Some footnotes

So here we get into classic Ben/Mark conversation mode. As usual, I don't think Ben disagrees with any of this—I guess I'm just writing my own footnotes to his posts.

On evangelism:

The first thing I thought of reading that post: isn't sin the primary reason 'evangelism' exists today? But I get it—so many religions muddy the water (spoil the broth?). And I like Ben's* point. Relationship is fundamental to the Godhead, and so we ought to reach out—though I am not entirely clear on what other religions have to do with that. Aren't we reaching out to everyone, be they of another faith or none at all? (And, stepping into Stereotypical Arrogant Evangelical character for a moment, isn't everyone else really believing in nothing anyway?)

What I really wanted to say, though, is this: I think the multiplicity of religions is also an act of grace. God has granted that truth is not an either/or in this world, not the exclusive province of Christians, but rather that it comes in shades that can be grasped at different depths by different people--what we call general revelation, I suppose. That God would allow everyone some kind of access to truth, right where they are, should be a cause for a) celebration and b) humility in ourselves. How wonderful it is not to shoulder the whole burden of the truth, and how often must I remind myself that this is the case!

On bumper stickers:

There is certainly a point here about bumper sticker ethics, the idea that if you say you support/believe something, then you do. Which is silly, of course—it's sound and fury, signifying nothing. Thoreau would be livid. If we are going to hold convictions, especially if we are going to shout them at others, we ought to be prepared to live them out.

Two things, though. First, we shouldn't deny the power of speech, place it in opposition to "real protest," i.e. action. Certainly political speech (or any kind of speech) is most effective when paired with action, but it is still an extraordinarily powerful tool in itself, as "the man" knows. Why else would so many writers and artists have been called before the infamous House Un-American Activities Committee? Bumper stickers are obnoxious, but I wonder if they aren't also vital. Second, and more importantly, why judge the Beetle owner? Perhaps they do in fact give a sizable portion of their income to the causes whose blazons they bear. Perhaps they have chosen to splurge on a sensible, safe car for the sake of their children. Perhaps they feel a bit sheepish about owning it and are considering trading it in. As David Foster Wallace said about a similar situation, "None of this is likely, but it's also not impossible. It just depends what you want to consider."

And finally, conversations like this one are tailor-made for a Cat and Girl cartoon.


Real post coming.

*To whom are these posts of mine addressed? Ben? A general, anonymous reader? My friends? Myself? There may be some pronoun juggling until I figure this out.