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities (i) used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school or department of divinity; or (ii) in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission; or construction of new facilities.
Whether this prohibition is in the final bill or not, no one can say.
There is really no reason for this, other than an attempt by those who believe that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution forbids any tax money going for anything that touches religion or religious expression (or regarding people with a religious dimension to their lives). There are plenty of people who hold this opinion – I was around a lot of them in academia. This opinion cannot hold up to judicial scrutiny, and the Courts have rules ruled as such. The overwhelming majority of the American people do not hold to this position, be they Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, or frankly most non-religious people. There are those who are simply antagonistic toward religion and religious people.
If included in the final bill and passed, and while it makes its way through the courts yet again, in the mean time there will be plenty of school administrators that will grab hold of it for their own purposes. While both a student and a student/academic professional, I constantly had to advocate for “people of faith,” because while certain interests where all about diversity and inclusion, their definitions of these words did not include a large swath of people – like people of faith. It always amazes me how those who shout “tolerance” the loudest are often the most intolerant. I’ve experience plenty of them.
The last administration was under the domination of the politicized Religious Right, which has done the Church and the Christian witness no good among the citizenry. Now, the more extreme on the other side of the equation will find favor with many in this new administration. Neither of the positions are good or positive, neither are right, neither uphold the will of most Americans, neither abide by the intent or the spirit of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. Yet, here we are.
Anthropic Principle and Bus Advertisements
“In physics and cosmology, the anthropic principle is the collective name for several ways of asserting that physical and chemical theories, especially astrophysics and cosmology, need to take into account that there is life on Earth, and that one form of that life, Homo sapiens, has attained intelligence. The only kind of universe humans can occupy is one that is similar to the current one… The anthropic principle has given rise to some confusion and controversy, partly because the phrase has been applied to several distinct ideas. All versions of the principle have been accused of undermining the search for a deeper physical understanding of the universe. Those who invoke the anthropic principle often invoke multiple universes or an intelligent designer, both controversial and criticised for being untestable and therefore outside the purview of accepted science.”
Then, there is the bus advertisement row in London concerning the British atheist society (or humanist society, I don’t remember) that paid to have the advertisement, “There’s probably no God, so stop worrying and enjoy life,” plastered on buses around Christmas.
Ruth Glendhill from the Times Online wrote an article about all that entitled, “D*** and b**** the atheist bus!” In it, is quoted “Clifford Longley, former Religious Affairs Correspondent of The Times and more recently of The Tablet and the BBC’s TFTD,” who writes:
”The statement ‘There’s probably no God’, as currently seen on the side of London buses, is untrue and dishonest, in so far as the word ‘probably’ completely fails to reflect the true state of the scientific argument. In fact it would be honest and true to say the opposite – ‘There probably is a God.’ A fair reading of the material below could lead to no other conclusion… In fact, this ‘fine-tuning’ is so pronounced, and the ‘coincidences’ are so numerous, many scientists have come to espouse ‘The Anthropic Principle,’ which contends that the universe was brought into existence intentionally for the sake of producing mankind. Even those who do not accept The Anthropic Principle admit to the ‘fine-tuning’ and conclude that the universe is ‘too contrived’ to be a chance event.
“Dr. Dennis Scania, head of Cambridge University Observatories, said in a BBC science documentary, The Anthropic Principle: ‘If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature – like the charge on the electron – then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop.'”
The commentary by Longley goes on to quote numerous other scientists regarding the “Anthropic Principle.”
Yesterday, during Home Group evolution came up, for what reason I don’t remember. Despite the fact that the biological sciences are built upon the notion of some form of evolution (whether Darwinian or something else), if we honestly regard this issue of origins scientifically, we have to say, “We don’t know.” For science, what is observable and verifiable (repeatable) is of the utmost importance. We are still in the midst of observation and investigation and while some want to say that the conclusions can already be drawn, methinks conclusions are bit premature.
When asked what I think or believe about Creationism, Intelligent Design, or Evolution (perceived as being Darwinian for the most part), I simply say, “I don’t know.” That’s the truth. I don’t. I have a belief, but not the information to assert such a belief. Yet, I can say without reservation that I believe… God created. To me, my faith or understanding of Scripture is not one bit threatened if God created in six literal 24-hour days with all creatures in the present form or whether God created over billions of years through evolutionary processes.
For some people, I think the likelihood of admitting to themselves something like, “I don’t know,” is too difficult, so we get religious fundamentalists that assert that even if scientific evidence proves an old-earth and evolutionary processes, they will not believe it due to their specific interpretations of Genesis 1 & 2, and secular fundamentalists that assert that despite the lack of complete, repeatable, observable evidence for evolution-without-any-intelligent-involvement, that it must be asserted as fact.
We will have even more bus advertisements in a new form of the Culture Wars.
Update: Here is Wikipedia’s quick and dirty description of the Scientific Method
What will I be to them?
I was talking with a group of priest friends and lay friends the other day. We were talking about, what else?, the general direction of the Church and all that. All of us are completely tired of the usurpation of most all of the Church’s focus and efforts by reactionaries on the left and right concerning power plays and same-sex relationship arguments. We are not unconcerned, however, about attitudes concerning the place of Jesus the Christ in our common understanding regarding salvation and restoration of our relationships with God, one another, and God’s creation.
Then, we talked about the rumor that the Vatican is about to initiate another Papal Personal Prelature for Anglicans (like Opus Dei) or something like the “Uniate” Churches for Anglicans (but more than simply the Anglican-Use Catholics). Some of the group I was walking with thought that if this actually happened, it would be another very big draw for Anglicans that believed in / desired the continence of the Anglican distinctives, but also wished to be align with world Catholicism rather than liberal American-Protestantism. I think such a development would have a big impact on the Anglican Communion (perhaps even someone like Rowan Williams joining on).
