Playgreen

Flagging up a new wiki dedicated to amassing info on greener living. Maybe worth RSS sub?
Playgreen - The wiki on green living

Filed in: green, ecology, lifestyle, wiki

Penal substitution and an object lesson in media manipulation

The other day I blogged about the issue of penal substitutionary theories of atonement. Lo and behold within days there's a minor spat in the UK about it, not in response to my writing (naturally, not enough important people read what I say), but in response to the remarks of one dean which were then leaked to a couple of bishops likely to disagree with the bit that was presumably presented to them. They reacted to what was presented and the media had created a stir of ecclesiastical disagreement. In fact though, when you look at what Jeffrey John said, you realise that he actally agrees with those who were manipulated and probably selectively (mis)quoted into taking an apparently other position. Jeffrey John wrote.

“Why should God forgive us through punishing someone else? It was worse than illogical. It was insane. It makes God sound like a psychopath. If any human being behaved like this, we’d say they were a monster." The explanation “just doesn’t work, though sadly it’s one that’s still all too often preached ... The most basic truth about God’s nature is that he is Love, not wrath and punishment.” Some Christians went all through their lives without grasping that, Dr John said. “The cross is not about Jesus reconciling an angry God to us; it’s almost the opposite. . . On the cross, Jesus died for our sins; the price of our sin is paid; but it is not paid to God, but by God. . .”

Which actually is no problem to well-read and thought out evangelicals who would entirely agree. However, I'm not sure whether I've just been a bit overoptimistic, but I do think that the real problem here is that the media have manipulated the situation to make the difference of opinion bigger that it really is. It is interesting, though, that that last sentence of John's is almost exactly the same thing that JI Packer wrote about the matter thirty years ago defending a traditional evangelical view of 'propitiation' in a UCCF monograph under the TSF banner.

What I learn from this is to be wary of the way the media present issues and to understand how they make controversy appear out of nowhere. In this case by selective quoting and asking for comment on those quotes. Presumably also it is not counted 'inaccurate' to miss out any of those annoying riders that people often add such as "If that is a fair representation of what he said...", "Not having seen the whole thing I am not sure how much I can say, but if he said X, then the problem with that might be ...".
Church Times - Dean stands by Radio 4 talk on cross
Technorati Tags: atonement, penal_substitution, theology, Christian, UK, evangelical

The end of religion the beginning of faith

This is the point where the issue of religious pluralism founders ultimately. At least so I thought when I was reviewing a book advocating religious pluralism. The thing tends to want to accord religious institutions 'salvific' parity. But what if, as many Christian evangelicals do, you tend to think that religion is a flawed friend of faith, spirituality and salvation, at best?
It means that religious pluralism is flawed by the lack of means to critique religion.

Now this article is not about religious pluralism but rather non-religious Christianity. And it seems to me that such a thing could and should exist. I wonder whether the same shift is possible for other faiths?

What if “religion,” and by this I mean the institutional and organizational form around faith, is no longer necessary for the future of faith?
Religions exist in certainty and sanctity; faith lives in inquiry and fluidity. The reason traditional faiths are having a hard time of things is that the present situation is one in which certainty is suspect and sanctity is being redefined.

Actually, a very interesting mini article from Barry Taylor of Fuller. Another intriguing thing he writes is.

One of the most interesting dynamics of the present time is the collapse of distinction between the sacred and the profane. Contemporary society allows for the “holy” to be found in the most unexpected places. As Christopher Partridge writes, “The new spiritual awakening makes use of thought-forms, ideas and practices, which are not at all alien to the majority of Westerners. They emerge from an essentially non-Christian religio-cultural milieu, a milieu that both resources and is resourced by popular culture.” The future of Christian faith lies in its ability to inhabit this gray world, not attempting to “sort it out” as much as to be available to help others navigate and negotiate the complexities that such a dynamic raises. To “go with the flow” might seem a trite way of describing theological engagement, but a commitment to fluidity and a willingness to swim in the cultural waters rather than insisting on one’s own paddling pool is a necessary perspective.

The interesting thing is also the reactions to this opinion piece. Some people just don't seem to 'get' the idea of separating institution from faith, expression from basis...

John O'Donohue's blessing

"when your eyes
freeze behind
the grey window
and the ghost of loss
gets in to you,
may a flock of colours,
indigo, red, green,
and azure blue
come to awaken in you
a meadow of delight. "
From John O'Donahue, Anam Chara

Blogging: overtesteronised and unaccountable?

