Keeping the Word -- John Schroeder hits one that heads out of the park...
Evangelicalism is a set of ideas and priorities, an understanding, of Christianity designed to influence the church. As far as I can tell, that's all it is. It is not an institution that needs saving -- it's not the church.The same set of ideas that originally defined evangelicalism are still around today and held by many -- they are what is important, not the label.
...but falls just short of the fence...
As people seek to redefine the label, they are robbing it of the power that made it worth anything. Why not let it go?...I think rather than fighting for evanglicalism we should start fighting for what it was started to fight for to begin with -- the church. Heck with the label.
The set of ideas and priorities that comprise evangelicalism are indeed what is important; far more important than the label itself. But while we work to shape the church to conform to the ideal that we find in the Bible, we have to call our movement something for we have not yet realized our objective and must share the "church" -- both the word and the body -- with others who don't see eye-to-eye with us on all areas of doctrine. Until then, we have to defend both our ideas and our label. Then again, I suppose we could just refer to our movement as a "conversation"...
Core Disdain -- While I own an IPod (what other option is there?) I would never buy a computer from Apple. I've had one in the past (pre-Mac) and loved it and would relish the chance to own one again. And have no doubt that the Appleheads are right when they say that Macs are far superior to PCs. But I refuse to support a company that has such a loyal customer base and yet at every available opportunity, shows its disdain for the people who love them. Apple’s we-want-you-to-hate-us attitude makes them, as my buddy Nick Troester might say, the Radiohead of the consumer electronics industry. (HT: BHT)
Scalito/Schumer Smackdown -- Although I haven’t had much interest in following the Alito hearings, I regret missing out on this smackdown on Sen. Chuck Schumer:
Shumer: Does the Constitution protect free speech?Alito: Yes, Senator, the First Amendment protects free speech.
Shumer: Well, why can you give me a straight answer on that issue but not give me a straight answer on abortion?
Alito: Because the text of the Constitution explicitly includes the term "free speech".
Ouch. But to be fair, Alito had an unfair advantage because he has read the text of the Constitution.
The Nation as Family? -- Dignan has a worthy critque of George Lakoff, the linguist and guru du jour of the Democratic Party. I've always been fascinated by Lakoff and his unpacking of the way metaphors work is nothing short of brilliant. But as a political consultant he leaves something to be desired. His theory that individuals derive their views of political morality from family dynamics (Republicans/conservatives as Strict Father, Democrats/liberals as Nurturant Parent) is the type of theorizing that has helped make the Democratic Party all but irrelevant. Dignan sums it up best:"Upon initial contact, his arguments have a persuasive air to them and those predisposed to his political ideology are likely to be persuaded, but they leave the rest of us wondering if his models really fit the reality they are meant to explain and predict"
No Tenure Across the Tiber -- The WSJ has an much-discussed article on Christian colleges determined to restore their particular religious identities. Wheaton College is mentioned prominently because of a decision to fire a philosophy professor who converted to Catholicism. Rob Vischer, another convert whose mother is a professor at Wheaton, finds the move troubling and thinks the school relied on “unhelpful and outdated categorical Catholic-Protestant distinctions [that] compromises Wheaton's mission.” Rob asked my view on the issue and while I generally agree with him, I have to side with the school on this one. I think that the requirements in some statements of belief are downright silly (i.e., agreeing with a particular eschatological interpretation). But the Catholic-Protestant divide is still too wide to dismiss as an “outdated distinction.” While I’m as ecumenical toward my Catholic brethren as you can get and still be Reformed, our theological differences remain profoundly unresolved. I applaud Wheaton’s stand but think that they should have worked out a compromise, perhaps by allowing the professor to remain while denying him tenure (as some other evangelical schools do with Orthodox/Catholic faculty).
1
Regarding your link, obviously they or you don't quite understand why Macworld (and CES) are when they are.
Believe it or not, it's to have product in stores to be sold by next Christmans.
It's kind the "Fall Fashion show" in early spring. Macworld and CES are for distributors because the hardware companies want to know what they should have in the pipeline for that time.
Try to find 1/2 of the stuff that was "announced" at CES at Best Buy or some similar outfit. Or I'll make it easy for you: pick 10 items that were "announced" at CES and see if Best Buy carries them.
You'll be told "come back in September."
posted on 01.11.2006 7:00 AM2
Joe:
I agree we have to call the movement something, I don' think I contended otherwise. All I am saying is that given there are no institutions to try and preserve, let's adopt a new label and move on.
There is so much discussion over what the label means anymore that it is taking energy away from the mission.
posted on 01.11.2006 8:14 AM3
Oh, dear, two topics near and dear to my heart: Apple computers and my alma mater, Wheaton College.
