Texas & Linguistics - A Match Made In Heaven

I ran across an interesting article today on the intricacies of the Texas accent from a semi-popular linguistics angle. As I am from Texas, and so obviously very passionate about it, and since I enjoy my share of linguistic study, it was an article that couldn't lose. Probably the most fascinating: There is a married couple who are both linguistics professors at the University of Texas-San Antonio whose major area of field research is the Texas accent. What a sweet job.

Anyway, here is the link: Texas Drawl Article

Holy Ghost Enema...Interesting Metaphor

Plato & a Platypus Walk Into A Bar...

Yesterday, as I turned on my radio for my daily NPR-listening ritual on my way to school I happened to catch the title of a book that sounded fascinating, it's called Plato & a Platypus Walk Into a Bar...Understanding Philosophy Through Jokes.  When I got home I was able to find an interesting and short interview NPR did with the authors back in May when the book came out.  You should take a listen here. After listening, I am even more determined to buy the book.  

For me, it seems like the book hits on something Jesus found out a long time ago, people resonate with stories and pithy sayings (e.g. parables).

Levenson - Death & Resurrection of the Beloved Son: A Theology of Transformation

"You shall not put off the skimming of the first yield of your vats.  You shall give Me the first-born among your sons.  You shall do the same with your cattle and your flocks" (Exod 22:28-29a, JPS)

"They have built shrines to Baal, to put their children to the fire as burnt offerings to Baal  which I never commanded, never decreed, and which never came into My mind" (Jer 19:5, JPS)

"I, in turn, gave them laws that were not good and rules by which they could not live: When they set aside every first issue of the womb, I defiled them by their very gifts - that I might render them desolate, that they might know that I am the LORD" (Ezek 20:25-26)

These are the texts Levenson begins with in his The Death & Resurrection of the Beloved Son:  The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism & Christianity.   For many, this first text isn't all that shocking because we will automatically apply our rule of faith (allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture) but Levenson rightly cautions against this (at least so quickly).  In Exodus 34:20, the sacrifice of the first-born is given the opportunity to be 'redeemed' by an animal while Exod 22:28 is eerily silent in terms of this provision.  

What later prophets do with this text does seem to present some tensions:  Jeremiah denies that YHWH ever commanded it (or is Jeremiah only speaking of sacrificing to other gods, e.g., Molech?) while Ezekiel, while not condoning the practice, does have it as a command of YHWH.  Interestingly enough, Levenson also asks the probing question, "If, as Jeremiah put it, "burn[ing] their sons and daughters in fire" is something which YHWH "never commanded, which never came to [His] mind," then how shall we explain the aqedah, the binding of Isaac in Genesis 22?" (12).   

What this seems to point to for Levenson is that "YHWH once commanded the sacrifice of the first-born but now opposes it" (8).  This is not to say that people obeyed this law frequently but throughout the literature of the OT it is undeniable that this idea of sacrificing the first-born is ubiquitous.

Vestiges of this idea can be found most importantly in Genesis 12 (aqedah), Judg 11:29-40 (Jephthah's vow), 2 Kgs 3:26-27 (Mesha's sacrifice).  The theology underlying Exod 22:28 is that first-fruits of all creation, animals and sons alike, belong to YHWH.  This is the underlying motif that will undergo many transformations in the OT.  

He then takes this tradition and extends it to the self-identification of Israel as the first-born of YHWH (Exod 4:22).  The Exodus itself is a story of redemption at the cost of the first-born.  Israel is released only at the expense of Egypt's first-born.  

This notion is transformed further in a cultic setting.  Whereas the offering of firstlings to YHWH in Exod explicitly says to give YHWH first-born sons as well, the stipulation in Deut 15:19-23 is missing.  Has it been eradicated?  Levenson says no, it has been transformed both by the cultic rites of the paschal lamb but also, importantly, in the dedication of the Levites whom Aaron is to "designate before the LORD as an elevation offering from the Israelites" (Num 8:11, 13).  

This even goes so far as to present a crisis in Num 3:39-43 when the number of first-born males of Israel were 273 more than the number of Levites.  "Thus Aaron and his sons were given 1,365 shekels as redemption moeny for the first-born for whom no Levites were available to serve as substitutes (Num 18:15-18, 49-51)" (47).  

Ultimately this does lead to the theme of Christ as Son of God.  Ironically Levenson does point out the hypocrisy found in Tertullian who railed against an ancient African practice of sacrificing their children because Saturn sacrificed his children: they were following imitatio dei, "in mimicry of Saturn's deeds with respect to his own offspring" (24).  Tertullian found it repulsive to follow a god who would sacrifice his own children.  Do you sense the irony?  See John 3:16.  

Levenson - Sinai & Zion: A Theology of Tension

The first thing to notice about Levenson's approach to OTT is that it is a theology of tension.  This is because one of Levenson's main points theologically is that the Hebrew Bible is much more ambiguous than we sometimes like to admit.  There is this ongoing balancing act within the HB to navigate these tensions, sometimes knowingly letting these tensions stand, for theological significance.  In the first section of Levenson's Sinai & Zion I noted some of the prominent contrasts and we have the following (there could be more):

intersection/barrier (15):  In the theophany of Exodus 19:16-22 there are "contrasting movements," the first speaks of the intersection between the lives of God and Israel.  The second speaks of the barrier between God and Israel.  This points up the classic tension between the immanence and transcendence of God.

relevant/distant (16):  "The Sinaitic experience is here presented as simultaneously supremely relevant to human experience and distant from it and foreign to it."

 tree/fire (20-21):  Deut 33:16, Exodus 3, and the wordplay between sene ('tree' or 'bush') and Sinay ('Sinai') suggest that YHWH is traditionally associated with a tree/bush.  Later tradition shows that YHWH is associated with fire (see Deut 4:24).  So then the narrative of Moses and the burning bush has both these symbols, tree and fire, "clash, and neither overpowers the other."  This is the case as well with the Menorah of the Tabernacle and Temple (Exod 25:31-39; 1 Kings 7:49).  

