Shadows Veil Our Eyes...

Pattison on theological possibility...

2012-02-13T21:52:00.001Z

"In a theological perspective, to say that God is creator is to say that he is the one who brings about both actuality and possibility. God, in other words — and no matter what problems this statement makes for developing a meaningful theological discourse — is prior to both actuality and possibility: each reflects only an aspect of the absolute, eschatological reality that God is, which, being eschatological, is not (yet) available to us as an object of knowledge. If the world determines the horizon of actuality within which alone human life can be lived, i.e., if it is the ground of everything that is or that can be, then the actuality of the world cannot itself be determinative for the absolute actuality of God which, in this sense, is a kind of actuality beyond actuality..."

(from God and Being by George Pattison.)

A few basic philosophical assertions that I hold...

2012-02-04T18:32:00.000Z

I take it to be the case that:

1) There are absolutes (epistemological, ethical, or otherwise) which can be believed to be true.

However, 2) these beliefs cannot be determined to be true by any rational, empirical, common-sense, or practical argument.

3) At best, we can only have pragmatically agreed upon beliefs, or beliefs which seem factually consistent enough to count as knowledge, or existentially grounded beliefs which supersede the means of analyzation mentioned above in 2.

Thus, 4) I am not a relativist. I can perhaps be called a skeptic, at least in epistemological terms. But I am not a relativist in any sense other than a weak form of cultural relativism, to which I assume everyone would adhere: different groups of people develop different views of the world, and it is not always clear which of those views is the most consistent and counts as knowledge.

However, 5) I would say that no human knowledge can be properly called 'Truth' (with a capital T), inasmuch as human beings are not in a position to make such claims, due to our limitations. This, however, does not impinge upon our ability to make statements about a great deal of the world, and what takes place in it, that count as knowledge, and are therefore called 'facts'.

But, 6) I would hesitate to say, as some philosophers do, that such a view is banal or unhelpful. I think that there is a great deal of importance and interest in recognizing our limitations —- epistemological and otherwise -— since it is only by clarifying our abilities and intentions as human beings that we can properly relate to the world. For how can one be certain that one is acting rationally, or ethically, if one has not taken into account one's own limitations and how that might impact the view one has of the world?

Finally, 7) it is within this recognition of human limitation that I believe a connection to the transcendent or supernatural may best be discovered. This is certainly not a proof, but it seems reasonable to suggest that it is only when we are most fully cognizant of what we do not know that we are also most open to that which supersedes knowledge. This is not a claim about how God may or may not interact with the world; it is a claim about a posture of human beings that is best suited to recognizing God.

Perhaps these are unsatisfactory assumptions... if you think that, keep in mind they are still being formulated. But I welcome your responses.

Thoughts on Jeff Keuss' "Freedom of the Self"

2012-01-28T02:01:00.002Z

Jeff Keuss teaches at SPU and at the Fuller NW campus, and I was his TA for his Christian Ethics class a couple years ago. His book, "Freedom of the Self," came out in 2010 and I wrote some thoughts down after reading it. I haven't done anything with them yet, so I decided to post them here. Read on if interested in what is essentially a theological book review...

Keuss' book is a response to his impression that, like the account of the procrustean cropping of a Rembrandt painting with which he begins, theology is often guilty of "favoring doctrinal method and form that delimits and at times violates the very thing that theological method is hoping to adequately 'frame' and celebrate." (p. 2) Perceived as a corrective to one area of improper delimiting, Keuss' book "is concerned with the loss of the self amidst what is happening in the emergent and missional discussions." (p. 2) He believes this loss of the 'kenotic self' potentially undermines these otherwise valuable trajectories within contemporary Christianity. He wants to provide "a deep model for authentic personhood" that reflects "the full canvas of our humanity." (Ibid)

Keuss begins by outlining the contours of the emergent movement, and the methodologies employed by those who claim the label 'missional.' Following David Bosch, Keuss argues that the missio Dei of scripture "alerts us to the dynamic calling and form of missions," (p. 6) but this is not, in fact, what is happening in the missional movement. Instead, three camps—those favoring evangelism, those favoring church, and those favoring the 'kingdom of God'—are vying for primacy. (p. 6-8) Each of these approaches has its own strengths and weaknesses, and one of Keuss' primary concerns is whether, and to what extent, missional Christians should move beyond these three camps, and what models might replace them.

Keuss recognizes that the vision of mission "is a truly grand vision for the body of Christ," and he believes that part of the problem facing mission today is that "our understanding of self is distanced from our understanding of the mission of God and our place as individual subjects." (p. 11) He regards his book as an attempt "to return the notion of missio Dei to the core defining principle of what it means to be a self in and for the world." (Ibid) To accomplish this, he looks not only to the past—Augustine, Aristotle, Aquinas—but also to current trends in Continental philosophy which, he believes, will be methodologically of value in developing a proper Christian understanding of the self.

His three major goals are, then: 1) to find "a language for the kenotic self that is in concert with the core of the Emergent movement as well as being deeply missional, and that includes an acknowledgement of lament, terror, and violence," 2) "An honest and humble awareness of otherness in the face of multicultural and multifaith dialogue, while still proclaiming the call toward 'one Lord, one faith, one baptism'," and 3) "A shift toward honest dialogue with non-Western writers," in an effort to find affinity with non-Western conceptions of the Christian faith. (p. 12) This last goal also may have the benefit of providing clarity to the kenotic conception of the self.

Keuss begins his examination of the self through a 'deep reading' of Philippians 2. The key passage, verses 6-11, is a hymn of praise in which Christ's humble self-emptying is recognized and glorified. Keuss' exegesis follows scholars such as Gordon Fee, who seek to remind us that "kenosis is not merely an attribute for Christ alone to exemplify but is the very form of being for the continually sanctified disciple of Jesus." (p. 18) In other words, to take seriously Jesus Christ as fully God and fully human means to wrestle with how we, as humans, are to respond to Jesus' humanity. This is best approached, Keuss suggests, by celebrating the Incarnation and seeking to live into/out of our humanity in the same way that Christ lived into/out of his. As Keuss says, "this is a radical call to 'get personal,' to literally move into the lives of others and find habitation there, and conversely to create an expansive space of hospitality within our hearts and homes." (p. 19)

But kenosis is not simply a feature of Christ's humanity; it is an "essential quality of godliness." (p. 20) This relies upon Fee's interpretation of the Greek work morphe. Following Michael Gorman, Keuss suggests that "kenosis is theosis... through the incarnation, we are offered a fully embodied manifestation of the God who is holy, yet not wholly… immune from the categories that define humanity." (p. 21) The reality of God becoming a human being contains within it the transformative possibility of human beings becoming more like God.

Keuss now moves into a closer examination of various conceptions of the self, beginning with Aristotle and Augustine. From Aristotle he takes the idea of the 'chief good' or eudemonia, the flourishing life of joy that is, for Aristotle, the highest human aim. In Aristotelian ethics, the virtues lead to the chief good, or they are not virtues. For Augustine, the good is not something to be found outside the self but rather within, as we reflect upon the life we have been given by God. The subjective turn in Augustine's thought leads to the belief "that humanity, as fashioned in the imago Dei... sees this... primarily in searching ever deeper into the form of the self, which is the form of God." (p. 34) In other words, the chief good is not only something we seek because it is the highest form of life, it is our very selfhood which, at the core of who we are, was created by God to reflect God. Our desire to live Godly lives is the reflection of the image of God in us, and is the path to God, the highest good.

It is a bit unclear what the connection is between kenosis and ethics at this point, and Keuss seems to recognize the vagary. He replies to those who may be weary of the discussion so far that it is precisely one of the features of the kenotic self that it ponders what factors lead, and have led, to its development and, further, what values we hold dear. This involves an in depth examination of one's deepest regions of the soul, in order to discover what may be hiding therein, and stubbornly refusing to humble itself before God.

In the next chapter, Keuss examines the ways in which imagination and art can open up kenotic features of the self. Here he relies upon Goethe, the German poet and writer, and particularly his concept of 'morphology,' which Keuss takes to be a key feature of the kenotic self. Beginning by drawing upon the tension between the self as representation (Vorstellung), or 'I,' and the self as concept (Begrifft), or 'me,' Keuss interprets this as "the dwelling place of the kenotic self." (p. 40) The self we present to others and the self to whom others respond are never in complete harmony.

Goethe's morphology recognizes this dissonance and responds by positing that the self can be seen as a process similar to the processes of nature. This involves admitting that the process can only be seen by looking at the whole of nature, or the self, rather than the empirical elements or types that make up the whole. It is less important to show what the pieces of the puzzle are and how they fit together than it is to show the whole image that is created by fitting the pieces into place. Thus Keuss states that reading Goethe's Lehrjahre involves recognizing that "the distinction between representation (text) and formation (subject) disappears, leaving a new hybrid," one which is both ideal and 'real.' (p. 42) Keuss argues that this shift from an empirical view to a morphological one is "profoundly theological." (p. 43)

However, when Keuss says on the next page that, for Goethe, "Destiny and chance both play a role, neither to the exclusion of the other," (p. 44) it is difficult to see how this is consistent with theology, since the formation and 'becoming' which are present in theology are generally understood to be neither strictly the product of destiny nor chance; they are a product of God's sovereignty, to be sure, but in concert with human freedom, which is neither destiny or chance. If we are willing to admit that the self is in process, then perhaps the kenotic self begins its formation as one responds to that recognition. This would be a step forward that seems underneath the surface in Keuss' account, but may nevertheless be present. The missional movement argues that we begin our theology from a particular context, and theology must recognize the context in order to speak the Gospel in a meaningful fashion. Recognizing the morphological nature of the self may be the starting point for a kenotic theology of mission.

The return of what Keuss calls a 'neo-pagan' belief system, throughout Western culture, means that the kenotic self must develop in concert with the varied beliefs that stem from this culture. Thus, "[a]s the kenotic self develops and grows in a neo-pagan world, we are alerted to some provocative challenges in relation to how we articulate what we see as truth." (p. 59) These include the recognitions that "truth is articulated through a primarily aesthetic, embodied medium," "individuals are indeed allowing for mystery and paradox in their lives amidst relationships," and "what it means to be human in the twenty-first century is ultimately some extension of the organic body as post-human." (p. 59-61) While these statements no doubt contain insight, one wonders whether this is meant to reflect the need for a kenotic self, or whether the kenotic self, already having realized its purpose, would simply apply itself to these axioms when the context was suitable. In other words, how much weight do we really need to put on cultural movements to be effective kenotic selves?

Keuss suggests that the Emerging church is a response to the 21st century "neo-pagan and cyberpunk culture" present in the Western world. (p. 64) Drawing from Tillich's 'theology of culture,' where religion is conceived as "the directedness toward the unconditional depth of meaning in each of these cultural functions," the Emergent church model embraces mystical, apophatic, and nonfoundational elements. (Ibid) These, in turn, lead to a view of mission that attempts to be more organic and fluid, rather than the systematized approach of more traditional churches and mission models. This dialectical movement takes place, says Keuss, in "the triadic interplay of content, form, and meaning..." (p. 65)

Keuss further examines the Tillichian and Schleiermachian influences on the Emergent church, and asks: "is the Emergent church movement only flirting with liberty and a release from formalism toward authentic engagement with meaning through content, only to fall back into modern concepts and practices that reinforce that which they seem intent on moving beyond?" (p. 73) His conclusion is that the jury is still out. It is unclear whether Keuss means for us to infer that the kenotic is actually somehow formed by these cultural trends or not. Thus, the question posed above remains. Said another way, does the Emergent response to the so-called neo-pagan culture lead to a formation of a genuinely kenotic self, or is it a mistake for the church (or the self) to take on a form which is not meant to be its own? The concern would be that if the culture is what shapes the kenotic self, then it may not be a truly kenotic self, inasmuch as Christ and culture are often discordant.

In the next two chapters (which make up nearly one-third of the book), contemporary Continental philosophy is connected with the theological vision of the kenotic self. Keuss mentions Ricoeur, Derrida, and Heidegger, but focuses primarily on Levinas and Marion. He explains that Derrida's goal in Writing and Difference was to "situate ultimate subjectivity—that which we call our identity or sense of purpose... at a place beyond language." (p. 79) Following upon Derrida's description of the 'center' of such an identity as indefinable, Keuss suggests that the center of the kenotic self does not have to be located in one specific place. In fact, the center may not be 'central' to the structure. It may be distributed. This, he asserts, is keeping with the Christian understanding of Christ as the center of the self. "Christ," he says, "is always moving toward, through, and even beyond us." (p. 82)

Thus, the kenotic self is located in the space where meaning and definition are incommensurable. It remains in a truly theological space. The kenotic self recognizes the otherness of each person, and the subsequent ethical dimension of all relationships. Whenever we take our particular idea of a person to be 'the real person,' we close off the actual connection to the real person. By virtue of determining them, we have closed off our ethical responsibility to them. Levinas terms this rejection as 'totalization'—a kind of 'violence' which denies the freedom of the other. Keuss argues that this totalization "occurs whenever we already presuppose to know what the other is about before the other has even spoken. Totalization is a denial of the others' difference, the denial of the otherness of the other." (p. 88)

But how can we know whether we understand the other, even when they do speak? By what means are we to ascertain that our interpretation of the other is in fact allowing their otherness to be made known, and not, at least in part, our own determination of what constitutes their otherness? In other words, can we really ever not be somewhat guided by our own assessment of the other? Are we ever completely free from the totalizing tendency? There is also a presupposition in Levinas that a prior connection to the other has already been cut off. This connection is established by the sensible world, i.e. our world of interaction prior to thought, language, and systematization. It is the 'moment' of immediacy which causes such a connection. But how does Levinas explain this connection? Is it Heideggerian, thus making people into mere 'tools?' It would be unethical to view a person as an object that gains its importance by its relation to me, and Levinas would admit as much. However, does he end up falling into his own trap?

Sensibility cannot be purely a relation to otherness, because then it will be unable to relate that back to the self. Keuss explains, "What it means to be a self means that I come radically after the other, who calls me to responsibility before I am there." (p. 99) This indicates an active response; however, I am not sure why this active 'response-ability' should be for the sake of the other, per se. It seems there is a theological a priori assertion which is written into this view of otherness, and I wonder if it is appropriate for Levinas to make such claims under the guise of philosophy? Also, to prevent the self from having the freedom to choose would be unethical on the part of the other. Coercing one to be ethical is itself unethical. If the responsible self is 'compelled,' then in what sense is it accountable?

Levinas becomes (and Keuss seems to agree) very 'Reformed' at this point: the Good, which is beyond being, "chooses us" before we choose it. (p. 100) This is close to a predestining God, and the idea that God's decision to choose us is what makes us responsible, and is the ground of ethics. But, how is one responsible to a God to which they cannot help but be obligated? Herein lies the mystery of determinism vs. free will, and this is not, in my view, made any clearer by Levinas. Keuss suggests that "the kenotic self... exists only on account of its having received an investment of goodness which demands the dispossession of its own being in the proximity of the other." (p. 101)

Keuss seems to be taking both kenotic and 'open' theology and imbibing them in a rather general sense, while leaving important theological considerations relatively untouched. He makes the following statement, for example: "For the purposes and fullness of love, God allowed some of his actions to be conjoined with our prayers and responses to God's call. God elicits our collaboration in his plans and has decided not to control everything but leave room for us to operate." (Ibid) Ok, but does this necessitate 'openness' in a theological sense? Keuss speaks of "creative rather than restrictive sovereignty" in this regard. (Ibid) I wish he would spell out more explicitly what he means by this idea.

Keuss says that God's love is "precarious, involves vulnerability, and gives us the dignity to return that love freely and openly." (p. 128) And again, "God wants to be loved by us and willingly makes himself vulnerable. Though we are completely dependent on him, God is also willing to be dependent on us." (Ibid) But Keuss does little to tease out the ramifications of such statements. Rather, we are presented with a paradoxical situation: "God is involved with time and history, indicating that there is in God both that which is wholly free from variation (so that God's character is eternally unchangeable) but also that which corresponds to the changing circumstances of a temporal creation." (p. 129)

Keuss also says that God doesn't know "all that will eventually be known." (Ibid) He does say that such a view does not imply God is unprepared for or unable to control all possible futures. God remains omniscient and omnipotent. But Keuss doesn't really take the space to spell out what this might mean, and thus leaves us with what appear to be problematic discontinuities. However, he does seem to avoid process theology's 'love without power' and also deterministic views that imply power without love (since in determinism love ceases to have any genuine content, as it cannot be freely actualized). Still, it would be nice to have a bit more robust theological engagement with some of these points, given that their viability seems to directly impact the efficacy of Keuss' model of the kenotic self.

Keuss ends the book by suggesting the practical implications of the call to be a kenotic self. These include ways of approaching economics, which Keuss calls an "Emergently Responsive Economics" that includes the following principles: 1) God owns all things, 2) God provides all things, 3) We release all things, and 4) We are called to desacralise all things. (p. 135-36) Reminding us of Ron Sider's important book, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, Keuss takes the challenge of a kenotic self to be one of "freeing ourselves from the debt that binds, and walking into the world free to give and free to receive." (p. 139)

Perhaps one of Keuss' more intriguing claims comes in chapter nine, where he suggests that the gospel of Jesus Christ ought to be viewed as "the heart of secularization." (p. 140) Here Keuss seeks to reverse the traditional interpretation of secular terms, and place the message of the Word made flesh at the center, so that Christ 'living in me' becomes "a deeply 'secular' claim." (p. 140) He appeals to secularity as a shape of life within the urbanization of culture, such that it becomes a paradigm in which the message of Christ is not seen as antithetical, but as potentially healing for those who find themselves in cities where individualism, upward mobility, fragmentation, loneliness, and fear are the ruling principalities. Reminding us that Harvey Cox described secularization as the "turning of [one’s] attention away from other worlds and towards this one," (Cox, The Secular City, p. 18) Keuss suggests that this, in fact, ought to be "the logical consequence of biblical faith" since, after all, our Savior was among us and lived a human life.

Keuss suggests that the marks of such a Christianity would be one that is not averse to anonymity, since it is not our job to make people present themselves to us, but rather "to wait, be hospitable, and create a space of care and compassion where people can announce themselves." (p. 142) Also, mobility is not viewed as evil: "Mobility is... not new nor is it to be seen purely as a [sic] impediment toward deep and meaningful identity formation." (p. 143) Mobility is a theme throughout Scripture and cannot be simply written off as contrary to God's purposes. In fact, the kenotic self is humble enough to admit that God may choose to mobilize Christianity and keep it moving so that it does not become stagnant. Indeed, there could be much made of the idea that the explosion of faith in the 'global south' is a sign of the need for Christianity to move on from its stagnating forms in the Anglo-European world.

Keuss argues that the church must respond to the pragmatic and profane tendencies of the secular by existing as a redemptive community ("God's Avant-Garde") that finds expression in "authentic and radical embodied expressions of kerygma, diakonia, and koinonia." (p. 146) This finds its expression in a form of "cultural exorcism," where we are liberating humanity from its demonic enslavement. This happens only as the church embraces its own secularity: "The mandate for the kenotic self is to enter the secular as Christ did so fully through his incarnated life and ministry... This is the task before the kenotic self: to remain in a missionally open engagement in and for the world that allows its heart to break with that which breaks the heart of God amidst this secular age." (p. 149)

"In summary," says Keuss, "my vision for the kenotic self is the humble framing of identity as enfolded in the Great Commandment of Jesus whereby one is truly responsible for the other and fully given to the world. In this regard, Christian community shaped around the kenotic call of Christ is this compelling space for authentic dialogue in response to alternative forms of community offered today in society." (p. 156) I agree with this statement, but I wonder how this is supposed to be articulated in a manner that also presents revelatory truth. In other words, what if, in this world of multiple communities, there are other forms that seem to offer just as much responsible dialogue, compassion, and/or hospitality as the Christian community? How are we to maintain any distinction? If we are not somehow different, can we really continue to make a claim about our place within the culture? And if we are different, and it is not because we are more loving, or more generous, then what is our marker? If we can't identify it, what does that mean for Christianity? Is it, as some argue, no longer necessary? These are obviously difficult questions.

In some ways, the book exhibits the marks of a postmodern self; each of the chapters seems to be fragmented somewhat from the other chapters. There is a wide range of ideas and images presented, and references range from Endo's Japanese fiction to the music of U2 to Star Wars. Though there are common themes which draw the chapters of the book together, it nevertheless seems to struggle at times to be a cohesive whole. One wonders if this could be, in itself, a metaphor for the struggle of the kenotic self, as it seeks to finds its cohesion as a self in the midst of the fragmentation which characterizes the contemporary, urban individual.

more thoughts about hope...

2012-01-21T15:14:00.003Z

I've been thinking about what it means to be hopeful. We often hear, especially in Christian circles, about 'faith, hope, and love' but while faith and love get lots of attention, hope seems to be more often an undercurrent that is mentioned abstractly, but without knowing exactly where it fits or what to do with it. We are told to keep hoping, or how important hope is, but what is it exactly? I'm becoming more and more convinced that the order should be reversed (love, hope, faith) and that dialectical relationships (where all three influence and modify the others) are the best way to conceive these concepts. But I won't get into all that here.

For now, I want to suggest that hope is intimately and necessarily related to possibility. Without possibility, there can be no hope. What I mean is this: hope seems to entail that a person's existence might turn out differently. If nothing can turn out differently, then there does not seem to be any reason for hope. So, in a sense, we might say that as long as there is the possibility of genuine change (which I think most people would agree is the case), then there is the potential for hope.

I say potential, because this possibility itself is not all that we need for hope to take shape; we also need, as human beings, to be conscious of possibility. It seems reasonable to conclude that human beings, for whatever reason, differ from all other animals precisely in this way. That is, there is no other animal, as far as we know, who is conscious of the possibility that their reality could be different. Animals accept their reality as it is; they do not seek to modify it or question its structure. And hope depends upon the recognition that things could be other than what they are. If we did not realize that things could be different, we would never make any decision about hope, because we simply would not be aware that there is a decision to be made.

I would suggest this is a key feature of our humanity. It is the ability to realize that things could be other than what they are which compels us to live our lives in ways that actually do change the way things are. All animals (including humans), I take it, 'keep living' in a deterministic sense, i.e. they have a drive to stay alive as long as possible. But I don’t think anyone would define that as hope. This is why it seems deficient to simply say that hope is the decision to keep on living. The question is: living for what reason? Is it because of a biological impulse, or because of a recognition that a different reality is possible?

This leads into my third point: hope implies individual freedom. At this point, someone might argue that a being conscious of its possibility could conceivably be hopeful even if personal freedom does not exist. (I do not intend here to debate whether there really is such a thing as freedom or not; though we certainly live as if there is.) It does seem that one could hope for a better world, and recognize that it is possible, even if one also believes that there is nothing one can do to bring about that change. So, why do we need freedom to have hope?

I would say, in response, that just to be able to hope is not the same as hoping. Hope may be a possibility due to the changing structure of the world, but for me to hope involves a decision on my part. It may sound obtuse, but the most primordial decision is the decision to decide. How this comes about may be a mystery, but it seems reasonable to say that at some point, the human being, conscious of the possibility for change, and the fact that its actions actually do change things, concludes that those actions mean something. I am not simply doing what the order of the universe has dictated, so that all of my actions are predetermined to such a degree that everything has already been decided.

If complete determinism were the case, then it becomes difficult to see how something like hope could take root, because it would be grounded in nothing more than an abstraction. I could 'hope' that my existence is a good thing in the end, but there would be no reason to suspect that over any other possibility. Hope would an endlessly 'deferred' (to use a Derridean word) concept that would amount, practically speaking, to a wish or dream. And hope seems to imply more than those terms.

What's more, even to have hope in a completely determined universe implies that a decision has already been made: the decision to have hope to begin with. In other words, I have to make the choice to be hopeful, even if I don't believe that hope is grounded in anything more than an abstract concept that does not exist in a deterministic world. But this seems to lead to a self-contradictory position, wherein one has to admit that the decision to hope has itself been predetermined, so in what sense can it really be called hope?

Obviously, we are temporal, finite beings, so our freedom is limited. But without any freedom at all, it would seem that hope is meaningless, since even if one could claim to have hope, it would only be due to a predetermined play of factors that led to that person's claim about hope, and it would not involve any decision on the part of the person to have hope. Inversely, if hopelessness is to have any meaning, then it seems that one ought to have had genuine possibilities. It would be pointless to speak of 'giving up hope' if there is nothing to give up. Thus, it seems to me that in order for there to be genuine hope, there does need to be some level of freedom present in the reality of human beings.

