Tuesday, January 04, 2005

One Response to the Elegant Hack post (below) ================================ It seems like the 80s all over again. The focus on design in the to late 80s, mostly with unified branding and creative practices formally brought in-house. There was a lot of push around design, mostly labelled branding (nearly the exact same discussions, but slightly different terms). Much of this was around the brandhouses like Landor. The business community embraced the results and tried to incorporate the creative culture as part of their own. What happened? The innovators were bought by large advertising or public relation firms and the firms changed their industry term to communication companies. Companies created corporate communication divisions (comprised of adversising, PR, branding, and other creative endevors) and had high level management visability. By the early 90s the corporate environment had largely subsumed the communication into marketing and business schools that has embraced the creative mindset followed suit. Today marketing is often what trumps design and there is no creative in marketing. The creative departments by the late 90s had been gutted by the web craze. This left business types with little creative craft understanding as those driving what was once good. It is not suprising that currently named "design" is taking off, as what was good about the creative was gutted and most companies lack central design plans. There is tremendous waste in cross medium design, as few sites are built with an understanding of the digital medium, let alone cross platform design or true cross media design. Part of the problem is far too few designers actually understan cross-platform and/or cross-media design. There is millions wasted in bandwidth on poor web design that is using best practices from the late 90s not those from today. There is no integration of mobile, with a few exceptions in the travel industry. There is still heavy focus on print, but very little smart integration of design in the digital medium. This even applies to AIGA, which is a great offender of applying print design techniques on the web. How can we expect business design to get better if one of the pillars of the design profession has not seemed to catch on? Posted by vanderwal at December 27, 2004 12:01 PM 7:06:39 PM

visualize this Posted in :: Information Design :: 10x10 / 100 Words and Pictures that Define the Time / by Jonathan J. Harris is an interesting visualization of the news, but not nessarily a visualizationtool-- the imagergy iscompelling, but not meaningful. Compare to newsmap where size + attention, and you can slice and dice based on country. Which is a understanding interface, and which is merely colorful?  [IA? EH.] 6:43:58 PM

	Sunday, July 18, 2004

An Artificial Brain with 20 Billion Neurons. A California-based company founded in 2003, Artificial Development, is developing neural network cognitive systems and wants to introduce "the first 5th Generation computer to the world." According to e4engineering.com, the company recently completed a representation of a functioning human brain. This project, named CCortex, has vast ambitions. The company hopes that their "software may have immediate applications for data mining, network security, search engine technologies and natural language processing." This software runs on a Linux cluster with 1,000 processors and the CCortex system has 20 billion neurons and 20 trillion connections. The company says this is "the first neural system to achieve a level of complexity rivaling that of the mammalian brain." For more details about this project, please read this overview. [Smart Mobs] 9:35:23 AM

	Wednesday, March 03, 2004

Bush at War by Bob Woodward - given Bob's history, Bashing Nixon, Bashing Clinton - maybe this is a bridge kind of book? Another Type of Digital Divide ?. Gleaned from Esther Dyson's blog, Valdis Krebs uses his software to map the books setting out political points of view in these oh-so-interesting times. I'll bet a map of left/right blogs would look similar. Kinda looks like the two main gangs in West Side Story or the Bloods and Crips from South-Central LA, doncha think?  Thanks, Valdis.   [wirearchy News] 4:41:11 PM

The Rise of the Feed Readers. While waiting for some other log processing to finish, I had a moment to review the software agents that pull the rss & atom feeds from the weblog. In past two months there were 141 unique agents that requested one of the 3 feeds. Of the unique 'users' (for some definition of unique) 75% of them use one of the big 6 aggregators. The numbers on all the 141 agents can be found in the extended posting. [All Things Distributed] 2:45:05 PM

Applied Decentralization: A large-scale social system for HLS. It's been a few months since I've posted - a very busy and exciting time here at Groove. Both in terms of what's been happening in the business and market, but also because we're closing in on the first beta of Groove V3. I can't wait to tell you about the improvements in V3 ... because after having used it day in and day out for a few months now, I've simply never felt nearly this excited about a product that I've worked on. And that says a lot. More on V3 in a few weeks! For those of you who have been following Groove for quite some time, you may recall that the product's original raison d'être was to enable people "at the edge" to dynamically assemble online into secure virtual workspaces, to work together and to get something done, even if those individuals were in different organizations with completely different IT infrastructure. Today, with the gracious permission of one of our most significant customers, Groove made an announcement that I'd like to talk about for a moment. It's very significant to me for two reasons: First, the nature of how Groove is being used in this solution demonstrates to the extreme the very reason why Groove was built the way it was, from a technology and architecture perspective. Decentralization at its finest. The customer's core challenge was to enable individuals from many, many different organizations - most of whom had little or no opportunity for training - to rapidly assemble into small virtual teams to selectively share information, make decisions, get the job done, and disassemble. The individuals are geographically dispersed. They use different kinds of networks, behind different organizations' firewalls and management policies. They are very, very highly mobile. And there are few applications where the requirement for deep and effective security is more self-evident. Groove's press release can be found here. The Department of Homeland Security's press releases related to HSIN can be found here and here, while Secretary Ridge's remarks are here. Why was a decentralized architecture for this network so fundamentally important, and thus why was Groove uniquely suited for the task? This brings me to the second reason that I'm tremendously pleased to have had the opportunity to contribute to solving this problem. Larry Lessig taught us that in software-based systems in cyberspace, the code can define outcomes - inadvertently or intentionally - that might have an impact on society. Or better stated in this case, the system's core architectural design principles have a real impact not only on the system's mission effectiveness, but also in how it might effectively preserve and protect rights. To understand these issues more deeply, one need look no further than the eloquent work released this past December by the Markle Foundation Task Force on National Security in the Information Age, called "Creating a Trusted Network for Homeland Security". If you're interested in the "why" of decentralization, read the report. Look at the members of the task force. And take particular note of their proposed SHARE network and its architecture. (Interestingly, Richard Eckel wrote about it in his blog before he became aware of the details of Groove's involvement with HSIN.) Lots of stuff here to read, but it's truly fascinating if you are interested in understanding how decentralization and peer-to-peer technology is having a real impact on government and society. Although so, so many people are involved in this project because of its scope, in particular I'd like to recognize Col. Tom Marenic, Pat Duecy, Ed Manavian, and especially our partner Mike Kushin of ManTech/IDS. My sincere thanks for your leadership, your passion about the mission, and your appreciation for organizational dynamics, social dynamics, technology and architecture in assembling a large and empirically effective system for purposeful social interaction. [Ray Ozzie's Weblog] 2:41:32 PM