Egypt/Midian (21):  If you try and figure out where Sinai is, based on the earlier texts, a curious thing becomes known:  Sinai is neither in Egypt nor in Midian, God rather reveals himself in a literal "no man's land."  This is seen even in Moses's request to Pharoah to let the Israelites worship "in the wilderness."  The contrast is not only governmental (YHWH is not governed by either Egypt or Midian) but also between the desert and urban state.  So then YHWH's home on Sinai represents freedom, "which stands in opposition to the massive and burdensome regime of Egypt, where state and cult are presented as colluding in the perpetuation of slavery and degradation."  

legal law/affective law (50):  This again points up the prominent dialectic in Levenson's works:  "The energy and spiritual power of Torah flows in no small measure from its insistence on holding these two dimensions, the outer (legal) and inner (affective), in a tight unity, refusing to sacrifice the one on the altar of the other.  

YHWH/other gods (56ff):  This is where Levenson becomes somewhat 'controversial.'  He begins to doubt whether Israel's religion was monotheistic throughout its history.  I'll post again soon on his arguments for this.

God as king/Israel's king (70-72):  Levenson argues here that the covenant relationship between YHWH and Israel precludes human kingship.  YHWH is Israel's king and only rightful suzerain.  This presents in some texts a tension between pro-monarchical and anti-monarchical texts (the pro-monarchical tradition is typically what Levenson will put under the "Zion" category), see Judges 8:22-23/I Samuel 8:7.  Levenson would argue that even the Davidic covenant itself points up this tension.  "Thus, it is of the utmost significance that the Torah, the law of the theo-polity, was, for all its diversity, always ascribed to Moses and not to David, to the humble mediator of covenant and not to the regal founder of the dynastic state."  

law/love (86):  "His past grace grounds his present demand...Mount Sinai is the intersection of love and law, of gift and demand, the link between a past together and a future together."

 

The point in bringing all of these up is to show again Levenson's methodology and his Sinai & Zion does this paradigmatically.  Throughout even his part 1 on Sinai, Levenson is continuously pointing out tensions in the text, and this is all under the 'unified' rubric of Sinai.  You can imagine what he does then when exploring the relationship between his two parts, Sinai & Zion.  His first part develops one tradition found in the HB, in this case the Sinaitic.  He then goes back and develops what he sees as another tradition found in the HB, in this case, Zion. Then his third part discusses the parts where these traditions both agree, but more importantly, disagree.  I didn't always agree with Levenson's conclusions but I found his methodology refreshing.  Pointing out the tensions really did open up the text and allowed me to see things in the text that I would never have seen before, mostly because my methodology didn't allow me to.    

Rabbi Singer

Recently my friend Art introduced me to Rabbi Tovia Singer, a Jewish "apologist" of sorts.  He does a lot work with how to deal with Christians who are trying to convert Jews and their friends to Christianity.  And boy does he do a good job.  He has some very good things to say.  Anyway, you can search for him on itunes but I actually found a website that has several lectures from several rabbis, including Singer, so check them out.  

Here is Rabbi Singer's Page

And here is the homepage

Enjoy.  

The Tax Exempt Status of "Prosperity" Ministries

Saturday mornings have become my designated time for reading Time Magazine, mostly because I get it on Saturday. This morning I read an article on a subject I have been hearing a lot about in recent media. It is about Republican Senator Chuck Grassley's new investigation into the spending of the top "Prosperity Gospel" proponents, Time names six:

Kenneth Copeland, Creflo Dollar, Benny Hinn, Eddie Long, Joyce Meyer and Paula White.

One thing I never knew before was that the tax exempt status of religious organizations is based in some way on the fact (or trust) that those organizations will be putting money back into public service, something that is to be rightly expected of religious organizations. I think the Church would agree. And this is the problem I have with the pastors listed above. Asking for money for your organization is great, if its used to further the kingdom of God, not the kingdom of Paula.

I agree completely with this quote from the article,

"Prosperity dominates American religious TV, and millions of adherents send millions of dollars to preachers they have never met. For Grassley, this might be fine if the ministries put all the money back into their mission work. But his now famous question about [Joyce] Meyer's $23,000 commode suggests he questions the destination of the her estimated $124 million annual take."

This actually raises questions for me about the tax-exempt status of religious organizations in general. Why don't we "render to Caesar's what is Caesar's"?

Now, this post is actually difficult for me since I actually grew up watching and admiring the pastor's listed here, but at some point enough is enough. I have a hard time trying to understand the logic behind the theology that says God will give you money if you give money to someone who already has a lot of money and is asking for more of it.

Here is the link to the article:  Going After the Money Ministries

One Village Coffee

For anyone interested, some of my best friends in PA started a coffee roasting business this year with an eye towards being missional. They are fair trade and partner with MAMA Project in Honduras, Stephen's Children and other very worthy kingdom building projects. My wife currently works with them on staff and our group, LivingRoom, is behind them all the way. Oh and by the way, their coffee is actually pretty good from what I hear (me not being a coffee drinker).

