writing science fiction during the third world war

Before I comment on the above linked title, let me share how I see world forces aligning themselves.

We seem to be seeing quite a large number of new ideas and philosophies rising up to challenge old world standards. One example which would be most obvious to anyone whose been reading my blog would be the Emergent Church scene as opposed to the traditional way of doing church. There should be enough links on this page in case you're wondering what that's all about.

For a while, I've been thinking about how much the Emerging Church movement shares with the Open Source movement in computer software.

"Open Source" might require some explanation for some of my readers. Examples of Open Source software are the LINUX operating system, Open Office.org, Mozilla Firefox, and a host of other software projects that allow the user to download the software for free, and even modify it, with the condition that whatever modifications are made become available to the whole software development community. In the same way that Emerging Church is challenging the traditional churches, Open Source is causing headaches for corporate giants like Microsoft.

Maybe I should have titled this blog, Breaking the Monopolies.

The above link to the article by Eleanor Arnason takes the concept into another area, that of the power of the State, the forces behind globalisation, free trade, etc, versus local small farmers victimised by globalisation, AIDS victims who can't pay for patented drugs (and prevented by copyright law from using the cheaper varieties that could save their lives), the activists, and even terrorist organisations. Even war is beginning to be fought differently than before. Eleanor refers to an article by William Lind, called Understanding Fourth Generation War, also interesting reading in this light.

Eleanor's essay was originally written during the early build-up to the war in Iraq. Even her update was written before the current uproar over the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in the Danish press. The international uproar caused by a single nation's application of freedom of the press inside its own national boarders, further underlines her points.

So the alignment sort of looks like this. On one side, we have traditional church structure, big corporations with their proprietary technologies, the power of the State on which those corporations depend, WTO/G7 style globalisation, etc., all of which seem to be mutually supportive; and on the other: Emerging Church, Open Source software, people rights movements, various autonomous people groups fighting for liberation, and yes, terrorist organisations like Al Queda and Hamas.

Please don't think I'm equating Emerging Church and Open Source software with international terrorism. I'm simply observing the direction in which power and energy seem to be moving -- towards less centralisation, greater input by ordinary people, and and breaking up of monopolys. In some cases, it's for the better, and in others, for evil.

In a world like we seem to be approaching, the Emergent movement could be in a vary good position to bring the Kingdom of God into people's lives. If we're willing to leave our comfort zones (which look like their dissappearing anyway) there is untold opportunity. It's called being as wise as serpents while being as innocent as doves.

Anyway, do read Eleanor's essay, and someone, please start a discussion somewhere (my own blog doesn't seem to be attracting many of those) on what the Kingdom of God will look like in the "Brave New World" that we can see approaching.

Homosexuality

In many Christian circles, it seems, the only way to deal with homosexuality is with a sledgehammer. The only other alternative, it seems, is to say it's okay.

Scott McKnight (again!) has been treatin the subject in his blog in what I find to be a well ballanced way. Below, I've listed the entries he has so far, in case you want to catch up:

Making Moral Decisions: Homosexuality
Homosexuality: Context 1 and 2
Homosexuality: Context 3 and 4
Context: Defining homosexuality 1
Context: Defining homosexuality 2
Jesus and Homosexuality 1
Jesus and Homosexuality 2
Jesus and Homosexuality 3

The Last Issue of Infinite Matrix is up

It looks like Infinite Matrix e-zine is going the way of the Rover and Studaker, though perhaps with a bit more style. They've just posted what they say is the very last issue. Not everything is there yet. Yet due is an essay by William Gibson, and a few other features. The last of David Langford's weekly blogs is also there (he still has a monthly e-zine at his Ansible website).

Apparently, it takes a lot of steam to keep an e-zine going, especially if you're using one that's uncluttered with pop-up adverts. A good free e-zine is necessarily shortlived.

Anyway, you sci-fi buffs, have a happy read...

Lessons in Yiddish, Lil' Abner, et all

Have you ever wondered what's the difference between a shlemeel, a slemozzel, a shnook, and a host of other epithets?

Al Capp, the late creater of Lil' Abner, provides us with a humourous illustration depicting all of these and more.

FYI -- Al Capp wasn't a hill-billy himself, but a Jewish New Englander. You'll find the Yiddish lesson at the lower half of the webpage containing his bio on the official Lil' Abner website.

If you like Lil' Abner, you can go to that site daily for a new cartoon. I think they're putting out ones that were in circulation 40 or so years ago.

Scott McKnight on the Gospel -- update

Further to my last post, Scott McKnight's blog entries on What is the Gospel, have been combined into an article in Next Wave e-zine.

Scott McKnight on the Gospel

Scott McKnight has an excellent series of blogs on exactly what is the Gospel. The link above is to a page that includes the whole series, including a few more that fit into the cattigory. Start reading from the bottom of the page (in normal blog fashion).

An Age Old Question

The question of whether it is right for a Christian to go to war has been with us for a very, very long time. Believers as early as the second century were against taking part in the army.

I have heard some very good arguments for Christians being good citizens and defending their country. I realise that there's a difference between killing and murder. I do sympathise with people who are made to go through a horrendous legal battle because they've killed someone in defence of their own life, or that of their family.

So where do I stand? I would not want to own a gun, even to use for self defence. I think I'd prefer to be killed than to kill (I said "I think" -- if I were really faced with that choice, it's hard to say how I'd see things). Because the Bible, particlulary in the Noahide Law, specifies that a murderer should be put to death, I do agree with the ethics of capital punishment. However, I would have problems with shooting someone to kill just because they're on the wrong side in a military conflict. On the other hand, I also don't know how the world Jewish population could have been saved had someone not gone to war against Hitler.

Having said all that, Scott McKnight has a compelling argument for Pasivism.