The Truth Will Set You Free

2006-08-15T01:01:00.000-04:00

Western Dialectics VS Eastern Dialectics

I read something the other day that got the 'ol noggin thinking again (imagine that!). Anyway, the discussion got me thinking about the difference between western dialectics and eastern dialectics. What is a dialectic? Simply put (and this probably oversimplified) a dialectic is a statement that contains a thesis and an antithesis. For example, "I am a genius" and its antithesis, "I am not a genius." Or, perhaps in a more relevent context, the thesis: "God is love," countered by an antithesis, "God is not love." Ok...perhaps too oversimplified, but you get the idea.

In western dialectics, there is a tendency to blend the thesis and antithesis into a synthesis. What does this mean? Let's go back to my God example: Thesis: "God is love." Antithesis: "God is not love." Synthesis: "Given certain conditions, God might be love." While this way of thinking was certainly popularized by Hegel (and his students), I see a common thread all the way back to Aristotle. We can find strains of this reasoning in T. Aquinas and even Augustine. Why a synthesis? In the western mind, perhaps it's difficult to leave an antithesis an antithesis. Or, even more acutely, maybe the thesis does not reflect reality, or even a truth. So we need an antithesis. But reason shows us that maybe the antithesis doesn't get us any closer to reality, or a truth. So we try to blend these together in a synthesis. We do this in every day conversation. We might call it compromise - if two parties disagree, we try to find a solution that reflects a given from both parties. Though the real-life example is arguably a little different than the philosophy, you can see how we use this form of reason in everyday living.

So what is the Eastern dialectic? Well let me be forthright and admit: I am not an Eastern thinker. I can appreciate Eastern thinking, but I was schooled, nurtured, and raised in Western dialectics. So this is an attempt to flesh out Eastern dialectics. The book I was reading was discussing Buddhist dialectics of life and death of God and no-God. Pretty deep stuff - as I understand it, the Eastern dialectic is formulated with a thesis and an antithesis; however, the difference arises in what is done with these two forms. Where the Western thinker is not comfortable with a thesis and antithesis, the Eastern thinker finds completion in the formulation. Without a synthesis, the Eastern thinker affirms the paradox (did someone say Kierkegaard???). What does this mean? Let me try to be a little more creative:

The Eastern thinker finds a peculiar beauty in paradoxical "conclusions" because they reflect the "true" nature of things. Where the Buddhist finds comfort in the one truth of the universe (that all things change - nothing is static), the Hindu finds comfort in all is Brahmin. Each is an internal paradox - internal because it explains the outside world. The Buddhist says that "all is nothing" and "nothing is all" because it reflects the ever-changing, ever-flux of the universe. The Hindu says that "all is Brahmin" and "Brahmin is all" because the cosmic matrix is ultimately the same, the one, the Brahmin. The thesis and antithesis are strangely not that different. Where Westerners think a thesis and antithesis have to polar in relationship, Eastern thinking exposes the flaw in such argumentation. Eastern thought reflects the beauty, the strange aesthetic, the ultimate one-ness and shatteredness in reality. Eastern thought shows us that we are not necessarily thinking clearly in polar opposites, where if we challenge such thinking (in that the thesis and antithesis are closer in relationship), we can begin to touch that strange aethetic.

Does this translate into Western conceptions of God? Let's do some language games to put it to the test: Thesis: God is an active redeemer. Antithesis: God is not necessarily an active redeemer. The Eastern thinker stops here to analyze. What are we really saying in these two statements? They appear polar, but let's challenget that. Are they really? What are we saying in the antithesis? We're saying that God doesn't have to be an active redeemer in order to be God. Does God retain God-ly characteristics if God doesn't redeem? Does God have to redeem to be God? The Eastern thinker is fine with this analysis (I hope!) because it reflects what might be God in a changing universe: God might be a redeemer, God might not be a redeemer. Perhaps, and this is a guess, this sort of gets at why Buddhism doesn't center on a God - what's the use? Let's go a bit further: is there a way of synthesizing such an argument? Let's attempt it: God can be a redeemer, if God chooses to be, but God does not have to be a redeemer in order to be God. Does this get us any closer to what we might think of "truth"? Maybe so, maybe not.

What do you think? Have I butchered Hegel? Or, have I committed an offense against the Buddha? Or Shiva, or Krishna? Haha...outta this group I only care what Kierkegaard thinks...

2006-08-10T12:04:00.000-04:00

Need An Affordable Editor?

I've launched a user-friendly service for those in need of affordable and reliable editing / proofreading. For more info, see The Better Editor.

Or, for a free quote, email me: thebettereditor@gmail.com

2006-08-08T11:28:00.000-04:00

The Dynamics of God's Self-Revelation: Static or On-going?

In religious discourse, the idea of God is either central (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc) or cursory (Buddhism, etc.). The Christian conception of "God" is of a personal agent who is actively involved in redeeming humanity through the work, sacrifice, and resurrection of Jesus. Christian doctrine, for the most part, attempts to flesh out what it means to say God's self-revelation, or Jesus. We can discuss Jesus in historical terms (a man from Galilee who was crucified by the Romans about 2,000 years ago). Or, we can discuss Jesus in theological terms (God's agent who worked/is working to redeem humanity). Or, we can discuss Jesus in a space/time continuum (Jesus turns human history on its head and gives it a new trajectory). These are hermeneutics to describe (albeit in a limited way) God's self-revelation.

The Enlightment project attempted to interpret Jesus and the Christian message in a rational, coherent, and complete way. The post-modern world shows us that there is a lot of insanity, a lot of irrationality, and a lot of fragmentation. Is there relevence for the Christian message? I affirm with my Christian brothers and sisters that there is, if in a way that is relevent like never before. What do I mean? I propose that God's self-revelation is dynamic, on-going, and meaningful. Is it "limited" by the work, sacrifice, and resurrection of Jesus 2,000 years ago? I don't know. The plurality of religious beliefs shows us that we cannot affirm an emphatic "yes" because that logically places limits on God. Can God show God's-self through other cultural ways? Perhaps, again, I don't know, and I know that I can never know that answer. It's God's business. However, I do affirm the message of Jesus as being relevent and meaningful to all people, bar none. So, while I do not discount the possibility of God's revealing God's-self to other peoples in other ways, I say that for me, it is through Jesus.

I read recently a great metaphor: in order for complete relevence, something must touch you where you bleed. Where do you bleed? Jesus touches me where I bleed. I don't mean this in some weirdly pietistic way, but in a completely worldly and other-worldly way. When I read a beautiful poem, when I see a beautiful piece of art, when I am moved to tears by music, I know that this man, Jesus, experienced a similar thing. In short, Jesus touches me where I bleed because he experienced the same pain, angst, and heartache that I experience. Jesus breathed the aesthetic of beautiful poetry (Psalms), perhaps created a beautiful piece of art, and certainly was moved to tears by music. That, for me, is the most relevent aspect of divine: solidarity with my human condition.

2006-07-20T11:12:00.000-04:00

Individualism and Post-Ideological Thinking: A Response

Thank you to a couple of my readers who offered constructive criticism of my previous posts on post-ideological religion. I offered Killing the Buddha as a potential reference of this way of thinking. If I understand the criticisms correctly, they are saying that post-ideological religion runs the risk of collapsing into individualism. And, though this isn't stated, I assume (hopefully correctly!) that this would eventually lead to religious solipisism. In lay terms, I'll pick and choose what I want to believe, when I want to believe it, and what I believe is always subject to my personal whim.

I will admit that this is possible. But, that said, it is always possible in any religious "system." Let's face it: societities, churches, communities, religious groups, temples, etc. etc. are formed from individuals. Religion in its "purest" form is a group of believers who congregate as individuals-in-community. The essence of religion is experienced as individuals. We cannot get beyond these few simple statements : I don't "know" what you really believe because I'm not you. And, you don't really "know" what I believe because you are not me (though you might have an idea if you've been reading my blog ;). Thus, for me, the distinction I make between individualism and group orientation isn't necessarily a negative/positive shift. Rather, it's trying to see a group for what it is: a cohesive group of individuals. Solipisism is always a risk - but communal experience hopefully prevents such thinking.

When I speak of post-ideological religion, I don't draw a distinction between individuals and groups. Rather, I'm looking for authenticity, either as an individual or as a group. I can delude myself as an individual just as much as I can be apart of a group that's deluded. Or, I can be as authentic in my experience as part of a group as I can as an individual. So why go to Church? Well, besides the obvious (to worship, to partake in sacraments, etc.), I go more to the "man/woman is not an island" thinking. No matter how introverted you may be, you need other people at some point. Jesus knew this - frankly I think Jesus has some introverted tendencies, yet he flourished around other people. What's the point? We gain insight, renewed strength, and religious vigor from worshiping with other people. Though we may not all get along all of the time, we are called by God to act as a community.

So, what's my concise response? Well, I believe community is central - central to spiritual/religious growth, enlightenment, whatever you want to call it. However, we have to be realistic enough to admit that this is done as individuals. Though we can share experiences, we never existentially experience another. This is a careful distinction, I think. It preserves the integrity of the individual as well as the group. Each has their rightful place in life - and it's important to prevent blurring the two. We must function as groups but think as individuals (lest history show us what happens if we ignore this imperative).

What do you think?

Killing the Buddha and Post-Ideological Religion

2006-07-17T10:34:00.000-04:00

If you are serious about studying religion, you need to read this book. Granted it's not the most scholarly production in the world - no footnotes, et. al., but this book paints a new form of scholarship. If you thought you'd seen raw authenticity in religious thinking, 'you ain't seen nothin' yet.' I'm absolutely engrossed in this book - but I've surfaced long enough to post some connections with post-ideology.

Killing the Buddha, and its offshoot website, works on a simple premise. If you meet the Buddha and the road to enlightenment, kill him. Why? Because that's not the real Buddha. This applies to Judeo-Christian religions as well: if you think you've found "God," you probably haven't. In order to find the "real" God, we must do away with any preconceived notions of what God must be like. This smacks of Paul Tillich's "God beyond God" -type theology. But, that being said, it's crucial to post-ideological thinking. God's name has been used throughout history for many things good and many things evil. We humans try to encapsulate God into what we think God should be - and that's idolotry. God is beyond our small minds - and we must always keep that in mind.

Killing the Buddha advocates striking down this type of idolotry and seeking a more authentic religious experience. This experience is grounded on the belief that there is nothing wrong with being critical. For example - why do children die? There is no reason or justification for these tragedies. Should we let God 'off the hook' because God is God? Or, as God's children, are we not more authentic to go with our emotions and cry out in pain. Should we not "show" God ourselves in our pain? It is, at least, a more honest relationship with God. I think the moderation practiced by most Christians is faulty at best. What do I mean? If we're happy, we should pray prayers of thanksgiving and joy. If we feel pain, what is wrong with telling God in the most authentic way we know? Don't misread me: I'm not advocating cursing God. Far from it. Rather, I'm suggesting that we tap into our honesty and attempt to have a real and authentic relationship with our Creator.

Maybe these are the first steps toward thinking post-ideologically about religion (baby steps?). Anyway, if you've taken the time to read all of this post, spend another 30 seconds telling me what you think. Peace.

2006-07-11T12:10:00.000-04:00

Post-Ideology and the Necessity of Cultural Freedom

As we are all (arguably) culture-conditioned, there are certain things that we do/think that are based on our cultural sensitivities. There are few, if any, things that are universally accepted as "true" and "right" throughout modern and historical cultures (for example, murder is generally accepted as wrong, though self-defense and war are necessary evils). For this reason, we must admit that we are, to some degree, culturally-conditioned. We are products of our environment. Let me give a short example. As Americans, my wife and I were subject to several major culture shocks while living in Scotland for a year. One of the major issues we had was body space. As Americans, there is an appropriate distance that people should keep from you (save that of family, spouses, etc.). Not so in Scotland. People don't think much of being in your 'personal' body space. It's quite unconfortable at first, but you seem to get used to it (I didn't really get used to it). Now, for as progressive as I consider myself, I realize that this is a cultural sensitivity that I cannot prevent (or treat for that matter). This model can be extended into many other things.

Now, in order to get closer to 'post-ideology,' we must try to set our minds free from cultural sensitivity (I've got to learn to let people into my personal space?). In all seriousness, we have to first recognize our place in our own culture, respect the differences of those in other cultures, and attempt to transcend these differences. This applies to culture, religion, sensitivities, social customs, and a concept of 'right' and 'wrong.' This said, what does it have to do with 'post-ideological' worldview? It means that people will no longer be conditioned to certain uniform ways of thinking, it means that people will not be manipulated by governments, politicians, etc., and it means that people will exercise the awesome freedom to think for themselves. This is closer to what it means to say 'post-ideological' - that you are, in some sense, condemned to freedom (to borrow the phrase from Sartre). Letting go of cultural ideology means learning to think outside of our own little box. If cultural identity defines who we are, we are nothing more than tools of the state - and that's no good. Better yet, religious identity proves a more slippery slope. That's what I hope to blog on tomorrow! Stay tuned!

2006-07-07T22:09:00.000-04:00

Dealing with the Lovely Ignorance of this World

Great title, huh? That said, you might see a monograph in about 20 years with the same title - if you do, buy it, it'll be my book. Seriously, I think we should make fighting ignorance a theological specialty. There seems to be so much ignorance out there (read carefully: MOST, IF NOT ALL, TELEVANGELISTS).

I've had my hope in humanity severely tested this week (long story that I don't want to repeat here, but you know the feeling). Anyway, it got me thinking - is there a way to fight ignorance in this world? Knowledge isn't always power (so throw out the cliche) because people don't always listen, or think, or analyze. Let me be more specific. I've suggested on this blog before that we should strive to be post-ideological. Yes, I know, it's a philosophical enigma because saying one is 'post-ideological' is an ideology itself. Okay, we can dispense with that little enigma because it doesn't get us anywhere. Whereas the logic may be slightly flawed, I think the idea is important. We need to transcend the things in this world that bind us. I'm not talking about just propoganda, but the more subtle things: like things that we accept as "normal" or "good" are, in fact, okay and moral. When a preacher or televangelist says the words "God thinks" or "God will do this, or that," we should be instantly suspicious. How do we know what God thinks? Just because we have this book which we accept as holy scripture, we do not have the right to use it as a weapon against others. How dare we use something as beautiful as God's narrative of salvation to inspire fear, cause resentment, and condemn others. I think part of becoming "post-ideological" means suspecting anything that is not entirely part of God's narrative of salvation.

I'd like to do a series of posts on what I mean becoming "post-ideological." This post is small beginning, a foretaste of sorts. What do you think? A good idea? Something you'd like to see here? If it's a bad idea, what would you like to read about? As always, your comments are greatly appreciated.

2006-07-07T22:06:00.000-04:00

Sorry for the Brief Hiatus

As life sometimes gets in the way, I've not been able to update my blog in recent days. Sorry! Hopefully now that things are a little more settled, I'll be able to resume daily/semi-daily blogging. Thanks to those who check back often!

(A Short) Christian Appreciation of Buddhism

2006-06-26T23:42:00.000-04:00

While I am thoroughly a Christian (perhaps not always orthodox, but I'm always a dox of some sort), I do enjoy studying other religions, including Buddhism. It is perhaps my favorite of other religious movements because it reminds me of my own beloved Protestantism. Like Luther and Calvin, the Buddha sought a middle way in Hinduism. He rejected certain aspects of Hinduism and affirmed others. Granted, there are many differences in these reformers, but there are some striking similarities. I'll save that for another post. Today I want to focus on a short appreciation of Buddhism.

Buddhism and Christianity share many similarities. Granted, I cannot speak authoritatively for both, but I can appreciate Buddhism as a Christian. The Buddha, like Jesus, taught self control. The body is something to be mastered, not something that the world would have master control over. Both religions, that is assuming Buddhism as religious thinking, not simply philosophical thinking, taught (after their founders) that there is more to this world than the simple, empirical, and often painful existence. In other words, there is a metaphysic of sorts. For the Christian, that metaphysic is the narrative of the Creator God who redeems the creation through Jesus. For the Buddhist, that metaphysic is the knowledge of one's place in the universe - and how to set oneself free from this ever-changing world. While it may be argued that both teachings support escapism (i.e. don't worry about this life because there's something better waiting for you after death), I think the real understanding is appreciating the metaphysic as grounded in earthly life. What do I mean? While the hereafter is important, and deserving of consideration, the here-and-now demands our attention.

The devout Buddhist learns how to train his / her mind in ways that Westerners often completely miss. I'm one of them. I wish I could train my brain to enter a zen-like state after only a few minutes. I wish I could learn the "empty" brain exercises. I wish I could harness my thoughts and feelings in the same way that the Buddhist monk is often able to. Jesus' own teaching isn't that far from this. Jesus often spent much time alone, in the desert, contemplating, praying, and fasting. As an aesthetic, Jesus trained his mind to be alone with God. There is much to learn from this, and much to be appreciated in the Buddhist.