I don't think that I share the alarm of the author over the future of blogging being undermined by incivility: my guess is that the rage merchants will be increasingly sidelined by people looking for serious and helpful content. A case in point is my own search habits and my desire not to inflame but to moderate opinion. The flaming and mudslinging is a spectator sport for those who like to see the online equivalent of boxing or WWE.
However, there is one issue that could help.

My immediate hunch is that the anonymity of the web is the problem. People do not tend to call each other Nazis in public meetings, or on radio phone-ins, because other people would know who they were. But if you're called DaffyDuck you can insult whoever you like. If democracy means anything it means accountability - and that should include accountability for our own words.

It'd help in respect of spamming too. There's a thought....

There's an interesting draft code of conduct being proposed which has six points:

1. We take responsibility for our own words and for the comments we allow on our blog.
We are committed to the "Civility Enforced" standard: we will not post unacceptable content, and we'll delete comments that contain it.
We define unacceptable content as anything included or linked to that:
- is being used to abuse, harass, stalk, or threaten others
- is libelous, knowingly false, ad-hominem, or misrepresents another person,
- infringes upon a copyright or trademark
- violates an obligation of confidentiality
- violates the privacy of others

We define and determine what is "unacceptable content" on a case-by-case basis, and our definitions are not limited to this list. If we delete a comment or link, we will say so and explain why. [We reserve the right to change these standards at any time with no notice.]

2. We won't say anything online that we wouldn't say in person.

3. We connect privately before we respond publicly.
When we encounter conflicts and misrepresentation in the blogosphere, we make every effort to talk privately and directly to the person(s) involved--or find an intermediary who can do so--before we publish any posts or comments about the issue.

4. When we believe someone is unfairly attacking another, we take action.
When someone who is publishing comments or blog postings that are offensive, we'll tell them so (privately, if possible--see above) and ask them to publicly make amends.
If those published comments could be construed as a threat, and the perpetrator doesn't withdraw them and apologize, we will cooperate with law enforcement to protect the target of the threat.

5. We do not allow anonymous comments.
We require commenters to supply a valid email address before they can post, though we allow commenters to identify themselves with an alias, rather than their real name.

6. We ignore the trolls.
We prefer not to respond to nasty comments about us or our blog, as long as they don't veer into abuse or libel. We believe that feeding the trolls only encourages them--"Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, but the pig likes it." Ignoring public attacks is often the best way to contain them.

I think that it is interesting that many Christian sites I visit seem to do these things as part of a 'do as you would be done by' 'love your neighbour' sort of informal ethic ...

The blogosphere risks putting off everyone but point-scoring males | Guardian daily comment | Guardian Unlimited

Memory: recall, fantasy and religious claims.

This would seem to be quite an important piece of research, particularly as it has implications for so-called evidence for reincarnation, alien abduction etc.

people who commonly make source-monitoring errors respond to and imagine experiences more strongly than the average person, and they also tend to be more creative.
"It might be harder to discriminate between a vivid image that you'd generated yourself and the memory of a perception of something you actually saw," he said in a telephone interview. Peters also found in his study, detailed in the March issue of Consciousness and Cognition, that people with implausible memories are also more likely to be depressed and to experience sleep problems, and this could also make them more prone to memory mistakes. And once people make this kind of mistake, they might be inclined to stick to their guns for spiritual reasons, McNally said. "It may be a variant expression of certain religious impulses," he said. "We suspect that this might be kind of a psychological buffering mechanism against the fear of death."

Of course, we are also going to have to work out how it affects the apologetics relating to the resurrection. I suspect not a huge amount because of the way that in principle it adds nothing new to the panoply of objections and the kind of 'forensic' workover that the likes of Josh McDowell, Nicky Gumbal and Frank Morrison have given it. But I may be wrong.
FOXNews.com - Study: People Who Recall Past Lives, Alien Abduction Prone to Memory Errors - Science News | Current Articles

Technorati Tags: resurrection, evidence, memory, false_memory, psychology

C. S. Lewis College

Hmm, seems my kind of thing ...

As part of its long-range vision, the Foundation looks forward to founding a fully accredited, four-year great books college with a center for advanced Christian studies and school of visual and performing arts.

C. S. Lewis Foundation - Living the Legacy!

Technorati Tags: HE, Christian, education, teaching, learning