February 2005 Archives

On the way to Pittsburgh, Kirstin and I were both feeling like we didn't know why we were going to Jubilee. Last week was extremely hectic and didn't help our outlook for the weekend. I had just returned from Kansas, leaving only four days to take a mid-term exam, finish two major class projects (which didn't happen), publish a new catapult issue, secure volunteers for World Fare and prepare for the conference and a week-long vacation to Boston. Looking back over the last year, it felt like we hadn't accomplished much. We still haven't finished cultureVision, which is a source of constant frustration, and we've been feeling somewhat directionless lately. So we weren't sure why we were spending money on a conference to promote something so seemingly uncertain.

Though Jubilee didn't bring miraculous certainty, it did provide encouragement for the work we have been doing (such as catapult and the road journal) and challenges for the future.

First, we need to discern our purpose when displaying at conferences. It simply isn't enough to set up a table with some basic information about what we're trying to do with *cino; our vision is far too broad to thoroughly communicate during the brief encounters of conferences. We need to find ways to show what we're doing instead of merely telling. One idea is to create booklets of catapult articles on different topics (music, film, economics/business, food, politics, etc.) to illustrate Christ's lordship over all areas of life, while at the same time providing resources for further exploration. Perhaps we can have one or two of these available in time for the Calvin Festival of Faith & Music in April.

Next, we need to seriously assess the direction *cino is going. Unfortunately, we won't have time for assessment until after I graduate; however, we did realize (again) the importance of the network to both the vision of *cino and (hopefully) the Church. Bringing people together and providing a community for those actively engaging culture is critically important if we are to have any kind of transformative impact on the world. And that's where we think *cino has the greatest potential.

Practically, displaying at Jubilee proved to be more valuable than we thought it would be during our drive in. We introduced some new people to *cino, despite our uncertanties, and were encouraged by wonderful people whom we admire greatly--Gideon and Angela Strauss, the Strausslings (Shimmer and Summer), Peter Illyn, Ken Heffner, Scott Calgaro, Sarah and Pete Landini, Derek Melleby, Byron Borger, Hank Suhr, Dayton Castleman and others.

So, Jubilee 2005 was a good and refreshing experience overall. We're more than likely going to return next year. In fact, I can see us making this an annual occasion ...

We've had limited internet access at the hotel (it isn't free this year), so significant updates will have to wait until later.

As always, we've been able to spend some time with wonderful people like Gideon Strauss, Scott Calgaro (of CCO and Dialogical Coffeehouse fame), Derek Melleby, Hank Suhr, Peter Illyn (Restoring Eden), Chelsea Perez, Sarah and Pete Landini, Joel Zuidhof (OVERHANG), and several others I've probably accidentally omitted.

It's exciting to see 1,500 college students coming together to explore how faith is integrated with all aspects of life ...

We've just finished packing and we're off to the annual Coalition for Christian Outreach Jubilee Conference. More when we get there ...

I returned home Sunday night around 11:30 after having traveled nearly 18 hours from Newton, Kansas, with my nine intrepid traveling companions. Due to my lack of sleep the previous three days (maybe 13 hours total), I collapsed into bed and slept for 11 uninterrupted hours.

The conference was a good experience, particularly the time I spent with my fellow Goshen College students. Being a student who commutes 30 miles to school two days a week means I don't get to establish the kinds of relationships enjoyed by traditional students, so I really value and appreciate these kinds of opportunities to connect with my peers.

Jim Wallis stuck to a script familiar to Sojourners' readers, but offered some challenges directly to his Mennonite audience. "If nonviolence is to be credible," he said, "it must answer questions violence purports to answer in a better way." It isn't credible to merely protest war--particularly while living a comfortable, risk-free middle class life--peacemakers need to provide alternatives. And peacemakers need to be willing to risk as much as those who would espouse violence as a sometimes-necessary means to an end. Christian Peacemaker Teams would be one example of peacemakers willing to risk their lives for the peace. They boldly ask: "What would happen if Christians devoted the same discipline and self-sacrifice to nonviolent peacemaking that armies devote to war?" Yes, what if? The implications seem staggering ...