	Thursday, January 29, 2004

Contentious: Strong Finish: Writing Effective Conclusions. Contentious: Strong Finish: Writing Effective Conclusions "In order to make things happen, people must read your document and thendo something with your information. For instance, they might use your document in making decisions, forming opinions, or influencing the opinions and decisions of others. They may follow your instructions to complete a task or assess a situation or option. They may alter their priorities. They may recognize new opportunities, problems, or risks. And so on. The "...and then do something" part is where your document's conclusion comes in. Your conclusion should move readers from information to action." [elearningpost] 11:26:12 AM

I have often wondered where this visceral anger towards George Bush and the Republicans comes from.  I don't personally feel it, but I am continually surprised by the deep negative emotional association that people (especially in Cambridge MA) appear to have. The following quote from Brad DeLong helps. =========== Ms Riba was..."vaguely working on answers to neven's request for best arguments for opposing G.W. Bush, when economist Brad DeLong words one of them much better than I: Why do so many of us who worked so hard on economic policy for the Clinton administration, and who think of ourselves as mostly part of a sane and bipartisan center, find the Bush administration and its Republican congressional lapdogs so... disgusting, loathsome, contemptible? Why are we so bitter? After introspection, the answer for me at least as clear. We worked very hard for years to repair the damage that Ronald Reagan and company had done to America's [fiscal policy]. We strained every nerve and muscle to find politically-possible and popularly-palatable ways to close the deficit, and put us in a position in which we can at least begin to think about the generational long-run problems of financing the retirement of the baby-boom generation and dealing with the rapidly-rising capabilities and costs of medicine. We saw a potential fiscal train wreck far off in the future, and didn't ignore it, didn't shrug our shoulders, didn't assume that it would be someone else's problem, but rolled up our sleeves and set to work. Then the Bush people come in. And in two and a half years they trash the place. They trash the place deliberately. They trash the place casually. They trash the place gleefully. They undo our work for no reason at all--just for the hell of it. ================================= First, I can understand the anger of seeing work you poured your life into being screwed up.  Leads to Anger, and this makes sense to me. Now, while there are those that believe that there is some right wing conspiracy to undo any semblance of non-military non-business activity by the government, I don't believe that the Bush administration is really on that path.  I do think that there has been a lot of "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" into Afghanistan, and then into Iraq.  And then it gets complicated and expensive.  But it's not as though the Bush administration alone created Anti-US terrorists.  As one of my Russian diplomatic friends says - "No one is Blameless" And so here we are.  People are angry because they naively thought they had really solved some serious problems, and along come some older ones that had been ignored and allowed to grow into monsters and we get 9/11 and a whole lot more spending. The Angry types on the Left should undestand that the Angry people on the Right feel that the wimpy-international policies of the Left led to the terrorism we have today.  They feel that all the work they did - fight a war in Iraq (the first one), and win the Cold War was squandered into a peace dividend driven social economy of excessive exhuberance. Me....  while I'm not angry, I'm just sad that the two sides are growing increasingly polarized.  Maybe they are, but maybe it always feels that way.  The exception being the one or two months after some huge crisis! 11:13:07 AM

	Wednesday, January 28, 2004

The traditional 3: Solid, Liquid, Gas, Plus the one used down at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (working on fusion) - Plasma Bose-Einstein Condensate (Eric Cornell and Carl Wieman 1995), Fermion Condensate (Debora Jin 2004) ================================ Bose-Einstein condensates are made with Bosons, whereas the Fermion Condensates use Fermions. Bosons are particles like photons, and w and z particles.  Fermions are protons, electrons and neutrons.   9:34:39 PM

Shirky on Dean and social software I may be about the last one on this (real life got the better of me for a few days there), but Clay Shirky has a well reasoned post at Many-to-Many re the failure modes of Dean's use of the Internet in an electoral campaign, with some parallels to my own suspicions. Civilized discussion and lots of bloggy trackback goodness. Bonus Old Fart points for using Apple's ill-fated eWorld to illustrate a point. RTHT. [Due Diligence] 1:54:42 PM

First, I like Don Norman, But - his annoying primadonna style of presenting information was a bit offputting.  Maybe I only heard one or two segments of this show, but it seemed like he has no tact. Don, let me suggest that you listen to what people are saying, then respond to what they are saying before letting it rip with a different point of view.  You may have great ideas, or have arrived at a pretty accurate picture of what's going on in communication styles, but your own mastery of interaction would seem poor.  Build on what people say - integrating it into your worldview or the worldview of some others that you disagree with -  rather than merely taking someone's heartfelt experience as a data point for launching into your views. ==================== User interface guru Don Norman is on The Connection today talking about why cell phones are so annoying. Wow, Howard Rheingold is on now. [Scripting News] 12:15:01 PM

