Daft Punk has a new album out (not that I really listen to them, though. Here's a little piece declaring that Daft Punk saved pop music and doomed us all (whomever "us" refers to). Along the way there's reference made to a cranky take-down on techno in the late 1990s as an enemy of all things true and soulful and conducive to proper humanism. Not that Wenatchee makes a point of listening to much techno in general, either, but the seeds of techno in minimalists like Reich and Riley and Glass seems so easy to establish it's a puzzle why their music wasn't mentioned in the acrimony. Oh well. Stuff that's interesting to read all the same.
Perhaps to prove that Slate writers have less to blog about these days or that Game of Thrones is really popular there's a set of posts on economic theories as they apply to the storylines.
Ever heard of the Wesleyan quadrilateral? It's pretty sweet, actually, and the gimmick may be awesome enough that Mark Driscoll subconsciously cribbed it for his "four points" ramble. Chris Rosebrough at Fighting for the Faith is pretty singularly negatively impressed by it. While a stand-out line is Driscoll joking that picking on people is his love language Rosebrough deals with the substance of the four points/quadrants. There's Calvinism/Arminianism (which in Driscollian parlance is not synergism proper but Pelagianism). There's complementarian/egalitarian (which, according to Carl Trueman, is something new Calvinists seem to think is a bigger deal than even sacraments instituted by Jesus according to the Evangelists). Then there's charismatic/cessationist thought in the third quadrant, though even by this point no mention is made of things like atonement theories. Finally, Driscoll proposes that missional/fundamental is the fourth grid.
Rosebrough discusses the audio at some length so there's little to add except to note that Driscoll fans are very likely to presuppose that Driscoll is discussing people who are considered "in" on the basis of traditional orthodoxy. They are likely to hold this idea despite the fact that if Driscoll really has defined Arminianism in Pelagian rather than traditionally synergistic terms that a "tribe" he could potentially learn from could include a Pelagian egalitarian and that there'd be some bishops in the Episcopal church he could learn from. At least if Driscoll was serious about the learning from all the tribes he'd go there but when he closes with the necessity of confronting people about sexual sin it sounds like he's not really claiming that liberal Episcopalians who back gay marriage are a tribe he considers he could learn from. Rosebrough's critique is still worth noting but perhaps Driscoll's rhetoric is ever so slightly more pragmatic and cynical than Rosebrough may have considered. Just proposing that as an idea for consideration.