However, and this is the last point I will make here, none of this should be taken to suggest that hope is easy to describe. In Christian circles, for example, we often speak of hope in terms of 'trusting in God' or 'choosing to follow Christ', but these are vaguely tautological, in that we aren't really told what hope is. Instead, we are given what seems to be a sort of similar statement and told that is how we should understand hope. But what does it mean to trust in God? What does it mean to follow Christ? We are left with new questions, but we haven't really defined hope.

Sometimes we also hear that to hope is to 'choose life' or some similar slogan. But life, especially when we take spiritual life into account, can mean different things in different contexts, as can death. There are times when what appears as death to me will in fact be precisely what is needed to bring life to another. Hope thus becomes not only the decision to live, but also the decision to choose life, even when that life appears as death to those outside of our situation. And, hope chooses to stand by/with another in the midst of their ‘living’, even when, for all intents and purposes, it feels to us as though the other is dying.

Thus, even as Christians, the most consistent position would seem to be that all of our reflections on hope are provisional, which supports the claim that hope exceeds our grasp. Does this mean we are, after all, in a position where we cannot have any knowledge about our hope? It is nothing more than an irrational wish, a problem we had hoped to avoid? I don't think so--it does seem that we can provide reasons for our hope, but then others can provide reasons for their hopes as well. It is then up to each of us to decide where we will place our hope. This is, in the end, not a rational decision, but it is not completely void of good reasons either. But what seems clear is that each of us, at some level, exists in hope (unless we have no consciousness of our relation to possibility at all).

too funny not to re-post...

2012-01-15T13:51:00.000Z

Here's a humorous, modified-for-2012 version of a quote by Pascal I recently discovered on the Faith and Theology blog:

"All of man's misfortune comes from one thing, which is not knowing how to sit quietly without an iPad."

Addendum: Insert iPhone, Blackberry, or whatever else you want... the point is, many of us are losing the ability to simply enjoy our lives with simplicity. I'm not against technology at all, but I do think it has profoundly affected - especially in the last 50 years or so - our levels of comfortability with ourselves as biological, spatio-temporally limited, finite, human beings. Human beings are, it appears (at least in the Western 'first-world'), less content than ever with ourselves as humans.

In fact, given current thinking on transhumanism and post-humanism, bioethics, etc, I think a strong argument could be made that one of the primary uses of technology has become precisely the attempt to change, 'fix', or transcend ourselves as humans. Essentially, humanity has, in many ways, become determined to use technology to overcome what we dislike about our human-ness. In that sense, technology has become, for many, a very real religious force.

No wonder some young people are claiming that the internet is their religion. I believe the quote is "humanity connected is God." While I disagree with that statement theologically, the point here is simply this: given what we appear to be using technology to accomplish, I believe this quote may someday be nonsensical.

What I mean is this: if we get to the point where technology really becomes the means by which we are able to remove all of those aspects of our humanity that we dislike, it seems very difficult to determine whether or not what remains really is still 'humanity'. So, if technology, including the internet, is slowly changing humanity into something else, something post-human, then it makes no sense to say that humanity connected is God, because there is no 'humanity' to connect. Whatever is connecting at that point, it will be something else.

Some people, like Ray Kurzweil, seem to welcome that idea. Me, I'm not so optimistic. Obviously, it goes against my own theological beliefs. But aside from that, it's hard for me to be excited about any trend that seems to anticipate the demise of my species. I suppose there are arguments supporting such an idea, but I can't help wonder whether those who are excited about the idea of a post-human world are naively assuming that they will somehow have a role to play in that world.

Which, of course, is completely illogical. There is no reason to think the post-human world will privilege computer technicians or quantum physicists over anyone else. Humanity will have fulfilled its evolutionary role and will most likely become extinct, or will be used by higher species in a manner somewhat similar to the way we currently employ other animals. Call me crazy, but that's not really a future I feel excited about.

back in Oxford...

2012-01-07T15:11:00.000Z

Well, it's a new year, and time to get focused on the research and writing again after a nice three-week break (although, as with most vacations, I need some time to recover from my break!). So, I'm turning my attention again to focus on some articles I need to write, and begin to prepare myself for the next term, which will include in-depth readings of Aristotle's Metaphysics and Hegel's Science of Logic. Yikes! :-) I hope to blog more regularly this year, and I will probably be including a lot of ruminations on what I'm reading, so stay tuned for more philosophical ramblings in 2012...

the new year is upon us...

2011-12-31T22:39:00.000Z

Well, another year ends and a new one begins, and I start another year of life (my b-day is new year's eve, in case you didn't know). I have at least one resolution for 2012: write more substantial blog posts here. We'll see if that materializes or not. :-) Here's to the last year on the Mayan calendar! The end is nigh. hehe.

Back at home for the holidays...

2011-12-23T19:19:00.000Z

Well, all I can say is... whew! The last couple weeks have been a bit of a blur, and unfortunately part of that is due to the fact that I've been sick. I started getting a sinus infection after my trip in early Dec. to Edinburgh, Scotland. If you have not been to Edinburgh, I highly recommend going there, if possible. Such a beautiful city. I thought about getting medicine before leaving for the holidays, but I started feeling better, so I didn't worry about it. Then I flew from the UK to the US for Christmas break.

By the time I landed in Oklahoma City on Thursday afternoon, my ears were bothering me and I was feeling sick again. And, as tends to happen in my life, my timing was a bit off. I flew again, on Saturday morning, to Seattle. It was great to be in the Northwest again, and I was able to visit several good friends, but my time there was marred by the fact that I was getting sicker, and had to go to the doctor, and spent a couple days just laying (or is it lying?) around in bed. I also ended up having to postpone my return flight from Tuesday to Thursday in order to let the antibiotics get to work so I felt well enough to fly. Not the way I wanted to spend my time in Seattle, but thanks to good friends like Roy, I still had a good visit.

So, anyway, now I'm back in OKC and recovering. I'm still very thankful to be back in the US for Christmas and to have the chance to see family and friends, but I also have a lot of writing to get done and I'm trying to figure out how to manage my time and rest enough to get well completely. I'm sure I'll be fine, but you know how when you're just sick enough that you feel sluggish and not-quite-coherent (in addition to the sniffling and coughing), but not sick enough to just sleep all day and have someone bring you soup? :-) Well, I've felt that way for two weeks now, and it's getting old. haha.

But, enough whining. There is a time of celebration at hand, and I refuse to let my minor sufferings take away from the hope and joy that are represented by this season of the year. But this is also a time for serious reflection. The Christmas season, as I'm sure we've all heard many times, is not about presents or trees or lights or snow or caroling. It's not even really about family or church services. All those things are great, but Christmas, at its core, is about sacrifice, humility, and transformation. It's about the belief that God loves us enough to sacrifice Godself (remember, Jesus is God, not just God's 'son') in order to restore humanity to a relationship with God.

I suppose it's easy to hear that and simply say, 'yeah, how true', without really thinking about what it means. I know I've done that. But if we are people who genuinely believe that the Christian faith contains actual truth, then one of the most basic truths of our faith is this: God's sacrifice begins and ends with Incarnation. In other words, Jesus' birth -- whatever the time of year, and however the events historically played out -- was and is the event that changed history. But not only history, it also changed reality itself. God actually became a person -- a huge act of self-sacrificial love on God's part -- in order to provide an ontological connection, so to speak, with humanity.

All this really means is that without Jesus, God and humanity would still be separated somehow. Could God have made this metaphysical connection to us some other way? Perhaps. But Christians believe that Jesus is the way God did it, even if we don't fully grasp everything that means. So, this is why it is so important that the Christmas story is not just a nice anecdote that we tell to make our hearts feel warm as we enjoy our meals with loved ones. The Christmas story has to be historically valid if God really is connected to the human world in a meaningful way. And, the Christmas story is the event that shifts all of reality, since it is the decisive moment where God meets us.

To really ponder all this should, I think, make us uneasy at first because it calls us to a much greater sense of humility, gratitude, and self-reflection than we often desire. Some may simply shrug or scoff and say that it's nothing more than a story. But for those of us who call ourselves Christians, Christmas is a reminder that God has changed, and is changing, reality. That makes Christmas a profound opportunity for us to examine ourselves and see whether we have been allowing God to shape our realities or whether we have been fighting against God's 'reshaping'. I don't know about you, but I do that a lot.

So, I guess what I'm saying is, I hope and pray that we will all acquire a new sense of the importance of allowing God to shape our lives during this Christmas season, so that the reality of God's love and grace may be more fully seen in our world. Merry Christmas everyone.

wow, it's December already...

2011-12-07T11:32:00.001Z

Please read this article: It's really well written and says a lot of things that we all need to take seriously as followers of Jesus. Once again, I'm humbled by the fact that someone who is not a believer in Christ is able to articulate the situation much better than a lot of the people who do believe. As we enter the Advent time of the year, let's start/continue the habit of showing more love and grace to people who are 'different' from us. Whaddya say?

http://www.danoah.com/2011/11/im-christian-unless-youre-gay.html

more of my favorite lyrics...

2011-11-15T21:53:00.004Z

This is a classic underground Christian alternative rock song... and the album (has the same title) is definitely worth buying if you can find it.

Mike Knott - 'Rocket and a Bomb'

Mr. In and Mrs. In

Can you please tell me what's in
And what is wrong with me
I'm never in your company

Mr. Out and Mrs. Out
What is this all about
Before you know it you've come in

And all I ever wanted
Was a good job and some bus fare
And a rocket and a bomb
A rocket and a bomb

Mr. Bill is there a Mrs. Bill
Does she tell you how you should feel
Does she let you get away
Will Sluggo come and make me pay

Mr. Bank is there a Mrs. Banks
Is she the one that turns the crank
Is there a Mary Poppins still

And all I ever wanted
Was a good job and some bus fare
And a rocket and a bomb
A rocket and a bomb

Mr. Life and Mrs. Life
Are you really in for life
Are you planning to make a break
Could it be a big mistake

Mr. God is there a Mrs. God
Could she help me find a job
One that pays enough to take

A rocket and a bomb

Think life begins at conception? Well... maybe...

2011-11-07T20:10:00.007Z

[Update: The bill mentioned below did not pass, which is very interesting for a variety of reasons.]

I am pro-life. I oppose both abortion-on-demand and the death penalty (and attempt to live as a pacifist) because I believe that human life is a sacred gift, given by God, and we don't have the right to take another human life. Only God has that authority. Unfortunately, just saying this is not enough to solve many serious ethical dilemmas, including the issue of abortion.

But, it seems to me that taking seriously the question "When does life begin?" is vital if we hope to get closer to a valuable understanding these ethical dilemmas. Of course, for some, there is no question. Poor thinking takes place on all sides, but here is one example:

The state of Mississippi is going to vote this week on Initiative 26, which has gained notoriety as the "personhood amendment." Essentially, the voters of the state will decide on how the beginning of a human life is defined. It seems likely that the decision will be that life begins at conception. The problem is, this view does not have much scientific evidence to support it, and, I will suggest, it does not have much biblical support either.

First, the scientific background. As this article (quoted below) points out, it is not clear precisely when life begins, but there are scientific reasons to doubt that it begins with fertilization of an egg. The author says:

"What are the odds of a fertilized egg becoming a person?

This is what we know: During the period of embryonic development that begins with fertilization and ends with successful implantation, about 50 percent of human conceptions fail to survive. The main reason for this high failure rate is the inability of huge numbers of fertilized eggs to implant.

What science has found is that around half of all conceptions don't make it to implantation. Calling a fertilized egg a person flies in the face of this cruel biological reality. Half of all fertilized eggs cannot even become an embryo, much less a person.

Indeed, given the grim odds that face fertilized eggs, no one in science or medicine refers to a fertilized egg as an embryo unless it manages to implant. By talking about embryos and fertilized eggs as equivalent, supporters of Initiative 26 are not even using the correct scientific definition of an embryo.

There are a huge number of embryos that are not properly genetically programmed for life. Nearly all of these completely lack the biological ability to develop into anything resembling a viable baby. Legislation -- like that about to be voted on in Mississippi -- that declares fertilized eggs to be persons from the moment of conception simply ignores that the failure rate of human embryos is very high. A considerable number of embryos and fetuses never have any chance of producing a baby."

Now, it is standard for those in the pro-life camp to respond with anecdotal or (more authoritative for many) biblical evidence for the claim that life begins at conception. Most commonly cited is Psalm 139, wherein we read that God sees the person "in my mother's womb", "in secret", "in the depths of the earth", and when the person is still an "unformed substance." (quotes from NRSV) But, do any of these statements correlate properly to our notion of 'conception'? This seems dubious. Clearly no one believes that babies are formed in the depths of the earth. But if that is meant as a descriptive metaphor, on what basis do we say that life begins at conception?

Other commonly cited verses are Isaiah 49:1 and Jeremiah 1:5, where God tells the prophets that they were consecrated and 'known' by God even prior to their conception. Paul echoes this image in Galatians 1:15. However, the image in these passages is cryptic, to say the least. What does it mean to say that God knows persons prior to their birth, or even their conception? Does that mean that humans have pre-existing souls? That view has more in common with Platonism than Christianity.

Additionally, just because God knows something does not mean that thing has to exist. God presumably knows things that will happen in the future, but those things do not exist yet. So simply for God to say that persons are known prior to their conception does not tell us anything about whether or not life begins at conception.

Now it may be there are more explicit passages in the Bible that talk about life beginning at conception. I'm not aware of those off the top of my head. But, it seems that we are left with a situation where there is not as much support for the idea of life beginning at conception as some would lead us to believe. Rather, it seems that all we do know is that life begins either at conception or sometime after conception. But this is not very helpful. Obviously, everyone agrees that a human life begins at some point between conception and birth. The question is: When? Is it even possible to know?

This is a problem, I think, because it sets up a false guideline for pro-life thinking and acting. For example, suppose that the decision was made to modify the definition such that life is said to begin when the embryo finally attaches and begins to form into a fetus. This would mean that all the efforts made by pro-lifers to oppose birth control and 'morning after' pills like RU-486 would be in vain, since by definition it would be agreed that a pill which prevents a potential embryo from attaching is not equal to the taking of a life. What effect would this have on the conversation about issues of life? How seriously are people taking this question? I wonder.

I suppose the response here from many would be that even if we don't know exactly when life starts, our responsibility is to avoid even the possibility of taking a life, whenever we can. This means assuming life begins at conception, so as to prevent as much taking of life as possible. OK. But here there is still a great deal of confusion. After all, a consistent view in this regard would be one that also keeps with the Catholic church's ban on contraception. How many pro-lifers support that view?

It would also mean opposition to the death penalty. Issues of innocence or guilt, which often come into play at this point, become moot. After all, the issue is not about whether the person has committed evil acts and is worthy of death, the issue is about avoiding even the possibility of taking an innocent life. From that angle, since it is certainly possible that killing a person on death row could be a mistake (after all, there are cases of innocent persons being put to death!), the right approach is to oppose the death penalty as stringently as one would oppose destroying an embryo, precisely because it's better to be safe than sorry (which is what the argument boils down to).

However, it would go even further: if the point really is to avoid as much death as possible, we are ethically bound to change all sorts of things about the ways we live our lives. If we know that certain purchases make it more likely that people will die, we must stop buying those items. If we are spending our time in leisure activities when we could be saving lives, we ought to stop enjoying those activities, and focus on protecting life.

It starts to look overwhelming rather quickly, which is probably why sooner or later the discussion turns into a question of pragmatism. Of course we cannot save every life, someone will say, but we can save some, and so let's focus on the lives that we CAN save. But the question then becomes: how do we decide which lives deserve priority? Could the case not be made that children living in poor conditions or persons being oppressed and persecuted are more important to protect than embryos that are not yet even fetuses?

So, we haven't really gotten very far, it seems. And we are still stuck with the question: when does life begin? I suspect that is a question to which no one, except God, will ever have an answer. And if that is really our situation - we simply do not know exactly when life begins - how does that affect the conversations people are having about these issues? I leave these questions for us all to ponder and discuss.

I didn't write this...

2011-11-04T23:13:00.000Z

This guy did. But it's so good I just had to re-post. (His blog is great, by the way. Very thoughtful theologian getting a PhD at the University of Durham.)

"The Church is the place where water is thicker than blood, and where married partners, whose earthly unions survive only until the parting of death, enter into deeper and eternal unions in the body of Christ, where the eternal friendship of Christian sibling-hood overcomes the barriers of blood, race, and status. This new order transcends and translates the old order into it. Christian married couples remain married, but now participate in a deeper and more lasting set of relationships. Rather than playing off celibacy against married life, I think that what we need to do is focus on those deeper sets of relationships, and how they transform and shape our existing ones. In a context where most parties in the Church seem to be obsessed with marriage, family, and sexuality, perhaps we should remember that the perfect human being that we follow was a lifelong celibate, with a rather ambivalent attitude to his blood relations...

People have wondered how Jesus of Nazareth, who never married or fathered children, could embody perfect humanity. Jesus may not have been a husband or a father, but he exemplified a sort of relationship that speaks beyond all of these roles and can transform them: Jesus was the Friend. While this fact is often presented in the trivializing fashion of Jesus as the ‘life and soul of the party’, this falls so far short of the truth. Jesus had an unparalleled capacity to give himself to other people in a manner that brought freedom, health, life, comfort, forgiveness, and joy. People wanted to be with Jesus. No human being has been a friend like Christ.

Jesus' friendships broke boundaries between the sexes, and between social insiders and outsiders. In the realm of true friendship we are all equals and contemporaries. Generational differences no longer matter and the differences between the sexes need not be a divide. Jesus had close friendships with both men and women, including forms of friendship that can be very rarely practiced in certain contexts today, such as profoundly homoaffective but non-sexual friendships and unsexualized friendships with the other sex. The various vocations we have as individuals are nothing but innumerable different species of friendship, conjugations of that more fundamental relationship...

In the contemporary Church, I wonder whether our incessant focus upon the categories of marriage, singleness, and sexuality is bound up with a myopic failure to see the deeper category of friendship, which both relativizes and transforms them. In the midst of the innumerable theological works that are written on the subject of sexuality, one could be forgiven for forgetting that the Bible really has hardly anything to say about what we call sexuality and that, when it does, it is accorded only a marginally important significance. In a like manner, the centrality of family and marriage in the contemporary evangelical church and awkward place of singles seems somewhat strange when perceived against the background of a New Testament in which families are most noticeable by their absence and where familial, marital, and blood bonds are consistently transcended.

A thoroughgoing theology of friendship has the potential to puncture numerous myths and radically to reorient our understanding and vision. A Church that spoke far more about friendship than sexuality, for instance, would have a far more challenging message to present to a sex-obsessed age. A Church that unapologetically proclaimed that a celibate person embodied perfect humanity, and carefully articulated the consequences of this belief, would strike at the heart of some of the greatest idols of our age. The fact that this is seldom done is perhaps evidence of the fact that we are also enthralled by them."

notes on William Cavanaugh's politics & theology...

2011-10-23T14:37:00.003+01:00

According to Cavanaugh, the common assumption in modernity with regard to the relationship between religion and politics goes something like this:

The 'wars of religion' in Europe during the modern period (15th-18th centuries) enabled the rise of the nation-state as a 'neutral party', which attempted to solve the problem by reducing religion to a private sphere away from the public discourse. In other words, religious discussion was relegated to personal pietism and worship, while law, politics, commerce, etc. were maintained as public areas of discussion that would hopefully be debated in a rational, 'peaceful' manner, something that was apparently made more difficult when religious belief was brought into the mix. This, it is said, is a primary reason why we have less religious violence now than in the past (though that assumption has been called into question post-9/11).

Cavanaugh thinks this narrative is wrong, and ought to be reversed. It is literally backward in his view: rather than religion and religious violence being the catalyst for the nation-state, the European states, caught up in conflicts over territory and power, used religion as a way to deflect from what was really going on. The 'social contract', according to Cavanaugh, allows individuals to gain certain rights (esp. property) in exchange for allowing the state government to have certain coercive powers. This leads to a situation where loyalty to the state becomes paramount, since it offers protection for what we value (safety, shelter, food, etc). The state soon usurps religion as the source of what people are willing to die for.

Cavanaugh says, "The 'wars of religion' were not the events which necessitated the birth of the modern state; they were in fact themselves the birthpangs of the state." (p. 315) What should we make of such a claim? It is true that the state itself is - rather than religion itself - the source of conflict and bringer of war, rather than a securer of peace? Has the state in some ways simply replaced the church, in a political sense? How does the modern state differ from the medieval church? Both, of course, have been very corrupt, and both are structures of power that were established as means of establishing control (of course, I mean church as a system -- call it 'Christendom' -- not as the 'body of Christ').

Luther was right, says Cavanaugh, to say that church power should not lie in coercive, violent means (the sword). But he gave away too much by making it seem as though the state could view its role in a spiritually positive light, as if accomplishing something that the church could not. (p. 316) The picture thus shifted from one where 'church' and 'state' were part of one body, with church as the 'head', to a picture of two bodies. Prior to this shift, in the 16th century, there had already begun to be a shift wherein the secular authority was now the head of the body.

Cavanaugh suggests that, in fact, the German Reformation (at least) actually was sustained by the political will of the princes in different regions. If Catholicism had already been domesticated politically in a particular region, the Reformed movement stalled in that area, but where Catholicism was still strong, the rulers typically moved toward Lutheranism. (p. 318) Moreover, he says, "The rise of a centralized bureaucratic State preceded [the French civil wars] and was based on the fifteenth-century assertion of civil dominance over the church in France." (p. 319) And, the bloodiest religious war, the 'Thirty Years War', was likewise motivated more by state power than by religion. How accurate is this assesssment?

Thus, according to Cavanaugh, "The creation of religion [as a private set of beliefs], and thus the privatization of the Church, is correlative to the rise of the State," and not the other way round. (p. 320) This leads to two shifts in the meaning of 'religion' in the modern period:

1. A shift from Christian worship of God, especially in liturgy (cf Aquinas), to an ideal 'human impulse' found within each person.
2. A shift from activities which were seen as the proper virtue for a worshiper of God, to a set of propositional beliefs, a set which is perhaps one among many.

This means, says Cavanaugh, that religion is now a "domesticated belief system... no longer a matter of certain bodily practices within the Body of Christ, but is limited to the realm of the 'soul', and the body is handed over to the state." (p. 322) The beginning of these shifts, Cavanaugh claims, is found in Hobbes. Hobbes held an "ontology of violence" (p. 323) that led him to posit fear and a desire for protection as the source of both religion and the social contract. This gives the state an equal claim with the church as a potential source of 'salvation'.

So, for Cavanaugh, this situation means that "Lockean liberalism can afford to be gracious toward 'religious pluralism' precisely because 'religion' as an interior matter is the State's own creation." (p. 324) However, it does seem that the doctrine of sin would indicate the extent to which Hobbes was correct, inasmuch as there is indeed something selfish, fearful, and violent within humanity that needs to be tempered, and the state provides a means for accomplishing this that some might argue the church has been unable to do. What does this mean for Cavanaugh's argument?

Kant, for example, viewed the state as necessary for moral behavior, because it prevents people from having their freedom infringed upon by others, and it is this freedom which allows human beings to grow as persons. Cavanaugh seems to concede this point somewhat, but argues that in spite of any errors on the part of the church, now everything is done for the sake of the state. This, he suggests, creates a form of ideology that is just as damaging, if not moreso, as a corrupt church system. He asks whether 'truth' in the public square is really a matter of consensus? Cavanaugh states that consensus created by the state is far from being unbiased and uncoerced.

Neuhaus and others, says Cavanaugh, suggest that religion today can only enter into public discussion by agreeing to abide by the rules of that discussion. But while this is no doubt true, it remains to be seen whether this is even the proper discussion to be having in the first place. These theologians 'give back' just a bit to religion by saying it is the 'ground of culture', whatever that may mean. (p. 327) But Cavanaugh asks, if the law derives from "the deepest moral intuitions of the people," (Ibid) what flaw is present when we assume that our moral intuitions are sufficient for Christian behavior?

The problem, he says, is the way that the word 'religion' is still being defined. But what DO we say if we aren't going to define 'religion' as a universal category? And when, then, are we as Christians supposed to "challenge the standards for public conversation?" (p. 328) These are questions left unresolved. Cavanaugh, with Asad, argues that there has been a movement away from church 'discipline' to the state 'disciplining'. In other words, we learn how to act based upon the results of actions in relation to the state, rather than in relation to the church. Thus, we have lost, in part, our ability to correctly gauge the results of our actions, since we are not related to the proper source of our morality.

notes on Graham Ward's 'schizoid Christ'...

