What if the God of the Bible really means what he says?
John 3:16 For God loved the world so much that He gave His one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.
If these words came from the mouth of that one and only son, why do christians say, “I sure hope I make it to heaven. I try not to sin,” as if the father really wanted nothing to do with them only relenting grudgingly for his son’s sake.
Or, what if the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob really meant it when the Torah quotes:
Gen 12:1 The LORD had said to Abram, "Leave your native country, your relatives, and your father's family, and go to the land that I will show you.
Gen 12:2 I will make you into a great nation. I will bless you and make you famous, and you will be a blessing to others.
Why, then, when the people of Israel were given 10 tenets for successful life, did they invent 400 more to prove how righteous they could be?
“Oh, the Protestants hate the Catholics, and the Catholics hate the Protestants, and the Moslems hate the Hindus … and everybody hates the Jews,” sang Tom Lehrer, Harvard mathematics professor turned musical-comedic political commentator in the 1960s. Abraham’s (Abram) descendants have not enjoyed the promise of others’ feeling blessed in them, arguably ever, certainly not since the reign of King Solomon.
Chastening or lament, a hypothesis often seen on church marquees across the U. S. goes “Christians are the main reason that most people aren’t,”
On the supposition that the reader is willing to consider the prospect of a divine personage – one with no beginning and no end – who interacts with humans in the context of time and space as they perceive them, what is it about such a god that is so distasteful? Is it the believers who queer the deal? Or is the institutional church at the heart of this disconnect?
Not a discussion of the divine inspiration of the written scripture, nor of the canonization of scripture, I will encourage the reader to consider the proposition that the message presented as christian doctrine – what God is doing among men – has been twisted beyond recognition that people are driven from rather than drawn to it. I will narrow my focus to the one question, “Who’s included?” and, by extension, “Who is able bring it about?”
Citations:
1. Colyer, Elmer M., “How To Read T. F. Torrance, Understanding His Trinitarian & Scientific Theology”, Wipf & Stock Publishers, Eugene OR, 2001, Book
A student of Karl Barth, T. F. Torrance, developed a theology beginning an understanding of God not from man’s experience of God, but from God’s revelation of himself.
2. Colyer, Elmer, “You’re Included,” (http://www.youreincluded.org/ )
addressing the question with whom this god interacts, Professor of Historical Theology at the University of Dubuque Theological Seminary and an ordained United Methodist pastor and elder. Dr. Colyer edited The Promise of Trinitarian Theology: Theologians in Dialogue with T. F. Torrance, and he is author of How to Read T.F. Torrance: Understanding His Trinitarian and Scientific Theology, approaches from the viewpoint of John Wesley:
Wesley has enough sense that when he was arguing against predestination, he finally said, “Whatever predestination means, it cannot mean that God, from all eternity wills the damnation of some. Because it’s contrary to the character of God as depicted by the whole scope and tenor of Scripture and preeminently in Jesus Christ."
3. Edwards, Jonathan, "Sinners In The Hands of An Angry God," The Jonathan Edwards Center at Yale University, 1739, Sermon
Perhaps the seminal work in America defining the discussion of the condition of fallen man is a sermon – “Sinners In The Hands Of An Angry God,” preached first in 1739 and subsequently on a circuit through all the American colonies by Jonathan Edwards.
4. Kettler, Dr. Chris, “You’re Included,” (http://www.youreincluded.org/ )
observes that people like to talk about the potential of salvation, but the Bible refers to the actuality of salvation.
5. McSwain, Jeff, “You’re Included,” (http://www.youreincluded.org/ ), Interview
Explains the difference between Calvinism and Arminianism, and the Reformed view of Karl Barth. Some people think that the Father is angry, and Christ is appeasing his anger. But the truth is quite different.
6. Time Magazine, Witness to an Ancient Truth, Friday, Apr. 20, 1962,
More recently, Karl Barth (rhymes with heart), Swiss-born son of a long line of Reformed Church clerics, studied in Bonn, Germany, but exiled for his anti-Nazi preaching, seems to have at once leaped to the fore of christian thought by returning to the very beginning of christian dogmatic scholarship of the students who studied under John, the last surviving of the twelve disciples of Jesus Christ and Paul, the most prolific of the New Testament writers.
