jonathan stegall

• Morehead’s Musings: Steve Hu: Newbigin, Syncretism, and the Emerging Church
  (tags: theology culture mission contextualization)

(from del.icio.us)

• kuler
  Thought I had added this a long time ago. Regardless… invaluable resource!
  (tags: tools inspiration design creativity color adobe)
• Tall Skinny Kiwi: Context [Part 2]: Between Mindlessess and Recklessness.
  (tags: culture church contextualization theology mission andrew-jones)
• Tall Skinny Kiwi: Context [Part 1]. Does it matter?
  (tags: culture church contextualization theology mission andrew-jones)
• Tall Skinny Kiwi: Context [Part 3]: Between Absolutism and Relativism
  (tags: culture church contextualization theology mission andrew-jones)
• ASP.Net MVC Framework pre- Preview 3 - A Step by Step guide to create a simple web app. - Fredrik Normén
  (tags: programming mvc asp.net)

(from del.icio.us)

One of the biggest annoyances (for me) about JavaScript is that the famous window.onload = functionname; only works once on a given page.

Over the years, many people have written various solutions to go around this, and cause the page to load multiple functions. Typically, my favorite is this one from Simon Wilson. It’s easy, concise, and works in a myriad of different situations.

The other day, though, I ran into a situation where it didn’t work. I’m still not sure what the issue was, but Internet Explorer 6 (of course) refused to load a couple of the functions I was trying to use. Firefox, IE7, Safari, etc. all loaded them very nicely, but IE6 remained stubborn. I tried everything: rewriting the functions, removing everything else in the page, changing random things that were unrelated, and so on, all to no avail.

Finally, I decided to try jQuery’s load solution:

$(document).ready(function(){
  functionname();
});

This worked perfectly, in every browser. It didn’t occur to me to use this, mainly because the offending functions are not jQuery functions, and that particular page in the site didn’t have any jQuery on it at all. Now, it does.

File this away under: “I’m already using jQuery on a site, and I need to load some non-jQuery functions.”

• Fulcrum: Conflict and Covenant in the Bible
  (tags: ecclesiology theology nt-wright)
• Slash7 with Amy Hoy - Designing for Humans
  (tags: design)
• ASP.Net MVC Framework 2 - A step by step guide to create a simple Web Application - Fredrik Normén
  (tags: programming mvc asp.net)
• Random Reflections - Greg Boyd: The 35W Bridge Collapse and the Book of Job
  (tags: theology bible)
• HOW-TO: Awn curves - Ubuntu Forums
  (tags: compiz-fusion software linux)

(from del.icio.us)

• Techniques for designing with type characters ~ Authentic Boredom
  (tags: typography design)
• Adobe Kuler update and color tips | Veerle’s blog
  (tags: color design adobe)

(from del.icio.us)

In this election, I’ve observed that Americans don’t like honesty in politics. I feel pretty confident that we like it more than we did four years ago, but we still don’t like it. Especially if it challenges our feeling of optimism, or worse our global supremacy.

I’m often reminded of the episode of Family Guy where Lois runs for Mayor. She tries to be honest with the people, talking about issues and problems the city is facing, and no one cares what she has to say. Then, she simplifies. Every time someone asks a question, the answer is “911.” Or something to do with terrorism, or Jesus.

I feel like this business over Obama’s comments about some blue-collar voters is like that. From Obama:

“It’s not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

From Hillary:

“I think it’s very critical that the Democrats really focus in on this and make it clear that we are not (elitist). We are going to stand up and fight for all Americans.”

Obama’s trying to deal with a real issue. Hillary realizes that Americans don’t like to deal with that kind of issue, so she is trying to bring things back to easy sound bites that won’t offend anyone, but don’t really say anything either. All politicians use those sound bites, including Obama. But he has consistently tried to get past them.

The problem with trying to get past them will be that they are a dangerous test of the openness of Americans. We’re not known for being open, especially to criticism. I’m interested to see if people will realize what he’s trying to say and offer on complex issues like this, or if they will just brand him as elitist and give up (whether it happens in the primary, or in the general election).

On a side note, Hillary referred to John Kerry’s 2004 campaign as elitist. I think this is the way some people perceived it, but I don’t think that’s the reason he lost. I think he lost because he didn’t really have a strong message. He changed a lot. His consistent message was that he wasn’t Bush (it’s significant that without any other strong message, he still got close to 50% of the country to vote for him). In lacking that strong message, he fell victim to a trap that has bothered evangelicals in recent years: we are known more (or only) for what we are against, and no one knows what we are for.

• Random Reflections - Greg Boyd: Evolution As Cosmic Warfare
  (tags: science bible theology)

(from del.icio.us)

I want to let you in on one of my greatest fears. And one of my greatest hopes. I wrote recently about the ways I’ve grown into things of emergent, and before that how I grew into the underground and have desired to reach out there.

For a little more background on how I got to my current place, I want to give a little more history. While I was in high school, trying to un-learn some things that I had learned before I met Jesus, and trying to figure out what those things meant and what the new things meant, and how to put it all together, I had to figure out what to do about college. I felt strongly that I needed to learn ministry, so I went to a A/G college that is now a university, and pursued a B.S. in Church Ministries with a Bible concentration.

There, one of the first things I was faced with was the question of how I would financially support the kind of ministry I wanted to do. Prior to this, I hadn’t thought about it, at least not in any in-depth way. This was my idealism. It occurred to me then, though, that I could use and enhance the skills I had in web design to support myself. I could create websites on a relatively flexible schedule, do a lot of original, creative work, and make enough money to support myself (and my family, if I were to get one) and also hopefully to support a ministry.

