Book Review: Colossians Remixed Ch. 1

The reading for this week in Colossians Remixed* is:
Chapter 1 [pp. 15-37]: "Placing Ourselves: Globalization and Postmodernity"

----------------------

1. Optimism of globalization ("empire") and postmodernism

i. Do you agree with the chapter's premise? Why?
ii. Is globalization a byproduct of Western Civilization, or something broader?
iii. Can you relate to William's experiences?
iv. How (if at all) does the current economic climate affect the chapter's premise?
v. Is this economic downturn a necessary and logical stage to globalization; a bump in the road; or something else entirely?

2. The Church

i. How does the church in America and the world fit into this globalization/postmodernism dynamic?

ii. Could one claim that mission activity has been affected by this societal phase?

3. Discussion
i. List any other thoughts, comments, or questions you have about this chapter.

List your answers in the comment section to this post by Wednesday, January 21, 2009.

------
Source: [*] Colossians Remixed [B. Walsh; S. Keesmaat].

Spring/Summer Hiatus

Barroco Cervantes has been beset again with temporary Spring hiatus. We will be back hopefully in mid to late July 2008 with our Colossians Remixed book review. Check back soon!

The Weekend Five Ruminations - 2/9/2008

Ordinarily we have five, but this week it will be three.

[1] Exceedingly saddening news is emanating once more in the tobacco industry. Over at Time, an article details a World Health Organization report forecasting 1 billion tobacco-related deaths in this century. To put it in perspective, 100 million have died this century from tobacco-related deaths. Not surprisingly, the forecast is most calamitous for populous nations with the least health care: "'the shift of the tobacco epidemic to the developing world will lead to unprecedented levels of disease and early death in countries where population growth and the potential for increased tobacco use are highest and where health care services are least available.'" I think one of the best alternatives to cope with this issue--besides outright bans--would be this policy: "'One of the most effective ways to curb tobacco use is to ban all forms of tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship, but it said only 20 of 179 countries that responded have complete bans.'" Source: Newsweek/Associated Press [Edith M. Lederer].

[2] It has been mentioned before in many contexts, but there is a clear and disturbing problem in Europe with racism in sports. Seen commonly in soccer venues, this crisis has extended to Formula One. "'In response to [prior] incidents like those, the Spanish government passed legislation last summer that imposes stiffer penalties on those who foment racism within sports. But even this new law may not be enough to combat a larger problem. 'The real issue is that Spaniards have a habit of not taking this kind of thing seriously,' says Esteban Ibarra, president of the Movement against Intolerance, a watchdog group. 'There's a banalization, a permissiveness in the face of racist incidents that worries me more than the incidents themselves. As long as society as a whole continues to see these crimes as insignificant, they're going to recur.'" I am not sure what answer lies in store to end these problems, but I suspect that the solution towards racial tolerance in European sports will frustratingly take a long time. Source: Time [Lisa Abend].

[3] I want to let everyone know that they should tune in during the upcoming weeks and months as we will be reading and analyzing Colossians Remixed, written by Brian Walsh and Sylvia Keesmaat. It looks to be an extremely interesting read, and I am sure that the discussions will be fruitful and insightful. Feel free to contribute to the discussion, we will be posting the reading schedule soon. Source: Amazon.

Recession Fears and Us

Chris Isidore has written an interesting article about the US economy at CNNMONEY.com.* He quotes several prominent economists who claim that a recession has already arrived:

"Alarm bells were set off Tuesday by a grim report on service businesses, which make up the majority of the U.S. economy. The Institute of Supply Management said that activity in the service sector declined for the first time in nearly five years. This report also indicated that employers are cutting staff. The survey covers the retail, transportation and health care industries as well as hard hit areas such as finance, real estate and construction.... Economist Bob Brusca of FAO Economics said he doubted that the U.S. was in recession a week ago, but now he believes there's about a 75% chance that a recession began in January. 'That's what recessions do. They come upon you all of a sudden," he said. "When you look back at history, you're struck by how even-keel it is until the bottom just falls out.'"

