Via CalCars:

Toyota Motor Company said Tuesday that it was testing hybrid vehicles with rechargeable batteries in the United States and Japan, setting up a direct challenge with General Motors to develop the industry’s first plug-in hybrids. more

This is great news. Plug-in hybrids, which let you charge your car overnight and only use gasoline when the (larger) batteries run out, could reduce the average driver’s need to fill up the gas tank to just a few times a year. You get the efficiency of an electric car with the flexibility to drive long distances using the gas engine if you need to.

Right now, we’re waiting on higher-capacity lithium ion batteries; Toyota is testing lower-capacity NiMH batteries for now.

Hopefully we’ll see production models by 2010. You can follow plug-in hybrid news via the CalCars Yahoo group.

I think bible study peaked in the last generation of evangelicalism. I can’t compete with that level of intensity, reading 5 chapters a day or what have you, and there’s more I want to read - and take into consideration - from the available Christian literature than the bible.

How do we keep the pendulum from swinging too far the other way, into ignorance and lack of concern for what our scriptures teach?

That’s all - thought it was time for a short post, possibly with a long discussion to follow. Cheers.

Evangelism is icky…or at least that’s what I keep hearing. I’m not convinced.

You may have heard that the Pope was criticized recently for reintroducing the Latin mass, which includes a Good Friday prayer for the conversion of the Jews. This has many Jews upset, and other groups are upset at Benedict’s recent statements that salvation only comes through the Catholic Church.

I’m not really sure why people react this way these days. Part of it is the rise of a Good Thing - tolerance - but I don’t think that is a sufficient explanation for why we’re so offended that other people think they’re right and that we should live as they live.

To some extent, I agree that we should live and let live. I have a Krups, you have a Mr. Coffee. I go to Old Navy, you go to Banana Republic (yeah, you, Aaron). Some differences in personal choice aren’t worth even mentioning, because they don’t matter.

But other issues do matter, and if you have thought about your way of understanding the universe and your role within it, and your relationship (if any) to a higher power (if one exists), I’d think you’d want to tell me about it and at least have a friendly argument. I’d hope you don’t think that something as important as how and why humans and the universe exist, and how we should live, are in the “true for me but not for you” category.

I don’t think we should go on from there to be jerks about these matters and hate or harm each other because of our differences. But how far can we go in saying that I have my religion, and you have yours, and we’re all fine here? These are things in which we really cannot all be right, and depending on which set of beliefs you hold, there may be big consequences to those beliefs (though, of course, it’s a common belief that there are no other-worldly consequences to what you believe).

I’m inclined to ask, then, isn’t it rather imperialistic and judgmental to be offended that other people think you’re unsaved or believe wrongly? Don’t most people in the world think that they are right and others are wrong, and isn’t that an OK thing to believe? Isn’t it a rather novel, elitist view that we’re all OK and shouldn’t worry about what other people believe?

I personally tend not to make assumptions about who’s OK with God and who’s not. God will do what he will. On the other hand, I respect the right of others to think I’m wrong.

When we speak out against any kind of religious judgment of others or claim to exclusivity (e.g. claiming that my tribe is the only one that will be saved, or whatever), we’re introducing another kind of exclusivity - the kind that says no one can be wrong or say someone else is wrong.

Now, I won’t go a step farther and say that it is then justifiable to commit acts of oppression or violence against people who believe differently. Certainly not. But I think the fear of such harm is what’s behind all the shock and distress over being judged as unfaithful by others. Maybe we need to work harder to separate the two.

I would much rather know that someone disagrees with what I believe and still treats me respectfully than I would like to hear that they think I’m fine even though my beliefs are diametrically opposed to theirs. I don’t find it helpful to pretend our massive worldview differences don’t exist. Unless we’ve lost them, they’re the perpetual, proverbial elephant in the room.

But I think we can live with the elephant. I think we can live and work together, comfortable in the knowledge that we believe different things. I think we can even want others to come around to our perspective, whether we’re talking politics, religion, or sports franchises.

At stake is nothing less than the survival of discourse itself. Humanity has been immeasurably enriched by our natural tendency to discuss our ideas, to debate, to disagree and argue and consider each other’s positions. We had a lot to learn about being nicer to one another, but I don’t think the rise of civility must be accompanied by a decline in discourse. The opposite should be true - as we become more able to treat each other respectfully, we should have more discourse and care even more about our beliefs.

This all comes to a head when we consider evangelism. It’s almost a dirty word, because it implies - gasp! - that we want other people to believe and live as we do. There is, I must admit, a certain amount of hubris and hypocrisy inherent in the evangelistic drive. If you want to convince others to believe as you do, you must believe that you’re at least mostly right and that your way of life is at least somewhat superior to the alternatives, even if you don’t live in complete congruence with your beliefs.

