I’ve been shifting gears mentally as of late, trying to wrap my head around various theories of Place, and how they fit into my theology. Some things I’ve been reading:

Practicing the Discipline of Place — Caleb Stegall
About New Urbanism
Civic Art and the City of God — Phillip Bess
Receiving Community: The Church and the Future of the New Urbanist Movement

I’m also reading Abraham Kuyper’s lecture on Calvinism and Art for our church’s next discussion group. My plate is full, to say the least. At least I’ve got four days off work.

Posted on 23 November 2004

There’s an interesting disucssion taking shape on Gideon Strauss’ site about urban renewal and the Church’s place in it. I’m intrigued. I’d like to address a couple of other posts Gideon included.

First, one from Jon Barlow:

There are some beautiful old churches in the city of St. Louis that are just waiting for some enterprising congregation to renovate and occupy. But they are decaying, folks. Why did their congregations ever leave them? Why are we spreading out? Why waste these beautiful buildings and the crumbling neighborhoods surrounding them when we could all move in, renovate, and live together in community? How many of us are really moving out into the boondocks for good reasons?

Having been a member of a church growing up that had to deal with this very issue (a decaying church in a not-so-great neighborhood), I watched my parents and other leaders in the congregation try to deal with it. The biggest issue? The cost of maintaining such a church. Unless you’re absolutely filling the church every Sunday, it is very difficult to generate the money needed. Sad but true. Now, the cathedral is owned by a Pentecostal church, but that congregation doesn’t actually use the building — they just own the land.

That said, Barlow’s idea doesn’t fall on entirely deaf ears. I think the Church as a whole has moved away from being both a spiritual and physical community. Our church is no different. Few people live within a few blocks of the church, and some travel quite a distance every Sunday. While we are working in the community, the building is still mostly quiet four or five days a week.

Gideon has two other links — one to Jim Hart talking about urban redevelopment generally and another to Phillip Bess about the history of the Church in 17th century London. Hart’s subject matter hits close to home for those us in Pittsburgh. Urban redevelopment has become a critical issue here, and we’re watching it happen right now just down the street in “East Side” (the realtors’ creation between Shadyside and East Liberty that’s really just East Liberty). The issue in East Side is gentrification. Development is making East Liberty a more attractive place, and it is bringing more business to the area, but that development is doing little for the residents (I’m sure the Red Room Lounge is a great restaurant, but I’m guessing not many neighborhood residents are dining there). That’s fine line I guess — how do you revitalize a neighborhood without completely displacing the existing demographic? A question for the urban planners, I guess.

So back to Barlow’s entry. That could be a unique opportunity for the Church — the chance to revitalize a neighborhood without destroying its character or displacing its residents (there are plenty of empty buildings around Covenant Fellowship). Though it’s hard not to view this sort of movement through political glasses (as in, this is obviously a conservative thing, since it’s a group of individuals), it really goes beyond politics and into the realm of the Cultural Mandate as seen through Neocalvinist glasses — accepting the responsibility of bringing about cultural change through action. We would be effecting change by doing, not simply telling.

Finally, a word on Bess’ contribution to the discussion:

So here is my proposition: When we build, why cannot churches today play the part analogous to the London aristocrat? Instead of building a church and a parking lot on their six-to-ten-suburban acres, why not build a church, a public (not private) square, perhaps a school, and the beginnings of a mixed-use neighborhood? Why could not a church partner with a developer and use some of the proceeds from the development of its property to pay for part of the construction of its church building(s)? Why could not churches use this strategy to begin to integrate affordable housing and commercial buildings into suburbia as part of mixed-use neighborhoods? And who is to say that an initially random proliferation of such developments across suburbia ? once the exemplary pattern is established ? over time might not become, as it did in London, the very physical and spiritual centers so pointedly lacking in contemporary suburbia?

Suburbia is a sticky subject for me. I think there are “small towns” in the Pittsburgh area that would fit this sort of mold. These are towns that still have a vibrant local merchant community (one that hasn’t been overtaken by chain retailers), and residents who live there because the town bridges the gap between urban and rural. Of course, many of these small towns already have active church communities….but modern suburbia is different. People are leaving the city for the suburbs to “get away” from the urban environment. Perhaps they don’t like the diversity of culture (whether it is racial, economic, or intellectual), perhaps they don’t like the education system, perhaps they don’t like the “danger” of city living. And I believe that Bess’ idea would only work in “small towns” because any community as he describes it would be completely isolated from the larger community in suburbia. Most residential neighborhoods would probably never allow a church to be built, and what good would a church community be in a commercialized area with little to no foot traffic?

