Christian Carnival -- Proverbs Daily is hosting the latest Christian Carnival. With 62 entries(!) you’ll have no shortage of posts to choose from.
Bright Future -- The leaders of the ID movement are collaborating on a new blog, Intelligent Design The Future. Participants include biochemist Michael Behe, mathematician William Dembski, astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez, philosophers Stephen Meyer and Jay Richards, molecular biologist Jonathan Wells, and science writer Jonathan Witt. From the posts so far, it looks like it will be an interesting – and controversial – blog. www.idthefuture.com.
Competing Principles -- Stuart Buck applies his sharp legal mind to a recent fallacy of reasoning.
Soundbites -- Overheard at BHT -- “For the record, I've given my wife instructions that in the event I'm ever hospitalized in a coma, no extraordinary means are to be used to prolong my life, and I do not wish to be revived if I stop breathing. I added a clause that clarified the last sentence to indicate that I was not giving her permission to seal my mouth and nostrils with tape while I am asleep.”
Suggestion Box -- Since I need to continue the “Five Questions” meme I thought I’d grill both Tgirsch and Kevin T. Keith from Lean Left. Any suggestions on the questions (I need ten) I should ask them?
Name Dropping -- If you're going to blog then you have to be able to withstand scrutiny. Fortunately, I’m rather thick-skinned and don’t take criticism too personally. I do, however, try to take it as seriously as is warranted and consider if the criticism is valid. Recently, I stumbled across this statement by a fellow evangelical blogger in the comments section of another blog:
As for Joe Carter, honestly my opinion of him is growing more and more mixed. I can't remember when the last time "Evangelical" Outpost even mentioned God or Jesus.
I’ve heard of Christian movie critics who count the number of cuss words in films but this is the first time I’ve seen a Christian blog critic keep track of the number of times God is mentioned. Still, I have to wonder if he has a point. Am I not being “evangelical” by not explicitly mentioning God in every post? Do I need to drop the J-word more often to prove my street-cred as a Jesus Freak?
Ethical Dilemmas in Art -- Speaking of other people’s comments’ sections, over at The Narrow there is an interesting side discussion on Christanity and art. JPE raises an interesting question:
Here's a question* for you: the production values and formal quality of Christian art are getting noticeably better (thanks in no small part to Melly-Mel). That said, do you think the ideological commitments of Christians preclude a kind of narrative or thematic complexity? Let me explain by way of comparison: Soviet movies from the 40s and 50s are singularly terrible. The protaganist will be faced with a dilemna, will grapple with it, and in the end will - of course - "act heroically" by doing what is in the interests of The Party. And everyone watching the film knows that this is how it will turn out. How could it be otherwise, given the ideological commitments of the film maker? Ultimately, the film is little more than an occasion for edification, instruction, or reinforcement of the moral precepts of The Party.
This seems requisite by the nature of the belief in The Party; any moral complexity undercuts the absolute truth that resides in the pronouncements of The Party, right?
The parallel with Christian art should be pretty clear. The other day, in fact, I was reading some Christian blog in which people were discussing Million Dollar Baby, and someone suggested that the movie should've ended with the protagonist heeding the advice of the priest. The fact that he didn't, and that he considered euthanasia an ethically open question undercuts the authority of Christianity and the Truth of the scriptures. That narrative structure mirrors Soviet film: once Truth is known, the ethical dilemna melts away, is revealed to be an illusion. There never was an ethical dilemna, only a lack of guidance. There's no real struggle with a question; only a struggle with figuring out WWJD.
There are two questions embedded in that exposition. First, can a properly Christian art admit a properly ethical dilemna? A second and closely related question: am I placing too much emphasis on the importance of the ethical dilemna in narrative art?
When a work is used as propaganda it ceases to be a work of art and becomes a blunt tool used to bludgeon the intellect of the observer. But I don’t believe that just because a filmmaker possesses “ideological commitments” means the work is inherently propagandistic, even when it leads to an obvious outcome.
