tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9252399.post8539683618225401978..comments2023-06-18T07:19:12.539-05:00Comments on Unseen Eternity: A Thought ExperimentChrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17504548881017531837noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9252399.post-90477392500191652672007-09-30T09:03:00.000-05:002007-09-30T09:03:00.000-05:00Thanks for the response,I'm actually of the opinio...Thanks for the response,<BR/><BR/>I'm actually of the opinion that, outside of Jesus, we have no reason beyond the occasional "they have what we want" to interact with other cultures at ALL, let alone in a positive way. You're right - McGavran's study showed that we all tend towards our perceived "in-groups" and shy away from "out-groups." The lines don't necessarily fall along ethnic lines (sometimes it's gender, sometimes it's class, sometimes it's philosophy, etc.) but as my professor is fond of saying, ought it to be this way?<BR/><BR/>The gospel won't spread cross-culturally in a world that ignores anybody not like them. I believe the followers of Jesus are to be missionaries, as He was, and so if the gospel is truely to be spread "even to the ends of the earth," we HAVE to act cross-culturally = it's in our missional mandate from Jesus Himself.<BR/><BR/>But that still makes it a duty. I think we need to take it the step further and go to the "love your neighbor" part. Who's our neighbors? Everyone! Regardless of race, class, religion, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, friend, or enemy ... all are our neighbors.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17504548881017531837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9252399.post-89604667655146589682007-09-29T21:38:00.000-05:002007-09-29T21:38:00.000-05:00Nice thought-piece. You are clearly groovin' on se...Nice thought-piece. You are clearly groovin' on seminary. Go for it!<BR/><BR/>In the psych experiment you mentioned, was the injured person's cultural or ethnic identity ever at issue? I don't think it was.<BR/><BR/>I assume you're aware of the recent discoveries (e.g., as cited in the book 'Bowling Alone' and substantiated with more recent studies) that suggest social engagement (of all kinds, including religious) is maximized only in "lumpier" communities. I.e., those where people are able to associate more closely with others "like them". Or to put it negatively, people do not engage with others nearly as much when thrust into a bewilderingly heterogeneous milieu. <BR/><BR/>That sounds terribly incorrect to our modern 'PC' ears. And it is. But here's the big question for you:<BR/><BR/>If, as that study suggests, we are actually more apt to engage with complete strangers in more homogeneous communities (because despite higher natures, we feel safer, more comfortable, more able to communicate effectively, etc.), and that engagement includes all kinds of compassionate acts, do we need full-blown 21st century notions of multi-culturalism in order to meet scriptural mandates? <BR/><BR/>I would suggest that we don't. <BR/><BR/>That remains the ultimate ideal, of course (love everyone generously and without boundaries or superficial prejudices). But if the net effect (in the short term anyway) is far less in the way of compassionate acts (everyone locks their doors and doesn't trust strangers) then maybe we're better off being clear about which approach gets us more quickly and easily towards the Christian ideal.Kobayashi Maruhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08523741397349274589noreply@blogger.com