The Slacktivist has a good post about living the gospel in light of American materialism. In particular, he presents a “wear it tomorrow” rule to help us decide which articles of clothing we probably could stand to part with:
When in doubt, try the next-day rule. Set it aside and say, out loud, “I’m going to wear this tomorrow.” If hearing yourself say this doesn’t produce an immediate sense of enthusiasm over the prospect, then get rid of it.
After a friend posted the following:
……….from Larry Winget: “You have to show a photo ID to use a credit card at most stores, to buy liquor and cigarettes, to get on a plane and do most other things yet some think it is a violation of your rights to have to show one to vote. I am dumbfounded by this.”
This was the response I wanted to make:
I agree with that sentiment as far as it goes. The other side of photo ID is the cost to the individual to get one. Solve the problem of losing a day’s wages (or your job) to go stand in line and get a photo ID and I think we have a workable system. If you already have a photo ID and can’t see the problem here then you are playing the part of the rich, landed gentleman poo-pooing the poll tax.
Henry Neufeld on his hope that Christopher Hitchens — and indeed many people we write off as not meriting God’s grace — might be in heaven.
I’m not a universalist, but I am a hopeful person.
This turn of phrase was tasty and polysyllabic enough that I wanted to repeat it.
…Ostentatious performances of self-congratulatory holiness…
From the Slacktivist, quoting Peter Dorman. Emphasis mine.
We don’t need new ideas to fix the economy. The policy obsessed debate the details, but the main contours in debt writedowns, regulation, public investment and related domains are well understood. The problem is that what is good for the economy is generally not profitable for the rich, and vice versa. Because of the gross imbalance of power in this country, we are unable to do what needs to be done.
Randal Rauser concerning corporations.
[The corporation is] …an institution which is singularly focused on return on profits to shareholders. …[T]he corporation, which in legal terms is defined as a person, evinces the marks of a sociopathic personality, including a singular concern for self-interest and an inability to form and sustain longterm relationships with others.
From a Christian perspective the corporation could be described as an institituional expression of total depravity. Everything a corporation does, even the “good”, is tainted by its own systemic orientation toward self-interest.
This from the slacktivist, whom I haven’t read until today but who has now made it into my RSS aggregator in that short time. I’m reproducing it here because I like his outline curt assessment of why corporations aren’t people.
“Hero Social Worker Barely Survives Tornado, But Workers’ Comp Gets Denied.”
That link takes you to a blood-boiling story of a genuine hero getting screwed over by a big company because it saves them a little money and because they can get away with it. This is the sort of inhuman behavior that clarifies that, regardless of what five Supreme Court justices may say, corporations are not people. They have no soul to save, no body to incarcerate, no heart to break and no ass to kick.
They also have no shame. But they’re capable of a facsimile of it if we’re able to convince them that their despicable behavior may wind up costing them money: “After Media Exposure, Insurance Firm Reverses Claim Denial Against Tornado Hero.”
Discussing a film called “Gospel Without Borders”:
“What part of ‘illegal’ don’t you understand?” is a popular piece of the narrative that supports the hard-line perspective of the legislation.
One wants to reply, “What part of the Gospel’s clear admonition to offer hospitality to the stranger don’t you understand?”
Is it a legal issue, or a faith issue? If both, then which should have priority among people of faith?
Reducing the issue of immigration to a matter of legality (as in the prevalence of referring to our undocumented neighbors as “illegals”) seriously oversimplifies the economic, social and theological dimensions of this arena of our common life.
Then discussing how people tend to favor strict enforcement of laws when it serves ones immediate purposes while conveniently ignoring the same laws when not enforcing them benefits the lifestyle one values:
Much more than a legal problem that can be fixed with new laws, it is a human problem that must be responded to (as the prophets would say) with new hearts. The core of the problem is not with “them” but with “us.”
via Immigration Issue Far More Than a Legal Problem on EthicsDaily.com.
From a columnist in The Guardian answering questions about evolution posed by a creationist. I liked this one:
Q5 How can you have ‘design’ without a designer?
A5 By not being confused by language: you get design without a designer the same way the wind blows without a blower.
via A creationist’s ‘scientific’ disproof of Darwin’s theory of evolution | Andrew Brown
I came across a post tonight that describes “narrative theology”. I’ve never heard of it before but I like point seven of the author’s 8-point explanation of interpreting the Bible as God’s story:
7. The task of the church is to “faithfully improvise” the “rest of the story.” Christians are not called simply to live in the story; they are called to continue the story in their own cultural contexts. First they must be grounded in the story. They must be people for whom the story “absorbs the world.” Second, they must together (communally) improvise the “rest of the story” faithfully to the story given in the Bible.
via Narrative theology: following up on my review of Smith’s book about biblicism | Roger E. Olson.