It is no small sign of respect to have a blog named after you.  In Mere O’s case, it is a sign of respectful concern that prompted the author of Mere Devotion to so name his blog.  As he wrote recently:

I understand where Mere Orthodoxy gets its name, but the name troubles me. Orthodoxy alone is just not enough for me. Doctrine did not die on the cross for my sins. If God should find it in His good pleasure to allow me into heaven, doctrine will not be the first thing I go running to find. Ultimately, I do not believe orthodoxy is the first thing God wants to find in me either.

The royal command is to love God with all one’s heart, with all one’s soul, with all one’s mind, and with all one’s strength. The requirement is to love, not to indoctrinate or to have all the orthodox views.

In truth, I believe that if one genuinely loves God and is fully devoted to Him, the doctrine will come on its own.

As the namer of Mere O, to that I can only say “Amen and amen!”  The name “Mere Orthodoxy” was never intended to exclude the life of devotion.  Indeed, we do so to our own peril.

But that is not to suggest there is no value to orthodoxy.  As Dr. Sanders writes (though not, I believe, in the post to which The_Burning_Bush refers), Paul prays for the Colossians that God might give them “the gift of good theology.”  He frames the response well:  “Two equal and opposite dangers: untheological devotion, and undevotional theology. To avoid them, strive for a theological devotion which will by its nature simultaneously be a devotional theology.”

We started Mere O to be a place where we could engage ideas from a conservative, classically oriented Christian vantage point.  But in doing so, we wanted to engage the minds of those God lead to Mere O, the minds that house ideas.  Satan not only tempts our will:  he deceives our mind and attempts to keep us from the knowledge of God.  One of the most potent lies within the evangelical church is that the mind does not matter.  It was this lie, primarily, that we wanted to expose by showing how ideas intersect with our whole lives.  While we may have failed at this vision, it is what keeps us blogging.

Ultimately, the division (which is too strong a word) between Mere Devotion and Mere Orthodoxy is short sighted and doomed to collapse.  Orthodoxy needs devotion as much as devotion needs orthodoxy.  The doctrine may “come on its own” to some, some of the time, but as we engage in spiritual disciplines within our devotional lives and so open ourselves to the Spirit, who comes on His own, we must include our intellectual life within those spiritual disciplines.  If the mind and heart are torn asunder, then neither can survive for very long.

Mere Devotion and Mere Orthodoxy must someday meet and be friends, and when they do it will be a powerful and potent combination (so powerful, in fact, that it will need a new name).  Until then, there is room enough for both, especially as they acknowledge the necessary role of the other.

I thought that I would honor the lost this Memorial Day by reading through a few selections on honoring those who served in battle for their nations.  Below, I have included some choice selections of the various speeches and poems I read.

Incidentally, the “Quotable” format is a rip-off of the inimitable Joe Carter’s’ series “33 Things.”  I simply took one of my favorite things–decontextualized quotes!–and thought I would compile brief lists for posts.  Mere O:  stealing nothing but the best possible formats!
From Oliver Wendell Holmes’ Memorial Day speech on May 30th, 1884:

So to the indifferent inquirer who asks why Memorial Day is still kept up we may answer, it celebrates and solemnly reaffirms from year to year a national act of enthusiasm and faith. It embodies in the most impressive form our belief that to act with enthusiam and faith is the condition of acting greatly. To fight out a war, you must believe something and want something with all your might. So must you do to carry anything else to an end worth reaching. More than that, you must be willing to commit yourself to a course, perhpas a long and hard one, without being able to foresee exactly where you will come out. All that is required of you is that you should go somewhither as hard as ever you can. The rest belongs to fate. One may fall-at the beginning of the charge or at the top of the earthworks; but in no other way can he reach the rewards of victory.

From the original declaration by John Logan on May 18th, 1864:

We are organized, comrades, as our regulations tell us, for the purpose among other things, “of preserving and strengthening those kind and fraternal feelings which have bound together the soldiers, sailors, and marines who united to suppress the late rebellion.” What can aid more to assure this result than cherishing tenderly the memory of our heroic dead, who made their breasts a barricade between our country and its foes? Their soldier lives were the reveille of freedom to a race in chains, and their deaths the tattoo of rebellious tyranny in arms. We should guard their graves with sacred vigilance. All that the consecrated wealth and taste of the nation can add to their adornment and security is but a fitting tribute to the memory of her slain defenders. Let no wanton foot tread rudely on such hallowed grounds. Let pleasant paths invite the coming and going of reverent visitors and fond mourners. Let no vandalism of avarice or neglect, no ravages of time testify to the present or to the coming generations that we have forgotten as a people the cost of a free and undivided republic.