Mr. Wallis said much more, of course, but I've run out of time for blogging. Perhaps I'll write more later.

I think the highlight of the trip (for me anyway) was playing in a cobbled together bluegrass band in Saturday night's talent show. Several Goshen folk (guitars, mandolin, voices) collaborated with a few Bethel students (fiddle, upright bass, voices) to play a few standards and songs by Gillian Welch and Old Crow Medicine Show. I had so much fun that I decided I need to play more despite my utter lack of time to do so. Oh, and I need to get a mandolin (despite my utter lack of funds to do so).

Tomorrow morning, I'll be hopping in a 15-passenger van with several other Goshen College folks to drive approximately 800 miles to Bethel College in North Newton, Kansas, for the annual Intercollegiate Peace Fellowship (ICPF) gathering. This year's theme is "Reaching Across Boundaries Through Dialogue" and the keynote speaker is Sojourner's editor Jim Wallis.

The conference hopes to specifically address domestic divisions, making Mr. Wallis an ideal choice. His recent book, God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It, deals with a popular topic for Wallis, namely getting the left and right in the United States to work together in an effort to protect and provide necessities for the poor and dispossessed.

While I'm looking forward to the conference, I have to admit that I'm not too eager to travel 12-13 hours in a van (both tomorrow and Sunday). I love ground travel (particularly when I'm driving), but vans and buses don't sit well with me. My travel companions should make the trip easier to stomach, though.

Several folks have started group blogs lately as vehicles to discussion (ex. - The Dialogical Coffeehouse); while the intention of these efforts is certainly good, I don't think the blog is the best technology available for online discussion. Discussion boards facilitate interaction far better. Perhaps looking at the created purpose for each of these tools would shed light on how we could be using each more effectively.

Discussion boards, or forums, were created for the sole purpose of allowing online discussions. Forums are centralized; users become involved by creating accounts on a board created and maintained by an organization or another individual. Recent versions have included additional tools, such as private messaging between forum members, but the primary function remains the same. Because the function hasn't changed since inception, discussion boards perform their tasks extremely well.

The centralized nature of discussion boards is their most valuable asset. Everyone involved is discussing topics in one place, allowing users the convenience of checking one site for discussion activity--indeed, most discussion boards offer users the ability to "subscribe" to certain topics, meaning that an e-mail is sent to all subscribers each time a new post is added. Eventually, as people get to know one another's posting habits, a community is formed.

Blogs, on the other hand, were created as personal "content management systems," which allow average internet users to post content (essays, photos, random thoughts, etc.) quickly and easily. Primarily, blogs allow people to stake their claim in the new world of the internet, giving them an area of the web to cultivate as their own. In many cases, blogs merely fulfill the narcissistic needs of their authors; but in others, blogs give voice to people who have important things to share. Blogs are a great medium to keep friends, family and colleagues updated about the blogger's life and/or projects.

The benefit of blogging is its decentralized structure. Each user sets up his/her own site and can build their own interface, with user-specific links, topic categories, etc. Eventually, networks form around people with similar interests and bloggers begin discussing topics across blogs. These networks, or communities, are perhaps the single most valuable aspect of the blog phenomenon.

So we have two distinct tools developed for distinct purposes--one for group discussion, the other for individual publishing--both filling similar yet unique roles toward building community online. But there's a problem. Blogs have extended beyond their sphere of use to infringe on the sphere of the discussion board. People have developed group blogs to foster discussion using the ubiquitous comments feature in blogging software. Unfortunately, these efforts seem strained because blogs aren't built primarily for discussion; it works, but it doesn't work well. Using blogs for discussion is inefficient and time-consuming; likewise, using discussion boards for blogging doesn't provide the individual the opportunity to create.