One orthodox dogma that Barth has tried to set aright—much to the dismay of other theologians in the Reformed Church —is the best-known and gloomiest of Calvinist tenets: predestination. In his Institutes, Calvin argued that God has already determined both those who will be saved at the Last Judgment and those who will suffer the eternal pangs of Hell. Barth says that this belief does not pay sufficient heed to the fact that Christ's death was intended for all men: Man's ultimate fate is shrouded in mystery, but Barth believes that Christ, the loving Judge, could indeed reconcile all the world to the Father. "I do not preach universal salvation," Barth insists. "What I say is that I cannot exclude the possibility that God would save all men at the Judgment." (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,873557-8,00.html#ixzz0ja2af3Jx ,
7. Wikipedia, John Calvin, whose doctrinal positions included the doctrine of predestination, earlier discussed the issue of whom this god addresses:
“Calvinistic predestination is sometimes referred to as "double predestination."[2] This is the view that God chose who would go to heaven, and who to hell, and that his decision is infallibly to come to pass. This point of view simultaneously denies that God is the Author of Evil, but the issue is a very difficult point of the doctrine of predestination. The difference between elect and reprobate is not in themselves, all being equally unworthy, but in God's sovereign decision to show mercy to some, to save some and not others. It is called double predestination because it holds that God chose both whom to save and whom to damn, as opposed to single predestination which contends that though he chose whom to save, he did not choose whom to damn.” (Orthodox Presbyterian Church: "Question and Answer - Double Predestination.", Internet website)
John Calvin (Middle French: Jean Cauvin; 10 July 1509 – 27 May 1564) was an influential French theologian and pastor during the Protestant Reformation. He was a principal figure in the development of the system of Christian theology later called Calvinism. Originally trained as a humanist lawyer, he broke from the Roman Catholic Church around 1530. After religious tensions provoked a violent uprising against Protestants in France, Calvin fled to Basel, Switzerland, where in 1536 he published the first edition of his seminal work Institutes of the Christian Religion.
8. Wikipedia, John Wesley (28 June [O.S. 17 June] 1703 – 2 March 1791) was an Anglican cleric and Christian theologian. Wesley is largely credited, along with his brother Charles Wesley, with founding the English Methodist movement which began when he took to open-air preaching in a similar manner to George Whitefield. In contrast to George Whitefield's Calvinism (which later led to the forming of the Calvinistic Methodists), Wesley embraced Arminianism. Methodism in both forms was a highly successful evangelical movement in the United Kingdom, which encouraged people to experience Jesus Christ personally.
9. Young, William P., You’re Included, Interview
Paul Young points out the disconnect many people experience in trying to trust the “angry” God who requires his Son’s death.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Internet Ionization Overcomes Audience Atomization
Internet Ionization Overcomes Audience Atomization
No longer the arbiter of opinion it once was, mainstream media finds itself marginalized by … whom?
Before beginning this post, I did exactly what I had resolutely determined not to do: I googled Jay Rosen, the author of PressThink, a weblog about journalism and its ordeals (www.pressthink.org), to find out his what his background was … who ‘his people’ were … what direction his overall slant took … in his article, Audience Atomization Overcome: Why the Internet Weakens the Authority of the Press. I found, in reading, there is in it a certain positional mystique which might pass, if the reader fails to consider well, for the highly-touted journalistic autonomy one is lead to believe is the compass of ‘real journalism’. A master of his craft, Mr. Rosen got me over half way in before I realized his position was diametrically opposite what I had taken it for at the beginning. Though I didn’t look him up before reading the article, I wasn’t very far in before wanting to. I had a hard time getting a handle on what he was really saying.
