boston's emergent cohort presents peter rollins

on tuesday, november 21st @ 7 pm the cohort will be gathering at boston beerwork's fenway location (61 brookline ave, boston, ma 02215) for food, drinks and theological discussion. our guest this month is peter rollins, who is a founder of the ikon community in northern ireland, a philosophical theologian who is deeply intrigued with the emergent church and the author of how (not) to speak of God. in how (not) to speak of God peter provocatively exposes the theoretical foundations of the emergent church and explores how the ikon community has sought to innovatively commend and incarnate the God about whom we can never speak definitively, but should never stop speaking.*

in short, this is one cohort gathering you will not want to miss. if you'd like to know a little more about peter rollins, check out this short interview at paracletepress.com. if you are interested at picking up a discounted copy of how (not) to speak of God you can pick one up at the gathering. if you live in another city and are interested in hearing Peter speak, check out his additional speaking dates. and, lastly, if you have any questions about our gathering, contact jeff at gentry13@gmail.com.

* the latter clause in this confounded sentence was inspired by peter's writing but is not a direct quote.

do you love me?

if so, protect me from the ravages of consumerism and support one of my deepest passions by purchasing this for me:



for the record, i am a little pissed that they did not include the games of the NLCS in this set like they included the 2004 ALCS in the red sox set, but i will still be an incomplete person without this product.

thank you for your patronage and may God Bless America.

jeffrey gentry: this is your life!



last night, at five minutes until five, i took a call on the customer service line. receiving such calls at five 'til five is almost always a mistake. this was no exception. this morning, i mined our electronic transcripts in order to transcribe the call. it went something like this.

jg, c.s.s.: "thank you for calling sentimental somethings this is jeff."

customer: "hello jeff, this is deborah jo at the fuchsia feline. i am calling because...oh gawd! mr. fish! mr. fish! mr. fish! my fish just jumped out of his bowl and is wrigglin' on the floor. oh gawd!"

jg, c.s.s.:

deborah jo:: "i've gotta save him, but i don't wanna touch him. oh, oh, EWWWW! mr. fish, don't die. don't die.

he was so rubbery, but at least i saved him."

jg, c.s.s.: "so are you following up on a damage claim or checking your order status?"

before i forget i would like to admit…

that in the workplace i am a detail oriented, task driven, motivated mother(bleep)er. i work well with people are committed to working hard and getting the job done and i disdain people who either do not have their (bleep) together or laze the day away. in addition, in regards to inter office communication, i communicate in a clear, carefully considered, matter of fact manner. i neither speak inappropriately to my coworkers or pussy foot around potential problems. i will not disregard people’s errors or ignore failure to meet minimal standards in order to protect someone’s feelings. if you are looking for someone who will overlook your errors in order to protect your emotions watch.(bleep)ing.oprah. the miracle of syndication has ensured that she is easily accessible.

in other news, last night, after talking to josh jackaway about his mega-church experience and peppering him with questions for four hours, i realized that i am still utterly fascinated with every form of church. occasionally someone will openly wonder whether my participation in a home church is simply a revolt against and/or critique of the mega-church. let me assure you that it is not. i did not give my life to serve the home church in particular but to serve the catholic church writ large. thus, i am constantly fascinated by the variety of ways that people proclaim the gospel of Jesus, incarnate Christ’s Kingdom and pursue God’s mission in this world. of course, that does not mean that any form is beyond critique.

ever since the cardinals won the world series i have not taken off my team gear, stopped reading recaps of the series and pouring over the pictures in sports illustrated’s world series edition. after so many years of post season frustration i am utterly amazed that the cardinals are the world champions. i am planning to write about my world series experience in the near future and, for frugality’s sake, am forever grateful that i do not live anywhere near the cardinals team store.

overheard

i'm following montgomery brewster's advice today by voting for "NONE OF THE ABOVE!"* however, that does not mean that i am disinterested in political issues and the general direction of our country. i've stumbled across a couple of excellent pieces about politics and evangelical interactions in politics lately that i would like to share.

first, i recently finished state of denial, which is the third volume in bob woodward's bush at war series. there are so many things that i could say about this rather massive tome, but i will limit my loquaciousness by offering a few blunt, opinionated reflections:

1) according to woodward, donald rumsfield has almost completely ignored the joint chief's perspectives on the military actions in iraq and in afghanistan. this has led to our almost criminally deficient deployments of troops and has shielded the executive branch from the realistic assessments of the soldiers in the field.

2) i had no idea that bush pushed out one of america's finest soldiers out of the secretary of state role so that he could employ an over-matched russianist who had failed to effectively fulfill her last government post. i have to agree with george herbert walker bush when he states that condi is a "real disappointment."

3) on account of either his natural optimism or his absolute belief in his failed foreign policy, bush has never wavered from his decision to invade iraq and will probably never authorize a strategic retreat from that morass. in this volume, bush is portrayed as a good natured, energetic, political fundamentalist. i suspect that this portrayal would have been more nuanced had bush agreed to be interviewed for this work like he allowed himself to be interviewed for plan of attack.

second, kellie forwarded me this excellent article by wheaton alumnus and former bush speechwriter michael gershon, in which the author suggests some healthy ways forward concerning a new "faith-based agenda." gershon's conception focuses more on global poverty and health issues that internal, american social issues and he suggests a manner in which candidates on both sides of the aisle can learn to connect with american christians who are no longer solely concerned with prayer in schools, idols in state courthouses and abortion.

third, andy crouch conducted an intriguing interview with former faith based initiatives staffer david kuo concerning kuo's new work tempting faith. crouch is his cantankerous, contrarian self in this interview and works hard to uncover kuo's intentions concerning this work. the result is an edgy, informative interview which talks about such issues as evangelical naivete in american politics and the need for evangelicals to undergo training and perhaps even a type of political ordination before heading into the partisan fray.

finally, gordon macdonald offers some helpful reflections concerning the haggard scandal and hints at the dangers of evangelical political accommodation.

* if you are tempted to lecture me about my democratic responsibilities please refrain. i think quite a bit about politics, but usually (i.e., when bush is not running for president) refrain from voting in local, state or national elections. i would like to think that my tendencies are rooted in the anabaptist tradition, but there is a good chance my choice is the result of my deep cynicism concerning the political process and/or appalling apathy.

mid-morning time waster

last night, while listening to all things considered on the way back from my proctologist’s office, i heard a clip of president bush at a rally in florida* proclaim: “we do have a plan for victory in iraq. and part of that plan is keeping congress in republican control.”

today’s pressing question: was this statement more or less ridiculous than the following statements?

“the detroit tigers' biggest obstacle to a championship will be keeping a straight face. the tigers in three. (OK, make it four.)” – bob nightingale in his world series preview that was published in usa today

“i did not have sexual relations with that woman, ms. lewinsky.” – president clinton publicly denying a particularly tawdry expression of executive privilege

“i never had a gay relationship with anybody, and i'm steady with my wife. i'm faithful to my wife.” - ted haggard on november 3, 2006

"i think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." – dick cheney as quoted on june 20, 2005

* which charlie crist, florida’s republican candidate for governor, declined to attend lest bush’s “popularity” rub off on him.