The spheres of the blog and the discussion board--each with its own unique function--need to be maintained and allowed to overlap only when appropriate.

The best solution, it seems, would be for a discussion board to fulfill the comment function for several blogs. For example, several bloggers could enter into an association of sorts with an organization that hosted a discussion board. Each blogger would have their own separate blogs, allowing each the ability to post at will. When a visitor to an individual blogger's site went to post a comment, a thread would automatically be started on the organization's discussion board with the blogger's entry as the initial post and the visitor's comment as the first reply. Perhaps a link to the blogger's site could be automatically generated and entered above his/her post (ex. - This post is from an entry on _____'s blog).

This solution would allow each tool to function to its fullest and would extend the community-forming ability of each. In fact, the network would extend further and grow more quickly. Each tool would be fulfilling the purpose of its own sphere, overlapping with the other only where appropriate.

So there's my idea. I have no idea how to make it work, but I'd love to see it established with *cino's discussion board and a lot of the bloggers I visit regularly. It seems some sort of plugin for phpBB could be built, but I'm not that technologically savvy ...

My presentation on Saturday went well and, as a result, I've been asked to write a series of columns for Goshen College's newspaper, The Record, on cultural engagement. I'm excited for the opportunity, but I think I should tone down the explicit Neocalvinist rhetoric while still getting across the strengths of the tradition.

I've posted the entire paper below; I hope I've accurately represented both Neocalvinism and Wink.

Check out the new *cino bookshelf, courtesy of Powells.com. We're going to keep it "stocked" with interesting books for you to peruse (including some fiction, when Kirstin gets around to it). And, as always, anything you purchase from Powells.com after following a link from *cino earns *cino 7% of the purchase price.

Tomorrow, I'll be presenting a paper titled "Engaging the World: The Intersection of Neocalvinism and Walter Wink" at Goshen College's undergraduate research symposium. The presentation is based on a comparative book review I wrote last semester comparing and contrasting Walter Wink's Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination with the the Neocalvinist theology of creation, fall and redemption.

Wink uses a creation, fall, redemption model in his analysis of the Powers, which he identifies as "the spirituality of institutions" and "their outer manifestations." Having so defined principlaties and powers--instead of as merely disembodied spirits, ala Frank Peretti--Wink holds that structures and systems rebelling against their divine vocations is evidence of the demonic. He uses the term "Domination System" to describe what happens "when an entire network of Powers becomes integrated around idolatrous values." He goes on to argue:

Any attempt to transform a social system without addressing both its spirituality and its outer forms is doomed to failure. Only by confronting the spirituality of an institution and its concretions can the total entity be transformed, and that requires a kind of spiritual discernment and praxis that the materialistic ethos in which we live knows nothing about.

His primary thesis, then, is that the Powers are good, the Powers are fallen and the Powers must be redeemed.

In their different approaches to creation, fall, redemption, Walter Wink and Neocalvinists bring different theological strengths to the table. I'll be exploring these in my paper (which I still need to finish!) and posting them here when available.

In my previous post, I espoused the amazing and wonderful virtues of Apple computers. Brian Janaszek rightfully pointed out in the comments section that Macs are not as perfect in every way as I may have suggested; there are a few technical problems here and there. But I think most average users would never be confronted with said problems.

Having said that, I did encounter a problem this morning that was more than a little annoying. Lest you barrage me with "I knew there was a catch!" comments, it should be known that the problem was with one of the few Microsoft programs I use on my Mac. Microsoft Entourage (an e-mail client) has been crashing without explanation for some time now and I've chosen to ignore it. But this morning, it crashed repeatedly while retreiving my weekend e-mail to the point where it would no longer download anything before it crashed again.

So I moved all of my e-mail over to Mail, Apple's e-mail application. The transition has been seamless thus far, though I still need to get accustomed to the new program.

