For those who don't know, Georgia has an amazing scholarship that I alluded to in my last post. It's for all Georgia residents who are attending a Georgia college and maintain above a 3.0.
What's so amazing about this is that it covers your tuition for up to 127 credit hours as long as you take a full schedule, which is 12 hours during Fall and Spring semesters. I think some of the exact requirements for hours vary from school to school, but the important thing is that this is a bloody amazing scholarship.
But it's called HOPE. So, especially at Georgia Tech, you will, most likely, lose HOPE during your four years. Many students around the state lose HOPE after just one year in school. While you can earn HOPE back, to do so is almost as soul-crushing as losing HOPE in the first place.
And while HOPE stands for Helping Outstanding Pupils Educationally, nobody ever says the full name. No, you're not losing the Helping Outstanding Pupils Educationally Scholarship, you're losing HOPE. And once you've lost HOPE, life has no meaning. It's almost as bad as losing coffee. College just isn't possible without it.
So I propose that we change the name of the HOPE. Let's call it Tuition Elimination Exemplified To Battle Overpriced Official Kolleges For Everybody Everywhere Scholarship, or TEXTBOOK FEES for short. In keeping with government tradition, the title has been sacrificed to make for a better acronym. I think that generally speaking, a student could make it through college without TEXTBOOK FEES. Heck, it might even make it more enjoyable. Without TEXTBOOK FEES, college could become a place of sunshine, puppies, and professors who know your name.
Here's hoping.
Shalom.
14 July 2007
13 July 2007
Thank God Pastors Can't Be Outsourced
It means I'll always have a job to look forward to. Though satellite churches suggest that the preaching side could possibly be shipped overseas...
I have finally had a chance to start on Friedman's The World Is Flat, and I'm slightly frightened. While I applaud the ability to take jobs to middle class Asian youth (though I still have my doubts as to whether or not globalization can do anything but harm the Asian poor and under-developed nations, and the moving of jobs to Mexico and other third-world countries is a topic entirely undiscussed in - expect a post on how the flattened world crushed South American and Africa), I cannot find any benefit to working class Americans. Mr. Friedman argues that while outsourcing may cut phone service jobs, it is good for American business because these Indian agencies are using American products - from software to bottled water. Yet on the very next page, he talks about how R&D is being outsourced. And anyone who's ever bought an electronic device in the past ten years knows that production has been moved overseas as well. So if research, production, and service have all been sent to southeast Asia, which Americans are seeing the benefits? Stockholders and the upper class business owners. While prices are theoretically falling (and I cannot stress the "theoretically" enough), what good does that do if the working class has no source of income in the first place?
It seems amazing what is being outsourced these days. The book starts by discussing the use of Indian firms for accounting. Yup, your CPA may very well be sending your taxes to Bangalore. By extension, to all my friends are accounting majors, I suggest you either get really good at what you do or find a job that must be done in person). As it turns out, your CAT scan may also be read by a tech in Bangalore. And most surprisingly, research assistantships, the bread and butter of many college students, are being sent to Bangalore (described as the Silicon Valley of India). For about $2000 a month, you can have all of your research done and summarized for you (sadly, this falls out of the price range of college and grad students).
I don't like to think of things as American v. non-American, but in this case, it's hard not to. Most recipients of these outsourced tele-service jobs are earning $200-$500 a month - a living wage in India. Including insurance and housing pushes the wage up to perhaps $700 a month. And this is to employ a college graduate, a professional. No American, especially one with a family, can compete with that. My friend, a college graduate, was offered a $10/hour full time job in Seattle and still may not be able to afford to live there. My $6.25/hour job on campus* is pushing it for most students, and that's in a college town, land of cheap food (for all who are curious, Ramen is 14 cents a pack now) and $1 movies.
*The most Food Service allows a student to work is 40 hrs/wk, meaning the most a student could could make is $1000 a month, before taxes. That 40 hours is on top of at least a 12 hour schedule.
This outsourcing is, of course, helping India's economy. Eventually, inflation will catch up, and the economy will grow to where $700/month will not be a living wage. The same is true of other outsourcing centers, such as Thailand. So at best, the cheap labor pool is temporary. Unfortunately, "temporary" can be a long time.