What I find the most intreguing of Buddhist teaching is the release from samsara, or the eternal cycle of life. This cycle encapsulates the dharma and karma that a being accumulates in multiple lives. This is no simple doctrine of reincarnation; rather it is a cycle of pain - a cycle of death, if you will. This cycle is broken only with buddha (or, literally, "enlightenment"). The knowledge of past lives and future lives, coupled with supreme knowledge, allows the individual to die into nirvana, or eternal nothingness. This nothingness is peace, it is eternal bliss in the void. It is the supreme version of unconsciousness. While I don't pretend to understand samsara, I am interested in studying it. I think it can lead to a better, even deeper, understanding of what I affirm as a Christian - that the life hereafter doesn't repeat - that this is it, this is our time to shine as the children of God - that we need to make the best of this life - and that we can hope for eternal presence with God. How can understanding the Buddhist help me in my Christian walk? There is always a place for understanding, for contemplation, for entertaining new ideas, for teasing out radical new thoughts. And, maybe, in that moment of enlightenment, I'll figure out what this life really means.

Peace.

N.T. Wright and the Historical Jesus

2006-06-23T00:21:00.000-04:00

"...rigorous history (i.e. open-ended investigation of actual events in first-century Palestine) and rigorous theology (i.e. open-ended investigation of what the word "god," and hence the adjective "divine," might actually refer to) belong together, and never more so than in discussion of Jesus. If this means that we end up needing a new metaphysic, so be it. It would be pleasant if, for once, the historians and the theologians could set the agenda for the philosophers, instead of vice versa."

-- N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God.

N.T. Wright is, arguably, one of the great living New Testament / theology scholars. His breadth of knowledge is absolutely amazing. And, in my humble opinion, he is one of the few who gracefully move between the fields of New Testment scholarship and academic theology. In other words, he does what we all should do - use both fields to the betterment of the Church. Unlike Francis Watson, who struggles to hold the two together, N.T. Wright writes lucidly in both spheres.

Wright is at his best in historical Jesus investigations. The above quote gives an idea of how he tries to mediate the position between the Jesus of history and the Jesus of faith. His critique of some of the great historical Jesus experts, A. Schweitzer and R. Bultmann, is sharp and insightful. Wright understands that reason tends to side on either the faith or the historical side of the argument. But, like the good Anglican, Wright seeks the via media, or the middle way.

Now, let me be honest: I'm no N.T. Wright expert. But, if I understand his argument correctly, I believe his point is that we Christians can maintain our integrity and intellectual authenticity in affirming the Jesus of faith and the Jesus of history. This is appealing for obvious reasons. The Jesus of faith without the Jesus of history is not only ungrounded, but irresponsible. Wright is right (pun intended) - the historical Jesus makes the Jesus of faith alive, fresh in our minds. And, this is a lot more radical of a thought, the Jesus of history cannot be separated from the Jesus of faith. In some sense, we must have "faith" that any figure existed in history - simply because we haven't met him/her. But that aside, the Jesus of history was a man who inspired his disciples and followers to have faith in him. What was it about the Jesus of history that caused his followers to continue a movement that has lasted for two-thousand years? I think you get my point...

I recommend Wright's analysis of Christian origins. He has the amazing ability to grapple with many differing arguments, all the while offering an insightful way to walk the via media. Though I'm no Wright expert, you can bet that I'll be at my alma mater next year when he is on lecture tour. I can't wait.

Nietzsche and Eternal Return

2006-06-22T00:18:00.000-04:00

"The alternatives of creating or dying off remind one of Nietzsche's remarks about life and the Will to Power. Nothing can remain stable. If a living thing does not increase, it must decrease. There is no such thing as the Will to Live. What is alive does not need to strive for life. What is not alive cannot strive at all.

In order to create, man must be willing to face near destruction, to let go of everything he has. Only by doing this is it possible for something new to come into being, for somthing to be created. Without destruction or near destruction there can be no creation."

--Joan Stambaugh, Nietzsche's Thought of Eternal Return, 53.

Where to begin with Nietzsche's concept of time? Of what use is Nietzsche's concept of eternal return? I'm reminded of a t-shirt that has this picture of Nietzsche in one corner with the quote, "God is dead." In the bottom right corner is an image of God with the quote, "Nietzsche is dead." Ah, the irony. Anyway, in Nietzsche's diluted universe, there was no such thing as death. That's right, Nietzsche is still alive, somewhere, forever. This moment is here, forever. There is no "past" per se and no "future" per se, but only the now in existence. We have lived such a world forever, and will continue to live in this world forever. In other words, you have read this posting for all time, and you will continue to read it forever (now, that's a scary thought...).

Now, besides this unempirical, flamboyant, and downright arrogant view of "reality," maybe Nietzsche was on to something. What do I mean? Well, reading Nietzsche, if it doesn't totally depress you, will open your mind to limitless things. We take for granted this thing called "time." We think on a horizontal plane. Nietzsche takes this horizontal plane, spits in its face, and throws it in the trash. Nietzsche is looking for no mere metaphysical conception of reality, but rather the reality behind reality. He throws out the normal understanding of time for the metareality of nothingness. The abyss is time - it is nothing and it amounts to nothing.

That's where the Will to Power comes in. The only thing we can do in this life, now and forever, is to assert our will over the universe. The ubermensch is he who understands this sad fact - that the only coping mechanism in the universe is to assert one's own will. Pretty depressing stuff, I'd say. I can't even make it outside to exercise, muchless assert my will over the universe.

Now, what does this have to do with Christian theology? Or, more importantly, what does theology have to learn from Nietzsche? While the rantings of Nietzsche are often too vague to comprehend, I think there is something to be learned in his method. A classically trained philologist, Nietzsche sought to perfect his method of getting at the root of things. He tried to take nothing for granted. A "rugged individualist," Nietzsche tried to be as intellectually honest as possible. He firmly believed that he was able to experience reality without dillution (whether he did or not is open to debate!). He was willing to take whatever steps necessary to arrive at the "truth."

In this way, I think it's imperative for Christian thinkers to take risks, to take whatever steps are necessary to arrive at the "truth." Nietzsche can teach us to be honest with ourselves and others. While he's certainly not the model for Christian understanding, there is definately something to learn from his method. I think Christian thinkers should study Nietzsche, even at the risk of becoming severely depressed!

Myth and the Garden of Eden

2006-06-20T23:46:00.000-04:00

"...If we still had to believe that Adam and Eve were the first man and woman on earth, the whole story would be hopelessly discredited...And for the ordinary person to call something a myth is simply to say that it is not true...[Adam and Eve] are real, not because they were actual people, but because they tell us something profoundly true about ourselves. After all, Adam is just the Hebrew for Man with a capital M. He's all of us. The Genesis story simply holds up a mirror to life, so that we can see ourselves in it."

--Bishop of Woolwich, John A.T. Robinson, But That I Can't Believe!, 38-39.

To non-specialists, the term "myth" carries a negative meaning: something that is told (and re-told), but did not "actually" occur. The word "myth" is thrown around in common language to mean "falsity." However, in the study of religion, "myth" can be quite useful if we really try to flesh out the meaning. In this sense, what J.A.T. Robinson is trying to convey, "myth" conveys a certain metaphysical truth about reality and the human experience. Myth is not concerned with what "really" happened or didn't happen. How do we ever know something happened? We don't, unless we experiened it ourselves (and even then it's open to speculation and perspective). Rather, myths get a deeper meaning in a narrative, a deeper truth than the story at hand. Let us suppose, for a moment, that the creation story is a functional myth, a story told with a greater truth underneath. What would it look like?

The Garden of Eden, presented as myth, would mean that we used to have communion with God. At one time, we were not estranged from God. And yet, something went awry. That something was in us - and we call that "sin." Adam (or males) and Eve (or females) walked in the presence of God. But now, because of human frailty, we no longer walk with God. The creation story takes on a new narrative: a narrative of God's interaction with humanity - and the beginning of the plan of salvation. God is presented as Creator - the Creator. This shows us a metaphysical truth of God - that God is active in human history, creating and willing things into existence. But there is more: God allows humanity to struggle. Why? Adam and Eve gain strength in this struggle, though it is not readily apparent in the text. What J.A.T. Robinson is showing in his use of the "myth" to explain the creation story is that we all embody this particular story. The narrative of creation is embodied in us; we have all fallen short of the glory of God. But, God is re-creating us in God's own image. We are all Adam; we are all Eve. That is point of creation as myth: the story's functional method, myth-as-narrative, enjoins us into the story. We are apart of the whole of creation.

Now, that's an appreciation of J.A.T. Robinson's theology, but not a critique. I'm no strict literalist, but I can't help but feel that something is lost in this story. There's no nitty-gritty - the Genesis narrative talks about Adam struggling with the earth to grow food and Eve struggling in child-birth. Creation as myth doesn't always embody the humanity of the narrative. The focus is so much on the metanarrative that the human side is lost. That said, is it possible to regain the humanity in myth? Perhaps, but I'll return to that in a future post.

The strength of looking at a narrative as a myth is twofold: first, as aforementioned, there are higher truths that are best explained with simple truths. A story engages our imagination in a way that encourages to find the metaphysical truth. And second, a myth doesn't discount the possibility of literal, factual, "historical," truth. More clearly, a myth says that a story could have happened that way, but it didn't necessarily happen that way. So, there is value to expressing such a story as myth - so long as we define what we mean by "myth."

What do you think?

2006-06-20T00:44:00.000-04:00

Elie Wiesel's Night: A Short Response

Having just finished Elie Wiesel's Night, I thought I'd offer a few reflections. It is impossible to convey the absolute horror of this book. To those who deny the Holocaust - read this book, there is no way someone could make this stuff up. It is a testament to the human struggle to survive no matter the obstacles, a testament to the importance of having something to live for, and having the fortitude to say "never again."

Wiesel's book is short, just over 100 pages. It is a quick read, perhaps possible in one sitting. The prose is primarily short sentences, with quick jabs of action and past/future flashes. The narrative is written autobiographically, with great detail in some of the most painful and gut-wrenching episodes. Perhaps what is most disturbing is that these events really happened. Though there has been some discussion as to how the narrative has changed from the first edition (published over 40 years ago) and the most recent edition, the harsh reality is this: Wiesel was a victim, and as such, he has the right to tell his story. Yes, it is a perspective, but it is a far closer perspective than any of us can offer. For that reason, it is historically valuable and credible, despite certain narrative changes that may have occured (with translations, it's anybody's guess).

Theologically, I think this book is necessary for anyone who takes the discussion of God seriously. Wiesel poses the question: how is belief in a God of compassion and mercy possible after the Holocaust? It is a real and tangible question. It is laced with many implications. Should we reconsider classical theism? Should we re-think how God acts in human history? What is to be learned from the Holocaust?

I recommend this book - but only to those who have a strong stomach. Though the novel isn't all graphic, it is an emotional circus. It's one of those books that will expand your mind; it will help you question what is real and what is valuble. And, as to be assumed, it will remind you that your life isn't really that bad.

If you haven't read Night, you should. I'm going to put it on my long list of "musts" for theology students.

2006-06-16T12:02:00.000-04:00

Recommendations

I've been doing some surfing recently (not real surfing, I'm not that talented) and I've come across some pretty good resources. You might want to check them out.

Killing the Buddha is an interesting website for those of us who are (painfully) transcending ideological labels. This site isn't particularly scholarly, but it will definately make you think. The articles are engaging, for example "Jesus and I Broke Up," "The Temptation of Belief," and "My Holy Ghost People." This is not recommended for the easily offended. Thanks to John for bringing this site to my attention.

CNN reports that the Vatican has approved a new translation of the Mass in English. This is one of most drastic changes in the Roman Catholic Church since the Council 40 years ago.

Have a great weekend - and enjoy reading these sites!

Peace.

2006-06-15T10:24:00.000-04:00

Thoughts on Death

Yes, it's a bright, warm, late spring day, and I'm here thinking about death. Sick? No. Morbid? Ok, maybe a little. But it's an intellectual thing that really grips me. If you think about it, death is really the question of human existence. I'm talking in plain, simple, human terms - all people have understood that they, too, will one day die. It is the only certainty in life (besides taxes, but that's a different rant). Death is the existential question - why am I here? and where am I going? Is death the final scene in the play of life?

Some, including myself, may argue that death allows us to live more fully. If this was forever, would you really feel the need to seize the day? Rather, death offers us perspective, even if it is a rather morbid perspective. Death allows us to cherish this life and what it has to offer. Rather than the ultimate enemy, death is simply a natural stage of development. That is our connection to nature - that like the birds, the ants, and the plants, we too will expire. There is something oddly beautiful in this cycle - the cycle of life presents us with a paradox. Our time is limited, so what are we going to do with it?

Anthropologically, one can argue that "religion," or even a belief in "God," is a natural, existential reaction to the horror of death. But, I don't think it is. Rather, a yearning for "God" is similar to death in that it allows us to live more deeply and more fully. Now, maybe I'm biased because I do think there's a God out there, but I also think that it is this God, a personal agent, who takes care of us in death. We think that because of freedom, we are independent creatures. We take for granted that this heart keeps thumping and these lungs keep inhaling. We aren't quite that independent - we still need the Creator as Sustainer. In the same way, it is a loving God who takes us in the arms of love as we pass from this life to the next. And for that, we can gain a little comfort - that the sting of death isn't the end, rather it is the beginning of something greater.

Elie Wiesel: 20th Century Mystic?

2006-06-14T10:33:00.000-04:00

"...every question possessed a power that [is] lost in the answer. Man comes closer to God through the questions he asks Him...Therein lies true dialogue. Man asks and God replies. But we don't understand His replies. We cannot understand them. Because they dwell in the depths of our souls and remain there until we die. The real answers...you will find only within yourself."

--Elie Wiesel, Night, pg 5. (emphasis mine)

Out of the rubble that was the Holocaust arose a contemporary prophet that deserves our attention. Though Wiesel is a Nobel Peace Prize receipient, he deserves a new hearing with every generation, lest we forget the attrocity he lived. If you haven't read Night, you need to. This is a piece of contemporary literature that will stand the test of time, unlike the scores of junk currently for sale at the book store.

Though Wiesel is Jewish, I'm going to elaborate on this quote to expand some ideas in Christian theology. Some thoughts: this quote summarizes an early Christian dictum: faith seeking understanding. We have faith that God is active in our time and space, though it is hard to see at times. God interacts with us, though we do not understand God's message to us. It is a demanding love, a love that was bought with the cross, a love that is full of grace. Our Jewish brothers and sisters are in solidarity with this point: faith is seeking understanding. We desire God to speak to us today.

The final sentence in this quote, "The real answers...you will find in yourself," is very important. Though it may sound like a gnostic pitfall, I argue that it is not. Rather, God has given us all a conscience, an ability to reason, an ability to live for and with God. We must, in this time of fragmentation and worldly non-sense, come to our own answers. We are guided by the love of God into presence with the divine, but we must live amongst one another here on earth. We must learn how to love our brothers and sisters. We must never let the Holocaust happen again. And yet, it has, many times. Some of the well known: Bosnia, Rawanda, and now Sudan. We let people systematically kill one another with the fear that we'll step on some toes (talk about political crap). I'm all about non-violence and diplomacy, but Wiesel is a voice who cannot be ignored - we mustn't allow this to continue. Instead, how do we reverse this terrible equation? How do we systematically encourage peace?

The answers do remain buried in our souls until we die. It is our duty to search deeply and search for these answers. This is done, as Wiesel comments, with dialogue with God. We must ask God questions - and, in return, await God's answer. Wiesel is right, the real dialogue occurs when we ask questions. That is authentic existence. Have the honesty to ask the hard questions. Jesus did - "Father, why have your forsaken me??"

Feminist Theology: Why I Am a Feminist

2006-06-13T11:34:00.000-04:00

[NOTE - This is a highly opinionated post. There is much to be debated with what I am going to say. I welcome constructive feedback - if this post is going to infuriate you, my opinion is probably not worth your blood pressure. However, if you're open to a different opinion, then by all means, read on.]

As a man, I readily confess that I am a feminist. I do not endorse all of the things that feminists do, believe, and profess; but, then again, I do not endorse everything that Christianity does, believes, and professses either. Rather, I see myself as a working feminist, someone who firmly believes in the egalitarian movement, in the abolishment of gender roles, and in the fair treatment of all people. And to that end, I am willing to take a public stand, to profess that these are ideals that I hold to. I claim Jesus, another man, as my example of how to be a male feminist.

Do not misunderstand me: I am not labelling Jesus a feminist; I'm not saying that he would endorse such a term. But if feminism, minus all of the political baggage, means that women are equal to men, then I think Jesus would endorse this. Here's what I mean:

Jesus had a lot of contact with women. He ate with them, he spoke openly with them, and he shared his vision of the Kingdom with them. Jesus risked his public image often (just think of Jesus approaching the woman at the well - his society interpreted this as soliciting a prostitute, yet Jesus treated her as an equal). And, finally, perhaps the most striking of Jesus' relationship with women: ALL four NT gospels openly state that women were the first witnesses to the resurrection. Let the point sink in: the first to experience the new Kingdom, the resurrection of Jesus, were not his twelve male disciples, but rather women who were close to him. Coincidence? Hardly - in my opinion, all of these things culminate in early Christian teaching. What does this mean? It means that Jesus' vision was radical for many reasons - and one of those was that women and men are equal. Not just equal in the eyes of God, but equals on earth as well. Jesus' radical vision, watered down in orthodox Christian teaching, now points to the underpinnings of the gospels. Women were a vital part of the early Church - it's time to reclaim that vision.