Posted on 19 November 2004

After spending yesterday wrestling with the political applications of my faith and today talking with Joshua about reformed theology, I’m going to rest my mind a bit…

Since there are still some unanswered questions about what the WRC driver landscape will look like next season, I’ll throw out my predictions of what the line-ups will look like come Monte Carlo in January.

Subaru
Petter Solberg
Mikko Hirvonen

No brainer.

Citroen
Sebastien Loeb
Francois Duval

I question Duval’s move to a team that has only one year left in the WRC. It wasn’t like the Focus was lacking pace, especially later in the season. My guess is that Duval just didn’t get on well with M-Sport management.

Peugeot
Marcus Gronholm
Markko Martin

Again, why is Martin leaving Ford? And for another team that only has a year left? And to drive with Gronholm, who has never gotten along well with a teammate that can win rallies?

Ford
Janne Tuhino
Harri Rovanpera

Ford decided to stick around the WRC and what do they get? Both their drivers bolt for other teams. Tuhino has shown promise. Rovanpera would be a good at Ford — he’s skilled enough to win rallies, and with the performance of the Focus he could (finally) be a factor in the championship.

Skoda
Armin Schwarz
Colin McRae/Kris Meeks

A win-win for all involved. McRae has been testing the Fabia, and if he can work out a deal with team management to split the second works drive with his protege Meeks, this could work well for all involved. McRae is experienced enough to push the development of the Fabia, and Meeks provides an investment for the future.

Mitsubishi
Gilles Panizzi
Kristian Sohlberg

The new Lancer is finally ready for the championship, and Panizzi could return to his pre-2003 form and win a rally or two. Sohlberg was the better of the team’s youths last season, and holds promise for the future.

Posted on 18 November 2004

I’ve modified the Theocracy, the Religious Right, and the Rest of Us (see Gideon…permalinks!). My friend Joshua pointed out some faulty logic in my discussion of gay rights and employee rights. It seems some part of my brain went on holiday briefly, as re-reading the section, I have no idea what my point was, as it certainly wasn’t what I had written. If the thought comes back to me, I’ll update the entry.

Posted on 17 November 2004

or at least I think so. This post is well worth reading. I nearly fell out of my chair when I read this:

First: there are, there have always been, there will always be, Christians whose beliefs lead them to be social conservatives and economic progressives. (For evidence, look here and here.) We exist, and we have no party to represent us. (The Democratic party once did, back in its working-class heyday, but respect for that kind of traditional authority has been declining ever since the 1970s.) What we need to do is work for the transformation of America?s political and party system, so that more venues can open up, and the death-grip which a warped, half-statist, half-libertarian, decidedly non-communitarian “conservatism” holds over “moral values” in America can finally be loosened. It may not happen in my lifetime, but it’s something worth working for, and praying for. Second, and of greater relevance to this discussion: in the meantime, we need to continue to work towards making the Democratic party remember the lesson of Carter and Clinton, the lessons of respect.

That paragraph sums up everything I tried to write in the previous entry. What shocked me the most when I read it that was I wasn’t expecting it. And please keep in mind the source — Russell Fox is political science professor at Arkansas State, and he is very well-respected in the liberal blogging community (because of things like this entry), especially the folks over at Crooked Timber (which is also well-worth your time).

Posted on 17 November 2004

Have you heard of Bob Riley, governor of Alabama? If you haven’t, and you’re not entirely happy with the attitude of the Religious Right (or the Moral Majority, or whatever they’re called today), look him up. I may not completely agree with his stance on every issue, but he’s showing a great deal of “progressive” Christian concern for social justice in his state. What’s truly amazing is that despite his stances on abortion and adoption rights for gay couples, he is well respected by progressives because the same principles that guide his decisions on “moral” matters guide him on matters of social justice. Interestingly, the Christian Coalition of Alabama has opposed many of Riley’s initiatives (including a proposal to remove racist language from the state constitution and relieving the tax burden on the state’s poor). How ironic — progressives support an anti-abortion, Republican governor for his work in social justice, while Christians fight against him.

Posted on 17 November 2004

Many, many thoughts have been percolating, and I’m going to try and get at least a few of them out there on the table, perhaps to be developed further at some point. First, I came across this on Salon, and thought this quote was rather telling:

Because Bush and his fundamentalist backers lack a knowledge of secular disciplines, they do not realize that they are well on their way to installing in our society the ruthless system of social Darwinism and labeling it “Christian.” As in Herbert Spencer’s ideology, so in Bush’s policies: The financially fittest prosper at the expense of the weak. And ironically so, because social Darwinism is the opposite of Christian social teachings.