2011-10-19T12:50:00.002+01:00

Graham Ward is a theologian who will be the new Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford, beginning in Fall 2012. He has written extensively on a range of topics, particularly the relationships between theology and culture. The following are some notes I took while reading his essay, "The Schizoid Christ", as part of a systematic theology seminar.

In the essay, which is included in a collection of essays related to Radical Orthodoxy, Ward is essentially working against a conception of the self as an individual subject who is in control of its own consciousness and identity. He speaks of the 'operations' of Christ rather than an 'identity' of Christ. he would thus rather "examine this profound theological nexus as a mobile site for the production of desire and belief, love and hope." (p. 229)

Some may be taken aback by his use of the term 'schizoid', as it infers the mental instability of schizophrenia, which most Christians would be uncomfortable with as a description of Jesus Christ. However, Ward - drawing from Deleuze and Guattari's philosophical writings - suggests that "'schizophrenization' is therapeutic" inasmuch as it allows a variety of representations the opportunity to show themselves. So, the self that is free to be 'schizoid' can apparently, in some sense, reveal more of itself than a self constrained by the traditional understanding of selfhood as 'identity'. The reliability of such a view is not something I can address at present.

So, Ward sees a certain kind of Christology that can be gleaned from this approach, a Christology that "emerges from a participation in which we are responding to representations of this figure." (p. 229) He then develops three characteristics of what he calls "Christic operation." (Ibid) The Messiah, he says, "is not just a person but an eschatological operation." (p. 230) Using the biblical account of the woman who is ill with a flow of blood (Mark 5:24-34), Ward speaks of Christic operations in terms of touch, flow, and relation. He sees all three of these as characteristic of Christ as 'schizoid'.

For the woman in the passage mentioned, Ward suggests that there are two moments of 'knowing': first, she knows in her body that something has taken place, and then she grasps (at least to some degree) what has happened to her. How, asks Ward, can we develop a better understanding of these two forms of 'knowing'? His answer is that we must become more attuned to the ways that we know bodily; that is, both types of knowing are related to the body. (p. 231) Ward points out that there are many references to touch in Jesus' interactions recorded in the Gospels. He sees a connection between the statement 'Your faith has made you well' (or similar statements, depending on the translation) and the touch of Jesus.

Is there a deeper reason for this connection? Ward attempts to draw one out. He says that active touching between persons involves an "intentional structure." (p. 234) By this he means intention in the Husserlian sense of the word, which refers to an "object made meaningful for me." (Ibid) In other words, when I touch something, that object gains a new kind of meaning that I could not know prior to the touch. Likewise, when I am touched, whatever touches me also transfers meaning to me. Touching affects whatever it touches. But this leads to a question: Is it touching itself that makes the difference, or is it that we humans are doing the touching? Clearly it seems that for humans (and, if there are any, other similar beings) touch is meaningful precisely because the search for meaning is part of what makes us human. Without a recognition that there is the possibility of meaning, touch would not seem to be meaningful.

Additionally, touch depends upon a direct relation between two objects. This seems obvious enough. Ward says, "touch... cannot communicate to a third party." (p. 235) That is, I can never directly present to you my experience of touch. I can describe it, and I can even touch you in a similar way, but one experience of touch will never be synonymous with any other experience of touch. Every touch is unique, since the person who experiences the touch is unique in their humanity. But this, of course, raises the question of whether the self can be completely stripped of all identity, since it would seem that there still needs to be some sense of 'self' that is solid enough for the experiences of touch that happen to me to be my experiences of touch.

Ward explains that the intimacy created by touch is a "'knowingness', not a knowledge." (p. 235) What does this mean? It is not, he says, a "bringing to identity..." (Ibid) In other words, there remains a bodily recognition of touch that is not symmetrical to any rational conception of knowledge. He says, "The body perceives itself in relation and knows the nature of that relation." (p. 236) This is a different sort of knowing than a standard epistemological model, it seems. It is a knowledge that flows between bodies in the relationships that exist between persons.

Ward then suggests that "the economy of [the body's] response [to touch] is governed by desire." (p. 237) Ward relates this desire to intimacy, and then develops a further phenomenological account of intimacy, including the possibility of intimacy with God. In this regard, he quotes a section from Thomas Aquinas on participation with God. It is the participation with God that constitutes the highest form of intimacy, and all desire is an expression of the desire to be known by God, in this intimate, touched expression of 'knowing'.

Distance, explains Ward, isn't necessarily spatial; distance has no proximity. It is more a matter of exteriority. It infers alterity, irreducibility, excess. What's more, he states, "There is no access... outside of participation." (p. 238) Here is one of the main principles of a RO-inspired theology - the ontological participation of all things in God, such that to lack participation in God is to lack being. Thus, distance and a lack of participation are not synonymous. Ward says, "It is not that distance escapes representation, in fact it demands [it]... but... distance exceeds chains and combinations of signifiers..." (p. 238) So, this opens up a more multivalent conception of distance, one that could include both those who are distant from God ontologically, and those who are distant from God in other ways.

Intimacy, says Ward, is "mutual abiding" and this gives the impression that both God and the person have a role to play in the relationship. (p. 239) But, there is an "asymmetrical reciprocity" at work as well. Salvation, and the "operations of grace" move into "an ever-deepening participation in God." (p. 244) This is a rich idea that deserves further unpacking, however Ward does not seem to do that here. Nevertheless, it seems clear that God is doing a work that we, as human beings, cannot do, drawing us into intimacy with Godself.

Ward then says that "there is only one motion, because there is only one telos..." (p. 245) This is to say that whether we see God's action in relation to the creation as kenotic or 'pleromatic', or whether we sense ourselves becoming more intimate or less intimate with God, it is all related to the same movement of God's grace, and our participation - indeed, any notion of participation - requires that we recognize this single movement.

To sum up: Grace includes an element of touch. Community is grace, because it involves people 'touching' each others' lives. Touch is more important than words. Healing is a sign of salvation, and we can all bring healing to someone through touching them, physically or otherwise.

Kierkegaard on the difference between talking and acting...

2011-10-03T23:20:00.000+01:00

As a Christian, this continues to be a very challenging word for me to hear... since I am still too often in the camp of those who ridicule. From Kierkegaard's Journals:

"Take the rich young man — let me then preach about his not being perfect, that he could not bring himself to giving everything to the poor, but that the true Christian is always willing to give everything. Let me preach this way, and people are deeply moved and I am esteemed. But if I were a rich young man and went and gave all my possessions to the poor — then people would be scandalized. They would find it a ridiculous exaggeration.

Take Mary Magdalene. Let me preach about her deep consciousness of sin, the passion which becomes indifferent to everything but her sin, which goes out to the Savior, opening herself up to all kinds of ridicule, etc. I... will be regarded as an earnest Christian, I will be esteemed. If, however, I myself, conscious of being a sinner, if suddenly I actually step forward with a public confession of sin, offense arises immediately, people will consider it vanity and ridiculous exaggeration.

To preach that the true Christian consults God in everything is moving... if in actuality a man does step forward and refers to his having consulted God, this is censured as presumption, pride, exaggeration, madness. Picture those quiet spirits who, remote from life, filled their souls with only the thought of God — it will move to tears... But let someone really do it and he becomes an object of ridicule."

The danger of ethics...

2011-09-25T01:13:00.000+01:00

"From the religious point of view, the ethical is the tendency of every society to absolutize itself, identifying as good those who meet its expectations and as evil those who are so irreverent as to defy them, whether from within (for example, the criminal) or without (for example, the enemy). In this mode society takes good and evil seriously, but by making itself their criterion, it fails to take God seriously, no matter how much it talks about God."

Merold Westphal (in "Becoming A Self: A Reading of Kierkegaard's Concluding Unscientific Postscript)

The 'heart' of a person is like the sea...

2011-09-21T12:50:00.000+01:00

"[T]he sea is only deep when it is pure, and only pure when it is transparent: as soon as it is impure we no longer see its depth but only its surface, and if we see only its surface, that means it is not transparent. When, however, it is deeply and transparently pure, then it is at one with itself, no matter how long one looks at it; then its purity is its abiding unity with itself. And for this reason we liken the heart to the sea, because its purity is its being abidingly deep and transparent. No storm may disturb it, no squall ruffle its surface, no mist spread across it, no doubtful movement be in it, no passing cloud darken it, but it must lie still, deep, and transparent... As the sea, when it thus lies still, deep and transparent... reflects the very height of the heavens in its pure depths, so does the heart, when it is still, deep and transparent, reflect the heavenly sublimity of the Good in its pure depths."

- S. Kierkegaard (from the Upbuilding Discourses)

Looks like I'm gonna have to start studying more of Aristotle's metaphysics...

2011-08-28T15:09:00.000+01:00

"[I]f there is anything uncontentious that can be said about Aristotle's metaphysics, it would seem to be that it is centrally concerned with the question of Being [as opposed to 'beings']. That being said, questions immediately start to multiply in many directions, not least as regards the translation of the most basic terms in which Aristotle addresses the question. A case--and a crucial case--in point is the translation of the pivotal term ousia. In his guide to The Greek Philosophical Vocabulary , J. O. Urmson notes that 'philosophically' ousia means 'nature, essence, substance, being', which, of course, begs the question as to what each of these terms means and how they are to be related to each other.

Are they synonyms, such that Being 'is' identical with nature, essence, or substance? That is... a question we can reformulate as follows: Is Being exhaustively knowable in its manifestation as nature, essence, and substance? Or, does the knowledge that we can attain of nature, essence, and substance give us a full and adequate knowledge of Being-Itself? The basic terms in which these questions are posed are already set out in Aristotle's Metaphysics, a text which would shape the way in which Christian theology itself developed its thinking about the Being of God, despite significant changes such as those resulting from the Christian emphasis on creation out of nothing." - George Pattison, God and Being, p. 39.

To Albert Mohler: Nah, I don't think so...

2011-08-24T13:05:00.002+01:00

It's interesting that my posting the other day apparently resonates with another issue that a lot of Christians are thinking about these days; namely, whether or not we really need a literal interpretation of every part of the Bible, esp. Genesis (thanks for the link, Ben!).

For many Christians, this is not a question to be debated -- if the whole thing isn't viewed historically, it falls apart. Thus, to disclaim the historicity of any part of the Bible (that isn't explicitly non-historical) is tantamount to denying the faith. This is the view put forward by Albert Mohler in a recent essay: http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/08/22/false-start-the-controversy-over-adam-and-eve-heats-up/

Mohler's argument centers around two very basic points: first, he notes that a non-historical view conflicts with the views of Paul, and even Jesus. In other words, to reject the historical interpretation of Genesis means disagreeing with the founders of the faith -- and, implied therein (since Jesus is God), disagreeing with God. Mohler states that "it is clear that the historical character of these chapters is crucial to understanding the Bible’s central message -- the Gospel of Jesus Christ." For Mohler, as for Paul, "The fall of the human race in Adam sets the stage for the salvation of sinful humanity by Jesus Christ."

Second, Mohler argues that deviating from the historical view of Genesis not only impacts Christian doctrine, but also how we view the authority of the Bible. For, if Adam is a fictional character, and Jesus is historical, on what basis do we determine this? How can we make such claims? Mohler states, "The implications for biblical authority are clear... if these arguments hold sway, we will have to come up with an entirely new understanding of the Gospel metanarrative and the Bible’s storyline."

So, he concludes: "The denial of an historical Adam and Eve as the first parents of all humanity and the solitary first human pair severs the link between Adam and Christ which is so crucial to the Gospel... If we do not know how the story of the Gospel begins, then we do not know what that story means. Make no mistake: a false start to the story produces a false grasp of the Gospel."

This seems fairly straightforward, and convincing, right? Well, no, I don't think so. Actually, I think perhaps Mohler's argument is precisely the problem -- not because it doesn't have some merit, but because it puts the cart before the horse, so to speak.

First of all, does changing our view of Genesis really mean we need "an entirely new Gospel metanarrative?" I don't see why it should. Christians can certainly remain convinced of the basic truth of the Gospel (creation needed a savior, God saved us by becoming human, and somehow metaphysically rescued humanity by defeating sin and death) without a literal Genesis. For that matter, much of the Bible could be non-historical; what matters is whether Jesus Christ really lived, died, and was resurrected.

So, against Mohler, I suggest that maybe we DO need to examine some new understanding(s) of the Gospel narrative -- not because we are rejecting Christ, but because we recognize that Christ does not need a literal Adam to complete his work of salvation.

But, what about Paul's teachings, and the other places in the Bible that not only indicate the historicity of Adam, but also link it intimately with the Gospel of Christ? Well, two points here: 1) Whether Paul, or even Jesus (and this depends on how we view the extent of Jesus' knowledge as a human being), believed in a literal Adam really doesn't matter. Paul also believed in a lot of other things that we now recognize to be false. His view of cosmology, for example.

Not to mention there are areas of Paul's teachings that are hotly disputed among Christians already, like his views on the roles of women. So, obviously, what Paul says does not maintain some monolithic hold on Christianity, even if we recognize his apostleship and God-given role as one of the founders of our faith.

The question here is, really, whether what Paul says about Adam and Jesus has only one possible interpretation -- a literal, historical interpretation. And I don't think it does. I'm not a Pauline scholar, but from what I've read and heard on this issue so far, I am not convinced that Romans 5, or any other biblical passage, requires a literal Adam to be meaningful. The Gospel is not dependent upon a literal Adam.

But what about the second charge, that adopting such a view is a 'slippery slope' wherein we can no longer provide any reason for why we believe anything? Or, to say it another way (closer to Mohler's words), if Adam isn't historical, then how can we be sure that Jesus is historical? And if we can't be sure of the historicity of Scripture, how will we defend our faith?

My answer to this is: we can't be sure. About any of it. That's why we call it faith. This may sound trite, but I think it deserves repeating. We don't know whether Jesus was God or not. We believe that Jesus is God because we have a variety of evidences that seem reasonable to us (and these vary from person to person). But come on, people -- we believe that a Jewish man who lived 2,000 years ago was truly God (even though we also believe God is one, and not multiple), was murdered, and defeated death by resurrecting in a new body of some sort, and then vanished, leaving a 'Spirit' of some kind who interacts with people and draws them into a relationship with God.

Is there anyone who thinks this isn't a bit outlandish? At least from a common sense, everyday perspective? If you really believe this is a story that you can just accept as normal, I would say that you are fooling yourself. It's bizarre. It's a stumbling block. It is, in the words of Kierkegaard, an 'offense'. Why? Because it just doesn't make sense, given the way the world seems to work. It requires faith.

I am sure Mohler and others would agree with me here. But then he goes on to suggest that there is some point at which faith becomes invalidated by a lack of biblical historicity. But who decides what that point is? And on what grounds? Mohler's argument is a sword that cuts both ways. The slippery slope argument is false, because it assumes too much. It is flawed because it assumes that what is true for a part must be true for the whole.

Mohler says that if Adam was not historical, this threatens the historicity of Jesus and the Gospel. But that makes no sense. Even if Adam never existed, Jesus could have still existed, and there is not a 'quota' of faith that can be worked out to show us that the person who has faith in Jesus 'without a historical Adam' doesn't measure up, but the person who believes in a historical Adam measures up. Faith just doesn't work that way. In fact, it could be argued that the person who doesn't accept a literal account of Genesis has more faith, precisely because they follow Christ in the absence of a literal Adam.

But which path is the more accurate? We don't know. And we can't know. That's the point. Faith is not a probability equation, nor is it predicated upon a correct interpretation of the Bible. We need the Bible because it reveals God-in-Christ to us, and Christians believe this is due to God's revelatory power which is found uniquely in the Bible, but how this takes place is a mystery. And the very fact that it continues to be debated so extensively suggests that we can never solve this mystery. But we aren't asked to solve it, we are asked to have faith in Jesus Christ.

So, at the end of the day, I think Mohler, and others like him, are missing the point. Whether Adam existed or not doesn't matter. Whether Jesus existed or not does. That may be difficult to rationalize, but then, faith has never been rationalizable (if that's a word!). The ancient Christian formula 'Faith seeking understanding' seems to have been misunderstood. Yes, we ought to seek understanding, but faith comes first. Perhaps too many Christians have forgotten that, and made understanding into the goal. But faith is the goal.

This does not mean understanding is not important. Understanding helps us to develop our faith. And if that understanding includes taking seriously ideas about human origins that seem to undermine a literal reading of Genesis, then as people of faith we should listen to, and study, those ideas, and see if there is something to be learned from them. Because, it just might be that our faith will grow in the process.

Unorthodox musings?

2011-08-22T17:49:00.002+01:00

So, I've been thinking... (cue collective groan ;-D) I've been thinking about self-sacrifice, the concept of the possible, and what belief in God is all about... and I think I may have come to some conclusions that are - perhaps - unorthodox. As is the case with such things, I've written a long blog entry about it. haha! Comments are welcome.

First, let me give the background. It is standard Christian theology to say that God is 'Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnibenevolent, Eternal, etc'. These are commonly called the attributes of God. I know there isn't complete agreement on all the attributes or how they operate, but in general there is some kind of consensus regarding the basics. Another way it may be said is that 'God is an eternal, personal being who transcends time and space, who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving'. (This is often the definition given by philosophers when debating the existence of God.) Alongside this, God is understood to be the Creator of the universe, the one who made all that exists.

Now, immediately, this raises difficult questions; questions that have been argued about for over 2,000 years: How does such a God relate to the creation? How would we, as human beings, be able to know this God? Why, if God is thus defined, did God create a world that has so many problems? In Christian theology, the answers to these three questions can be summed up, somewhat superficially, by the following three respective terms - Christology (how God relates to the creation), Revelation (how God is made known to us), and Sin (why the creation has so many flaws).

Now, I am going to bypass the first two questions for the moment, not because they aren't important, but rather because I think it is easier to see my point if I focus on the third question: Why did God create such a flawed world?

Again, the standard answer is 'sin'. Sin refers to the result of humans misusing their free will - which was either given to the original human beings, or to each human being (depending on your theology) - and this disobedience/rejection of God led to the 'Fall' of humanity and the entrance of sin into creation.

Now, someone might ask how human sin, especially with the current evidence for the age of the universe, and the way life on earth has evolved, can be responsible for things like poisonous snakes, earthquakes, viruses, radiation, and other apparent hindrances to a 'happy' life. It seems rather exaggerated to say that prior to human sin, there were no volcanoes, or deadly insects, or decay of any kind. We quickly drift into a mythical world that seems to bear no resemblance to our own. Do we really think human sin caused the universe to morph a la Dr. Jekyll to Mr. Hyde?

Well, if that seems implausible, there is another solution: the angelic 'Fall'. Here, we learn that God's angels, like human beings, are given free wills, and they also choose to misuse their wills, and it is this cosmic 'Fall' which leads to the corruption of the universe. Now, such a cosmic event cannot be verified in any way known to humans, and current scientific research indicates that the universe was created by a 'big bang', which would seem to work against the angelic 'Fall' since it argues the universe burst into being already containing chaotic and potentially damaging elements. I suppose one could say that the big bang itself is the angelic 'Fall'. Well.... no, that won't work, because that is essentially to say that the universe as we know it was created by the devil and his angels.

So, we have a big bang, commonly understood (at least by those who are not 'young earthers') as God's act of the creation of the universe, that seems to precede any 'Fall' and this leads to the logical query: If there was a 'Fall', how do we account for the negative or chaotic aspects of the creation prior to that 'Fall'? This is, you can see, the same basic issue one has to deal with when talking about whether there were stinging wasps or tsunamis prior to Adam's sin.

Now, again, some believers might suggest that sin is analogous to the full moon - it is the event (a free decision) which transforms the person from a good man or woman into a werewolf, only it happens on a much larger scale. Others might suggest that prior to the advent of human beings, calling things like earthquakes 'evil' or 'fallen' would have no meaning. But all of this simply leads to another, more basic question, and that is: Why couldn't God have made it so this didn't happen? After all, even a world where only bugs are killed would seem less hospitable than a world where nothing is killed, right? So, why did God create a world that was bound to fall? Now we reach the crux of my thoughts.

So, there are several responses (all of which can be defended biblically) Christians have given to the above question. First, we can simply say that God had to make human beings (and angels) free, because God loves us, and unfree beings who are created by a loving God would be a contradiction. But this is problematic, because now it appears that God is somehow not all-powerful (remember the attributes). After all, if God had to make us free, then doesn't that mean we have some power vis-a-vis God? In other words, once God made us this way, God has to accept certain limitations for Godself? One possible answer is that God didn't have to make us free, but chose to, out of love. Perhaps this mitigates the problem somewhat, but we are still left to ask whether this somehow limits God's ability to act in the created universe.

Those who refuse this option (like Augustine, in his later writings) say that God's ways are mysterious, and God - in His sovereignty - chose to give humanity freedom out of love, but that God also, at the same time, knew human beings would use their freedom to rebel against God. So, God made the decision from before the creation of the universe that God would choose some humans to be saved, and some to be damned. Thus, God 'predestined' those who will end up saved. This is not inconsistent, because since all human beings will, if given the option, choose to rebel against God, they all deserve punishment. So, God is actually being merciful by saving some, rather than allowing all to perish.

It must be said that this view (which is often called the 'Calvinist' view) does solve the problem of God's sovereignty and omnipotence - God retains both, since God is holy and it is completely reasonable that a holy God cannot endure sin. Thus, human beings, like the angels who fell, deserve punishment.

However, there is a big problem with this view, and it remains unresolved. That is, if God knew all this, and realized the outcome of creating would be so horrific and traumatic for the creation, why did God bother to create at all? So, we come back to the same question we asked above. After all, it seems difficult to say that God is all-loving or omnibenevolent if God decided to create a universe (let alone angels) with the knowledge that creating this universe would mean unimaginable suffering for most of its inhabitants.

Now, the Christological response is that God shows how much God loves us by becoming a human being (Jesus Christ) and taking the whole weight (metaphysically and physically) of sin upon Himself. Jesus' death, and resurrection, show the immense love of God. This is certainly amazing, but it doesn't really solve the problem, since - on a Calvinist reading - God only does this for certain people who have already been chosen to be saved. So, Jesus only dies for the sins of some people. Or, Jesus dies for the sins of all, but it only matters for some. Some have argued that the Bible can be read as pointing to the death of Jesus as applying to all humanity, which means that somehow, someday, all human beings will be saved. But this goes against other statements in the Bible, and thus is considered the heresy of Universalism.

But we still haven't answered the question. What's more, it seems to have gotten worse! We are now saying that God chose to create a world that God knew would go wrong somehow, and chose to create it anyway, deciding to save some portion of it (for reasons unknown to us) and leaving the remaining - and, it seems, majority - portion to either suffering eternal torment or be completely wiped out of existence (the 'annihilationist' position, which is considered heterodox). So how does this exhibit omnibenevolence? Furthermore, how does it exhibit omnipotence?

What I mean is this: apparently God, no matter how we spin it, cannot create a world where people have genuine freedom that doesn't (or won't almost certainly) go awry. The assumption underlying all of these approaches is that God, out of love, created the universe and human beings with a kind of freedom. But, God could not create any universe where that freedom would not be misused. Indeed, for the Calvinist position, that has to be the case, because if there is a chance that freedom would be used properly, then there is a chance that a human being would be able to make the right choice, and thus would not need to be saved by Christ's death and resurrection.

But the point is that, in all of these cases, if we ask 'Why did God create such a universe?', then God's omnipotence seems difficult to maintain. Either we say that God is sovereign, and all-powerful, and so what God decides is simply the way it is, end of story... or, we admit that the ways in which we are defining God's attributes have a particular context - God's love requires a free response and thus there has to be an element of freedom in the creation, etc - and thus might not be completely accurate.

If we say, 'God is sovereign, end of story,' then we have a God for whom the concept of 'all-loving' seems incoherent - how can we call God all-loving if what that means is, essentially, God knowingly creates a world with creatures in it who are bound to mess things up terribly, and then decides according to God's inscrutable will which of these fallen creatures God will save and which ones will be damned. Or, God knowingly creates a world with creatures in it who are bound to mess up terribly, and then does it anyway, hoping that those creatures will be compelled by the loving grace of God in Jesus Christ and will find the salvation God is offering to them. The second option sounds nicer, I think, but it suffers both from a deficient omnibenevolence and a deficient omnipotence, since God cannot assure our salvation. This is, I suspect, why the Calvinist tradition remains strong; it is able to offer a more robust view of God's omnipotence.