Now, I don't exclusively label myself a feminist. I am many things: I am a Christian, I am a married man, I am a student, I am a progressive, and I am a feminist, amongst other things. To me, living the Christian life means more than going to Church, confessing sins, and partaking in the sacraments (though all of these things are vitally important). It means embracing the radical vision of Jesus, a vision that transforms society. It is partyl an earthly vision, one that is nitty-gritty, one that teaches that we should love our enemy (!), and one that calls us to reform. It is our job to speak (LOUDLY) for those who have no voice. That MAY include women, children, the oppressed, the poor, the mentally ill, etc. etc.

Being a Christian feminist means accepting responsibility for the mistreatment of women in history (and even today). It doesn't mean taking the fall for others' actions against women, but rather it means asserting the agency of women who have been run over by the powers-that-be. It means elevating women to the equality of men (in social status, in pay, in rights, etc.).

Don't get me wrong. Our world is perhaps one of the widest-reaching equality movements ever in human history. Women have more rights than perhaps ever before. But we still have a long way to go. There will always be inequality - it's a sad fact of human existence. But as Christians it is our duty to embrace the vision of Jesus and fight for others.

I welcome constructive criticism, comments, and affirmations.

Peace.

I Broke Down and Saw the Movie

2006-06-12T11:23:00.000-04:00

What can I say? I broke down and saw the Da Vinci Code over the weekend. Besides being a very long movie (2.5 hours), it was decent. Great? No. Decent? Yes. Worth seeing at some point? Yes. To me it seemed like a boring Indiana Jones flick. The plot was average, and it had some overly-corny aspects, especially the end.

Now, for some theology. Would someone please contact Dan Brown and give him a lesson on Constantine, and more importantly, the Council of Nicea? I mean, come on, there's a difference between theological musing and downright ignorance. What the movie had to say about the Council of Nicea was just downright ignorant. Sadly enough, I'm not sure the general audience would've realize how ridiculous this part was.

My wife, a trained historian, laughed her way through the movie. Needless to say, I joined her on many occasions - people were looking at us, but hey, if would have enjoyed it much more if they were thinking critically.

Now, for the affirmation. While I don't subscribe to Dan Brown's final claim (I won't give it away for all of you who plan to see it at some point), I think the overall-message deserves some critical acclaim. I think he's right in that Christianity has, for too long, been a power-hungry, controlling, and manipulative institution. We Christians deserve liberation from the oppression of "religious" powers. For example, women have been severely oppressed in the Christian tradition. It's time to get over it. Why are we still debating female ordination? Are we really that childish? All children of God deserve to be God's ministers. So, Dan Brown points the way to a liberating Christianity, which I agree with, though I think his method is, in the final analysis, severely flawed.

So, the overall critique: see the movie, if not for anything else, then a good laugh!

2006-06-07T10:36:00.000-04:00

Religion and the Media - Part IV

This week, in US News and World Report, several editorials weigh in on the recent coverage of the Da Vinci Code. Ignacio L. Gotz, Stessin Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Hofstra University, gives a very interesting editorial with the claim, "It would be very unusual for Jesus to have been unmarried." This I take a little issue with; agreed, it might have been strange. But, there were many traveling aesthetics / prophets / teachers who took a vow of celibacy. Sure, if Jesus was a craftsman, then it would've been a little strange for him to not have had a family; but there was no "condition" that they be married. It doesn't matter to me if Jesus was married or not, but I think it's unfair to say that Jesus would've been very "unusual" to not have been married.

Gotz is right to point out that "references to Jesus's close relationship with Mary Magdalene are numerous and consistent and should not be ignored." This I wholeheartedly agree with. It's in the text: Jesus was close to Mary M. In fact, I'm almost convinced that she (and perhaps other women) were just as much disciples as the 12 men. Let's face it: Christianity has a long history of marginalization - so it would make sense that Mary M. could have been a disciple of Jesus.

And finally, Gotz states that Jesus's Jewish disciples did not and would not have "attributed divinity to another Jew." Now, I think culturally (and religiously) Gotz is right. However, the followers of Jesus knew there was something special. Sure, there were plenty of healers running around the Roman backwater, but the disciples knew there was something different about this Jesus of Nazareth. However, what is most telling is that, according to the NT, the disciples don't "figure it out" until after the death and resurrection of Jesus. The gospels are riddled with clues that point to exactly this: only in hindsight did they "get it." So, while I think Gotz might be right, I'm not sure he stated the entire story in context.

Granted these are short editorials, but I think there's room for clarification.

2006-06-06T12:11:00.000-04:00

The Jesus of History and the Jesus of Faith

"...could there be faith in the risen Jesus without research on the historical Jesus?...With those canonical gospels as inaugural models and primordial examples, each Christian generation must write its gospels anew, must first reconstruct its historical Jesus with the fullest integrity, and then say and live what that reconstruction means for the present life in this world. History and faith are always dialectic for incarnational Christianity..."

--John Dominic Crossan, "Historical Jesus as Risen Lord," in The Jesus Controversy: Perpectives in Conflict

As I understand him, Crossan wants to make a clear differentiation between the Jesus of history and the Jesus of faith. This paradoxical duality is meant to serve historical method in a way that almost splits the humanity of Jesus. Understood in an orthodox way, the humanity of Jesus is just as important as the divinity of Jesus. But Crossan wants to take the argument elsewhere. While I admire his historical integrity (I'm married to a historian, so I have to), I do question whether this split is appropriate 1) to the text and 2) to the body of believers. While one need not "believe" if Jesus lived or not (we have plenty of Roman records that state that a Jesus of Nazareth was put to death around 30 CE), the real question is of Jesus' position in 'religious' matters. If we split the historical Jesus and the Jesus of faith, do we depreciate both? While I think there is plenty to be learned by drawing this distinction, I'm not sure that in the final analysis this is entirely helpful to either history or faith.

What do you think?

Socrates and the Power of Doubt

2006-06-05T12:20:00.000-04:00

“With apologies to Socrates, it might be phrased thus: the uncommitted life is not worth living. Worse, it has been said that the only sin is indifference – a chain that indicates a staggering innocence of the imagination.” -- Walter Kaufmann, The Faith of a Heretic <>

It seems to me that Christianity has two “outside” perceptions that, though not new, are nevertheless fueled by the media. First, there is the perception that Christians are hard-line, conservative, and narrow-minded. Second, in a similar vein, there is the perception that Christians are anti-intellectual. What bothers me, among other things, is that these perceptions are mostly wrong. I say “mostly” because Christians have differing political, societal, and intellectual views. In a broader sense, there isn’t much that really defines a Christian in a societal or intellectual way. There are those closed-off fundamentalists who can’t see past their own pitiful ignorance; additionally, there are those Christians who are so far to the other side that their beliefs hardly resemble anything in a historical-Christian sense. <>

Where is the middle ground? Where are those that abide by the Socratic dictum and question the very root of their “belief.” Where are the Christians that are like Jesus in that they put others first, they not only preach, but live a radical life of grace, and they don’t have a hard time questioning authority, even Church authority? <>

I think labels are meaningless, but I want to point to the direction of those who take Socrates seriously. Why Socrates? Well, besides the obvious credit that he normally gets in philosophical circles, I think that his line of questioning is not only healthy, but is necessary. I’m not comparing Jesus to Socrates in any spiritual sense, but I do think both taught their disciples to question everything. This is healthy – why? Questioning leads to better understanding, which leads to a deeper faith, which leads to a more productive, fulfilling life. <>

There isn’t enough questioning in today’s Church. It’s time to open the doors to the world, embrace what we know and what we don’t, and have open dialogue with those brothers and sisters who disagree with us. As Kaufmann points out, indifference is a sin. We need to care more about the gospel – and that is done through healthy questioning.

2006-06-03T11:46:00.000-04:00

The Aesthetic of Music: A Theological Musing

"Without music, life would be a mistake." --Friedrich Nietzsche

"What's our mission, do we know, but never listen, for too long, they held me under, but I hear...Down in the heat and the summer rain of, the automatic gauze of your memories, down in the sleep at the airplane races, try to hold on...Down in the heat with the broken numbers, down in the gaze of solemnity, down in the way you've held together...We tried to hold onto the pulse of the feedback current, into the flow of encrypted movement, slapback kills the ancient remnants..." -- Billy Corgan, The Smashing Pumpkins

Okay, I'm going to step out on a ledge and put the question on the table: is it possible to "experience" God through the beauty of music?

There, I said it. Now I'm going to try to respond to my question. This is not collapse into natural theology, or new age stuff, or even wishful thinking. I mean it seriously - is there something "beyond" (in a Tillichian sense) in music that allows us to "experience" the beyond of life, and even perhaps God? The Barthian in me says "Nein!," but even I know that Barth probably would tread softly on that question (his high opinion of Mozart is well known, just look in the footnotes of the Church Dogmatics!). The Tillichian in me says that there is something "beyond" in the "beyond" of music.

I appeal to an aesthetic: just think of your favorite song. Now imagine those beautiful chords coming together in a way that is just heavenly. Surely there is more going on than our minds interpreting what our ears pick up.

Although I do think that God remains a mystery, save that of God's revelation in Jesus, but I'm not willing to deny that God can reveal God's own self in other mediums. Dreams, "callings," music, other phenomenon - we simply cannot limit God.

Now for the experiential part - we can neither confirm nor deny that God is revealing something in the beauty of the music. But, mustic (especially those perfect chords) enhances our life, eases pain, and brings incredible comfort and joy - so how could God not be involved in that? While I am not equating beautiful things with God, I am proposing that God can reveal the beautiful to us, i.e. as an aestheitc.

What do you think?

2006-06-02T12:22:00.000-04:00

Post-Structuralism, Deconstruction, and the Resurrection

"The postmodern situation requires that we embody the gospel in a manner that is post-individualistic, post-rationalistic, post-dualistic, and post-noeticentic."

--Stanley J. Grenz, "A Primer on Postmodernism," 167.

If we are to take Grenz's statement seriously, what would the gospel look like after all of these "post-s"? That would take a considerable amount of time, and perhaps involve a monograph in a similar strain to Grenz's final chapter. However, I'd like to focus briefly on one major theme (if not the theme) of the gospel: the resurrection of Jesus. I think Grenz is correct to point out that many Christian assumptions are bogged down in a modernist worldview - and postmodernism, for all of its baggage, allows us to examine the gospel in a new, liberated light. Do not misread: this is not my endorsement of postmodernism, but rather a working-out of my theological ideas, a mental exercise of sorts.

What does a postmodern resurrection look like? Let's start with what's at stake: the four NT gospels all proclaim an empty grave (though Matt., Luke, and John go much further than this). Hence, with this simple textual clue, we can come to one of three "conclusions: 1) Jesus survived his death, got up out of the cave and walked away, or 2) the body of Jesus was stolen and buried elsewhere, or 3) Jesus was fully dead, and then made fully alive again, thereby being the first person resurrected. Now, it is clear to see that orthodox Christianity has read the gospel with the third proposition. So, for the purpose of working this out in a postmodern way, we'll also go with the text of Matt., Luke, and John and say that somehow Jesus was brought back to life from death and that he continued to live beyond the grave.

Why do I choose this proposition (besides the obvious following of the gospel texts)? Well, deconstruction teaches that the system of rational thought is overturned, thereby doing away with metaphysics. If Jesus did indeed radically change from dead to alive, then this would be a radical altering of a system (i.e. that all humans, and further, living creatures die) and all metaphysics of "God" are irrevocably changed? What does this mean? It means that the mysterious "God" of out-there (think of the God of the philosophers), suddenly enters human history and breathes life into this Jewish rabbi and mystic. The metaphysics of a God out-there come crashing down into a God who has penetrated human history with a reversal of what "life" and "death" mean.

A postmodern vision of the resurrection identifies the deconstruction of what "death" now means for humanity. It means that death isn't necessarily permanent: if Jesus was resurrected by God, a reversal of death means that the necessary cause of death-as-extermination no longer works. Though we may know as much about the mechanics of death as the ancients (i.e. we still know virtually nothing), the deconstruction of the resurrection means the chaotic void between life and death is somehow lessened. Though postmodernism supports the teaching of a devaluing a center, we can see how even this teaching comes crashing down. This isn't a crafty collapse back into modernism, but rather an extreme of post-modernism - the rejection of the center points to a whole new centeredness - the resurrection as the center of humanity means the reversal of the metaphysics of death.

What do you think?

2006-06-02T11:42:00.000-04:00

Hiatus

Sorry for the hiatus, but I had a meeting with my editor at City Magazine (Roanoke). Blogging to re-start immediately!

2006-05-31T18:49:00.000-04:00

What are you?

I wasn't very surprised by my first theological affiliation. However, I must say that I was a bit surprised with the rest of the results! Here are my results:

"You scored as J. Moltmann.
The problem of evil is central to your thought, and only a crucified God can show that God is not indifferent to human suffering. Christian discipleship means identifying with suffering but also anticipating the new creation of all things that God will bring about.

J.Moltmann
73%
John Calvin
67%
Anselm
60%
Karl Barth
47%
Martin Luther
40%
Paul Tillich
33%
Friedrich Schleiermacher
33%
Jonathan Edwards
27%
Charles Finney
27%
Augustine
27%"

Now, take it for yourself! Let me know what you score...

2006-05-31T12:44:00.000-04:00

Post-Modern Theology and Deconstruction

I won't go into all the particulars, but Jacques Derrida, arguably the most influential French philosopher of the 20th century, advocated a thoroughly post-modern program of deconstruction. What does this mean? Derrida was most concerned with linguistic deconstruction, or getting at the very root of particular words. Underneath the many layers, Derrida concluded, was little, if any, meaning. We take for granted that we "know" the meaning of certain words, and yet we have very little "knowledge" by which to critically think about a subject. Thus, Derrida's work advocated an anti-meta-narrative. By this negation, "meaning" took on a whole new identity. Thus, it's though Derrida sought to "chop-up" meaning until a whole new entity arose. Is this applicable to theology? Maybe...

I'm going to try to lay out some specific examples tomorrow, but I'd like to propose that deconstruction is valuable to theology today. This program allow us to read the Bible in a new, refreshing way. No longer the stories we hear in Sunday school, Biblical narratives, post-deconstruction uncover a whole new meaning. Does God work entirely in meta-narratives? Not according to deconstructionists! Rather, by acute analysis, we can gather new meanings to Biblical narratives. The "story" takes on a whole new meaning.

Though Derrida himself tended to focus on the creation narrative of Genesis, I might try applying this to the resurrection. Now, from the outset, it's fair to say that a hard post-modern would reject any kind of resurrection as a ridiculous myth from the past. I am, however, going to be as thoroughly post-modern as possible and reject this rejection. Instead of appealing to a pre-modern view of the resurrection, I'm going to try to deconstruct the meaning of the resurrection for today's world. There is a deeper meaning to the resurrection, and I hope to elaborate on this tomorrow.

Until then, please comment on what I have to say, or give me suggestions as to how you'd like to see this play out...

Time, Space, and (a) Post-Modern Theology

2006-05-30T11:00:00.000-04:00

As my project this week, I hope to blog on (a) post-modern theology. What does this mean? What does post-modern theology look like? Why is it useful? What are the draw-backs? Is Christ relevent in a post-modern world? Additionally, because I have a rather new-found affinity for art, I hope to put up some post-modern art that inspires me.

Defining a "post-modern" approach

As with all theology, it is of utmost importance to define what is being discussed. Perhaps there is no other word thrown around today (except "freedom") that is as ill-defined as 'post-modern.' The term is, itself, quite simple: the signifying of the end of the modern project. Now it gets a little sticky. Instead of launching into a huge discussion of what exactly the modern project was, let me just say that it relied on reason to explain (away?) the universe. After World War II, a semmingly non-sensical and unreasonable time in human history, many people abandoned the modern, 'enlightened' thinking, and adopted a post-modern approach to life. Post-modernism teaches deconstruction (nothing is 'whole'), irrationality-as-rationality, and a collapse of 'Truth.' Thus, there is no Truth, but truths. And you must find those truths on your own. That is, I believe, post-modernism in a nut-shell.

