Comments for Mere Orthodoxy | Christianity, Politics, and Culture http://www.mereorthodoxy.com Christianity and Culture by Young Evangelicals Tue, 21 Feb 2012 17:29:21 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Comment on On Boycotts, Komen, and Political Hope by Flyawayhttp://www.mereorthodoxy.com/boycotts-komen-political-hope/#comment-120816 Flyaway Tue, 21 Feb 2012 17:29:21 +0000 http://www.mereorthodoxy.com/?p=121112#comment-120816 We are to be as shrewd as a serpent and as gentle as a dove. We are to be as shrewd as a serpent and as gentle as a dove.

]]> Comment on On Why we Like Tom Bombadil and Probably Shouldn’t by Goldberryhttp://www.mereorthodoxy.com/on-why-we-like-tom-bombadil-and-probably-shouldnt/#comment-120803 Goldberry Mon, 20 Feb 2012 23:06:10 +0000 http://mereorthodoxy.com/?p=261#comment-120803 Tom Bombadil according to Tolkien is the Spirit of Nature of the English countryside. He represents mankind in its primal oneness with nature, which the world's mythologies recognize as the hunter-gatherer stage, before farming and its consequent overpopulation and incipient wars. Tolkien knew very well the soul of the person in full communion with the natural. Tom Bombadil according to Tolkien is the Spirit of Nature of the English countryside. He represents mankind in its primal oneness with nature, which the world’s mythologies recognize as the hunter-gatherer stage, before farming and its consequent overpopulation and incipient wars. Tolkien knew very well the soul of the person in full communion with the natural.

]]> Comment on The Brokenness of the Body (for Ash Wednesday) by ניהול תקיןhttp://www.mereorthodoxy.com/the-brokenness-of-the-body-for-ash-wednesday/#comment-120799 ניהול תקין Mon, 20 Feb 2012 13:45:39 +0000 http://mereorthodoxy.com/?p=1293#comment-120799 You already know therefore considerably in the case of this topic, made me in my opinion imagine it from numerous varied angles. Its like women and men are not involved unless it's one thing to accomplish with Woman gaga! Your personal stuffs nice. Always care for it up! You already know therefore considerably in the case of this topic, made me in my opinion imagine it from numerous varied angles. Its like women and men are not involved unless it’s one thing to accomplish with Woman gaga! Your personal stuffs nice. Always care for it up!

]]> Comment on The Rachel Held Evans Conversation: Why I am a Conservative by Matthew Andersonhttp://www.mereorthodoxy.com/rachel-held-evans-conversation-conservatis/#comment-120791 Matthew Anderson Sun, 19 Feb 2012 00:23:41 +0000 http://www.mereorthodoxy.com/?p=121157#comment-120791 tokniffin, Thanks for the pushback. Sorry I missed the comment at Relevant, and I'll take a stab at this sometime next week. Sorry--it would be today, but I just got done overseeing a conference of 350 people at my church and I am wasted. matt tokniffin,

Thanks for the pushback. Sorry I missed the comment at Relevant, and I’ll take a stab at this sometime next week.

Sorry–it would be today, but I just got done overseeing a conference of 350 people at my church and I am wasted.

matt

]]> Comment on What Social Networks Do–And Don’t Do–for Churches by Matthew Andersonhttp://www.mereorthodoxy.com/social-networks-do-and-do-for-churches/#comment-120790 Matthew Anderson Sun, 19 Feb 2012 00:18:36 +0000 http://www.mereorthodoxy.com/?p=121047#comment-120790 Thanks, David. And I think your point about the "product rather than the consumer" is very well put. Thanks, David. And I think your point about the “product rather than the consumer” is very well put.