Why does the singularity need to be distorted into an "evil" singularity - I feel like I'm in the group therapy session of Dr. Evil and his son - when the son is describing what he might like to do (instead of taking over the evil empire) and Dr. Evil keeps interjecting the word "evil" An "EVIL" petting zoo? Technology does not have to become EVIL - but I suppose it helps to capture attention and draw people in to even think about ideas like the Singularity. ============================ The Panopticon Singularity - Big Brother Is Already Watching You. Charlie Stross wrote a powerful, chilling essay for the ill-fated Whole Earth Magazine charting the nascency of The Panopticon Singularity: "a police state characterised by omniscient surveillance and mechanical law enforcement." A Panopticon Singularity is the logical outcome if the burgeoning technologies of the singularity are funneled into automating law enforcement. Previous police states were limited by manpower, but the panopticon singularity substitutes technology, and ultimately replaces human conscience with a brilliant but merciless prosthesis. With the demise of Whole Earth, Stross published his original draft on the Web. He details ten emerging technologies that will enable such a dystopia and outlines the currently apparent pathway for its creation. The list will be familiar to readers of Smart Mobs. A must-read. Thanks, Tex! [Smart Mobs] 10:18:19 AM

Laundry List of the time consuming activities of social networking websites that have become annoying recently. Imagine maintaining presences on all the following sites: Friendster, LinkedIn, Tribe, Orkut, Ryze, Spoke, ZeroDegrees, Ecademy, RealContacts, Ringo, MySpace, Yafro, EveryonesConnected, Friendzy, FriendSurfer, Tickle, Evite, Plaxo, Squiby, and WhizSpark. 10:00:28 AM

Social Nets Not Making Friends. As the number of social networking services like Friendster continues to swell, the technorati are pushing back. An antisocial backlash is afoot. By Leander Kahney. [Wired News] 9:57:27 AM

	Tuesday, January 27, 2004

With bloggers inside, Davos secrets are out. Hunched over laptops in lounches and even tapping away in closed-door sessions, the bloggers at the World Economic Forum ( WEF ) in Davos set about their task with an evangelistic fervor that occasionly proved cotagious. From confidential closed-door sessions bloggers posted videos contraving conference rules imposed on accredited journalists. read the full article of Thomas Crampton in the Herald Tribune [Smart Mobs] 5:57:47 PM