Thus, I had become somewhat cynical of the church. I believed it didn’t care about the kind of ministry that I wanted to do (which, to some extent, is true, though I think it is less true than it was seven years ago when I was preparing to graduate from high school). I benefited from my education even so, much more than I expected. I wouldn’t trade it for the world. My theology and spirituality and hope for the church as a whole. and my part in it, were shaped in powerful ways there, and I was fortunate to meet and marry an amazing woman as well. But, I had traded the first idealism for another idealism, that I could quickly transition into funding a ministry from the creation of great websites.

When I finished the first degree, we weren’t yet financially able to leave Florida, and Florida is still quite behind in technology, and also art, education. So, I pursued another bachelor’s degree, in Interactive Media, at an art school. I learned a lot through it, as well, and then was finally able to leave Florida and see seasons again. Also, I became extremely fortunate to become a part of Revolution Atlanta, and feel like I am involved in, and can be more involved in, ministry there.

Now, I find myself trading, or perhaps balancing, the web-related idealism with cynicism. Do I need to pursue graduate school? If so, where? Who pays for it? If not, can I ever get to the point of doing my own thing? If I do transition into an individual way of working, will I have time to do ministry then? If I don’t, can I work in a relatively normal position, and still have time to do ministry? Who pays for it then? Does that mean I do need to pursue graduate school, more importantly than otherwise?

So, there is much to learn and question.

• jonnybaker: go back the way you came - worship trick 29
  (tags: emerging worship)
• A Seminary Where a Bicentennial Looks Forward - New York Times
  (tags: seminary education theology)

(from del.icio.us)

Recently, I was shown the website for Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, which is a soon-to-be released documentary claiming that the “intelligent design” community is a persecuted part of the overall scientific community. In other words, Ben Stein believes that scientists are persecuted because they question Darwinism.

I was reminded of it when I saw AdSense put a link to it in the sidebar of my blog, and I want to look at the issues that are present in this kind of discussion.

The issue with this kind of thing reaches far beyond the useless debate of evolution vs intelligent design (news flash: evolution won). It reaches into how people in the scientific community, as well as the broader culture, view the intelligent design community. By association (for positive or negative), it also reaches into the ways that these communities view Christianity. Granted: not all members of the intelligent design community are Christians, and certainly not all Christians subscribe to the tenets of “intelligent design,” but the stereotype does exist.

It also reaches into how both sides of the issue view biblical theology. How one views the Bible dictates, at least to an extent, what one thinks of “intelligent design,” and of course, how one views “intelligent design” can influence how one views the Bible, and specifically how one perceives a theology of creation.

With all that said, I want to address these issues from my perspective.

Perception of the “Intelligent Design” community

I think it’s really important, when evaluating a claim like the one this movie is making, to honestly look at how the “intelligent design” community is perceived by the rest of the scientific community. On a large scale, the “intelligent design” community is seen as trying to bring religion into science. They are seen as trying to push religion onto children in schools, into the court systems, and further into the political structure of the country.

Whether this perception is correct or not for everyone who believes in this way of looking at the universe is really not relevant. It is certainly not the case for everyone in the community, but I think it certainly is the case for some. The scientific community as a whole, when it rejects the “intelligent design” community, may be employing prejudices of its own because of what it has witnessed, but because of vocal voices it is justifiable, even though it’s not desirable.

It is very similar to the perception many people have that American evangelicals are trying to combine the church and the state in a great big conservative, pro-war, pro-rich, pro-American Empire. There are vocal voices out there who make it seem that way. Until we prove, on a large scale, that evangelicalism is not a poster for the Republican Party, people will have a justifiable (though, horriby undesirable) case for thinking that we believe it is.

Biblical theology of creation

For many years, conservative and fundamentalist Christians have dug in their heels and fought a losing battle against most of the scientific world, trying to justify their interpretation of the biblical creation narrative: namely, that God created the world in six days. Often, the belief goes something like this: “If we give in to the liberals on literal creationism, it’s a slippery slope to denying the deity of Jesus.”

Certainly, if this was a valid statement we would have cause for concern. But the issue is, it’s not a valid concern at all. Scripture is not interested in being a science book. It is a theological statement, and it is not interested in explaining the details of creation.

Viewing the creation story in Genesis in this way takes the view that the author was not interested in a literal chronology of events, but in presenting the themes and issues that God was addressing, and who in fact God is, especially in contrast with other Near Eastern creation stories that have similar literary structures. Thus, the structure is very similar, but the means, and the reasons, for what is occurring are very different.

For more on this, consider the Genesis chapter of Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology, which goes into a good amount of depth on this issue, and others.

Effects of a biblical theology of creation

There is a lot of good in this view of creation, aside from the fact that it appears to be much more faithful to ancient Near Eastern culture. It is also much more faithful to postmodern Western culture. It allows for creativity, mystery, and a poetic structure to what is going on. Postmoderns are not opposed to this kind of thing, and are often able to find great beauty and truth there.

In addition to this, it allows us to get past the useless debates against the scientific world, and the horrible effects they have on how people view Christianity. Evolution is all but proven beyond doubt, and while it is not an exhaustive explanation of everything, in all likelihood it will only be proven more and more as science advances.

When we are faithful to the literary nature of scripture, we have not surrendered to any kind of slippery slope. We are being faithful to the people that, we believe, were used by God to record his interactions with the world. We can express his nature in a way that transcends the Enlightenment mindset, and this is a good thing.