Fresh off of back surgery, Tony Jones is blogging a reaction to Richard Mouw's article in Newsweek, Less Shouting, More Talking. Below is my response to Tony, plus one more thought.

Tony, you may be right that a 'yes' vote on Prop 8 hinders Mouw as he attempts civil dialogue. It may well be that he loses a bit of trust with some. But it seems this is not a Mouw problem. I would submit that most Californians were not ready for a vote on this, Mouw included. Mouw wants to continue to talk. But with the issue brought before him, would you suggest that he should have voted?

Our vote should not disqualify us from further discussion. Far from it! If GLBT persons and the evangelicals who favor their ability to marry wish to see change, they must go about it with (if I might quote you quoting Newbigin) proper confidence.

--

One more thoughts:

As an elder in the PCUSA, this is a hot button issue right now. I've got my opinion, but I'm still processing. I've heard good, passionate, biblically based arguements from faithful people on both sides of the debate. I appreciate these people so much and if there's one thing they've taught me, it's that it is not nearly as clear cut as most people want me to believe. My charge to everyone: be passionate, argue well, argue respectfully, and listen.

And the last one chiefly.

I'm sitting at my favorite local coffee shop working on Roundtables for tomorrow.

Two women sit down at the table next to me.

They talk about how stupid the people they spend time with are. ("I asked if they read fiction and they had only read one fiction book and it was stupid....and can you believe I was the only one watching the commercials during the SuperBowl? What else is it good for?")

When their meal comes, they pray for it. ("FatherGodwejustthankyouforthisfoodandthistimewhenwecanjustfellowshipwitheachotherandwithyouandjustpray...")

They gossip about the people in their church and their neighbors ("You know, the couple that came forward because they lived together before they got married.....And she's just kind of mousey and I never see her outside.").

They talk about how awesome Left Behind is. ("And he LIVES in Black Forest. Really? How wonderful!")

They complain how about noisy it is. ("They just keep running that machine over and over! It is so loud!")

They get up to leave and embrace.

In their wake is a pile of dirty dishes, an empty tub where they should be, and a bad taste in the mouths of their neighbors.

I'm currently reviewing Scot McKnight's new book The Blue Parakeet for Youth Worker Journal. Over the next few days, I'll give my thoughts on each chapter. When I've finished the review, I'll post it here. You'll also find it at YWJ's website and the print edition.

I'll start out by saying this: There are a lot of rabid Scot McKnight fans. I'm not one. I like Scot. I've seen him speak once and thoroughly appreciated his approach. I've read his blog a few times, but I don't get the RSS feed (generally, he is too much to handle for me). I haven't read Jesus Creed or any other book of his.

But the rest of this book keeps up with the first chapter, I may be doing all of those things soon enough.

Chapter One
On top of Scot's engaging and accessible writing, The Blue Parakeet gets at the heart of today's reactions to the modern church: how do we pick and choose what we are reading in the Bible? In modernism, the fight was between the right and the left, each with their own set of verses to wield. As the fight has gone on, many of us are left wondering if it is not Darth Vader versus the Emperor (and we're not totally sure which one is which).

I'm interested to see where Scot will go from here. The introduction leads me to believe he'll talk about being aware and intentional about how we read Scripture. I'm also hoping he gets into a third way, something more holistic. However, he seems to indicate he doesn't think it is possible. We'll see.

So far, so good.

Amazing game overshadows all the distractions - Kansas City Star 


Usually I'm right there with Jason Whitlock. His takes are nearly always right on: Carl Peterson, Royals ownership, Chiefs quarterbacks, Carl Peterson.

But he's got this one wrong. So much so that I'm not talking about incredible interception returns or the great play calling by the coordinators or the Career Builder commercial, which was by far the best of the lot.

The officals ruined what could have been one of the best SuperBowls of all time.

And it's not just the fumble at the end. It was debatable and the head official should have seen it. But at least it was a real call. The roughing the passer called on Karlos Dansby was a joke. The holding call against Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie was one of the worst calls I've ever seen. I mean, this is the Super Bowl. No one wants officials calling ticky-tack penalties in the playoffs, let alone in the game that determines the NFL Championship. Let 'em play.


But if you're not, call it even. The holding no-calls on the Steelers were just as clear as the Cardinals holding calls. The personal foul on James Harrison was rendered 1/30th of its normal effectiveness. Dude got to punch a guy, stay in the game, and his team took a one yard loss for it. Some penalty. The biggest joke of them all came in the fourth quarter. The officials called defensive holding in the secondary (a penalty that happens while the receiver is running his route) after Larry Fitzgerald had caught the ball and had made five steps.

It wasn't just that the penalties were called more often on Arizona. It happens. It just seemed that, save the holding call in the end zone, the penalties were not costly for Pittsburgh. And they were devistating for Arizona.

I went in rooting Cardinals, but I would have been satisfied either way. But when the game was over, I felt animosity toward the Steelers for winning that way—like they were celebrating something they hadn't earned.

Congrats to the Steelers. You had a great season. But the best season? We'll never really know.