Perhaps what we’re talking about is a quest for truth, or enlightenment, or wisdom, or peace, or whatever you’d like to call it. Here’s what it will take for the evangelistic drive to thrive in a world where we’re actually decent to one another:

• We cannot use coercion of any type.
• We cannot use evangelism to serve our own interests. By definition, it is undertaken for the benefit of the other.
• We must remain open to learning and changing our own beliefs, if we are to expect this of others.
• We must continually address our own hypocrisy in failing to live by our own standards.
• We must listen as much or more than we expect others to listen to us.

If I’m OK, you’re OK, and evangelism is not OK, we have a problem, because that means no one cares about what they believe. In a world with no healthy discourse, we become so afraid of offending someone that we cease to believe anything or discuss our beliefs.

Discuss. Don’t just say that my opinion is fine for me to have if you disagree :).

Ross at Less Travelled blogged recently for the first time in a few months, and some of his comments about faith and blogging hit home:

And so, after six months or more of not having written anything, most of that time not really having thought of anything particularly to say, I’m back in bed with my laptop, blogging at bedtime. Something seems to have gone “click” inside me, and all of a sudden my brain is back in this groove where I need to start thrashing out my ideas and angsty quandaries about God. I guess I’m no longer content to be discontent. link

Right there with you, buddy. I think Hamo did as much blogging during his blog sabbatical as I did while claiming to be actively blogging here. I did post a lot about bottled water and such, but not much about faith and church.

Recently, I’ve been thinking about our church and how we are not a very typical church at all, nor do we desire to be. We are more of a tribe than a congregation, and I’m not sure whether that’s OK. But maybe it is.

I’m reading the last few chapters of NT Wright’s New Testament and the People of God right now, and the insight I’ve gained in to the early church is not comforting. The first Christians feel like strange people from a lost era in a faraway land.

Wait a minute - they were (rather) strange people, even by contemporary standards, in a faraway land a long time ago. They were not basically the same as us in belief and practice, with only minor differences in language and culture. They were enormously different from us, yet we can still learn from their faith. What can learn, though, is a more complex question than our attempts to replicate the “first-century church” would indicate.

Many emerging churches have radically different structures than their mainstream counterparts - yet not all do. I’ve been thinking for years about church structure, and how our church is going to be different. We’re five years into Seattle Metro Church now. Over the past two years or so, I’ve been wondering whether it’s OK for us to be different - for us to exist as a group of friends rather than an organization.

Part of what frees me to see this as OK is the knowledge that “the church in Seattle” is not just us - it’s lots of little groups and some big groups too. Each church is just a small part of the church as a whole. The balance and diversity that the church needs to have in an area does not have to be visible in each small community.

To be a part of our community means, among other things, friendship. That can be a barrier to new people, especially when the existing friendships are very strong, but I don’t know that our church could be what it is without that emphasis on friendship. Should your church be your friends, and should your friends be your church? I haven’t seen much discussion of this question, but I’d like to. I suppose it depends on how you define friendship and how you interact with your friends.

I don’t think we can “restore the New Testament church” as the Restoration Movement sought to do. We can certainly revive its best features, but not by imitating forms we know little about and which have little relevance in our culture, 1900 years later. But I do think we have a long way to go in bridging the gap between how we live our lives, individually and as a church, and how we should live as followers of Christ.

N.B. I recently received a review copy of a book called 97 Random Thoughts about Life, Love, & Relationships. I haven’t read it, but I thought it was a good analogy for this post - random. Hopefully I’ll get a little more organized in my thinking as I dive back into more regular theoblogging.

For the first time ever, Democratic presidential candidates debated by answering questions submitted through YouTube. The questions were vetted by CNN, and the debate was moderated by Anderson Cooper. Predictably, some questions were wacky, some a biting critique of politics in America, and some just pretty good.

NPR had a ton of sound bites, and interviewed an enthusiastic blogger who said this was basically the best thing ever to happen in the history of the world. I agree that it’s nice to have questions coming from everyday people, but I think it’s important to keep in perspective the level of discourse that is possible on YouTube. Have you ever read YouTube comments? They are to blogging what the National Enquirer is to the New York Times.

Defective Yeti imagines what it would have been like if the candidates had responded like YouTube commenters:

SEN. CHRISTOPHER DODD: omg that video was totaly gay

SEN. BARACK OBAMA: Shut up Dodd thats offensive when u say gay like that.