Or does it? Does the doctrine of a God who sovereignly creates a world that can't help but go wrong, to the point that God had no other option than to predestine some to be saved and some to be damned, really offer us a picture of an all-powerful God? It seems to me that no matter how we approach the question, we end up with a God who, in creating, could only create a particular kind of universe, given the parameters God apparently set out in advance.

If - when we ask 'Why did God create this sort of universe?' - all of these approaches ultimately leave us with a picture of God that either obscures the concept of God's being all-loving or obscures the concept of God's being all-powerful, then perhaps we need to admit that the second option is more proper; that is, we need to admit our conception of God's attributes are limited and thus open to interpretation. This is, I admit, a disconcerting idea - it threatens the very structure of our conception of God, and certainly we need to have some foundational conception of God if we are Christians - but I submit that perhaps a contextual view of God's attributes offers the possibility of a more nuanced, grace-filled, and, yes, challenging, life of faith. This means, first of all, admitting our views of omnipotence, etc, are not propositional.

What do you think? Am I going too far? Is this heretical? For some, no doubt, it is. But I am no longer able to pretend that there is no cognitive dissonance between what is claimed of God and how those theological claims are interpreted in our lives. If they don't match, we can certainly say it is because we don't understand God's ways. But let's be consistent then and admit we don't understand God's attributes either. Which means it's as likely as anything else that God's omnipotence is not precisely what Christian theology has claimed.

Kierkegaard on the limits of thinking possibility...

2011-08-08T15:43:00.002+01:00

In Concluding Unscientific Postscript, the pseudonym Johannes Climacus explains, "[I]n asking ethically with regard to my own actuality, I am asking about its possibility, except that this possibility is not esthetically and intellectually disinterested, but is a thought-actuality that is related to my own personal actuality--namely, that I am able to carry it out."

In other words, the point of ethics is to act, rather than endlessly assess our options. At some point, I have to DO something. If we attempt "within possibility to distinguish between possibility and actuality... actuality and deception are equally possible... Only the individual himself can know which is which." That is, when considering possibilities, we cannot ignore those which are distasteful to us. This includes the possibility that we are entirely mistaken. This is why action becomes vital; only by lived decision can we truly distinguish our possibilities from our actualities.

Of course, the question of whether even the individual can really know the difference between possibility and actuality remains open, since if "deception can reach just as far as actuality" it is difficult to see how even the individual him/herself can be certain of their own actuality, as long as they are conflating actuality and possibility. Indeed, this dilemma will eventually be recognized by another Kierkegaardian pseudonym, Anti-Climacus, as constituent of two prevalent forms of despair--the despair of false possibility, and the despair of false actuality.

In light of this situation, Johannes reminds us that we must be vigilant: "When the esthetic and the intellectual inspect, they protest every esse that is not a posse; when the ethical inspects, it condemns every posse that is not an esse, a posse, namely, in the individual himself, since the ethical does not deal with other individuals.—In our day everything is mixed together." This is always the case in thought. There is always a mixing of categories, precisely because we will never, as mere humans, be able to distinguish between them in anything more than varying degrees of approximation.

Kierkegaard on the difference between reading and thinking...

2011-07-26T13:59:00.001+01:00

"In our time, everyone is able to write something or other about everything, but no one is able or willing to endure the strenuous labor of thinking through a single thought exhaustively in all its sharpest implications. As a result, the writing of trifles is particularly appreciated in our time, and one who writes a substantial book almost makes himself the object of ridicule. In the old days one read substantial books, and insofar as one read pamphlets and newspapers, one did not care to have it known. Now everyone feels duty-bound to have read what is in the papers and in the pamphlets but is ashamed to have read a substantial book all the way through; he is afraid this will be regarded as a mark of dullness." (from the Journals)

I guess it's good to know that shallow gossip and trivial information were a problem in Kierkegaard's time as well...? Or maybe it's just depressing. Either way, this is a great quote.

Kierkegaard on the difficulty of human free will...

2011-07-17T22:43:00.001+01:00

"Truly, there often is something sad and depressing about someone wanting to communicate something in his lifetime, and seeing at the very last that he has communicated nothing at all--but that the person concerned stubbornly continues in his view. But, on the other hand, there is something great in the fact that the other one and every individual is a world to himself and has his 'holy of holies' where no alien hand can force itself in."

(from Kierkegaard's Journals)

Kierkegaard on faith and doctrine...

2011-06-28T13:08:00.002+01:00

Here is Kierkegaard's pseudonym, Johannes Climacus: "The object of faith is the actuality of another person; its relation is an infinite interestedness. The object of faith is not a doctrine, for then the relation is intellectual, and the point is not to bungle it but to reach the maximum of the intellectual relation. The object of faith is not a teacher who has a doctrine, for when a teacher has a doctrine, then the doctrine is eo ipso more important than the teacher, and the relation is intellectual… But the object of faith is the actuality of the teacher, that the teacher actually exists. Therefore faith's answer is… not in relation to a doctrine, whether it is true or not, not in relation to a teacher, whether his doctrine is true or not, but is the answer to the question about a fact: Do you accept as fact that he actually has existed? Please note that the answer is with infinite passion." (Concluding Unscientific Postscript, p. 326)

A Good Basic Faith Statement...

2011-06-18T15:14:00.001+01:00

I think this is well-said (from George Pattison's The Philosophy of Kierkegaard):

"[U]nlike several other religions, Christianity seems to make its message dependent on faith in a particular historical individual. It... also requires us to affirm that our own salvation and our own ability to carry out its ethical demands are dependent on our believing certain things about this historical individual: that he was in a unique way the son of God, born of a virgin, that he died in such a way as to remove the burden of sin placed upon human beings as a result of the Fall, and that he rose again from the dead, sits at the right hand of God in heaven and 'will come again with glory to judge both the living and the dead', as the Nicene Creed puts it. Although the clauses relating to Christ's current status and future work are not in any simple sense 'historical' affirmations, the preceding clauses [about his life, death, and resurrection] are. This is a double challenge to anyone wanting to press the claims of Christianity."

The question then is: How do we respond to this affirmation? It is here that Christianity begins to splinter... into thousands of different 'appropriate' responses. It seems to me that most of one's journey as a believer consists in negotiating between various responses to the affirmation of faith stated above. But it also seems to me, more and more, that this negotiation or seeking is our affirmation. In other words, our journeys as Christians are actually a constant negotiation between our faith and lack thereof.

If faith and works are inextricably intertwined (no matter how their relation is conceived), then the extent to which we respond is the extend to which we believe. And, given the plethora of responses and counter-responses to faith that exist within the Church (broadly speaking), I submit that what this reveals is, quite simply, our struggle to really believe what we claim. In other words, the extent to which we are divided in our responses to the affirmation of faith is the extent to which we don't really believe the affirmation. And that means all of us who say we believe need to remain humble in our claims and consistently re-evaluate our beliefs.

After all, there is no such thing as 'complete' belief. That is an oxymoron. Belief itself requires incomplete information. To put a stamp marking a belief as 'case closed' is, in effect, to nullify the belief. And, at that point, Christianity -- the belief in Christ -- dies.

Utilitarians and Christians... thoughts on a conference featuring Peter Singer.

2011-05-20T16:48:00.008+01:00

Yesterday and today I attended a conference here at Oxford's McDonald Centre for Theology, Ethics, and Public Life, featuring the (in)famous utilitarian ethicist, Peter Singer. The goal was to create a dialogue between Singer's brand of preference utilitarianism and Christian ethics, in order to discover what areas of common ground, if any, might be found between them.

All in all, I would say this goal was accomplished, which was a pleasant result for someone like me who appreciates it when people actually listen to each other, instead of vilifying each other. Nevertheless, there were (of course) disagreements, and quite a few important (I think) points for consideration. So, let me provide a quick overview of the conference and what I took away from it.

First of all, Peter Singer's views are, even by most secular standards, rather extreme. He is committed to the following views (though this is not an exhaustive list):

- All sentient beings deserve equal moral consideration. In other words, if a creature can feel pain and pleasure, we ought to take their desires or preferences into account. This means that quite a few non-human animals deserve, in principle, the same rights as human beings. It is this thesis which first made Singer famous, as one of the fathers of the animal-rights movement.

- Following from this are quite a few ethical positions which may seem counter-intuitive or even appalling, depending upon one's own ethic, but which nevertheless seem to be quite consistent, given Singer's premises. Indeed, this is one reason Christians experience both loathing for and respect for Singer: he follows through with the logic he presents. For example, if it is true that human life is no more valuable than the lives of other higher mammals, it may be that killing a human to save animals is the right thing to do.

- Further, if a human life is less beneficial than an animal life, there is no reason, in principle, why we should save that life if we would not do the same with another animal. For example, if we think it's ethical to 'put down' an ailing dog or cat, there's no reason why we shouldn't do the same to a human. This would also apply to severely handicapped people.

- With regard to abortion, Singer not only argues that abortion should be allowed (if we can show that there is nothing ethically problematic about it), but that there is no reason, in principle, why this should only apply to children inside the womb. In other words, there is no ethical prohibition on infanticide.

- In other areas of life, preferences again are the guide. Bestiality? Pedophilia? Other sexual behaviors considered taboo? If it can be shown that, all things considered, the overall benefit outweighs the harm, then why not? The same would be said for creating human/non-human hybrids, or various bio-ethical issues.

Now, it must be said that Singer is not endorsing all of these acts; he is simply pointing out what being a consistent preference utilitarian involves. And, in that regard, Singer's commitment to his ethic is somewhat refreshing. In fact, I would go so far as to say that most Christians actually agree with Peter Singer's logic--but they quite clearly disagree with his premises. So the problem is not with Singer's consistency, but with his apparent (from a Christian perspective) lack of care for the dignity and special worth of the human being before God.

Of course, Singer does not believe in God; he is a committed atheist. So why would anyone expect him to give weight to, for example, the imago Dei? In any case, it is clear that, on a wide range of issues, Peter Singer and Christian ethics seem to be separated by an unbridgeable chasm.

This makes it all the more surprising, perhaps, to find that Singer also has a great deal to say about preferential treatment for the poor. This is, of course, also of great importance to the Christian faith, and is (along with perhaps animal rights and environmental ethics, to some extent) an area where Christian ethics and Singer's utilitarianism seem to be able to work together for a common cause. Both Singer and the majority of Christians seem to agree that providing for the needs of the poor is ethically mandated. For Christians, it is mandated by Scripture. For utilitarians, it is mandated by the overall flourishing of persons--that is, the concept of providing the greatest good for the greatest number of persons would seem to dictate that caring for the poor is not optional, ethically.

So, I am pleased that most, if not all, of those attending the conference recognized this key area of potential partnership between two very different ethical approaches. My hope is that we will begin to see more partnerships between persons and groups who, though in disagreement on other issues, will begin to work together to create more possibilities through which the global poor might be assisted and given the health, life, and sustenance they deserve.

OK. So, now onto just a few thoughts I had, from a more theoretical or methodological point of view: (If you aren't interested in my speculations, I completely understand if you read no further! :-D)

One thing which became clear at the conference is the importance of establishing one's grounding presuppositions. This is actually not as simple as it sounds, partially because it usually means recognizing that one's views are far less rationally grounded than one is initially willing to admit.

For example, the utilitarian view presupposes that there is a rational standard by which preferences can be measured, in order to provide us with ethical responses to given issues. While this may be true in a general sense, it is far more difficult to establish methodologically. This was seen in an exchange between Singer and Professor Nigel Biggar, which went something like this:

Biggar: Peter Singer's view seems to leave open the possibility that anyone, no matter what their views, can claim to be ethical if they have enough support for their preferences.

Singer: No, different preferences do not all have equal weight. Some preferences have a higher priority than others.

Biggar: Who decides, then, what preferences have priority?

Singer: We do, as rational human beings.

Essentially, this is an argument over what counts as rationality. For the utilitarian, appeals to rationality only work as long as it can be shown that human beings are not only capable of making such statements, but that they are not biased or being manipulative in their claims. Of course, the counter-argument is, essentially, "I don't buy it." Those of a Christian or otherwise opposing view are unwilling to rely upon the supposed neutral rationality of the utilitarian's claims. At the root, this is a question of human reliability.

In other words, there is a skepticism as to whether the utilitarian approach really can conceive of what is best for persons or how they ought to ethically behave. Rather than rely upon what appears to be an ever-shifting calculus by which ethical decisions may be measured, many Christian ethicists (for example) prefer to look to established principles, such as an Aristotelian telos, or the Christian Scriptures. But, there is a shift from a rational ethic that comes from the human subject to an objective ethic which comes from outside the subject.

Of course, the methodological problem remains the same. Christians may believe that we have been given an ethic by God, but there is often just as much disagreement among Christians as to how that divine ethic ought to be interpreted as there are debates over what preferences ought to be given priority in utilitarianism. This is not surprising, given that we are all finite creatures with limited knowledge, but it does create something of a dilemma: if we are all incapable of establishing a solid ground for our ethical presuppositions, then are we really ever going to establish an ethical consensus?

The answer would clearly seem to be 'no'. But, then, this simply leads us back to the pragmatic, or utilitarian, side of things. Only now, we are approaching the problem in reverse, as it were. Given that we have different presuppositions grounding our ethical stances, and recognizing that we nevertheless need a stable society in order to function, we begin to look for points of connection between ourselves and those with whom we disagree. But this would seem, I imagine, precisely to prove Singer's point that even if there are objective goods (as he seems to be nearer to conceding than previously), the method by which we assess the value of those goods becomes preferential. After all, we are preferring a society where humans do get along to one where we don't.

So, what do we do? Do we simply admit that our preferences are grounded in the presuppositions we hold as Christians and 'try to get along' with everyone else by seeking some common consensus? This would seem to be rather self-deceptive, since we would know that such a consensus is, in practice, not possible. Yet we would proceed with the assumption that we have no other choice. At this point it would appear that Christian ethics is far more 'Singer-ian' than we would like to admit.

On the other hand, if we take a somewhat more 'Hauerwas-ian' route (sorry if this is a bit of a caricature!) and say something like, "Forget about ethics. It can't help us. We simply need to trust in the Christian revelation and stop trying to yoke ourselves unequally with the world's norms and values." Well... obviously this can only be taken so far before it leads to some very problematic conclusions for human interaction. And yet, it does seem to be somehow more honest.

So where does this leave us? I'm not sure. I agree with a point made by John Haldane that Christian ethics is going to have to become more 'clever' if it intends to respond to some of these questions. But, thankfully, I don't have to answer any question today. This is just some food for thought. It's a discussion that no doubt will continue and, in that regard, I look forward to the possibility of more conferences like the one this week.

haven't done this in a while...

2011-05-14T13:12:00.002+01:00

I used to semi-regularly post some of my favorite song lyrics. I think I'll start doing that again. This time it's the song 'Savannah' by the metalcore band Zao. The story behind the song is that the vocalist for the band read a news article about a former adult film star named Savannah who was injured in a car accident. Her face was disfigured, and this trauma was too much for her, so she committed suicide. A grim reminder of what can happen whenever human beings are objectified and 'mechanized'. Never forget that we are all alive beneath our shells...

A day not to forget
The machine has collapsed under the program it's been given
Look inside the broken shell
Look inside the broken shell
To see the broken heart
They can't believe the machine was alive but we saw it bleed
We saw it bleed
The machine it falls apart and when it's cut it bleeds
The machine bleeds
She was alive

in contrast to other recent news...

2011-05-05T00:51:00.002+01:00

Here is a sweet story about a 6-year old girl who wrote a letter to God, and Rowan Williams' response:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100084843/a-six-year-old-girl-writes-a-letter-to-god-and-the-archbishop-of-canterbury-answers/

10 years and two wars later...

2011-05-02T17:18:00.003+01:00

Well, I don't really have much to say about the announcement that Osama bin Laden has evidently been killed. Rather, I will direct you all to a post by Jeff Keuss, who says what I'm thinking better than I can at this moment:

http://www.jeffkeuss.com/blog/?p=811

This is definitely worth a read. Thanks, Jeff.

Christ is Risen...

2011-04-24T00:06:00.001+01:00

He is Risen Indeed!

Easter thoughts from Dr. Hunsinger...

2011-04-22T11:29:00.000+01:00

Today is called 'Good Friday', but of course that is a bit of an ironic title, since it was certainly not a very good day for the one who brought about our redemption. Jesus suffered what unfortunately has been all too common throughout human history: intense (Christians would say THE most intense, because of its spiritual implications) torture at the hands of those who viewed violence as the vehicle by which power and order are maintained. While we recognize as Christians that Christ's death and resurrection are ultimately the most good news of all, we might also do well to take time, especially today, to reflect on what Christ's death has to say about the way we live and treat each other as human beings. Here is a quote from George Hunsinger, a theologian and professor at Princeton Theological Seminary, that I find quite valuable in this regard (thanks to Jeff Keuss for the quote!):

"The Christ who died in the throes of torture could not be held by the bonds of death. On Easter day, God said yes to Jesus and no to torture, yes to life and no to death. The means of terror were forever banned as instruments of peace. They did not have the last word for Jesus; they must not tempt Christians today. Jesus allowed himself to taste torture and death to disclose how abhorrent they are in God's sight. He terminates the resort to torture just as he brings an end to the law (Rom 10.4). His resurrection manifests a humility more resilient than vengeance, a faithfulness more powerful than fear, and a love that triumphs over death. The resurrection points to a hidden divine cunning in history, the power of an invincible forgiveness that will not rest until it reclaims the world."

back to the research, and what not...

2011-04-15T17:28:00.001+01:00

So, a couple people have asked me to write up a brief overview of the PCR4 conference that I attended last week. That follows this quick update:

I am back in the UK, and had a good time in Syracuse. Upon my return, I began a part-time job as a tutor for A-levels here in Oxford. Basically, this means helping students who are preparing for the major tests they have to take before being accepted into a British university. I've only done this for a few days now, but so far it seems like a great position. And, since it's part-time, I don't have to worry about it taking away from my own research/study time. At least, that's the idea. :-) I have also been hired to teach philosophy for a summer school course at Oxford Royale Academy, so that should be another good opportunity.

Oh, also, my first publication is now available online, ahead of its upcoming publication in print. It's in The Heythrop Journal. For the few of you who might have access to Wiley-Blackwell online journals, here is the link: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2265.2011.00657.x/abstract

Ok, now, as for the conference...

I actually enjoyed the PCR4 conference quite a bit. Sorry, that stands for the 4th annual Postmodernism, Culture, and Religion Conference. The theme was "The Future of Continental Philosophy of Religion," and, as you can probably guess, most of the papers were focused upon the relationship between philosophy and religion. That leads to some interesting issues which I won't get into right now. But, anyway...

I was actually surprised by how many people attended the conference. John Caputo, who has been in charge of the conferences since their inception (I believe), has done a great job of promoting them. I would estimate their were about 150 people there, from all over the world. Most were either teachers or graduate students in philosophy departments, but there were also some from religious studies and theology departments. I would venture to say that the 'religious studies' department at Syracuse is really also a Continental philosophy department, but that's for another post. About 80 people presented papers or gave keynote speeches.

To give you an idea of the level of philosophical specificity at the conference, here are a few of the session titles: "Engaging Deleuze and Immanence," "Vattimo and Transformative Temporality," "Agamben and Ecstatic Speech," "Focus on Francois Laruelle's 'Future Christ'," "Countersigning Derrida", etc. Honestly, there were a lot of sessions dealing with topics about which I knew very little. In some ways that was good, because I could learn about ideas and themes with which I have little experience, but on the other hand, there is only so much you can grasp when listening to a 30-minute paper about an unfamiliar topic. Still, there were quite a few presentations I found interesting, and it was fun to attend the session on Kierkegaard.

I think what stood out was the amount of interest in what might be called a "New Materialism", that is, a return to radical views of immanence, and theological engagement from that angle. Essentially, this approach does not want to eliminate religion or faith, and even finds value in it. But, it also seeks to eliminate all talk of transcendence and look for the purely immanent 'radical core' of faith, taking that to be a human phenomenon which has merit both anthropologically and philosophically. In other words, there was a lot of talk about how (for example) the Christian God is dead, but there is still a lot of good stuff to learn from the Christian faith. It's just, you know, not the stuff about Jesus' miracles or life after death and what not.

A couple of us were chatting about this toward the end of conference, and we came to the conclusion that this seems rather unsatisfactory, not only from the perspective of a believer, but even from a purely conceptual standpoint. It's like the trend now (well, it's just a repeated trend throughout the history of thought) is to tear out all the 'supernatural' content of religious faith, and look at it from a purely materialist angle.

The problem here is that it's difficult to see how whatever theology is saved in this paradigm is anything truly THEOLOGICAL. God has been removed, and the core of religious faith has been replaced with speculative philosophical ideas. This may provide interesting essays in a conference setting, but what good does it do for people and the ways they live their lives? Most of these approaches end up with an ethical praxis that falls somewhere between pragmatism and outright anarchy. It's difficult to know why we need so many complex philosophical theories if all they give us is the same old questions with regard to application.

Theology, at least as far as I'm concerned, matters because it offers the hope of another option. Maybe that option sounds like a fantasy to unbelievers, but at least it's an option. Too many of the current trends in Continental philosophy seem to circle back around and repeat old ideas. (One possible exception seems to be Laruelle's view that, if I'm understanding correctly, heresy is actually necessary for theology, since without it we would not be able to develop the boundaries of faith. So we should be thankful for heretics! Hmmm.)

Anyway, I had a good time attending the conference, and I learned more about various philosophers, but in the end I didn't take away anything ground-breaking. So, that's that.

going back across the pond...

2011-04-04T20:34:00.000+01:00

Tomorrow morning I leave for the USA... to attend the annual "Postmodernism, Culture, and Religion" conference at Syracuse University. Should be a great experience -- lots of interesting seminars and the chance to hang out with other academic types who are interested in similar topics. Several people here who have never been to the States have asked me, "Oh, so you'll get to see your family and girlfriend?" Well, unfortunately, no. They are all way on the other side of the country. :-( But, it will be nice to just be in the same country. Of course, a better solution would be for them all to move to England. :-) Ok, maybe that's not too realistic. hehe.

NYT on single would-be-pastors...

2011-03-25T18:09:00.000Z

Here is a recent article in the New York Times that describes the difficulties single pastors have with finding full-time positions in evangelical churches:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/us/22pastor.html?_r=2

I think what's so frustrating about stories like this is that they simply serve to reinforce what many people outside the Church (by that I mean Christianity as a whole) already think; namely, that churches are not offering a life-view that is really that compelling or different in a positive sense, so why should Christianity be taken seriously?

I understand this is not the whole story, and many churches are not as rigid as those represented in the article, but it makes me wonder: how do we offer Christianity as a meaningful option to people, when they can easily see that we aren't even able to offer a clear indication of what Christianity is supposed to be to ourselves?

Many churches are more concerned about one's marital status than the possibility of actualizing God's call on a person's life through ministry; others of us then come along and essentially say the first group doesn't know what it's talking about. What are people supposed to think?

I suppose this is a much bigger question, really: it has to do with the divisions among the Church as a whole, and what should be done about it. I don't have the answer, but I do think something has to change - something big - if churches, broadly speaking, ever expect to be taken seriously as anything more than just another cultural gathering-place. If that's all Church is, we're screwed.

Of course, many would probably say that's the point - the Church is supposed to be 'rejected' by the world and suffer persecution, etc. But there's a difference between suffering persecution and just being ignored because you've lost all credibility. Unfortunately, I suspect that in many churches, the real problem is the latter, not the former.

I still have hope for the Church as a whole, because I believe there are many churches who are striving to make their congregants into disciples who have faith in Christ and follow his life and teachings. Unfortunately, there are also many who are instead attempting to build ideologies, or just have social gatherings.

And, more frustratingly, these different Christian groups usually all claim to be doing the same thing (following Jesus), and usually, of course, they are doing it better than the other guy. No wonder people are confused, and pay less and less attention to us.

Any thoughts?

Bonhoeffer on Love...

2011-03-14T18:46:00.000Z

"Love: this is the decisive word... Without this 'love' everything disintegrates and is unacceptable; in this love everything is integrated, united, and pleasing to God. What is this love?

...we must exclude any definitions that seek to understand the essence of love as human behavior, as disposition, dedication, sacrifice, will for community, as feeling, passion, service, or deed. All this without exception can exist without 'love'... Everything we usually call love, everything that dwells in the farthest depths of the soul and in visible deeds, indeed, even brotherly or sisterly service to the neighbor that springs from the pious heart--all this can lack 'love.'

So, if there is no conceivable human behavior that would as such unambiguously qualify as 'love'... then this poses an enigma, an open question as to what else the Bible could still mean by 'love'.

