ZARQ

apologetics in a post modern world

tm — Mon, 19 May 2008 21:07:24 +0000

Apologetics has been a big thing for the modern-worldview steeped church -- particularly in evangelical circles. The goal has been to prove why christianity works. The value of this of course relies on a modern worldview -- where one believes in human-knowable objective truths.

In the post-modern world, we're going to have to rethink apologetics significantly.

This is because, first, post-modernism doesn't buy into human-knowable objective truth. So proving things fails to be meaningful to a post-modern.

Second, because the very premise of christianity is faith. Faith is at odds with proof. This actually has been a failure of much of apologetics all along, but the transition to post-modernism makes it a more obvious failure than before.

So maybe efforts should instead be spent on helping people understand that all belief systems are based somewhat on faith and setting foundations that allow for christian beliefs -- we can't prove anybody into christianity anyway.

why big?

tm — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 04:26:48 +0000

There seems to be a standard assumption in American culture today that bigger is better.

But, why be big?

Why is big better?

This same assumption permeates much of the American church too. Churches must be bigger. Bigger churches are more successful.

Is that really true? Are bigger churches really better, or more successful, or more godly, or <insert claim here>?

Maybe churches should go back to the bible and evaluate what it teaches about big. The answers might be surprising.

And if bigger doesn't equal better, more successful, etc., then why pursue being bigger?

welcome to church stadium

tm — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 20:33:23 +0000

i have a bunch of friends and acquaintances who seem as frustrated with the church as i am. they're asking questions, less than satisfied with today's status quo. no, contemporary or emergent churches or church services aren't helping solve the problem.

yesterday, one of the guys i know from college wrote a bit about fans (in the sports sense) and the church.

i think there are even more similarities between sports fans and church attendees than he talks about. lamentably, i also think that sports events are much better examples of worship than church services.

options

tm — Sun, 14 Oct 2007 04:20:32 +0000

options, options, options. at different times, life presents different options. sometimes it's just one, or seemingly none. at other times, the options are abundant--this is one of those times.

the options aren't necessarily similar either. it seems that pursuing one necessarily puts others on hold, maybe just a few years, maybe forever.

i hate forevers. forever's a really long time.

options are hard, harder than having just a single path. options require decisions. options require courage, and bravery.

options, options, options.

buy.com misery

tm — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 19:09:18 +0000

i ordered something from buy.com today. it's been just a little over 7 years since i previously ordered from them.

the website is exceedingly difficult to use. it's crowded. it has tons of ads. ajax effects make it hard to click on things because they move out from beneath your mouse cursor. they try to upsell you about 4 times to complete an order.

it took me a couple trys to remember my password. by the time i logged in, they wiped my shopping cart out and i had to go find the item again and re-add it to my cart.

the page doesn't even fit inside 1024 pixels on safari. 'view cart' is on the extreme right, so unless your browser is 1115 pixels wide, the page is cut off and you can't readily see how to get back to your cart.

these are mostly mistakes that should have been fixed years ago. no wonder buy.com has to fight so hard to actually get any customers.

it won't surprise me if it takes another 7 years before i consider ordering from them again.

WWE

tm — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 00:23:11 +0000

i was flipping channels last night and passed by wwe (world wrestling entertainment). this is not an unusual as wwe is on several nights a week, on various channels i think. i don't watch it really, although the acting is sufficiently over the top that it can be mildly humorous for a few minutes.

anyway, the thought occurred to me that wwe is basically a soap opera filmed in front of a live audience.

vacation wages

tm — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 01:54:44 +0000

there are a few things that get hammered out when you leave employment from somewhere. one of those is cashing out remaining vacation time.

under typical circumstances, this is not a particularly exciting or noteworthy event. your former employer simply pays you at your current wage for the hours remaining in your vacation bank. it looks something like this:

vacation hours x current wage = gross amount

it's not hard. at least it shouldn't be. my old employer has decided to do this instead:

vacation hours x old, lower wage = gross amount

the difference between the two amounts is not huge, but it is a difference. is this legal here in colorado? great question--i honestly don't know. here's what i do know, however:

1) it doesn't seem fair or right. it feels unethical and improper.

2) it is foolish. it encourages employees to take all their vacation before they quit so they get paid at the current rate instead. from the employee's point of view, it would make more sense to take the last bit of time as vacation and then call in the day they're supposed to go back and say, "hey, by the way, i'm not coming back." it's much better for the employer to have advance notice of an employee quitting and this encourages the opposite behavior.