	Monday, January 19, 2004

The Church's Crisis of Identity by Stephen M. Smith The Church faces a crisis of identity possibly unmatched since the second century. An alternative worldview contends with classical orthodoxy for the mind and heart of our Church. This alternative worldview is the source of most of the causes and proposals that threaten to divide the Episcopal Church. The Church's crisis of identity is rooted in a contest between "dualistic" theism and religious monism. The two worldviews are engaged on many fronts or issues, among them the questions of the authority of Scripture and the uniqueness of Christ, sexual morality, and the nature of language for God. Worldviews A worldview is a vision that defines reality, identity, morality, and destiny. In other words, it deals with the ultimate issues: it asks who or what God is, who we are, what are we to do, and where are we going. In the terms of this four-fold outline of worldviews, classical theism affirms a transcendent Creator who created the world "from nothing" and Jesus as the incarnate Son of God who died for sinners and rose again (reality), a valued but fallen humanity (identity), a transcendent, transcultural moral structure (morality), and a hope of Heaven and danger of Hell (destiny). Religious monism affirms an eternal unity of creator with creation and Jesus as at most the best perfectly full-illed human (reality), a humanity not fallen but ignorant and unfulfilled (identity), a relativistic, situational ethic (morality), and a hope of self-actualization (destiny). Central to any worldview is the act of naming. Names express worldviews and worldviews determine names. Naming shapes an event, phenomena, or practice by determining its meaning and value. Is homosexuality, for example, an "alternative" along the "spectrum" of sexual expressions? Is cohabitation a "natural" response to "new social realities"? Is abortion a "private" act of women exercising their "reproductive freedom"? Are those who see abortion as the killing of human life pro-life or anti-choice or anti-abortion? Is the Fatherhood of God a patriarchal, sexist projection or the gift of divine self-naming? Naming shapes our perception of reality. Much is thus at stake. There is a profound, albeit mysterious, connection between language and worldview. In the present conflict in the Church, the right or authority or power to name God is crucial. Different worldviews generate different names. These determine whether the God of the Bible is believed to be good or bad, desirable or undesirable, relevant or irrelevant. The monist worldview will eventually require a renaming of God to bring the names used in prayer, worship, and theology into line with the God of monism. Four books - Bishop J. A. T. Robinson's Honest to God, Bishop John Spong's Honest Prayer and Living in Sin?, and Professor Sallie McFague's Models of God - are widely influential presentations of the monist perspective and demonstrate the magnitude of the clash of worldviews. Honest to God Though the monist movement is an ancient one, let us begin with its entry into the consciousness of average churchpeople. In 1963, Bishop J. A. T. Robinson published Honest To God, perhaps the most widely read work of theology in our century. Three years after publication, it had sold nearly one million copies. The book is quite attractive because the bishop sought to reach the modern skeptic. He was honest enough to ask the "big question": is the orthodox worldview a necessary component of Christianity? He pulled no punches, He claimed that the orthodox "way of thinking is the greatest obstacle to an intelligent faith" and that something "should [be] put in its place." He claimed that belief in a transcendent God is "a projection, an idol" which was no longer persuasive or even believable. In its place, Robinson constructed a religious worldview recognizably Christian yet without a transcendent God. From Rudolph Bultmann he got his hermeneutical strategy: to see behind the Bible's "prescientiric mythology" (e.g., the resurrection of Jesus in space and time) to existential truths of self-understanding. From Paul Tillich he got his alternative worldview. God, called the "ground of being," is no longer to be conceived of as transcendent, as "wholly other" from the creation, but monistically as "the 'ecstatic' character of this world." Thus God is "encountered in his fullness only between man and man. . . . God, the unconditional, is to be found only in, with and under the conditional relations of this life." In the terms of our outline of worldviews, God is "the ground of being" and Jesus is a "man for others" and a "window into Being" (reality), but he cannot be God the Son except in the sense that we all are sons of God (identity). Certainly there is a morality, indeed a "new morality" that we can all intuit, but we have been "delivered" from transcendent, transcultural norms (morality). Heaven and Hell are merely metaphors for knowledge or ignorance of our union with Being (destiny). Some naturalist and skeptical philosophers understood Robinson's "paradigm shift" more clearly then he did. Alasdair Maclntyre claimed that Bishop Robinson was an atheist with a thin (and desperate) coating of religious verbiage. Logical Positivist A. J. Ayer observed that Robinson "is coming round to a position a number of us have held for some time." Yet when Archbishop Michael Ramsey noted that Robinson "appears to reject the concept of a personal God as expressed in the Bible and the Creed," Robinson responded by saying, "I reject emphatically any suggestion that what I have written is contrary to the Catholic Faith"! (It is difficult to be sure if he understood the radical nature of his own project.) Honest to God gave the Church a persuasive, popular case for religious monism legitimated by a scholarly bishop. Let us go back to the question of naming. If Robinson is correct, then the Trinitarian names are products of an ancient, now unbelievable projection and God must be renamed, even though he himself remained comfortable with the Biblical language. If he is correct, we cannot believe that God has named Himself. We must name God. Theology is still projection, but now it has become self-conscious projection. It is the theologians' task to do the naming. No longer will they simply clarify the faith given in Bible and Creeds and apply it to the challenges of the age. Now they have the truly significant task of naming God, of constructing visions of reality that can aid us in our social projects or our quests for "wholeness." The only price monism asks is that one set aside the "archaic" concept of a transcendent God who names and reveals Himself. Even better, no longer need we obey a transcendent morality and meaning. To stay in the Church, all we need do is to find some connection with the "historical Jesus," if only as the first example of the truly selfactualized person we may all one day become. Honest Prayer Taken together, Bishops John Robinson and John Spong form an historical parable of religious monism working itself out in the life of the Church. Bishop Spong began to implement the monist vision