The irony isn’t lost on me. The Religious Right has fought tooth and nail against scientific Darwinism, while embracing it by supporting the economic policies of the Republicans. While I might argue that not every one of the “financially fittest” prosper at the expense of the weak, I would agree that it is the exception rather than the rule. The Right tends to be so caught up in the “morality” issues (abortion, gay marriage, etc) that they lose sight of the bigger picture of “immoral” behavior. Morality does not begin and end with abortion and homosexuality.

Joe Carter has an interesting insight into the roots of theocracy. The lesson in linguistic and etymology would be useful in correcting the misconceptions of the Left (and the media), and his criticisms of those misconceptions are right on. But I think he misses one of the key components of every “ignorant” stereotype: a grain of truth. No one group has done more to give Christians the proverbial black eye than other Christians. We are being judged by the deeds and misdeeds of Christians past — just as we judge liberals and conservatives by their histories. Take a moment to examine the “leading” voices on the Christian Right, and you’ll hear intolerance and bigotry in the name of Christ. When this is the public face of Christianity, we’re in trouble. One of the comments to Joe’s post is very telling:

The bigoted perspective of the left is very true and the left believes their bigorty is self evident truth. When I was in graduate school in education, I decided to hide my Christianity one semester. I played a little experiment. I wrote my papers well and impressed the teacher. She often read my papers in front of class and gave me very high marks. One time, she told me she even called a fellow teacher to share my paper with her over the phone. So at the end of the semester, I went up to the teacher. I asked her if she could guess my stance. Stance in this environment is like saying “which post-modern tribe am I from”. She said, “Well, I know you are bright. I know you gradutated from Stanford. Hmm. I do not know.” So I said, “Who are the most ignorant and backward minded people in our society.” To this she responded, and I am not lying, “YOU ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN ARE YOU.” To this I said, “The only one you have ever met. I am here to expose your bigorty.” After some discussion, she confessed she had never actually had a conversation with a born-again Christian before. I told her my entire intention of coming to speak with her is to help her realize that her bigorty against Christians is as real as a KKK person’s bigorty against blacks.
She was stunned, and I must admit moved.
Yes, indeed, there is real bigotry out there, but we can win them over one by one.

Carter raises the ghost of Martin Luther King as an example of a Christian leader who has been embraced by the left. He quotes from Eugene Volokh’s blog:

Or what do you think about the civil rights movement? The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., after all, was one of its main leaders, and he supported and defended civil rights legislation as a matter of God’s will, often in overtly religious terms. He too tried to impose his religious dogma on the legal system, which at the time allowed private discrimination, and in practice allowed governmental discrimination as well.

Interestingly, King and the specter of the civil rights movement are anathema to many on the right (both Christian and non-Christian). And Volokh also mentions labour unions. Employee rights? That’s absolutely blasphemous. As much as the Left has a double standard for religious advocacy, so has the Right. Why? Because politics has trumped faith. Instead of jumping aboard the faith wagon and letting that dictate political views, members of the Religious Right are allowing politics to guide some matters of faith. tI also think it’s a bit of logical leap to categorize the fight against gay marriage with the advocacy of civil and employee rights and opposition to the death penalty. As I’ve said before, if we’re going to fight for a law banning gay marriage, laws banning pre-marital sex and adultery better be close behind. Not sure what I was thinking there, but it wasn’t that!

So, what are we to do? Jim Hart has a good start, but he leaves out the most important piece — the development of the theologically, scripturally-bounded Christian third party. Even if you choose to vote for a third party, as a Christian, you are still forced to pick and choose which articles of faith you might be willing to look past. Perhaps we even need several Christian third parties that pledge to work on redeeming specific parts of our government.

Posted on 17 November 2004

A group of our climbing friends got together with us last night to celebrate Jen’s birthday (and her survival of her first semester of graduate school) at the Sharp Edge. A good time was had by all. If there’s anything I miss from our pre-Seb days, it’s the frequency of getting together with folks to raise a pint, especially when it’s a cask-conditioned Rogue Mocha Porter.

Also, a bit of World Rally news — Francios Duval has signed with Citroen to drive the second works car behind Sebastien Loeb. With Markko Martin almost certainly going to Peugeot, it looks as if Ford will be hunting high and low for drivers for the upcoming season. The most interesting bit of all this is that both Martin and Duval could only sign one year deals with the PSA sister squads, since neither will be in the championship beyond 2005.

The remaining open seats for 2005 include the second Subaru (though at this point, Mikko Hirvonen should have little competition), both seats at Ford, the second seat at Mitsubishi (behind Gilles Panizzi, though it will probably be one of the team’s youngsters who gets it), and the second seat at Skoda.

