The Artist Responds -- To my pleasant surprise, Jim Janknegt, the artist featured in The Gallery this week has provided a response to the comments on his work. Mr. Janknegt sheds some light on the intended meaning behind his fascinating painting, St. John Reconsiders Modern Epistemology. For those who posted their reactions, I highly recommend reading this addition to the discussion.
Pensees -- Keith Plummer of the excellent new blog The Christian Mind, has an online radio show in which he interviews Christian thinkers in order to “help bridge the gaps between the intellect and the affections, evangelical scholarship and the local church, and the church and contemporary culture.” Keith has made many of the interviews available online at Pensees: Faith Seeking Understanding. Check out his interviews with Nancy Pearcey on Total Truth, Greg Koukl on Moral Relativism, and Douglas Groothuis on Jesus as a Philosopher. His latest guest was David Koyzis, fellow blogger and author of the fascinating book, “Political Visions & Illusions”.
This Post Saved My Life -- If the world was just, JB Doubtless would be running Rolling Stone and Jann Werner would be selling PB&J sandwiches to acid-eatin’ hippie freaks at Grateful Dead concerts. But life isn’t fair. So for now we have to make do with JB’s infrequent laser-precise takes on music:
Some guy is actually trying to diss the President of the United States because he is insufficently cool? It amazes me that some people never grow up and out of the cooler than thou mind-set. What series of unfortunate events must have beset these people to make them like this?
The cool people in high school didn't like them, I think. So they became part of a little subculture of fellow rejects that had it's own arcane rules of what was REALLY cool. The music had to be obscure. It had to violate most established rules of melody, lyric and order. It had to challenge. It had to question why society was so wrong and it's not me it's them and why did my parents get divorced?
The Purpose-Driven President? --Beliefnet has an article that explores the question, “Is Bush An Evangelical?” Personally, I don’t think so. As a born-again Christian he may be considered a fellow-traveler but I certainly don’t think the evangelical label is fitting. That means for now Rick Warren can rest easy: he's still the most powerful evangelical on earth.
Dobson Debate -- The outrageous remarks by Dr. James Dobson about the judiciary and the KKK has sparked a lively debate in the comments section of today's desultory diatribe. Jonathan Bunch wonders if Dobson is as influential as the media makes him out to be.
Five Questions for Tgirsch -- A few weeks ago, Tgirsch threw down some heated questions for me to answer. Now it’s my turn to toss it back his way. I could pitch some hard and fast but instead I’m going easy on him. with these five softballs I make Jeff Gannon look like Bill O’Reilly:
1. What criteria would you use to judge the adequacy of a worldview and how important is it that they contain an internal logic and consistency?
2. If you could be any female superhero, who would you be and why?
3. On what one issue would you be more likely to align with the “religious right” than with those on the left side of the political spectrum?
4. If there are no objective standards of morality (a position I assume you take) then how should moral arguments be resolved and what should be done when serious ethical disagreements exist in society and can’t be resolved?
5. If by some horrific mistake you were selected by the College of Cardinals to become the new Pope, what would your agenda be and what changes would you make?
1
Regarding the Dobson comment controversy:
My first inclination is to shrug it off. After all, wasn't it Charlie Rangel or John Conyers who infamously described the Repbulicans as having traded business suits for white sheets, and tax cuts for lynchings? Nobody in the Democrat party sought to destroy their careers over these remarks, so why should Democrats be so upset at Dobson?
At the same time, Bunch is correct in asserting that Dobson is not really a "leader." What the secular press doesn't get is that evangelical churches do not have any kind of analog to the NAACP or to Jesse Jackson; that is, a committee or single leader who weilds ultimate power over congregants. I believe that many people at the WaPo and NYT think that Protestant Evangelical churches begin their services by reading faxes from Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. That just doesn't happen. To argue that they can instill fear and execute a shakedown like Jesse Jackson is simply untrue.
Dobson (a psychologist and author) and Fallwell and Robertson (both pastors and effective television personalities) all have their loyal followers. But again, believing that these men are like Popes of Evangelical Christianity and can issue edicts or executive orders across denominational lines is absolute nonsense.
posted on 04.15.2005 12:31 PM2
Mike, that quote came from Bill Campbell, the former mayor of Atlanta, not Rangel or Conyers.
posted on 04.15.2005 2:16 PM3
I guess I'm even more ignorant than I thought, then; what, exactly, is the difference between an Evangelical Christian and a born-again Christian?
posted on 04.15.2005 2:44 PM4
You could have been a lot tougher on me, but those are hardly Gannon-esque softballs; they still ask legitimate questions critical of positions I've taken; they're not a set-up for me to say what I was already going to say anyway.
And for the record, I can only name one female super hero! :) I'll post a link here when I get the answers up.
posted on 04.15.2005 3:30 PM5
I'm not exactly sure what an evangelical is, either, except a Christian who believes in telling others about Christ--and that Christ is the only way to eternal life. As for Bush, I wonder if you remember the controversy over a little statement he made before the November election? He said something like he couldn't imagine anyone being President and not believing in Jesus. That sounds like as good a definition of an evangelical as any I can think of: not being able to get through the day without his faith.
posted on 04.15.2005 10:07 PM8
-Navy Chaplain relieved of duty (fired) for protesting 'government-mandated church quotas'
-Navy Chaplain fired for requesting Kosher meals to feed hungry Jewish Sailor.
-Navy Chaplain fired for quoting John 3:3 and 3:36 in base chapel.
-Navy Chaplain fired for praying 'in Jesus name.'
All four press releases are now posted available at www.persuade.tv
Chaplain down. Please help.
9
Evangelical is a certain type of Born-Again christian, hardly distuinguishable from most of the others, to the common observer.
Part of the problem is that we don't have an agreement upon what Evangelical means - it is used as a general catch-all for born-agains, and it is also a specific movement. That's where the confusion exists.
I don't have my book with me, but the excellent book Spirit and Flesh gives the history of the Evangelical movement.
It seems that early in the 1920's (if i recally correctly, don't quote me), the American Baptists separated from the other bible-based denominations to become Independent, mostly based on the liberalism of the denominations who were following in the footsteps of "higher criticism," which was doubting fundamental truths of Chrisitianity. They called themselves "fundamentalists."
Later, after WWII, a bunch of christians, some in that movement and others outside, were unhappy with some of the more legalistic cultural tendencies of the Independent Fundies (like no dancing, no card playing, no involvement or being tainted by modern culture), and formed what came to be called the neo-evangelical movement, later shortened to Evangelical.
So, Evangelical is basically a catch all for most born-agains who are not culture averse or legalistic like some denominiations, so many have contemporary worship and casual dress, and are involved in their culture.
They are not part of the Pentecostal or Charismatic movements - that is, they don't usually practice the "power gifts" of healing, speaking in tongues or prophecy (some interpret the word "prophecy" to mean teaching, but that's, um, not right ;).
However, they are born-again (like these others), and in general, have a literal interpretation of the bible.
Conclusion: Evangelical generally means all born-again, non-pentecostal, bible-believing Christians who are not hard core anti-cultural fundies. However, sometimes, people do include these other born-again groups under the term "Evangelical"
If you really care, you can check out the statement of faith at The Natl Assoc of Evangelicals. It is non-specific enought to include just about all born again christians, since it takes stands only on "the essentials" of Xianity.
posted on 04.18.2005 7:56 PM10
There are a lot of rumors going around hinting that Dubya might convert to Catholicism, like his brother Jeb.
posted on 04.20.2005 11:56 PM