The answer is: God is love. For the sake of clarity, this sentence must first be read with the emphasis on the word God, even though we have become accustomed to emphasize the word 'love'. God is love: that is, love is not a human behavior, sentiment, or deed, but it is God who is love. What love is can be known only by one who knows God; the reverse is not true...

Thus, nobody knows what love is except through God's self-revelation. Love is therefore God's self-revelation. God's revelation, however, is Jesus Christ... Christ is the sole definition of love.

Love is not what Christ does and suffers, but what Christ does and suffers. Love is always Jesus Christ himself. Love is always God himself. Love is always God's revelation in Jesus Christ.

However... only the concrete doing and suffering of this human being Jesus Christ will make clear what love is... To the question, 'In what does love consist?' we continue therefore to answer with scripture: the reconciliation of human beings with God in Jesus Christ."

A conference and a quote...

2011-02-25T17:21:00.000Z

So, I am planning to attend an upcoming conference at Syracuse University called "The Future of Continental Philosophy of Religion." I submitted a paper and they accepted it, so pray that I can get all the financial details worked out, because it is a great opportunity to meet with a lot of other theologians and philosophers who are working in similar areas. And, of course, it's always good to add a presentation at a conference to one's CV. :-) The title of my paper is "Philosophy, Theology, and the Narrative of Hope."

On a different note, here is a great quote from David Gouwens' book, "Kierkegaard as Religious Thinker":

"When it comes to 'understanding Christianity', a knowledge of the basic doctrines or teachings of the faith is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition. The student of theology must be continually aware of the dangers of treating the increase in theological knowledge as an increase in faith."

A simple, but important reminder to those of us who spend much of our time increasing our theological knowledge...

Magic is not faith...

2011-01-27T18:48:00.000Z

Hmm. Apparently I can keep quiet for a while. Well, here's a new post to break the silence. It's a bit of speculation I've been randomly considering recently. I am calling it: "Why magic is a poor analogy for faith".

I almost hate to write this because it's going to sound like I'm ragging on two people I greatly admire: G.K. Chesterton and C.S. Lewis. Let me say right now that I think both Christianity and humanity in general have been made richer by the lives of both of these fine writers, dreamers, and thinkers. I know that my faith has been challenged and encouraged deeply by them. Having said that, I think both authors are also responsible for a troubling tendency. Both have contributed to a commonly held religious analogy, namely, that of the Christian faith with a certain kind of 'magic'. This is, in my view, detrimental to faith, regardless of how articulate and poetic the analogy may be.

Don't misunderstand: this isn't a rant against the evil of 'magic' as a portal through which naive Christians may fall prey to the dark forces manipulating occult practices. That is not my target here. What I am concerned with is the false picture of God the 'analogy of magic' presents to us. Quite simply, to analogize God using the term magic gives the impression that God, or a relationship with God, is something like a cause and effect relationship. After all, magic is, in its most essential form, the attempt to cause an effect through some sort of spell, incantation, charm, etc. Magic involves starting with a goal and then attempting to bring about that goal.

But this is not the way our relationship with God works, at least not according to the tenets of the Christian faith. First, unlike magic, which seeks results, faith is the 'evidence of things unseen.' In other words, faith is not the attempt to prove God to ourselves, or to others, by way of some 'magical' proof that leaves people awestruck. Believe me, that would be nice. I struggle with faith most often when I don't see results. But unfortunately, God isn't primarily concerned with my desire for results.

People may be awestruck by God, but it won't be due to anything we have done to 'conjure up' God's awesomeness. It will be because God has decided to reveal Godself. There is no formula to faith. We cannot expect that if we say the right words, or have the right concoction of worship, prayer, piety, and/or good deeds, that God will feel obligated to respond according to our expectations.

But, what about prayer? Isn't prayer the attempt to change things, using the power of God? Isn't that sort of like magic? If this is what prayer actually is, then yes. But such a view reveals a quite limited, and ultimately pagan, rather than Christian, view of prayer. Prayer for the Christian is never about trying to 'get something' from God. Yes, we do pray for our needs, and offer petitions, but these are always supposed to be from within a context that begins by acknowledging God's absolute transcendence and holiness. This means that our expectations must be checked at the door, because faith is never about us, but always about God.

Part of the problem, I think, stems from the confusion, found in both Chesterton and Lewis, between the fantastic and the magical. The fantastic, I suggest, draws from myths and stories of other worlds interacting with our world, of elves and fairies and talking animals and wardrobes that open to these other worlds. But notice that even in Lewis' most well-known tale, magic is primarily the tool of the white witch. Aslan never really does any magic, per se. Instead, his presence serves to undo the effects of magic. Of course, Aslan does speak of the 'older magic', and this is part of the confusion.

Now, admittedly, there are passages in the Bible that seem to indicate otherwise. We have verses that for all intents and purposes tell us that if we do X, then God will do Y. But I would submit that a deeper reading of Scripture that takes into account context and layers of meaning will encourage us not to view the Bible in such a formulaic light. Of course, there is much more that could be said here. But I think I will stop for now, and see if anyone else wants to add more by way of comments.

Good night! (Or day, wherever you may be)

2011 is here!

2011-01-01T12:27:00.000Z

Well, it's another new year, and I pray that God's grace will guide us all as we move ahead! The holidays here in the UK have been quiet, but productive, and I am thankful that all the snow in Oxford is finally melting. I have posted some pics on Facebook, in case any of you want to check those out. Let's see... not much else to say right at this second. But, I'm sure I'll have more to say soon... you know I can't keep quiet for long. ;-)

G.

This holiday season...

2010-12-13T17:33:00.000Z

I am not going to be able to go home for Christmas; flights are just too expensive. I suppose if I had bought a ticket a few months back it would have been cheaper, but, that didn't happen. Oh well. Anyway, that means I need love from all of you this Christmas! :-D Just a note to say hello or whatever, so that I don't feel quite so alone.

At least I'll be able to have Christmas dinner with some friends from the NOOC (the place where I'm staying). And, I will have plenty of time to read, and focus on my research, which - to be honest - I need to do more of! Speaking of research, here's a little glimpse into what I'm thinking about these days:

I am considering how the concepts of sin and grace are articulated in Bonhoeffer and Kierkegaard. This involves an expansion of the concepts, beyond the definitions implicit in the minds of many Christians, and a re-capturing of the traditional picture of both sin and grace as 'states', that is, categories of being rather than specific actions (though the latter is certainly not excluded).

A quote from Bonhoeffer's Discipleship adds, I think, a particularly poignant dimension to this conceptualization:

"'Sin Boldly'--that could be for Luther only the very last bit of pastoral advice, of consolation for those who along the path of discipleship have come to know that they cannot become sin-free, who out of fear despair of God's grace. For them, 'sin boldly' is not something like a fundamental affirmation of their disobedient lives. Rather, it is the gospel of God's grace, in the presence of which we are sinners always and at every place... to whom could such a thing be said ['sin boldly'] except to those who from their hearts daily reject sin... and who are still unconsoled about their daily unfaithfulness and sin?"

This passage, I suggest, may contain a profound truth: there may come a time when we have to acknowledge the desire of some to follow Christ who nevertheless have despaired of God's grace. In that situation, what is more important--that we make sure they have eliminated their sin, or work to relieve their despair, even if their sin remains? God's grace is surely needed at that point more than ever. This is a vital question for Christian ethics.

The Christmas season is upon us...

2010-12-05T14:58:00.000Z

Well, it's December! We just had our first snow here in Oxford this week, and - for those who care about this sort of thing - I've decided that it's a bit colder here than in Seattle, and that it's a bit cloudier and drizzlier in Seattle. But, overall, the weather is fairly similar.

The term is over already (they are only 8 weeks long!) but that really doesn't affect me at all, since a PhD is pretty much an all-the-time sort of thing that you don't get a break from unless you want to. It's really hard to believe I've only been here two months - it feels like it's been a lot longer! But, when I think about how little I've done so far, that's when I remember that it's only been two months. :-)

Overall, I'm really liking Oxford and I'm slowly getting more involved in my academic community, as well as trying to make friends in general. There are several Americans living at the North Oxford Overseas Centre, where I'm staying. So, that's been nice. But, it's equally nice to have the opportunity to meet people from all over the world and talk about their cultures and what they are doing here in Oxford.

I won't be able to go home for the holidays (I'm poor! :-P), but there will be several people around the N.O.O.C., so I'm sure we'll find things to do. They have a Christmas dinner there as well. I have a TON of reading and writing to do, but I am going to try and get out for a couple days and see some sights, etc.

Keep praying for wisdom, financially and academically. I'm wanting to make sure I really am following the right path. But, I am starting to get over my initial fear of 'not being smart enough for Oxford'! :-)

Ok, I guess that's it for now... may each of you have a blessed Advent season.

G.

(And, happy birthday to my late sister, Julianne, who I suppose may be celebrating with angels today.)

A quick thank you!

2010-11-22T22:30:00.000Z

I just want to say 'thanks' to the anonymous kind soul(s) who sent me a support check. It is greatly appreciated! If you're reading, thank you!

Geoff

rough week...

2010-11-21T13:39:00.000Z

Well, it's beginning to really get cold, gray, and rainy here in Oxford, so I guess it's the perfect time for me to catch a bad cold. Ugh. I've been knocked down since about Tuesday, and I'm just getting a bit better... prayers appreciated. :-)

Of course, I am thankful that I don't have anything that I have to get done right away, but it has certainly slowed down my reading output -- that is what really matters right now, I'm discovering. I just have to read and read and make notes on what I'm discovering, so that I can go to my supervisor next term with a rough outline of my research, including a table of contents and a sample essay. That isn't too difficult a task, but right now it feels daunting. I guess once I'm back to 100% I'll feel differently.

Other than that, things in Oxford are fine. Just a lot of sitting, reading, and thinking about theological connections. And trying to look for all sorts of hidden funding sources. Hope you are all doing well, and an early Happy Thanksgiving to you!

Geoff

Now available on Scribd...

2010-11-03T20:07:00.000Z

...that would be me. :-)

In case you don't know, Scribd is a self-publishing website where you can view/read uploaded articles, proposals, essays, stories, or just random junk from people all over the world. Lots of business people apparently use it, and some authors as well.

I finally decided to do more than just anonymously sign up, and posted a couple essays on my Scribd page. Maybe I'll upload some more stuff in the future. In the meantime, if you're interested in reading a couple things I've written, check out my page: http://www.scribd.com/gdargan. Thanks.

Hope you are all well,

Geoff

In case anyone's interested...

2010-10-23T16:50:00.000+01:00

I have posted a bunch of new pictures that I took around Oxford last week... it's such a beautiful old city. The photos are on my facebook page, so you can log on and see them there, or just follow this link:

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=237960&id=534227816&l=5decf33689

Hope you're all doing well!

G.

Let's get this party started...

2010-10-12T21:28:00.000+01:00

Well, I've been here almost two weeks now, and things are starting to get rollin' around the ole' Oxford... I will be visiting several seminars this week, and deciding which ones I will start attending regularly. I also have to start working on an overview of my research plan and develop my chapter outline, as well as start working on my reading. So, as they say, time for the rubber to meet the road.

On a completely different note, I bought some peanut butter at a grocery store in town today. That made me very happy -- peanut butter will be a staple food for me! :-) And I think I've found a decent church just down the road, so that's good too!

Grace and Peace,

Geoff

Whoa...

2010-10-06T17:13:00.000+01:00

I need to give you all an update! So, I'm here at Oxford, settling in... things are fine, but I've hardly had a minute to write and my internet has been acting up. At any rate, here's the latest:

Flew over to the UK last Monday, Sept. 27. It was an overnight flight and I arrived around noon on Tuesday the 28th. After a glitch with my bus ticket, I finally was on my way to Oxford around 2 pm. Got to my lodging at 4 pm, showered and went to my first introductory meeting at 5 pm. Went out to dinner with some other new students, then came back and unpacked everything. Went to bed around 2 am.

On Wednesday the 29th, I woke up thinking that it was mid-morning. I was wrong - it was 2 in the afternoon! So, apparently, I was tired. :-P It's taken me several days to get used to the time difference, but I think I'm finally settling into it. My body just couldn't get the knack of going to bed at a different time. Anyway, a brief overview of what else I've done since arriving...

Went to a few meetings at Regent's Park College, my college at Oxford. Had dinner there last Thursday night. Went to a postgrad welcome dinner on Saturday night. Met up with some new friends for lunch on Sunday, and went to church Sun. night at an evangelical Anglican church up the street called St. Andrews. Seems like a good place. Met with my advisor on Sat. and had a good chat about what I should be focusing on as I begin. Monday I went to library orientation and walked around Oxford for quite a while, getting my bearings. Yesterday (Tuesday), more orientations and today I met with my college tutor about various details.

If that all seems like a blur, well, it feels that way too. It's hard to believe it's only been one week. It feels like I've been here a lot longer. And, there are things going on at the university pretty much non-stop, so I'm sure I've missed some things that I should have attended. Oh well. So far so good! Now I'm off to get some groceries...

From Oxford, UK, this is Geoff, signing off.

All systems are go...

2010-09-22T20:44:00.000+01:00

Well, the visa's here at least. ;-) So, I am set to leave on Monday, the 27th. I would greatly appreciate your prayers for my good health and peace of mind, for focus as I begin my research, and for God to provide me with a solid community of friends and a church. Oh, and if you know anyone who wants to donate 50K or something, let me know. hehe.

Another delay...

2010-09-17T16:55:00.000+01:00

Well, I am now scheduled to leave on Monday, Sept. 27. I decided to move the departure date back another week, just to be safe, since I still haven't received my visa. It's frustrating, but at least it's not too much trouble moving the flight since it's being purchased with airline miles. I guess I don't really have anything to complain about, I just wanted to be in the UK sooner. But, it's good to have more time here to prepare and relax before jumping headlong into this new adventure. I have shut off my cell phone (can't use it over there), so email or Skype is the best way to reach me for now!

One week until...

2010-09-13T21:50:00.000+01:00

I move to the UK! Well, maybe... if my student visa gets here in time! :-P But, it's looking like everything is coming together, and I will be flying to London on Tuesday, Sept. 21. I actually had to move the date back one week, and I hope that is enough time for the visa to show up. If not, well... third time's the charm, I guess. hehe.

Anyway, I am back from my visit to Seattle - it was a good but stressful trip, for a variety of reasons. But all is well. God is good. And here's a little thought that I've been pondering today, courtesy of Dallas Willard's The Divine Conspiracy:

"The acid test for any theology is this: Is the God presented one that can be loved, heart, soul, mind, and strength? If the thoughtful, honest answer is; "Not really," then we need to look elsewhere or deeper. It does not really matter how sophisticated intellectually or doctrinally our approach is. If it fails to set a lovable God... before ordinary people, we have gone wrong. We should not keep going in the same direction, but turn around and take another road.

Theologians on both the left and the right, and those on no known scale of comparison, are all loved by God, who has great things in mind for every one of them. They are our neighbors, and we are to share God's vision and love for them. They need to love God. The theologian who does not love God is in great danger, and in danger of doing great harm, for he or she needs to know God and believe with assurance concerning God."

I've been lazy...

2010-08-29T05:47:00.000+01:00

Whoa, haven't posted anything for a while... to the three of you who care, I'm sorry! ;-) But, really, I haven't dropped off the radar completely. I have been working on getting the visa stuff squared away, and doing other things, like visiting relatives in MO and IL. I will be flying back to Seattle for a few days to visit friends - including my (ahem) girlfriend, Megan. She hates it when I say things about her on the internet, so hopefully she'll read this. haha! It will be nice to see everyone again, even if only for a short time. Pray for Megan and me, as the long distance relationship thing is going to be a challenge. Umm... not much else to say at this moment, just thought I'd give a brief update. Maybe I'll post something somewhat intellectually stimulating one of these days. We'll see. :-)

Visa issues...

2010-08-19T18:21:00.000+01:00

Sometimes things don't work as smoothly as you'd hope. Profound statement, huh? Well, it's nothing terrible, but the 'getting a visa' process sure is one of those processes that, to be honest, seem designed to not work smoothly. It's almost as if they make it difficult on purpose, creating hoops to jump through just to see if they can weed out those who aren't fully committed. I don't know, but it seems like that sometimes.

In any case, I have to get the photo, the fingerprints, all the documentation, etc. and mail it all to the consulate in LA next week (apparently CA handles the visa apps for people in OK, but whatever) and hope that they get it all back to me before Sept. 14! Of course, it doesn't help that current U.S. loan laws have been changing, so Oxford was late in getting me my financial details. Oh, and it doesn't help that Oxford also lost my Fuller transcript, so I had to resend that - that delayed things as well.

But, I'm trusting that everything will work out and I'll still be able to leave on time. If not, well, I guess I'll be delayed a week or so. Please pray that there are no more delays! Thanks.

Besides that, I'm going with my parents to visit family in MO and IL this weekend. I'll see my brother and his family, and go to a wedding reception for my cousin. Should be fun!

Counting down the days...

2010-08-14T18:02:00.000+01:00

Well, it's another scorcher here in OKC - should be over 100 degrees today. I am just not used to the hot weather after spending 10 years in Seattle. I probably sound like I'm whining. Ok, I'll stop.

I leave for the UK one month from today (Sept. 14)! Crazy! It's still so surreal to think that I will be moving to/living in another country in a month's time. Lots of details still to sort out, but I am confident that everything will be in place by Sept. Still have to get all the Visa details worked out, but I don't think that will be too much of a problem.

Looked at my luggage options yesterday, and I think I can just snag a couple of suitcases from my parents - yeah! Actually, I think I can take everything I need in two checked bags, and two carry-ons. That includes books, and what not. I feel pretty good about that. I've never been a person who needs a lot of "stuff" (well, besides books and musical gear!), and that is certainly a plus when making such a big move. Not sure if I'll take my guitar with me or not... maybe.

I feel like I'm rambling a bit here... not much else to report, so I guess I'll get back to my reading/writing, which I've been trying to focus on, as long as I have no other pressing matters to attend to. I'm a bit nervous about studying in the UK since it will be so independently oriented (doing research on my own a lot of the time), and I have noticed that it's easy for me to become lazy when I have no source of feedback or encouragement. Pray that God gives me strength and discipline!

Ok, that's all for now.

Mildly interesting update from OKC...

2010-08-08T02:52:00.000+01:00

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.

And we're here! (in OKC, that is...)

2010-08-03T04:55:00.000+01:00

Got into Oklahoma City tonight and I'm now at my parents house. And I'm pretty tired. Four days of driving is a bit of a drain... but thankfully we made it safely (I traveled with my dad) and the hotels weren't bad. And the truck had air conditioning!! That wasn't a big deal in Seattle, but once we hit Kansas today where it was 110 degrees, we were very thankful! Got to visit briefly with a cousin and her family in Colorado, and had some enjoyable conversations with the old man. (I'm sure he'd love to hear me call him that! haha!) But overall a fairly quiet trip. So, first leg down! Now, the preparations for the BIG move! More exclamation points to come! :-)

Getting things packed up...

2010-07-28T19:29:00.000+01:00

Well, only a couple more days... the car is sold, the packing is - well - slowly coming along. My dad flies in tonight (he and I will be driving the truck back to OKC). I am saying goodbye to people and making plans for the future (which may include a certain woman, but more on that later... :-D). And, of course, in the midst of all this, I catch a cold. Not the end of the world, but it does seem like sometimes God (or the devil, or whatever) just likes to throw a little extra at me to see how I'll handle it. haha! Anyway, still a lot to do, but unless there's some major event I will be leaving Seattle on Friday! When will I return? Only God knows... but I'm hopeful! I've loved living in the NW and hope to again someday.

less than one week left in Seattle...

2010-07-25T01:50:00.000+01:00

Lots of loose ends to tie up - probably most of them I haven't thought of yet. :-) In six days, I will begin my drive from Seattle to OKC. I have to finalize the sale of my car, get rid of all the unnecessary junk in my apartment, pack up everything, etc etc etc. I have started working on my Danish - got some tips and lessons from a tutor and now I have to start working on memorization of vocab and grammatical rules. Fun! (sort of) Anyone want to Skype? I'm getting a webcam soon and I hope to keep in touch with people that way. Let me know. Not sure if I'll get a cell phone in the UK or not, still need to figure out how that's gonna work. Anyway, that's my random ramble for the day.

The times, they are a changin'...

2010-07-21T07:21:00.000+01:00

Well, it's down to less than two weeks until I leave Seattle: first, off to Oklahoma City for a few weeks, and then it's off to Oxford! Wow... I'm starting to realize that this is actually going to happen. It's weird how something can seem so distant, like a dream, and then reality sets in. I'm feeling a mixture of emotions - excitement, nervousness, sadness, hope... I have the feeling this blog is going to turn into a slightly different outlet for a while... I will try to provide a fairly constant running update of what is taking place as my adventure unfolds. Here it comes!

On the differences between humans and other animal species...

2010-07-16T08:28:00.000+01:00

So, I was having a fun discussion with a couple friends last night, and we got onto the topic of human/animal cognition. Yes, that's fun! :-) Anyway, I brought up the concept of "reflexive thinking" in humans, and I thought I'd post a bit about that here and see what sort of discussion it inspires (if any).

A quick online search finds a couple of definitions of "reflexive" or "self-reflexive" thought:

In sociology, reflexivity describes "an act of self-reference where examination or action 'bends back on', refers to, and affects the entity instigating the action or examination."

In literary theory, the term self‐reflexive applies to "literary works that openly reflect upon their own processes of artful composition. Such self‐referentiality is frequently found in modern works of fiction that repeatedly refer to their own fictional status."

The basic idea, philosophically, is one where thinking is reflecting upon itself; in other words, thinking about what we are thinking. My basic assertion is that, as far as we know from all available evidence, human beings are the only species that exhibits this sort of reflexive thinking.

Nearly everyone agrees that there is a big difference between the way humans think and the way animals think. But often this is described merely as a quantitative difference (humans have larger brain capacity, and so we have evolved more complex thought processes) rather than a qualitative one. I want to suggest that human beings actually possess a reflexive quality to our thought that is unique to humans. Whether it is an evolutionary development or divinely created is presently beside the point, though an important question (maybe it's both! ;-D). The main thing is that, for whatever reason, only humans have developed this quality.

Another way to say this is that only human beings ask of themselves, "Why did I do such-and-such?" Only humans apparently have the cognitive means at their disposal to question their own motivations, and reflect upon the concepts/ideas that guide their actions. For example, though an ape or elephant may paint (after being guided by a human, of course), only humans give expression to what may be called the concepts of "art" or "beauty." Why is this? Can it really just be shrugged off by the explanation that our brains are a bit larger and more developed? Or is there something more taking place?

Notice that I am NOT saying humans are necessarily superior to animals. There are, it would seem, still many humans who spend most of their time thinking and acting in ways that are no different from other animals. Humans do have all the animal traits consistent with higher mammals, but it would seem that humans also have something else, the potential for reflexive thought which, I would suggest, may provide a key to understanding ethics and other philosophical systems.

Of course, perhaps I am biased in this whole discussion, due to my belief in God. But, even without a belief in God, it seems reasonable that the view I've outlined might be a valid explanation of the cognitive faculties in human beings versus cognitive faculties in other animals, specifically the apes and other intelligent species.

Clearly, this is just the tip of the iceberg and I am a neophyte in this area with lots of research still to examine. But, these are some initial speculations on my part. For a rather developed article on several facets of this topic, check out this entry at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

More of my favorite song lyrics...

2010-07-13T22:32:00.000+01:00

This is really apropos for me, with my impending move to the UK and all the transition accompanying that! Plus, it's a beautiful song. :-)

King's X - The Difference

I walked through a garden in the morning
I walked right into a change
No words were spoken, just a feeling
And I cannot explain

But I can feel the difference
I can feel the difference

Wind it comes and it blows
Where it comes from, I don't know
To look for a reason might just kill it
And I cannot explain

But I can feel the difference
I can feel the difference

And I cannot explain...

re-post: guilt and conviction

2010-07-08T22:26:00.000+01:00

[I'm re-posting this because the original was corrupted by spammers]

I've been thinking lately about the difference between guilt and conviction, and the importance of distinguishing between them for Christianity. A quick dictionary search comes up with the following definitions:

Guilt (n): a feeling of responsibility or remorse for some offense, crime, wrong, etc.
Convict (v): To make aware of one's sinfulness or guilt.

Now, at first there doesn't seem to be much difference between these two terms. Guilt is the feeling that you've done something wrong, and conviction is what causes that feeling. But, for Christians, it is important to make a further distinction, one that will prove vital, I think, for a proper understanding of God's love and our response to God.

