Jason Coleman

I remember a discussion at a Christian men’s fellowship group one time where someone listed off a bunch of things they didn’t like about church and stated that it was all caused by the church becoming “feminized.” Hymns with militant language gave way to worship chorus “romance songs,” etc.

I think that Ed C. provides a good response to such an objection.

If we do have a problem with men not getting involved in the church, we at least don’t have a “feminine” church problem. We have men with a Holy Spirit problem. …I’m saying that we can’t blame women for becoming so involved in the church—as if men are the victims of women initiating a takeover of some sort where they prod pastors to do their bidding.

If we are going to have balanced congregations where men and women serve together in a relatively equal manner, our only hope is the leadership of the Spirit, not some vague notion of men becoming more manly or women somehow becoming less feminine.

via Does the Church Have a “Man” Crisis? | :: in.a.mirror.dimly ::.

We need to be realists because we cannot trust ourselves to be moralists.

That’s the slacktivist quoting Louis Menand summing up Reinhold Neibuhr’s theology. It puts me in mind of the folks who won’t get their kids immunized against HPV because they think it will be seen as “giving permission” for the kids to have sex. They’re arguing from a moralist position; their children will more than likely take a realist position towards having sex. That’s why I think parents should take a realist position on immunization.

via slacktivist » Church bulletin announcements.

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.

via slacktivist » Spring cleaning in late December.

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.

via Christopher Hitchens Dies « Threads from Henry’s Web.

This turn of phrase was tasty and polysyllabic enough that I wanted to repeat it.

…Ostentatious performances of self-congratulatory holiness…

via slacktivist » An open letter to Rachel Held Evans.

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.

via slacktivist » Smart people saying smart things.