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: to answre your question bush is a facist who only wants more power. hes not even the president you knopw, cheny is. i would b different because i would have a vice presidant that doesnt just try and control everything from behind the seens/

link

I think this was a cool way to do the debate, since everything will be online for easy reference later (e.g. to follow up on campaign promises). I don’t know that it’s revolutionary, since CNN still screened the questions they way they would in a live debate. Since the level of discourse on YouTube is generally so low, I don’t think you could do it any other way. CNN did seem to have a fairly high tolerance for goofiness, as long as a substantial question underlay the snowman or folk song or whatever appeared in the video.

What do you think? Will the republicans do it, and how will their constituents react?

Update: Mark Elrod, an actual political scientist (and one of the few vocal democrats at my alma mater) says:

Overall, I think the novelty of the event detracted from the substance of what the candidates actually had to say. link

If you’ve read Radical Congruency for a while, you know I’m a big fan of Kiva, the nonprofit that lets you improve the lives of others by loaning them money to start or expand small businesses. It’s a revolutionary concept (pioneered by the Grameen Bank), but was known only in developing nations until recently.

Daniel (co-blogger here at Radical Congruency) told me a few weeks ago about Prosper, an American company that lets you loan or borrow money, getting better rates than you could through a bank.

A borrower can create a loan listing page (kind of like an eBay auction), specifying how much they want to borrow, what interest rate they’re willing to pay, what they’ll use it for, and why they’ll be able to pay it back. Prosper verifies and displays a variety of important financial information, such as credit rating, debt-to-income ratio, and home ownership status.

A lender can browse loan listings and contribute to listings that meet their criteria - for example, people with a credit rating of B or higher who own their homes and are willing to pay 16% or more in interest. Lenders can also create standing orders, so that when a new listing is posted that meets their criteria, they automatically bid a certain amount on it. Higher-risk loans tend to be at higher interest rates, and you can reduce your risk by loaning in amounts as small as $50 to multiple borrowers rather than loaning the full amount you’re investing to one borrower.

Most loans have interest rates in the 10-20% range. Prosper charges a 1% origination fee to borrowers, and a 1% fee to lenders. Payments are made by ACH bank draft. All loans are on a fixed 3-year repayment schedule, and each payment is laid out very clearly, with the principal and interest clearly specified. There is no prepayment penalty. Check out the loan calculator to see the specifics.

Why would you want to borrow from Prosper?

• To consolidate higher-interest credit card debt
• To give yourself a 3-year fixed repayment period, rather than open-ended minimum payments
• To finance a project or purchase at a better rate than your bank or credit card would
• To fund a business

Borrowers and lenders can also organize themselves into groups, with the group leader taking additional responsibility for the loans taken by group members. Groups with a strong reputation can negotiate better rates, and if a group member defaults on a loan, the group’s reputation suffers, so there’s a bit of a ratings system built in that way.

Obviously, people could misuse Prosper like any other financial system can be misused. High-interest debt is a bad thing. However, considering the amount that many people are currently paying to credit card companies, the opportunity to pay a lower rate, plus the opportunity to pay individuals rather than a predatory lending corporation, is a winning combination.

For lenders, the opportunity to get a 15%+ return on your money (unheard of with CDs or normal short-term investments) is simply amazing. Yes, there is risk, but again, you reduce it by diversifying and only investing in borrowers you’re comfortable with.

I am attempting to get a loan to consolidate some credit card debt, which will save me over $10,000 in interest and substantially reduce my payoff period. I’m offering to pay 10% interest, and I have the highest credit rating (AA). If you are interested in lending to me, sign up for Prosper and contact me, and I’ll send you a link to the loan.

While few people would be able to lend on Prosper as their sole occupation, like eBay, it is possible to use this system to earn a healthy side income. Once you have it set up, you can use standing orders to automatically reinvest your money as you receive payments each month.

Check out the help section or take a tour to learn more, and again, let me know if you’re interested in funding my loan. Disclosure: the links above are referral links, which get me paid if you join and borrow or lend.

Democracy in lending. Take that, Wilmington, Delaware! Seriously, I like the idea of borrowing from another person, even if I’m paying nearly the same rate, just because I object to the marketing tactics that credit card companies use. They send us checks with the amount already filled in, begging us to cash them and accept the transaction fees and exorbitant rates. Yes, it’s our fault if we do, but I think we have a national problem here, considering how many otherwise-smart people (like me) get trapped behind a pile of high-interest debt, making only minimum payments month after month. Prosper offers total transparency - everyone knows what they’re getting - and a way out of debt.

The Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007, introduced by Senators Spector (R-PA) and Leahy (D-VT), looks like a really important piece of legislation that may go up for a vote by this Thursday.

