Sites of interest

We should not call ourselves “humanists,” or “secular humanists,” or “naturalists,” or “skeptics,” or “anti-theists,” or “rationalists,” or “freethinkers,” or “brights.” We should not call ourselves anything. We should go under the radar—for the rest of our lives. And while there, we should be decent, responsible people who destroy bad ideas wherever we find them.

Sam Harris, noted atheist and author of Letter to a Christian Nation, delivered this interesting address to the Atheist Alliance conference in Washington D.C. My curiosity about the man has definitely skyrocketed — his advice to atheists mirrors a lot of the things I’ve told fundamentalist Christian friends. (When one asked me what The Church could do to change the world, I replied, “Stop talking about God and make people sandwiches.”)

Jeff Benson, one of the oldschool members of Growing Up Goddy, has posted an interesting question on his blog: Can we choose what we believe? It has wide-ranging implications for various schools of Christianity — for almost any belief system, really. I know there’s a strong argument to be made that humans respond far less to ‘reason’ than they do emotional cues, but we all want to think that we’ve arrived at our beliefs in a logical, enlightenment-friendly sort of way…

I really don’t have much to add here - it’s been a long time since I really seriously went through the mag, and hacking around the site doesn’t provide any immediate link to the album reviews I devoured in my Christian youth - I had to seriously dig to find what appears to be an original review of Amy Grant’s Age To Age, and said digging led me to a list - with no annotation - of 25 Christian Albums You Need To Own From The 80’s that seems pretty spot-on.

But this site’s blogroll cannot continue one more day without a link to the Rolling Stone of American Christendom.

Besides, this allows me to engage in one of our favorite habits in the late 80’s and early 90’s, and that is “If You Like Rolling Stone, You Should Read CCM Magazine.”

Following up on Jeremy’s post on theology (!) in mathematics curricula, I thought it only appropriate to post a Christian education publishing house’s website, and Bob Jones University Press absolutely fits the bill for being a flashpoint for those of us who grew up in the church. Continue reading...

The Slacktivist made a big ‘net splash when he embarked on a massive project to read every page of the book Left Behind and painstakingly critique it. As a work of fiction it’s weak, and as theology it’s weaker: Slacktivist documents it, page by page, and gives a fascinating tour of modern Rapture theology along the way.

There’s a lot more to his blog than that, though. He’s a political progressive, a sharp writer, and he’s passionate about what he believes. The comments section is tremendously active, with people from various faiths discussing and debating the issues his posts raise.

It’s very, very difficult to decide whether this blog is pure satire or hip, with-it Christianity 2.0 emergent irony. Regardless, it’s simultaneously thought-provoking and chortle-inspiring. Many money quotes are found in the “Brant Hanson, Visionary Coach” section, which is either frightening, or a dead-on parody of the eight gajillion ‘guides for leaders’ floating around executive boardrooms and modern church retreats.

The other day, while I was dead-lifting 635 pounds, I remembered a time I led a group of men up Kilimanjaro, where I introduced them to my good friend, Norman Schwarzkopf.

Norman looked at me, his eyes moist. “Thank you,” he said. “For taking the time to lead me. I lead everyone, but you’re the only one who led me, and I’m one of the leading leaders of visionary leaders. Thank you.” He tried to hug me. Continue reading...

CT is a high-quality but not-too-controversial publication that captures the general consensus of upper-middle-class evangelical culture. Think of it as the Christian Time, with occasional Economist tendencies.

Did that sound snarky? I didn’t mean it — Christianity Today has high quality content, and is willing to publish material that’s unpopular with its base of readers. It’s just that the nature of those controversial articles (say, an editorial questioning the inherent connection between political conservatism and faith, or a review of Fight Club that is insufficiently outraged) would be considered pretty mundane in the “outside world.”