I post this now as Scot McKnight today posted some good reviews of the cofee on his blog

So please, check them out by going to the following and then buy some coffee!:

One Village Coffee

Levenson & the Task of Old Testament Theology - Part 3

So now we know why Levenson isn't a fan of OTT, but at this point some accuse Levenson of speaking out of both sides of his mouth; he's not a fan of OTT and yet theologizes about the text Christians call the Old Testament. However, there seems to be an equivocation of terms. For Levenson there is a difference between the technical field of Old Testament Theology and doing theology with the text of the Hebrew Bible. The former, as seen in the other posts, is unable to accomplish its task of being historically contextual, creating a unifying theology out the entire Hebrew Bible, alongside the emphasis on the practice being done only by those of the faith. The latter has no such methodological baggage. “Instead, Jewish biblical theology is likely to be, as it always has been, a matter of piecemeal observations appended to the text and subordinate to its particularity. As Gershom Scholem put it, “not system but commentary is the legitimate form through which truth is approached.””

This is a very helpful explanation by Levenson of the differences he sees between "Old Testament Theology" and "Old Testament theology" (if I can distinguish the two with lowering the case of theology in the latter). Because of this explanation, Levenson actually does what he sets out to do and his works do in fact follow from the methodology he has laid out. “To be sure, Jews have contributed studies of theological themes in various texts of the Hebrew Bible.” Again, this is exactly what Levenson does in most of his major works and he does it fairly consistently. He does trace themes throughout the Hebrew Bible.

This post will be concerned with an interesting qualification on how Levenson plans on doing theology, namely, it's being synchronic. I am taking this qualification from his introduction to Sinai & Zion: An Entry Into the Jewish Bible.

Levenson’s explicit concern is to make this book a synchronic study rather than diachronic (page 12). While at first agreeing with Christopher Seitz who argued, “Although the author suggests in the introduction that his approach would favor synchronic analysis (p. 12), the bulk of his work remains at the diachronic level. This is not to say that Levenson is disinterested in generating stimulating theological positions based upon the present text. Far form it…but the spadework which produces these proposals is still predominantly diachronic…” I have come to nuance this view somewhat. Levenson’s view of synchronicity is in opposition to the type of historical criticism proposed by Wellhausen’s extreme source criticism. In this case, Levenson is showing that although he makes use of historical-criticism as a tool he is not interested in canonizing history as Wellhausen did. “In short, Wellhausen decomposed the Torah into its constituent documents, reconstructed history from those components, and then endowed history with the normativity and canonicity that more traditional Protestants reserve for scripture.” This is the sort of diachronic analysis he is avoiding when he calls Sinai & Zion a work of synchronicity. Importantly, what Seitz calls the diachronic spadework, is probably better described as tradition-history, a task Levenson is heavily involved in. Of course, to engage in tradition-history is in some sense diachronic, so I don’t want to dismiss Seitz’s observation outright, only show that Levenson’s definitions of synchronic and diachronic are not the same as Seitz’s and therefore shouldn’t be considered to be contradicting himself by declaring to do one thing while actually doing another. But there will be much more on how Levenson actually utilizes tradition-history in later posts.

The Future of Justification - Free Online Copy

In case your interested and follow up on NT scholarship and the current "New Perspective" debate, a new Piper book The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright was recently released. Now, I don't mean to betray my devotion to wtsbooks.com so you can still click on the link above and buy it from wtsbooks.com or you can click HERE and download the entire book from Piper's Desiring God website in pdf (just click on the small link 'read'). Either way, I am sure it will be a helpful read, whichever side of the debate you tend towards.

New Father

I am soon to be a new dad in April and my wife recently sent me the following video, I think I am a little offended. If I have conquered the Tipton digest and the Hebrew of Amos, surely some diaper changes can't be that bad...

Jon Levenson & The Task of Old Testament Theology - Part 2

The last post was Levenson's argument that the task of Old Testament Theology is an untenable task. It cannot be both historical and create a unifying theology out of the entire Old Testament.

Levenson’s argument is furthered by his look at the insistence of many biblical theologians on the faith commitment of biblical theologians. Citing Moshe Goshen-Gottstein and Gerhard Hasel, he contends that Old Testament theologians believe Old Testament Theology is an enterprise only for those of faith. But Levenson determines that a person of faith actually is not able existentially, that is, as a practicing Christian, to do theology without post-biblical elements. The practicing Jew of this century cannot isolate the Hebrew Bible from the larger corpus of tradition just as a practicing Christian cannot isolate the Old Testament from its larger corpus of tradition. If s/he does isolate it from the larger corpus it is by definition no longer Jewish or Christian but simply historical.

Levenson’s main point in this discussion is that if “biblical theology is historical in character” as Gabler suggests then “the affiliation of the biblical theologian is of no account for their work.” And if this is the case, then there is no distinction between history of religion and biblical theology methodologically, as it should be, suggests Levenson. As he sees it, “If, however, there are “persistent…principles” or “an overarching unity,” then it would seem that the historian of Israelite religion ought to be able to see them as well as can the Old Testament theologian.”

