12.31.05
Posted in life at 10:54 am by brandon
Well, I’ve got a belated Christmas gift for all of you who read this blog.
I’ve gotten rid of b2evolution. Now, I don’t want to be a naysayer for a blog engine that lasted me for so, so long; however, when I came home from 2 days of break and had about 1100 spam messages to rid myself of, I decided it was time for a switch. So, now you should, if you wish, be able to post urls in your comments and link to things and (wonder of all wonders) have those links work!
Now, the big challenge: a new skin for this blog.
If anyone’s in the mood to help me out with this, or has a good idea for a skin please let me know–I’m just not good enough with css to come up with anything really cool/good looking on my own (if you were wondering, Zalm helped out oodles with my last skin.)
Anyway, that’s my big news. Any help with making this place look a tad less boring that you can carve out of your busy schedules would be appreciated.
Tags: Blogging, Word Press, Themes, B2evolution
Permalink
12.23.05
Posted in life at 5:37 am by brandon
Well kids, after a few days of feverish blogging, I’ve got to take a little break. Not because I can’t think of anything to write, though. I’m going to be away from my internet connection for about a week (I know, I’m getting sweaty palms already just thinking about it.)
Anyway, merry Christmas, happy holidays, etc.
Permalink
12.22.05
Posted in faith, sunday school journal at 12:30 pm by brandon
So, where I left off last time, I was blabbering on about total depravity, truth, and reformed Christianity. I made the case that reformed Christianity’s tenent of total depravity made possible the idea that it’s impossible, due to sin, to as a human being ever ‘have’ the truth in an un marred form. Where that leaves us is a somewhat untenable position of never being able to tell the truth.
Now, the very label “reformed” implies that we can try to be something better than what we are. However, given our discussion about truth being ‘unaccomplishable’ as an individual puts us in an unfortunate position. Fortunately, we’re not charged with the task of reformation (a really packed word, which I hope to get into further soon) all on our own. As the Church–a community of Christians–we’re given the task of seeking right, truthful relationships with all the things (i.e. culture, politics, relationships, vocations, etc.) that surround us.
As a community–a group–we’re able to accomplish more than we would be able to do so individually. We’re held accountable and our ideas can be scrutinized and further reformed by that community. Now, I wouldn’t say that there’s anything particularly ‘reformed’ about the idea of community. I would say that community isn’t even a particularly Christian construct. Community happens. Groups happen. It’s human nature to relate to others within our own species. It is, however, a reformed spin on this age old part of human nature to use the community as the fundamental building block for accountablity in our search for truth.
We talked a little about this concept in Sunday school last Sunday. The basic idea of this somewhat hard to grasp concept is that groups that reflect an accurate diversity of temptations as well as reflect a diversity of strenghts are best equipped to hold its community accountable. For example, if I get into a group of people who are all hot-headed, liberal, and fame-seeking–I’d be among similar people. Those similar people aren’t likely to balance out my shortcomings. And, my strengths would probably be over-represented.
Heterogeneous groups, diverse communities are important. Fundamental to this notion of community is the idea that we’re going to butt heads with our community members from time to time. After all, if one of the most important features of community is that we’re not all the same, our differences are going to be a problem from time to time.
Oddly, this reformed perspective (which is my perspective as a person who broadly adheres to a tradition of from within the reformed tradition, rather than a popular reformed perspective) isn’t really very well done by many reformed Churches. In many cases churches in the Reformed tradition–though they’re getting better at this–often tend to be somewhat reticent to accept the idea that their theology, of change and progress toward a diverse community that accepts a wide variety of perspetives, is actually a socially progressive one.
It’s a shame, really, that lots of churches in the reformed tradition (okay, let’s be honest, I’m specifically talking about Christian Reformed Churches) are unwilling to challenge the status quo in this regard. Rather, I fear that many Christian Reformed Churches have coopted the theological tenents of Fundagelicalism in America. They’re not really interested in any progress that doesn’t include the work of convincing people to accept their version of the gospel. Of course, that’s a broad assertion which can’t be understood to apply to every church in the denomination, but it’s largely true.
I think this is one of the coolest tenents that can be applied to reformed Christianity. The idea that our callings, our vocations are realised as a community of Christians. We’re held accountable to accomplish the work of restoration of an imperfect world through these groups. Next time, I hope to get into some of the questions that Nicole asked elsewhere, and delve into some of the more troubling aspects (for me at least) of Reformed Christianity.
