« February 2006 | Main | April 2006 »
Currently I'm watching Barcelona v. Benfica in the Champions League. I've finished my homework for the week (except for a little reading), and now I'm off to a few days retreat at Mercy Center. At the weekend, I'll be heading down to my grandparents' house near Carmel for a little family reunion with mum, dad, sister, brother in law, and wee Tommy.
The Cross as advertising? Discuss.
I think it must be incredibly satisfying to know through and through of the rightness of one's position. I seem to be reading a lot of news articles lately that involve discussionsdebates between one fixed and certain perspective and another. It's not just the pro-life/pro-choice debate from the years in which I grew up. It's what's going on in the Anglican Communion at the moment, with each side convinced it's right. It's the atheist, liberal, secular "brights" debating with conservative, literalist, fundamentalist Christians. It's what's going on between people who think that the Episcopal Church must change radically to bring in new people and those who think that the important thing is for us to stick to our charism come what may.
I'm just feeling stuck between factions, in a sense. I'm not at all convinced that the right way forward is another perspective presented as certitude. I'm not really convinced that I have anything useful to add to any of these debates, and I've come to this observation: I'm not going to change any minds, but I am going to frustrate myself trying. I think I'll take some time off from this, focus on the work I have to do, and remember the ways in which I assist in reconciliation and peacemaking. Might post the odd thing about day to day life at seminary now and then, and then I might change my mind entirely. Drop me a comment or an email if you like. Chris, then the at-sign, then somethingunderstood.org.
Peace be with you.
Benedict XVI likes his iPod, apparently.
I just read Cenk Uygur's piece over at The Huffington Post, in which he reaffirms the sheer improbability of our existence, confirms the non-existence of God, insists that this means that we are awash in "meaninglessness", and that despite this meaninglessness we are all supposed to be nice to each other.
Has anyone ever noticed the similarities between the writing styles of Biblical literalists and fundamentalists on the one hand, and writings like Uygur's piece on the other? Both are based on simplistic notions of the role and function of Scripture, as both seem to assume that there is a "plain meaning" of Scripture, and that the literal reading is the only one applicable. Both claim to present a universal Truth that is (internally-)logically solid, irrefutable, and compelling. Both seem to use condescending descriptions of the people they are pretending to convert.
I shall try to avoid kinds for Lent.