Levenson goes on to further to bring these two ideas of what he’s getting at together by discussing the importance of context in interpretation, an emphasis he says biblical theologians have largely ignored. “The great flaws of the biblical theologians are their lack of self-awareness on the issue of context and their habit, in the main, of acting as though the change of context made no hermeneutical difference.” Eichrodt is a prime example of this since his goal was to “combine the historical context of the Hebrew Bible (“its religious environment”) and its literary context in Christianity (“its essential coherence with the NT”). The problem with this goal is that it sets the two sides or contexts up as parallel tracks and any historical inquiry that casts any doubt that the two might ever cross in contradiction is disallowed from the beginning. This results in Levenson’s own doubt casting. If the tracks are so parallel and if they indeed never cross in the New Testament’s “Christian recontextualization” then why did the Jewish tradition continue? The opposite is also the case. If the text univocally points to rabbinic Judaism, then why are there non-rabbinic traditions that still exist? The answer for Levenson is a hermeneutical key to almost all of his critiques of Old Testament theology:

In sum, the historical evidence suggests that the Hebrew Bible speaks less univocally than Eichrodt thinks: it is to some degree coherent and to some degree incoherent with all its recontextualizations – Jewish, Christian, and other. The privileging of one of these over the others depends on something very different from dispassionate historical inquiry. It depends upon something more akin to an act of faith. This is not to impugn the act of faith, but only to say that it is highly problematic when it becomes regulative for historical study.

This is Levenson’s main critique of the field of Old Testament theology, tying together the tensions he has pointed out between historical and faith commitments. Now, this is again a good point but here Levenson seems to be making a proscriptive judgment against Old Testament Theology on the basis of his descriptive observance of it. Does Old Testament Theology necessarily have to be done in an apologetic fashion where the Old Testament cannot be seen in direct contradiction to the New Testament, as Levenson’s reading of Eichrodt suggests? Does a Christian’s take on the text necessitate reading it only in light of the New Testament? There does seem to be a way to read a text in its historical context as a “first read” prior to bridging the gap towards the New Testament as a “second read.” When Levenson says that commonality between Jews and Christians is doubtful because “…to the Christian, biblical theology is concerned with Christological issues in a way that excludes the Jew…” this is unfair and doesn’t take into account the importance of this “first read,” that does indeed allow for commonality.

Now that we have what Levenson wants to avoid, we'll look for the next several weeks at what Levenson actually accomplishes theologically, and, I dare say, it has had no small impact either on the theological world or on my own personal world.

Levenson & the Task of Old Testament Theology - Part 1

I want to attempt to review Jon Levenson in his relationship to Old Testament Theology. On the one hand, Levenson is explicitly against Old Testament Theology as he defines it, so this could be interesting. On the other hand, Levenson does do something akin to theology and he does it with respect to a set text that Christians call the Old Testament. So then we also need to account for what Levenson actually does positively in this field of “non-Old Testament Theology” Old Testament theology. For most of you, this second part will actually be the most interesting. Stay tuned...But up first, Levenson's reasons for doing what he does, his method to his madness (what we'll call his methodology).

The book, which is actually a collection of essays, that I found most clearly bring out Levenson’s views on the discipline of Old Testament Theology is The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, and Historical Criticism and the most helpful chapters in that book are the essays, “The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, and Historical Criticism” and “Why Jews Are Not Interested In Biblical Theology.”

Apart from the charge of Anti-Semitism, the most important disagreements Levenson has with the task of Old Testament Theology in these two works is its relation to history, which is in fact Levenson’s main methodological concern with the task of Old Testament Theology. If you remember, one of the staples of Biblical Theology that originally separated it from dogmatics was its insistence on the historical context of the text. But for Levenson this emphasis on historical context is in opposition to two other defining characteristics of Old Testament Theology, namely, presenting a unifying theology (singular) of the Old Testament and secondly, the role of faith within the discipline.

First up, the tension between taking a text in its historical context and making a unifying theology of the Old Testament. If the theologian truly deals with the text in its historical context, he or she cannot take into account all of the literature Christians call the Old Testament since “the construction of a religion out of all the materials in the Hebrew Bible violates the historian’s commitment to seeing the materials in their historical contexts. The result will correspond to the religion of no historical community, except perhaps some parties very late in the period of the Second Temple.” So then to discuss any unifying theology of the corpus of the entire Old Testament violates the historical context of each individual text, thus rendering the dual goal of Old Testament Theology untenable. This point is well taken. This is an important point that many Christians need to recognize. Levenson is not here saying that tracing unifying themes throughout the Old Testament is illegitimate, just that we need to be honest about what it is we are actually doing when we say we are giving full credence to the historical context.

At this point, Levenson is only arguing that ‘biblical theology’ is never an independent discipline, it is either history of religion or it is dogmatics masked as this unnecessary tertium quid. If only the historical context is taken into account, what makes biblical theology different from history of religion? If the text is looked at ‘canonically,’ what makes biblical theology different than dogmatics? So then, can the theologian construct a religion out of all the materials in the Hebrew Bible? Of course, but this is looking at the Bible in a literary context and hardly ever an historical context, a perennial problem of any religion of the Book. And at this point the scholar is engaged in what Levenson would consider ‘dogmatics,’ and should be willing to call it what it is. Any thoughts on this? I tend to agree with Levenson here on most of what he's saying. I would appreciate any feedback on how accepting what Levenson is saying here is wrong or makes me a heretic.

What's In A Name?

My wife & I started a blog about a month back so that we can keep our family up to date on the pregnancy and all. Well I decided to write about the names we picked out, so here it is:

If it is a girl our kid will be named Kieryk Eileen

If it is a boy our kid will be named Augustine Fredryck

What is the meaning of all this, you may ask. Well, let me tell you.

Kieryk - Named after Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855). You can google him and find out more but he is Jared's favorite philosopher, and since Jared was a philosophy major, that's a pretty big deal.