That difference is directly related to who does the convicting. Here's what I mean. There are multiple sources that can convict: a judge, society, your parents, your self, God... But in Christianity, the divine source of conviction, God the Holy Spirit, operates differently from any other source we face.

How so? The Spirit convicts us of sin (John 16:8). Moreover, the Spirit is what enables us to live as Christ has called us to live (Rom. 8:11, Galatians 5). But, even more important for the issue at hand, the Spirit assures us of our salvation (Rom. 8:11-16, 1 Cor. 12:3, 2 Cor. 5:5, Gal. 5:5, Eph. 1:13).

So, we have a source of conviction who also assures us of our salvation: The Holy Spirit. This is a great source of hope! And it shows us the important distinction between guilt and conviction in Christianity.

Guilt fills us with a sense of dread, fear, or despair. We feel guilty because we have done something wrong, and we are either afraid of punishment, or of rejection, or embarrassment, or loss. Guilt is a powerful motivator because it reminds us of the horrible results our actions may bring about, and drives us to avoid those actions, or at least to cover them up.

But guilt is also extremely difficult to get rid of, once it's taken root in our lives. Guilt follows us and haunts us and torments us. And, unfortunately, many Christians have been initiated into a life of guilt, due to the sort of "merit-based" Christianity that has erroneously been handed down for centuries.

Conviction from the Spirit is different. This is not because there is no guilt in conviction; of course, we have all done things that are wrong, things that we should do or should not do. We have all failed. But, if the one that points out our guilt is also the one who reminds us of our treasured status as beloved children of God, the outcome should be quite different.

Instead of feelings of fear or dread, a more proper response would be remorse. There is no condemnation, as Paul says, but there is a reminder of the fact that we haven't lived up to our calling. This reminder should cause us to say, "Yes, I'm sorry, I know I should have acted differently" -- at which point the Spirit assures us that we are still loved, and are blessed with God's gifts of grace, mercy, and forgiveness... and the strength to try again!

Even more, because of the grace of God that reminds us of our salvation, there is no need for guilt to remain: it has nothing to cling to, nowhere to hide. Often we forget this and let guilt hang around in our lives, because we find it difficult to believe that God really loves us that much - enough to forgive and forget in a way that seems foreign to us. But when we believe it, we find that our guilt is no longer necessary.

And so, guilt becomes a mere trifle for the Christian, a minor bump in the road, as the Spirit gently uses our stumbling to remind us of our need to repent, and then helps us back to our feet and leads us on our way, so that we can forget about that obstacle and look forward, rather than backward.

If we, as Christians, can learn how to separate guilt and conviction, and recognize that guilt is the piece we can safely eliminate, while recognizing the value of allowing the Spirit's conviction to direct our lives, I believe that the overall health of the Church would vastly improve.

Colin Gunton on knowing God's attributes...

2010-07-03T07:25:00.000+01:00

from Act and Being (I assume the title is a nod to Bonhoeffer? ;-D):

"It is too easy to assume that we know what is 'our idea of God', so that the essentially problematic nature of what the tradition has bequeathed us is concealed. Most of the detailed problems derive from that, and the tangled web of interrelations between the Hellenic and Hebrew traditions consequent upon it...

We have already seen that, as with much of our theology, there are in this case especially two sources for what has been developed in the history of Christian thought, classical philosophy on the one hand and the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments on the other... the former tradition - for good reasons - tends to stress the impersonal and metaphysical attributes, the latter the personal...

But it cannot be the use of philosophical terminology in itself that is at fault. Christianity is a philosophical faith, at least in the respect that in its main streams it has never renounced the conceptual task: the task of making clear in what manner the gospel is true, and true in the same sense that other things are true... That is to say, it must seek to give an account of the way things really are...

[T]hat involves answering enquires about what it means for our understanding of the being of our God that he is described as a rock and a fortress and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. For that matter, the meanings of such words as love, freedom, and spirit are not self-evident. Love takes many forms and some freedoms are not what they claim to be, while many conceptions of spirit, especially some of those fashionable today, are not necessarily those of scripture."

God vs. Jesus - a false dichotomy...

2010-06-29T07:09:00.000+01:00

Today, I was talking with a friend about how difficult it can be at times to discern the will of God. I don't know for sure, but I suspect I'm not the only one who struggles with this: I often can't sense God's presence as much as I would like, and I also don't feel like I am getting a clear picture from Scripture regarding what God is saying, and so...

Well, me personally, I either get really frustrated and mad because God isn't doing anything (apparently), or I get worried and afraid to move forward because God isn't doing anything (apparently). I think another common response is to simply give up on God and try to do things on our own, because we think that since God doesn't seem to be showing up, we are left to make our own way. I don't believe any of these options are viable for Christians.

Thankfully, we are given a very clear picture of the will of God: it is found in the life of Jesus Christ as captured in the gospels. Jesus, we believe, IS God. Fully God, and yet fully human. So, if you want to know what the will of God is for your life, look at how Jesus lived, and follow his lead!

"Yeah," people might say, "but Jesus really didn't have to deal with what I'm dealing with. His world was totally different than mine." True enough - but only partially. Yes, Jesus' historical time and place was far removed from ours, but the response he gave to his world is the same response we are to give to ours: announce that the kingdom of God is at hand, and live out that proclamation!

It all sounds so easy when I say it, but, unfortunately, I know full well how difficult it can be. And even though I don't really like admitting it to myself, I am fairly certain that I know the real reason I/we make excuses like this. The truth is, we really don't like the idea of living like Jesus!

I mean, if the will of God is to live like Christ, then it apparently will involve sacrifice. It will mean placing others before ourselves, even to a radical degree at times. It may mean giving up everything we hold onto for security. At the very least, if following God means living like Jesus, it will often upset our comfortable lives. And this - I suspect - is the real reason we often ignore the will of God clearly presented to us in the life and work of Christ, and instead try to look for some mysterious "sign" or evidence of the "will of God" in our lives.

Perhaps when we stop looking for (and trying to fabricate in our field of vision) what we think God's will should look like, and simply start to follow Jesus and live like he said we should, then we will find that God's will has never been far away... it's always right in front of us, waiting for us to take it seriously.

If I'm completely honest, it's easier sometimes for me to create a false dichotomy between God and Jesus, as though God's will and Jesus' will are not the same. But if Jesus is God, then God's will is Jesus' will. And Jesus has given us a pretty clear picture of what God's will involves. It may not always be that appealing, but that's something we will have to deal with if we are going to take God's will seriously.

Maybe I'm just realizing how much I fight against what God really wants, and how much I try to make God's will into my own will. That will never work. So, instead, I'm going to try a bit more each day to follow Jesus. At least that's my desire.

God, give me your strength.

Enrique Dussel on "the poor" and "the kingdom"...

2010-06-23T07:51:00.000+01:00

(The complete article from which these quotes are taken can be found here)

"[R]eligion is not some ideological superstructure which justifies the prevailing system; religion is rather the infrastructural undermining of the sinful status quo and the construction of a new order in history as an offering or sacrifice to God, a sharing in that building of his Kingdom which is God's own gift.

The revolutionary who is a believer will not see his religious position as a matter of accident or of little importance. His religion is a radical openness, an enabling condition of greater political and economic creativity in his work, his service of the poor. This service, 'already' in the Kingdom since it is outside the system, is worship of God. Thus the poor are a necessary mediation of the act of worship of the Infinite...

All actual, material, and thus religious service of the poor is in itself worship of God and the building of his Kingdom. To deny poverty is to deny the absence of the Kingdom in the present system. It is to affirm the existing system as the kingdom of this world. To affirm the poor, on the other hand, and to serve their eventual liberation, in the structures and in history, is to witness to the presence of the Kingdom in the satisfying of the poor and to the absence of the Kingdom in the imperfection of society...

The Church, God's remnant among the peoples of earth, has evangelism for its calling. To evangelize is to bring good news to the poor, to turn the many into a people and to make that people aware of the destiny that God has prepared for them: the Kingdom. Not just aware, but active, now that there is a real possibility of conquering sin, of restoring their wealth to the poor and of building a new order in which there will be neither rich nor poor, neither oppressors nor oppressed, neither nations of the centre nor nations of the periphery, neither ruling classes nor those that suffer the rule of others."

How important is orthodoxy?

2010-06-19T19:27:00.000+01:00

No small question! I mean 'orthodoxy' in the broad sense, referring to the 'fundamentals' of the Christian faith, what we attempt to explicate in the Apostle's Creed, or other similar statements. Let me start by saying that I try to take these fundamentals very seriously. I say 'try' because there are times I question some of them, and wonder about their necessity. And a lot of the time I am confused by them. (The more I learn about God, the more I realize I don't understand God!) But, I am willing to accept the basic foundations of the faith:

God is one, and yet triune, Christ is God who became a person, and died, and rose from the dead to reconcile all creation to God. The church is essentially the presence of Christ in the world. One day God will complete the reconciliation of all creation. That includes belief in an afterlife, the resurrection of the dead.

Let me repeat, I believe all this - that is, I am willing to place my hope in it, even though I don't always understand it. But, therein lies my question. How important is it for us to correctly believe these fundamentals? The key word is, of course, 'correctly'. I assume that nearly everyone agrees God is beyond human comprehension. I would be very surprised by, and skeptical of, anyone who claimed they have God figured out. God would not be a very impressive deity if we could figure him out!

However, there are still many Christians, I suspect, who - even if they agree with the above assumption, are confident that they way they view God is accurate. They may not claim to know everything about God, but what they do know about God, they know correctly.

How do they know this? Well, they have some particular interpretation of Scripture, or appeal to reason and common sense, or set of experiences, or storehouse of tradition to which they appeal. More likely, they have a combination of all of the above. And, like all human attempts to understand something, Christian beliefs include views that are more general, and more specific.

What do I mean by general and specific? Well, here is an example of a general Christian belief: "There is a God." Clearly, it would be very hard to claim that one is a Christian if one does not believe there is a God. A specific belief, on the other hand, might be something like, "All Christians were chosen by God before creation, and God already has decided who will be saved and who won't." This is a belief grounded in a particular interpretation of Scripture, and at the end of the day, it is hard to see why a Christian would have to hold this belief. After all, you could be one of the chosen, and be following Christ, even if you had never heard about being chosen before creation. In other words, you don't need to know how you are saved, in order to be saved.

But, one might ask, how do we determine which beliefs are general and which are specific? Well, early on, the church developed the creeds and councils as ways to make decisions about what constitutes proper Christian belief. This is how orthodoxy developed; beliefs would arise about which someone said, "That doesn't seem right." There would be a debate among all the church leaders - sometimes they would last for decades! - and finally a decision would be made; this particular belief is/isn't correct, and so was labeled as either orthodox or heresy.

Now, the big problem with this approach is, naturally, that human beings are imperfect and make mistakes. So, decisions would be made that were later reversed. Arguments that could not be resolved sometimes led to factions and splits - although, prior to the Reformation, the church generally had a much better track record of maintaining unity in the midst of disagreement. Unfortunately, there has also been no small amount of violent response to these disagreements, which thankfully our modern world has been able to alleviate somewhat. At any rate, it is clear that maintaining orthodoxy has been fraught with difficulties.

HOWEVER, it is worth pointing out that the basics (i.e. The Apostle's Creed, etc) have managed to withstand nearly 2,000 years of struggle, and the vast majority of Christians still agree on these beliefs. So we can reasonably assume that the general beliefs of Christianity seem a bit more solid and have a wider range of support.

Still, none of this really answers the question of importance. If we agree that orthodoxy has value, then we can also ask about the constitution of that value. Is it simply in believing these 'basics', or is the value in a posture of faith that expresses willingness to believe, in spite of what the 'basics' may be? If we say what matters most are the beliefs themselves, we run the risk of claiming to have figured God out. Additionally, we seem to be setting ourselves up as potential heretics, if and when some of the beliefs are modified. (Granted, with the basics, it seems highly unlikely there will be much modification! Most arguments are about the specifics...)

On the other hand, if we say that what matters more is our posture of faith, that is, the willingness to simply follow Christ no matter what, we seem to be caught in a vicious circle: Who decides what constitutes a posture of faith? A further problem - we seem to be setting ourselves up as potential heretics, since any number of varying factors might influence our posture. So what do we do?

The danger of heresy exists either way. This leads me to think that those who claim to have a 'correct' view of God ought to be very humble and slow to speak, since that danger of heresy is always present. I do not claim to have a satisfactory answer to all of these issues, but I do have a couple of suggestions.

1. When in doubt, relying upon the basic beliefs of Christianity seems wise. In general, there is little reason to deviate from these basics unless one has truly struggled with them in a variety of contexts and with a variety of conversation partners.

2. There is nothing wrong with questioning your/our beliefs! Doubt may lead one away from God, but doubt is always a crossroads: will I be led by this question to a new realization about God, or will I be led to deny God? There is a big difference between rejecting some belief and replacing it with a better belief, and rejecting belief. Of course, the follow-up will be: How do we know what 'better belief' means?! (I'll leave that for another post!)

3. Fear of heresy is still fear. We should be concerned about heresy, but not afraid of it, because God knows we don't have everything figured out. We all slip into heresy from time to time, and with God's grace we are able to wriggle free. But heresy is not equivalent to damnation. If we can learn to be graceful with each others forays into heresy, we will all be better off in the long run, and may actually grow to be more orthodox.

4. Orthodox belief and a willing posture of faith always have to be held together. There is no simple formula. At the end of the day, to claim that one is 'correct' is to answer the wrong question. The question isn't "Are my beliefs correct or not?" The real question is, "Given that I have placed my faith in Christ, how can I best reflect that faith as I live my life?" This involves not only learning to express our beliefs as clearly and coherently as possible, but it means taking them seriously, and actually following what we say we believe. Otherwise, it doesn't really mean much to us, does it?

I welcome your thoughts.

Looking for the goodness in all things...

2010-06-17T07:18:00.000+01:00

In the church "small group" study I have been attending, we are reading through C.S. Lewis' small book, Letters to Malcolm, which is a collection of essays in letter form, as though written to a friend (for some time several of us thought they were actual letters, but I grew suspicious when some of the sentences became so ornate that I thought, "man, no one writes letters like that, not even Lewis!" :-P) Anyway...

In the book, Lewis talks about prayer, and a variety of theological topics related to prayer. Tonight we were discussing his idea that prayer often begins with looking around at the simple beauty found in your current situation. Even if there is nothing profound happening in our lives - even if we are in a bad situation - it is still possible to find a bit of goodness and linger there. As Lewis puts it: "Begin where you are."

But Lewis then expands on this idea a bit more, and we found ourselves (or at least I found myself!) drawn to the understanding that goodness is always present in our lives, at least to some extent, and to that extent, God is present. In other words, anywhere there is any good, it is a reflection - even if a very dim one - of God. This, of course, is not a new idea: St. Augustine, for example, viewed God as the source of all goodness, and to the extent that there is evil, he called it the "absence of good." Augustine (following a neo-Platonic route) went on to say that evil has no actual reality to it, because since it is not good, it is also the absence of God, which makes it also lack reality.

Of course, most of us will question such a notion, because evil seems quite real to us. But Augustine's point was subtle. Think of theft, for example. In theft, what takes place? If someone steals an apple, they do not eliminate the goodness of the apple. They just take that goodness (assuming we like apples! :-D) and transfer it from one location to another. In so doing, they take goodness away from someone else. This is the evil; the taking of good from someone else and keeping it for yourself. Even if you were to smash the apple under your foot, you haven't eliminated the goodness. It simply returns to the earth, where it has the potential to actually create more goodness (i.e. a new apple tree).

Lewis makes a similar point, and one that I think is quite helpful for us in developing not only a more accurate picture of evil, but of sin as well. Lewis describes the theft of the apple in Augustinian terms, but goes on to add that in stealing the apple, we are actually doing harm not only to the person we robbed, but also to ourselves, and indeed to all of creation. Why? Because every time we sin, we transgress against God's goodness. Sin is not simply the fact that I took something which wasn't mine, it is also the fact that I contributed, in a small but nonetheless profound way, to the reduction of good in creation.

Now, someone may point out that an apple isn't everything - for that matter, everything in creation has limits. All is finite. We can't all have our own apples all the time, so to speak. It is true that we are, in a sense, caught in a catch-22. We can't solve all the world's problems and eliminate sin. But Christ calls us to live as though we will (see Matt. 5-7 for example). But even though we cannot eliminate evil - only God can - we are asked to believe, by faith, that God will do so. And living with that faith gives us the courage to foster goodness in the world, even when it seems like it won't make much difference.

This is where the dual lesson of goodness can transform the Christian. If we are, through Christ, able to see that any and every act of goodness is a small taste of what God is like, and every act of sin is a small (or big) taste of what it's like when goodness is stripped from the world, we can begin to see what Christ calls us to be. We are bringers of goodness!

And with that goodness (which is really God's goodness), we also hope that maybe, just maybe, our actions have the power to re-make the world in some sense. What we do really matters! Following Christ has the power to transform not just people, but all of creation. Not completely, of course, but God never asked or expected us to do everything. God does ask us to live as conduits of goodness, bringing hope - even in small doses - into the world by following Christ.

Becoming a 'self', according to Kierkegaard...

2010-06-12T09:04:00.000+01:00

The following sections are from George Pattison's The Philosophy of Kierkegaard:

"I can never turn around and say of myself, 'Now I have become the human being I had it in me to become'. Why not? Because, as long as we live in time, who or what we are is still open to revision and change. I may 'be' the great leader of a nation but then, in my dying breath, betray that nation to its enemies. Our end can never be had other than in what Kierkegaard calls the mode of 'anticipation'. My 'actuality' then, is not the actuality of a fully realized potential. It is itself a process of actualization whose end is not yet given.

...[P]layful self-discovery is entirely positive, as long as we understand that it is just a play and that a moment comes when we have to move from possibility to actuality... Why? Because we are in danger of responding to the demands of actuality by allowing ourselves to atrophy in the domain of possibility. We resist 'getting real' and want to remain perpetual adolescents, unable to take responsibility, unable to commit to a clear and consistent existential task, unable, in the last resort, to be anything... a life frozen in possibility, a life that, so to speak, remains in the theatre - remains the life of a spectator - when it should be getting out into the world of action."

Now accepting donations! :-)

2010-06-08T01:55:00.000+01:00

Ok, it's a bit pushy, I suppose, but I now have a button at the top of the page that provides an opportunity - for anyone who feels so inclined - to donate to my Oxford adventure! I will begin my Phd (or DPhil, as they call it) program in Sept, and I am going without a complete financial aid package at this point (though I'm hoping that will change after the first year - I'm gonna be filling out every scholarship application I can find!).

So, I am relying upon God - and the kindness of blogdom ;-) - to help me make it through the first year! If you can spare anything to help me, as I make the big transition across the pond to a new school and a new life, please consider donating. Thanks, and God bless!

Geoff

The immigration debate: Where do Christians belong?

2010-06-04T19:59:00.000+01:00

Recently, I began a discussion with some friends on Facebook, who were responding to my 'status' statement saying that I disagree with the new Arizona immigration law (and, by extension, the national immigration law). As FB is sometimes a challenging forum for writing extensive explanations, I thought I'd take a stab at a more coherent statement here. So, briefly (I hope!):

First and foremost, I take it to be paradigmatic that, for Christians, our allegiance to Christ trumps our allegiance to any nation or culture. This is a HUGE issue in itself, and perhaps until we really learn to take this truth seriously, debating issues like immigration will be exercises in futility. But, nevertheless, this is where we must begin. As Christians, our primary responsibility is not to defend our nation or its laws (though there is a place for that); our primary responsibility is to live like Christ, doing all that we can to offer glimpses of the kingdom of God breaking into the world.

But what does this mean with regard to immigration? Well, it means basically this: As Christians, our views on immigration (or any socio-political issue) must be grounded in what Scripture and the witness of the Christian faith have taught us, NOT on what is best for our national identity or security. I realize this is probably a big sticking point, but I submit that to ignore this truth is to ignore Christianity. Much of what is called 'Christianity' is nothing more than an idol shaped to look like Jesus, but having only those features which we find consistent with our particular cultural or political views. This must be challenged.

So, with Scripture and the Christian tradition as our guide, what do we see? In Scripture we are presented with a worldview that prefers grace over judgment. We are given, over and over, mandates to take care of the poor, the widow, the orphan, and the 'stranger' or 'alien' (the immigrant - Deut. 10:19). This is a theme developed in the Old Testament with particular intensity: Exodus 22:21, 23:9; Leviticus 19:33-34; Deut. 27:19; Jer. 7:6, 22:3; Ezek. 22:7, 29; Zech. 7:10; Mal. 3:5. The Israelites are even told to create a sort of welfare system for the poor, the widow, and the alien, since those groups are typically the ones most deprived of blessing (Deut. 24:17-21).

It is important to note that these commands (given by God to Israel) treat the immigrant as though they are already a part of the community. Of course, it could be said that such rules and blessings only are meant to apply to legal immigrants, not illegal ones. But Scripture gives us no such categories. Yes, the immigrants should agree to abide by the laws and morals of the Hebrew nation. But this is meant to happen in tandem with the acceptance of the alien by the Hebrew people. In other words, it is the hospitality of the Israelites, and the immigrants subsequent positive response to that hospitality, that constitutes their 'legal' status.

In other words, it is not the responsibility of the alien to first jump through a bunch of hoops before they will be accepted as a part of the community. Instead, it is the responsibility of the CITIZEN to treat the alien as though they are already a part of the community, inviting them to share their lives. If the alien rejects that generous welcome and the responsibilities that come with it, they are simply told to leave. But notice that this is a near reversal of the current American system, where people have to clandestinely attempt to cross a border, thereby breaking a law and preemptively committing themselves to expulsion, simply to have the possibility of receiving the generosity that we, as Christian citizens, should be offering them to begin with. Simply being given the opportunity to cross a border does not constitute hospitality.

This is why those who claim that illegal immigrants automatically deserve to be punished - either by being expelled or by being imprisoned - are simply wrong, from a Christian worldview. Of course, since the U.S. is not a theocratic nation where our national and religious identities are fused (and I am glad we are not a theocracy - that would almost certainly be worse for everyone), this complicates the issue. We have to navigate between our allegiance to national laws and our allegiance to Christ. The existence of a border ought to be respected, but there is a higher calling for believers than the call to protect our borders. It is the call to protect the needy.

This leads to a fair question: Who are the needy? Well, I could point to Jesus' words in Matt. 25, or the parable of the good Samaritan, or any number of other passages in the NT. Jesus seems to indicate that the needy can be anyone, depending upon the situation, and our call as Christians is to respond with grace to anyone in need, no matter where we find them. This offers another glimpse into the connection with immigration: if the first element of a "Christian" immigration policy is the a priori hospitality of the citizens toward the immigrants, the second element might be called "a generous immigration." In other words, we should begin with the assumption that we will try to take care of as many immigrants as possible, with the caveat that they are willing to embrace our generosity.

In Matt. 20:1-15, we read the parable of the workers in the vineyard. In the parable, Jesus describes (in details that sound ironically similar to the situations of Hispanic workers waiting in parking lots across our nation) the owner of a vineyard hiring workers who are standing around waiting for jobs. But, the twist is that the owner pays the same wage to those hired at the beginning of the day AND those hired at the end of the day. Naturally, those hired first feel cheated. But the owner says, basically: "You agreed to this wage. I want to pay these other workers the same amount. Why are you threatened by my generosity?" The parable challenges all of us - citizen and immigrant - to consider the reality that God's economy looks very different than ours. In the context of this current discussion, it suggests that those of us who think we are owed something more than others (whatever the reason) are completely missing the point. And, often, when I hear people talk who oppose relaxed immigration policies, it involves a lot of "they don't deserve it, until..." statements.

Jesus clearly extends the theme of generosity and grace in the gospels, and ties the reality of the kingdom of God directly to care for those who are on the margins, including the foreigner in our midst. Christ asks that we learn to become people who are willing to give of ourselves - our money, our time, and even our land/nation - in order that others might be blessed and come to know God. This is very challenging, but we cannot choose to ignore it simply because it's difficult.

Of course, a nation's laws are important, and as Christians we should respect them as long as they don't conflict with our call to follow Christ. Certainly there is nothing wrong with asking immigrants to obey the laws of our nation, and learn our customs (though I would argue that American customs are a lot more fluid than most of us want to admit - we are an experimental "melting pot" after all). But this, I would argue, is a two-way street. As long as we who are "good, law-abiding" American citizens remain unwilling to embrace immigrants - choosing instead to see them as criminals, or at best second-class individuals here to take our jobs - we are failing to extend the hospitality that will encourage them to join our way of life.