which Bishop Robinson had introduced. Bishop Spong published Honest Prayer in 1973, expressing many of the same ideas as Honest to God. According to him, God is greater than but not separate from the world and Heaven is God's earthly presence. God "does not live in some other worldly place called heaven," He is "the Ground of Being. . . . the Depth of Life." He "is not a superperson . . . but he is the Power of Love. He is the Meaning of Life." What is prayer? "The life of prayer is for me the responsibility to open myself in love to the transcendent in everyone I meet." Clear enough? This is a consistent monist redefinition of prayer. Prayer is a "quality" relationship with another, not a relationship with a transcendent, personal CreatorRedeemer God. The bishop's final comments on the Lord's Prayer are a remarkable exercise in monist redefinition. To hallow God's name is to become "our deepest and truest selves." To affirm God's glory is to be "fully alive." The Lord's Prayer becomes almost a soliloquy for selfactualization. Recently the Bishop took a brief sabbatical at Harvard engaging "the challenge of science." fie returned with this new creed: "I believe that the word 'God' points to that which is ultimately real. I believe that humanity itself represents the emerging of consciousness within this many billion year old universe. I believe that this emerging consciousness will someday be seen as nothing less than that which we now call spirit and divinity." Earlier I noted that a monist within the Church had simply to tie his view to Jesus to justify the claim to be Christian. The bishop's next line is, "I believe that Jesus, whom I call Lord, is that unique life where humanity and divinity flow together." Since he also believes that "divinity" flows through all of us, Jesus can be no more than our guru, the exemplar of God-consciousness or divinity for western Christians (other people may have other exemplars). Here again a monist vision renames God, as the "ultimately real," and humanity, as the divine incarnation of evolutionary consciousness. Living in Sin? Bishop Spong's recent book Living in Sin? shows what monism looks like as applied to sexual ethics. Because God does not speak an eternal, transcendent word to us, he argues that we cannot reverse the "tide of history" and so must have the "courage" to stabilize the new situation by affirming what people are going to do with or without the Church's blessing. Any sexual behavior is allowable if it is "mutual" and leads us to a more authentic existence. The Church is thus encouraged to bless people who live together in trial liaisons, homosexual unions, and the elderly who live together rather than marry and lose part of their Social Security payments. But this is only the beginning. The bishop wishes not only to revise sexual morality to meet changed circumstances, but drastically revise "the authority of Scripture and the role of both Scripture and the church." He attempts to show why the Scriptures are a thin reed to rely upon for guidance in these areas. First, the Scriptures are awash with contradictions, but the second and real problem is that the Bible is a patriarchal projection created by males to serve their interests and help them dominate women and indeed all of creation. The Bishop even contends that "every page" of the Bible is permeated with an "antifemale bias." "Human beings always form their understanding of God out of their own values, needs, and self-understanding. We do make God in our own image. We deify whatever we perceive to be the source of security and awe." Here again is Bishop Robinson's assertion that classical Christian theism is a projection, but now, when understood in the light of radical feminism, the projection is declared not just irrelevant but evil. But the bishop has good news. We are leaving the dark night of sexism and patriarchy and entering a new age with a new consciousness: a return to monism, mutuality, and the affirmation that all is good. Indeed the very function of the bishop's Christ is to "make that goodness [of creation] real and apparent. That is what salvation is all about." In the Bible, this self-contradictory, sexist projection, written by ill informed and biased males, there is nevertheless (!) a Word behind the twisted word: All is good. All is united to the "ground of all being." Jesus connects us with our "original goodness," giving us "courage" to be all we are created to be. Now we can follow the Bishop, who is "willing to live fully, freely, and openly, scaling the barriers that inhibit life." In Bishop Robinson we saw the proposal of a new, monist worldview without a clear understanding of the changes it would require. In Bishop Spong we see the application of the monistic worldview to prayer, the creed, and sexual morality, which clearly lead to the renaming of God. Models of God In Honest to God we saw the classic theistic worldview abolished and replaced with a monistic worldview. Calling God Father is still acceptable if one knows what all that sort of language "really means" as we move beyond such primitive anthropomorphic projections. In Living in Sin? the theistic projection with its language is no longer seen as benign or irrelevant -- it now represents the male will to power. But Bishop Spong did not make the next move and call the Church to rename God, although he tells us that part of a bishop's job description is "defining God." lie made no explicit linguistic proposals. But if God has not named Himself, we must do the naming. Naming is merely the linguistic component of the theological task of constructing alternative worldviews and models. This is what leading feminist theologian Sallie McFague, a Professor of Theology at Vanderbilt University, argues for in her recent prize-winning book Models of God. She argues for a worldview which she describes as "monist," in which "the world does not exist outside or apart from God." She affirms "the basic oneness of all reality, including the unity of God and the world." The cosmos is God's "body." Since the old model of God and its supporting worldview is "monarchical" and hierarchical, she argues that it is the cause of oppression. To encourage that way of thinking is "pernicious." Classical theism is "idolatrous" and "opposed to life." Thus she would not only overthrow classical theism ir, favor of nionism (as did Bishops Robinson and Spong) but advance beyond it to a new, monistic language. To move people to act, personal metaphors are needed; Bishops Robinson and Spong's impersonal language for God as "the ground of being" will not do. McFague proposes we call God ,'mother, lover and friend," a more appropriate "metaphor" for a divinity monastically identified with the cosmos. Other theological ideas and doctrines must also be reconceptualized. Jesus is now "a paradigm of God's way with the world." He was "radically egalitarian," a religious monist " opposed to hierarchies and dualisms." The cosmos is "God's body" which is "bodied forth from God, it is expressive of God's very being," in principle eternally begotten of God, God of God, of one being with the Mother. McFague logically