Theoblogical

don’t say, as Hayes does, that he believes achieving racial progress is just a matter of having the right conversations.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/04/ponder-what-isnt-mocked-as-racially-unenlightened-in-america/274939/

The things Conor Friersdorf claims Rand Paul believes that supposedly shoot down  Chris Hayes saying the above are , again,  things SAID.  Paul SAYS stuff.  But the behavior and advocacy are simply not there.  The attempts to roll back Voting Rights,  the absence of anything concrete to back Main Street,  REGARDLESS of what he CLAIMS to believe,  are simply not arguments against Hayes’ charge.

In effect,  Friersdorf takes things said in conversation/speech,  and uses them to try to defend Paul against charges (legitimate and fitting IMO)  that Paul thinks you just have to change how you talk about things,  when that is exactly what he’s doing when he says what he “believes” and then votes with the right wing on numerous economic matters.

When I saw this Livestream speech at the 2013 NCMR (National Conference for Media Reform) via Jay Rosen’s twitter link to the transcript,  I began thinking about how Church “Social Media” seems oblivious to the social issues;  to the opportunities to be advocates for “the people” and what’s really best for the “Common Good” .  Rather,  they tend to be cheerleaders for the technology while blissfully unaware of the efforts of the monied interests in this country to bilk the larger society to benefit the wealthiest.  It’s the same syndrome the churches suffered re: the Occupy movement.  These “blinders” that the churches submissively adopt are ,  in part,  out of an adoption of the status quo,  which today seems to require a dissmissive attitude toward the efforts of people to call attention to the disturbing trends of the oligarchic excesses of our government and its corporate benefactors.  The Obama administration seems to have made no effort to curb these excesses, in direct contradiction to the talk of “changing the way Washington works”,  while all the while succumbing to those very “workings”.  Nowhere is this more apparent than in the telecom industry monopolies.

Obama succumbed to the pressures against his prior desire to appoint Elizabeth Warren to  head a “Consumer Advocate Agency”.  NOw he has the opportunity to appoint another strong consumer advocate to head the FCC,  but it seems that too will succumb (already is)  to the pressures of the telecom lobby,  who hold a literal stranglehold on the efforts within the technology and infrastructure of communities to battle the economic “blocking power” of the big telecom Internet providers.  Just as Obama passed up momentous opportunities to impose strong medicine on the Big Banks at a time when they themselves were expecting strong medicine and acquiescing to the inevitability of it,  Obama let them off practically scot-free.  It seems that this tendency has been a long standing stance of the administration in regards to the blatant abuse of lobbying power to practically kill innovation in providing economy boosting, job creating infrastructure technology building projects to provide what many of the other advanced countries are providing for their citizens.  But our “free market” is an Orwellian jest at this notion.  It is the exact opposite.  Telelcoms pressure governments with money power to squelch the abilities of communities to demand their own municipalities the ability and freedom to innovate,  build,  and grow.  Disgusting.  And what really frustrates me is that the church doesn’t use it’s “LITERAL PULPIT”  or much of any effort to hlep make these atrocities known for the usurpation of rights they represent.

Although he is not at all hesitant to provide details (which he does) , Wolff is the most concise and direct articulator of the “Crisis in Capitalism” I know. I now seek out as many of his appearances as I can.

I’m sorry but the article you are looking for has been removed. You can read it at the author’s personal blog.

http://www.redletterchristians.org/should-we-give-up-god-for-lent/

OK,  points for re-linking over to Micah’s blog for that post.  But I have so many  points at which I am feeling embarassed for how RLC handled this.

1.  NEVER do that.  Let comments expound the conversation.  I can see how certain extremely volatile cases might warrant some “moderation”,  but I simply didnt see it here.  AT ALL.

2.  Taking it down is just relapsing back into old media reactions.  The cat is out of the bag becuase of Social Media.  Previous tweets from @REDLETTERXns ‘ own Twitter account point to the RLC link,  which now reads as shown above in the quote.   Just looks silly in today’s world.

3.  Since when does either the Emergent conversation OR Red Letter Christians conversation reject the notion of some pretty important theological or philosophical conversation?  Peter Rollins certainly doesn’t if I understand him at all.  Neither does Tony Campolo, Shane Claiborne,  or any of the people who conceived of the Red Letter Christians designation/sensibility.  And,  as Micah Bales obviously freely shared,  neither does he.  So wha??????? Why all this?

Sorry,  but I had to rant.

Read this post from my friend Jeremy John last night,  and he raises up many of the dimensions that emerged from the post by @MicahBales responding to what he sees as a danger/distortion  that lies in “over-intellectualizing” or “internalizing”  the philosophical challenges so often articulately formed by @PeterRollins.  I’ve read a couple of Peter’s books,  and have had the opprtunity to hear him live on three occasions.  I’m impressed with his insights.   I identify with much of them in a deeply spirtual way.  He reminds me of the things being said back in the “Lay Renewal” , “Relational Theology” days of Keith Miller and Bruce Larson and Robert Raines in the 70′s.  These are the theologies on which I arrived into the church with renewed passion for ministry,  and decided to go to seminary.  I told Peter this after I heard him for the first time at WGF 2011.

Jeremy tells a story about himself here that lifts up the importance of what Rollins often covers in his many treatments of the experience of the sense of absence of God.  I can’t deny (nor do I want to )  that it matches the experiences I have had many times over the past 40 years of seeking to follow Christ.  And Jeremy also expresses a similar appreciation for the philosophical rigor and articulation expressed so artfully by Peter Rollins.

Jeremy also knows Micah Bales,  and fully understands Micah’s misgivings of which he wrote,  and of which I have heard him speak in past  conversations with him when I met them both via OccupyDC and OccupyChurch  last spring and summer.  This is a MUST READ along with Brian Merritt’s post this morning.  So proud to have these 3 men as friends! (Micah, Jeremy, and Brian), and to have had the opportunity to chat briefly with Peter on a few occasions.

http://glassdimly.com/blog/christ/waiting-god-dark-night-soul-peter-rollins-atheism-lent