Mr. Rosen, in approaching his position that the internet has weakened the power of the mainstream media to define the public discussion, draws from the 1986 book The Uncensored War by press scholar Daniel C. Hallin to lay a foundation from which to launch. Hallin poses the continuum of public opinion in spheres of acceptability for professional journalistic consideration, radiating outward from a core – the Sphere of Consensus – through the Sphere of Legitimate Controversy to what he labels a sphere, but graphically depicts as the unbounded area of Deviance. Polarizing nomenclature apart, Hallin’s discussion of traditional mainstream media’s sanctification power over the mere subject matter – let alone the acceptability of one’s position on matters of opinion – either identifies him as of the ‘old boy’ brigade or, like Rosen I only later in the article discovered – tongue-in-cheek – one of its detractors.
How interesting, I thought, when Mr. Rosen writes, “Journalists aren’t the only actors here. Candidates—especially candidates for president—can legitimize an issue just by talking about it … Powerful and visible people can start questioning a consensus belief and remove it from the “everyone agrees” category” that in the U.S. arena of public opinion, where freedom of the press is constitutionally guaranteed, freedom to entertain an opinion is arbitrated by so autocratic a professional journalistic community by means of denigration and silence. And – cynic that I am – the crystalline ring of truth became audible above the din of battle raging in my mind: Journalism is a business whose product is purchased for a specific use. At the core of the most basic human social interactions, engendering acceptance and dissipating opposition is most readily acceptable from an independent source.
People work in vocations and live with people that allow them to most successfully live by values they hold. Social beings by nature, most surround themselves with people of similar values, while others are energized by molding people’s opinions to their own. Not many are content to allow others their own autonomy and fewer, still, may be the number whose satisfaction lies only in being at the front, no matter the cause, they just need to be the leader. This continuum of influence has been played out across the stage of human existence and is the basis of human social organization. Alliances between people are established to exert influence upon others in the relationship group. From citing a drama critic to choose a movie to getting a second doctor’s opinion; from quoting political pollsters to referencing recognized authorities, most human interactions depend on the use unbiased authority to gain approval.
Mr. Rosen points out,
“Deciding what does and does not legitimately belong within the national debate is—no way around it—a political act … The press does not permit itself to think politically. But it does engage in political acts. Ergo, it is an unthinking actor, which is not good. When it is criticized for this it will reject the criticism out of hand, which is also not good.”
In addition to abhorring manipulation, Mr. Rosen writes that the media consumer demands relevance.
“one of the problems with our political press is that its reference group for establishing the “ground” of consensus is the insiders: the professional political class in Washington. It then offers that consensus to the country as if it were the country’s own”
It is only at this fourth page of his blog that Mr. Rosen explains his title.
Now we can see why blogging and the Net matter so greatly in political journalism. In the age of mass media, the press was able to define the sphere of legitimate debate with relative ease because the people on the receiving end were atomized— meaning they were connected “up” to Big Media but not across to each other.
Most human relationships are contractual in nature: if you do this, I will do that. As soon as the other crosses a certain line, the relationship is in jeopardy and may be nullified. People grant one another license to interact with them according to agreed terms.
Just as a manufacturer will find a new Ad Agency when sales begin to drop, a politician will let news out via the media outlet with the best spin, and consumers of news will seek out what fills their needs. Traditionally, young people just attaining voting age have felt marginalized by mainstream media’s, politician’s and their parent’s differing views from their own. Fresh from high school history class, newly away from home in college, this new part of the electorate are making decisions based on politician’s claims reported by the media, but have little experience seeing the touted political platforms at work in their own life. About to become eligible for military conscription (the draft), in my first election, I voted for the guy promising to end the war, George McGovern. Though today’s newest electorate has much greater access to issues in the media through the internet, I’m not sure they seek them out on their own any more than I did at my first. It wasn’t until the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) made their candidate’s position know to me that I even decided to vote at all.