The Concept of Time and Space in a Post-Modern World

As shown in the above painting, Dali had (I think) a clear dislike of what is commonly called 'time' and 'space.' There weren't important to his concept of reality, a dream-like escape of the 'real' world. This is why the clocks are bent, the watch closed, and the background rather vague. Now, I am no artist, nor am I skilled in artistic interpretation; rather, my training is in theology, so I speak of art as an amateur only. But, to my theological mind, this painting sets a good tone for this week's fleshing out a post-modern theology - time and space simply aren't important in the creative work of God. Time and space delineate specific (human-made) dimensions in which to describe things in a lateral plane. God's creative process simply doesn't work in human parameters. Instead, by dispensing with time and space as simple human baggage, I think we can really get a post-modern understanding of God's creative power. So, for today, I want to begin framing my post-modern theology as being without time and without space. Historical events are simply that - historical. But, if Christ is to have any relevance for us in this reality, we must force ourselves to relegate what is past to the past and see God's creative power as occuring in this reality. Keep in mind this is framing a theology, not an entire fleshing out of the idea; I'm not saying that Jesus' historical significance doesn't have significance for us today - rather, I'm encouraging a dialogue of things that are without time and space. It is a philosophical "experiment" of sorts. Time and space keep us within an 'x, y' corrdinate plane, so let's dispense with it and move on.

Major Contributers to This Line of Thinking

Just so we're on the same page I'm going to list some major thinkers who I think propelled us toward a 'post-modern' way of thinking about theology and religion. This is so you can understand where I'm coming from.

Theology: Paul Tillich, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Rudolf Bultmann, (to an extent) Karl Barth, Thomas J.J. Altizer, William Hamilton, Harvey Cox, and Soren Kierkegaard.

Philsophy: Friedrich Nietzsche, Martin Heidegger, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, and Richard Rorty.

Art: Vincent van Gogh, Andy Warhol and the Dada movement, and Salvador Dali.

Though I know today's posting is rather vague, I hope it sets the course for where I'm going for the rest of the week. Stay tuned as I elaborate on (a) post-modern theology! As always, comments are greatly appreciated.

2006-05-27T11:53:00.000-04:00

The Use of Philosophy in Theology

This post is, in part, a response to several comments that appear from yesterday. I'd like to say a few things about how I, as a theologian in training, see philosophy.

To learn philosophy is not to memorize philosphers, their theories, or their creative arguments. Philosophy is not about movements and meta-narrative explanations. Rather one studies philosophy to learn how to think critically. One studies philosophy to learn to think coherently, rationally, and articulately. In this way, it can be argued that philosophy is the foundation of all knowledge; in theory, all students should study philosophy to understand their own field(s) better.

I've heard it argued (persuasively) that being a Christian doesn't mean checking your brain at the door. I agree completely. God calls us to think deeply and critically. Today, as in times past, Scripture has been used as a noose to "proof-text" other points of view, win arguments, and inflate one's self-righteousness. This is wrong; rather, Scripture is a testament of God's love for humanity. Philosophy helps us take what Scripture says and think about it critically. Philosophy helps us open our minds and our hearts, whereas strict, hard-line literal (noose!) interepretations do not allow God access to reveal God's self today. That is not to say that Scripture is unauthoritative; rather, it allows the authority of Scripture to have an active voice.

In one of the comments from my posts on universalism, it was commented that I appeal to an aesthetic philosophy to reason through the arguments. I do not deny this. Rather, I encourage people to think like mystics - we must eliminate from our minds all "pictures, visions, and images" of God. We can't have a picture of God, or else this is idolotry. God is the God that Jesus has a relationship with - a God who actively seeks the redemption of creation. So, when I appeal to a particular aesthetic it is going down the same path as Tillich who called this the "God beyond God." It is an aesthetic that appeals to seeing Scripture as a whole, not just isolated verses. It sees the vision of the Christian message in the world. This is the awesome beauty of Scripture - that we can use our philosophically-trained minds to see the beauty of the message.

2006-05-26T12:35:00.000-04:00

Comments

After reading my two new posts of today, I'd like your feedback. Have you found these posts beneficial? Have they been challenging? Tell me what you think!

2006-05-26T11:56:00.000-04:00

The Cutting Edge of Grace - Some (semi) Final Thoughts on Universalism

I titled this post "(semi) final thoughts on universalism" for one reason: I am young. Though I've a good theological education, I'm realistic enough to admit that I'm in my 20's. My thoughts on universalism are far from decided; indeed, I don't think I'll ever come to a finite "conclusion" on the issue of universalism. Let me say from the outset: I will go to my deathbed hoping that all of my brothers and sisters are eventually reconciled to God. I think the awesome mercy and love of God can and hopefully will reconcile even the most horrible villains. Is this belittling to those victims of horrendous evil? I hope not, because I want to believe that God can work through anything - the God of the bible is a healing God, a God who really cares for meaningful reconciliation.

So, we'll not begin the theological discussion. I think the issue of universalism really comes down to an issue of grace. Does the grace of God have boundaries? If so, what are they? Is it strict "belief" and "confession" of Jesus as the absolute revelation of God? Or are the saving actions of Jesus enough to reconcile the entire world? Does Jesus, in a sense, "eliminate" human history as far as God is concerned, because we are all eventually saved? These are but a few of the troubling questions involved in universalism.

The Problem of a Paradoxical Answer

I've always considered myself a kindred spirit of Soren Kierkegaard because, like him, I tend to think circuitously. Kierkegaard was unsurpassed for asking the probing questions, but, like many great thinkers, not too great at fleshing out some reasoned response. In my opinion, Kierkegaard paved the way for post-modernism in his appeal to the paradoxical. Like us post-moderns he took comfort in what is left a paradox.

As a post-modern, I should want to leave the issue of universalism a paradox. That's not good enough for me. Maybe, like several who describe themselves at St. Andrews as "post-post-modern," I want to get at the very root question. For me, it's how far God's grace will extend toward humanity.

The Question of Grace

It's really quite an orthodox assertion: God's revelation was and is and will be in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. This revelation is the absolute mercy of God on humanity. But Jesus nailed on the cross shouldn't be the primary "image" of Christianity - in this case he is a dead corpse! Rather, it is the resurrected, living, breathing Jesus who fulfills humanity. We are re-created in the image of the resurrected Jesus. This is grace: our humanity is made anew and made complete in the resurrected Jesus. Thus, grace is a Christological-eschatological issue. Likewise, universalism is a Christological-eschatological issue. We are challenged by it - can we preach and teach the message of Jesus to a "lost" world? Can we help others understand that they are already saved and loved by God? Hence, grace is cutting-edge because it challenges all assertions of our earthly life.

Image and Process - The Keys to Universalism?

Here's where I try to sum up. I see the Christian vision as "image" and "process." What does this mean? It means that our humanity undergoes an entire shift, indeed a radical altering of everything that makes us human in Jesus. Our image is altered. This radical alteration means that we have a responsibility to others (like Bonhoeffer taught us), that we are existentially different (as Tillich taught us), and that we are loved by God (as Barth taught us). The image of Jesus becomes our image. This illustrates what I mean by "process." We are in the "process" of becoming citizens of the redeemed Kingdom. It is ongoing, because remain sinners. It is a daily struggle - it is always "becoming," and never static. God is also, paradoxically, in process. Though I readily admit that time is a human creation, I think we can call human history a "memory" of God. This means that God knows human history, through and through. And God is working in that history, yesterday, today, and tomorrow. That working out of salvation is the key of universalism. Ultimately, we do not know (nor could we know) what God will do. But, I do think there is justifiable reason to hope that God will eventually reconcile all to God's-self.

Does this "answer" the question of universalism. No - but I don't think any of us can ultimately confirm or deny the teaching of universalism because we don't know the mind of God. Rather, by our altered image and history as process, I think we can honestly and sincerely hope for an eschatological redemption of humanity. This is my answer: I hope will all of my being. My hope is the very fabric of my being. What is the point of life? To hope in a God who has and will continue to make things right.

Amen.

Universalism and Recapitulation - A Take on Dali

2006-05-26T11:50:00.000-04:00

Naturally, on my final day of blogging about universalism, I had to include one of the most incredible renditions of the Last Supper. In my opinion, Dali's religious work was his best because he took existing themes and presented them in ways that force us to reconsider their ultimate meaning. In the Last Supper, Dali makes some very subtle distinctions which I think are very relevant to this discussion. Notice all 12 disciples hold their heads low, perhaps in an act of submission. To me, this points to the divinity of Jesus, as the 12 are clearly holding their heads in a way that emulates behavior in a synogogue. But, the great contrast to this painting
is the outstretched arms of a man above them all. Note: the elevated arms and torso are that of a man. This is very important, as I think Dali was pointing to the humanity of Jesus. Dali creatively portrays the humanity and divinity of Jesus in this painting.

How is this relevant? Well, the outstretched arms and torso encompass the background, or in my opinion, the earth. Again, it is a man who is doing this. We return to the teaching of recapitulation, or that humanity's sin came through one man (Adam) and humanity's salvation comes from one man (Jesus). I'm not superimposing meaning on this painting (I have no idea if Dali was a universalist, or if he even cared for that matter). Rather, I think it illustrates the point beautifully. Jesus, the man and the divine, is for all of humanity.

2006-05-25T12:21:00.000-04:00

True Freedom? The Question of Universalism

I begin to shift the argument today, from hermeneutic and theological conerns to more paradoxical questions. Let me list some presuppositions: humans commit sin - it's inherent in human nature to do things that we know we shouldn't; humans need to be saved from their own sin, and yet God respects human freedom; there is something intrinsically askew in humanity - God is the only One who can make it right. Okay, with that out of the way, let's start.

Sin is an aweful thing. It is degrading, demeaning, and humiliating. Yet, we all do it. Why? Like I said in several posts below, it means (positively) that we are not God, and (negatively) that we are separated from God. This is why we need to be "saved" from our sin. What does "saved" mean? It means that we need meaningful reconciliation with our Creator, that we need to learn how to reform our ways, and that we have to cope with our existential situation. We are caught in this depressing part of our own freedom; how do we get out of it?

I think the question of universalism is: saved from our own freedom? We can define universalism as all are eventually saved. But what does saved mean?

In my post-modern thinking, I think the universe has a kind of polar relationship. This is not a unified theory of existence (sorry...), but a unifying theory. The bible makes it very clear: there is with God and there is without God. The latter we may call hell, but that has such baggage that I'm not sure it's worth using. For now, we'll call it separation from God. In sin, we are without God - and thus, we can surmise that the freedom to commit sin means that we have the freedom to separate ourselves from God. So, the real question here is: is the saving power of Jesus effective for those who knowingly choose separation from God? In other words, are you saved whether you like it or not? Here's the problem with the argument: it is patronizing to think that a free agent is saved whether he/she likes it or not; that is no freedom. Rather, are we bestowed with an agency that allows such horrifying and terrifying freedom - that ultimately we can separate ourselves from God? Are we (as sinners) even responsible enough to make such a decision?

To sum it up, if we are truly free agents (i.e. free to commit sin), does that freedom extend so far as to allow permanent separation from God? "Orthodox" Christianity has classically taught, yes, you can. So, universalism must rely on a Christological argument: that Christ's defeat of death (and, ultimately, perhaps) separation from God, that all free agents are eventually reconciled with God, upon their own wanting and doing. Is this even possible? The question of true freedom is really crystalized in this.

Tomorrow, my final post will deal with Christology and salvation. Is there are paradox (to reiterate my point from yesterday) that cannot be reconciled? Stay tuned, as I will give my own opinion on the entire issue of universalism.

Universalism: God's Justice and Mercy

2006-05-24T12:07:00.000-04:00

In order to discuss such an enormous topic as universalism with any kind of depth, I have to limit my discussions somewhat. Today's topic is the relationship between God's justice and mercy. The above painting is, of course, by Dali, whom I have a strange affinity for. This painting is shocking - Jesus is clean! Where's the blood? I am stretching a bit to make the point, but I think it's important. To me, Dali's Christ is a contemporary rendition of the ever-important question: Did Jesus' death mean that all are eventually saved? This stark painting pushes the question: what does the crucifixion mean today? This blends nicely with a short discussion of God's justice and mercy.

God's Justice: The Case Against Universalism

For hundreds of years, the case against universalism has, as I understand it, centered on the issue of God's justice. What does "God's justice" mean? The biblical narrative paints a picture of a God who not only endorses but works for egalitarianism, fairness, and love. When we discuss a God of justice, we discuss a God who will, in the end, make things right with the world. This means that while God allows horrendous evil in our world, these things will be dealt with in due time. The issue of freedom is essential in this argument, as we can commit atrocities, unspeakable evils, and unfair treatment of others. But, the justice of God will someday make things right- to level the playing field and somehow make up for these evils. How will God do this? Well, the classical Judeo-Christian answer is the doctrine of hell. Those who purposely commit such evils will be damned, cut off from the community of God forever. While many modern people have a hard time with this, the point is very serious: God has the last word. As I was taught in my college theology classes, if there is to be anything called justice, there must be a final separation of evil from God. The question is: are people evil? Or do people do evil things? A graphic example: those millions of people who wasted away in Nazi death camps. Another example: genocide. Need I say more? Where is God in all of this? Those who posit this kind of classical justice posit the weeping God who must ultimately separate these evil people from the community.

Now, on the other hand, God's justice could mean that those unrepentent could be punished, but ultimately reconciled to God (as Origen taught). God's justice is, in other words, not a solidified, ultimate thing. There are slippery arguments on both sides.

What are we left with? Let's face it, the OT and NT often discuss the justice of God. But, ultimately, the justice of God remains permenantly hidden. God is the only One who has access and knowledge of God's justice. How will it all work out? We don't know...but it seems to me that God's justice is a good case against universalism. Action must be taken if there is anything called justice.

God's Mercy - The Case for Universalism

Read this: if God is unable to have mercy for those who never hear about Jesus, who don't "believe" in the classical sense, then we are ALL in trouble. What's disturbing, though, are those who hear, but reject the message: how far does the mercy of God go? Let me be a bit (uncharacteristically) personal here: God's mercy in my life has been awesome. Like everyone else, I have the existential feeling of guilt and need for forgiveness. Repentance is a beautiful thing: indeed, I have experienced the mercy of God. And the promise of Jesus still stands: we can all feel the mercy of God.

That said, how do we question the awesome mercy of God? Like God's justice, the extent of God's mercy is unknown. But like many theologians before me, I posit that it reaches much further than we give it credit. That is the beauty of it - we don't know how far it will reach. Throughout the Bible, God extends his radical mercy in ways unimaginable to the human mind. In short, God's mercy takes care of us, in this life and in the next - without mercy, there is NO point to existence.

However, on the other hand, we have to make sure not to belittle the victims of horrendous evil throughout humanity's turbulent history. If the torturers receive the same salvation that the victims do, that is a horrible injustice. Why bother trying to treat your neighbor well when you both end up in the same boat?

My response to this is that, perhaps, mercy is a process, not a thing. Let me explain. We assume that mercy is bestowed upon us here on earch, and eventually that mercy will lead us into God's presence. That donotes a chronological fallacy - that somehow God's mercy would stop when we end up in God's presence. Rather, as a process, humanity remains the creature of God, in constant need of God's mercy. This is hard to write, but even the torturers need mercy - they, too, are apart of humanity. Even with their evil deed, they do not eject themselves out of humanity. With mercy as a process, we are reconciled to God every waking moment, here on earth, and the hereafter. It's an on-going thing of the God who actively creates.

The Tension Between God's Justice and Mercy

I hope I've presented a fair picture of both arguments here. Unfortunately, if we are to have any kind of intellectual honesty, we must admit that there is quite a tension between God's mercy and justice. Like Kierkegaard, we must, I believe, leave this as a paradox. What do you think?

2006-05-23T12:06:00.000-04:00

Universalism - Some Hermeneutic Concerns

As I mentioned five biblical passages yesterday that underscore the theme of universalism, some hermeneutic and exegetical work is necessary to really flesh out the concerns. While there are many other references to universalism in the accepted biblical canon, these five are, in my opinion, the most obvious and lucid. There are several theological themes going on here that I wish to elaborate on - but again, I emphatically state that this is a forum and not my summa (again, look for that in about 20 years).

While I consider myself thoroughly postmodern in worldview (our world is one that is done with the modernist project), I do tend to look for larger themes in texts such as these. So, my point is that while my worldview is postmodern, my exegesis still searches for unity, for sense, for some kind of unifying theory. While there is value in deconstructing biblical passages, I think that if we as Christians are to take scripture seriously as "scripture," we must continually look for narrative themes. That said, let's delve into some (admittedly simple and concise) exegesis! (This is, by the way, my exegesis, not someone else's.)

