I just read this article on "how Facebook is better for the environment than solar panels." http://www.good.is/post/conspicuous-but-not-consuming/
They make a very interesting point, that the old gold standard for status—consumption—is being replaced by online expressions. One particular example is how you can display your social capital on Facebook by having a certain set of friends. (Read: Can I get the people popular in the group of people I want to be popular with to be my Facebook friend?)
All this may be good news for the environment in some ways, especially as people in developing countries posture for status in a way that will subvert the wasteful posturing of their dictators. However, there has to be a human balance to this. I hold that sites such as Facebook should reinforce existing embodied relationships and help create new ones. However, if we merely sublimate consumption and wasting of resources into a dehumanizing commodification of names, I'm not sure we've gained much.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Spirit?
It's not uncommon to be reminded in books, articles, or sermons that the Hebrew ruach and the Greek pneuma share the semantic domains spirit, wind, and breath. It's funny to me that in English we have three different words to communicate something that only needed one in our "sacred" languages. (By that I mean the languages that bring us our sacred writings.)
I think the relative explosion of words in English to translate the single word from Hebrew or Greek hurts our understanding. The fact that translators try to parse whether the word means breath here and spirit there hurts our ability to see resonances that would have been obvious to the original readers.
Take for instance the idea that the Holy Spirit dwells in us. What if we looked back to Genesis and saw that God's creative act that made humans human was his breathing into our nostrils? How about translating Paul this way: "Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the holy breath, who is in you, whom you have received from God?" With that, you see that this Holy Spirit is what actually rehumanizes us. Naturally, there's the question of the pronouns that follow. I left them as "who," but in Greek they're neuter, as is pneuma. The translators moved from a pronoun that might more appropriately be translated "which" to "who" in order to personalize the holy pneuma. No doubt the Spirit is a person, but if you translate it as God's holy breath, it sounds awkward in English to say "who."
Think also of Jesus at the end of the gospel according to John. "With that he breathed on them and said, 'Receive the Holy Spirit.' " This is Jesus taking seriously his role in the creation process from the beginning of the gospel. Perhaps if he did this in America today, he would say, "Breathe the breath of God, which makes you truly human." He continues by saying that those he just breathed on are capable of dispensing forgiveness. The Pharisees questioned Jesus for doing that, but in a sense it is a capacity that resides in humans, especially because Jesus re-created those he breathed on.
Regardless, it's helpful to remember that wherever the Holy Spirit is referenced, it should remind us that humans were always intended to breathe God's breath. Perhaps it's the Holy Spirit that/who sets us apart from more apish living as in Francis Collin's fascinating anthropology expounded in his book, The Language of God.
I think the relative explosion of words in English to translate the single word from Hebrew or Greek hurts our understanding. The fact that translators try to parse whether the word means breath here and spirit there hurts our ability to see resonances that would have been obvious to the original readers.
Take for instance the idea that the Holy Spirit dwells in us. What if we looked back to Genesis and saw that God's creative act that made humans human was his breathing into our nostrils? How about translating Paul this way: "Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the holy breath, who is in you, whom you have received from God?" With that, you see that this Holy Spirit is what actually rehumanizes us. Naturally, there's the question of the pronouns that follow. I left them as "who," but in Greek they're neuter, as is pneuma. The translators moved from a pronoun that might more appropriately be translated "which" to "who" in order to personalize the holy pneuma. No doubt the Spirit is a person, but if you translate it as God's holy breath, it sounds awkward in English to say "who."
Think also of Jesus at the end of the gospel according to John. "With that he breathed on them and said, 'Receive the Holy Spirit.' " This is Jesus taking seriously his role in the creation process from the beginning of the gospel. Perhaps if he did this in America today, he would say, "Breathe the breath of God, which makes you truly human." He continues by saying that those he just breathed on are capable of dispensing forgiveness. The Pharisees questioned Jesus for doing that, but in a sense it is a capacity that resides in humans, especially because Jesus re-created those he breathed on.
Regardless, it's helpful to remember that wherever the Holy Spirit is referenced, it should remind us that humans were always intended to breathe God's breath. Perhaps it's the Holy Spirit that/who sets us apart from more apish living as in Francis Collin's fascinating anthropology expounded in his book, The Language of God.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Bridging the gap between homosexuals and people who wish homosexuals weren't
My post today is part of a larger initiative of more than 50 bloggers all sharing their thoughts on how to "bridge the gap." You can check out the other links at: www.btgproject.blogspot.com.