In the 2008 presidential election, a new voter, away at college told me that the Obama campaign was the most media savvy. They seem to have garnered the greatest political real estate from the ‘Rock the Vote’ (RTV) campaign. Begun in 1992, RTV, “an American voter campaign … uses music, popular culture and new technologies to encourage young people to register and vote in elections.” Prepared by 16 years of popular social media “through celebrity advocacy and public education … Rock the Vote created and distributed over one million free copies of the pamphlet “Rock the System: A Guide to Health Care for Young Americans…(In 2004) Rock the Vote also launched, with Motorola, one of the first large-scale mobile phone political engagement projects; more than 118,000 people signed up to get information on their mobile devices…During the 2004 presidential election the group drew criticism … for sending a mock draft notice to over 600,000 e-mail addresses. The message included the words "Selective Service System" and read "You are hereby ordered for induction into the Armed Forces of the United States, and to report to a polling place near you" on November 2 (Election Day). The Rock the Vote logo and a facsimile of Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's signature appeared at the bottom of the message. In addition, Rock the Vote created public service announcements featuring the subject of the draft." [Wikipedia]
The new American electorate has chosen their media, as have those who put it to use. These new media do not seem interested in making overtures to opposing political views. Though I’m still not sure I get Mr. Rosen’s reference to atomization as “meaning they (media consumers) were connected “up” to Big Media but not across to each other”, it did invoke an image of the result. The constituent elements of some chemical compounds can be broken apart and bonded with other elements creating entirely new compounds by the attraction of unstable electrons in the outer rings by other attractive electronically charged molecules. While Internet Ionization is an apt metaphor for the metamorphosis occurring in the mass media, at the expense of the traditional rigor of independence from political influence traditionally applied to journalism, these new media don’t even offer themselves to the highest bidder.
No longer the arbiter of opinion it once was, mainstream media finds itself marginalized by … whom?
Before beginning this post, I did exactly what I had resolutely determined not to do: I googled Jay Rosen, the author of PressThink, a weblog about journalism and its ordeals (www.pressthink.org), to find out his what his background was … who ‘his people’ were … what direction his overall slant took … in his article, Audience Atomization Overcome: Why the Internet Weakens the Authority of the Press. I found, in reading, there is in it a certain positional mystique which might pass, if the reader fails to consider well, for the highly-touted journalistic autonomy one is lead to believe is the compass of ‘real journalism’. A master of his craft, Mr. Rosen got me over half way in before I realized his position was diametrically opposite what I had taken it for at the beginning. Though I didn’t look him up before reading the article, I wasn’t very far in before wanting to. I had a hard time getting a handle on what he was really saying.
Mr. Rosen, in approaching his position that the internet has weakened the power of the mainstream media to define the public discussion, draws from the 1986 book The Uncensored War by press scholar Daniel C. Hallin to lay a foundation from which to launch. Hallin poses the continuum of public opinion in spheres of acceptability for professional journalistic consideration, radiating outward from a core – the Sphere of Consensus – through the Sphere of Legitimate Controversy to what he labels a sphere, but graphically depicts as the unbounded area of Deviance. Polarizing nomenclature apart, Hallin’s discussion of traditional mainstream media’s sanctification power over the mere subject matter – let alone the acceptability of one’s position on matters of opinion – either identifies him as of the ‘old boy’ brigade or, like Rosen I only later in the article discovered – tongue-in-cheek – one of its detractors.
How interesting, I thought, when Mr. Rosen writes, “Journalists aren’t the only actors here. Candidates—especially candidates for president—can legitimize an issue just by talking about it … Powerful and visible people can start questioning a consensus belief and remove it from the “everyone agrees” category” that in the U.S. arena of public opinion, where freedom of the press is constitutionally guaranteed, freedom to entertain an opinion is arbitrated by so autocratic a professional journalistic community by means of denigration and silence. And – cynic that I am – the crystalline ring of truth became audible above the din of battle raging in my mind: Journalism is a business whose product is purchased for a specific use. At the core of the most basic human social interactions, engendering acceptance and dissipating opposition is most readily acceptable from an independent source.
People work in vocations and live with people that allow them to most successfully live by values they hold. Social beings by nature, most surround themselves with people of similar values, while others are energized by molding people’s opinions to their own. Not many are content to allow others their own autonomy and fewer, still, may be the number whose satisfaction lies only in being at the front, no matter the cause, they just need to be the leader. This continuum of influence has been played out across the stage of human existence and is the basis of human social organization. Alliances between people are established to exert influence upon others in the relationship group. From citing a drama critic to choose a movie to getting a second doctor’s opinion; from quoting political pollsters to referencing recognized authorities, most human interactions depend on the use unbiased authority to gain approval.
