Bootdisk Dot Com

So I'm at "tentmaking" and I need to GHOST a drive from an oooooooooooooooooooooooold CNC machine since impending failure of the hard drive is... well, impending. And since it's an Italian machine, "tech support" is more the punchline to a painfully bad joke than an "expectable" reality.

Bad news: The poor thing runs Windows 95. Worse news: For whatever reason, its Win95 support of USB can only be described as "flaky" if I'm being reeeeeeeeeeeeal charitable. Even with Microsoft's dribbleware USB drivers, if you bring a USB device (like oh, say, a flash drive or CD-R drive) within a ten kilometer radius of the thing, she locks up real pretty-like, Captain.

Enter Bootdisk-dot-com.

These guys have boot disks for every flavor of Windows, some for DOS, and even some Linux boot images. So I found a few options to boot into DOS on our piece of fine Italian machinery, load USB drivers, and then GHOST to a USB flash drive.

Hooray for the internet!

This geek moment has been brought to you by Blammo, makers of fine LOG products. LOG - it's big, it's heavy, it's wood.

Thank you.

At the Joe with Maggie

My lovely and gracious wife, for CHRISTmas this year, got me tickets to see the Red Wings play the Minnesota Wild at the Joe Louis Arena last night. Anybody who knows me knows I am a Wingnut.

Maggie got the tickets at StubHubDotCom, where season ticket holders sell unused game tickets, so we got to sit up in the season ticket holder section (right pocket, right side of the ice).

It was an awesome game! The Wings scored early, the Wild answered back, but then it was all Wings all the time.

Though Hasek kept coming out of net, giving us all consecutive heart attacks...

Some pics of the game from www.detroitredwings.com

Some pics of the game from my camera phone...

The Wings are up
2-1 at this point, well into the second period...

...the game is over at this point...

...closer to the ice, after the game - go, Zambonis, go!!!

You can barely see it - the final score, 3-1 Wings.

...and some pics from our digital camera.

...and the Wings
celebrate their victory

She's sooooo hot...

Us, overlooking the ice

Yes, that's a Jeep. A Red Wings 4-door extended wheelbase Jeep. Oh,
I like, I like...

That's a Lego Stevie "Y"...

The Wings're on a roll...

Outside the Joe, after the game

Maggie shot this of me - the Wings just SCOOOOOOOORED!!!

...ah, the Joe...

And two quick, no-audio videos taken on our camera phone there at the end of the game...

ECMmers and the Rapture

'nuther quick thought on the ECM.

More and more in my reading, I'm running across a... well, I suppose you could call it a general attitude amongst ECMmers that's decidedly derisive of dispensational eschatology.

In other words, where an eschatology is expressed more clearly than a vague "well, Jesus'll come back some fine day..." it generall tends toward Laddian or outright postmillennialism (albeit not as clearly expressed as such as, for instance, Christian Reconstructionists). And where eschatology isn't directly referenced, I've noticed more and more side-swipes against us "fundie dispies."

Very, very instructive.

Kimball Cries Foul

Dan Kimball, a pastor at Vintage Church and a leader in the Emerging/Emergent Church Movement, has blown a fuse over MacArthur's critique of the ECM. The title of his blogpost is Please Don't Stereotype The Emerging Church, and is very fascinating to read - especially the comments that follow the post proper.

Kimball cries "foul!" regarding MacArthur's analysis of the movement, and in so doing fulfills John's predictions almost uncannily to the letter, almost. Almostly almost almost. How many times can I misunderetsimatingly use the word "almost."

Anyway.

When I read Kimball's several-paragraph-long complaint, I was struck by how prescient MacArthur's (and Koukl before him) caveat concerning his analysis has proven to be:

With that as background, let me attempt to give you something that approximates a definition of this movement—this thing—that we all agree resists any kind of precise definition.

Some important disclaimers. I hope you won’t be surprised or dismayed when people who are devoted to the emergent subculture point out that my description of their movement is an oversimplification. They are also going to complain that some of the things I criticize don’t apply in every exhaustive detail to every person or every congregation in their movement.

Remember: I know that, and I have already acknowledged it. But I still think there’s great value in giving you a description of the broad contours of the movement, and that is what I am going to try to do.

Some in the movement will complain that I haven’t read enough of their literature; I haven’t interacted enough with the right emergent bloggers; or I haven’t visited enough of their gatherings to be a competent critic of their ideas.

All I can say in response is that I have read as much literature from the movement’s key writers as I can get my hands on; I have interacted directly with people in the emerging movement as much as my time and schedule will permit; I have already put many of my criticisms of the movement in the public arena repeatedly, and I have invited (and received) lots of feedback from people who are devoted to the movement. I have done my best to be fair and complete. And I assure you that I will continue to study the movement.

But I don’t agree with the notion that in order to be a reasonable and credible analyst of a movement like this, you have to remain neutral indefinitely and never become a critic. There is simply too much in the movement that warrants criticism.

As I said, I just want to be candid and clear for you. I wish time allowed me to be as nuanced as I would normally like to be. On the other hand, I think a tendency to over-nuance and over-qualify everything has already spoiled some otherwise potentially helpful critiques of this movement.