concludes that the best "metaphor" for God is Mother. In McFague's proposal, we see the logical outworking in language of the monist vision, a radical proposal beyond what Bishops Robinson and Spong were willing or able to propose. Monism come of age The worldviews clashing in the Church differ radically. Monism is quite simply a total rejection of classical theism. To use our outline of worldviews, in monism, God is most properly named Mother, in whose body and being we share and who does not, cannot speak a word to us from outside ourselves. If lie enters into the matter at all, Jesus is merely the first or best example of someone in tune with the cosmos and the Mother (reality). My identity is as an incarnation of the God-cosmos connection at the level of consciousness. Morality is relative in that it is essentially selfderived as that which enhances the fulfillment of the self or cosmos. Our destiny is that we will be "remembered" by "the ground of being" or perhaps live on in some undefined form in process to fuller selfactualization, The monist has to see the Bible's exclusive references to a personal Triune God as either pre-scientific and mythological or an oppressive, patriarchal projection. Biblical faith is thus either naive or evil. The ultimate tragedy of the monist challenge to classical orthodoxy is that the entire enterprise is selfdefeating. How can intelligent men and women really take Christianity seriously when its fundamental reality is a vague, undefined, impersonal "force" or "ground" that is being "named" by a skeptical elite in such a way as to advance their social and moral projects? Intelligent skeptics will look at all monist revisionism much the way A. J. Ayer did decades ago and rightly observe, "You are finally coming around. Just be a bit more honest and admit you're an atheist like me. The worldview clash In two areas in the life of the Church the worldview clash is especially evident. Sexual ethics is the most public. From a monist perspective, sex is not only good but part of the quest for self-fulfillment, provided the relations are "mutual" and not exploitative. As then-Roman Catholic monist Matthew Fox declares, "love beds are altars" since sex is "an encounter with the living God." The other area in which the clash of worldviews is evident is worship and liturgy. Language expresses worldview. Change the worldview and the language must follow. Change the language and a new worldview can enter into the life of the Church. In the Book of Common Prayer the "dualistic" worldview of classical Christian theism is expressed consistently and coherently. It celebrates a living God who "created everything that is, [by whose] will they were created and have their being." The Nicene Creed, which must be said at every Sunday service, celebrates "the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen." To the monist in the Episcopal Church -- and there are many "soft" monists for every "hard" monist like Bishop Spong -- this liturgy is a serious hindrance, and must be replaced. In 1987, the Episcopal Standing Liturgical Commission published Liturgical Texts for Evaluation. In its Eucharist for "The Nurturing God" we were clearly on the way to a monist liturgy. Trinitarian language was dropped wherever possible and male pronouns for God and hierarchical terms like Lord were rigorously excluded. One option for replacing the traditional opening acclamation to the Eucharist, "Blessed be God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" was "Blessed be the One, Holy, and Living God." In creation, God's Spirit "issued forth and brooded over the deep, bringing to birth heaven and earth." Perhaps we cannot claim that in these texts we have an explicit monism, but the sharp reduction of traditional Trinitarian language and terms like the "birth" of the cosmos from the Spirit of God are congenial only with that worldview. These texts certainly seem to be an attempt to create a monistic liturgy and ultimately to enshrine the monist worldview as the worship of the Church, where it will have the deepest effect. Two Profound Results For the Church this battle of worldviews has two profound results. The first is that no Church infected by monism can be a real community. Community is built upon a shared language and a shared mission, which are generated by a shared worldview. If different worldviews are allowed equal status, in the name of inclusiveness or pluralism or provisionality, such shared meanings and mission cannot arise. This is the cause of great pain for those of us who constantly experience it. Without community, a Church can only be a collection of different interest or advocacy groups with much deep misunderstanding and conflict. It cannot be a communion. Since worldviews are "imperialistic," in that they claim to be true (even when they claim we can know no truth), the Church will be a place of contention, pain, and confusion. The second result is that with the monistic alternative widely established in the denominational leadership and in the clergy through seminary indoctrination, and in the worship of at least some parishes, we will see more battles of the two worldviews. There will be movements to write a new creed, since the Nicene Creed defends and reflects the theistic Trinitarian worldview. We will see new hermencutical proposals to get at the monistic "Word behind the words" and indeed proposals to change or expand the canon of Scripture. There will be proposals for uniting not only with other Churches, but with other religions, since their faiths are so similar. There will be attempts to show that monism is the true basis for all enlightened ecological action. Finally, since monism is really a form of nature religion, some may attempt to make Christianity a nature religion. A Crisis of Identity The crisis of identity reflected in the issues now dividing the Church is rooted in the clash of two irreconcilable worldviews. Either God has named Himself and given us a true vision of reality that answers life's ultimate questions and sets us on a path to real virtue and eternal life or we really don't know what to make of the ground of being and must name he/she/it as best we can. To understand the struggle in sexual morality and liturgical language for God is to understand this worldview clash. The issue is finally who or Who is at the center of our world. If we are, then the divine must be named in impersonal or in feminine terms, and we must continually rename he/she/it as we "scale barriers" in our quest to "be all that we can be." If God is, the Triune transcendent Creator Redeemer has named Himself once for all and given us a great Story to enter, a morality to live out in real faithfulness, and a real hope to press towards. We are back on Mt. Carmel with Elijah. Dr. Smith is Professor of Theology and Ethics at Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry. This article is reprinted from the "Joys of Orthodoxy" issue of Trinity's quarterly magazine Mission & Ministry. It is a shortened version of an essay that appeared in Speaking the Christian God: The Triune God and the Challenge of Feminism, (Eerdmans). 4:41:14 AM