If other eyes grow dull, other hands slack, and other hearts cold in the solemn trust, ours shall keep it well as long as the light and warmth of life remain to us.

Let us, then, at the time appointed gather around their sacred remains and garland the passionless mounds above them with the choicest flowers of spring-time; let us raise above them the dear old flag they saved from hishonor; let us in this solemn presence renew our pledges to aid and assist those whom they have left among us a sacred charge upon a nation’s gratitude, the soldier’s and sailor’s widow and orphan.

From Pericles’ Funeral Oration:

I have dwelt upon the greatness of Athens because I want to show you that we are contending for a higher prize than those who enjoy none of these privileges, and to establish by manifest proof the merit of these men whom I am now commemorating. Their loftiest praise has been already spoken. For in magnifying the city I have magnified them, and men like them whose virtues made her glorious. And of how few Hellenes can it be said as of them, that their deeds when weighed in the balance have been found equal to their fame! I believe that a death such as theirs has been the true measure of a man’s worth; it may be the first revelation of his virtues, but is at any rate their final seal. For even those who come short in other ways may justly plead the valor with which they have fought for their country; they have blotted out the evil with the good, and have benefited the state more by their public services than they have injured her by their private actions.

From the Gettysburg Address:

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

From a Dirge for Two Veterans, by Walt Whitman:

O strong dead-march you please me!
O moon immense with your silvery face you soothe me!
O my soldiers twain! O my veterans passing to burial!
What I have I also give you.

The moon gives you light,
And the bugles and the drums give you music,
And my heart, O my soldiers, my veterans,
My heart gives you love.

On this day of remembrance, I thought I would take time out to remember two soldiers who fell in the line of duty, both of whom I knew in high school.

Mickel Garrigus, a soft spoken and honorable young man was killed some months ago while serving in Iraq. While I didn’t know Mike well, we were on good terms. He was “Garrigus” to me and he would unfailingly smile and chat in the halls. As Garrigus was one of the kindest young men in my small high school, it does not surprise me that he went on to devote himself to family and country.

The second, Matthew Walrod, I was fortunate enough to count as a friend. A Knowledge Bowl teammate, Walrod (as everyone called him) was slightly awkward socially, but at bottom a devoted and caring young man. He was a great teammate who learned his role and worked hard to help our team win. In retrospect, Walrod was the sort of guy who would have struggled to be enemies with anyone.

A Staff-Sargeant in the Air Force, Walrod volunteered to serve in Honduras. As he was a medical technician, Walrod was dubbed “Doc” by those he worked on. It is just the sort of name I imagine suiting Walrod well, and the sort of profession that perfectly fit his kind, generous and helpful temperment.

Walrod was killed in a March 2006 car accident. These are the two men whom I keep in mind when I pray for my friends who are currently serving in the armed services, including our very own Tex. Walrod and Garrigus were kind as high schoolers and obviously grew to be good men. Devoted Christians, both, I look forward to the day when I am able to thank them in person for their sacrifice and service.

(Updated:  Silly spelling errors corrected.  Thanks, Jim!).

I have recently become aware that Mere O has some of the smartest and most interesting readers around.  This is, to be sure, a direct correlation to the authors’ own abilities (he said with a wry grin).

That realization has prompted me to take a bold step this summer:  we are, for part of the time at least, turning Mere O over to the readers.  Joe Carter (whose ideas I’ve been shamelessly toying with of late!) used to run a series that he called “Expert Witness,” which allowed “guest bloggers to write about a topic in which they have a particular interest or expertise.”

Here at Mere O, though, we’ve set the standard lower.  The only qualifications we are looking for are:

• that the author is a reader of Mere O
• that the author agrees to take full responsibility for what he writes (I am reading all the posts, and while I edited the first one, I quickly realized that liability issues would prevent me from doing that again)
• that the author won’t take money from us if we ever decide to put ads on Mere O, and their post brings in traffic from search engines.