Rock on.
I have finally had a chance to start on Friedman's The World Is Flat, and I'm slightly frightened. While I applaud the ability to take jobs to middle class Asian youth (though I still have my doubts as to whether or not globalization can do anything but harm the Asian poor and under-developed nations, and the moving of jobs to Mexico and other third-world countries is a topic entirely undiscussed in - expect a post on how the flattened world crushed South American and Africa), I cannot find any benefit to working class Americans. Mr. Friedman argues that while outsourcing may cut phone service jobs, it is good for American business because these Indian agencies are using American products - from software to bottled water. Yet on the very next page, he talks about how R&D is being outsourced. And anyone who's ever bought an electronic device in the past ten years knows that production has been moved overseas as well. So if research, production, and service have all been sent to southeast Asia, which Americans are seeing the benefits? Stockholders and the upper class business owners. While prices are theoretically falling (and I cannot stress the "theoretically" enough), what good does that do if the working class has no source of income in the first place?
It seems amazing what is being outsourced these days. The book starts by discussing the use of Indian firms for accounting. Yup, your CPA may very well be sending your taxes to Bangalore. By extension, to all my friends are accounting majors, I suggest you either get really good at what you do or find a job that must be done in person). As it turns out, your CAT scan may also be read by a tech in Bangalore. And most surprisingly, research assistantships, the bread and butter of many college students, are being sent to Bangalore (described as the Silicon Valley of India). For about $2000 a month, you can have all of your research done and summarized for you (sadly, this falls out of the price range of college and grad students).
I don't like to think of things as American v. non-American, but in this case, it's hard not to. Most recipients of these outsourced tele-service jobs are earning $200-$500 a month - a living wage in India. Including insurance and housing pushes the wage up to perhaps $700 a month. And this is to employ a college graduate, a professional. No American, especially one with a family, can compete with that. My friend, a college graduate, was offered a $10/hour full time job in Seattle and still may not be able to afford to live there. My $6.25/hour job on campus* is pushing it for most students, and that's in a college town, land of cheap food (for all who are curious, Ramen is 14 cents a pack now) and $1 movies.
*The most Food Service allows a student to work is 40 hrs/wk, meaning the most a student could could make is $1000 a month, before taxes. That 40 hours is on top of at least a 12 hour schedule.
This outsourcing is, of course, helping India's economy. Eventually, inflation will catch up, and the economy will grow to where $700/month will not be a living wage. The same is true of other outsourcing centers, such as Thailand. So at best, the cheap labor pool is temporary. Unfortunately, "temporary" can be a long time.
Rock on.
11 July 2007
iBlend
The iPhone blends!
Check out the video at what can only be described as the single greatest commercial site ever: Will It Blend?
Ro...erm...Blend on.
Check out the video at what can only be described as the single greatest commercial site ever: Will It Blend?
Ro...erm...Blend on.
07 July 2007
The Call 2007
Today is 7 July 2007, or 07/07/07. I know a few people who have birthdays today, but other than that, it is completely unremarkable.
Unless, that is, you are attending The Call - a Christian political demonstration, disguised as mass fasting, being held in Nashville.
The leader of this movement, Lou Engle. Mr. Engle claims that the idea for the Call was inspired by the Holy Ghost and that it is a result of multiple prophecies - not in the sense of the prophets of Ancient Israel speaking in the name of God, but in the smarmiest future-telling sense. Apparently, Bob Jones prophesied that the Houston Oilers would move to Nashville, and that their stadium would play host to a fast, and Mr. Engle himself believes that he and others have been predicting this event for quite some time (very convenient, if you ask me, that the planner saw this coming).
The event is in response to a few things. First, the 2006 election. From the Call's website: "The Church and the nation are in a crisis! In no uncertain terms, the elections of 2006 showed us that there is no clear moral foundation upon which the nation votes." Apparently, the Republican Party has ceased to align itself with morals, and this resulted in God ousting them from power (but as we all know, God doesn't like Democrats; the Republicans, then, are like Israel being defeated by the Assyrians*) Second, this is the fortieth anniversary of the Summer of Love. Because we all know how evil hippies are.* Thirdly, a woman blindly wrote Mr. Engle a $100,000 check and told him about it as he pondered how to call attention to the moral crisis the US is facing. (*I can not stress enough the level of sarcasm that these statements should be read with.)