Romans 5:15-18 and 11:32

I consider Paul's letter to the Romans his most advanced theology. The themes of other "authentic" Pauline letters are all emphatically stated in Romans. This passage is a segment from Paul's attempt to flesh out the scandal of the cross. Paul, like other early Christians, sought to explain (theologically) the meaning behind the crucifixion of Jesus. Paul's reflection of the Old Testament theology of redemption has come full-circle in his theology of the cross. The narrative of Jesus' death and resurrection climaxes in this pen-ultimate meaning of reality: we are saved through a dead-and-resurrected Christ. This is best illustrated through Paul's comparison to Adam - the fall of one man is made right again by one man, Jesus. This, I believe, is the earliest form of recapitulation, or that humanity is made right again (literally, the "head" is put back on the "body") through the actions of one man. Irenaeus would later deveolop this theology, but it seems to me that Paul lays the groundwork for such a doctrine. What we are left with is the question of Paul's wording: "for all." Is this for all believers, or for humanity? I think the question we need to put to the text is the extent of grace - is it limited for unlimited for sinful humanity? Look at the final sentence (v.18); Paul's logic would have us conclude that he is talking about all of humanity. The logic is pretty simple: one man condemns us, and one man saves us; if Adam's action condemns all of humanity, then wouldn't Jesus' action save all of humanity?

1 Corinthians 15:21-22

The themes here are similar to that of Romans: death through one man, life through another man. There is one subtle difference that I'd like to bring attention to: there is an emphatic emphasis on the "made alive in Christ." What does this mean? Well, following the aforementioned logic, it means that we are dead in Adam, but alive in Christ. But there is a deeper meaning here. Throughout the NT, and indeed in this text, there is a very clear theme of the destruction of death. Here, the defeat and finality of death is radically altered. Think in graphic terms: Jesus becomes a lifeless corpse like all of us - and yet, he is "made alive" again. The message in this passage is one of awesome hope that we, too, survive our death through the recapitulation of Christ.

1 Timothy 4:10

This verse carries the same implicit theme as the Corinthians passage: hope of life. However, we are left with one nuance that is, in my opinion, hopelessly ambiguous: "especially those who believe." What does this mean? I haven't a clue, honestly. Does God save some more than others? That's the implication. The ambiguity points to those who don't believe: they're saved, but only because of the actions of Christ. There is a positive aspect of this, though. It implies universal salvation , even for those who don't believe. Why do I point out this ambiguity? I'm trying to be fair to the text: the theme of hope is clear, but the implication is strange - that salvation for believers is somehow intrinsically different than salvation for those who don't believe.

Colossians 1:20

To me, this is the most theologically advanced statement in all of the aforementioned texts. Here we have the point of God's work on earth: total and utter reconciliation. It also contains the mode of such salvation: the blood of Jesus as shed on the cross. Now, this kind of imagery is seemingly distasteful to contemporary ears. While I have a hard time with a blood-thirsty God, I do think there is a deeper meaning to be had from the text. God is a God of justice - and mercy would not be God's radical mercy without justice. While the blood imagery is entirely appropriate (Jesus did die on a cross....), I think the point is that God was willing to sacrifice everything to reconcile humanity. The peace spoken in Colossians is not the pax Romana of Caesar, it is the peace of God who is willing to do whatever it takes to make things right with humanity.

Hermeneutic Remarks

I hope I've provided a short, insightful exegesis. While I know it may be simplified, I wish only to give context the debate on universalism. This exegesis is how I approach the text. While it is certainly a theological hermeneutic, that is the angle I chose to take. I think the debate of universalism is a theological one. Theological exegesis is necessary to contextualize the passages in a way that we can do justice to those passages that present an opposite point of view (there are many!).

Tomorrow we'll move into the theological implications of universalism: the pros and cons. What does it mean to say radical grace? What about mercy? What about justice? Is God's justice demeaned if God chooses to save everyone, regardless of any other consideration? Feel free to post your remarks!

2006-05-22T11:25:00.000-04:00

Universalism: Some Introductory Remarks

As promised, I will devote this week to blogging about the continual issue of universalism. What is universalism? Let me offer the following, simplified answer that (hopefully) doesn't carry all of the theological/philosophical baggage: universalism teaches that all, and that means ALL, are eventually "saved" or will experience "salvation." Now, this can mean that the effect of Jesus' death and resurrection means that all are resurrection into the eternal presence of God. Or, it can mean that (like the church father Origen taught), that some do go to a place called "hell," but the fires are cleansing fires that eventually mold you into something acceptable for the Kingdom of God. As you can see from this simplified definition (and believe me, this is simplified), there are thousands of nuances that going into this teaching. This blog cannot cover all of them - sorry, it's just not possible (look for my book in about 20 years!). This definition is something that I will use as a platform. When I say universalism, I mean, simply, that all are eventually saved by God.

Now, for some other cursory remarks. The issue of universalism has been no less than explosive in the history of Christianity - and it's no less volitle today than it was 100, 1,000, or 2,000 years ago. This is a forum where we seek to peacefully work through some of the issues. Disagreement is good, in fact it's healthy, but it must be done with clear reasoning. That said, your comments are always welcome.

Now for the real issue: can we say, biblically, theologically, (and perhaps) philosophically that all are eventually saved? What I hope to present this week are fair arguments for and against universalism. Though I have my opinion, I will try to restrain myself until the end of the week, after all of the arguments have been put on the table. That being said, please remember that I don't have the time (my wife would kill me) to make this group of postings a summa; rather like I said above, it's a working forum.

Here are the five New Testament verses that begin our discussion. Read them today and I'll discuss a hermeneutic framework tomorrow. (Sorry for all of you hard-line theologians, I think theology should be started from the Bible, not from Barth, Calvin, or Luther -- this you can blame on Francis Watson's numerous visits to St. Andrews last year!) I cite from the New Oxford Annotated bible:

Romans 5: 15-18
"But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died through the one man's trespass, much more surely have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abounded for the many. And the free gift is not like the effect of the one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brings justification. If, because of the one man's trespass, death exercised dominion through that one, much more surely will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness exercise dominion in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. Therefore, just as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man's act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all."

Romans 11:32
"For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all."

1 Corintians 15: 21-22
"For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being; for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ."

1 Timothy 4:10
"For to this end we toil and struggle, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe."

Colossians 1:20
"...and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross."

2006-05-22T11:14:00.000-04:00

And the winner is....

Thank you to all who voted in this weekend's "you choose." Sorry, Chris Tilling, your vote only counts once, though I do appreciate your enthusiasm! Number 3, on post-modern art, only received one vote (nevertheless, I will blog on this in the future!). And, surprisingly, number 2 only received one vote as well. But, if you read my blog regularly, you know that I have quite the affinity for Bonhoeffer, so this will appear in the future as well. And the winner is [insert drum roll here!]....number 1, the perpetual issue of universalism! So, this week I will devote my blogging time to universalism.

As the first order of business, I must point out some great work on this topic: The Lost Message has some on-going posts on universalism which provide a great exegetical framework. There has been pain-staking research going on at this blog, so I hope to contribute to this discussion. And, Patrik has contributed a lesser, though just as significant, post on the issue. Take a look at these blogs and we'll get going with my take on universalism!

2006-05-19T17:16:00.000-04:00

VOTE!

I'm going to try something different...I want YOUR feedback about what you want to see on this blog next week. So, beginning now, you can vote from the options that appear below. Please cast your vote in the 'comments' section at the bottom of this post. Voting begins friday evening (now) and will close Monday morning, 9am EST. I will devote next week to blogging about the subject that receives the highest number of votes. One vote per person, please.

Here are the options:

1) the Universalist debate: are all saved? or are only some (i.e. Christians) saved?

2) Bonhoeffer's 'religion-less Christianity' - what did he mean by this? what are the implications today?

OR

3) What are the relationships between 'post-modern' art and contemporary Christian theology? What do each have to contribute to one another? How might this dialogue be approached?

Cast your vote now! Check back next week for an entire week devoted to one of these subjects! Have a great weekend...

2006-05-19T11:55:00.000-04:00

A Celebration

Today, this blog crossed over the threshold of one-thousand visitors! I am quite excited! A big THANK YOU to my readers.

Harvey Cox: A Critique of Karl Barth

2006-05-18T11:00:00.000-04:00

Here is some food for thought. Please post your responses to this passage below:

"For [Barth], the coming of God into the world in Jesus Christ is not a 'religious' event at all, but calls all religion and all religions into radical question...For Barth, the fact that Christianity carries the word "Christ" within it gives Christians no advantage whatever over anyone else. God is no respecter of persons. Since what is disclosed for all to see in Jesus Christ is that God has already chosen and redeemed all people, not just Christians or believers or 'spiritual people," for Barth any claim that Christianity is a superior religion is simply beside the point, largely because the mode of God's reality in the world is not fundamentally a matter of religion. It was the brilliant, young, and somewhat flamboyant theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer who was especially intrigued by this last point in Barth's thinking and decided to work out a 'nonreligious interpretation of the Gospel.' But he died dangling from a Gestapo noose in 1945 before he could even begin his work."

--Harvey Cox, "The Battle of the Gods? A Concluding Unsystematic Postscript" in The Other Side of God: A Polarity in World Religions, ed. by Peter L. Berger

Sin and Responsibility

2006-05-17T11:48:00.000-04:00

Patrik's recent posts have dealt extensively with issues like original sin, sin, demons, etc. This, coupled with my on-going interest in Bonhoeffer's theology, inspired me to express some of my thoughts on the doctrine of sin (from a progressive stand-point).

Augustine was, in my opinion, very wrong on many things. But, that can wait for another day. He was right when it came to the doctrine of original sin. However, I preface this with a statement that I do not believe that newborns sin, etc. I'm not that simplistic. As a Protestant, it's hard to sin (as a condition) rather than sins (the things we do everyday). I think Augustine was on to something with original sin: we are, by nature, sinful beings. What does "sin" mean? I think sins are the things we do, think, and say that separate us from God. But here is the real truth: we "sin" because we are not God! From a positive standpoint, "sin" mean that we are not God! There is a certain existential understanding that "I am not God" through the act of sin. Now, for the negative part: sin is what separates from God, so we try not to sin. This is heavily nuanced, I know, but it's really how I see it. Don't misread me, I don't think sin is good, but I do think it's necessary part of our being as being-not-God. Does that make sense?

Concerning Patrik's treatment of demons, I'd like to discuss that, but not today. I am inspired by Bonhoeffer's concept of sin: responsibile sin. This means that I am necessarily responsible for my brothers and sisters - so responsibile that I may have to "sin" to do the right thing! How is that for nuanced? Not that we are all confronted with horrendous situations like Bonhoeffer, but there is a lesson to be learned. Bonhoeffer followed Luther's dictum, sin and do it boldly. Bonhoeffer chose sin, but there is a positive aspect of it - to responsibily act for his brothers and sisters. If there any such thing as grace and forgiveness, then we are almost "called" upon to act responsibily, even if that means taking on personal sin. These are difficult words, but essential words to live the Christian life. I am responsible for you - no matter what. If only we could all see beyond ourselves. As Bonhoeffer showed us, sin is sometimes a working out of one's self to the benefit of others.

So is sin good? The short answer: no, never. The paradoxical answer: perhaps it is necessary because it means we're not God. The Christian life is, as John cogently writes, about not about sinning less, but about repenting more. Amen.

Peace.

Religion and the Media: Part III

2006-05-16T11:30:00.000-04:00

The Da Vinci Code

This week's issue of U.S. News and World Report covers the explosive story of the Church's response to The Da Vinci Code. Highlighted are the Vatican's strong disapproval of the narrative, the clandestine response of Opus Dei, and the many differences between the plot and "orthodoxy." The article is worth a read if you, too, are caught up in this frenzy.

As evidenced by my previous post (below), I find the whole thing rather funny. Why funny? As I've already talked about, there are no new ideas. Second, this article draws attention to certain Christian groups demanding that a disclaimer be issued for the movie: fiction. Did they have this same disclaimer with the great evangelical approval of Gibson's The Passion of the Christ? No, because they did not consider Gibson's movie "fiction." Rather, Gibson's narrative was closer to what many Christians consider "truth" or "the way it happened." Or, in more scholarly terms, Gibson's narrative followed more closely the narrative portrayed in the accepted, orthodox gospels. Now, I'm not condemning Gibson's film, I'm simply drawing attention to certain biases. Dan Brown wrote the book; Dan Brown has the right to call his work "fact" or "fiction." While we may consider the book rubbish (and rightly so), we simply don't "know" (empirically) if it is "fiction" or not. Were you there? And if you were, would your perspective of "truth" match those of Jesus' first disciples/followers/witnesses? Perhaps not. My point: don't jump to conclusions as to what is "fact" or "fiction." In many cases, we simply do not know - and that's okay because it's honest.

Rather, I think what is important here is faith. If you were shaken by the book, did you really have faith to begin with? More importantly, who do you think Jesus was? Was Jesus this hidden character, someone who would support clandestine societies? Or, was Jesus a social reformer, a Jewish mystic, a God-intoxicated individual who envisioned a better world? Was Jesus a man who sought ever-so-deepely the justice of God, the grace that is only won in sacrifice, and the permanent destruction of the powers of death? Here's my response to the Da Vinci Code and all the hype to it: who do you want Jesus to be? If the "orthodox" sources are the best sources we have, then they attest to a loving, merciful God who reveals God's self in Jesus. Does this downplay the historical significance of Gnostic sources? No. It simply draws attention to the public Jesus, the Jesus who not only sought a better way (through 'knowledge'), but enacted it in his public ministry. The Gospels attest to the action of Jesus, not just the 'knowledge' that he had. And so our faith is one of action - that we, too, share with Jesus the same vision of a better world. So, why direct so much attention to a book? Aren't there better things to do in our society?

UPDATE (5/17/06): Low and behold, the movie is getting bad reviews. At one point, there was even laughter from the audience. As long as this movie has been anticipated, this is just hilarious - it's caused so much strife, and now it seems that the move is sub-par. For a good blog post making fun of this, see Dr. Jim West. Poetic justice? Hardly - it's more than that!

2006-05-15T18:31:00.000-04:00

The Theo-Blogosphere Today

[I'm including this to highlight some of my friends' blog discussions, as I think they're particularly interesting today.]

Sadly, Jaroslav Pelikan passed away on Saturday. Unfortunately, I'm not very familiar with his work, so I'll direct you to some memorial blog postings: here, here, and here.

Patrik Hagman has a fascinating post on original sin, as well as a post on "sin, identity, and destructive culture." Check it out - this is good theology.

John Penniman highlights some of the points of his major paper on "Henri de Lubac's influence on John Milbank." I hope he posts more, because this is good stuff. Surely, it's an "A," John.

Chris TerryNelson is doing some great thinking on Barth. I recommend his posts because they work through the many nuances of Barth.

Chris Tilling does some interesting analysis of Hans Kung. Quite the original topic, too!

And last, but not least, Mark Goodacre gives a unique insight into life at Duke University. A personal post, but quite insightful for his work.

I hope this helps. If your time is as crunched as mine, I know these kinds of posts certainly help sort through the many things that are going on out there.

Time permitting, I plan to blog again tomorrow on the Da Vinci Code, as it has attracted quite the attention (see below). Until then, peace.

2006-05-13T10:23:00.000-04:00

Changes

Hello, everyone. As you can see, I've made some pretty drastic changes to my blog in the past few days. I've added a small library of books on the sidebar. These are books that I consider to be some of the ancient and contemporary essentials in the field of theology and biblical studies. If you don't already own them, have a look. Additionally, I've added blogrolling to make it 1) easier on me, and 2) to add new theo/biblio blogs as they are created or brought to my attention. If you are beginning a blog, send me an email and I'll try to get it on the blogroll. Also, I've added links to The Center for Progressive Christianity, an organization that I feel is benefiting a significant minority of Christians - check it out, they're sporting a new website. Also, I've linked the World Council of Churches, as I believe they are doing effective work as well. Anyway, have at it.

Have a great weekend!

2006-05-12T11:14:00.000-04:00

Cheap Grace

"Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession, absolution without personal confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate." -- Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship

In my opinion, these are haunting words - haunting because they are true. Bonhoeffer reflects on the Christian vision, and this is the preface to his conclusion. We are all guilty of deluding ourselves into thinking we have such cheap grace. We stand convicted before a holy God - but, thankfully, that is not the end of the story. As Bonhoeffer notes in this preface to his teaching of costly grace, grace is actualized in the cross of Jesus. Somehow, it is this costly grace that saves us. I don't want to start a lengthy discussion of salvation models, but I think the simple truth to this is love. Grace is love - divine love. Grace allows us to live, breathe, and enjoy our lives because we know that God loves us.

Bonhoeffer's words are powerful. Reflect on them today.

Peace.

2006-05-11T18:48:00.000-04:00

The Da Vinci Code - What's All the Hype About?

I simply don't understand what all the hype is about? Who cares about the Da Vinci Code? Sure, it may be a good read, and maybe it'll be a good action flick, but other than that, what's the big deal? All, and I repeat, ALL of the ideas presented in the book are simply re-hashments of previous theories. Dan Brown did NOT come up with anything new - he has NO new ideas, period. Sure, he has a knack for weaving together an interesting story, but that doesn't make him different than the 5 zillion other writers out there.

And what's the deal with all of these conservative/fundamentalist Christian groups freaking out about this? I find it rather funny because it exposes their ignorance of our Christian past. Come on guys, get a life.

Again, someone please explain to me why this is such a big deal? The ideas surrounding Jesus, Mary, etc. are all very old. Dan Brown is a creative story teller - and nothing else. Seriously, people, try reading some books!