Eileen - Sarah was gracious enough to allow Jared to have the first names after philosophers and theologians but she rightfully claimed the middle names for herself (although we both love all of the names and wouldn't have it any other way). It is interesting actually, Jared's names are of philosophers and theologians, Sarah's names are of family. To be honest, this is actually quite telling of the kind of people we are. In any case, Eileen is the namesake of Sarah's beloved grandmother, from what I have heard, a beautiful lady who loved ice cream. I don't have a picture right now but I will be sure to edit this tomorrow or Sunday and get that out.

Augustine - Not the city, the saint. I know there is a major (though futile) debate amongst pseudo-intellectuals as to what is the proper way to pronounce this name. Many of you reading this will pronounce it Awe-Gus-Teen while many more of you will pronounce it Uh-Gus-Ten, we prefer the latter. I have once heard it said, "Awe-Gus-Teen is in Florida, Uh-Gus-Ten is in heaven" and well, we like heaven better. In any case, St. Augustine is an incredible theologian, arguably the most important theologian of the Ancient Church (AD 354-430). If you have never read his Confessions click HERE, it is a classic, a masterpiece, and should be read by every Christian.

Fredryck - Again, the middle names are for family. This happens to be the name of Jared's grandfather. I am almost certain he didn't spell it the same way, and everyone called him Fred, but I know for a fact that my child will not like to be called Fred.

This speaks to another thing: Who thought of shortening everyone's names? With a name like Augustine people keep asking me what I am going to call him. Hmm, let's see, why not Augustine? Do we really have to have a pet name for our kid? So please, this is for you dear mother, no "Gus" or "Auggie," only Augustine. Love you all!

Happy Birthday World!

According to Anglican Bishop James Ussher in his popular Annals of the World (1658) the world was created on October 23, 4004 BCE. So as of yesterday our planet is officially 6,010 years old! His research was based on a 'literal' reading of Genesis and a 'literal' reconstruction from the geneaologies therein. To read more, read the article or better yet, buy the book.

Jon Levenson & The Henotheism of Israel

In both Sinai&Zion: An Entry Into the Jewish Bible and Creation & the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence Levenson makes use of the argument that Israel in its beginnings was not in fact monotheistic but actually affirmed the existence of other gods, of whom YHWH was supreme (henotheism).

Levenson points out several texts in the Hebrew Bible that affirm this reading:

You shall have no other gods (elohim) before me (Exodus 20:3)

Who is like you, YHWH, among the gods (ba'elim) (Exodus 15:11)

For a great God is YHWH,
The great king over all the gods (elohim) (Pslam 95:3)

Now, the purpose of this post is not to engage in the implications of these texts but to point out how amazed I am at my own situatedness in my "interpreted Bible." In the "interpreted Bible" I have inherited from those before me, I have always read the above in light of prophetic tradition that in good orthodox fashion proclaims, "They have thrown their gods into the fire and destroyed them, for they were not gods but only wood and stone, fashioned by human hands" (Isaiah 37:19).

Instead of reading, "You shall have no other gods before me," I have always read, "Of course you shouldn't have any so-called gods before me, there is no such thing." A huge difference. So now, ironically, I might seem like a fundamentalist here, but, I think it's time we get back to the plain reading of the text. On the one hand, it might be that this is an unfair reading of the text. On the other hand, it might not be. But we'll never know if we don't ask the questions...

Once In A Lifetime - A Postmodern Documentary?

I am always a sucker for a good documentary. My wife on the other hand, not so much. But I still try and sneak them in whenever I can. Last night I watched Once In A Lifetime and I really enjoyed it. It's basically about the history of soccer in the United States in the past 50 years and the important role the New York Cosmos played in what we consider now to be a given sport for every 6 year old in America, with their cute "swarm" strategy.

Apparently, hardly anyone played the sport in America. But a business man, Steve Ross, owner of Warner Communications wanted to start a league and so he did. It was ragtag at first since no one around here really even knew how to play the game. But then Ross paid Pele, yeah, that Pele, to come over and play on this basically semi-pro start up team named the New York Cosmos. And the rest is history. It was amazing, several famous players from around the world ended up following suit. At the peak of the NASL (North American Soccer League) the New York Cosmos were filling Giant Stadium with 70,000 fans...um, that's incredible!

The story is great but one thing caught my attention as I watched this movie. There was something refreshing about the way they interviewed everyone: they let them disagree. It was amazing how much disagreement when on about what really happened. I appreciated the multiple perspectives of history and each persons view of what was going on. As subtle as it was, I really enjoyed it. Of course, if you watch this movie you might think I am over-analyzing a bit, or a lot, but for whatever reason, this type of filming caught my eye and this type of thinking is one of the good implications for a postmodern mindset.

Babylonian Talmud

For anyone interested with a few spare dollars, the Babylonian Talmud has been on sale at cbd.com for a while now. It's the Neusner translation and comes with a CD-Rom as well. Sure, it is still $300, but that's nothing for the wealth of Rabbinic knowledge you'll be getting...

Click here to check it out...

Progressive Revelation - "Rein In My Overstatement" Edition

I just re-read my last post and if I wasn't me I would have gotten the impression that I am affirming that Scripture contradicts itself. Now, for obvious orthodox reasons, I would probably want to shy away from that, even if that is where what Levenson says eventually leads. But how do I navigate this tension? Underlying all of this is my return to Calvin and Pete Enns' explication of the same notion in Inspiration & Incarnation:

"For who even of slight intelligence does not understand that as nurses commonly do with infants, God is wont in a measure to "lisp" in speaking to us? Thus such forms of speaking do not so much express clearly what God is like as accommodate the knowledge of him to our slight capacity. To do this he must descend far beneath his loftiness."