]]> Comment on The Rachel Held Evans Conversation: Why I am a Conservative by tokniffinhttp://www.mereorthodoxy.com/rachel-held-evans-conversation-conservatis/#comment-120789 tokniffin Sat, 18 Feb 2012 23:21:24 +0000 http://www.mereorthodoxy.com/?p=121157#comment-120789 Matt, as always nice work on giving full throated, thoughtful responses to xn conservatism. But I've got a quibble. I asked you a question about inequality on a Relevant blog and you gave largely the same answer you're giving here. My problem is that I think you are dodging the question (perhaps inadvertently). For a guy who wrote a book on the spirituality of the material, I find your answers on the spirituality of wealthy distribution quite unsatisfying. Perhaps the problem is the problem is not laid out precisely enough. So let's put down a few facts: -wealth distribution is more unequal in the US now than at any time in its history, including pre-Great Depression. executives now are paid 100s of times more than their employees, whereas just a few decades ago it was a tiny fraction of that. 40% of the US's wealth is in the hands of 1%. The top 400 earners make as much as the bottom 1/3 of the country... yadayadayada -wealth inequality is bad for democracy: as disparity grows, the concerns of the two ends become disparate as isolated. -wealth inequality is bad socially: as it grows, people live much much different lives. The wealthy live in tiny isolated hovels of gated communities, private schools and private subcultures -wealth inequality is bad economics: as disparity grows, it hurts our GDP because there are less people able to buy products at affordable rates. Our economy is best with a strong middle class, but wealth disparity hollows out the middle class. -wealth inequality is bad THEOLOGY: 1/5 of the Bible's verses deal with money, and a good portion of it talks about the negative effects of the disparity of the wealthy and the poor. Shalom entails some sort of shared community life. For all those reasons and more, I don't think you're dealing squarely with the issue when you say "I don't have a problem with wealth inequality." Neither do I; I think you can make a sound theological argument for certain people earning more than someone else. What I have a problem with is when the two ends of the spectrum become so disparate that you need bodyguards and gated communities because the two sides are so unequal. It's a problem of degree, then; not fact. There is a BIG gap between socialism and where we are today, and I'm asking you to address that. Thanks again, Matt. I appreciate your writing. Matt, as always nice work on giving full throated, thoughtful responses to xn conservatism.

But I’ve got a quibble. I asked you a question about inequality on a Relevant blog and you gave largely the same answer you’re giving here. My problem is that I think you are dodging the question (perhaps inadvertently).

For a guy who wrote a book on the spirituality of the material, I find your answers on the spirituality of wealthy distribution quite unsatisfying.

Perhaps the problem is the problem is not laid out precisely enough. So let’s put down a few facts:
-wealth distribution is more unequal in the US now than at any time in its history, including pre-Great Depression. executives now are paid 100s of times more than their employees, whereas just a few decades ago it was a tiny fraction of that. 40% of the US’s wealth is in the hands of 1%. The top 400 earners make as much as the bottom 1/3 of the country… yadayadayada
-wealth inequality is bad for democracy: as disparity grows, the concerns of the two ends become disparate as isolated.
-wealth inequality is bad socially: as it grows, people live much much different lives. The wealthy live in tiny isolated hovels of gated communities, private schools and private subcultures
-wealth inequality is bad economics: as disparity grows, it hurts our GDP because there are less people able to buy products at affordable rates. Our economy is best with a strong middle class, but wealth disparity hollows out the middle class.
-wealth inequality is bad THEOLOGY: 1/5 of the Bible’s verses deal with money, and a good portion of it talks about the negative effects of the disparity of the wealthy and the poor. Shalom entails some sort of shared community life.

For all those reasons and more, I don’t think you’re dealing squarely with the issue when you say “I don’t have a problem with wealth inequality.” Neither do I; I think you can make a sound theological argument for certain people earning more than someone else.

What I have a problem with is when the two ends of the spectrum become so disparate that you need bodyguards and gated communities because the two sides are so unequal. It’s a problem of degree, then; not fact. There is a BIG gap between socialism and where we are today, and I’m asking you to address that.

Thanks again, Matt. I appreciate your writing.