Tuesday, November 04, 2003 Forty Theses on the Future of Anglican Witness in the United States By the Rev. Dr. Peter Moore 1. The Present Crisis: The Episcopal Church is in crisis mode. No matter what the spin, the Church has never been closer to a major crisis than at the present time. The split of the REC in 1873 was nothing compared to this. No whole dioceses were considering separating from ECUSA. There was no support from the Anglican Communion. There was no fundamental Gospel issue at stake. 2. The Protestant Impact: This is the greatest crisis to face the Protestant world. It is the immovable object meeting the irresistible force. All eyes are on Lambeth. Other denominations will be next. 3. Fundamental disagreement: Behind the arguments on the other side is a fundamental paradigm shift on all the major issues: 1. How we view authority – the Bible or experience? 2. How we confess Christ – Unique and only Savior or "our" Savior? 3. How we understand the church – "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic?" or a federation of peoples with a common history and shared liturgies? 4. A serious acceptance of the biblical view of human nature (radical sin) or a modernized view of humanity (flawed, but capable of improvement)? 5. An accessible revelation, or a "God beyond God" who does not speak any clear Word? There is no ability to dialogue across these issues. Only a stalemate. 4. Polarized soteriology: The message of salvation is polarized, though not necessarily so: Creation, Fall, Incarnation, Redemption, Glorification vs Innocence, Captivity, Oppression, Liberation. These are two silences, rather than a conversation. 5. New Personhood: The ethic of "rights" rather than "responsibilities" emerges out of this difference. Gay Rights is the driving force of the present impasse. It is driven by a new understanding of personhood that is separate from our creatureliness and is rooted in the centrality of the ego and the discovery of the self through experience. 6. Two churches: We have two churches side by side within one denomination – both claiming to be Anglican. A definitive word from the Anglican Communion by tomorrow will only cause the liberal side of the church to claim interference by narrow-minded bigots. They will not accept this as the true word of the worldwide church. Arrogance in the face of widespread disapproval only hardens into Imperialism. ECUSA is becoming imperialistic. 7. Theological ignorance: The vast majority of Episcopalians have only a tenuous grasp of the essentials of the Faith. The "Come and See" report indicated that most Episcopalians, while cordial and friendly, do not understand the Gospel. There has been an almost total breakdown of catechetical instruction – from the pulpit or anywhere. We can, therefore, not expect a thoughtful Christian response to the current crisis – only a series of spins about importance of unity, and the acceptance of diversity. 8. Organizational decline: David Holloway has said that for any organization to survive (and the Church is both an organism and an organization – according to Hooker, "We are a society and a society supernatural") it must have four things: an agreed agenda, competent leadership, enabling structures, and client sensitivity. ECUSA in its present incarnation has none of these. Instead it has a manipulated agenda, incompetent leadership, inefficient and destabilizing structures, and an unwillingness to listen to its client community. As an organization it is in serious trouble by any standards of measurement. 9. Spiritual rebellion: American disobedience to authority, rooted in our cultural heritage and fed by the revolts of the Nineteen Sixties, is fueling the current rebellion against the stated authorities of Anglicanism: Scriptural authority, primatial authority, Episcopal authority, and it is being replaced by canonical absolutism. 10. Un-Anglican authority: Hooker’s understanding of authority has been replaced by a Post-Modernist relativism that is un-Anglican, and un-Christian. Hooker saw Scripture as the #1 authority, and after that "the voice of reason," and after that the voice of the Church (Tradition). Wesley added "experience" as an authority. There is not, and never was a "three-legged stool." 11. Primary Issues: The present leadership of ECUSA wants us to see the current disputes over sexuality as peripheral issues – adiaphoria. To us they are central issues because they necessitate a destructive hermeneutic (consigning ancient teachings to the ash heap of history by over-contextualization), they ignore the clear teaching of the Bible, they deny the healing and restoring power of the Holy Spirit through Christian community, they leave people "in their sin" and invite condemnation on those who will be reassured that their behavior is all right. 12. Limits of communion: The worldwide communion cannot remain in communion with ECUSA. Their relationships with non-Christians (especially, but not only Muslims), and with other Christians (the Orthodox and the RC’s) is jeopardized by association with ECUSA. If they cannot, can we? 13. Leaderlessness: Trust in the leadership of our Presiding Bishop has never been at an all-time low. He has broken covenant with the other Primates, having assured them that he agreed that same-sex blessings would not be accepted, and then returning to General Convention to vote for V. Gene Robinson. His leadership, even with the liberals, is tenuous. Without a leader whom we can respect, where can we go? 14. Hot points: The real hot points are New Westminster and New Hampshire. Neither seems capable of resolution without enormous disruption, great pain on all sides, and further separation of the two "churches" under the one roof. 15. Views of the A.B.C.: The Archbishop of Canterbury will have to have a Thomas a Becket moment in order to bring resolution to the present crisis. At O’Porto, Portugal, he said, "Are we really prepared to say that Christians who are united in their affirmation of a single baptism in the threefold name of the Trinity, of the authority of Scripture in matters of doctrine (note not ethics), of the creeds of the undivided Church, and of Episcopal ministry are not mutually recognizable to one another as Christians when they differ on matters of sexual ethics?" He clearly sees sexual ethics as secondary. 16. Apostacy, heresy and schism: As David Holloway says: "Richard Hooker would argue that that was an improper question. He would answer by distinguishing apostasy, schism, and heresy. Apostates he would NOT recognize as Christians. He would, however, recognize schismatics and heretics as schismatical and heretical Christians. The latter are to be "recognized," but so far as they are unrepentant over their teaching of sexual immorality, not to be tolerated. The risen Christ says to the Church at Thyatira: "I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality." (Rev. 2:20) 17. Rejection of Biblical authority: Both sides of this dispute say that they affirm the authority of Scripture. However, one eviscerates Scripture of real authority by giving new meaning to words, by claiming that our new situation (a homosexual identity and subculture) is fundamentally different from the Biblical situation, and by sitting loose to many aspects of Scripture that are vital to this discussion: Hell, condemnation, the radical nature of sin (not just a choice, but a condition), the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the only Savior, etc. 18. Clergy skepticism: Great numbers of Episcopal clergy do not believe the basic doctrines of the Faith. In the Church of England, 19% don’t believe in "God the father who created the world;" 47% do not believe that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin; 46% don’t believe in the bodily resurrection; 49% don’t believe that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation; and 23% don’t believe that the Holy Spirit is a person who empowers Christians today." (Christian Research) What fellowship has light with darkness? 19. Future deviance: The dispute over sexuality is only the tip of the iceberg. Other de-stabilizing teachings will follow. What is to stop ECUSA from affirming bi-sexuality, and if so, a whole host of other forms of sexual deviance? There being no norm that is rooted in Scripture, why should these not be permitted? 