Tags: Reformed Christianity, Community, Faith.
Permalink
12.21.05
Posted in faith, culture at 4:24 pm by brandon
So, I’ve been catching up, slowly, on my blogosphere reading and listening. And, I’ve just worked through listening to the Tony Jones interview over at Stupid Church People. Anyway, great stuff. I think I really like this Tony Jones fellow. Now, as much as that may surprise you, I still like Josh and Steve, too. Even if they did nominate for Tony Jones as a Stupid Church Person of the year.
I liked hearing Tony’s thoughts about the commodification and banalisation of the contemporary Church. And, I think–despite the initial raising of my cackles over this whole “National Director of Emergent” business–I’d like to buy beers for Tony if he’s ever in Grand Rapids (yes, Tony, if you’re reading this, that’s an official invitation.)
One thing that struck me was how Tony defined, albeit loosely, what the hell emergent is anyway. As he put it, and I’m paraphrasing here, emergent is Christians realising that the Church needs to grow and change and become what God wants it to be as it relates to a post-modern (or post-postmodern) culture. I like that, I think.
Now, I don’t think that leaves a whole lot Churches out of the mix, I think that most would say that they want to become what got wants them to be in light of the current cultural climate. But, I think that this distinction can ellucidate a bit of the divide that’s driven me a little nuts about certain places that affiliate themselves with what it means to be emergent.
To me there’s two ways to go forward into the culture of today. The first, and to me less preferable way, would be to take our current understanding of Christianity and simply transpose that current understanding of the sub-culture of faith onto a broader post-modern cultural context. The problem with this, as I see it, is that it often ends up that the Church basically ends up tossing a post-modern table cloth over a modern table and calls the whole damn thing post modern. This kind of church ends up with what I’ve termed a “sexy modernism.”
The second way for the Church to move forward, and this is the one I prefer, is to try to first separate itself from it’s current sub-culture–often mired in modernism–then, reinvision Christianity as it arose from its earlier forms (i.e. the early Church). In short, I think that in order to go forward, we’ve got to look back.
As much as it pains me to do it, I’ve got to admit that this is something that Mars Hill Bible Church’s Rob Bell does pretty well. He takes great strides to really go after the roots of Christianity as an ancient Middle Eastern religion. Now, lest you think I’ve lost my edge, I still think that the Mars Hills–that is, the megachurches–of the world suck rocks. But, Rob Bell does a good job with this (though, I still think Mars Hill is a ‘type I’ emergent church.)
I was enamoured with Tony Jones. That doesn’t happen all too often. Especially not with someone so, well, formally connected to a movement. I tend to be pretty skeptical about such formal movements, as they often suck. But, my friends, Tony seems to be the real deal. Did I mention I’d love to drink beer with him sometime?
If any of you know Tony and would like to pass along the word of my open offer for free alcohol, let the man know!
Tags: Emergent Church, Stupid Church People, Tony Jones.
Permalink
Posted in social science at 11:19 am by brandon
I hate personality testing.
Now, it’s not that I don’t like taking the tests, sometimes they’re quite entertaining. I rather enjoy seeing how I turn out–see what category of the authors of personality test I fit into. And, it’s not those little online quizzes (like what muppet are you, or what is your perfect living situation) that drive me nuts. Those are okay, because nobody really cares what your outcome is (and because of that people are basically honest).
The tests that drive me nuts are those of the Myers-Briggsian sort. The kind that like to put you in a little box, those are the ones that suck. And, it’s not just that they suck, it’s that I think they’re worthless.
Here’s why. First, people put way too much stock in the outcomes of these things. Now, for all the consultants out there who make mega-bucks on corporate types who fork out shitloads of money just to have some dapperly dressed 45ish year old roll in and solve all of the office’s communication problems with a quick and dirty Myers-Briggs and 35 minutes of ‘consultation’ about group dynamics, for all of you, I’m sorry. But, you’re full of crap.
Part of the reason that I think people put too much stock into personality testing is that people too often answer the questions on those tests not as a reflection of who they are, but more as a reflection of what people tell them they should be. That is, the group surrounding a person, in my opinion, makes much more of a difference on the outcome of that test than a person’s actual personality. Further, if you buy into self-monitoring theory (Snyder, 1974, 1979)–and I’m not saying you should, necessarily–you will accept that some people probably have the ability to change their behavior in various situations so that they can be percieved to be more appropriate.
