(Ir)religiosity

Last time I briefly mentioned that in the book Tom Sine divides “the new conspirators” into four major streams: emerging, missional, mosaic, and monastic.¹  I’m interested to see what you think of his divisions and descriptions. I understand the need for identification, but personally I think there is more overlap with the different groups depending about locality and context.

The Emerging Stream

According to Sine — who cites several other notables including Gibbs & Bolger, Jonny Baker, Brian McLaren, and Andrew Jones just to name a few — the emerging stream is especially attuned to postmodern culture and is “actively seeking searching for the sacred in the profane.”²  Thus, emergents are more relational, experiential and are likely to be especially involved in or show a great appreciation to the arts and various forms of new media which are consequently integrated into their worship. Read the rest of this entry »

1. Tom Sine, The New Conspirators: Creating the Future One Mustard Seed at a Time (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2008), 31-55. [↩]
2. Sine, 34. [↩]

I finished reading Tom Sine’s The New Conspirators a few weeks ago and I’ve meant to throw up a review for a while now.  Because this is such a great and important book I’ve decided to devote a post for each section and hopefully open up some conversation.   If you haven’t read this book yet, I highly recommend it, especially if you’re one of those emergent-y types.  It’s a shame this book hasn’t received more publicity in emergent circles.

Sine begins the book acknowledging that we are indeed living in turbulent times as far as the church as a worldwide institution is concerned.  But instead of focusing solely on the negative he writes, “For followers of Jesus, times of challenge are always times of opportunity to give new expression to God’s love for a people and a world.”¹ Read the rest of this entry »

1. Cf. Tom Sine, The New Conspirators (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2008), 18. [↩]

Dave has a really great — and poignant — post on the Olympics and the politics surrounding the Olympics that I think really gets at the heart of the issue: yes, China has a not-so great record when it comes to human rights and environmental issues (OK, a horrible record actually), but so does the United States. Both deserve attention.  I couldn’t have said it better myself.  Check it out here.

Well, now I feel dumb for even posting on this yesterday. Rev. Mike Poage, a United Church of Christ minister in Wichita, Kansas, wrote a letter conveying the same feelings I’ve had about the possibility of President Bush boycotting the opening ceremonies of the Olympics. I’m posting it in its entirety here with permission:

“Sometimes a boycott is helpful and important. However, the idea of President Bush considering a boycott of the opening ceremonies of the Summer Olympics in China, strikes me as ludicrous and hypocritical.

This is a President whose arrogant and oligarchical reign has had lies, violation of human and civil rights, torture, and an illegal war as the foundation of his Presidency. His administration lied to get us into a horribly violent war in which we have practiced the disregard for human and civil rights through various torture techniques at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and other non-U.S locations reached through “extraordinary rendition.”

Within our own borders unwarranted wire-tapping and infiltration of peace groups by informers comes right of out of J. Edgar Hoover’s playbook. In Iraq, between one-half million and one million Iraqi civilians have died since March, 2003, with over 4,000 U.S. military deaths and over 30,000 casualties – many more if you count PTSD.

Where does President Bush find the high moral ground to even consider a boycott of the Olympics’ opening ceremonies? In fact, where would any of us? As a nation what have we done to end the war that here in 2008 70% of us oppose? In humility and with deep conviction I propose a military crimes court to put on trial President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Mr. Rumsfeld, and Mr. Wolfowitz.

In my opinion, that process could be the beginning of reconciliation, restoration of a democracy, and healing. Also, while we are at it, let’s get out of Iraq, now.”

I couldn’t have said it better myself. I’m grateful for those like Rev. Poage who unapologetically exercise their responsibility to by prophetic.

Let me be very clear: I support the human rights activists who are protesting and boycotting. If I lived in a city where the torch was coming through, I’d be right there with them. I support the plight of the Tibetans and I believe they should be free from oppression. I get that.

But I don’t think Bush should boycott the opening ceremonies.

And no, I don’t hold that position because I’m pro-Bush or because I think it would be politically or diplomatically advantageous. That’s not really what I’m about. Ever.

I just think he should be consistent. And if we’ve learned anything over the last seven years it is that George W. Bush has little to no interest in sincerely promoting human rights. Surely no one has forgotten Abu-Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. Or how about our occupation of Iraq and the countless innocents that have been killed and displaced in the process?

So, in that respect I think it would be pretty superficial if not hypocritical for our president to boycott the opening ceremonies under the guise of condemning China’s human rights record when the US as undoubtedly been doing the same sort of thing for a very long time albeit secretive (most of it anyway). It would be much better to passively remain complicit, because really, if he (and we) truly cared, then protesting would be an afterthought, as there would be some solid action happening instead of flash in the pan bandwagoning.

That is all.