3) well, before i get fully into number 3, let me step back a moment. please either quit now or read to the end of this article. it is important that if you continue, you hear *all* of the rest of what i've written.

my former employer is a christian, non-profit organization. i left because they treat people poorly. the subject of this post is just the latest examples in a long string of behavior.

this bothers me to no end: that an organization that claims the name of Jesus treats people the way they do. Jesus didn't act this way when he walked the earth 2000 years ago. in fact, one of the noticeable characteristics of his behavior was that he consistently brought people dignity, he cared for them, and he had tremendous compassion for them--he never abused them. this is what it means to be a follower of Christ--to, among other things, care for people; to always honor people and never belittle them or treat them like they are of little worth; to do the right thing; to be generous.

it seems far too common in the present day for so-called christians to instead treat people as unworthy--to dishonor them. this is not okay and Jesus does not approve. the bible states this. to claim to be a christian and to act this way is not congruent.

organizations, of course, are not people themselves. organizations are made up of people. so when i speak of an organization, i'm really speaking of the people who make up that organization--particularly those that are in leadership (by title or by influence).

so in essence i'm saying this: the people that lead this particular organization are not acting properly. in a christian context this is usually called sin. it is. and they need to repent and change their ways.

what frustrates me so much is that this kind of behavior is what reinforces the popular claim that christians are hypocrites.

i know many amazing people who claim to be christians. their lives, their actions reflect what the bible teaches. they are true followers of Jesus.

i know others that claim to be christians but their actions clash with the bible's teachings. these are the people that make room for the claims of hypocrisy. it has been my experience that these kinds of people tend to most often associate themselves with large "christian" organizations and thus gain the most visibility.

the christian who is actually following Jesus' teachings doesn't call attention to that--they just live that way day-in and day-out. occasionally they find themselves in a high-visibility position, but they don't seek it out and there are fewer of them there.

it seems that most of the people in the public view who claim to be christians are often those that act least like it. so it is with those that lead the organization i used to work for.

please don't hold it against Jesus that some people that claim to be christians are mean, dishonest, selfish people. i'm as disappointed by those people's actions as anybody. instead, learn what Jesus actually did and taught--read the bible yourself. the God of the bible isn't much like what most people see in the public sphere.

3) now, back to number 3. for an organization that claims to be a christian organization to actually pull this kind of stunt--to try to gyp their employees out of their vacation wages--is terrible. of all people, christians wouldn't do this. true christians anyway.

i have deliberately not named the organization at this time. if you know me and know who they are, i would ask that you refrain from doing so for now. i continue to negotiate with them and do hope to achieve a proper resolution. i may or may not name them later--we'll see.

corporate culture

tm — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 02:54:26 +0000

i started a new job recently and was a little surprised by the new job stresses. it got me thinking, however, about job transitions.

so, i'm going to talk briefly about corporate cultures. by this i mean the typical, shared culture of a typical corporation. this is different than what is usually found in a small business.

starting a new job always has a certain amount of anxiety to it. this is to be expected. you have to figure out what's going on, the work, the people, the politics, and often a new commute, new patterns for your own life.

if one is moving from a typical corporate job to another typical corporate job, there is a certain familiarity with the environment though. the buildings are similar, coffee breaks similar, etc. as a result, this actually helps ease the transition as there is some part of the new job which isn't really new.

this has its ups and down for some, although others may see it as all ups. that probably depends on how well you like or are comfortable with the typical corporate environment. they're not my cup of tea, so i find it unfortunate that they're all so alike. even then, i can appreciate that they help ease the transition to a new job.

why mention all this? i suppose mostly because i noticed it. i did so because my new job isn't a typical corporate job. that's good for me--i like smaller, non-corporate environments. it is, however, making the transition a little more difficult than some of my past ones--probably more-so because my last several jobs have shared that classic corporate feel.

anyway, here's to my new non-corporate job. i'm looking forward to settling in.

rain

tm — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 03:31:28 +0000

it rained today. well, no, it didn't just rain. that would be an understatement. it poured sheets of rain. at rush hour. fun.

i started a new job this week which has a little bit of a commute. it's typically 20-30 minutes which really isn't too bad for a major city, but it's a bit longer than i'm used to. it would be longer if i had to go in at peak time, like 8am. thankfully i don't.

anyway, it took about 70 minutes to get home this evening. the lightening took out some stop lights. more amazingly, the water was overrunning the curbs in several places. that's a large amount of water. i tried to take a picture or two, but they didn't come out well enough to keep.

bonus: the rain washed off the voluminous bird poo that my truck has accumulated while parked out under the trees in front of my new workplace. score!

work...

tm — Sun, 27 May 2007 18:37:17 +0000

for a long time i've refrained from talking about work issues online. this is typically considered to be good advice. "you don't want to burn any bridges," we've been told.

today, i'm not so sure there's much wisdom in that advice. am i silencing a part of who am i by refusing to talk about what basically consumes 1/3 of my waking hours? is that slowly killing a part of me?

if honest, truthful statements about an employer are not positive, is it dishonest to hide those? if they are discovered and termination results, is that, at least in the long term, for the better?

i have not yet decided whether to start discussing the work portion of my life online, but i'm at least considering it. i'm no longer comfortable with the silence.