Second, the basic premise of the Myers-Briggs is built upon the idea that people can report in a valid and reliable manner on their personality traits. In short, the test assumes that people know themselves well. That works well until you take into consideration all of the other variables that could potentially cloud the outcome of such a test.
For example, because the test is usually administered in a single temporal event and there’s no cumulative data which can be summed and used as a composite personality score, it’s subject to variations in the subject’s mood, sickness, etc. In short, perhaps I was working on filing some papers the same day I sit down to take the Myers-Briggs (a real possibility given the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is often administered by consultants in office settings), and heuristically, I think to myself, “Well, I’m quite an organized person, I’ve been filing today!” This kind of error would be likely to artificially inflate the J score and deflate the P score. Because the test is only administered once, the scores are more likely to be subject to this sort of measurement error.
Third, and this one’s a little scientific so bear with me, I’m not convinced of the multi-dimensionality of many of these scales. The fact that the MBTI folks have found that each of the categories aren’t equally populated (which you’d expect for a purely multi-dimensional scale) indicates that probably some of these supposedly unique personality traits are actually associated and may just be manifestations of the same trait. That’s bad.
What drives me the ‘nutz-est’ about these tests is that people actually believe that they’re going to make some substantive difference in their group’s ability to work well together. Now, that’s not to say that some intentional time as a group reflecting on the strengths of other members isn’t helpful. Often it is quite helpful, it’s just that we don’t need a personality test to tell us what’s important about a member’s contribution to the group. And, it’s especially unhelpful when the outcome of that test is less a reflection of a person’s personality and more a reflection of what that person perceives that the group sees as their role.
There’s way more similarity among people than there is difference. We’re all basically the same with some topical differences. What’s really interesting and helpful are those ways that we’re all the same. I’ve come down on the MBTI a bit harshly here, I hope you see that my critique has a much wider scope than just the MBTI. There are actually more popular (and scientifically much less founded) tests out there currently that I loathe much more.
So, all you individual difference social science researchers can all go sod off. Kidding. Mostly.
Tags: Personality, Psychology, Myers-Briggs.
Permalink
12.19.05
Posted in faith, philosophy at 10:27 am by brandon
Lately, some questions have been raised about my committment to the concept of “truth”. It’s been assumed that since I’m progressive, and since I swear from time to time–I guess the logic goes that I don’t believe in truth. Well, I thought it only fair that I should be able to respond to these allegations, and, because I was planning on doing a bit of writing on reformed Christianity anyway, I thought I’d start by talking about one of the first tenents of this breed of Christianity: Total depravity.
I’d like to issue a disclaimer, however. I’m no theologian, nor am I a philosopher. I’m merely doing what people do on blogs. Waxing about the things that interest me. You probably shouldn’t read this post or other posts in my upcoming series about reformed Christianity as any sort of definitive statement about the belief system; I’m just telling y’all about what I beleive about total depravity and the concept of truth.
What does total depravity have to do with truth, you ask? Good question. I hope to get there by the end of this post. Sit tight.
First, though, what ISN’T total depravity. Total depravity doesn’t mean that everything in all of creation is totally and utterly overcome by sin. That’s probably the most common misconception about total depravity, that it’s saying that everything, everybody is dross, meaningless, worthless. That’s not really the idea at all.
Rather, total depravity argues that there’s nothing in all of creation, in all of humanity that hasn’t been touched by sin. This is a pretty straightforward concept for Christians. Pretty much everybody believes that we’ve all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, it’s not hard to make that argument.
So, what’s this all have to do with truth? Well, if everybody has been touched by sin, and I think that that’s a pretty fair estimation of the way things are, then the idea of anybody really knowing the truth–completely, that is–is a little arrogant. I think it’s arrogant because by claiming that you ‘have’ the truth, you’ve got to also believe that you’re above sin.
Now, the obvious counterargument to this is that you’ve gotten your truth straight from scripture. The problem with this counterargument is not that scripture is untrue. The problem is that people, sinful people, have to interpret scripture. Thus, we end up with a bunch of people running around claiming that from the same place they’ve found opposite truths.