Almost every movie has a scene where the protagonist is faced with a moral dilemma. Unless a filmmaker is a pure existentialist who sees no moral difference between eating ice cream and killing an Arab, the ethical dilemma is invariably used to tell us something about the hero. The resolution merely reveals the protagonist’s character; it rarely has has any bearing on claims made about “absolute truth.”
1
"Still, I have to wonder if he has a point. Am I not being “evangelical” by not explicitly mentioning God in every post? Do I need to drop the J-word more often to prove my street-cred as a Jesus Freak?"
Don't sweat it, Joe. We don't all have the same calling and we don't all do things the same way. If you're going to fit yourself into someone else's mold, you might as well throw on some handcuffs as well. But you're being effective in what you're doing.
posted on 04.07.2005 4:16 AM2
I'm with Kevin. On my blog, I hardly even mention the "proper" words -- I just try and provide a point of view from the correct, biblical standpoint without directly screaming, "God says so!"
I don't know if it's effective, but I do what I can.
posted on 04.07.2005 5:58 AM3
First, can a properly Christian art admit a properly ethical dilemna?
Yes, I believe it can and it should. As you mention though, this problem isn't just a problem with Christian art. Take a look at most films today and they follow a certain moral template. The difficulty is that it takes hard work to set up a good ethical dilemna.
Scifi geek moment, Babylon 5 had a good ethical dilemna when the crew had to balance goverment and military duty with their oaths to the constitution.
A second and closely related question: am I placing too much emphasis on the importance of the ethical dilemna in narrative art?
No, in certain types of movies the ethical dilemna is the most important part. That being said, not all good films need an ethical dilemna.
posted on 04.07.2005 7:48 AM4
Preach the Gospel at all times. When necessary, use words.
Suggested ideas for questions for tgirsch:
Why do we perceive beauty?
How can one claim that the statement, "all truth is relative and socially negotiated" is itself true?
Why are there no naturally (i.e. indigenously) atheist cultures, and why does belief persist despite intense indoctrination and persecution in officially atheist societies such as China?
5
God is not explicitly mentioned in Esther. Since following Scripture is a defining characteristic of an Evangelical, it follows a forteriori that it is OK to not explictly mention God in every blog entry. Just as Esther had to struggle with how to apply her faith in a hostile culture, Joe, you do the same. You could be in far worse company.
posted on 04.07.2005 10:13 AM6
When I went to the Intelligent Design web site, I got this:
MySQL error!
Incorrect key file for table 'evo_postcats'; try to repair it(Errno=1034)
Your query:
SELECT DISTINCT ID, post_creator_user_ID, post_lastedit_user_ID, post_assigned_user_ID, post_datecreated, post_datedeadline, post_datestart, post_datemodified, post_status, post_locale, post_content, post_title, post_urltitle, post_url, post_main_cat_ID, post_flags, post_wordcount, post_comments, post_views, post_renderers, post_pst_ID, post_ptyp_ID, post_priority FROM (evo_posts INNER JOIN evo_postcats ON ID = postcat_post_ID) INNER JOIN evo_categories ON postcat_cat_ID = cat_ID WHERE cat_blog_ID = 6 AND ( post_status IN ('published') ) AND post_datestart
The web site must not have an intelligent design. :-)
posted on 04.07.2005 10:17 AM7
Joe,
I don't think you have anything to worry about. As Christians we must evaluate everything from a Biblical Christain perspective, sometimes that includes mentioning explicitly God or Jesus, sometimes it doesn't. The real heart of the matter is your heart. Are you writing things with the purpose of glorifying God and bringing people closer to Him, then don't sweat the complaints?
Sure it doesn't hurt to mention God or Jesus every chance we get, but sometimes that is not the most effective strategy for reaching people for Christ. We shouldn't be ashamed of the Gospel and of Jesus, but we shouldn't use it as a bludgeon either.