And, of course, this is exactly what has happened in America: we are a nation comprised of thousands of 'little countries', where people can spend their lives hanging out with others who are just like they are, and never have to really get to know the immigrants, or the poor, or those on the margins, who live right down the street. New immigrants pick up on that and do the same thing. Heck, I barely even know my neighbors - I'm part of the problem too, and I confess that.

I have no problem with our country telling immigrants that if they commit a crime, or refuse to be a part of our culture, that they should leave. But if our first and most common response is a lack of hospitality, that is wrong. And I haven't even brought up the issue of how America has systematically built up its own wealth while more or less ignoring the problems of other nations (except when they threaten our 'national interests' of course!). With mixed messages like that - Our country is the best place on earth to be, but we only want you here if you can prove you deserve to be here! - no wonder so many illegal immigrants attempt to fly under the radar.

As Christians, we ought to be trying to offer a different way, one that is hospitable, generous, and yes, demands responsibility. But in that order, not reversed. That's grace - it is given before we deserve it.

Miroslav Volf on God's gifts and our response...

2010-05-31T06:28:00.000+01:00

"To want to earn benefits from God or to receive them as payback gifts is to say three wrong things at once: (1) God is a negotiator God; (2) we can give something to God in exchange for something we want; and (3) we are agents independent of God who can relate to God any way we find to our liking. None of these things is true, however.

God is not a negotiator but a pure giver. We can give nothing to God but have received everything from God. Finally, we are not independent of God but are living on a given breath. To fail to recognize these three things is to live blindly and to claim God's gifts as our own achievements. To recognize these truths is to understand ourselves as who we truly are, fundamentally receivers."

(from Free Of Charge)

On Job: Speaking of God...

2010-05-28T05:46:00.000+01:00

The following quotes are from Gustavo Gutierrez' On Job: God-Talk and the Suffering of the Innocent:

"The language we use depends on the situation we are in. Job's words are a criticism of every theology that lacks human compassion and contact with reality; the one-directional movement from theological principles to life really goes nowhere. A quest for understanding that that is based on human and religious experience gives a glimpse of other ways of speaking (and keeping silent) about God.

Job... is, as it were, caught in the middle between, on the one side, a theory from which he cannot manage to free himself (the ethico-religious doctrine of retribution) and, on the other, the personal experience that convinces him of his innocence. Despite this dilemma, Job does not let himself be carried away by an abstract and facile logic: he will never say that God is unjust. Instead of speaking ill of the God in whom he believes, he challenges the foundations of the prevailing theology.

His friends try to corner him by claiming that his declaration of innocence amounts to a condemnation of God. Job... answers that God is not to be justified by condemning the innocent. But the dilemma torments him, and he tries to escape its grip. He does not know how to do it, but he is convinced that the theological method of his friends leads nowhere but to contempt for human beings and thus to a distorted understanding of God.

Job is sure that God knows him to be innocent. His friends do not know it, but God does... We, the readers of the Book of Job, also know that he is innocent and that this is how God sees him, for the author of the book has told us so in the prologue. For Job himself, however, the conviction that God knows his true situation is a conviction born of faith."

What are you doing here?

2010-05-25T19:29:00.000+01:00

[The LORD] said, "Go out and stand on the mountain before the LORD, for the LORD is about to pass by." Now there was a great wind, so strong that it was splitting mountains and breaking rocks in pieces before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind; and after the wind an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake; and after the earthquake a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire; and after the fire a sound of sheer silence. When Elijah heard it, he wrapped his face in his mantle and went out and stood at the entrance of the cave. Then there came a voice to him that said, "What are you doing here, Elijah?"

1 Kings 19:11-13 (NRSV)

Actually, I like this theory of LOST...

2010-05-24T09:19:00.001+01:00

What the ending of LOST is really about, according to the Simpsons... hehe... actually, after seeing the ending, it's not that far-fetched! :-)

http://tv.gawker.com/5545940/the-simpsons-had-a-theory-about-the-lost-finale-too

SEX! (a couple thoughts on a biblical view...)

2010-05-20T07:12:00.000+01:00

The following is a quoted section from an essay found on the Books & Culture website:

"I do not think the church, in particular, has done an adequate job of explaining the biblical view of sex and marriage in terms of whole-self giving. With ignorance of the overriding principles and purpose of sexual self-control comes a tendency toward technical adherence - following the letter of a misunderstood and disrespected law, rather than the wise and lofty spirit of it. We must do a better job of rooting our understanding of sex in the character of God and his image-bearing purpose for mankind. People may wrestle with the question of his goodness, but an honest fight with the real issues is better than brushing God off as a daft and irrelevant uncle.

Secondly, we must stop speaking of abstinence as if it has no post-marriage value. The fact is, we are talking about self-control — a virtue that matters as much to marital monogamy as it does to premarital chastity. And those are just the sexual applications! But when all we tout is abstinence, rather than sexual self-control, the connection to all other spheres of healthy restraint is lost — and with it the urgency and relevance of being disciplined people, of being adults."

In other words, there is a bigger issue at work in God's view of human activity than just our sexual behavior, it is the issue of healthy behavior as a whole. Have we reversed this and made sex the bigger issue? I think so. But, ironically, BOTH those who argue for "guilt-free sex" AND Christians who over-emphasize (or hide from) sex are a part of this reversal, and thus part of the problem.

Thoughts?

more lyrics I love...

2010-05-18T04:18:00.000+01:00

Jimmy Eat World - "For Me This Is Heaven"

The first star I see may not be a star.
We can't do a thing but wait,
So let's wait for one more.
The time, such clumsy time,
Deciding if it's time.
I'm careful but not sure how it goes.
You can lose yourself in your courage.

When the time we have now ends,
When the big hand goes round again,
Can you still feel the butterflies?
Can you still hear the last goodnight?

The mindless comfort grows when I'm alone with my 'great' plans.
This is what she says gets her through it:
"If I don't let myself be happy now then when?"
If not now when?

When the time we have now ends.
When the big hand goes round again.
Can you still feel the butterflies?
Can you still hear the last goodnight?
Close my eyes and believe wherever you are, an angel for me.

Christ's call to generosity...

2010-05-13T19:43:00.000+01:00

We read in Matt. 25:34-40 (Jesus speaking): "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we [do all these things]?' And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'"

Notice that the blessed followers are surprised. This is not because they didn't realize they were helping the poor or the sick. Of course they knew that! They were simply doing what they would normally have done – what they didn't realize was that, in doing just what they had always done, they were showing generosity to Christ!

Our responsibility as Christians is not to figure out how to 'find out where God is' and then become generous. Our responsibility is to begin living generously, developing a heart like Jesus' – and when we do, we will find God, sometimes in surprising places!

At the PNW-AAR...

2010-05-09T07:50:00.000+01:00

I'm in beautiful Victoria, BC, at the University of Victoria for the 2010 Pacific Northwest American Academy of Religion conference. I presented a paper today on "Crowd and Community in Bonhoeffer and Kierkegaard;" it's the third time I have presented here and it's always a great experience. The atmosphere is collegial, cordial, and - this year even more than last - very intellectually stimulating. Just a lot of fun. And, I will be stepping in as the "substitute" co-chair for the Session of Theology and Philosophy of Religion tomorrow (Sunday) morning, since the official chair had to leave early. So, that's pretty cool. It's been good to hang with other Fuller NW folks, and overall a great experience. I'm sure I could say more, but now I'm going to bed. :-)

"Christ is where chaos ends..."

2010-05-05T19:15:00.000+01:00

My devotional today was about lighthouses - how they provide light and direction to ships in stormy seas, and how we as Christians are supposed to be, in a similar fashion, lights to the world. One phrase stood out to me: Christ is where chaos ends. "But, that isn't really true..." I thought to myself. "Christians experience chaos all the time." However, upon further reflection:

If God in Christ is real and trustworthy, then Christ IS where the chaos ends. The problem is that we haven't, in this life, fully obtained Christ. We are caught between the often-stated 'now and not yet'. Sometimes I think we forget what this really means. By faith, we believe that God is for us in Christ Jesus. But too many times Christians - especially, I think, in wealthy, safe, nations - tend to experience our relationship with Christ in terms of wealth and safety. But this is not reality.

The reality of life is that it is fraught with chaos, and although we should not seek out chaos (it will find us soon enough!), we should not run from it either. But this means depending upon Christ within the midst of chaos. If Christ is not enough to sustain us in the chaos, if we prefer to rely upon our wealth and safety, then it shows how little we understand faith.

Of course, we must also be wise... especially when we are responsible for others. But, in a sense, as Christians, we are all responsible to others all the time. We have to weigh the needs of our neighbors almost as if they are the needs of family. We must always weigh our lives as being worthy of sacrifice for the sake of others, and the Gospel. This runs directly contrary to most of what our society tells us, all the time.

To return to the lighthouse metaphor, it is actually that we, as Christians, are BOTH the lighthouse AND the vessel in the storm. We are grounded upon Christ and have the Spirit's gifts to bring light, direction, healing and hope to those around us. At the same time, we are being tossed about and drifting toward unseen dangers and only the light of Christ - primarily as seen through other 'lighthouses' - can help us to navigate our way.

My prayer for every one of us today is that we would understand by the Spirit's guidance what it means to trust in Christ more fully, so that we can truly become beacons of light and hope, grounded in confidence that Christ is sustaining us, even as we are tossed around by the waves of life. Amen.

the future is up in the air...

2010-04-30T23:10:00.000+01:00

or at least it feels that way. I am now in a position that is rather difficult; I have been accepted to Oxford for a PhD in Theology. Yay! But, as it's a UK school and I am an American, there is apparently very little funding available for me. Boo! And, I have to fill out a form explaining where I am going to get the money to pay for everything while in the UK. Double boo!

I mean, I understand why they do it, and it's a good procedure to have in place - don't want students coming who can't afford to be there. But as someone who is 1) poor and unemployed, and 2) does not feel right about taking out a six-figure loan, I am a bit worried about the whole situation. I mean, God knows what the future holds and maybe things will work out better than I can imagine (C'mon Scripture promises! hehe), but I still have a decision to make. Prayers for wisdom appreciated!

Paul Holmer on theological trends...

2010-04-26T00:17:00.000+01:00

from The Grammar of Faith:

"We do Christianity an injustice... if we think that the lively and widespread interests in various subjects, what can be called fashions, are the points of departure for addressing others about the faith. It is the very stuff of fashions not to last; and theology which gets an easy hearing will as quickly lose the public ear.

A theology that is immediately attractive is often a poor introduction to the Christian life and thought. One must never entertain, therefore, a picture of a Christian theology as a net of causes and reasons, an intellectual proposal, which by constant assimilation of novelties, by continual adaptation to new circumstances, will reclaim the masses by its sweet reasonableness."

A "Christian" nation, again...

2010-04-22T01:24:00.000+01:00

Here is a short, helpful article explaining what is at stake in the argument for/against America as a "Christian" nation: http://therevealer.org/archives/3839

The bind of responsibility...

2010-04-20T06:20:00.000+01:00

As I've been thinking about ethics, especially with Bonhoeffer and Kierkegaard looming in the background, it's become fairly obvious to me (though I may be clueless! :-D) that the struggle to find a universal ethic is ultimately a dilemma that humans are unable to escape. It is a goal that we will never reach. The mildly interesting example in my previous post can serve to highlight this. If we have a responsibility to make sure we are always treating our friend the best way possible, and we are also attempting to live responsibly with regard to 1) our personal worldview and 2) the cultural ethics in which we are enmeshed, well... sooner or later, something has to give.

This is one reason why pragmatism is such a seemingly simple solution: We can't possibly know the outcome of every possible ethical choice, and so we make assessments based upon probabilities and ratios. At one level, this is all that we can do - There is no way to know all the factors that, say, may make one life more valuable than another, and so, as the old story goes, if we have to allow 10 people to die to save 1,000, that is our only ethical option. Of course, no one is really happy about this, but what else can we do?

What's interesting, and rather unsettling, about Bonhoeffer and Kierkegaard, is that both of them, in different ways, seem to say something else: There may be a time when, for a higher purpose that cannot be ethically/rationally quantified, it may be right to allow 1,000 to die for the sake of 10. This is not because the 10 are kings or generals, or something like that. That is just another form of pragmatism or utilitarian thinking. No, it is because, in God's 'economy', numbers don't really matter. And neither do ethical principles, at least the way we conceive of them in our human logic.

This is, to say the least, troubling... and deserves more discussion... which I will hopefully have time to do in the near future.

a little thought-experiment...

2010-04-17T02:39:00.000+01:00

I've been thinking about the concept of cultural obligation and how to interpret our responsibility to the various circles of existence in which we find ourselves. Now, I am going to quite intentionally bracket out Christian theology here, not because it isn't important, but just for the sake of the 'experiment.'

So, my thought is this: If we establish cultural values, such as politeness, fairness, honesty, faithfulness, etc, on what are those values based? Do they have any genuine ethical content outside of what we, as human beings, give them? How would we determine this?

Just as an example: Suppose I decide to make a comment that is true, but 'insensitive.' One example might be, "Do I look good wearing this color?" Now, suppose we did all sorts of empirical studies to show that a particular skin tone looks best with a particular color, and we analyzed personal preference to find out what people liked and why, and we could provide a great deal of evidence to show that, in fact, a solid amount of proof is available to show that you do NOT look good in that color.

The question then becomes, which is more ethically appropriate, and why: 1) The obligation to tell the person that they do not look good in that color - keeping them from embarrassment or pure aesthetic error, or 2) The obligation to be kind to a person we have a relationship with, and 'lie' to them?

There are many factors that might be considered here: How well do you know the person? How will they respond? Is it vital to take cultural expectations seriously? Is there really an imperative to always tell the truth? These are, of course, not simple questions. But I submit that quite often, we do not really consider these questions, precisely because of the complications involved.

Rather, we - for reasons of ease, simplicity, and 'politeness', simply go with the path of least resistance and do what will be the least painful in the situation. By least painful I mean that we do what we think will be the best thing to do that both protects the other person, and protects our obligations. If this is a fair assessment, then I ask: Is this a good way to act? Is it ethically defensible? Or is it misguided? I am wondering...

Sleeping At Last - "Naive"

2010-04-15T06:48:00.001+01:00

Just heard this album for the first time, and these lyrics are amazing (especially in the wake of the recent priest abuse fiasco):

"Naive"

Religion is a breeding ground
Where the Devil's work is deeply found,
With teeth as sharp as cathedral spires
Slowly sinking in.

God knows that I've been naive
But I think it makes him proud of me.
Now it's so hard to separate
My disappointments from his name.

Because shadows stretch behind the truth
Where stained glass offers broken clues,
And fear ties knots and pulls them tight.
It leaves us paralyzed.

But in the end such tired words will rest.
The truth will reroute the narrow things they've said.
The marionette strings will lower and untie,
And out of the ashes, love will be realized.

God knows that we've been naive
And a bit nearsighted to say the least.
It's broken glass at children's feet
That gets swept aside unexpectedly...

One writer's take on health care...

2010-04-14T09:44:00.000+01:00

Here is a very interesting recent article from The Atlantic magazine on the American health care system. Worth reading... even if you don't agree with all the author's points.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/09/how-american-health-care-killed-my-father/7617/

Ellul, American Propaganda, and Tea Parties...

2010-04-10T23:23:00.000+01:00

Jacques Ellul wrote "Propaganda" 45 years ago. In the book he articulates a theory about the development of a modern system of propaganda that is designed to enable societies to progress toward certain aims (political, technological, etc). In one section he describes 'sociological propaganda' in the U.S. Here is a very interesting excerpt:

"Another very curious and recent phenomenon (confirmed by several American sociologists) is the appearance of 'agitators' alongside politicians and political propagandists. The pure agitator, who stirs public opinion in a 'disinterested' fashion, functions as a nationalist. He does not appeal to a doctrine or principle, nor does he propose specific reforms. He is the 'true' prophet of the American Way of Life. Usually he is against the New Deal and for laissez-faire liberalism; against plutocrats, internationalists, and socialists - bankers and communists alike are the 'hateful other party in spite of which well-informed "I" survive...'

The agitator is especially active in the most unorganized groups of the United States. He uses the anxiety psychoses of the lower middle class, the neo-proletarian, the immigrant, the demobilized soldier - people who are not yet integrated into American society or who have not yet adopted ready-made habits and ideas... He makes groups act in the illogical yet coherent, Manichaean universe of propaganda, of which we will have more to say. The most remarkable thing about this phenomenon is that these agitators do not work for a political party; it is not clear which interests they serve... but they deeply influence American public opinion, and their influence may crystallize suddenly in unexpected forms."

Now, I have no doubt this sort of 'agitation', if it is genuine, occurs across the political spectrum. But, doesn't this sound a lot like the current explosion of "tea parties" that are taking place in the U.S.? Groups of people are coming together for a common cause that is nonetheless vague: They want to get rid of Obama, or his policies, or "liberalism"; they want "freedom" or "less government" or any number of things. Many of them claim to be neither republicans nor democrats, but independents. And what they desire isn't necessarily bad, but seems to be primarily a reactionary movement held together by the sorts of elements described above by Ellul.

What do you think? Is Ellul's description valid here? Does it still apply today? Have we become, in our age of ubiquitous media pundits and disaffected voters, a nation of 'agitators'?

a quote regarding the philosophical method...

2010-04-09T00:52:00.000+01:00

This is always important to remember if one is going to think clearly and carefully:

"When nonsense is spoken or written, or when something just seems fishy, we can sniff it out. The road out of confusion can be a long and difficult one, hence the need for constant attention to detail and particular examples rather than generalizations, which tend to be vague and therefore potentially misleading. The slower the route, the surer the safety at the end of it. That is why Wittgenstein said that in philosophy the winner is the one who finishes last."

Of course, balancing this wisdom against the necessary risk of truly living, especially living in faith - which requires that infamous 'leap', is the great challenge we all face!

A gentle reminder from my devotional for today...

2010-04-06T20:15:00.001+01:00

I like this:

"At times God pours out blessings on us. Mostly though, God's blessings are like gentle rain - sometimes coming so quietly that I don't even recognize them. It's not until I see the results of those blessings that I acknowledge how God has provided for me all the little things I need day by day."

an age-old debate among Christians...

2010-03-29T20:13:00.000+01:00

I posted this recently as a comment on my friend Phil's blog (see the link to the right), but I thought I'd post a revised version of it here, too, because I like what I had to say. And I'm humble. :-)

The following is an attempt to break down the disagreement between traditional Reformed theology and so-called Arminian theology. Here are my basic points:

1. Either God has given everyone common grace (i.e. God gives us all certain basic gifts/blessings) or God hasn't. It seems very difficult to argue, Scripturally or otherwise, that God hasn’t done this.

2. But if God has already given everyone common grace, then it is not entirely unreasonable to think that God may also choose to give everyone salvation grace. Of course, this would be universalism, which generally goes against Scripture and established Christian doctrine.

3. So, if all persons are given common grace, and not all are given salvation grace, on what basis is the distinction made? In Protestant Christianity there have been two traditionally developed responses: Reformed Christians believe God alone decides who gets what, and Arminian Christians believe we assist God with the decision in some way.

4. This basic division seems to be a false duality. I would suggest many Arminians actually come down on the side of Reformed theology, i.e. God alone decides. But this seems to beg the question, which the Arminians then ask: On what basis does God decide?

5. Reformed folks then say, more or less: there is no way to know, simply trust in God's sovereignty, justice, and love. Arminians say, fair enough, but certainly God doesn't just expect us to assume we're saved, right? Surely there must be some response involved? There needs to be some sort of fruit? (Here's where that pesky book of James shows up!)

6. Yes, say the Reformed folks, but it's a response that is brought about by the Holy Spirit, it's nothing that you would do otherwise on your own. The Arminians respond: But that would make any ability to distinguish truly Christian action from non-Christian action impossible, because someone could 'do' all the right things, and still not be saved.

7. Yes, say the Reformed folks, that's exactly right. There's no way to know, so simply trust God and the obedience will be the fruit of that. This creates a logical circle, wherein your fruit is a result of your salvation, but your salvation is evidenced by your fruit, and no person can be certain of the validity of either.

8. It's right here that we enter a paradoxical reality that falls apart logically. Essentially we've established a tautology, which is: "You are saved by God because God saves you." But even to state this tautology means that I have to agree with the statement, which throws the whole thing back up in the air, because the point is that I (a mere human) can never give assent to what God alone can claim. If we hold that God does it all, then even my agreement that God does it all becomes an impossible thing for me to affirm!

9. This is why faith is such an absurd mystery, but one that we have to cling to nevertheless; faith presupposes a subject that cannot logically be presupposed, if God truly always has priority, and yet we are asked to do that by faith.

All of this makes me sympathetic to the Arminian position, not because it is necessarily more theologically sound, but because it appears to push the ramifications of the paradox a bit further, and that opens up a lot of interesting space that it sometimes appears Reformed theologians are hesitant to pursue because of the 'danger' that they will fall into some sort of Pelagianism. My sense is that both sides can be valuable when held in tension with each other and used as a reminder of the paradoxical mystery of faith, rather than trying to establish a systematic articulation of faith.

Additionally, if God always retains the priority (ontologically, epistemologically, and soteriologically) then God will continue to have that priority in spite of our forays into strange theological territory. So, I guess what I'm saying is, I support the Reformed view, but the Arminian questions tend to be a lot more interesting!

the dilemma of freedom...

2010-03-26T22:08:00.000Z

Sometimes I wonder whether human beings are really free or not. But, then, sometimes, I think that if we are free, freedom isn't that great of a thing. I mean, everyone loves freedom, right? Until we're faced with a difficult choice, and then most of us - at least in our heads - wish that someone else was around to make the choice for us. That way, if things don't work out, we have someone else to blame. :-) Besides, making difficult choices is a stressful business.

Some people seem to thrive in that environment, but I have a suspicion they aren't always as thrilled as they appear to be. I mean, look at pictures of any president, before and after. They always look much more tired while they're president, and then, a few years later, they always seem more mellow. I know, that's not an objective assessment, but I think anyone, even the most ambitious person, wishes at times they didn't have to make decisions.

Anyway, my point with all this: Jesus said essentially, "If the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed." (John 8:36) And Paul echoes, "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free." (Galatians 5:1) So apparently Jesus has set us free, so that we might have freedom. This is merely a tautology, unless we understand what freedom actually IS.

So what is freedom? Certainly the typical response will be that we have been freed from sin and death, freed from God's righteous judgment. And that must be true in some sense if Christianity is true. But I think freedom has an even broader meaning. We are free from the need to worry about making choices. Jesus tells us not to worry, and as difficult as that is for me, I think he may have actually meant it!

This doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to make responsible decisions. We have to be accountable for our actions. But the freedom given to us in Christ is a freedom that essentially says, paraphrasing Luther's famous quote: Love God, and live as you see fit! This, I am starting to learn, means that we need not fear the dilemma of freedom. If we fail, God still loves us. If we succeed, we should give God all the glory anyway. We may not have a clue about what to do sometimes, but if we trust God, use whatever wisdom God has given us (and others - don't be afraid to ask for help!), and consider the cost... then we just need to DO something! Act!

This is a challenge sometimes for overly analytic types like myself. But thankfully, I can take comfort in the realization that Christ has set me free - free to live, free to fail, free to love, free to hope - and that freedom is not a "freedom of choice," it is a freedom beyond choice. It's the freedom that comes with knowing that no matter what choice you make, you have a solid foundation to which you can always return. So the dilemma doesn't have to be. I am trying to learn how to live this way. Actually, I think I'm being forced to... I guess I have no choice. ;-)

Bonhoeffer on church growth...

2010-03-23T06:25:00.000Z

"It must be considered a backward step when the house-churches [I wonder: and independent community churches?] increase in number at the expense of the local parish churches. This indicates a lack of creativity by the church-community, and a flight from the gravity of the historical situation. The growth of both forms ought to go hand in hand. Attempts at church renewal, such as the Pietist community movement, ought to increase rather than sap the lifeblood from the institutional church."

In one fell swoop, Bonhoeffer appears to have put his finger on, and critiqued, the essence of both the 'emergent' and the 'mega-church' models, and well beyond. But how to deal with this apparent "lack of creativity," as Bonhoeffer calls it? Any ideas/responses?

Bonhoeffer on Christian community and love...