My understanding of reformed Christianity leads me to a place where I believe that there IS absolute truth. (This, of course, is contrary to popular–or at least loud–opinion.) But, while I do believe in absolute truth, I don’t believe that humans have the capability to know that truth completely, because they’re fallen, sinful little creatures.
Of course, just because I don’t believe that we can ever completely know the truth, doesn’t mean that I don’t believe in truth, or that I don’t think we can know some truth, or even that I don’t think we should try to pursue truth. In fact, I do think we need to pursue truth, even if grasping that truth in its entirity is unaccomplishable.
So, the moral of the story is that anybody who infers that I don’t believe in absolute truth is blowing smoke out of their ass, and they don’t have a fucking idea what they’re talking about.
Part two of this series will examine the modes and settings by which and in which we pursue truth.
Tags: Reformed Christianity, Total Depravity, Truth.
Permalink
12.17.05
Posted in life at 3:04 pm by
Well, friends. This semester has proven to be a doosy. Thus far, though, I’ve escaped largely unscathed. I hope to post a bit more in the future. Lately I’ve been thinking about the series of ethical conversation in online environments, particularly as that conversation relates to the set of rules governing minority voices.I’d love, also, to get into a few other things regarding the way we make attributions about eachother in online communities, and the way we negotiate those attributions.
Also, a while back Ninjanun asked that I give a brief overview of Reformed Christianity. Now, I’m sure that I’m largely unqualified to give a complete overview of the tradition. But, in the next few weeks I’d like to take a whack at my understanding of Reformed Christianity and talk a bit about how it fits into my life.
If there’ve been other things, over the past few months, that have gone on here, in the news, or in another area of Christendom that struck you as something you’d like to hear more about, I’d be interested to hear those suggestions, as well.
Finally, I’m going to make some work out of hammering out a more complete blogvention schedule of events. Hopefully, that should be a good time, and I would hope that you’ll check out the blogvention category on the right to learn more about what blogvention is and if you might like to come!
Thanks for sticking with me for that last few months of semester. It was a tough one, but I hope, soon, to get back on top of this blogging thing.
Tags: Grad School, To Blog List.
Permalink
12.13.05
Posted in faith at 7:00 am by
I heard of this recently. (You may need to fill out a form to read this). Here’s the text:
Diane VanderLaan loves going to Mars Hill Bible Church. But come Christmas morning, she would rather be home.
That is where she will be Sunday, Dec. 25, along with about 10,000 other Mars Hill worshippers. The Grandville megachurch is canceling services that day so members can celebrate Christ’s birth with their families.
The move may outrage church purists, but it suits VanderLaan fine.
“We honor God in our own way with our own family,” said VanderLaan, a mother of two. “We are not traditional churchgoers.”
West Michigan’s largest church is among several megachurches closing their doors on Christmas, including Willow Creek Community Church near Chicago and Southland Christian Church near Lexington, Ky.
Mars Hill instead will hold special services the Wednesday and Thursday before Christmas. Church officials say no one has objected so far.
“We feel that Christmas is definitely a time that should be spent with family,” Mars Hill spokesman Kris McNeil said.
The church also canceled Sunday services last year, even though Christmas fell on a Saturday.
But some worry churches are putting family celebrations above celebrating Jesus.
“There is a risk that we will lose one more of our Christian rituals, one that’s at the heart of our faith,” said Robert Johnston, professor of theology and culture at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, Calif.
He need not worry about a trend here. Many West Michigan churches, such as Holland’s Christ Memorial, Wyoming’s Resurrection Life and Grand Rapids’ Calvary Church will hold their usual Sunday morning services.
Others are trimming back service times and offering more family-friendly worship.
Instead of its usual two services, Grand Rapids First Assembly of God will hold one and feature puppets, caroling and maybe a drama featuring the innkeeper’s wife.
“It’s an opportunity for people to have a fresh beginning with Christ and to invite the Christmas story into their heart,” the Rev. Dawn Jones said.
Kentwood Community Church also will cut back from two services to one but will hold three Christmas Eve services. Officials recalled attendance fell during two services when Christmas fell on a Sunday in 1994.
“It’s hard as a family when you only get one day once in awhile” to be together, church secretary Shareen Bradley said. The Rev. Sam Moffett is happy he will have time with his wife and two children on Christmas. His church, Bethel Pentecostal of Grand Rapids, moved its usual 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. services to noon.