20. Ordination vows: Nor will it be possible to affirm one’s commitment to the "Doctrine, discipline and worship of the Episcopal Church" in one’s ordination vows. Only disclaimers, carefully written, and presented to bishops prior to ordination will make that promise possible. The same is true for the pledge of obedience to a bishop. In some dioceses one must promise, "not to take the parish out of the Episcopal Church" before the bishop installs a rector whom he suspects of potential disloyalty. 21. Replacement province: Various movements have sought to "reform" ECUSA. We may have to recognize that this is now impossible, and that ECUSA has moved itself outside the mainstream of Christian thought and practice. Events in the next few weeks and months will be very telling on this point, if, as Bishop Duncan says, the Primates will issue a strong rebuke to ECUSA, and a call to repentance. My own personal hope is that ECUSA dioceses that voted for V. Gene Robinson and for the blessing of same-sex unions be given a window of time during which they can change and return to the Anglican Communion, and then that the Primates be recognized as having authority to intervene to protect conservative parishes and clergy who are threatened by their bishops. Even if this happens, the repercussions will be enormous. A replacement "missionary" province seems the most likely way to go. 22. Grim future: If Anglicanism in the Global North is in a pattern of slow death, then the future hope of Anglicanism lies in the Global South. Unless Global South concerns are front and center, Anglicanism as we have known it will become a thing of the past. As the Episcopal Church becomes more heterodox, its allure to upwardly mobile families in the South and Southwest will decline. It will become the church of urban liberals and quirky elites – essentially a relic of the sentimental past. 23. Transformational leaders: The "Deep Change" that will be needed to rescue Anglicanism in North America will depend on the rising up of "transformational leaders" who know how to win people to Jesus Christ, build congregations, teach the Bible and the historic faith, and plant new churches without the appurtenances of privilege and patronage. 24. Missional priorities: Trinity will have to become more intentional in raising up such leaders. We will need to reexamine our curriculum and our community life in the light of new missional priorities. Ministry to Post-Modern America will be vital, and just as crucial (and sacrificial) as cross-cultural ministry in another continent. 25. Women’s Ordination: In the new "Church of the Intervention" as Bishop Duncan calls us, we will need to focus not on what we are against, but what we are for. Those who are against Women’s Ordination will have to come back to Gospel imperatives and realize that "she who is not against me is with me." Some accommodation to the consciences of those who believe that women’s ordination is an act of profound unfaithfulness to Scripture or Tradition will have to be made. Perhaps ordained women will willingly refrain from being Rectors for a period of time in the new Church in order for the process of reception to take hold? 26. Re-thinking biblically: In the current climate, there is a great danger of reactionary thinking: Getting back to you name it: "Biblical inerrancy," "an all-male priesthood," a truly biblical liturgy, the 1928 Prayer Book, the 1552 Prayer Book. We will need to look forward to the Church of the Future, and begin to think biblically about everything that we do and everything that we teach. All traditions, including Evangelical traditions, will have to be looked at afresh with the aid of the Holy Spirit speaking through Scriptures. 27. Instruments of Unity: The 39 Articles must once again be established as a critical component in the new Church, along with the Chicago-Lambeth Quad., and some instruments of unity that include, most likely, a central primatial authority. 28. Basis of unity: We must embrace the idea of non-geographical dioceses, trusting bishops to recognize one another’s godly leadership, and working together under the Authority of Scripture, to build a unity based on common vision, faith, and mission – not a unity based on the canons, shared skepticism, and the celebration of diversity. 29. Reestablished discipline: Discipline must once again be established at the diocesan and parochial level. Heresy trials may be a thing of the past; but godly discipline, leading to release from one’s orders or suspension of one’s license must be reestablished. 30. Heterosexual sin: The Church of the Intervention must look long and hard at the easy acceptance of divorce, premarital sex, cohabitation among both the young and the elderly, and come up with standards that are acceptable, biblical, and graced-filled. We cannot be known as tough on homosexual sin and easy on heterosexual sin. 31. Church property: We must make every effort, legally and spiritually, to work out an amicable separation involving the transfer of church property. This may go to the U.S. Supreme Court; but some provision for conservative churches to leave liberal dioceses and liberal churches to leave conservative dioceses must be worked out. I do not anticipate this being an easy process. We may need to get used to congregations without buildings. 32. Congregational ethos: We will become ever more congregational in ethos, recognizing that experimentation is the yeast of growth. Gone will be the day when you will go to an Anglican Church in America and expect exactly the same thing that you found in your home parish. We will need to be open to newness, and we will need to test the spirits to see if congregations that we visit are "in the faith." 33. Ecumenical training: Trinity will become ever more important in the coming decades as people from various mainline denominations see us as a thoughtful, faithful, and safe place for training of clergy. Expect more Methodists and Lutherans to join us, and expect Trinity to make room for a greater diversity in our chapel and community life than is presently the case. 34. Deployment: Trinity will have to develop a more pro-active deployment department, helping alumni and graduating seniors find places where they can minister, or where they can begin new ministries. 35. Humility: We will need to teach and model humility as we encounter expressions of the Gospel and ways of "doing church" that are radically different from our own. Instead of a critical spirit, we will need to cultivate accepting spirits, and we will need to remember that there is nothing privileged about being Anglican. 36. Understanding: Evangelicals and others who elect to stay in ECUSA will need our support and encouragement, not our condemnation. ECUSA will develop ways of being friendly to evangelicals who do not challenge the Church’s pro-homosexual stance. Silence on this and related subjects will be the price paid by Evangelicals who elect to stay in ECUSA. Gay Alpha programs will flourish in liberal Evangelical places. 37. Holiness: Holiness will become a key priority of all clergy and lay leaders. This will not be a special teaching for the super-spiritual, but a requirement for leadership. Learning to live under authority and be free in submission will be key to the success of any new church that emerges from the current crisis. 38. Global South: The new Church will be a global church, with deep ties to the Global South. Money, material and personnel will flow from the wealthier parishes to the poorer ones. Wealthy parishes will think twice before spending $600,000 on a new parking lot when that is the annual budget of a whole Province in the Global South, and when clergy get $3 a month as a salary. 39. Patience: Patience will be needed towards those in authority, Bishops and Rectors, as they sort out whether or not to join the new Church of the Intervention. Pain was written on many faces as the Dallas/Plano Conference ended, and people returned to very unfriendly constituencies. Let us not condemn, but pray for leaders to see the Truth and follow it. 40. Homosexual issue: We must all think through the homosexual issue biblically, historically and pastorally. We cannot ignore this issue, nor can we let it be fought out by a few articulate fighters. As Luther said: "If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point that the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages fiercely is where the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battlefield besides is merely flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point." The Rev. Dr. Peter C. Moore Is Dean of Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry 3:26:15 AM

© Copyright 2005 W R Carlson. Last update: 4/29/2005; 4:19:46 PM.