Admitting that I'm sure not happy with MacArthur whenever he starts to plunk out critiques of those of us who don't actually think the Spirit went MIA at the close of the "Apostolic Age", or that God created the majority of the human race specifically for the purpose of stoking the fires of hell, so I'm quite certain it's not pleasant for an ECM-type to read his critique of the ECM, I note with fascination that it sure seems to me at least that Kimball pretty much missed John's point and launched into a "nuh-uh! nuh-uh!" session which ultimately fails to deal with MacArthur's central premise (that the ECM on aggregate sets aside or outright jettisons the doctrine of the perspicacity of Scripture) and ironically proved MacArthur's point in his disclaimer cited above.

One of the most stunningly irritating thing about the ECM that I've found - again, in aggregate - is the "moving target" nature of the debate; any time anyone attempts an analysis, they're answered with the increasingly untenable line that "you really don't understand, you're painting with a broad brush, yadda yadda yadda..."

Okie-dokie.

Sounds a lot like the univerally tired Calvinist objections to non-Calvinists critiquing their soteriology (e.g., White's classic oh-so-close-to-ad-hominem dodge of Bryson's critiques).

Let's just say, the more I read, the less impressed I am with the majority of the ECM...

Anyway, Kimball's post is worthwhile to get an ECM dude's view of things.

The Dudes at The Sign of Jonah

The dudes over at ..the sign of jonah.., an apologetics blog, have posted an excellent article which demonstrates absurdity by being absurd. They are continually criticized for examining the doctrine of the current "prophetic movement" and comparing their doctrines with Scripture; in this article, they demolish the arguments of their critics by substituting "prophetic movement" with "Mormonism" and thus showing how it all boils down to doctrine.

Well worth the read.

MacArthur on "Engaging Culture"

MacArthur's latest post, Engaging Culture is well worth a read.

The opening quote for the blogpost:

One of the favorite topics on the evangelical agenda these days is how the church should “engage the culture.” Do Christians need to imitate the boorish aspects of a quickly-decaying civilization in order to remain “relevant”? Some evidently think so.

Selfishness = Selflessness...?

Scientific American recently published an article in their science news section that I found really instructive and very, very amusing.

Evolution postulates "the survival of the fittest," and that species improve over time largely due to the violent competition of life which tends to favor traits that give individuals or groups an advantage over others (and by extension, mutations which convey evolutionary advantages - leaving aside, of course, the discussion on "advantageous mutations" for another time, since such a thing does not exist...). In fact, many believe that selfishness is an evolutionarily ingrained trait that's really good for the individual and species.

It is a bloody, brutal enterprise.

So why do humans on a whole demonstrate compassion?

True, selfishness defines our race. However, in aggregate, and mostly in the individual, there is at least an echo of compassion which sure would at least seem to be contra-evolutionary.

And so, evolutionary biologists and sociologists have long been perplexed by this one (of very, very many) observable facts which sure do seem to militate against evolutionary presuppositions.

Enter Economist Samuel Bowles of the Santa Fe Institute. He's suggesting that selfishness actually equals altruism in evolutionary terms; that it's our very selfishness, ingrained in our very DNA by evolution, which produces selflessness.

...huh?

I'm selfless because I'm selfish?

Yet another example of the desperation of the evolutionist to explain away actual facts so that he doesn't have to examine his presuppositions too closely and be forced to conclude that his philosophy really has little to do with actual science.

The Bible tells us that we are created in the image and likeness of God Himself. Now, that's a shattered image since the Fall, but it still holds even in its degraded state; we love because our God loves. We sacrifice for the greater good because that's His character. And we look very much down on those who are selfish or possess other similar character flaws because these things are ingrained in us - by design, not by [start: Carl Sagan voice] billions and billions [end: Carl Sagan voice] of years of freak accidental random mutations.

Reeeeeal instructive, the lengths to which men will go to avoid dealing with the obvious...

Anyway, an interesting, amusing read...

Spook86 on the ISG's report

Spook86 comments on an analyzes the ISG's report on the situation in Iraq, comparing our current national intestinal fortitude and stick-to-it-iveness with that of the Greatest Generation which fought (and won) the Second World War in spite of astronomical losses and terrible setbacks.

Good stuff, well worth the read...

Also, heterodyne this with Koinonia House's The Decline of America strategic trend...

Kierkegaard, ECM Luminary Extraordinaire

In thinking more on the resonance between the ECM and Kierkegaard's existentialism, I ran across this quote in Søren's Wikipedia entry:

Whereas his first authorship focused on Hegel, this authorship focused on the hypocrisy of Christendom. It is important to realise that by 'Christendom' Kierkegaard meant not Christianity itself, but rather the church and the applied religion of his society. After the Corsair incident, Kierkegaard became interested in "the public" and the individual's interaction with it. His first work in this period of his life was Two Ages: A Literary Review which was a critique of the novel Two Ages (in some translations Two Generations) written by Thomasine Christine Gyllembourg-Ehrensvärd. After giving his critique of the story, Kierkegaard made several insightful observations on the nature of the present age and its passionless attitude towards life. One of his complaints about modernity is its passionless view of the world. Kierkegaard writes that "the present age is essentially a sensible age, devoid of passion ... The trend today is in the direction of mathematical equality, so that in all classes about so and so many uniformly make one individual". In this, Kierkegaard attacks the conformity and assimilation of individuals into an indifferent public, "the crowd".^[12] Although Kierkegaard attacks the public, he is supportive of communities where individuals keep their diversity and uniqueness.