Which means, of course, that over the course of this series we may be posting essays with which we vehemently disagree as authors of Mere O.  All essays will carry the appropriate disclaimers, of course.
But I’m ridiculously excited about the concept all the same.  I’ve been blogging through what it takes to have a great discussion, and great discussions don’t happen without yielding the floor to other people.  It’s my hope that as other voices speak up in “our space” here at Mere O, we will foster healthy and interesting discussion about some important issues.  And if not, at least we tried!

I’m also excited about it because it gives us as Mere O’s authors a chance to become better acquainted with some of our readers’ style of thinking and interests.  While comments do allow that to happen a little, this will afford us with a more substantial opportunity to do so.

Many of our readers have their own blogs, of course.  And I try to read as many readers’ blogs as I can.  But we wanted to have a little “blog hospitality” this summer and open up our own place to others.  So if you haven’t heard from me and would like to join in the fun, feel free to email me and let me know.

The extraordinarily entrepreneurial Pat Sikora takes on my thoughts about setting expectations in discussion groups.  Regarding my point that discussion leaders should “be appropriately stern” with members who act out of line, Pat writes:

However, I’m not sure I’d use the word “stern,” even with people who are acting out of line. These are the challenging people, and one remedy won’t fit all of them. Some may need a bit of sternness after loving discussion has failed, but this will be the exception. Most people will respond favorably to gentle encouragement and direction. Many simply need someone to reflect back to them how their words or behaviors are affecting others.

Point taken.  That’s the sort of feedback I was looking for when I wrote the series.  I (a) work with students most, so I have the privilege of having a stronger authoritative position than most adult small group leaders would have and (b) work with students, who often respond better to sternness (especially male students).  But Pat’s point that most people respond to gentle encouragement is spot-on:  as I will hopefully say later when I address issues of discipline in discussion groups, students have to trust that the leader is acting in their best interest if sternness is going to have any effect at all. But there is no silver bullet:  each case is different, and each person is going to respond differently to different tactics.  That’s what makes discipline and discussion so difficult, so stretching, and so fun.
Pat also writes:

With adults, I’m not sure that you need to remind them “constantly.” That could get a little old. But from time to time it doesn’t hurt to refresh the expectations and also to seek their opinions. How are they enjoying the group? What are they getting out of it? What would make it better?

Again, well put.  Looks like I should go read Pat’s book and learn how to do this better.

In case you missed it, Iran’s elected leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has once again threatened to destroy Israel if they engage in war with Lebanon this summer. Oh, and his government’s police has continued to crack down on “cultural invasion” by Western powers:

In a different gathering of mullahs for Friday’s prayer, Tehran’s police chief Ahmad Reza Radan said that since the execution of the “Elevating Society’s Security” plan more than 1,000 shops and businesses have been shut down and more than 1,200 automobiles have been confiscated. More than 75,000 warnings have also been given to both men and women for improper dress code. More than 3,000 arrests have been made.

Not to mention, of course, Iran’s continued insistence to pursue nuclear power. Iran’s position has raised the stakes for the west: will we allow Iran to attain nuclear weapons, and if not, how will we prevent them? That question is taken up by Norman Podhoretz, who defends what John McCain laughingly sang: the time has come to

Podhoretz’s case is comprehensive: He begins by arguing that we are actually engaged in a fourth world war that is parallel to the Cold War (which he argues was the third world war), but that the techniques and strategies of the Cold War (Mutual Assured Destruction, to be precise) would be ineffective with a tyrant like Ahmadinejad. After pointing out that Ahmadinejad, like Hitler, has global ambitions and will stop at nothing to achieve them, Podhoretz critiques the non-military options for deterrence, and offers this prediction:
Accordingly, my guess is that [President Bush] intends, within the next 21 months, to order air strikes against the Iranian nuclear facilities from the three U.S. aircraft carriers already sitting nearby.

Podhoretz’s piece is intriguing reading, not least because he highlights the fact that the Islamic regime of Ahmadinejad will not allow patriotism to get in the way of acting in ways that hurt the Iranian people:

But listen to what Bernard Lewis, the greatest authority of our time on the Islamic world, has to say in this context on the subject of deterrence:

MAD, mutual assured destruction, [was effective] right through the cold war. Both sides had nuclear weapons. Neither side used them, because both sides knew the other would retaliate in kind. This will not work with a religious fanatic [like Ahmadinejad]. For him, mutual assured destruction is not a deterrent, it is an inducement. We know already that [Iran’s leaders] do not give a damn about killing their own people in great numbers. We have seen it again and again. In the final scenario, and this applies all the more strongly if they kill large numbers of their own people, they are doing them a favor. They are giving them a quick free pass to heaven and all its delights.