-John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book I:13:1.

So then God in the Scriptures "lisps" to us, that is, comes down to our level of thinking. Now, Pete shows persuasively that this includes cultural context. God reveals himself in Scripture in a thoroughly historical way, including cultural context. So then my main question in relation to progressive revelation and even in dealing with how the OT can be normative for us today is,

"What if "our level of thinking" is wrong?" What does it mean for God to "meet us where we are" or more appropriately, for God to "meet the Israelites where they were," if that place is a place of error (in the case of Israel's acceptance of the existence of a pantheon of gods following their fellow ANEers) or a place of myth (in the case of primordial history)?

What are the implications if we say that God 'lisps' to Israel and develops them through their history (of redemption as found in Scripture) to bring them to a place of true understanding of God?

This may bring up some sticky hermeneutical or normativity issues but I also think it helps me to understand more the 'suprising' revelation of Christ. He is in fact the capstone to this true development we find in history as recorded in the Scriptures. Any thoughts?

Progressive Revelation - Extreme Edition

As I have been reading a lot of Jon Levenson one issue that he non-chalantly brings up continually is the progressive nature of revelation. For many in the Westminster camp, this is great, until you really understand what he is trying to say.

In the Vosian view of progressive revelation, as many have taken him, there is an unfolding of revelation where the revelation revealed later in history builds upon and never contradicts or is in tension with previous revelation. This is the view of most Systematicians. Is this because Systematics as is usually defined precludes any notion of true historical dynamic? Does Systematics necessarily flatten history? That's a post for another day I guess...

As it has been explained to me, Vos' view, as interpreted by some faculty, describes the Hebrew Bible as a fully furnished room with no lights on. Everything is there, but it doesn't get revealed to us all at once. Certain pieces of furniture are left in the dark while others are 'progressively' being lit up so that we can see them. After reading Levenson, I realize that this position precludes any notion of true theological development.

One of the basic premises of Levenson's Sinai & Zion is that the Zion tradition inherits the Sinai tradition. Sometimes these traditions are in-step and sometimes they flatly contradict each other.

Within Levenson's Creation & the Persistance of Evil Israel develops historically from a nation of henotheism to a nation of monotheism, as evidenced from within the text itself.

Within Levenson's Resurrection & the Restoration of Israel Daniel 12:1-3 betrays a more developed notion of individual resurrection than the rest of the Hebrew Bible.

Now I haven't yet completely thought through the implications of this way of thinking, but Levenson's arguments on these issues are quite persuasive. It does in fact seem to me that early in Israel's history as we have it in the text they would have affirmed the existence of other gods. This is actually quite obvious if we would start to realize that we've been taught to gloss over these pericopes and assume that when the text says, "You shall have no other gods before me," we should read, "Of course, there are no other gods, they are only idols, so obviously you should have no idols before me."

My point though is not to argue these points, I might do that in another post, my only point is that I think Vos is right. And I haven't read enough of Vos to see how far he takes his idea of progressive revelation, but from what I hear, I think I am becoming more Vosian than Vos...

The Difference Of Perspective

December of last year I was required to read a book by Gerhard Hasel called Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate and I was its most vocal critic. Not of course for any substantial theological or philosophical reason, but because I just didn't like the book. I thought it was dry, over-detailed and to be honest, I just wasn't really interested in the topic.

However, when this semester rolled around I was required to read it again, something I was not at all interested in doing. But after my initial class with Pete I have really learned to love the deep contours of Old Testament Theology. I devoured Hasel after that in about 4 days and I loved every minute of it. For me it was a matter of perspective. Pete showed me how these issues really affected how I viewed my Scriptures and how important it was for me if I was going on in my studies to know them and know them well. It was very interesting for me how my attitude towards the book could change so quickly and dramatically, but I am glad it did.

So far this semester, this class has been by far my favorite (although also my most time-consuming).

The book itself is used most helpfully as a historical resource into basic theological history of OTT. Hasel does offer his own input on the situation but I didn't find them that helpful. This book really is a great introduction into the 'current issues' in OTT.

Kieryk/Augustine

I have been debated whether to post this or not on this blog since it's not my typical content, but since it's only one of the most life-changing things that's happened to me, I thought I might as well. My wife is officially pregnant. If it's a girl she will be named Kieryk Eileen (Yeah, that's after Kierkegaard, isn't my wife so sweet for letting me get away with it?) and if it's a boy he'll be named Augustine Fredryck (Yeah, that's after St. Augustine...see above). Here is our little blob at 7 weeks:

The Winds of Change

You can ask most people that know me...I am not one for change. I have only eaten one flavor of snowcone since like 5th grade. I don't write in blue pen. I only eat vanilla flavored ice cream. If it's been part of my routine for a while, why mess with it? Plus, when you're OCD, things like this tend to happen.

Anyway, about a week ago, I got a new Mac. I have never owned a Mac but have always wanted one. It took me a few days before I even opened the box when it came in because I started to realize how much I'd have to learn and change with a new laptop. All my Hebrew & Greek shortcuts and fonts would have to be redone, all my favorites would have to be re-entered. I have to admit that a few hours after booting up, I was ready to send it back and just go get a Vaio. Everything's just so different. Why can't you just 'right click' on it? Why do you have to go up to "Quit" on everything instead of just hitting the x? These were my frustrations. But alas, after another few days on here and in anticipation for getting an interface so that I can record my own music (a major reason I opted for the Mac in the first place), I have finally warmed up to the Mac as of today. I am still not a Mac-head but if any of my Mac-owning friends are a vision of what's to come, then I am soon to be a PC basher as well.