2010-03-20T19:28:00.000Z

from Sanctorum Communio:

"Christians can and ought to act like Christ; they ought to bear the burdens and sufferings of the neighbor... It must come to the point that the weaknesses, needs, and sins of my neighbor afflict me as if they were my own, in the same way Christ was afflicted by our sins... Christ died for the church-community so that it may live one life, with each other and for each other.

Love demands that we give up our own advantage. This may even include our community with God itself. Here we see the love that voluntarily seeks to submit itself to God's wrath on behalf of the other members of the community, which wishes God's wrath for itself in order that they may have community with God, which takes their place, as Christ took our place."

Latour on religious speaking as "love-talk"...

2010-03-17T23:07:00.000Z

Provocative thoughts from an essay by the self-proclaimed "not particularly pious" French philosopher/sociologist Bruno Latour:

"Transport of information without deformation is not, no it is not, one of religious talk's conditions of felicity. When the Virgin hears the angel Gabriel's salutation, she is so utterly transformed, says the venerable story, that she becomes pregnant with the Savior, rendered through her agency present again to the world... On the other hand, asking Who was Mary?, checking whether or not she was 'really' a virgin, imagining some pathway to impregnate her with spermatic rays, deciding whether Gabriel is male or female, these are 'double-click questions.' They want you to abandon the present time and to direct your attention away from the meaning of the venerable story.

These questions are not impious, nor even irrational, they are simply a category mistake. They are so irrelevant that no one has even to bother answering them. Not because they lead to unfathomable mysteries, but because their idiocy makes them generate uninteresting and utterly useless mysteries. They should be broken, interrupted, voided, ridiculed — and I will show later how this interruption has been systematically attempted in one of the Western Christian iconographic traditions.

The only way to understand stories such as that of the Annunciation is to repeat them, that is to utter again a Word which produces into the listener the same effect, which impregnates you, because it is you I am saluting, I am hailing tonight, with the same gift, the same present of renewed presence. Tonight, I am your Gabriel! Or else you don't understand a word of what I am saying — and I am a fraud.

Not an easy task — I will fail, I know, I am bound to fail, I speak against all odds — but my point is different because it is a little more analytical: I want you to realize through which sort of category mistake 'belief in belief' is being generated. Either I repeat the first story because I retell it in the same efficient mode in which it was first told, or I hook up a stupid referential question to a messenger-transfer one, and I do more than a crass stupidity: I make the venerable story lie because I have distorted it beyond recognition.

Paradoxically, by formatting questions in the procrustean bed of information transfer so as to get at 'exactly' what it meant, I would have deformed it, transmogrified it into an absurd belief, the sort of belief that weighs religion down and lets it slide toward the refuse heap of past obscurantism. The truth-value of those stories depends on us tonight, exactly as the whole history of two lovers depends on their ability to re-enact the injunction to love again in the minute they are reaching for one another in the darker moment of their estrangement: if they fail (present tense), it was in vain (past tense), that they have lived so long together."

Theology matters!

2010-03-15T06:58:00.001Z

Ok, so what would you expect a budding theologian to say? ;-) But, I think it's important to point out a few basic theological principles, which can be found in any introductory theology text, or heard in any theology 101 course -- and that's not the same as a religion 101 course, by the way.

The reason I feel the need to state these principles again is primarily due to some of the feedback I've received (not comments on this blog) regarding my recent skewering of Glenn Beck's comments (admonishing people to leave churches that speak using the language of "social justice"). Admittedly, my comments have been a bit provocative, but I think Beck himself would probably be OK with that. After all, he's built a media empire on making provocative statements! :-)

Anyway, some of the feedback from supporters of Beck takes the following form: Essentially, I am taking Beck's statements out of context, over-exaggerating his claims, and haven't understood the theological basis for his views. To this sort of claim, I can only respond: No. Beck is wrong to make the above statements. And here's why.

1. Theology is not a democratic process. As Christians, we don't simply get to interpret God's revelation in the way that we happen to prefer. I realize sometimes that happens, but it's not what Christ ever intended. Christianity is not utilitarian. Scripture isn't meant to be interpreted according to whatever political/religious/sociological/psychological paradigm seems to be working best for us right now. We have to compare our views with the response to revelation offered by the Church, which ideally is a proper reflection of Christ himself.

2. Does this mean that Church leaders, or ivory-tower theologians, get to tell Christians everywhere what to believe? Of course not. It simply means that, in every instance, what Christianity means - and how we live as Christians - must be held up in the light of Scripture itself, and then interpreted through the Church (with a capital C). There are various approaches taken in order to accomplish this goal, and often there is disagreement, but everyone who takes Christianity seriously has some set of guidelines by which they determine their faith - and "whatever seems right to me" is NOT one of those guidelines.

3. Unfortunately, too often, many of us, even without realizing it, opt for autonomy in matters of theological discussion. We have good reasons for this - we've heard about the terrible crimes done in the name of Christianity, we are suspicious of corrupt preachers, there are so many competing views it makes it hard to decide, etc. But, none of this makes it appropriate to adopt my own agenda when it comes to Christian theology. My own agenda may have some value, but it also must be submitted to Scripture, and to the Church, if I am going to remain a committed member of a Christian community. I don't get to do whatever I want.

4. So, what do we do in the midst of all the confusion regarding what Christians believe and how Christians should live? We must - all of us, not just theologians - seek out good theology! Theology matters - and good theology all the more!

5. How do we do this? We begin by examining the paradigm through which we are currently viewing our faith, and see whether it needs adjustment. This is a constant process, and there are several things that have typically been emphasized by Christians throughout the centuries as ways to provide adjustment:

Scripture: What does the Bible actually say about X? Not just a few cherry-picked verses, but the Bible as a whole... what does it really say? This is a more complex process than any of us would like it to be, and it required serious study, which is something - I hate to say - many of us have neglected as Christians.

Tradition: Where there is a lack of clarity regarding Scripture, we can ask, what have other Christians throughout history said about X? Is there a consensus or have views changed? If so, why? It's not like there aren't a plethora of sources here - read the early Church fathers and mothers. Read Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas. Eastern Church leaders like Nicholas of Cusa and Maximus the Confessor. Thomas a Kempis, Luther, Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, John Wesley. If you want more modern works, there's Schleiermacher, Barth, Moltmann, Bonhoeffer, Brunner, Pannenberg, Rahner, and John Paul II. And that's just scratching the surface. Find out what all these respected people had to say. Or just get an overview of their thoughts.

Reason: Are there good reasons for, or against, X? Have those reasons been taken into account? This can become complicated, as reasons given often beget more questions. But it is vital that we approach issues with as much objectivity as possible when we are debating an issue. Otherwise, it becomes a matter of opinion, and you know what they say about opinions. :-P

Experience: It would be wrong to say that experience doesn't matter in theology. In fact, it matters a great deal. But experience must always be examined in the light of the other guidelines mentioned above. The experience of a certain church may be a genuine move of the Spirit of God. Or it may be a mistake, created by a false spirit or simple human "mob mentality." But, in our desire to develop autonomous theology, too many of us give priority to experience, and this creates all sorts of bad theology, because - as I already stated - my opinion or agenda does not equal Christianity. And just because I can get a group of several hundred people to agree with me for a few years, doesn't mean I have found truth.

Now...

What does all this have to do with Beck? Simply this. I believe Beck is wrong for the following reasons:

First, he misuses Scripture. He provides no solid Scriptural backing for his statements. This alone should make Christians suspicious of his statements. Second, he is not even considered a part of the Christian Church as traditionally defined. Since Beck is a Mormon, his statements can have no authority for Christian theology. So even if he did quote Scripture in its proper context, his statements should not be taken seriously. Third, given that Beck has no authority, Scripturally or otherwise, it is reasonable to assume that he may not know what he's talking about when it comes to Christianity. In fact, this is the case: he repeats the common false assertion that Christianity is about "you." He is simply falling into the trap of autonomous theology.

So when Beck tells Christians to leave their churches, he is really stepping into a discussion wherein he has no business. If churches are abusing the concept of social justice - a concept that has a rich history throughout Christianity - that is something churches need to discuss. Beck is certainly welcome to his opinion, but his opinion should carry no weight within the Christian community. It is an "in-house" discussion, so to speak. And while getting input from outside voices may be helpful by providing a perspective we hadn't considered, when those outside voices tell you to leave home, they are simply wrong, and to listen to them is bad theology.

Thus ends my diatribe. If you've made it this far, I appreciate your attention.

Glenn Beck is an anti-Christ...

2010-03-11T18:56:00.000Z

Notice, I said "an", not "the"... :-) But seriously, this guy is a jerk and does not deserve to be taken seriously by Christians, with comments like this:

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/08/glenn-beck-urges-listeners-to-leave-churches-that-preach-social/

It's fine to have an opinion about what constitutes "true" Christianity, but to use a media outlet as a pulpit in this way is no different than using it to beg for money or some other - let's be honest here - sinful, corrupt agenda.

Telling people to leave churches on national television, especially when he is not a Christian minister, or even a Christian believer (he's actually a Mormon), is wrong, and deserving of the title "anti-Christ" as far as I'm concerned.

Oh, and don't even get me started on his terribly misguided, inarticulate theology -- though, since he isn't a Christian, I guess that's a moot point with regard to this post.

Bonhoeffer on intercessory prayer...

2010-03-10T07:17:00.000Z

"A Christian fellowship lives and exists by the intercession of its members for one another, or it collapses. I can no longer condemn or hate a brother for whom I pray, no matter how much trouble he causes me. His face, that hitherto may have been strange and intolerable to me, is transformed in intercession into the countenance of a brother for whom Christ died, the face of a forgiven sinner...

How does this happen? Intercession means no more than to bring our brother into the presence of God, to see him under the Cross of Jesus as a poor human being and sinner in need of grace. Then everything in him that repels us falls away... To make intercession means to grant our brother the same right that we have received, namely, to stand before Christ and share in his mercy."

On secular and religious reasoning - what's the difference?

2010-03-04T07:31:00.000Z

In a recent article in the New York Times, Stanley Fish asks, by way of a book review (Steven Smith's "The Disenchantment of Secular Discourse"), whether there are 'secular reasons' that can stand on their own, independently of any ungrounded presupposition. He writes:

"[T]here are no secular reasons, at least not reasons of the kind that could justify a decision to take one course of action rather than another...

While secular discourse, in the form of statistical analyses, controlled experiments and rational decision-trees, can yield banks of data that can then be subdivided and refined in more ways than we can count, it cannot tell us what that data means or what to do with it...

Once the world is no longer assumed to be informed by some presiding meaning or spirit (associated either with a theology or an undoubted philosophical first principle)... there is no way... to look at it and answer normative questions, questions like 'What are we supposed to do?' and 'At the behest of who or what are we to do it?'

This is the cul-de-sac Enlightenment philosophy traps itself in when it renounces metaphysical foundations in favor of the 'pure' investigation of 'observable facts.' It must somehow bootstrap or engineer itself back up to meaning and the possibility of justified judgment, but it has deliberately jettisoned the resources that would enable it do so."

Quoting Smith, Fish describes the process of 'smuggling' by which secular reasoning establishes its principles:

"...the secular vocabulary within which public discourse is constrained today is insufficient to convey our full set of normative convictions and commitments. We manage to debate normative matters anyway — but only by smuggling in notions that are formally inadmissible, and hence that cannot be openly acknowledged or adverted to."

Fish (and Smith) claim that secular concepts like freedom or justice are, in fact, 'empty abstractions' that mean nothing until we ask to what they are referring. And, the values that guide our notions of equality, freedom, etc. will always be contested. So, it is finally a matter of establishing one guiding set of presuppositions over another, while recognizing that neither set is purely objective or free from bias.

Now, this is not a new argument, and supporters of secularism - often atheists and naturalists - quickly point out that it is a straw man argument: secularists (often synonymous with 'scientists') never claim to be completely objective when it comes to making decisions about how people ought to live. But what they do claim is that scientific research provides the best source of clearly repeatable evidence, and that evidence should be the primary guide for determining our decisions, since it's the best source of common sense we have.

In other words, secular values are supposed to be based on as straightforward a presupposition as possible, and scientific evidence provides a pretty straightforward answer. For example, we know that human beings are sentient and have emotions. Common sense would say that treating other human beings with dignity is a moral good, since it provides for a more stable coexistence between humans, and the possibility of a more productive shared future.

This all seems fairly clear and correct, as far as it goes. And most religious values actually cohere fairly well to secular values, as long as we stay within the realm of shared dignity. (For example, it is a well-known fact that all the major religions include some variation on the teaching, "Treat others as you would like to be treated.")

But now we get to the tricky question: Why do we assume that what is best for the survival of the human species is actually the highest good? To a secularist, such a question would probably sound ludicrous - after all, all we can do is make decisions as human beings, and all beings want to survive, so doing what is best for our species will ensure our continued survival. Pretty simple, right?

But, religion asks the question anyway: Why should we accept the secular presupposition? Why assume that the pragmatic decisions we make as human beings, on behalf of the species, using scientific evidence, are the best way to determine values? Of course, this opens up a Pandora's box of value possibilities that secularists are wont to shred with Occam's razor. But that only seems to beg the question. Does the simplest explanation really work when it comes to decision making? The correct answer would seem to be: sometimes yes, sometimes no.

This much is clear... If man is not the measure of all things, we have to look for another way to measure. And that is - to say the least - a very contested topic. And this, I suggest, is the true source of all the contention between the secular and the religious, between 'reason/science' and 'faith/belief.' The secularist wants to limit the realm of action to that which is testable and objectively true across the human spectrum. The religious wants to limit the realm of action to that which results from their particular value system. Clearly, this will always result in conflict.

Perhaps the best way to resolve this impasse is to move beyond the limitations found in any attempt to systematize values based upon presuppositions, and simply restrict ourselves to the realm of shared dignity. But this undoubtedly would feel dishonest to many believers. There is one other option: each person or group might start to take their values seriously, and then let the clash begin. Would all-out battle lead to an outcome more conducive to all parties? Or would one view simply be killed off by another? Which would be more valuable to our species, in the long run?

Addendum: For Christians, who believe that the highest value is self-sacrificial love, does it matter? Aren't we supposed to 'lose our lives,' regardless? Perhaps part of the problem is that we have forgotten what our faith is really about, or we don't really believe it. I think most of us don't fully believe what we claim. After all, in a clash of values, Christians will always be the 'losers', since we are supposed to love our enemies. And that means they will probably gain the upper hand, humanly speaking. But the fact that Christianity is so dead-set against ceding any ground in the 'culture wars' shows that we are far less concerned with loving our enemies than with protecting our status and comfort.

Rebuilding Haiti...

2010-03-01T21:30:00.000Z

A very thought-provoking article from Christianity Today on rebuilding Haiti, and the responsibility of Christian involvement:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/march/4.17.html

Thinking about 'I' and 'We' theologically with Gilkey...

2010-02-27T05:49:00.000Z

In his book "Message and Existence," theologian Langdon Gilkey (who taught at the University of Chicago a couple decades ago) describes two 'poles' of religious belief:

1) Participation in a community that bears objectively given tradition "under a particular symbolic horizon," and 2) "Personal intellectual assent" to that horizon, which involves experiencing and appropriating the tradition in such a way that commitment to it comes from the deepest level of our being, as an autonomous choice.

Leaving aside for now the issue of how such a choice can be made apart from the revelation of God, I think we find in Gilkey's description of belief (which leans heavily on Tillich) a valuable method for understanding the appropriate relationship between the 'I' and the 'We' that are both necessary for authentic Christian faith.

It is a relationship that some proponents of 'postmodern' theology have been attempting to re-capture, under a variety of headings. Perhaps examining Gilkey’s words more closely will provide some beneficial insight into this relationship.

With regard to the 'We,' Gilkey states that all historically formulated social communities contain both definite and indefinite visions of reality that express the ethos of that particular community. The ultimate views of any community will only be expressed symbolically, due to the inability of any member of a community to fully express the complete objective of that community.

Therefore, we use "powerful symbols" to describe the worldview we hold, and although there are "scientific, theorizable, and philosophical elements within such a symbolic structure, the structure as a whole is symbolic rather than theoretical..." (p. 27)

This seems to mirror Westphal's description of Christianity as a 'mega-narrative' instead of a 'meta-narrative,' a clarification which provides a sort of rebuttal to those who claim that any attempt to combine 'relativistic' postmodern theories with the Christian faith are tantamount to heresy. Understanding the Christian faith as a mega-narrative means recognizing that the symbolic structure of our faith places limitations on what we can say about our faith, and the object of our faith, God.

If a meta-narrative is primarily a theoretical system that endeavors to provide an explanation for all of reality - including the system itself - then placing Christianity within that realm is surely a mistake, for it seems destined to the type of circular failure that has resulted in the skepticism of both the philosophy of modernism as a whole and the particularly pointed criticisms of today's so-called 'atheistic fundamentalists.'

Existing within the 'We' is, for Christians, a matter of "belief on the deepest level," that is, "a personal participation in the life and ethos of a community and its tradition and an assent to the fundamental symbolic forms of that tradition as true and as normative, that is, as directing or guiding one’s own thoughts, goals, and patterns of behavior." (p. 27)

But just as there can be "no genuinely self-directing individuals without participation in community," neither can there be any real community without these individuals. (p. 34) There is an autonomous act of belief that involves the 'I' having and making use of genuine free choice. Here I would stress yet again that, if God exists, such freedom and autonomy can only find their true meaning as God reveals Godself to us, both individually and communally.

But the point is that there is a paradox: One pole of belief cannot exist without the other. Bonhoeffer made a similar point in his writings, which proclaimed Christ as the center but also held that the Church ceases to exist when its members are not present. Unless both the personal and communal sides of belief are held together, true belief is impossible.

But this is perhaps where the real potential within so-called 'postmodern' theology may be found – the desire to regain a truly meaningful communal element within Christianity is not only a good idea, it is necessary for the Church to exist.

What's interesting is that Gilkey suggests the development of autonomous belief systems throughout the Enlightenment project has been responsible for much of the damage done to belief. However, he still maintains that the individual experience which evokes genuine choice is essential for true belief. So we can see that Gilkey is struggling to find a balance between the two sides of belief... is there a way to resolve the tension found here?

I am starting to think about the way that thinkers like Kierkegaard and Bonhoeffer look at individuality and community. Perhaps combining a theory of absolute subjectivity with a theology of "Sanctorum Communio" (communion of saints) can provide assistance. More to come...

Has Our Nation Forgotten God?

2010-02-24T23:45:00.000Z

Recently I was forwarded a link to an excerpt from a book entitled, "When A Nation Forgets God." I'm not familiar with the author, Dr. Erwin Lutzer, but it's published by Moody Press, if that matters to anyone. I resonated with several of the points made in the section I read, but there was one underlying premise that seemed to be guiding the direction of the book, and that can, I think, be summed up in the following quote:

"When truth is rejected in the public sphere, the state will either turn to some semblance of natural law or more ominously, to lies. Secular values will be imposed on society, and it will be done in the name of 'freedom.'"

(The heading for the section is titled, "When God is Separated from Government, Judgment Follows")

I have a couple of big problems with this view.

Now, first, the author's appeal to Hitler's Germany as his primary example of a secular state hostile to Christianity is unfortunate, because Hitler is dragged out so often as a scare-tactic, I think it's become a bit tired. Yes, we all know Hitler was a terrible leader and under his rule Germany committed horrible atrocities. Yes, we need to make sure America doesn't end up like that. Point taken.

But this approach, as the above quote indicates, implies that we, in the U.S., were actually providing a clear portrayal of truth to begin with. And that is precisely what I think all of us, especially Christians, should question.

What do I mean? Well, first of all, we need to be honest with ourselves and accept the fact that America has NEVER been free of 'secular values.' In fact, those very values, albeit in a modified form, were the major impetus for our nation's creation nearly 250 years ago. The idea that America was founded as a 'Christian' nation needs to be put to rest as a type of revisionist history - a history that has developed, in my view, to make we Christians feel less responsible for the 'corruption' of our nation's values.

But the simple fact is, America has always been a negotiation between the religious and the secular. We have always been a nation founded upon 'freedom,' and I'm pretty sure the founders did not mean freedom in Christ! The fact that our constitution includes language about both freedom of religion and the separation of church and state is a clear indicator of that dialectic; an attempt to provide all believers - even those who are not Christians - with the opportunity to worship however they choose, while at the same time protecting the people from any one religious view becoming official by gaining government approval.

(And there were/are good reasons for that. If you want to know what they are, read one of the number of books about the religious wars and persecutions in Europe throughout the 16th-18th centuries.)

But, back to my main point: If America has always been a negotiation between so-called 'Christian' and 'secular' values, then the notion that America was, at some point in the past, a nation founded on 'truth' which is now completely eroded by secularism, is a false dichotomy. At best, America has been a nation with a strong religious heritage, a great deal of which stems from the Christianity of its early settlers. But that religious heritage has always been in tension with desire for the necessary 'freedoms' that make for a modern, secular state.

As such, we Christians have to admit a very uncomfortable truth: To a great extent, if the Christian religion is America's primary religious heritage, WE are responsible for the eroding of our own Christian beliefs, and the encroachment of secular beliefs within our society. Why? The answer is simple. If Christians had not been content to initially negotiate with secular values when founding the United States, we would not be seeing the flourishing of those same values in our present day. You don't grow what you don't plant.

Now, it may be that there was simply no way for America to even have a chance at becoming a nation in the absence of the religious-secular dialectic. Perhaps there is no other option. That's fine -- I actually don't mind, because I fear that any sort of theocratic government would end up being at least as corrupt as whatever secular state may instill fear in the hearts of believers today.

This leads to the second problem: If America was founded as an awkward marriage between the religious and the secular, and if Christians have been at least partially responsible for flirting with the secular, then the idea that placing Christians in positions of political power, or establishing laws founded upon Christian principles, will lead our nation back to the truth, is utterly flawed.

Why? Because Christians (and yes, I'm including myself here) haven't been proper bearers of truth to begin with - why do we assume we will get it right this time? Isn't it more likely that Christians will continue to revel in their flirtatious trysts with secularism, albeit under a new guise? If Christianity has led us to America as it currently stands, why do we think that MORE Christianity will solve the problem?

Now, here I need to provide a critique of my own statements thus far. For there are still two things that have yet to be resolved.

1) What do I/we mean by Christianity? Perhaps the problem is someone has an improper definition of what it means to be a Christian.

2) Am I not simply being cynical? Isn't any attempt to recapture the truth of the Gospel better than letting our nation slide into decay?

To respond quickly: As far as what it means to be a Christian, I believe this is precisely where we, as believers and followers of Christ, need to be having our discussions. Until we are able to determine what it really means for us to follow Christ as the American Church (I'm thinking broadly here - Catholic, Protestant, non-denominational, tiny home group and mega-church), our attempts to enact social change that reflects the Gospel will be muddled at best.

Indeed, it seems fairly clear that part of the reason secular values have gained so much momentum is that Christians have been fighting each other (or very specific political battles) for decades and we really don't have much of a compelling, articulate, alternate narrative for people to consider. I would go so far as to say that since great numbers of Christians can't even seem to agree on what it means to follow Christ, Christianity has essentially lost its place in the cultural discussion. Christians are so concerned about being "relevant" but can't even get along with each other. No wonder people don't take us seriously.

As to the second point, I hope I am not being cynical. I do agree very much with one of the main antidotes Dr. Lutzer offers to the situation, which is also, I think, an antidote to cynicism:

"It is time for us to reread the New Testament book of 1 Peter, written specifically to believers living in a hostile, pagan culture. They had no representatives in government to plead their case; they had no power to 'vote the bums out' as we do in America. They did not have courts that would give them a fair hearing. There was just persecution, intimidation, and deprivation. And sometimes death.

To them Peter wrote, 'Dear friends, do not be surprised at the painful trial you are suffering, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice that you participate in the sufferings of Christ, so that you may be overjoyed when his glory is revealed. If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you.' (1 Peter 4:12–14 NIV).

When confronted with these challenges we are tempted to do the wrong thing — to react with judgmental anger which will only entrench those who are on the other side in this culture war. We must do the opposite: respond with humility, love, and gracious courage. We will neither win these battles simply with politics (however important that is) nor by argument. Every Christian must regain the high ground with credibility, winsomeness, and yes, with joy. We must stand our ground giving thanks to God, even as it shifts beneath our feet."

To that, I say 'Amen.'

Praying with the Haitian earthquake victims...

2010-02-21T06:41:00.000Z

Here is an excellent essay from The Other Journal, written by Nate Kerr, on how to pray with the victims of the Haitian earthquake:

http://www.theotherjournal.com/article.php?id=934