2006-05-10T18:30:00.000-04:00

Nothingness and Sartre: The Existentialist View?

Sartre's view of nothingness has always appealed to me, not because it is overly pessimistic, but because it expresses a sort of hope beyond the abyss. Sartre's view of nothingness stood as the pointer to living a more complete life. For Sartre, death (and what follows, nothingness) was nothing more than going to sleep - unconsciousness, unawareness, non-living. Thus, it is up to us to live more full lives because it is the eternal sleep that awaits us. This sounds strange to Christian ears, but for Sartre it brought comfort. Sartre calls us to live our lives for others, to embrace our humanity, to embark on this incredible journey called life. The fact that there is no hope means that we have the hope of now.

Though this is a very short and condensed take on Sartre, I think it's fair. It means that to embody our existence is accept our fate and move beyond the nothingness. This is not that uncommon with Christian view of nothingness - as sin. It means that we are to accept the grace of God, given through Jesus, and move beyond the sin that engulfs us. Don't get me wrong: Sartre was NOT writing to a Christian audience, nor did he intend to contribute to Christian theology. Rather, I'm proposing that we learn from this brilliant philosopher. We need to learn to accept God's costly grace (to borrow from Bonhoeffer), move beyond the nothingness of our sin, and live the new life, here and now, as recreated humanity. Without realizing it, Sartre contributed to a very Christian discussion!

2006-05-10T18:24:00.000-04:00

Barth's Birthday

A very happy birthday to Karl Barth who would have turned 120 today (for you mathematicians, he was born on May 10, 1886). Barth's impact on the world of theology cannot be over-rated. Though many disagreed with him (read: Bultmann!), Barth was admired even by his critics for his thoughtfulness, intellect, and method. Called a "Church Father" of the 20th century, Barthian scholarship will continue for the ages to come. Though I think Barth would be horrified at that thought, we agree with him that the true point of theology (and living for that matter) is to point to Jesus, the man for all humanity.

2006-05-09T19:13:00.000-04:00

More Thoughts on Nothingness

It seems to me that we haven't really fleshed out what it means to say "nothingness." Now, there has been much written on the subject, especially with how "nothingness" has no place in the Kingdom of God. But I'm not satisfied that the subject is adequately covered (though arguably no subject is ever adequately covered). I've yet to find a comprehensive study of nothingness - I do not include Heidegger or Sartre as authoritative subjects because they were thoroughly entrenched in existential philosophy. Barth is helpful, but his study is but a short blip in the overall project of the Dogmatics. Other sources seem to have another agenda: existentialism, phenomenology, psychology, etc. Though I'm not sure any scholar will ever write an authoritative, comprehensive study of nothingness (and its many implications), I think it's productive to at least flesh out what we can of the subject. I hope in the coming days to do some "thinking out loud" on the subject. Your imput is, as always, appreciated.

2006-05-08T18:00:00.000-04:00

New Links

As you see on the sidebar, I've included some "essential" theology texts. I consider these all must-reads for doing any kind of contemporary theology. The list will grow in the future, but this is a good start. Happy reading!

N.B. There is no obvious bias - haha!

2006-05-08T11:23:00.000-04:00

A Call to All Bloggers (or anyone with an e-mail address)

Please take a look over at Paleojudaica (scroll down to the second article). We need to act - this kind of behavior is absolutely unacceptable. We need to put more pressure on the Egyptian government to set these guys free; to think that there are many areas of the world where you can be arrested and detained for peacefully protesting is just sickening. Please follow Jim Davila's lead and write your own email. This kind of stuff needs to stop. Overflow their email system...

2006-05-05T12:07:00.000-04:00

Paul Tillich, Buddhism, and Nietzsche - The Trajectory of Nothingness

"Nonbeing (that in God which makes his self-affirmation dynamic) opens up the divine self-seculusion and reveals him as power and love. Nonbeing makes God a living God. Without the No he has to overcome in himself and in his creature, the divine Yes to himself would be lifeless. There would be no revelation of the ground of being, there would be no life."

-- Paul Tillich, The Courage to Be

As evidenced below, I have an acute interest in nothingness and what that means to the Kingdom of God. I find it fascinating that Christian doctrine treats nothingess (or nonbeing - I use them to mean the same thing - of course, without the philosophical baggage) as the enemy, the thing to be destroyed by Christ, whereas Buddhist treats nothingness (roughly "nirvana") as the goal of existence. What is the difference? Well, I think it's what we fear: Christians fear non-being because the thought of nothingness is terrifying. And, as I understand it, the Buddhist fears the cycle of re-birth, or at its very essence, existence. So, though Buddhism and Christianity share many similarities, the doctrine of nothingness couldn't be more different. Or are they? I want to say that they really aren't that different...and here's why.

Nietzsche taught the "eternal reoccurance of the same." This means that existence is essentially futile in the sense that there is nothing but existence; knowledge of nothingness is useless because existence is, paradoxically, nothingness. Christian theologians, through the years (in the "orthodox" camp) assert that Jesus destroyed nothingness in his death and resurrection. Thus the powers of chaos (Genesis 1) , death, and destruction do not really have tangible effects on the creation (see Barth's Dogmatics, III/3). And, finally, the Buddha taught (in a similar strain, though a long before Nietzsche), that everything changes because it is eternally wrapped up in this thing called nothingness. So, what do we have here: is there such a thing as Christian acceptance of nothingess? Is there a Christian doctrine that deals with concrete existence, or as Buddha would have it, the primary causal relationship? Yes, it does: sin.

Sin is where we most tangibly touch nothingness. Sin is where we are void from God, though not rejected by God. So, like the Buddhist, our existence is essentially wrapped up in nothingness because our existence is essentially wrapped up in sin. But, as Tillich teaches, it is nothingness that reveals a loving, merciful God. The tangibility of sin has a trajectory of nullity because of the resurrection. Like the Buddhist (or even the Nietzschean), we can affirm the co-existence of nothingness in existence because we affirm the reality of sin. But, it is this affirmation that also points to a loving God.

What do you think?

2006-05-04T18:41:00.000-04:00

Rules of Engagement

Yesterday, Dr. Jim West published some 'rules of engagement' for theology. While I agree with these, I would like to throw my two cents into the discussion. I think, so long as we 'do' theology as an academic subject, there needs to be some 'ground rules' for fair play. That being said, though all Christians do (or should) have an interest in current debates, some ground rules are badly needed. It's all too often that we read of bone-headed preachers going off on some tangent that may, perhaps, have theological validity, but they sound so ridiculous that no one pays attention (and rightly so). So, Jim is right to point to some basic rules.

One of my most influential professors in college, Dr. Paul Hinlicky, taught and inforced "the golden rule of theology:" one must fully comprehend and summarize his/her opponent's thesis before criticism may be given. When I taught (as a TA) at St. Andrews, I taught and inforced this same rule. I think this golden rule would severely limit the gross misunderstandings in current (and historical) theology. This rule allows one to be on 'even footing' before leveling criticism. This may be regarded as an act of simple decency, or even more encouraging, an act of solidarity.

What do you think? It seems to me that the rest of the rules are derivative of this 'golden rule.'

2006-05-03T17:12:00.000-04:00

Blog Recommendation

I recommend a theo-blog that is new, yet promising. Patrik Hagman, a doctoral student in Finland, writes about God in a Shrinking Universe. Check it out.

2006-05-02T19:12:00.000-04:00

Church Dogmatics - An Ode?

You've got to read this! Ben Myers has posted an "ode to the Church Dogmatics." He definitely gets extra points for creativity. But, the most incredible thing is that the "ode" is a valuble lesson on the Dogmatics. For short summaries (and I note that Barth was NOT fond of short summaries), this "ode" is very insightful.

2006-05-01T11:52:00.000-04:00

The Meaning of Grace - Barth's Sermons

Barthian research is to be commended for expounding on the great, voluminous Church Dogmatics. However, there is often much neglect of his sermons. Barth's collected sermons present the man who desperately sought to tell others of the grace they've received in Christ. Needless to say, his sermons often read easier than passages in the Church Dogmatics. Case and point:

"That God is God, not only almighty, but merciful and good, that he wills and does what is best for us, that Jesus Christ died for us to set us free, that by grace, in him, we have been saved - and this need not be a concern of our prayers. All these things are true apart from our own deeds and prayers...to let our total existence be immersed in the great divine truth, by grace you have been saved." -- Karl Barth, Saved by Grace (Eph. 2:5)

I think this passage really captures the urgency in Barth's message. It also shows how deeply immersed his was in Reformed theology - there is a sense of the "already done now just accept" attitude. That being said, Barth's theology is not relegated to the past, but rather he conveys the living, breathing gospel of hope and joy. Barth's appeal to grace is found concretely in his soteriology - existence is salvation because it is thoroughly wrapped up in the divine vision of eschatological completion. This means that God's vision is realized in the resurrection of Jesus, that grace may become real in its power over life and death. But this is no divine seizure of the individual's freedom - it is a vision of salvation that is mechanized with radical grace.

I highly recommend Barth's sermons because they convey a different aspect of his theology.

2006-04-29T09:06:00.000-04:00

God-Intoxicated - The Humanity of Jesus

While I struggle with what it meant for a human to be divine (see below), I have an easier time grasping what it meant for Jesus to be human. I'm not talking about some huge theological treatise on how Jesus represents the whole of humanity, etc., but rather what is concrete about Jesus' experience as a man. Marcus Borg often uses the term "God-intoxicated" to describe the humanity of Jesus. Here is a man who walked the backwater of the Roman empire two-thousand years ago and was completely obsessed with God. Perhaps the Sermon on the Mount is Jesus' theological / pastoral fleshing out the concept of G-O-D. If Jesus was so God-intoxicated, what a dounting task to describe the Kingdom of God to an oppressed, desperate, and poverty-stricken people. Maybe we're not so far from that today. Maybe we, too, need to re-read the Sermon on the Mount. Here is my theological take on the Sermon...

Blessed are the people who can see beyond themselves and become obsessed with God. Blessed are those who care so much about their community (and not themselves) that they can see the face of God in the face of humanity. Blessed are those who can conceive of no other existence than that of unity with God. Blessed are those who realize that this humanity of ours holds us back, deprives our spirit, and demands confession of the things that separate us from God.

May you have a wonderful weekend.

2006-04-27T11:11:00.000-04:00

The Death of Death: Jesus Resurrected

"That Jesus Christ in calling man to be a Christian unites Himself with him means first from His own standpoint that He is unique as the One who is His life and death was humiliated and exalted in the place of all, as the One in whom the reconciliation of the world to God and the justification and sanctification and for the salvation of all were accomplished."

-- Karl Barth, CD IV, 3

Over at Faith and Theology, Ben Myers has recently sparred with Mike Bird on the resurrection controversy. I quote this from the (very) late Barth, who, as we all know affirmed bodily resurrection. Barth, called a neo-conservative (which is laughable at best), actually points the way to a post-modern reading of the resurrection. What do I mean? Let me try to flesh this out (no pun intended, ok, it might have been intended).

Like the Barthian/Calvinist/Augustian tradition, I too affirm that Jesus ontologically caused the death of death. This means that the biological/psychological effects of what we call death have been turned on their head. Not to enter the mind/body philosophical debate, but we do not lose our identity in death; we are valued persons encompassing all that is right and wrong with our lives. Death has been reversed in Jesus - the God who says "yes" to Jesus likewise says "yes" to me (how's that for a Barthian statement?).

But, the post-modern thinker rightly asks: how do we know anything beyond the face of death? Empirically, we can watch another die, experiencing his/her death indirectly. But, even though we all must undergo the death experience, we have no direct knowledge of the death experience. Like Myers says, everything changes at death. We not longer inhabit this body, this mind, this life - we are gone - forever. But, Barth answers the post-modern question: salvation is not some weirdly reconstructed life on earth - it is radically reshaped in the death and resurrection of Jesus. The reshaping of death means deconstructing what it means to die. No longer is death a simple sign of human finitude, it is an experiential thing with which none of us escape. The post-modern question of empirical knowledge is turned around: we die into the arms of God. Radical reconciliation means that a seemingly meaningless death now has all the meaning in the world: we die into complete and utter trust in the God of love and mercy. This is, concretely, the completion of the Gospel: Jesus is no mere corpse on a cross, but an "exalted" Savior who gives our death meaning through the meaningful experience of resurrection....

2006-04-27T10:30:00.000-04:00

Blog Recommendations

While I think it's important to read as much as possible, I do think there are a lot of bogus blogs out there. Thankfully, most theo/biblio-blogs are pretty good. But, I'd like to draw your attention to two blogs of personal friends that I highly recommend. They are blogs that are representative of a small community in which I consider myself: future theologians currently in training.

I attended the University of St. Andrews with Daniel Driver, who posts a somewhat sporadic blog, but nonetheless is very insightful (who can blame him, he's writing his doctoral thesis!). This blog, as I understand it, deals with issues of OT midrash, and more specifically with the work of Brevard Childs. I also like reading his personal entries, as they remind me of our time in St. Andrews.

The second blog is by a graduate student at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. Our paths crossed a year and half ago at St. Andrews when I was a graduate student and he was spending a semester abroad (with the undergraduate program at Elon). John and I are kindred theological spirits: we struggle daily with issues of faith, freedom, and grace. While we are both practicing Christians, we both also adhere to the credo faith seeking understanding. I highly recommend his blog.

2006-04-26T11:28:00.000-04:00

Religion and the Media, Part II
The Gospel of Judas, The Translator Blasts Today's Church

This is a short entry, as this article is fascinating. Kudos to Jim West for finding this. Having read the Gospel of Judas myself, I cannot, for the life of me, see what all the fuss is about. The media is freaking out about this Gospel - have they read the plethora of other non-canonical gospels? There are plenty of more outrageous non-canonical gospels than this. Sure, it presents another side of Judas - so what? It's another point of view - not something that should shake your faith to the core. The Gospel of Judas may not have much theological value, but it has incredible historical value to the early Church. No one is proposing to add this document to the New Testament, there is simply an appeal to the recognition that there was not institutional church prior to, say, the Council of Nicea. Gnostic communities existed, and not necessarily as "fringe communities" (to quote the Archbishop of Canterbury).

I agree with the translator that there will be other documents unearthed in the years to come. We need to be more open to things that challenge the way we think; we need to be flexible to re-working the way we have thought about the early church. Why? Because we need to act in solidarity with our Christian brothers and sisters that have gone on to glory before us.

Oh, and to the media: get a life. There are plenty of documents like this, and there will be plenty more to come. One only needs to read Irenaeus to see how many more gnostic texts are out there.

2006-04-26T11:25:00.000-04:00

Meaningful Dialogue

My post from yesterday, Religion and the Media I, attracted some attention to the age-old debate between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. I welcome such criticisms with open arms - that's what we theologians do! Please see the comments section after reading the entry. It is a complex argument that is, thankfully!, taking some new directions in the 21st century. Feel free to leave your opinion. As they say in Scotland, have a look...

2006-04-25T11:06:00.000-04:00

Religion and the Media: Part I
Pope Benedict XVI

In this week's U.S. News and World Report, there is an interesting article on Pope Benedict XVI's first year in office. This piece is primarily reflective, spiced with a little theological insight. Tolson's main point is to show that "God's Rottweiler" has proven to be an effective Pope, surprising both "liberals" and "conservatives." While many feared that The Rottweiler would resurrect an Inquisitional catholicism, Benedict XVI has shown that there is far more diplomacy in the papacy than perhaps was fully realized. Tolson highlights the slight disappointment of "conservatives" like the Rev. Richard John Neuhaus and "liberals" like Hans Kung.

A Protestant myself, I realize that my comments are, at best, cursory. I am not Roman Catholic, nor have I been affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church. But, I do respect it and the papacy. Regardless of what Protestants think about the pope, he still has incredible diplomatic and political power. While he leads a Church that claims one billion adherants, Protestants should keep up with the Pope to see what fellow brothers and sisters are learning from him. While the papacy has a sorted past, modern popes have the ability to spread peace through active diplomacy. This important feature of the papacy cannot be ignored. Indeed, we as Protestants should encourage the peace process whenever possible.

Back to the article. Tolson gives a good nuanced opinion of the new Pope. However, he does assume that his readers know what "conservative" and "liberal" mean. I think if we really delve into what the words mean (and I really don't want to go there today), I think we would find a deep discontinuity between what Roman Catholics view as "conservative" and "liberal" and what Protestants view as "conservative" and "liberal." My point is this: define your terms! Let the reader know what a "liberal" Roman Catholic thinks: birth control? condom use? female ordination? what?

One of the major themes in this article is the recent scandal involving priests and pedophilia. This is somewhat mixed with the issue of ordaining priests with "homosexual" orientation (I thought priests were celebate....). While Tolson does mention that there is little or no connection between homosexuality and pedophilia, he does tend to blur the issues together. Yes, the Roman Catholic Church is in need of some serious reform, but let's face it: there is something of a witch-hunt going on here. There have been just as many (if not more) convictions of Protestant ministers engaging in pedophilic acts as Roman Catholic priests. I'm not downplaying the seriousness of the issue; I'm simply stating that we need fair recognition of the real issue: pedophilia is real and we need to root it out. And, most importantly, the victims of such abuse need therapy and treatment.