I know that many people have been dreading the economic fate of our country, what with the terrible drop in housing. But this article seems to indicate that the hit is being felt in the business sector. Aside from when our housing values will climb back, consumers must be wondering how long this set of bad news will play out:

"Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond President Jeffrey Lacker, who is known primarily for being more concerned about inflation than economic growth, said in a speech Tuesday that 'the prominence of downside risks means that further easing ultimately may be warranted.' Lacker does not get to vote on monetary policy decisions this year, however. Lacker added that 'sluggish growth in the near term' -- not an actual recession -- is the most likely economic scenario. But he did not completely rule out the possibility of a 'mild recession, similar to the last two we have experienced.'"

It comes as no surprise that the most sense we tend to have about the economy as consumers is almost entirely based on our own personal expenditures. The question becomes how much of this economic downturn is truly felt by everyday people. One would find it difficult to separate business cycles from our own true economics when it seems that our pocketbooks reflect the surging cost of energy and insurance, which we don't always (or rarely) see reflected in scientific economic reports. Frankly, some data on those realities could place this current economic cycle into a realizable context for consumers.
------
Source: [*] CNNMONEY.com [Chris Isidore].

The Illogical Chaos of Disbelief

Edward T. Oakes, S.J. has a lengthy article about the so-called "new atheism" over at First Things*. I sometimes hesitate to give so much air time to these articles on atheism, as I feel we should be constructively discussing Christianity, but I felt that this one deserved a look. We should nevertheless always be open to the discussion of ideas, which is after all, the purpose of this blog.

This is Oakes's ending paragraph, to give you a sense of the article:

"Given these hopelessly confused and superficial arguments, it’s hard to take the new atheism seriously. Nietzsche was surely right when he said that serious Christians would come to appreciate his witness. But who can take seriously these recent tub-thumping accusations that believers are the sole source of violence, all coming from writers who themselves advocate violence in their next breath? That’s why these books from the new atheists can hardly represent a threat to believers. Pascal was already on to their game in the seventeenth century: “All those contradictions that seemed to take me furthest from the knowledge of any religion,” he said in the Pensées, “are what led me most directly to the true religion.”
------
Source: [*] First Things [Edward T. Oakes, S.J.].

Hiatus Returns

Barroco Cervantes will be on hiatus until February 1, 2008. Comments and guest submissions are welcome in the meantime. Just leave a comment to this post with your submission content, and I will look to add it. Finally, if you have a blog, feel free to add Barroco Cervantes to your blogroll to increase our readership!

Don't forget to check in daily for the daily scripture on the sidebar.

The Weekend Five Ruminations - 11/17/2007

[1] CNN reports on the American Academy of Religion's study of the completely insufferable concept of the "flying sphaghetti monster" at their annual conference. The idea was thought up by a graduate student as a satire of the intelligent design movement. While I have no severe nor direct quarrel with satire, this attempt to level a derisive barrage on religion contains too much danger to be taking humorously, much less seriously.

I believe there are better ways to intellectually debate concepts like intelligent design. Whatever your views on that subject, this satirical method comes dangerously close (and in my book crosses) the line between discussion and outright mockery, or even a form of (at least) indirect idolatry; which implicitly connotes rejection.

Even if, as some proponents might suggest, the purpose "between the lines" of the satire is to point out that if one method gets time in the classroom then others should as well is inherently dangerous on two points. One, that organized religion is inherently on par with the monster. I need not expand upon this. Second, and more crucially, that the concept inherently mocks not only intelligent design, but ultimately religion and theism itself. The true between-the-lines commentary of the concept is that religion is mutually exclusive to science and knowledge, and thus religion and its contents should suffer the exile of societal irrelevancy. That logical chain demonstrates the severe rejection dangers.

[2] On an infintely brighter note, I would like to point out that on the sidebar, directly below the picture of Don Cervantes, there are two new additions. Courtesy of TNIV (Today's New International Version), we have a bible search function (by keyword or passage) and a scripture feature updated daily via RSS feed.