“If we didn’t get the morning, we wouldn’t have much of a Christmas together,” said Moffett, a youth minister.
Sorry, kids, but you’re getting a taste of cynicism here, I just can’t help it.
Churches cancelling services for Christmas?!? What the hell?
Though, on second thought maybe this isn’t such a bad idea. And, while they’re at it, I suppose we could use a couple of years without the hassle of having to show up at the ass crack of dawn for those damn Ressurection Sunday services as well.
I love the rationale here, too. You want to spend time with your family so your cancel Church?!? I suppose that just tips us off a bit as to the value of the ‘Church Family’ for the churches in question. Perhaps, if we refered to it as just the “Holiday Season” churches wouldn’t feel the pressing need to drop everything and cancel meeting.
My thing is this, Churches meet to worship corporately, to fellowship, and to commune with the most high God. That’s what they do, it’s part of the way they do discipleship. The idea that they should just stop doing what Churches are supposed to do in order to celebrate the birth of Jesus, well, that seems a shade nucking futs to this ole’ codger.
Tags: Faith, Stupid Things Christians Do.
Permalink
12.12.05
Posted in life at 11:16 pm by
I am a cynic. And, I’m often not very nice about it either.
Sometimes, I’m so cynical, that all that pops into my head are the most cynical of ideas. Particularly, I’m cynical when it comes to the state of contemporary Christianity. I’m cynical about church, I’m cynical about worship, I’m cynical about even the best intentions Christians have.
Sometimes, that brash cynicism gives me a fresh perspective. Almost all of the time that cynicism pisses people off. Thing is, I’m so cynical, I don’t really care. My default is that who ever I’ve pissed off in my wake is pissed because there’s something wrong with them, because they don’t like the wrong I’ve pointed out in their lives.
Sometimes, I’m right about the wrong in their lives. The thing is, that’s not much of an excuse to be running around like I’ve got the answers, especially when I’m so wild about claiming that I’m a question person, not an answer person. Frankly, I’m the worst kind of question person. You know, the kind that pays homage to loving questions, not answers, but deep down, my answer is that you’re wrong and I’m right.
Sometimes, it takes a long time for me to learn things. Mostly, I attribute that to my stubborn cynicism.
Sometimes, I get a little depressed, depressed because I have come to the realization that I have grown to love my cynical little life. Depressed because I realize that cynicism is rarely joyful, often negative, commonly warranted, and frequently frequent. To say, though, that I love my cynical life is much different than saying that I’m joyfully cynical. I’m not.
Sometimes, cynicism is warranted. However, to be cynical without joy, to be cynical without cynicism for one’s self, to be a cynic without a big friggin’ grain of salt, is always bad form.
Tags: Confession, Cynicism.
Permalink
12.09.05
Posted in life at 10:31 am by
I have a confession to make. Blogs are dangerous little creatures.
I like mine, don’t get me wrong. But, sometimes they have a tendency to overtake your life, well, at least mine does. So, I’ve made a concerted effort to write shorter entries and focus on, you know, not flunking out of grad school–at least not for the time being.
But, even more than being black holes for time, blogs have the tendency to bring out some of the worst in people. Now, that’s not to say that they don’t have the tendency to bring out some of the best in people, too, it’s just that some bloggers (read: I) tend to blog about very “ME-centric” sorts of things.
And, if it were only just “ME-centric”, you know, focusing on things that were bad about me, too, it wouldn’t be so bad. I suppose I’m a little discouraged with this place right now, and I’m not sure what to do about that. Now, part of the issue is that I haven’t really had the time to put into blogging like I would’ve liked. However, another part of the problem is that all I can think to blog about is how much everybody else sucks.
This leads me to wonder, how much of blogging can basically be boiled down to “this is how much and why these people suck.” Don’t get me wrong, the people described as “sucking” really do suck most of the time. Some of them even suck violently. However, I just don’t think you can sustain a blog on that.
I need some new topics. And, as much as I don’t like the one that’s coming to mind, I think that it’s only fair–if I want to talk about how much other people suck in the future–that I spend some time in the coming weeks reflecting on how much and why I suck. Because, my friends, I do suck.
So, keep an eye here for self-deprecating material in the next few weeks, as I reflect on my own suckiness. It should be fun!
Tags: Blogging, Confession.
Permalink
« Previous entries ·
