What the St Pete Mayor is doing to help the homeless
Today at 1:01pm | Edit Note | Delete

No one was born on the streets and I don’t believe the Mayor really believes that a person would choose to be a free spirit and live this lifestyle. That is nothing but a stereotype. No rational person, regardless of their feelings about rules, would choose deprivation, filth, and sickness over the comfort of employment, income, and housing. I am sure that the Mayor doesn’t like some of the rules he lives by either but he endures a situation that he cannot change at this point. That’s what someone without employment, income, or housing has to do each day, to endure an impossible situation as best they can. The devastating changes in the world of work, outsourcing overseas, illegal immigrants and the like are the root cause of the economic difficulties in America. Why isn’t the Mayor ferreting out illegal immigrant workers in his community and get those jobs for legitimate Americans so that they might be able to rent their own rooms? Is it because they’re his constituents? This hogwash in America has to stop. We need to care for our own citizens first. Employment, income, medical care, housing, are the solution, not this insane madness of criminalizing the poor. This is “brother against brother” in its purest form and was the basis for the Civil War. It is the basis for most of the problems America has today, the rich against the poor. We have become such a shallow society and have even begun to discard people as well as the nightly trash. Instead of pursuing rational, sensible, and sane solutions to this problem we have become combative and seek to destroy those whom we dislike. Instead of trying to circumvent the law Sir, perhaps you might consider pursuing realistic, logical solutions like returning these individuals to a productive life and contributing members of the community with dignity and self respect. Try enduring these conditions and you too would suffer the same way.

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/note.php?note_id=139607292727369

Oh, BTW empty your voice mailbox so that people can leave you a message.

Alan

I think it has largely been American fundamentalism that has adopted this “very myopic view of Scripture” to which you refer. The fundamentalist phenomenon within evangelical Protestantism emerged in part with the emphasis on so-called “personal” salvation that had become popularized in the “camp-meeting” revivalism of early 19th century American frontier expansion, and in part with the emphasis on the notion of a “verbally inerrant” Scripture that originated with the “Princeton theology” developed at the tail-end of the 19th century. It should be borne in mind that both of these strands of thought that produced “fundamentalist” Christianity have a distinctively “made-in America” stamp on them and actually part company with classical Reformation orthodoxy in several critical areas.
The Reformers held a high view of biblical authority and believed strongly that the Word should be made available “in a language understood by the people” – to paraphrase the expression used in the 39 Articles of the Church of England (Circa 1558) – but they also shared the Catholic understanding that the Word was ultimately the community-property of the preaching, worshipping and believing Church and not something to be interpreted willy-nilly by private indivduals or used as a club to advance private spiritual or political agendas. In this regard I actually do agree with what Stanley Haurwas argues in his excellent book, Unleashing the Scriptures.
I think what has happened is that the American consumer oriented culture has so co-opted popular religion that classical orthodoxy – Protestant as well as Catholic – has gotten lost, at least in much of American religious culture. The fundamentalist phenomenon really burst into national prominence among mainstream Americans with the rise of the Religious Right in the 70′s and 80′s, which I believe was a reaction to the social, cultural and political upheavals of the 1960′s – a kind of conservative counter-revolt really. Prior to about 1975, Christianity of this “fundamentalist” sort was a cultural phenomena largely to be found in rural areas, and particularly in the Deep South. However, over the last three decades it has expanded its reach to the whole society and even made substantial inroads into the mainline traditional Churches which had for much of the 20th century been bastions of theological liberalism.

What is interesting is that the “culture wars” debates that today seem to dominate the Church, are largly a fight between theological liberals and theological fundamentalists – the voice of authentic historic orthodoxy (as understood by any strand of the Christian tradition – including the tradition of the Protestant Reformation, English as well as German and Continental) is hardly to be heard, and people seem to have forgotten that it ever existed.
That said, I don’t see any reason to “throw the baby out with the bathwater”.

Best regards,

John Feeney

point well taken. I think the problem that frank and billy daniel, et. al. see in modernity is how these ‘literate and educated people’ have taken their intellectual enlightenment to staggering heights of hubris. Very much in the tradition of the very ‘powerful transnational political institution’ that held them back, people have a tendency to use their new found hermeneutical liberation as a weapon, defending what can be at times, a very myopic view of scripture.

of course, all of this talk of biblical linguistics is not so much rooted in the history of ecclesial theology, but a european academics stretching from Descartes up to and beyond Jacques Derrida—a movement from the egocentric ‘i think therefore i am’ to the atheistic ‘play of the signifier’ wherein no text can be tied to a single scrutable ground. Meaning simply slides along the surface of the text. Text of course, being any object under analysis, not simply words on a page. This ‘linguistic turn in phenomenology’ is now (fashionably) utilized by many to shape a fragmented, mosaic-type worldview. Christians like Billy and Frank, must take this intellectual shift into serious consideration if one is to continue to engage in ‘meaningful’ forward thinking theologies with white, well educated, philosophical elites. People like Bruce, however, must wrestle with this thinking in order to engage the nihilism of the largely colored (not just black), illiterate (academically speaking), poor disenfranchised.

Modernity is not so much a ‘dirty’ word as it is an immaterial one. regardless of the virtues the enlightenment brought to history, its role has continued to play a particular part in shaping the collective egos of the western world. a new language, or worldview, has dawned. this very blog, in where i am attempting to open up a multi-faceted approach to dialog (myriad readers; myriad writers), hopes to signify a creative and thoughtful response to this reality.