*By the way, major props to my wife. She actually got my friends and family to send money for my birthday so I could get a new laptop since mine had major issues. Thanks love.

Things I've Learned This Summer

As I trek back to that "other world" of Westminster tomorrow, I have thought tonight about some things I have learned this summer. The summer is always my time to process everything I've learned at Westminster and translate it all into my own language. But it's also a time for me to grow in other areas since it's really the only time I have for "other areas".

1. I love the Church. For many, this is obvious, but I really struggled with connecting with the Church. Growing up in Texas, I wasn't really ever taught that you were supposed to connect to a body of believers. It was always a place where I went to meet God and then go home. In college I learned that Church was actually a place to serve and help. But it wasn't until this summer that I really began to grasp what it means to love the Body. It's been an exhausting and exhilarating experience.

2. Through my "Summer of Religious Diversity" (which I am not done with by the way), I have learned to appreciate people. It's easy to demonize people's belief systems when they aren't actually attached to a person. Which is okay, until you start to treat the person the same way. It was such a great experience to see people practicing their beliefs in a simple and communal way. I learned to respect people's beliefs and people who believe differently than me.

3. I am pretty much a postmodern at heart. Of course, this may get me into some trouble, but I just can't help myself. I do find that authors like Derrida have important things to say about texts and we shouldn't as evangelicals throw the baby out with the bath water. It does in fact seem to me that there is "nothing outside the text." My questions now are "What does this mean for Scripture" and "How do we filter this idea through a Christian worldview?"

I am sure there are others, but that's all I have for now...

Philadelphia Folk Festival 2007

So I went to this folk festival a few weeks ago and I enjoyed myself probably much more than I should have. It's a gathering of about 4000 hippies and wiser (read: older) generations dancing and chilling to folk, bluegrass, and celtic music for three straight days. I had heard stories about this festival in the past, the legends of people just walking around completely naked, etc. However, it was a lot more low-key than I expected: which oddly enough was a little disappointing. Not that I wanted to see naked people but I do love to dance to bluegrass and folk music. And dance I did. There were about 200 of us in the back of the field just having a good 'ole time dancing to the fiddles and the banjo. This year I went by myself but next year I hope to recruit some friends, since I will definitely be back next year.

I was planning on making some 'spiritual insight' or 'illustration' out of this experience but there really is no need. Music, dance, and the like are all God's and it was a joy to participate. I had a great time which probably betrays my true inner hippie.

The Preacher & the Rabbi

One thing I noticed when I was at synagogue that has been rolling around the brain the past week: Their 'sermon' wasn't the climax of the Shabbat service. It wasn't like we often like to think about church, the music gets the heart softened and ready to hear "from God's word" and then all the drama, Scripture reading, etc. leads up to...the SERMON (dun dun dun). The sermon was there at Shabbat service, but it was just another part of the gathering. It wasn't long, only about 15-20 minutes out of the hour and a half service. As a result, it was a much more participatory service, where if you didn't engage, you felt left out.

On a similar note: the rabbi didn't present himself as "God's Man" as many preachers and pastors do today, and yet he is probably much more respected among his congregation than many preachers and pastors today. Maybe there's something to be learned there? It was very nice to have the rabbi identify the way he did with everyone else. He was there truly to shepherd and it showed.

Religious Understanding - Part 5 (Judaism)

I went to synagogue last Friday. I was giddy about it all day, like a kid on Christmas. I am absolutely fascinated by Judaism, which is why if ever I decide to get a Ph.D. it will certainly be in something relating to the Hebrew Scriptures. Well, needless to say, I absolutely loved it and would go every Shabbat if it were closer to my house. It was almost entirely composed of congregational chanting/singing in Hebrew (good practice for me). It was a Reformed synagogue (but not of the Luther stripe), meaning it wasn't crazy conservative (Orthodox) and neither was it crazy liberal (Reconstructionist)...it might be described as a Jewish PCA of sorts (of course 'crazy liberal/conservative' is quite relative I've learned coming from Liberty to Westminster). I really did love the tradition and the emphasis on "remembrance." Remember who you are in the Almighty, remember what it means to be God's people. They were all so sincere and so serious about their faith, something a lot of us could learn something about. It wasn't at all about 'knowing the right things,' it was about embodying this thing they called "Judaism."

For those who aren't familiar and with blatant oversimplification, Judaism accepts what Christians call the Old Testament and the coming of Messiah, but denies that Jesus of Nazareth was in fact that Messiah. Because of this, after the destruction of Temple in 70 CE, Judaism took on even more of a bibliocentric and communal nature. So, since 70 CE Judaism has really evolved.

Overall, I loved it, absolutely. They didn't wear their religion on their sleeve, you could tell they felt a part of the Judaic narrative, they were entrenched in the story, and I envied that.

Communal Sex Lives?

About a month ago I read an amazing book called Real Sex: The Naked Truth About Chastity, and it was a real eye-opener. There are many things to admire about this non-traditional approach to sex, but one thing in particular has really caused me to question a lot of my assumptions about the community's role in our sex lives. There is even a chapter called Communal Sex: Or, Why Your Neighbor Has Any Business Asking You What You Did Last Night. Here is an exerpt from that chapter:

"...the Bible tells us to intrude - or rather, the Bible tells us that talking to one another about what is really going on in our lives is in fact not an intrusion at all, because what's going on in my life is already your concern; by dint of the baptism that made me your sister, my joys are your joys and my crises are your crises. We are called to speak to one another lovingly, to be sure, and with edifying, rather than gossipy or hurtful, goals. But we are called nonetheless to transform seemingly private matters into communal matters...[Sociologist Wendell] Berry claims that "the disintegration of community" began when we started treating marital sex as a wholly private matter, when we severed the connections that link marriages to households and neighborhoods and communities" (56-7).