[3] Regarding an earlier post (and its comments) on Mr. Robertson's endorsement of Mr. Giuliani, I have an additional point. The use of "religious right" has received I believe the same villification that terms such as "neo-conservative", or even "liberal" (years ago) obtained. I am not entirely sure if the sense of its use connotes politicians expounding religious viewpoints, or the entire politican-and-bloc of religious adherents. Either way, I fear that the mere mention of "religious right" has the sole use of mockery and derision. It should not blanket conservative voters who identify with religion.

[4] I would hope that Pakistan can settle their governmental dilemma. It seems there is a spate of governments in peril, or rather the inverse (regarding the public) in places such as Burma. One prays that the resolution arrives quickly and peacefully.

[5] Back to the presidential elections. In the interest of winding up the Weekend Five with some brevity, all I will say is that with so many choices there are so few. Time will tell, but I am not keen on the current election cycle.
-------
Sources: [1] CNN. [2] TNIV.

Neuhaus on Religion and Politics

Over at the First Things blog, Richard John Neuhaus recounts* a debate sponsored by The Economist last week in New York. The discussion concerned a proposed resolution (surprise) that politics and religion should always be separate. Neuhaus presents his quite admirable opening statement in his post (all bias aside). Much of his argument aligns with my thoughts on the matter, and while I highly recommend reading through the entire statement, I will relay some quotes:

"It is not true that our society is divided between a moral majority of the religious, on the one hand, and an immoral or amoral minority of the nonreligious, on the other. Atheists can have moral convictions that are every bit as strong as the moral convictions of the devout Christian or observant Jew. What we have in the political arena is not a division between the moral and the immoral but an ongoing contention between different moral visions addressing the political question—how ought we to order our life together...

...[t]he idea that some citizens should be excluded from addressing that question because their arguments are religious, or that others should be excluded because their arguments are nonreligious or antireligious, is an idea deeply alien to the representative democracy that this constitutional order is designed to protect. A foundational principle of that order is that all citizens have equal standing in the public square."
------
Source: [*] First Things [Richard John Neuhaus].

Christian Types

Over at Christianity Today/Leadership Journal, Helen Lee reports* on a new (and quite detailed) survey which attempts to chronicle and categorize Christians into various classifications, or levels, as it were. Factors include church attendance, relationships, and media.

While I tend to be somewhat cautious about categorization in general, as such surveying does not always serve to keep us focused on God and our duties, I must say that this particular report caught my eye. The list at the bottom of the report, while not nearly exhaustive (nor is it meant to be), asks us quite blatantly where we stand in our day-to-day faith.

Much as the pendulum swings, we can easily find ourselves wavering between "professing" and "cultural" in our faith. Obvious points notwithstanding, I think this report's true purpose is not to advance a Linnaeus-esque classification scheme, but to serve as a vigilant reminder that our journey is always ongoing, and that we should not rest too comfortably, lest we take our faith for granted.

------
Source: Material linked above is copyrighted (2007) by Christianity Today/Leadership Journal [Helen Lee] and thus is not reprinted here. Please visit the link to see the report.

Death Tax Revisited?

Brian Reardon has an excellent guest commentary* over at National Review Online regarding the return of the so-called death tax, set to return in 2010. For those new to tax law this tax simply is applied against a person's estate upon their death.

It was repealed in 2001 and replaced temporarily with a capital gains tax. The more basic difference is in terms of valuation:

"People don’t really know what their estates are worth, so they also don’t know what will be owed on their estates when they pass. Most of the litigation surrounding the estate tax — and there is lots of it — involves disputes over the underlying value of an estate’s assets. But with a capital-gains tax there is no dispute. The value is the sales price."

Of course, there are advocates on both sides of the aisle, but arguably, this repeal really was solid public policy. Reardon closes with this point:

"What will the thousands of successful, hard-working people who are busy making their estate plans right now do differently if the death tax is permanently replaced with a simple capital-gains tax? The answer is they will make decisions based on what’s good for them, their families, their businesses, and their communities — and no longer worry about how to avoid or minimize a poorly thought-out tax."
------
Source: [*] National Review Online [Brian Reardon].