On the first issue: I fail to see how the 2006 election shows that the voting citizens of the US lack a "clear moral foundation". If anything, I would say that a nation tired of fighting and an administration concerned primarily with foreign policy actually voting out a rubber stamp congress shows that the voters have an idea of what they're voting for. And since when is Congress around to legislate morality anyway? Protect the people, yes, but tell them what system of morality they should hold, no. Those participating in the Call fail to recognize our status as the first nation born of the Enlightenment. The freedom to choose for ourselves which morals we will uphold is what makes us distinct, not our imagined Judeo-Christian foundation. Congress should be more concerned with helping the poor, not keeping same-sex marriage out of the nation. Oddly enough, I think Christ would support welfare reform and getting help where it is needed.
On the second: The Summer of Love - yes, it included drug use and open sex. But it also included free health care, food, and the basic necessities of what we see as living - toothbrushes, soap, and the like. Was it in the name of Christ? No. But I fail to see how helping the needy and loving others is ever a bad thing. They claim that a "spirit of worship" was released and was not directed at God. Ok. This has absolutely no meaning and creates more questions than answers. Who was worshiping whom? What is a "spirit of worship" in terms of something that can be released (this implies that it is in bondage)? Who decided to release this spirit?
On the third: Aren't there better ways to call attention to an issue than fasting? Wasting $100,000 dollars renting out a stadium and and creating publicity does nothing to convince people that there is anything wrong with this country. I believe that there is a problem with this nation and it's priorities, but also think the way we as the Church waste money on crap like this is part of it. You want to convince people that this is for real? Use the money to help those in New Orleans - go to one of the neediest cities in the world and help to take people out of this cycle of depravity - stop poverty, which leads to violence and drug use, which leads to prison time, which leads to more poverty. Spend the money on schools, food, and health care. The hippies in 67 had it right. Even fast while you're working. But there are much, much better things that the money paying for this event can go towards.
Frankly, I am disgusted that the leaders of this event have designed a political protest and dressed it in religious clothing. You want to protest the Democratic congress? Go ahead, but don't do it in the name of the Church. I participate in a fast called the Thirty Hour Famine, as do many church youth groups. This is put on by a Christian organization and many do it because they love God. But it is a small-scale hunger strike for political reasons, and there are few questions about that. This is exactly what the Call is, though less honest about their actual intentions.
I will agree, as previously stated, that there is a moral crisis in this country. I don't think that Democrats or Republicans are part of it (though possibly the actions of politicians are). The moral crisis is that we believe in a self-gratifying country. It is all about me. Spend money on mansions, have guilt-free sex, ignore those who are of no use to me. Hollywood continues to put out movies that show this as a desirable lifestyle. The actors and musicians who call for helping the poor live in multimillion dollar houses, own upwards of five cars, and receive all the free crap they can handle for doing charity concerts. Politicians who claim to care for the lower class live the same lifestyle. And the Church is more concerned with putting on big events to call attention to fasting (I seem to recall Jesus saying something about this...meh, it's probably nothing) is part of the problem, not the solution.
Rock on.
Unless, that is, you are attending The Call - a Christian political demonstration, disguised as mass fasting, being held in Nashville.
The leader of this movement, Lou Engle. Mr. Engle claims that the idea for the Call was inspired by the Holy Ghost and that it is a result of multiple prophecies - not in the sense of the prophets of Ancient Israel speaking in the name of God, but in the smarmiest future-telling sense. Apparently, Bob Jones prophesied that the Houston Oilers would move to Nashville, and that their stadium would play host to a fast, and Mr. Engle himself believes that he and others have been predicting this event for quite some time (very convenient, if you ask me, that the planner saw this coming).
