So, I've been reading The Gospel According to the Beatles by Steve Turner. Really insightful read by a person that I would esteem the most knowledgeable Beatles expert out there. Another more musically focused book of his, A Hard Day's Write, is only slightly better than TGATTB.
This book is about how the religious beliefs of the Beatles affected their lives and music. There are definitely a lot of low points, but also some high points...haha...high points...and some points that we can learn from as Christians.
Currently in the final chapter, which describes the post-Beatles lives of John, Paul, George, and Ringo, George's son, Dhani, reflects on his now dead father's attitude toward life:
"My dad was constantly re-evaluating his thinking. He was always saying, 'The most important thing is, Who am I? What am I doing? Where am I going? Why am I going anywhere?' And to even ask those questions--some people haven't even begun. So a lot of the music is just posing questions--maybe to himself. Or maybe he's posing the questions in his music because he's already found the answer for himself" (pg. 180).
I found this remarkably insightful into the strong spiritual side of George from 1967 until his death in 2001, including his involvement with the Hare Krishnas, transcendental meditation, and social activism. Turns out that it's not just Christians who are out there thinking about "worldview."
Any thoughts?
Anyone actually still read this?
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Monday, April 7, 2008
Chesterton's Orthodoxy
In case you want to purchase it online (which doesn't make sense, B&N has it REALLY cheap) and it won't deliver on time, you can read a large chunk of it here.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Saturday, March 8, 2008
New Movie out in Spring 2008
So Ben Stein (yes, that Ben Stein) is releasing a movie this spring concerning the hostility of the scientific community against those within its ranks that might consider intelligent design a possibility. Sounds interesting...check out the trailer...
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playground.php
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playground.php
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Dealing with Postmodernism
I was studying for my Church History 2 final this morning, when I came across some very interesting commentary on interactions between the Church and the postmodern culture in which we currently live. One particularly poignant section of the lecture discussed the Challenges of a Postmodern World. They were as follows:
1. Relativism - "almost every student entering the university says he believes that the truth is relative"
2. Individualism - "We share public space with people in church but do not really know many people or share in true community with them."
3. Fragmentation - Our proliferation of denominations, sub-groups, and branches within Christianity confronts our "need to learn to work together for the cause of the gospel."
4. Division between the head-centered and the heart-centered - people are typically either restless experientialists (feeling-oriented; grasping after novelties and entertainment; eschew solid study and disciplined meditation), or entrenched intellectualists (orthodoxy is everything; rigid; argumentative; critical; experiences don't mean much for them). We need both the heart and the mind.
5. Self-centeredness - overly concerned about "ourselves, our rights, our desires and interests," instead of being God-centered
6. Growing hostility toward people of the faith - increase in institutionalized persecution and martyrdom around the world
My question is this:
How has our discussion of worldview thus far encountered these issues? In our discussions are we actually becoming more able to interact with this sort of culture or are we merely building up our own egos/agendas? How can we encourage dialogue amongst ourselves that will counteract the negative effects of our culture?
Your comments are appreciated and expected.
1. Relativism - "almost every student entering the university says he believes that the truth is relative"
2. Individualism - "We share public space with people in church but do not really know many people or share in true community with them."
3. Fragmentation - Our proliferation of denominations, sub-groups, and branches within Christianity confronts our "need to learn to work together for the cause of the gospel."
4. Division between the head-centered and the heart-centered - people are typically either restless experientialists (feeling-oriented; grasping after novelties and entertainment; eschew solid study and disciplined meditation), or entrenched intellectualists (orthodoxy is everything; rigid; argumentative; critical; experiences don't mean much for them). We need both the heart and the mind.
5. Self-centeredness - overly concerned about "ourselves, our rights, our desires and interests," instead of being God-centered
6. Growing hostility toward people of the faith - increase in institutionalized persecution and martyrdom around the world
My question is this:
How has our discussion of worldview thus far encountered these issues? In our discussions are we actually becoming more able to interact with this sort of culture or are we merely building up our own egos/agendas? How can we encourage dialogue amongst ourselves that will counteract the negative effects of our culture?
Your comments are appreciated and expected.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
The Archbishop and Sharia
What Empty Churches Are Made of
There are an estimated 1.6 million Muslims in Great Britain. By some estimates, more people attend mosque than go to Anglican churches every week. Judging by recent comments by the Archbishop of Canterbury, it is easy to see why.
As most of you by now know, Archbishop Rowan William said in a recent interview that the “UK has to ‘face up to the fact’ that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.” He left no doubt who those “citizens” are: British Muslims.
So according to Williams, British Muslims should not have to choose between “the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty.” Instead, in the tradition of having your cake and eating it too, he proposes finding “a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law”—in other words, sharia.