S. 185 (now renamed S. Amdt. 2022 as an amendment to the Department of Defense authorizations bill) is short and sweet:

RESTORATION OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR THOSE DETAINED BY THE UNITED STATES.

(a) In General.–Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking subsection (e).
(b) Title 10.–Section 950j of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:

“(b) Limited Review of Military Commission Procedures and Actions.–Except as otherwise provided in this chapter or in section 2241 of title 28 or any other habeas corpus provision, and notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever, including any action pending on or filed after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission under this chapter, including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions under this chapter.”.

(c) Effective Date and Applicability.–The amendments made by this section shall–

(1) take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act; and
(2) apply to any case that is pending on or after the date of enactment of this Act.

The good part is section (a): “(a) In General.–Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking subsection (e)“. Subsection (e) is a lovely bit to get rid of:

“No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.”
-from the Military Commissions Act

Here is the list of the cosponsors:
•Joe Biden (D-DE)
•Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
•Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
•Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
•Robert Byrd (D-WV)
•Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
•Ben Cardin (D-MD)
•Thomas Carper (D-DE)
•Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
•Chris Dodd (D-CT)
•Dick Durbin (D-IL)
•Russ Feingold (D-WI)
•Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
•Tom Harkin (D-IA)
•Ted Kennedy (D-MA)
•John Kerry (D-MA)
•Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
•Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)
•Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
•Carl Levin (D-MI)
•Claire McCaskill (D-MO)
•Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
•Bill Nelson (D-FL)
•Barack Obama (D-IL)
•Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)
•Ken Salazar (D-CO)
•Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
•Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
•Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)

If your Senator’s name is missing from the list, such as our very own Patty Murray, why not give them a call and ask them to co-sponsor it? I just got off the phone with a staffer at Senator Murray’s office, had a very nice little chat, and he said he’d pass on my request to the Senator. This could be important, even if they are already planning (as is Senator Murray, I was told) to vote for the Act.

Call the US Capitol toll-free at 800.862.5530, or use the Senate’s directory (.pdf - the numbers all start with 202.22). The direct line to Senator Murray’s office is 202.224.2621.

(via via)

Via Emergent comes this news of a tragic fire (photos) that destroyed virtually the entire neighborhood in which The Simple Way lives out its mission. The Simple Way is the alt.community known globally through Shane Claiborne’s book Irresistible Revolution (Shane was interviewed by Off The Map recently on their Justice & Compassion blog).

The Fray held a fundraiser for the neighborhood, and insurance will cover some of TSW’s losses, but the impact on their community is enormous. They need both prayers, petitioning, and financial support. Read more on their website.

I have not read the book, and I don’t know a whole lot about The Simple Way, but it’s clear that they are true neighbors and care about their community. This is real, local mission - as real as it gets.

From The Simple Way in Philadelphia:

6/20/07 12:30PM

This morning, a 7-alarm fire consumed an abandoned warehouse in our Kensington neighborhood in Philadelphia. The Simple Way Community Center at 3200 Potter Street was destroyed as well as at least eight of our neighbors’ homes. Over 100 people were evacuated from their homes, and 400 families are currently without power. Despite this developing tragedy, we are incredibly thankful to share that all of our community members and every one of our neighbors is safely out of harm’s way.

This fire will forever change the fabric of our community. Eight families are currently homeless, and in many cases have lost their vehicles as well as their homes. One of our neighbors, the Mahaias Family, lost their three cars as well as the equipment one family member uses for her massage therapy business. Teenager Brian Mahaias is devastated not because he has lost his belongings, but because he fears that this fire will force him to move away from this neighborhood that is his family as well as his home.

The Simple Way has lost a community center that was home to our Yes! And… afterschool program, community arts center, and Cottage Printworks t-shirt micro-business as well as to two of our community members. Community members Shane Claiborne and Jesce Walz have lost all of their belongings, Yes! And…’s after school studio and library were ruined, and community member Justin Donner’s Cottage Printworks equipment and t-shirts were destroyed.

We are thankful that we are able to help each other during this time of need, and we will continue to keep your informed about today’s events.

We have established funds to support the families who have lost their homes, the Yes! And… afterschool program, and the Simple Way community.

A fund to support the families has been established through a partner organization, EAPE. Tax-deductible donations can be made at https://www.tonycampolo.org/online_donation.php. Please make sure to put “Kensington Families Fund” in the memo section.

Donations to the Rebuilding Fund can be made via PayPal to contribute@awip.us.

—The Simple Way Community

UPDATE 6/25/2007:

UPDATE 6/26/2007:
Rachelle Mee-Chapman is having a “fire sale” on some good books, $5 each (plus $3 S&H). Check out the list of titles and follow the instructions to order. Half the proceeds will go to The Simple Way community and their neighbors.