The event is in response to a few things. First, the 2006 election. From the Call's website: "The Church and the nation are in a crisis! In no uncertain terms, the elections of 2006 showed us that there is no clear moral foundation upon which the nation votes." Apparently, the Republican Party has ceased to align itself with morals, and this resulted in God ousting them from power (but as we all know, God doesn't like Democrats; the Republicans, then, are like Israel being defeated by the Assyrians*) Second, this is the fortieth anniversary of the Summer of Love. Because we all know how evil hippies are.* Thirdly, a woman blindly wrote Mr. Engle a $100,000 check and told him about it as he pondered how to call attention to the moral crisis the US is facing. (*I can not stress enough the level of sarcasm that these statements should be read with.)
On the first issue: I fail to see how the 2006 election shows that the voting citizens of the US lack a "clear moral foundation". If anything, I would say that a nation tired of fighting and an administration concerned primarily with foreign policy actually voting out a rubber stamp congress shows that the voters have an idea of what they're voting for. And since when is Congress around to legislate morality anyway? Protect the people, yes, but tell them what system of morality they should hold, no. Those participating in the Call fail to recognize our status as the first nation born of the Enlightenment. The freedom to choose for ourselves which morals we will uphold is what makes us distinct, not our imagined Judeo-Christian foundation. Congress should be more concerned with helping the poor, not keeping same-sex marriage out of the nation. Oddly enough, I think Christ would support welfare reform and getting help where it is needed.
On the second: The Summer of Love - yes, it included drug use and open sex. But it also included free health care, food, and the basic necessities of what we see as living - toothbrushes, soap, and the like. Was it in the name of Christ? No. But I fail to see how helping the needy and loving others is ever a bad thing. They claim that a "spirit of worship" was released and was not directed at God. Ok. This has absolutely no meaning and creates more questions than answers. Who was worshiping whom? What is a "spirit of worship" in terms of something that can be released (this implies that it is in bondage)? Who decided to release this spirit?
On the third: Aren't there better ways to call attention to an issue than fasting? Wasting $100,000 dollars renting out a stadium and and creating publicity does nothing to convince people that there is anything wrong with this country. I believe that there is a problem with this nation and it's priorities, but also think the way we as the Church waste money on crap like this is part of it. You want to convince people that this is for real? Use the money to help those in New Orleans - go to one of the neediest cities in the world and help to take people out of this cycle of depravity - stop poverty, which leads to violence and drug use, which leads to prison time, which leads to more poverty. Spend the money on schools, food, and health care. The hippies in 67 had it right. Even fast while you're working. But there are much, much better things that the money paying for this event can go towards.
Frankly, I am disgusted that the leaders of this event have designed a political protest and dressed it in religious clothing. You want to protest the Democratic congress? Go ahead, but don't do it in the name of the Church. I participate in a fast called the Thirty Hour Famine, as do many church youth groups. This is put on by a Christian organization and many do it because they love God. But it is a small-scale hunger strike for political reasons, and there are few questions about that. This is exactly what the Call is, though less honest about their actual intentions.
I will agree, as previously stated, that there is a moral crisis in this country. I don't think that Democrats or Republicans are part of it (though possibly the actions of politicians are). The moral crisis is that we believe in a self-gratifying country. It is all about me. Spend money on mansions, have guilt-free sex, ignore those who are of no use to me. Hollywood continues to put out movies that show this as a desirable lifestyle. The actors and musicians who call for helping the poor live in multimillion dollar houses, own upwards of five cars, and receive all the free crap they can handle for doing charity concerts. Politicians who claim to care for the lower class live the same lifestyle. And the Church is more concerned with putting on big events to call attention to fasting (I seem to recall Jesus saying something about this...meh, it's probably nothing) is part of the problem, not the solution.
Rock on.
04 July 2007
Nothing Says America Like Blowing *Expletive* Up
The Fourth of July is an interesting holiday, especially in Georgia. Here, it is illegal to buy, sell, or set off fireworks (though you can own them). Which means one thing: for those of us with the time and money, a trip to the nearest state border to buy the "goods". Then, the search begins for an empty field (unless you're lucky enough to have friends or family with large tracks of land). Because nothing says America like a few broken laws and explosions.
Really, though, why do we celebrate Independence Day the way we do? Fireworks are Chinese. Bratwurst, Hamburgers, and Frankfurters are German. Beer is Mesopotamian, though the Germans perfected it. Most of our national music can trace its origins, at least stylistically, to Britain. Even the ideals on which this nation are based, the Enlightenment, is really a product of Europe, we are just the grand experiment.
