Well, I've been here for a few days now, and nothing exciting has happened. Not that I was expecting anything. :-) The weather sure is different - and it is NOT making me happy. We've averaged over 100 degrees every day here since Monday. It's muggy, gross, and... my parents like it much better than Seattle weather!? Yep, they say it's too cold and gray in Seattle. I guess I can understand that. They spent nearly 30 years in Haiti, so very hot weather is what they are used to. Apparently it was 50 and rainy in Seattle today.
I grew up in Haiti... still, I think I'd prefer 50 and rain to 100 and muggy. I guess over the last 10 years my body became somewhat acclimated to living in the NW. This all makes me wonder: If people can't even cope with different kinds of weather, how in the world will we ever get along theologically? :-) Haha... of course that's where my mind goes.
I've been reading a couple of books this week that are worth checking out: Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller and The God Who May Be by Richard Kearney.
The first is dedicated to exploring the idea that the scientific theory of evolution and belief in God are compatible. Yes, that's right, you can believe in God AND evolution! Crazy! (sensing the sarcasm?) Miller makes a compelling case, especially with regard to the strength of the evolutionary evidence and the lack of Y.E.C. (Young Earth Creationist) evidence. He also presents a fairly solid picture of why belief in God remains viable, although his theology is somewhat lacking in rigor at times. (Though, to be fair, he never claims to be a theologian.) His arguments seem reasonable for the most part and he is not overbearing or condescending, like many in the Evolution vs. God debate.
The second book is a "hermeneutics of religion," but don't let that frighten you. It's written by a philosopher, and does contain quite a bit of technical language, but if you are familiar with 20th century continental philosophy at all it should be fairly easy reading. Essentially he is arguing for a description of God as "possible" rather than a God who is absolute being (onto-theology), or a God who is absolute alterity/non-being (negative theology). Kearney sees God's possibility as a third option, one that is not only consistent with Scripture (though is careful to point out that he is not performing exegesis in the book), but also offers a more reliable way for us to approach God as human beings who also find ourselves suspended between being and non-being (or immanence and transcendence).
Both books are well-written, clever, and actually fun to read (well, I thought so anyway). If you're looking for something "intellectual" to read this summer, I would suggest either or both, depending on your literary proclivities. And, yes, I only said that because I wanted to use the word 'proclivities.' haha.