What is happening!?
Hi. There are two things that I think might make interesting discussion (this should probably be two posts (hey this is a two for one (aren't you lucky!)))
one: Recently while "surfing the web" I stumbled across a band that has made it their mission to "bridge the gap between sacred and secular music." Should this band (who will remain nameless) continue on with their bridging plan or be exhorted. why? discuss.
two: While visiting an awesome church, in Valencia California, I realized something perilous. (Not that this church does this but seeing the complete picture in the sermon made me notice the deficiency everywhere else.) It seems to me that there is an overall trend of discarding previously learned information so that we can move on to new things. The first realm that I have clearly seen this is in education. "Grammar" school students learn a lot of things, building blocks if you will, but they are never told what to do with them. These building blocks are forgotten or only vaguely remembered later. It seems like there is a stress on vocationally specific information, only what can be used to the student's advantage in the future. I think that the second place this is happening is in Church. The things taught in Sunday school are building blocks that are never stacked or connected; they are discarded for, once again, things that "apply to my life." what do you think? or do you?
posted by Paul Johnson | 10:13 AM
8 Comments:
Come on Paul, When you have 2 good ideas you dont blow them both on one post...save one up.
Re: #1 -- It depends on what bridging means...
If it means trying to put Christian truths into the musical forms of a society...that sounds like a good idea.
If it means watering it down to make it palletable to a sinful society...thats a problem.
If the assumption is that kids cant live without their rock-n-roll so we better give them christian alternatives...then it is just one more in a long line of Christians taking the world, stamping a cross on it, and pretending to make a difference.
What they dont realize is that by doing so they arent changing the world, the world is changing them.
this is completely unrelated, by why does "zero tips" sound okay, but "one tips" sound so wrong? is the word zero somehow plural? am i the only person that thinks that "zero tips" sounds okay?
oops, i meant to say but why - not, by why.
i think that it is because there is really only one instance where you would not pluralize tips ( if you only have one. so if out of all of the possible number of tips you could have is zero then you would have none tips.
In regards to point two: “Logic!” said the Professor half to himself. “Why don’t they teach logic at these schools?"
Well, Erica, if we'd only switch from English to Chinese, then we wouldn't have the problem of "tip" vs. "tips"; Chinese doesn't have separate singular & plural forms... or for that matter declensions, conjugations, or even (in the Indo-European sense) moods or tenses!
Paul does have a point. The plural seems to be the default in counting, while the singular seems unique to the number one (and to numbers less than one, as well). Indeed, the corresponding question to ask is, "How many tips?"
I am glad my comment has provoked such responses.
My answer to Erica's question is the following:
Most numbers function both as nouns and adjectives. Zero however functions only as a noun. So when you add another word you have to create a partative relationship. One tip, but Zero from the category of tips...hence zero tips.
Re: point #1, I like Steve's three possible interpretations of the mission of the band Nemo And The Nameless: healthy contextualization (or, taken even further, cultural redemption) along with two forms of syncretism (by doctrinal dilution and by merely superficial "Christianization", respectively). These are oft-seen and well-discussed in cross-cultural missions. Some other possibilities:
There are degrees of contextualization such as a continuum along which a work's theology is linguistically explicit (written in "pewspeak") vs. implicit (written in "pubspeak")... or thematically "high" vs. "low".
Also, N&N would be sadly mistaken if they were to distinguish "sacred music" and "secular music" in terms of styles: e.g. their parents' music vs. their friends' music. Worse yet would be the case in which they're thinking mainly in terms of commercial markets: e.g. what sells well in Bible bookstores vs. what sells well at Rasputin's. Western Evangelicals' dependence on free markets for epistemology is of course a mixed bag.
Post a Comment
<< Home