I think these many traditions show that the US really is a melting pot (please forgive the cliché). Every time a new group of immigrants comes in, they are initially met with resistance (the Irish, the Chinese, and now the Mexicans), but sooner or later, their culture is adopted. It remains unique, but blends so perfectly. All one has to do is read a high school yearbook and see the long list of last names and consider their origins. And this is what we are celebrating, and doing so through application. John Adams, two days before the Declaration of Independence was adopted, told his wife that he hoped the nation would mark the occasion's anniversary with parties, sports, parades, music, illuminations, bonfires, and, in general, a good time.
"But Drew, should Christians take part in celebrations of countries when we are called to be 'not of this world'?"
Well, Timmy, I'm glad you asked (ok, so there is no Timmy, but I couldn't think of a transition).
I've heard both sides of this argument, and think that both hold some validity. Obviously, the idea that God favors the US over other nations and Americans over other people is baseless and pretty stupid. God loves everybody regardless of national identity (or anything else, and I think that some in the so-called Christian right would do well to remember this). But I do think that God favors free nations, and the US is among the first. Many of the prophetic books of the Old Testament show God's favor for the oppressed, and as the US and other free nations attempt to become the "new colossus", I think God supports them.
The second argument I've heard is that it's pointless to be proud of the country you were born into, as you have no say in the matter. If this is the case, it is just as pointless to be proud of family members. Should we think that our nation is the best? Certainly not. We've made our mistakes, and will continue to do so. But to condemn those who appreciate their nation and national identity is as equally mistaken as vitriolic nationalism. I would suggest that the disagreement over patriotism comes from differing definitions of the word pride. One suggests the pompous, arrogant attitude of nationalism. This is always wrong - this pride does, in fact, come before the fall. But there's also pride in the sense of appreciation - I appreciate the nation I was fortunate enough to be born into. Though I do admit, it is a fine line to walk.
Rock on.
Really, though, why do we celebrate Independence Day the way we do? Fireworks are Chinese. Bratwurst, Hamburgers, and Frankfurters are German. Beer is Mesopotamian, though the Germans perfected it. Most of our national music can trace its origins, at least stylistically, to Britain. Even the ideals on which this nation are based, the Enlightenment, is really a product of Europe, we are just the grand experiment.
I think these many traditions show that the US really is a melting pot (please forgive the cliché). Every time a new group of immigrants comes in, they are initially met with resistance (the Irish, the Chinese, and now the Mexicans), but sooner or later, their culture is adopted. It remains unique, but blends so perfectly. All one has to do is read a high school yearbook and see the long list of last names and consider their origins. And this is what we are celebrating, and doing so through application. John Adams, two days before the Declaration of Independence was adopted, told his wife that he hoped the nation would mark the occasion's anniversary with parties, sports, parades, music, illuminations, bonfires, and, in general, a good time.
"But Drew, should Christians take part in celebrations of countries when we are called to be 'not of this world'?"
Well, Timmy, I'm glad you asked (ok, so there is no Timmy, but I couldn't think of a transition).
I've heard both sides of this argument, and think that both hold some validity. Obviously, the idea that God favors the US over other nations and Americans over other people is baseless and pretty stupid. God loves everybody regardless of national identity (or anything else, and I think that some in the so-called Christian right would do well to remember this). But I do think that God favors free nations, and the US is among the first. Many of the prophetic books of the Old Testament show God's favor for the oppressed, and as the US and other free nations attempt to become the "new colossus", I think God supports them.
The second argument I've heard is that it's pointless to be proud of the country you were born into, as you have no say in the matter. If this is the case, it is just as pointless to be proud of family members. Should we think that our nation is the best? Certainly not. We've made our mistakes, and will continue to do so. But to condemn those who appreciate their nation and national identity is as equally mistaken as vitriolic nationalism. I would suggest that the disagreement over patriotism comes from differing definitions of the word pride. One suggests the pompous, arrogant attitude of nationalism. This is always wrong - this pride does, in fact, come before the fall. But there's also pride in the sense of appreciation - I appreciate the nation I was fortunate enough to be born into. Though I do admit, it is a fine line to walk.
Rock on.