Posted on 17 November 2004

Wired has an interview with Jeff Tweedy. Interesting stuff. I was once on the Wilco bandwagon, mostly because I felt I had to get on it since I was such an Uncle Tupelo fan, but I never really felt that strongly about Tweedy, and I always liked Jay Farrar’s songs more. I’ve always been intrigued by the fact that Wilco are such critics’ darlings (much the same way as Radiohead), and that people see Tweedy as the second coming of Brian Wilson. Sure, Tweedy writes good pop songs, but how does one really forge a new direction in pop writing?

A couple of interesting comments from Tweedy:

What if there was a movement to shut down libraries because book publishers and authors were up in arms over the idea that people are reading books for free? It would send a message that books are only for the elite who can afford them.

I guess my only question is, doesn’t someone somewhere actually pay for the books in the library? I didn’t think publishing houses just gave away thousands of books. But his point is well taken. Someone somewhere is purchasing the music — why not let them share it?

I do, however, respect what Wilco did with Yankee Hotel Foxtrot:

Being dropped from Reprise in 2001. They weren’t going to put out Yankee Hotel Foxtrot the way we’d created it. They wanted changes; we weren’t willing to do that, so they rushed a contract through their legal department to let us go. It was the fastest I’d ever seen a record company work. Once they let us go, we were free to do with the album what we chose.

I think Tweedy made a decision that his art (however mediocre I think it is) was more important than the almighty buck. The band took a chance, and it ended up paying off for them. More bands need to give the proverbial finger to the larger record labels.

Posted on 15 November 2004

Rarely is Australia a rally of attrition, but this year’s race wasn’t typical. Only four factory cars made it to the finishing ramp (one of each of the four major makers), and one (Marcus Gronholm) crashed out not once but twice. In the end, Sebastien Loeb matched Didier Auriol’s record of six rally wins in a season, though Loeb admitted he never pushed his pace, even when Gronholm was still in the rally and leading. Peugeot’s Harri Rovanpera brought the second 307 home in second, Ford’s Francois Duval in third, and Subaru’s Mikko Hirvonen in fourth.

Now to the laundry list of the wounded. Carlos Sainz never made it to the start ramp, after a recce shunt earlier in the week. Ford’s Markko Martin only lasted through the Thursday night super special, retiring with engine problems. Petter Solberg was looking quick on leg one, but a rock damaged his steering column and he was out. Finally, Marcus Gronholm crashed out on leg two, re-entered the rally on Sunday under the SupeRally rules (which is rare for the Finn), then crashed out again, much more spectacularly, on leg three, prompting a visit to the hospital. Solberg also re-entered the rally, and hauled in the majority of the scratch times, no small consolation for a poor end to the season.

The final championship standings look like this:

1. Sebastien Loeb
2. Petter Solberg
3. Markko Martin
4. Carlos Sainz
5. Marcus Gronholm
6. Francois Duval
7. Mikko Hirvonen
8. Harri Rovanpera

And the manufacturer’s race ended like this:

1. Citroen
2. Ford
3. Subaru
4. Peugeot
5. Mitsubishi

And here are the storylines for the offseason:

Where will Francois Duval and Markko Martin end up?

Ford Motorsports waited nearly the entire season to announce they would compete in the WRC next year (and the following years). Both Duval and Martin were approached by other teams. Duval will likely stay at the Blue Oval next season, but Martin has been linked with Peugeot. Those plans could change, however, with Peugeot’s announcement that 2005 will be their final season in the WRC.

Who will drive the second Citroen Xsara?

With Citroen, Peugeot’s sister company, also pulling out of the WRC after 2005, it’s expected that Citroen won’t sign a single driver to team with Seb Loeb, but will fill the second seat with several, younger drivers that will share the car. The other question looming is whether or not Citroen will try to be competitive next season. The Xsara was the car to beat in 2004, but without a future, what sort of development will occur? No doubt both the Ford Focus and Subaru Impreza (both already quick) will improve in the offseason.

Will Mikko Hirvonen return for Subaru?

Team manager David Lapworth never gave a good answer to this question. While Hirvonen performed well in his first full factory drive, he was inconsistent. Likely, Lapworth will see how the offseason plays out with Martin and Duval, and then make his decision.

Can Peugeot be competitve?

The new 307 was an incredible disappointment this season, and without a future, will Peugeot try and fix the problems? No doubt Marcus Gronholm will push for a better car, even if the team doesn’t.

Will Skoda and Mitsubishi be better?

Both teams ran limited schedules this season to focus on developing their new cars. And both teams showed good pace in the later season rallies. Gilles Panizzi returns to Mitsubishi next season, so he should be able to coax more speed out of the Lancer, and Mitsubishi should begin to look like a WRC contender. Skoda is considering signing Colin McRae for the upcoming season for a limited programme, and the Scot’s experience would serve the development of the Fabia well.

Posted on 14 November 2004