]]> Comment on What Social Networks Do–And Don’t Do–for Churches by David Bartosikhttp://www.mereorthodoxy.com/social-networks-do-and-do-for-churches/#comment-120780 David Bartosik Sat, 18 Feb 2012 19:33:15 +0000 http://www.mereorthodoxy.com/?p=121047#comment-120780 good words matt. Feels like we are becoming the product rather than the consumer with major social media outlets and cane very dangerous when it becomes the substitute for true community that must occur in the real world. good words matt. Feels like we are becoming the product rather than the consumer with major social media outlets and cane very dangerous when it becomes the substitute for true community that must occur in the real world.

]]> Comment on The Next Story: A Review by Eric Ehttp://www.mereorthodoxy.com/the-next-story-a-review/#comment-120746 Eric E Wed, 15 Feb 2012 15:53:41 +0000 http://www.mereorthodoxy.com/?p=117241#comment-120746 I read <a href="http://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704/" rel="nofollow">this article about Wikipedia</a> today and it reminded me of Challies book. One of the (minor) criticisms I had with his book that I left out of my review here was on his chapter on Wikipedia. One of his claims was that Wikipedia is changing how we view truth. My issue with this was that Wikipedia's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability" rel="nofollow">view of truth</a> is nothing new. It is just verificationism, which is not new to the digital age. The article gives a good example of this. Again, this is a minor criticism but I thought worth pointing out here. I read this article about Wikipedia today and it reminded me of Challies book. One of the (minor) criticisms I had with his book that I left out of my review here was on his chapter on Wikipedia. One of his claims was that Wikipedia is changing how we view truth. My issue with this was that Wikipedia’s view of truth is nothing new. It is just verificationism, which is not new to the digital age. The article gives a good example of this. Again, this is a minor criticism but I thought worth pointing out here.

]]> Comment on Accommodation, Contraception, and Religious Freedom by Charliehttp://www.mereorthodoxy.com/accommodation-contraception-religious-freedom/#comment-120734 Charlie Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:10:14 +0000 http://www.mereorthodoxy.com/?p=121110#comment-120734 I think that's absolutely right. The "accommodation" has given cover for the Catholic Left to move back into the White House in good conscience. There will be no interest in the media to continue to cover this controversy, but since it really is a religious freedom issue there may yet be hope of legislative or judicial push back that will block its implementation and sharpen the debate around the first amendment principles that are at stake. Thanks for the Douthat link. I think that’s absolutely right. The “accommodation” has given cover for the Catholic Left to move back into the White House in good conscience. There will be no interest in the media to continue to cover this controversy, but since it really is a religious freedom issue there may yet be hope of legislative or judicial push back that will block its implementation and sharpen the debate around the first amendment principles that are at stake. Thanks for the Douthat link.

]]> Comment on The Background to the Fight about Contraception and Religious Liberty by Adam Shieldshttp://www.mereorthodoxy.com/background-fight-contraception-religious-liberty/#comment-120733 Adam Shields Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:12:02 +0000 http://www.mereorthodoxy.com/?p=121154#comment-120733 This is just one of those issues that is very mixed up to include a variety of issues and constituencies. I think just like you can't condemn conservatives Christians for coming in late, you also can't ignore those that are jumping on the bandwagon for political reasons, the long history of the fight to legalize contraceptives, contraception as a proxy fight for abortion, business mandates, the broken healthcare/insurance system, differences in the way that gender affects contraceptives, the historical realities of the way FDA approval works for viagra and the pill, and a mass of other issues. It really just makes my head hurt. This is just one of those issues that is very mixed up to include a variety of issues and constituencies.

I think just like you can’t condemn conservatives Christians for coming in late, you also can’t ignore those that are jumping on the bandwagon for political reasons, the long history of the fight to legalize contraceptives, contraception as a proxy fight for abortion, business mandates, the broken healthcare/insurance system, differences in the way that gender affects contraceptives, the historical realities of the way FDA approval works for viagra and the pill, and a mass of other issues.

It really just makes my head hurt.

]]>