To put it a different way - You don't need to drop the J-word on all the peeps to keep up your street-cred. Haters will always hate the playas. And you my dawg are a Jesus Freak playa! ;)
posted on 04.07.2005 10:36 AM8
As a question for KTK, just to raise his hackles, ask him directly: "Do you really exist?" :)
As for questions for me, the BBQ question is out, because I've already answered that one on my blog.
You're by no means obliged to follow this formula, but I inherited it from the guy who questioned me: three "tough" questions designed to find out more about the interviewee's views, or to resolve perceived contradictions in the interviewee's views, etc.; and two "softball" questions for comic relief or just to lighten the pot.
In your case, the BBQ question was intended to be a light-hearted softball, but proved to be by far the most controversial question I asked. Your other softball was the art question which, predictably, you hit out of the park. ;)
posted on 04.07.2005 3:00 PM9
One of my posts was rejected by a Christian Carnival host (who shall remain nameless) because "he didn't see what it had to do with Christianity." It was about the pressure in academia (humanities) to "make up new things" just to get published, rather than professing only one's true beliefs--and about how professors who do stick to truth get marginalized/don't get tenure. But apparently truth, honesty, and intellectual integrity have nothing to do with Christianity ...
posted on 04.07.2005 8:47 PM10
Uh, sure.
Did that comment have anything to do with Christianity, out of curiosity?
I saw the word three times - but no Christ :D
Christ must be present for Christianity to be present. If He's there, we'll know.
His sheep hear His voice, you know? So... ifthe sheep aren't hearing His voice, when you write - you may want to ask yourself - what is it I'm writing?
I asked myself that about a hundred million times, when I still blogged politics. I no longer blog politics - I blog Christ. That's the key to blogging happiness, I've found.
posted on 04.08.2005 6:53 AM12
Well, judging from my inbox, quite a few sheep do hear his voice in "less overt" blogs like ours. His voice should permeate every word we say, every act we do, every profession we enter. Otherwise it becomes merely what we profess, and not who we are (which was the point of that post I mentioned).
Interestingly, I also get a good bit of e-mail from non-Christians who have questions about Christianity and seem to see me as someone who will answer them in terms they can understand.
Variety is good. It's good to have blogs discussing fine doctrinal points, and it's good to have other blogs serving more as a gateway to unbelievers, and everything in between.
posted on 04.08.2005 9:31 AM13
I wasn't trying to be judgemental about it - really I wasn't.
But seriously... what purpose did that serve for edification?
posted on 04.09.2005 10:18 AM14
Come now you could have at least linked to me on that quote. I could use a few more readers. Or linked to Locusts and Honey (an excellent Methodist blog) where I said it. John should definitely have more readers.
For the record I do not count Christs. I do not number Jesuses. I do not time my pastor's sermons on Sunday mornings either. I don't believe in browbeating people with my faith anymore than anyone else here. My own blog easily spends as much time on politics, my personal life, and my hobbies as it does on my faith. I gave you a link, feel free to check.
And I'm not condemning you or anyone else. You'll note that I was expressing my opinion that you're not grounding your concepts in scripture enough for my tastes. Last I checked I'm entitled to have an opinion.
I do believe if you are going to throw out words like "christian" and "biblical" (or unchristian and unbiblical) then Christ and the Bible should probably be invoked at some point. I don't see that happening much and I obviously can't cite numbers or dates. But I also can't remember either being mentioned directly. I don't think its a good thing. I see evangelical leadership and evangelical literature, but very little that goes straight to the scriptural source. I like those people a lot and read them also, but they are secondary sources at best. The bible is the primary. If you want to really talk about "biblical" principles, you should probably be quoting John the Baptist not John Piper.
But this is your blog. I'm not going to demand you conform to me, but I will express my opinion freely. (Hey that's what a comment section is for!) I'm entitled to my opinion of course, but you are also entitled to ignore me and write whatever and however you want. And I wouldn't have it any other way.
posted on 04.13.2005 10:03 PM