Nor are they inhibited by a love of country:

We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.

These were the words of the Ayatollah Khomeini, who ruled Iran from 1979 to 1989, and there is no reason to suppose that his disciple Ahmadinejad feels any differently.
The notion that patriotism is “another name for paganism” underscores one of the deep differences between Christianity and that brand of Islam (I do not know the extent to which it is representative of Islamic thought on the whole). Christianity, with its emphasis on the doctrines of creation and incarnation, both of which affirm the goodness of matter and particularity, has room for patriotism. Love of country is not the highest love, but is a love nonetheless, and must be afforded its place. Even Paul, that man who so deeply longed to be where Christ was and who argued that we serve Christ, not Caesar, never denied his Roman citizenship but instead used it boldly and openly. He even went so far as to encourage us to interceed–the greatest act of love outside of martyrdom a Christian can do–for the rulers over us.

It makes me wonder, then, whethher the “invasion of culture” that threatens the Iranian regime is not a pagan culture, but a deeply Christian culture, because it is a patriotic culture. A man is tied to the land of his birth. While he can reject or embrace his land, it is the latter that has made America great, and that a strong position on the Incarnation seems to undergird and foster. If this is true, then there is little wonder that the patriotism of America has prompted the Iranian leaders to act in ways reminiscent of another historical figure: Herod the Great.

More reading on Christianity and patriotism: G.K. Chesterton, “The Flag of the World.“

A lovely video slide-show has shown up on YouTube which runs through 500 years worth of paintings depicting feminine beauty. The viewing experience is quite mesmerizing, as the video’s creator melds each successive face with a fluid ease. (The classical soundtrack adds a welcome touch too–I’m a sucker for cello.)

I unfortunately am far from a competent art critic, so I’d love to hear a response about what the video might reveal from someone who has a background in art history–or, for that matter, anyone with some general aesthetic sensibilities (this probably means you!).

All I’ll say for now is that were I a bachelor, I’d much rather date the women near the start of the clip than those at the end.

Andy at ThinkChristian pointed out this fascinating article by Joseph Bottum, editor of First Things, in which he argues that the death of others is the foundation for our political existence.

While Andy thinks the topic is “a bit morbid,” I find myself invigorated by the opportunity to think hard about death. It is, after all, one of the most perplexing and fascinating realities in human existence, and one that I have in recent months devoted more thought to than ever before. Bottum’s article is tough slogging, as it is a bit less systematic than I might like, but essential reading nonetheless for its insight and its poetic prose.
Consider:

Still, even the most ardent modernist might feel some misgivings about a rejection of the dead as complete as San Francisco’s. And such misgivings reflect, however dimly, a deep political insight—for a city without cemeteries has failed at one of the first reasons for having cities at all. Somewhere in those banished graveyards was a metaphysical ground for politics, and buried in them was a truth that too much of modern political theory seems to have forgotten: The living give us crowds. The dead give us communities.

And:

Indeed, the logic loops back on itself to spiral downward: The failure to maintain the family graves increasingly leaves the family name without meaning, and the emptiness of the family name increasingly becomes a reason not to have family graves. The modern failure of funerals serves as both a cause and a symptom of the shattering of culture, first into the nuclear family, then into atomized individuals, and at last into nothingness—with, for instance, the increasing use of “anonymous death,” a European innovation now beginning to appear in America, where the dead are abandoned without ceremony in deliberately unmarked graves, or their corpses are cremated with the ashes spread across large and indifferent spaces.

And:

Possibly we have even discovered a way to dilute the caustic skepticism of modern thought. An effort to build a politics solely around the fact of death may be a poor idea—incomplete sociologically and dangerous politically; the addition of metaphysically thick accounts of love, procreation, work, and the human purpose would be very helpful. But an age of suspicion must take what it can get, and death is the one fact no skepticism will dissolve.

What is missing from a culture that acknowledges death’s presence and power is a sense of solidarity with the past. Writes Eliot in Little Gidding:

We with the dying:
See, they depart, and we go with them.
We are born with the dead:
See, they return, and bring us with them.
The moment of the rose and the moment of the yew-tree
Are of equal duration. A people without history
Is not redeemed from time, for history is a pattern
Of timeless moments.