First, the Macs: Mumon is right. MacWorld and CES are trade shows just as the hardware and clothing and any number of other manufacturers have them, showing distributors first, then retailers, and finally, consumers what they can expect in the near future. In fact, Apple moved to the Intel chips more than six months ahead of the announced schedule of mid- to late-2006, so it's not like they were trying to fool or take advantage of anyone. As a lifelong Mac user (okay, I was once exiled to the Dark Side in one job for about 2 years), it is inconceivable to me how anyone could consider ever buying the buggy, insecure, clunky rip-off known as Windows (otherwise known as Mac '94).
As for Wheaton, the school has gone a long way toward bringing their "pledge" into the modern, non-legalistic world. (The no-drinking and no-smoking parts when I was a student were understandable and could be justified on pragmatic grounds; the no-dancing policy was just downright silly.) I have since recovered and enjoy a fine Czech pilsner every once in a while. I still can't dance, though, being afflicted with CRD (caucasian rhythmic disorder).
But the issue with Professor Joshua Hochschild was on ultimate authority: Protestant Wheaton says it's Scripture. Roman Catholic Hochschild said it was Scripture and and papal authority. It's the classic Protestant/Catholic divide that I see no way of bridging, since neither side will budge on this "essential." (The doctrine of Justification is the other major sticking point, but that wasn't really an issue in the Wheaton case.)
I side with Wheaton on this one, not out of a sense of blind loyalty, but because it had to preserve one of its core distinctives.
posted on 01.11.2006 9:32 AM4
The justification issue has been solved (at least on paper) with the Lutherans. If Evangelicals have a problem with the Catholic view of justification, they must also have a problem with the Lutheran view. Yet Lutherans seem to have a "get out of jail free" card as the original Protestants. There's a lot of Us vs. Them mentality and very little critical thinking.
posted on 01.11.2006 12:18 PM5
I think Scot McKnight put it well (at www.jesuscreed.org) on whether Wheaton's statement of faith is an insurmountable obstacle to Catholics due to the authority issue. Scott wrote:
[W]hat Wheaton is actually doing is not claiming the authority of Scripture over against the dual authority of Scripture and Tradition, but affirming one tradition’s interpretation of Scripture over against another (the RC one). In other words, it is saying “evangelicals are not Roman Catholics.” It wants to define evangelical in such a way that it affirms the five hundred year-old debate that has separated them: evangelicals are not Catholics.
There is no reason here to get into protracted debates that have occupied theologians for five hundred years. Wheaton has the right to do what it did; I doubt myself that it is as clear-cut as the newspaper article’s representation makes it. My understanding is that the Tradition of Roman Catholicism is not an equal authority but the divinely-blessed carrying on of that biblical authority.
6
Actually, Joe, you tied two ideas together without realizing it. Let me help you out with this:
Apple computers are hardware. Mac OS is the operating system, the software. The two are engineered to maximize each other's capacity. This is why Macs run much faster than PCs with less GHz. But more importantly, Mac hardware is visually elegant and represents the state of modern industrial design. While it has many faults, Mac OS is designed to deliver an elegant interface between the hardware, software, and user that is flexible and almost endlessly configurable to the taste of the user.
In short, Macs have always been the choice of the graphic arts and publishing communities, and are strongly favored by academics and intellectuals. PCs are common, cheap product for hoi polloi. It's sportscars vs. econoboxes. In terms of OS, Macs are marketed to, and bought by, iconoclasts and social nonconformists. PCs are for the dulled wits of the compliant masses. With me so far? Let's move on to Lakoff, then.
His metaphor regarding parenting style and politics is an excellent extension of his thoughts on "framing," which hold that perspective is a vital component of meaning. This cuts very sharply against rigid conservatism, naturally, since the inflexible base suppositions of fundamentalist thought demand that certain dogmas be swallowed whole. So, yes, Republican conservatives view government in terms of being a harsh and punitive father - and they like it that way because it dovetails with their metaphysical orientation.
A Republican conservative, Christian fundamentalist could no more own a Macintosh than I could own an SUV. No, the typical Bush supporter would be most comfortable with the monolithic Wal-Mart world of the PC where Windows, managed behind the scenes by a mysterious priesthood, battles the forces of evil virus scripters and maintains a benign eye over the flock of brutalized complacent users.
Democrats - liberals in general - as well as free thinkers, anarchists, and highly independent people reject that entire mindset and find in the Macintosh an intelligent, thoughtful alternative that whispers softly: create. Freedom is dangerous, it's difficult and it has no rulebook. That's why it seems so frightening to the orthodox mind. And here at EO we see this idea confirmed again and again, over and over.
You atheists have no sense of right and wrong, good and evil, and you just make things up as you go along!
Which isn't true at all, as people like myself and Larry and Boonton have explained at length. But the central concept is telling - that the challenge of existentialism is too difficult for you to grasp and instead you prefer the warm opiate of having a Master who Tells you What to Do.
In summary:
Macs - liberal - Democrat - authoritative parent
PCs - conservative - Republican - authoritarian parent