I know I said that Microsoft's Mac version of Office was competent. For the most part it is, but I'm finding less dependence on Redmond is proving better all the time.

There. I said it. And it's true.

While Apple only has a 3% market share in the U.S. computer market, its computers simply work better than Windows based machines. After hearing story after story from family and friends, and after trying in vain to help intelligent and computer-savvy Windows users figure out how to do seemingly simple tasks on their machines, I'm left asking the same questions Mark Morford asked in his recent SF Gate column: Why do people put up with the frustration and futility that is owning and operating a Windows machine? It simply isn't comprehensible.

The most common objections to switching over to the Mac world are: 1) Mac and Windows aren't compatible; 2) Macs don't have as much software or hardware available as Windows; and 3) Macs are more expensive.

Though it's true that Macs haven't been compatible with Windows historically, Macs are now almost 100% compatible with the Windows world. Both operating systems write in exactly the same file format for most applications, such as Microsoft Word, Quicken and Adobe Photoshop. Internet applications, such as web browsers and e-mail clients, are cross-platform.

Macs have all the software the average computer user needs. Macs come with: Safari, an internet browser far better than Explorer; Mail, an easy-to-use e-mail application; iChat, the simplest and best application for instant messaging and audio/video conferencing; AppleWorks, a Word compatible word processor; Quicken, the standard personal finance application; and the amazing iLife suite, which allows you to organize and edit photos, movies and music. Right out of the box, Macs can do everything an average user needs. I can admit, though, that AppleWorks pretty much stinks as a word processor. And a lot of people are already familiar with Microsoft Office for many of the tasks they do. Fear not! Microsoft makes a great Mac version of Office, which includes Word, Power Point, Excel and Entourage (Mac Outlook). Even if you're a gamer, most game manufacturers make Mac versions.

Macs have typically been more expensive, but it's always been a difficult comparison to make accurately. Typical Windows computers last a year or two before they've gotten so slow you can't do the things you want to do on your computer. Before I converted to Mac, I owned five PCs in five years. Since then, I've had two Macs in five years--the only reason I got rid of the first one is because I needed a laptop instead of a desktop. So, over the long run, Mac ownership will actually save you money. And with the addition of the $500 Mac Mini, this excuse simply doesn't hold water anymore.

So let's review. Macs can do everything you need them to and you won't have to worry about viruses, spyware or any of the other debilitating crap PC users put up with. Macs are easier to use than PCs. Macs can connect to just about any hardware you need them to (networks, mice, printers, projectors, TVs) without any hassle. In sum, Macs just work.

Some day, I'm going to connect Reformed theology with the gospel of Mac; but for now ... advertisement over.

My mother lent me a book of daily readings by C.S. Lewis at Christmas and, though we initially forgot to take it back to Michigan with us, I'm trying to get into the habit of reading the selection for each day. She worked her way through it last year because, as she reminds us often, Lewis was her grandfather's favorite author. I'm already eager to read wholes from which these pieces were culled.

All of this is to give you fair warning that I'll probably be quoting Lewis quite often in the near future and I'll most likely take him completely out of context (as I'm merely reading excerpts).

Today's reading struck an interesting parrallel with Abraham Kuyper's famous quote:

There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is sovereign over all, does not cry "Mine!"

Lewis, though coming from an angle of piety, echoes these sentiments:

What cannot be admitted--what must exist only as an undefeated but daily resisted enemy--is the idea of something that is "our own," some area in which we are to be "out of school," on which God has no claim.

For He claims all, because He is love and must bless. He cannot bless us unless He has us. When we try to keep within us an area that is our own, we try to keep an area of death. Therefore, in love, He claims all. There's no bargaining with Him.

--from "A Slip of the Tongue" (The Weight of Glory)

It's difficult to imagine what a wholly transformed life might look like, and yet that's exactly what we're called to. The implications, both personal and communal, are absolutely staggering.