29 June 2007
Blue Like Miller
My Intro to Religious Thought teacher is, in essence, the embodiment of post-modern philosophy. Raised as a conservative Methodist, he majored in Religion as an undergrad, and, as all Religion majors, realized that Christianity is not as simple as it seems. And, as all young adults coming to that this realization, faced the accompanying crisis of faith. After all, if you can accept that most of Genesis is exaggeration (at best, and this is not to mention all of the other things you learn about the Bible in school) and not notice an impact in your faith, something is probably very wrong with you. Studying those like Nietzsche and coming to the realization that you cannot prove what you believe tends to do that to you. Post-modernism is, really, the philosophy of rejection. All our lives are stories, and nobody's story can be correct.
It is into this time that we see (and need) a post-modern response to a post-modern philosophy. Whether or not they claim to be a part of the Emergent movement or not, authors like Brian McLaren, Shane Claiborne, and Rob Bell provide this response. And most popular among them (at least among the youth group masses) is Donald Miller. I'll admit, his books are probably among my favorite. You laugh, wonder, think, grow angry, and hopefully, learn. Christianity Today's review of Miller (not his books, but the man himself) says Miller is "often described as 'irreverent' or 'bohemian'". Which means one thing: he fits in with the rest of the world born after 1970.
Though the article focuses, in the beginning, on Miller's current aging-yet-relevant style of being (the author mentions that he is starting to have those mid-age moments, meeting a friend and asking, "Hey, how's your wife feeling these days?"), it later goes on to discuss this new trend of the Christian experience as a whole. Quoting one fan, we read, "I love Blue Like Jazz because it's, like, a Christian book, but it doesn't make you feel bad about yourself." Which means one thing (well, several, but I'll focus on this one): Nietzsche was wrong when he said that guilt is inherent in Christianity. Instead, Miller would probably argue, and I will agree, that Christianity is a post-modern religion. It's about our stories. God's story about how much he loves humanity, humanity's story about how we are trying to get back to God, and our own stories about how we relate to God and humanity. Miller is quoted as saying, "The chief role of a Christian is to tell a better story."
And, as the article points out, this is how Miller writes. Blue Like Jazz is the story of Miller going through life and learning. Searching for God Knows What is a collection of essays drawing from stories - his story of developing his own sense of evangelism, realizing that the world is fallen and needs God's help, and thinking about the role of the Church. In fact, Miller has one book that is really just one long story punctuated with moments of philosophical clarity; Through Painted Deserts is about how Miller discovered Portland.
As the masses start to wake up and smell the stories, they will need leaders, or at the very least, influences. Whether or not he wants to be, Don Miller has taken that position.
So, what's your story?
Rock on.
It is into this time that we see (and need) a post-modern response to a post-modern philosophy. Whether or not they claim to be a part of the Emergent movement or not, authors like Brian McLaren, Shane Claiborne, and Rob Bell provide this response. And most popular among them (at least among the youth group masses) is Donald Miller. I'll admit, his books are probably among my favorite. You laugh, wonder, think, grow angry, and hopefully, learn. Christianity Today's review of Miller (not his books, but the man himself) says Miller is "often described as 'irreverent' or 'bohemian'". Which means one thing: he fits in with the rest of the world born after 1970.
Though the article focuses, in the beginning, on Miller's current aging-yet-relevant style of being (the author mentions that he is starting to have those mid-age moments, meeting a friend and asking, "Hey, how's your wife feeling these days?"), it later goes on to discuss this new trend of the Christian experience as a whole. Quoting one fan, we read, "I love Blue Like Jazz because it's, like, a Christian book, but it doesn't make you feel bad about yourself." Which means one thing (well, several, but I'll focus on this one): Nietzsche was wrong when he said that guilt is inherent in Christianity. Instead, Miller would probably argue, and I will agree, that Christianity is a post-modern religion. It's about our stories. God's story about how much he loves humanity, humanity's story about how we are trying to get back to God, and our own stories about how we relate to God and humanity. Miller is quoted as saying, "The chief role of a Christian is to tell a better story."