The first thought I have about the relationship/dialogue/interaction between the homosexual community and the part of the religious community that's outspoken against the homosexual lifestyle, is that those who denigrate homosexuality need to make sure they "have their house in order" before they lambaste others. Which is to say, there will be no lambs basted.
In our cultural moment, one word which is impossible to use without instant alienation is "sin." Yet that's the first question asked: "Is homosexuality sin?" When I hear this question, it reminds me of my thoughts when asked for money on the streets of Chicago. "We have a one-minute-old relationship, and forty-three seconds of that were spent talking about money. What makes me think I should trust you?" In the same way, when someone I don't know asks me my opinion about homosexuality, I have to let them know that we don't have a level of trust built to adequately deal with all sides of the issue.
If homosexuality is a sin, and if I have a propensity to condemn sinners to hell or whatever, I also need to remember my primary sins: desire for control and gossip, both as damnable as homosexuality if it is indeed damnable. I desire for people to gently prod me when I'm grasping for control beyond what God has granted me, but I want it to be people who love me. Otherwise, I'll be suspicious that they're simply trying to wrest my control away from me. If religious non-homosexuals want to have a positive relationship with homosexuals, it must be predicated on love and trust, sans agenda. Usually when we begin genuinely relating to someone who is rather different from us, we start to see suspicion eroding. We no longer have the wherewithal to ostracize them, because they are human too. It's harder to hate someone with whom we find commonality.
With a church full of adultery, gossip, hatred, and lack of value for non-American human life, I don't see why we need to single out another group to judge. Let's start with our own house and then try to begin loving those who may not be in our house.
The first thought I have about the relationship/dialogue/interaction between the homosexual community and the part of the religious community that's outspoken against the homosexual lifestyle, is that those who denigrate homosexuality need to make sure they "have their house in order" before they lambaste others. Which is to say, there will be no lambs basted.
In our cultural moment, one word which is impossible to use without instant alienation is "sin." Yet that's the first question asked: "Is homosexuality sin?" When I hear this question, it reminds me of my thoughts when asked for money on the streets of Chicago. "We have a one-minute-old relationship, and forty-three seconds of that were spent talking about money. What makes me think I should trust you?" In the same way, when someone I don't know asks me my opinion about homosexuality, I have to let them know that we don't have a level of trust built to adequately deal with all sides of the issue.
If homosexuality is a sin, and if I have a propensity to condemn sinners to hell or whatever, I also need to remember my primary sins: desire for control and gossip, both as damnable as homosexuality if it is indeed damnable. I desire for people to gently prod me when I'm grasping for control beyond what God has granted me, but I want it to be people who love me. Otherwise, I'll be suspicious that they're simply trying to wrest my control away from me. If religious non-homosexuals want to have a positive relationship with homosexuals, it must be predicated on love and trust, sans agenda. Usually when we begin genuinely relating to someone who is rather different from us, we start to see suspicion eroding. We no longer have the wherewithal to ostracize them, because they are human too. It's harder to hate someone with whom we find commonality.
With a church full of adultery, gossip, hatred, and lack of value for non-American human life, I don't see why we need to single out another group to judge. Let's start with our own house and then try to begin loving those who may not be in our house.
Friday, June 19, 2009
More Cash
Sadly not the green stuff. I'm going through my Johnny Cash collection again. Believe it or not, I actually put the song "I'm So Lonesome I Could Cry" on repeat. I didn't realize it, but the other voice on the song is Bob Dylan. There's a YouTube video of the young men singing it. The edition on American IV is fabulously mournful and haunting.
I'm really not sure why I love depressing music. Somehow it makes me happy.
I'm really not sure why I love depressing music. Somehow it makes me happy.
Streets of Laredo
In an attempt to crank through mountains of work, I'm sitting at Starbucks listening to Johnny Cash. It's working!
I just listened to Streets of Laredo from his American IV album. The piano work in the last minute as the story talks about the funeral is absolutely stunning. It's very simple with a single note every few beats, but it's very powerful.
I just listened to Streets of Laredo from his American IV album. The piano work in the last minute as the story talks about the funeral is absolutely stunning. It's very simple with a single note every few beats, but it's very powerful.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Millennial spell check
I was studying the other night for an exam, and I noticed that in Microsoft Word, postmillennialism doesn't come up as misspelled. Premillennialism and amillennialism do. Agenda?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)