And also note this quote regarding his concept of the "leap of faith":

The leap of faith is his conception of how an individual would believe in God, or how a person would act in love. It is not so much a rational decision, as it is transcending rationality in favour of something more uncanny, that is, faith. As such he thought that to have faith is at the same time to have doubt. So, for example, for one to truly have faith in God, one would also have to doubt that God exists; the doubt is the rational part of a person's thought, without which the faith would have no real substance. Doubt is an essential element of faith, an underpinning. In plain words, to believe or have faith that God exists, without ever having doubted God's existence or goodness, would not be a faith worth having. For example, it takes no faith to believe that a pencil or a table exists, when one is looking at it and touching it. In the same way, to believe or have faith in God is to know that one has no perceptual or any other access to God, and yet still has faith in God.

Note especially that Kierkegaard's existentialism was a reaction against the modernism of the 1800s, and connect the dots with the ECM's emphases... Much of Kierkegaard's thinking reads like something from Bell or MacLaren or other ECM-types...

...truly, there is nothing new under the sun...

ECM = "Modernism 2.0" = Kierkegaardian Existentialism Badly Repackaged...?

Let's start off the month of December with a bang, shall we?

As you know, John MacArthur has been posting on his blog a series of articles on the Emerging/Emergent Church Movement. These have in my opinion proven to be a very important contribution to the ongoing "conversation" regarding the ECM and the ECM's underlying philosophical premise: Postmodernism.

John's analysis so far has, in my opinion, been absolutely, utterly, an unqualified masterpiece. Keeping in mind that he is no friend of the ECM, his critique of the movement and its epistemological underpinnings is very, incredibly incisive.

He posted the 4th installment today, and it just rocks. Some highlights:

Incidentally, Postmodernism itself is not easy to define, but in general it refers to a tendency to discount values like dogmatism, authority, absolutism, assurance, certainty, and large, commanding, exclusive worldviews—which postmodernists like to label metanarratives. Postmodern values would include things like diversity, inclusiveness, relativism, subjectivity, tolerance, ambiguity, pragmatism, and above all, a view of “humility” that is characterized by lots of qualms and reservations and uncertainties and disclaimers about whether anything we hold in our belief system is really true or not. Those are the very same values that are usually held in high esteem in the “emerging church movement.”

By the way, the suggestion that we try to deal with truth in non-propositional form is not anything new with the “emerging church movement.” It’s an idea that was floated as one of the key tenets of neo-orthodoxy at least 65 years ago or more. I would argue that the assault on propositional truth ultimately entails the abandonment of logic completely. It is an irrational idea. Francis Schaeffer said the same thing. He regarded neo-orthodoxy’s attack on propositional truth as the theological equivalent of suicide. He said when we abandon rationality in that way, we have crossed “the line of despair.” We might as well abandon the quest for truth itself. And in effect, that is the result of the postmodernist perspective.

Some actually believe the “emerging church movement” is so much the polar opposite of modernism that when you criticize their movement, they will accuse you of blithely and unthinkingly buying into the errors of “modern” thinking. They will often label you a “modernist.” And among other things, they will accuse you of parroting a brand of philosophical foundationalism that owes more to Rene Descartes and Cartesian foundationalism than it owes to the Scriptures. Lots of naive people have been drawn into the movement by sophisticated-sounding philosophical arguments like those. That claim is based on the assumption that postmodernism itself represents a correction of the philosophical errors of modernism, rather than just a further step in a wrong direction.

So my assessment of the “emerging church movement” is that far from being the antithesis of modernism, this sort of “evangelical postmodernism” is really ultimately nothing more than Modernism 2.0.

Far from being antithetical, the two movements are ultimately just one and the same. The “emerging church movement” is this generation’s version of what our grandparents knew as modernism—updated in some ways, but ultimately, it’s essentially the same. Postmodernists today are using the same arguments and the same strategies that the modernists of the Victorian era employed. The results will be exactly the same, too.

Absolutely, utterly, 1000% correct.

One thing, in fact, that I have noticed about the leftward-leaning majority of the ECM (like McKnight, MacLaren, Bell, Jones, et. al.) is that their worldview has troubling echoes of Kierkegaard's existentialism. Specifically, the emphasis on a "chastised" epistemology resonates powerfully with Søren's concept of the "leap of faith".

And again - the more I read about the ECM, the more I'm convinced that after it's blown around a bit, stirring things up and such, it will ultimately blow back out again. It has no staying power. It exists to accommodate a perception of current culture and so it will pass when the current cultural climate inevitably shifts as the pendulum swings back again.

The Word remains.