And, as the article points out, this is how Miller writes. Blue Like Jazz is the story of Miller going through life and learning. Searching for God Knows What is a collection of essays drawing from stories - his story of developing his own sense of evangelism, realizing that the world is fallen and needs God's help, and thinking about the role of the Church. In fact, Miller has one book that is really just one long story punctuated with moments of philosophical clarity; Through Painted Deserts is about how Miller discovered Portland.
As the masses start to wake up and smell the stories, they will need leaders, or at the very least, influences. Whether or not he wants to be, Don Miller has taken that position.
So, what's your story?
Rock on.
20 June 2007
I was gonna...
...write a review of Christianity Today's cover story on Donald Miller over the weekend. However, I decided to shave my head instead.
Now, I just got out of a Religion test, have a German test tomorrow, and an English paper due Monday. In other words, I don't have time this week. I guess what I'm really trying to say is that I'll be back with my review as early as Friday, as late as Monday. Not sure which, yet.
Back soon.
Shalom.
14 June 2007
The Passing of Ruth Graham
It saddens me to announce that Ruth Graham, wife to Billy Graham, passed away today. She was 87.
I hope that you will join me in praying for the Graham family and in honoring the life of such a wonderful woman.
Of his wife, Mr. Graham had this to say:
"Ruth was my life partner, and we were called by God as a team. No one else could have borne the load that she carried. She was a vital and integral part of our ministry, and my work through the years would have been impossible without her encouragement and support."
I hope that you will join me in praying for the Graham family and in honoring the life of such a wonderful woman.
Of his wife, Mr. Graham had this to say:
"Ruth was my life partner, and we were called by God as a team. No one else could have borne the load that she carried. She was a vital and integral part of our ministry, and my work through the years would have been impossible without her encouragement and support."
Intro to Religious Thought (or: What They Don't Teach in Sunday School)
The academic study of religion is the most thoroughly depressing field out there. I'm pretty sure of it. It shouldn't be, but it is. They take everything you believe and show you how stupid it is to believe in it. All interpretations (at least according to my professor, and yes he means all, as in every, including those by non-believers) are wrong (yeah, he's a big fan of Nietzsche, for those who were wondering). What's weird is when you get home and realize you still believe, despite how incredible the beliefs are. There's an old joke I once heard, that if you have enough faith to still believe after going through Seminary, you have enough faith to be a preacher. I'm starting to think the same is true for religion majors. This reminds me of a mewithoutYou quote, "We have all our beliefs, but we don't want our beliefs; God of Peace, we want you."
The problem with the way we teach beliefs in modern churches is that we claim them to be fact. In the most conservative churches, it goes without question that Moses wrote the Torah, the world was created in seven days, we are the only religion to hold this view, there was a flood, we are the only people who believe in a Noah figure, the Patriarchs are all very real, we can prove that the Israelites were enslaved in Egypt, and the Bible has absolutely no contradictions, historical or otherwise. In reality, the Torah has four sources and probably more authors, our TWO accounts of creation coincide with accounts from all over the Near and Middle East, the Epic of Gilgamesh recounts a flood and an ark, there is not proof for any of the Patriarchs, least of all Joseph, who should have proof, and no proof of Israelite presence in Egypt. On top of that, the mention of iron and the Philistines should not be in the Torah, as neither would not be in Canaan until after 1200 BCE. Not to mention the fact that there are multiple versions of the texts we found at the Dead Sea, especially Isaiah, on who's prophecies much of our understanding of Jesus as Christ is based. It's quite sad to listen to the students in my class who haven't been introduced to these ideas until now. Their entire faith is shattering before them (though whether or not their faith should be based on creationism is another topic).
Then there are the ideas that nobody sees coming, no matter how progressive of a church they attended or how much study they do on their own. The idea that the Israelites worshiped multiple gods, that the Hebrew Bible affirms the existence of multiple gods, the idea that God had to wrestle a sea monster during creation, the suggestion that Noah's son slept with him while he was drunk, and the idea that Mary very possibly wasn't a virgin. Even though these ideas are not as wide-spread as the first, they'll still through you for a loop the first time you hear them.
So why isn't the Church teaching its members to think? Why is it that you don't hear these ideas until you get into the lecture hall? I'm not saying they should be a part of every sermon, but they are certainly things that older Christians should be concerned with. These are serious problems for our faith and if we want to be able to say we have a relationship with God and that we understand our faith and where it comes from, these are issues that need to be addressed.