Denying death is nothing less than denying history, and denying history is nothing less than denying ourselves and our own situation. It is a rejection of metaphysics, as Bottum argues, and a rejection of the difficult reality that is at the basis of the political order. It is not the only fact that must be accounted for, but the primary fact on which the rest hang. We ignore it to our own peril.

Most people, by and large, aren’t used to having discussions. They just aren’t. What passes for discussion in most workplaces, classrooms and small groups is opinining without critique. Very rarely do students actually engage each other in face-to-face conversation about a difficult idea, and even more rarely does a whole group of people attain this level of discourse.

One of the chief problems I have as a Christian educator is changing the student’s expectations for learning. Partly due to habit, and partly due to insecurity, most students look to the teacher to tell them what to think. It is the teacher who determines their educational experience, not themselves.

In small groups, people don’t expect to have their ideas challenged or criticized. The closest people come is the workplace, but there people seem to rarely expect to work together as a unit, especially in competitive environments.

Setting clear expectations–this is a discussion, this is not a discussion–is essential for fostering great discussions. Where the expectations aren’t clear, anything can happen. In adult groups, that may be okay, but it won’t lead to flourishing. Great communities don’t happen by accident. With high schoolers, it’s an invitation for chaos.

That said, here are a three key ways of establishing expectations for discussion:

1. Praise good things liberally. This is essential for any leader. If you see the smallest thing happen that’s right, praise it. Creating a culture where good things are praised makes people want to do those good things, whether they know it or not (this is especially true of younger people)
2. Tell people what the expectations are. Most people forget to do this, but it’s extraordinarily helpful. Offer a brief description of what a discussion actually looks like, and work to disabuse people of their bad ideas about discussion. Be clear up front about the expectations so that there are no surprises. In a small group, when people start challenging other peoples’ ideas, it can get testy if no one expects it. Telling people what to expect is one way of mitigating that problem
3. Be appropriately stern with people who “act out of line.” Classroom management doesn’t go away in discussion classes. If anything, it is even more important to maintain order by enforcing codes of courtesy and respect. Maintaining a safe environment is crucial for great discussions, so students have to know what is appropriate and what isn’t. While we will address discipline more specifically a little later on, having some is key.
4. Ask students why they aren’t having a discussion. This is a fun one. In discussion classes where students have been raised on lectures, they will often turn toward the teacher and talk to him. Then they’ll try to guess what’s the teacher is thinking. Both of those practices, however, aren’t really “discussion.” When that happens (and it will–I promise!), you can engage those students in a mini-conversation about why they are looking at you and talking to you. In a discussion class, students should talk to the class. Discussion, it turns out, can be both a means and an end in itself.
5. Remind discussants constantly of the expectations. People forget things easily–I do it, so I expect others to do it. Remind the people in your group of the “rules for discussion” every chance you get, and do it in unique and compelling ways so as to not make them hate you.

Ensuring that discussants know the proper rules for a discussion is essential to having great discussions. As a discussion leader, you want to bring the group along with you and give them ownership over their own learning experience. To do so, however, demands that they know what ownership looks like and requires of them. Clarifying those expectations is essential for students and participants to take ownership of the process of learning.

I had mentioned a while ago the possibility of putting together a survey to find out what you, the readers, like and don’t like about Mere O. Now is your time to shine: now is your hour!

It will only take 15 minutes or so, which I know is a lot of valuable time for many of you. But we are at the point where we really need some feedback on how we’re doing. We want to make Mere O as excellent as possible, and we need your help to do so.

Click here to take the first ever Mere O Reader’s Survey. Your time and feedback is greatly, greatly appreciated.

One of the world’s best footballers–the deadly Brazilian striker, Kaka–will attempt to lead AC Milan to victory today over a tough Liverpool squadfor the UEFA Champions League title. (You can see highlights of his role in dismantling Manchester United during the semifinal match here and a personal highlight clip here.)

What few might know about Kaka, myself included until today, is that this budding superstar is also a committed Evangelical Christian. This afternoon, as part of the build up to the final, ESPN.com is running an article that focuses in on how Kaka’s character and faith have helped mold him into the internationally respected man that he is–both on and off the pitch.