Someone mentioned a comment by former Fort Worth bishop Iker to “moderate conservatives” choosing to remain in The Episcopal Church (TEC) – basically he said something like, “Welcome to being the new and despised ‘conservatives’ of TEC.”
Since a good many of the “conservatives” have already left or are in the process of leaving TEC, the remaining “moderate-conservatives” or even moderates become the new bad “conservatives” that reactionary-liberals love to hate and exclude. I want to say, again, that the terms “conservative” and “liberal” break down, and many people who take upon themselves those adjectives are more pseudo than real conservatives or liberals. There is no inherent conflict between being a conservative or being a liberal, just a difference in focus and approach, IMHO. The “reactionaries” are those of any persuasion that act and react against their opponents in ways that tear apart and denigrate.
So, what will I be to them?
I suppose to many people I become one of the new bad “conservatives” because I insist on abiding by:
– The Canons and the Prayer Book (which means the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral);
– That the “Anglican Three-legged Stool” starts with Scripture as the authority (as Hooker might assert), and that Reason and Tradition are authorities that help us understand the primary authority – Scripture. This also means that for me, traditional understandings of issues with respect to biblical exegesis are not “written in stone” or “handed down” above re-evaluation and examination by the Church. Here is where the Tradition has to be taken seriously and the burden of proof for change rests upon those who seek the change. Yet, we know that our understanding of Scripture and God’s will revealed through Scripture does change over time as our ability to reason well grows with maturity and knowledge. Cosmology or the homosexual issue are but two examples.
– I do not feel in the least the need to change the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, and I will assert that most people in the pews don’t either, regardless of cries by certain groups of minority opinion that we must for the sake of reasons rooted in social and political causes rather than good theological reasoning;
– I believe in the call to Holiness (even as God is Holy) in our morality, ethics, and behavior coming from God’s revelation to us, understanding that we all fall short and that God restores;
– I believe that God provided a way of restoration that many people reject because they demand their own way regardless (hyper-individualism). The way provided is referred to as salvation through Jesus Christ, alone;
– I have great respect for other cultures, languages, religions, and thought systems and like being engaged with them. I affirm that it is good to understand those different than myself and to be understood by them, but I in no way believe that it is my Christian responsibility as an Anglo-American, Euro-centric, English-speaking, white, gay, male to denigrate, deny, or put aside my heritage, religion, language, gender, sexuality, or traditions for the sake of some weak notion of “diversity” or to think that by doing so that those different than myself will feel any more welcome or valued or that they will have any more respect for me as Christian if I do. Really, what Muslim, Hindu, Jew (add your own designation) would respect me more when I deny what I really am or think that by putting aside what I believe that I am a person of integrity? Double-speak and hypocrisy reign when this happens.
I’m sure there a lots more I could write. When it all comes down to it, we get so caught up in all this crap thinking that we are capable of honestly knowing the full “will of God.” Again and again, love God with all of our hearts and love our neighbors as ourselves. Why do we get so distracted? Perhaps, it is because we are too concerned about what we will be to “them” and not concerned enough about what we are to God.
A New Time. A New President. A new beginning?
Here we are, the first full day of a new presidency, a history making new presidency. There are all kinds of thoughts that have and continue to run through my mind about this event. I watched a good part of the festivities and formalities on my computer, yesterday – CNN/Facebook, MSNBC, and C-SPAN. There were plenty of places in the proceedings where I got goose bumps. President Obama (that sounds so strange and good), President Obama’s inaugural speech was amazing. To the point, realistic in its laying out our problems, purposeful in its calling to us to our better selves and to the hard work ahead, and rousing.
Such hope, such expectation. I hope that there is not laid upon this single man a national expectation that is unrealistic and beyond the abilities of any single person, no matter how charismatic, intelligent, or well intentioned. He certainly needs our prayers, as have all presidents.
The world waits in eager anticipation to see whether America returns to that place that inspires the best in humanity, the best aspirations of the human soul for freedom and respect, or whether we continue the downward slide into a form of despotism, unilateralism, and the inevitable result of a declining empire. The question looms large: “What will we become?”
My sense or take on Pastor Rick Warren’s prayer is what it is. As a Christian priest, I have no problem whatsoever in a Christian praying a Christian prayer. I do not feel that it is disrespectful or exclusionary concerning those who disagree. If a Muslim prayed, I would expect a prayer that exemplifies the integrity of Muslim prayer. The same for Jewish, or Hindu, or Buddhist prayer. Why is it expected that a Christian prayer should not be prayed in the name of the very one Christians follow? It is a hypocritical demand that we do not. I don’t think any faithful Muslim, Jew, or anyone else would expect a faithful Christian to pray in a way that was not authentically Christian. Yet, there are certainly ways to pray that contribute to division and that contribute to respectful difference in our diverse culture.
Should Rick Warren have been chosen to prayer this prayer? Should Bishop Gene Robinson have been chosen to pray a prayer? I think those are more apt questions than whether a prayer should be offered in the name of Jesus or not. Each man prayed according to his conscience, and while I may or may not agree with either of them in the way they prayed, I certainly do respect their abiding by their own consciences.
There is an interesting analysis of Rich Warren’s prayer by the Editor-in-Chief of Beliefnet, Steve Waldman, entitled, “Rick Warren’s Deft Invocation.” It is worth a read.