On the issue of where our faith comes from, why is it that we don't look into the Israelite background of our faith? What makes Jesus distinct from all these other deities in the ancient world is not being born of a virgin or rising from the dead. It's the long, glorious history that culminates in Christ. Almost as if God looked around at all of these ancient cults and said, "Ha, watch this," and blew them all out of the water. If you don't learn about what distinguishes Jesus from others in the "divine man" genre of ancient history, then when you hear about these other "divinities", you face a tremendous crisis.
In Velvet Elvis, Rob Bell says our faith should be more like a spring than a brick, in that it should be flexible (and springs can be used for trampolines and to invite people to come play, where as bricks can only be used in walls, to keep people out). When we raise people to have brick-like faith, when it comes time for someone to need to reexamine their faith, it shatters. When a person whose faith is like a spring reexamines their faith, they survive. How do we make our faith like a spring? By learning about it.
Rock on.
Edit: Ben Witherington expresses his thoughts on a similar subject at his blog.
My friend Pat writes on a broader sense of Christian complacency over at Notes from Underground.
The problem with the way we teach beliefs in modern churches is that we claim them to be fact. In the most conservative churches, it goes without question that Moses wrote the Torah, the world was created in seven days, we are the only religion to hold this view, there was a flood, we are the only people who believe in a Noah figure, the Patriarchs are all very real, we can prove that the Israelites were enslaved in Egypt, and the Bible has absolutely no contradictions, historical or otherwise. In reality, the Torah has four sources and probably more authors, our TWO accounts of creation coincide with accounts from all over the Near and Middle East, the Epic of Gilgamesh recounts a flood and an ark, there is not proof for any of the Patriarchs, least of all Joseph, who should have proof, and no proof of Israelite presence in Egypt. On top of that, the mention of iron and the Philistines should not be in the Torah, as neither would not be in Canaan until after 1200 BCE. Not to mention the fact that there are multiple versions of the texts we found at the Dead Sea, especially Isaiah, on who's prophecies much of our understanding of Jesus as Christ is based. It's quite sad to listen to the students in my class who haven't been introduced to these ideas until now. Their entire faith is shattering before them (though whether or not their faith should be based on creationism is another topic).
Then there are the ideas that nobody sees coming, no matter how progressive of a church they attended or how much study they do on their own. The idea that the Israelites worshiped multiple gods, that the Hebrew Bible affirms the existence of multiple gods, the idea that God had to wrestle a sea monster during creation, the suggestion that Noah's son slept with him while he was drunk, and the idea that Mary very possibly wasn't a virgin. Even though these ideas are not as wide-spread as the first, they'll still through you for a loop the first time you hear them.
So why isn't the Church teaching its members to think? Why is it that you don't hear these ideas until you get into the lecture hall? I'm not saying they should be a part of every sermon, but they are certainly things that older Christians should be concerned with. These are serious problems for our faith and if we want to be able to say we have a relationship with God and that we understand our faith and where it comes from, these are issues that need to be addressed.
On the issue of where our faith comes from, why is it that we don't look into the Israelite background of our faith? What makes Jesus distinct from all these other deities in the ancient world is not being born of a virgin or rising from the dead. It's the long, glorious history that culminates in Christ. Almost as if God looked around at all of these ancient cults and said, "Ha, watch this," and blew them all out of the water. If you don't learn about what distinguishes Jesus from others in the "divine man" genre of ancient history, then when you hear about these other "divinities", you face a tremendous crisis.
In Velvet Elvis, Rob Bell says our faith should be more like a spring than a brick, in that it should be flexible (and springs can be used for trampolines and to invite people to come play, where as bricks can only be used in walls, to keep people out). When we raise people to have brick-like faith, when it comes time for someone to need to reexamine their faith, it shatters. When a person whose faith is like a spring reexamines their faith, they survive. How do we make our faith like a spring? By learning about it.
Rock on.
Edit: Ben Witherington expresses his thoughts on a similar subject at his blog.
My friend Pat writes on a broader sense of Christian complacency over at Notes from Underground.
10 June 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)