British Muslims could choose to have “marital” or “financial” disputes resolved in sharia courts. Sharia courts in Britain? At first I thought the Archbishop misspoke. But it turns out, no. He calls this “supplementary jurisdiction” unavoidable. He compared it to accommodating Christians in areas like abortion or gay adoption.
With all due respect to the Archbishop, there is no such parallel. The only thing that is unavoidable here is his failure to see sharia as it is practiced in the real world, as opposed to in seminars. As the Asia Times columnist “Spengler” put it, Williams is conceding “a permanent role to extralegal violence in the political life of England.”
In real-world Muslim communities throughout Europe, coercion is so commonplace “that duly-constituted governments there” no longer wield justice among its citizens. The imams do. And where would the Archbishop draw the line? At husbands beating their wives for wearing Western clothes or maybe stoning a woman accused of adultery?
Nor will, as Williams hopes, permitting sharia on British soil aid social cohesion. On the contrary, Williams’s fellow bishop, Michael Nazir-Ali, recently spoke about what he calls “no-go zones” in Muslim communities where Christians dare not enter. As a result of death threats, bishop Nazir-Ali and his family require police protection.
Nazir-Ali, whose father had to leave Pakistan after converting to Christianity, told the UK Telegraph that sharia is “in tension” with “fundamental aspects” of Anglo-American law. That is because our “legal tradition” is “rooted in the quite different moral and spiritual vision deriving from the Bible.” This crucial difference seems to have escaped the Archbishop of Canterbury.
The West’s greatest contribution to civilization has been the rule of law, the bulwark of freedom, captured in Anglo-American jurisprudence. Now a ranking religious official proposes compromising that with a theocratic church rule? Please.
Williams’s comments are a tragic sign of the Church’s weakness. We fawningly respond to Islamic overtures for dialogue, even as we see Christians being persecuted in Muslim nations—and sharia law being imposed on others right in our own backyards.
This weakness is the stuff that empty churches are made of.
By Chuck Colson 2/25/2008
There are an estimated 1.6 million Muslims in Great Britain. By some estimates, more people attend mosque than go to Anglican churches every week. Judging by recent comments by the Archbishop of Canterbury, it is easy to see why.
As most of you by now know, Archbishop Rowan William said in a recent interview that the “UK has to ‘face up to the fact’ that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.” He left no doubt who those “citizens” are: British Muslims.
So according to Williams, British Muslims should not have to choose between “the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty.” Instead, in the tradition of having your cake and eating it too, he proposes finding “a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law”—in other words, sharia.
British Muslims could choose to have “marital” or “financial” disputes resolved in sharia courts. Sharia courts in Britain? At first I thought the Archbishop misspoke. But it turns out, no. He calls this “supplementary jurisdiction” unavoidable. He compared it to accommodating Christians in areas like abortion or gay adoption.
With all due respect to the Archbishop, there is no such parallel. The only thing that is unavoidable here is his failure to see sharia as it is practiced in the real world, as opposed to in seminars. As the Asia Times columnist “Spengler” put it, Williams is conceding “a permanent role to extralegal violence in the political life of England.”
In real-world Muslim communities throughout Europe, coercion is so commonplace “that duly-constituted governments there” no longer wield justice among its citizens. The imams do. And where would the Archbishop draw the line? At husbands beating their wives for wearing Western clothes or maybe stoning a woman accused of adultery?
Nor will, as Williams hopes, permitting sharia on British soil aid social cohesion. On the contrary, Williams’s fellow bishop, Michael Nazir-Ali, recently spoke about what he calls “no-go zones” in Muslim communities where Christians dare not enter. As a result of death threats, bishop Nazir-Ali and his family require police protection.
Nazir-Ali, whose father had to leave Pakistan after converting to Christianity, told the UK Telegraph that sharia is “in tension” with “fundamental aspects” of Anglo-American law. That is because our “legal tradition” is “rooted in the quite different moral and spiritual vision deriving from the Bible.” This crucial difference seems to have escaped the Archbishop of Canterbury.
The West’s greatest contribution to civilization has been the rule of law, the bulwark of freedom, captured in Anglo-American jurisprudence. Now a ranking religious official proposes compromising that with a theocratic church rule? Please.
Williams’s comments are a tragic sign of the Church’s weakness. We fawningly respond to Islamic overtures for dialogue, even as we see Christians being persecuted in Muslim nations—and sharia law being imposed on others right in our own backyards.
This weakness is the stuff that empty churches are made of.
By Chuck Colson 2/25/2008
Monday, February 18, 2008
Response to Sharia Law in the U.K.
Here is the link to the article on FOXNews regarding Anglican Archbishop supporting Sharia Law inthe U.K. - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330347,00.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)