This is a great article: “far from being a simple, benign virtue, tolerance is the technology or governmentality… of an ideology that privileges some values — individual will, autonomy, choice, procedural (not substantive) justice, rationality, freedom of expression, freedom of markets — and stigmatizes or marginalizes others — group loyalty, religious obedience, the law of God, tribal traditions, the national ethos, blood, culture.”

The solitary good reason for action against Iran. Outnumbered and outgunned by all the reasons why it’s a barking mad thing to do, but that doesn’t change it’s truth.

I argued before the invasion, that “if the Republicans have become arrogant with power, and are not trusting in God for the ultimate outcome, then I think they are leading the world to ruin. If the decision to attack is motivated by a concern for the weak and defenceless (the Biblical ‘widows and orphans’) then it is justified; if it is taken from a lust and glorying in power and temporal might – then it is damned and damnable.”

Now read this.

I really hope that Bush gets stuffed today. In particular, I hope that the Republicans lose both houses, so that some proper investigations can be carried out into the last six years of tragic incompetence.

(I say that as someone who would qualify as a Republican on most things.)

Patrik seems to have had a momentary lapse of reason. I’m immensely flattered. (As well as the Floyd, the Pet Shop Boys come to mind – ‘what have I done, what have I done, what have I done to deserve this?’)

You probably already know all the details of this story.

But have a read of his own statement. Which is profoundly sad. Not least the thought of having his sin dealt with harshly, which doesn’t quite fit with how I understand the role of pastor or spiritual director (it might do, but I suspect it won’t in practice, fit. I don’t quite know what it means to deal with sin harshly. We deal with people, not abstract concepts. Nobody has been more wounded by the sin than Haggard himself – that’s what sin is).

I thought this was to the point, linking the process with Greek tragedy.

This also seemed to have the ring of truth.

And *Christopher talks sense (not a surprise).

I think the only healing can come from following (as ever) James Alison’s advice.

Why are we so hung up about sex, when – if we read Scripture – it doesn’t register on the highest levels of God’s own priorities? It’s the gnostics (as MadPriest often argues…)

One confession – a guilty secret – I laughed out loud at this, which was profoundly uncharitable of me.

UPDATE: just discovered this, which is marvellous. I’ve added him to my blogroll. (Follow the links to his two other essays).

“…I now believe that the church is not here to speak to the world. We preachers do not have as our task to provide the world with some reason for living or some meaning for its worldliness — we do not believe that the world, on its own, can have a reason or a meaning for its life. The church is about a more imperialistic enterprise than a deferential speaking to the world. We are to let God destroy and create a world through our preaching.”

(Karl Barth – found here)

I am more and more of the mind that the gospel is like a miracle drug – it is intensively attractive to the human being – and all that is needed to grow it is to set it free. Wherever the gospel is preached, there it will prosper. Which says something about churches which don’t grow, IMHO.

(But of course, growth does not mean gospel, it doesn’t work in reverse. A church which is growing isn’t necessarily preaching the gospel, but a church which is declining almost certainly ISN’T preaching the gospel.)

From Colin Campbell, one of the ‘gurus’.

I know much more about Peak Oil than about Global Warming, but I know enough about the latter to be able to discern some common errors. There was an article in the Daily Telegraph about a month ago which was not very good in that respect – it was scepticism, but woefully ill-informed.

This seems different. Doubtless there are places where he is wrong, but if his core point is correct, then there is some serious misleading going on. Whilst one of the most effective elements of Al Gore’s film was the comparison of scientific assessments of global warming vis-a-vis the reporting of same in newspapers, I can’t help but remember the cautionary phrase ‘100,000 lemmings can’t be wrong’. Unanimity is no guarantee of truth.

I’d be interested to see a detailed rebuttal of the article, if anyone comes across one.

UPDATE: George Monbiot here.

“Religion involves belief in that which cannot be proved; superstition involves belief in that which can be disproved.”

Now that is really good. (Via Slacktivist)

Probably another one of those things that I start and don’t finish, but I’ve signed up to MySpace this evening.