Mr. Rosen points out,
“Deciding what does and does not legitimately belong within the national debate is—no way around it—a political act … The press does not permit itself to think politically. But it does engage in political acts. Ergo, it is an unthinking actor, which is not good. When it is criticized for this it will reject the criticism out of hand, which is also not good.”
In addition to abhorring manipulation, Mr. Rosen writes that the media consumer demands relevance.
“one of the problems with our political press is that its reference group for establishing the “ground” of consensus is the insiders: the professional political class in Washington. It then offers that consensus to the country as if it were the country’s own”
It is only at this fourth page of his blog that Mr. Rosen explains his title.
Now we can see why blogging and the Net matter so greatly in political journalism. In the age of mass media, the press was able to define the sphere of legitimate debate with relative ease because the people on the receiving end were atomized— meaning they were connected “up” to Big Media but not across to each other.
Most human relationships are contractual in nature: if you do this, I will do that. As soon as the other crosses a certain line, the relationship is in jeopardy and may be nullified. People grant one another license to interact with them according to agreed terms.
Just as a manufacturer will find a new Ad Agency when sales begin to drop, a politician will let news out via the media outlet with the best spin, and consumers of news will seek out what fills their needs. Traditionally, young people just attaining voting age have felt marginalized by mainstream media’s, politician’s and their parent’s differing views from their own. Fresh from high school history class, newly away from home in college, this new part of the electorate are making decisions based on politician’s claims reported by the media, but have little experience seeing the touted political platforms at work in their own life. About to become eligible for military conscription (the draft), in my first election, I voted for the guy promising to end the war, George McGovern. Though today’s newest electorate has much greater access to issues in the media through the internet, I’m not sure they seek them out on their own any more than I did at my first. It wasn’t until the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) made their candidate’s position know to me that I even decided to vote at all.
In the 2008 presidential election, a new voter, away at college told me that the Obama campaign was the most media savvy. They seem to have garnered the greatest political real estate from the ‘Rock the Vote’ (RTV) campaign. Begun in 1992, RTV, “an American voter campaign … uses music, popular culture and new technologies to encourage young people to register and vote in elections.” Prepared by 16 years of popular social media “through celebrity advocacy and public education … Rock the Vote created and distributed over one million free copies of the pamphlet “Rock the System: A Guide to Health Care for Young Americans…(In 2004) Rock the Vote also launched, with Motorola, one of the first large-scale mobile phone political engagement projects; more than 118,000 people signed up to get information on their mobile devices…During the 2004 presidential election the group drew criticism … for sending a mock draft notice to over 600,000 e-mail addresses. The message included the words "Selective Service System" and read "You are hereby ordered for induction into the Armed Forces of the United States, and to report to a polling place near you" on November 2 (Election Day). The Rock the Vote logo and a facsimile of Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's signature appeared at the bottom of the message. In addition, Rock the Vote created public service announcements featuring the subject of the draft." [Wikipedia]
The new American electorate has chosen their media, as have those who put it to use. These new media do not seem interested in making overtures to opposing political views. Though I’m still not sure I get Mr. Rosen’s reference to atomization as “meaning they (media consumers) were connected “up” to Big Media but not across to each other”, it did invoke an image of the result. The constituent elements of some chemical compounds can be broken apart and bonded with other elements creating entirely new compounds by the attraction of unstable electrons in the outer rings by other attractive electronically charged molecules. While Internet Ionization is an apt metaphor for the metamorphosis occurring in the mass media, at the expense of the traditional rigor of independence from political influence traditionally applied to journalism, these new media don’t even offer themselves to the highest bidder.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
John McLaughlin - Montreaux Jazz Festival
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9060763719855584589&ei=zI1PS4u4O46-rALeld3zAw&q=shakti&hl=en&client=firefox-a#
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)