Overall, I think the article did justice to the effectiveness of the new pope. I would have preferred to see more nuanced opinions and clearer definitions of terms, but other than that, it's worth a read.

2006-04-25T11:03:00.000-04:00

Religion and the Media

I hope to never reduce theology to the popular media, but I do think it is important to keep up with current events (I'm thinking of Barth's comment that a theologian should hold a newspaper in one hand a Bible in the other). I'm going to post several posts regarding religious articles in the popular media - covering various subjects and, of course, my opinion of them.

2006-04-21T18:54:00.000-04:00

Jesus and the Divine

I've been doing some thinking recently on whether or not we, as humans, can have knowledge of Jesus' divinity. What I mean is, if we are fully human and not divine (a careful distinction), can we "know" or "understand" what it means to be divine? If Jesus is (as the Nicene Creed has it) just as much divine as human, can we really understand what that means? Perhaps the only answer to believe in the divinity of Jesus, to place trust in the Biblical witness (though it seems at times that even this is a stretch, save that of John). I'm not denying or affirming the Nicene Creed, just questioning whether or not we can understand what it says.

I know this is no new question, and indeed it is one that every Christian must wrestle with; yet, I cannot help but feel a little lost in the whole issue. My humanity means limitations - limits of knowledge, understanding, and (of course) finitude. Somehow, though, Jesus' humanity speaks to my humanity - but where I can begin to "understand"?

As I get older, I really understand the old adage: faith seeking understanding.

2006-04-21T18:52:00.000-04:00

Hiatus

Sorry for the recent hiatus this week, but my wife and I took a much-needed vacation. It wasn't very far, just to Washington D.C. to see the National Zoo and some of the Smithsonian museums. Daily/Semi-daily blogging will resume.

2006-04-15T20:39:00.000-04:00

Out and About on Easter

Two of my favorite blogs have excellent contributions to the Easter holiday. Over at Faith and Theology, Ben Myers offers great re-blogging of several issues from times past. Additionally, check out Dr. Jim West for some Easter artwork. These recent blogs on Easter are truly a blessing - and of course, provacative, too!

Happy Easter everyone!

2006-04-14T19:23:00.000-04:00

The Cross

It seems entirely appropriate to blog about the cross on Good Friday. This is the day when Christians remember that Jesus underwent bodily death - actual, physical, death. It is not a day of "celebration" per se, but a day of remembrance. But that is not to say that the day of celebration is not coming, for indeed it is. I've studied much about the cross in my time, many of the theological nuances, etc. Here is a short reflection of what the cross means to me: (this is an emotional treatise, not a theological exposition)

The cross is the symbol and, at the same time, the reality of God's love. It is the finite piece of wood that clearly shows us the love of God. God's love story, or His self-revelation in scripture, is made complete with the cross. The death of Jesus leads to the resurrection of the Christ, the Christ who loves us enough to die a criminal's death. The cross is a symbol for all of history to see what justice sometimes costs. The cross is Jesus' arms outstretched to each of us, saying, "I love you." The cross is the reversal of human norms and values, the questioning of authority, the price of justice, the break in human history, and the display of awesome love and grace. The cross is a reality for you and for me; it is what binds us together, it is what makes us one in the eyes of God, it is the disruption of the brokenness of human history. The final unity of Jesus' previously broken body on the day of the resurrection is the unity in which we experience God's grace.

God Bless.

2006-04-12T00:36:00.000-04:00

Midnight Musings

"When Jesus blessed sinners, they were real sinners, but Jesus did not make everyone a sinner first. He called them away from their sin, not into their sin. It is true that encounter with Jesus meant the reversal of all human values." --Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison

Powerful words. Yet, I can't help but think that to discuss "sin" and "human values" in Bonhoeffer's theological language is to assume certain given values. This means that "human values" are those things that make us persons, things that give us identity, freedom, and agency. And, dissimilarly, "sin" is the negation of these values, the negation of identity, freedom, and agency. But, I have to ask, who determines these values? God? The Bible? Tradition? Society? What is normal? What is abnormal? Do our assumptions of "human values" and their negations (sin) also assume a particular identity-value? Yet, amongst these questions, Bonhoeffer points to Jesus - the man who enacts the reversal of human values. Jesus is the question mark to "human values".

2006-04-11T09:34:00.000-04:00

Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945)

This last Sunday (April 9th) marked the 61st anniversary of Dietrich Bonhoeffer's execution at the hands of the Nazis. It is important to remember all those involved in the Abwehr plot who were subsequently executed. Not only was Bonhoeffer executed, but his brother, his brother-in-law and roughly 150 others involved in the complex plot. I'm not going to debate (today) the nuances of Bonhoeffer's chosen path, but we must remember the sacrifice he made for what he believed to be the best decision (and I think history, in hindsight, would agree).

Bonhoeffer's contribution to the theological world cannot be overstated. His development of "religionless Christianity" ushered in the next generation of theologians. We still struggle with his words today, and rightly so. So, Bonhoeffer, we remember you.

2006-04-11T09:21:00.000-04:00

Gospel of Judas Part II

I've noticed quite an aweful misunderstanding recently: we need to see the difference between historically and theologically relevant documents from antiquity. Christians are all too willing to reject the Gospel of Judas outright - without even reading the text (which takes ten minutes). A document shown to be antique (i.e. authentic, not a hoax) is relevant to historical record whether you like it or not. No individual (or group for that matter) can determine if something has historical relevance: all documents make up the historical record, period. Now, something can be viewed as relevant theologically with different criteria. Will the Gospel of Judas have a theological impact on the contemporary church? Probably not. Most Christians are too close-minded to give it a read. I've read it - it will not destroy your "faith." If it does, you didn't have real faith to begin with. The gospel is historically relevant because it shows a different Christian community in antiquity. It reminds us that the early Christian church was ANYTHING but uniform. It also throws into question who has the right to determine what is "orthodox" and what is not. Has there ever been an "orthodoxy"? And more importantly - was Jesus orthodox? How did Jesus treat orthodoxy of his day? My point: open your mind and your heart.

2006-04-11T09:06:00.000-04:00

The Birth

I'm sorry for not writing for the last few days, but my wife's best friend gave birth to a beautiful baby girl on Sunday night. We have been wrapped up in the absolute beauty of childbirth since then. I've been around babies/kids my entire life (I have three younger brothers), but the miracle of this really struck me. That God provides for a new life in such an emotional way is an aesthetic of its own. When looking into the eyes of this newborn, I saw the face of humanity, the hope of all generations: that no matter what this world brings in pain and strife, we survive, we grow, we love, and we take care of our own. Her face, besides being really cute (!), was the pinnacle of hope in a sometimes bleak world.
Besides reading, perhaps, too much into childbirth, I came to another profound theological conclusion: Augustine never held a baby. What I mean is that the doctrine of original sin is just pure fantasy. Sure, humans all have the potential to sin, but I outright reject the doctrine that teaches that babies are born into sin. Potentiality and actuality are two different things - and I'm convinced that Augustine never had close contact with an infant.

2006-04-07T11:12:00.000-04:00

The Gospel of Judas

The Gospel of Judas is the big news of our field this week, so I decided to give my two cents on the issue. I did watch the news coverage last night, including interviews with Bart Ehrman and (more importantly) Elaine Pagels. From the outset, I do disagree with Dr. Jim West who asserts that "there is really nothing historically valuable in this Coptic text." It all depends on how you see "history." If this Gospel is being compared to the New Testament Gospels, then perhaps there is nothing "historically" valuable in this text. However, if this Gospel shows the diversity of early Christians, the possible vindication of one of history's most cursed names, and that there really was more to the mystery of Jesus' teaching, this document holds important historical value. That said, I do agree with Dr. West that this whole issue has been blown up and sensationalized. Ancient documents are dug up all the time. In college, we had a guest classics professor from Northwestern visit my Greek class. One of the most exciting things he had to say was that there are too few people who can translate these ancient documents; there are plenty that are still untranslated! The fact that this Gospel has been unearthed is important, but I dare say it will be the last. I do look forward to reading and studying this text. Hopefully, in several years, there will be more scholarly work done on this document - where will Inside Edition be then?

Want to read it for yourself? Thanks to Jim Davila at PaleoJudaica for the link: The Gospel of Judas
Note: this is in PDF format. Happy Reading!

2006-04-06T10:28:00.000-04:00

Augustine the Existentialist

Ridiculous you say? I found proof: =D

"...since nothing in existence could exist without you [God], does it therefore follow that everything exists must contain you? I too exist. Why then do I ask you to enter into me? For unless you were in me, I could not exist." --Augustine, Confessions Book I

Now, I know Augustine was not apart of the "existentialist" movement of the twentieth century, nor did his theology really have similarities with Tillich, Bultmann, etc. However, Augustine did have the existentialist spirit, or the search for what it means to "exist." This is important - Augustine saw a necessary relationship between existence and God. Is God pure existence (to use Tillich's language)? Or is God the necessary causal push behind the cosmos? Augustine's understanding of the Spirit of God is necessary to understand his theology of existence: the Spirit is what exists in us and gives us existence. So, without all of the philosophical and theological baggage of the twentieth century, I would say that Augustine had "existentialist" tendencies that are important to study today.

2006-04-06T10:21:00.000-04:00

Emil Brunner (1889-1966)

Today marks the 40th anniversary of Emil Brunner's death. Dr. Jim West thinks that Brunner's legacy is greater than that of Barths; I beg to differ. While I do not discount the genius of Brunner's theological insight, I do think that he eventually falls short of Barth's theological vision. That should not keep you from reading Brunner! For my Barthian friends out there, just keep one word in mind: NEIN!

2006-04-05T10:25:00.000-04:00

Radical Grace in the midst of Radical Nothingness

"The fact that the creature can fall away from God and perish does not imply any imperfection on the part of creation or the Creator. What it does mean positively is that it is something created and is therefore dependent on preserving grace, just as it owes its very existence simply to the grace of its Creator...Sin is when the creature avails itself of this impossible possibility in opposition to God and to the meaning of its own existence. But the fault is that of the creature and not of God." -- Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics III/3

To really comprehend what Barth means by sin, I think is necessary to include what Barth thinks of nothingness. Nothingness is the realm in which sin is possible, in which we exercise our will in freedom. This is not to say that nothingness is a place, or a thing, or even (strictly) a realm. Nothingness is what God rejects; it is non-being. If God has rejected sin, then sin belongs in the abyss - in nothingness. Yet, curiously enough, we are allowed to taste nothingness in the capability of sin. Does that mean that every human has experienece nothingness first hand? I think so, if the logic holds true.

But here is where grace enters the picture. Grace is what keeps us from falling into the abyss - into the nothingness. Grace is what continually rejects what has been rejected. Grace is, therefore, a more powerful force than non-being. Grace lifts us out of our own nothingness. Barth's assertion of radical grace is no more clearly understood than in the awesome power of nothingness. Radical grace is what, finally, eliminates the power of nothingness. It is what restores communion with God.

To throw a wrench into the machine, what of freedom? Barth was a reformed thinker, well-educated in Calvinist and Lutheran protestantism, so what did he have to say about freedom? Like many before him, he rejected freedom of the will (in a strict, theological sense). Of course, there is freedom of action, mind, et. al. But what of freedom of the will? It would make sense from Barth's discussion of nothingness that human will is ultimately guided by the Spirit (in the theological tradition of Luther and Augustine). But there is something missing here - if God "allows" nothingness to impede upon the lives of his creation, then freedom of action simply does not do justice to human agency. If God's grace overcomes one's freedom of the will, then what is to be said for agency? That's not freedom. Rather, if we are allowed to taste nothingness in sin, then we have freedom of the will. I think the theological tradition of rejecting freedom of the will simply falls short of denoting human agency: we are capable of horrendous evil. We are also capable of repenting. The role of grace is, concretely, to engulf the spirit of the individual in meaningful repentence after experiencing radical nothingness.

2006-04-04T11:42:00.000-04:00

Barth and Nothingness (Church Dogmatics III/3)

Much of my recent academic research has been in Barth's understanding of nothingness. Barth takes a very different view (positivist) from Sartre, Heidegger, et. al (negative). For Barth, nothingness is that which God negated from creation, the realm that is non-being, or in a strict sense, without God. Jesus is the negator of the negation - the One who reconciles all unto God, even that which God has rejected. In a sense, there is no such thing as non-being because Christ's action is reconciling the furthest reaches of creation.

This has always been difficult for me to understand. Like Sartre or Heidegger, I can sense real nothingness, real non-being. Perhaps in the form of evil, inhumanity, or cruelty, I do think there is nothingness pervading our reality of being. Barth does not downplay real evil, but he does downplay its final effect on creation because Christ destroys nothingness. Is that glossing over the reality of evil? Barth lived during the time of Hitler and the holocaust - he has an intimate understanding of large-scale evil. But Barth will not put anything earthly above the reconciling power of the cross. This is, I believe, Barth's final word on nothingness: there is nothing that the cross cannot touch - not even nothingness (count the negatives in that sentence!).

Perhaps this is true, but I'm not letting Barth get off that easy. I want to explore, in the coming days, the reality of nothingness, the power of negation, and what others have to say about it. Feel free to comment because these are provocative issues!

2006-04-04T11:33:00.000-04:00

Read for yourself, then see my comments in the next post.

Higgaion: Publish nonsense, thrive on TV

2006-04-04T11:22:00.000-04:00

Theories on the Death and Resurrection of Jesus

In a recent post, Christopher Heard reports on Michael Baigent's The Jesus Papers. You really have to read this blog entry yourself; a summary could not illuminate all of the particuar nuances. My opinion: the theory that Jesus survived the cross, faked his own death, and continued living (perhaps a full lifetime) is simply not new. The claim that there are "papers" that confirm this is, until proven, ridiculous. Produce documentation and we'll go from there. Until then, this should be published under fiction.

I have to take the same approach to this as Mark Goodacre takes to the Q theory: sure, it's entertaining, and perhaps even has a grain of truth, but until you can produce a text, it remains a theory. Even more, we have Roman documentation that records the crucifixion and death of Jesus of Nazareth. It would take a lot to refute this.

I remain unconvinced until I see a text.

2006-04-03T11:23:00.000-04:00

Metaphor

"For the emerging paradigm, the Bible and the Christian tradition are understood as a giant metaphor through which we see God. Christian faith is about living within the Christian tradition as a metaphor of God."
--Marcus J. Borg, The Heart of Christianity: Rediscovering a Life of Faith

This is a very powerful passage for me; it was one of those times when I was dumbstruck by the power of the words. What does it mean to live "within the Christian tradition as a metaphor of God"? I studied for a semester with Stephen Holmes, himself a student of Colin Gunton. As you may know, Gunton did seminal work in reading the Bible metaphorically. I'm not sure that metaphors are entirely appropriate as a holistic hermeneutic, but certainly think that metaphors can express what metaphysics cannot. This means that metaphors join the spirit world with the "real" world in a meaningful way.
I continue to ponder Borg's words, perhaps influenced by Gunton. They are, indeed, quite powerful.

2006-04-01T10:49:00.000-05:00

On Tobacco and Theologians

I once read somewhere that if you know what kind of tobacco a theologian uses, then you can tell what type of theologian he/she is:

Cigar smoker: conservative
Cigarette smoker: liberal
Pipe smoker: dialectical (or, more specifically, Barthian)

I find this rather funny; the theologians I know who indulge in tobacco products prove this formula to be almost completely opposite (save that of Barthians - Barth always lectured with a pipe in his mouth). Anyway, it'll be interesting to see if the 21st century's theologians change this formula...

2006-03-31T10:47:00.000-05:00

Ignorant Voices in Christianity

"Do NOT judge, so that you may not be judged." -- Matthew 7:1

Is anyone else alarmed by the number of belligerent voices in Christianity today? I know we've always had our loud-mouths(ah hem, Augustine), but with expanding media, it seems like every preacher, television evangelist (whatever that means), and proponent of some weird version of fundamentalist Christianity is getting far too much attention. Is this the message of Jesus? Don't get me wrong, I'm trying not to judge these people, but I'll admit, it's hard. It's hard to see the beautiful message of Jesus get slandered by people who have no idea what it means.

I tend to be a bit sharp-mouthed myself, so I really have to watch it, but really, people, what's going on? This is meant to be a internal (Christian) critique: WAKE UP AND RE-READ THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT (Matthew 5-7). It's high time to reclaim the message of Jesus and not what pop-Christianity has turned into. Jesus is a man of love, compassion, and forgiveness - not hell-fire, judgment, and damnation. Jesus loved those around him so much that he was willing to die a criminal's death. Jesus' resurrection is that which gives us hope today and for all time. The resurrection does not give us the right to determine an "in-group" and an "out-group." The resurrection does not give us the right to judge, condemn, and terrorize others. The resurrection gives us the medium by which to spread love and forgiveness in a world where concepts like love and forgiveness are almost completely dissolved of meaning. We Christians must join together to reclaim the gospel by not supporting those who purposely distort it.

2006-03-31T10:25:00.000-05:00

What's even more sad than this cartoon is that I stood on the very spot that Patrick Hamilton was burned. He studied with Martin Luther in Germany; upon returning to Scotland, his reformed message was not received well. He was burned at the stake in St. Andrews.

2006-03-31T09:50:00.000-05:00

Karl Barth's Christ: Process or Static?

Let me begin by defining my terms, as I know they are quite loaded. I know they may not adhere strictly to textbook definition, but what does in a Christological discussion? When I say process, I mean a Christ who is not confined as a historical event, but a Christ who continually works in human history to inspire faith in God and His Kingdom? The process Christ, paradoxically, continually dies and is resurrected in every human moment. The reality of the resurrection is a reality here and now, for all time. When I say static, I mean that Christ's death and resurrection occured some 2,000 odd years ago and is effectual for all time (effectual meaning that the resurrection reaches back prior to Jesus' life and ahead into today's world). I use the word static to mean an event that happened once and has a permanant effect on the world.

When I read Barth, I pick up on both ideas, but it seems to lean more to the "static" Christ. I say this because Barth was a Reformed thinker who adopted Calvin's view of predestination. But, as is well known, Barth turned Calvin's predestination on its head by saying that Jesus is the only elect; we may have salvation because Christ is the elect. This view of predestination leads me to think that Barth's Christ is static. However, Barth is (in my opinion) the most nuanced thinker of the 20th century, so we can't let it rest there. There is an element of a process Christ, a Christ who is dying and being resurrected today in the hearts of all Christians. This is reading between the lines of Barth (not that he left much to be read between the lines...haha), but I think for Christ to be continually effectual, His death and resurrection must grip those hearing the gospel today. Barth's christology asks whether whether we have been gripped by the gospel - and this is the process Christ.

I know I've said some controversial things here. Perhaps I'm not nuanced enough, but for me, we must understand the process and static Christ in Barth to really unlock the 14 volumes of the Church Dogmatics. What do you think?

2006-03-31T09:37:00.000-05:00

Karl Barth and Salvador Dali

As means of introduction, I must say that both Karl Barth and Salvador Dali would be horrified if they knew I linked their names together. But, I like both for different reasons, so too bad. Now, you may ask yourself: where is this going? For me, it's all about the christological question. And, I think for both Karl Barth and Salvador Dali, it was about the christological question, too. For Barth (see CD II/1), the question of theology is the question of Christ; Christ is the means by which we ask the question of human history and God's action within human history. Theology centers itself around the christological question. For Dali's religious-based art, there is a on-going theme of the relationship betweeen christology and the cross. Notice, however, that Dali's Christ is polished, clean, and without clear facial features. I think this means that Dali's Christ speaks for humanity; the cleanliness, perhaps, (and I'm really stepping out on a branch here) represents the effect of the cross. For Barth and Dali, Christ represents the question posed to humanity; both respond in their unique way. Barth and Dali call us to respond to Christ, too. What does Barth's writing and Dali's painting evoke in you?

2006-03-30T12:31:00.000-05:00

Karl Barth

A long-time admirer of Barth, I hope to write some posts on his theological method in the coming days. My senior thesis (undergrad) was on Barth's concept of "religion." In my master's thesis, I use Barth's method to explore the concepts of nothingness and suicide. While I am not "full" Barthian, I do admire his method and (sometimes) madness. So, from the outset, I have to admit my affiliation with Barth, my love of dialectical thinking, and my obvious bias toward Barthian interpretation.

2006-03-30T10:05:00.000-05:00

Liberation Theology

"God's presence does not appear just in one time and place 'once and for all,' but wherever reconciliation is established and man glimpses his unity of the world with its transcendent foundation and meaning."
--Rosemary Radford Ruether, Liberation Theology: Human Hope Confronts Christian History and American Power

I very much liked the message of liberation theology until graduate school. It was there that I clearly saw the Marxist underpinnings of this theology. Sure, I support the "liberation" aspect of the theology (how could one disagree after reading the message of Jesus?), but I have to wonder if it's possible to "do" liberation theology without the Marxism. What was once an oversight, or ignored, is absolutely critical to thinking in a liberating way. Now, I'm no capitalist (by definition), but Marxism has been shown to be an absolute failure when put into practice. In short, I agree with the message, but I disagree with the method.

Perhaps it's time for a new "liberation" theology - liberation from today's oppressors. Any takers?

2006-03-30T09:51:00.000-05:00

Churches of Christ - A Cult (?) (!)

I found this story absolutely amazing because it is so insane. After the recent shooting of a minister (by his wife, no less), a Baptist minister labels the Church of Christ a "cult." Not that I really respected CNN before, but this just too much. Perhaps CNN ought to pick its sources a little better (a bumpkin Baptist minister does NOT count). Click here for a full blog on the issue.

Perhaps this issue is a little sensitive for me because I was raised a Baptist. After I married my wife, I joined the Church of Christ. So, I'm coming from both angles. This issue exposes the general ignorance of Christianity within America today. Why would one pastor blast another denomination? The ignorance deserves to be rooted out. Rally here, bloggers!

2006-03-29T11:04:00.000-05:00

On the Unity of Christ - St. Cyril of Alexandria

I have always had an affinity for this church father because he wrestled with the dual natures of Christ. What does it mean to say that Jesus was/is completely man and completely divine? Christians are still asking this same question (or at least they should be!).

I think what Cyril has to teach us today is that there is no simple answer or clever theological formulation to explain Christ's dual nature. Rather, this is something taken on faith because it is simply absurd to human reasoning. Is it possible to be man (or woman) and God at the same time? This question gets at the very nature and mission of Jesus. But, Cyril's emphasis on the resurrection is what appeals most to me: he is resurrected for the unity of the entire human race (see quote below).

It seems to me that Christians of Cyril's day had more trouble with the "divine" side of Jesus, and less with the humanity. Church fathers place much emphasis on the divinity of Jesus (as the Christ). However, I think today people wrestle with the humanity of Jesus. The Jesus who laughs, cries, gets angry, and feels sadness is somehow foreign. In other words, the divinity of Jesus masks his humanity. We need to reclaim this humanity. We need to see the wise words of this teacher as an ethic of the right life before God. Jesus has a lot to say to us (think: Sermon on the Mount). We have human ears to listen; we need to relearn the humanity of Jesus through his teachings (which at times are obscure and require a lot of critical thought). What does Jesus have to say?

2006-03-29T11:00:00.000-05:00

"We can gather into a true unity, though one that transcends speech and understanding, realities which were unlike one another, and separated because of their respective natures...The Word was alive even when his holy flesh was tasting death, so that when death was beaten and corruption trodden underfoot the power of the resurrection might come upon the whole human race." -- St. Cyril of Alexandria, On the Unity of Christ

2006-03-28T12:16:00.000-05:00

It's hard to see, but this is where I spent countless hours studying. This is the second floor of the King James Library in the St. Mary's quad at the University of St. Andrews. This is, primarily, the theological library. Many people have visited this library in its 500 year history, including John Wesley.

2006-03-28T00:38:00.000-05:00

This is me in St. Andrews. I'm as tall as the arch!

2006-03-28T00:24:00.000-05:00

Photos to Follow

I've been figuring out how to upload photographs onto the blog, so hopefully I can add some photos soon. We have plenty from the year we spent in St. Andrews, Scotland.

2006-03-27T11:37:00.000-05:00

Death of God Theology: The Shortcomings

There have been numerous (and sometimes cheap) attacks on Death of God theology. Some criticisms are rightly posed while others beg the question: what are you (the one criticizing) really afraid of? Below are some of my personal conclusions. As aforementioned, I do not buy into Death of God theology's final conclusions. I do not believe in the "death" of theism, but I believe in rethinking ancient Greek, classical theism into something more relevant for today. Here goes:

1) The God of the OT and NT is a personal being, a being who (unlike Plato's God) feels and exhibits emotion. This God is a personal agent. In Death of God theology, this God has died and been reborn into humanity. This takes a pretty simple, narrow view of the cycle of birth, death, and regeneration. Certainly it is far more complex. While the "spiritual" may remain hidden in earthly life, there is a powerful force underlying existence. Is this the realm of God? If so, is death possible for God, even if God wanted to die?

2) Altizer's writing is sometimes incoherantly prophetic. He rants more than he systematizes. This makes things confusing: he is a well-trained scholar; why does he not utilize these skills? Hamilton's writing is often horrifyingly pessimistic. If it all amounts to love, what does this say for the complexity of human life?

3) Death of God theology amounts to a rejection of metaphysics (perhaps a clear precursor to what we now call "post-modernism). Metaphysical rejection of theism is a rejection of western philosophy; if Hamilton and Altizer were serious about this rejection, they would not rely so heavily on using western theistic logic to 'disprove' what they are intending to prove; this reversal is simply nonsense.

Are these valid criticisms? What do you think?

2006-03-27T11:21:00.000-05:00

Death of God Theology: The Benefits (!)

Strange as the title may be, there are some theological benefits (i.e. advancements) from the pop-theology of the 1960's. While Death of God theology has been ignored (for the most part) in recent times, I think there are some things that need to be re-evaluated. I list them in no particular order.

1) God is not necessarily like you conceive of him/her. God is a lot bigger than your imagination. God cannot be put into a box. You cannot manipulate God, so get over it.

2) There is an indominable spirit that has been put into humanity. We struggle and survive, despite terrible odds and horrendous evil. Humanity has the duty, no the obligation, to take care of one another. While prayer is certainly beneficial, we also need to take action and contribute to the world's healing process.

3) Jesus ACTUALLY died. Jesus went through something that you and I have not experienced. Jesus suffered. Jesus cried in unbelievable pain. Jesus believed in social justice, so much that he was willing to die for it. Jesus poses the question to us: what are you willing to die for?

4) Jesus was resurrection into human history. Jesus' humanity is reaffirmed in his new life, not as some spiritual being, but as a human, with human form. Jesus's humanity is just as important as his divinity.

5) The only real thing is love. We pose metaphysical questions, but the only real binding thing in the universe is love. However you may conceive of God, that conception is ultimately flawed if it does not contain radical love.

These, I think, are the real, tangible benefits of Death of God theology. Though they may take some of my slant (for believers today), I think the message is comparable to the theological movement. These are provocative statements. Let me know what you think.

2006-03-27T10:51:00.000-05:00

New Links

As you may have noticed, I've put some new links up on the sidebar. The first three blogs are my favorite on the internet. Faith and Theology is a blog I began reading last year; it is updated daily and contains a plethora of theological thought. The New Testament Gateway is a tremendous resource for the latest research in New Testament. PaleoJudaica is updated daily by Jim Davila, a professor of early Jewish history at the University of St. Andrews; I met him last year in the course of my studies. The resources I've posted are links to parallels of the 5 gospels (including Thomas, of course). Additionally, for hours of entertainment (or boredom, depending on your taste), check out the Early Church Fathers and Review of Biblcial Literature. It appears to me that I'm slanted in my links and recommendations: the cutting edge and the ancient resources. Any suggestions for Reformation resources? I hope to build the links page to be a one-stop resource similar to Mark Goodacre's tremendous NT Gateway.

2006-03-23T09:22:00.000-05:00

Interview With Mark Goodacre

Goodacre is one of the dominant voices in New Testament today. I first read his Case Against Q at St. Andrews - it is spirited to say the least! I recommend this interview to understand Goodacre's approach to faith and scholarship - which is tricky for all of us to walk sometimes.

2006-03-22T10:11:00.000-05:00

What I Am Currently Reading

The Confessions of St. Augustine. Somehow in my theological education, I covered the City of God quite thoroughly, but not the Confessions. So, like most theologians, I'm going back and reading all of the stuff I should've read before. I am struck by Augustine's honesty - and honesty that is rarely seen today. And, what's scary (I don't consider myself Augustinian), I see something of myself in him. I, too, am ambitious, curious, and wholeheartedly Type-A. But, where I think we're kindred spirits is when God works through our weaknesses. God has a funny way of taking severely flawed people and making them His children. So, strangely enough (I never thought I'd say this, especially openly), I consider Augustine a brother in the faith. Whereas his theological positions at times seem absolutely ridiculous, I can say I understand him better having read his Confessions. Though I'm far too Pelagian for my own good, Augustine does have a paradoxical appeal.

2006-03-21T10:09:00.000-05:00

William Hamilton - The Death of God and the Birth of Humanity

(I share a slight affinity for Hamilton; he is a fellow alumnus of St. Mary's College at the University of St. Andrews, Scotland. He studied under Baillie.)

It is fair to say that William Hamilton's position on the death of God is far less nuanced than Altizer's. Hamilton's writing reflects a literal, death-experience of the divine in human time. But God's chosen death, in order to "save" humanity, illuminates not the death experience, but rather a rebirth of humanity. Hamilton's death experience is heavily laced with love - that Jesus, both a human (socio-political) messiah and the divine, died in human history to reaffirm humanity.

Hamilton's writing is, at times, rather depressing. He does not have the hope that Altizer does; but, as any good writer of the post-World War II era, he finds a slight hope in the bleak realization that God has died in our time. This is what I call humanism - or the belief that humanity can take care of itself without the help of a God. The optimism of Hamilton is found in the ability to embrace the message of Jesus - to really take care of one another. Perhaps that is the value in Hamilton's theology: his presentation of Jesus, unlike many theologians, shows a man who loves so much that his heart almost breaks. Hamilton's Jesus is radical in the sense that he is willing to undergo death on the cross, dying into humanity, for the sake of his fellow brothers and sisters. As much as death-of-God theology has some strange things to say, this last statement is something that all Christians should remember. Jesus was a very real man; he laughed, cried, got angry, felt compassion, and loved wholeheartedly. I think sometimes we forget that...

2006-03-20T10:17:00.000-05:00

Thomas J.J. Altizer - Nietzsche and the Kenotic Christ

Altizer, a disciple of Mircea Eliade, not only advocated, but "willed" (in a Nietzschean sense) the death of God in our time. This means that when Jesus hung on the cross two thousand years ago, God actually died. Altizer goes on to say that the resurrection was not in some physical sense, but a "rebirth" into human history. Kenosis, or the constant energy of God, is forever operating in our space and time; God is perpetually dying and being reborn anew in our history. Salvation is not, for Altizer, a lofty, metaphysical, mythical occurance, but rather the Yes-saying of a God who loves so much that He is willing to die. God no longer exists "out there" but "in here." To a point, Altizer almost sounds like an ancient gnostic - God resides within. So, like Nietzsche, we must "will" the death of God (the God out there) in order that we may accept the God in ourselves (though Nietzsche and Altizer present completely different ideas of what God in ourselves means).

Perhaps this is too simple of a summary? It's my attempt to get at the sum total of Altizer's theology. It may not be nuanced enought, but it's an attempt to wrap my mind around what Altizer is trying to say.

2006-03-20T10:08:00.000-05:00

The Death-of-God Controversy: Is There Anything to Learn Today?

Since reading Thomas J.J. Altizer in college, I have had a strange fascination with the Death-of-God controversy in the 1960's. Maybe it was because it was a brand of theology that I completely disagreed with, and yet it challenged my mind in a way that has been quite beneficial. This is, perhaps, one of the only theological movements to have gained so much popular media attention (though much of it was negatively directed). There are many names associated with the movement, but there are two thinkers that I consider the true death-of-god theologians - William Hamilton and Thomas J.J. Altizer. Names like Van Buren, Cox, and (even!) Bonhoeffer and Tillich are associated with the movement; but, I think that Hamilton and Altizer really advocated the "death" of God as an act in history, not some philosophical nuance. I will elaborate above their positions as I understand them. I hope to do several postings on this topic in the coming days.

2006-03-20T09:47:00.000-05:00

The Existential Fear

I was asked two weeks ago to prepare a short (two-minute) presentation for childrens' church. Never refusing the opportunity to speak in church, I accepted. The last two weeks have been spent trying to develop an analogy that is appropriate for K-5, yet would challenge them a little. Thinking I had this down pat, I proceeded to church yesterday morning. However, when I reached the childrens' room, I was covered in a veil of terror. I had twenty sets of young eyes looking at me in the doorway. I'm ashamed to admit it, but my first reaction was to turn and split. Now, please understand that I have spoken in front of over 1,000 people before, in many church services, in front of close friends, in foreign countries, etc. Public speaking is no problem for me. But, these twenty sets of eyes absolutely brought out cold fear. Why? I'm still not sure. I love kids, but they really intimidated me. Thankfully, I arrived early; I was able to sing songs and get comfortable in my environment before speaking. I am pretty sure the message went off without a problem (I received many compliments from the adults) , so the whole things seems pretty funny at this point. Who would've thought? Funny how God puts you in certain situations to test your mettle...