It is curious the many things we take for granted and assume in the ways we think. For most of history, even up until the 20th century, marital sex wasn't just between a husband and wife. How could it be when the majority of the populations lived (and still do in 3rd world countries) in one-room houses or huts? Your kids knew when you had sex. Your kids heard when you had sex...Scary thought?

In any case, my point is that we are to live in community because we are the body of Christ. What affects one part of the body affects the whole, whether we confess it or not. And our sex life is just one of those areas that we should be able to share about if need be, it just happens to be one of the hardest. But in the end we are free. We are free to be open and free to share because our worth isn't based on what we can hide from people about our sin and our humanity, but is based on a love by a God who already knows it and loves us anyway. Yet sometimes I think we value people's opinion but not God's. It's okay if God knows, but not so and so. Hmmm, interesting. But, as always, I am open for correction, rebuke, wagging fingers, etc.

"The best thing that could ever happen to any one of us is that all our sins would be broadcast on the 5 o' clock news." - Derek Webb

A Prayer by Anne Bronte

Reflecting on the past few years here in the Philly area, I've realized how much my faith has grown. This is surprising considering how incredibly often I have been plagued by doubt here at seminary. I feel like I have survived the turbulent waters of 'being honest with the text' and 'letting the text be the text' and have passed to the serenity of a 2nd naivete. But as I reflected on that and praised God for his hand in all of it, I came across a poem that I have really become attached to in the past few days. It's by Anne Bronte, third of the famous Bronte sisters (Charlotte & Emily) and is found in an amazing book called A Sacrifice of Praise which is "an anthology of Christian poetry in English from Caedmon to the mid-twentieth century."

A Prayer

My God (oh, let me call Thee mine,
Weak, wretched sinner though I be),
My trembling soul would fain be Thine;
My feeble faith still clings to Thee.

Not only for the past I grieve,
The future fills me with dismay;
Unless Thou hasten to relieve,
Thy suppliant is a castaway.

I cannot say my faith is strong,
I dare not hope my love is great;
But strength and love to Thee belong:
Oh, do not leave me desolate!

I know I owe my all to Thee;
Oh, take the heart I cannot give;
Do Thou my Strength, my Savior be,
And make me to Thy glory live!

Religious Understanding - Part 4 (Unitarian Universalism)

I have to admit, the question of why Unitarian Universalists even have 'church', has always been a mystery to me. But I found the answer (as stated on the back of the program):

Statement of Purpose:
We gather as a community,
To support and sustain
each other and our larger communities,
To further individual freedom of
belief, to encourage the search for truth,
and seek mindful relations with
all living beings,
By striving for justice and promoting the democratic
process in human relations.

So there you have it. The service itself consisted of readings by Shel Silverstein, Mark Twain, and Robert Frost. There were also some hymns sung from the Unitarian Universalist hymnbook. They were typically about nature and various other vague notions of peace and harmony. In the back of the hymnal were readings from all different religions, including humanism. Over all, I wasn't terribly impressed. They seemed a little arrogant to me (not that I can base it on one service) with a major emphasis on enlightenment thinking and thinkers. Which might not be universal (no pun intended) since I did go to The Thomas Paine Unitarian Universalist Fellowship.

The 'sermon' was by a member of the congregation on the connectedness of life based on the 7th principle of the UU Association:
7. Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

It was basically an extended discussion and possible argument for causal determinism, that we are all absolutely determined by our circumstances and temperment, both of which we have no control over.

One thing I was slightly disappointed in was that all of the rhetoric I heard and have read in the past about UU was how welcoming, tolerant, and loving they were but only 1 person talked to me the entire time I was there, and I even hung around for donuts afterwards for about 10 minutes just to see if anyone would come over to me. This is even more surprising considering that there were only about 45 people there. In any case, it wasn't too great of an experience, I still don't really understand the 'complete inclusivism' stance, it reminds me of the great conduit of wisdom Dash Parr from The Incredibles after his Mom remarks "Everyone's special Dash," he wisely responds: "Which is another way of saying no one is."

WTS Books & Blog Partnering

For those of you who are new to theological books, I'll be the first to let you in on a little secret. Westminster's bookstore is pretty much amazing. First all of they have the lowest prices, yes, even lower than Amazon. They carry pretty much any theological book worth reading and only charge 5$ for shipping on orders of any size. I get most of my books through them. But now they've added a blog partner program (for every 50 referrels they give you a 10$ gift certificate), which is even better. It's a great program, one which I'll be using, so definitely check them out!

http://www.wtsbooks.com/

Alice's Language Games

I have really wanted to read Alice's Adventures in Wonderland & Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll (which is a pseudonym for famous mathematician Charles Dodgson I just learned) for quite a while now. A few weeks ago I stumbled across a used book sale at my community library and stumbled across a 50 cent copy of Alice in Wonderland, o what fate. I finished it about a week ago and I absolutely loved it. Now, Alice is no Derrida or Wittgenstein, but for a children's book, the language games are everywhere, a fun read if nothing else for odd people who love language. A few examples:

"There's glory for you!"

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't - till I tell you. I mean 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "

"But 'glory' doesn't mean a 'nice knock-down argument,' " Alice objected.

"When I use a word, " Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all...They've a temper, some of them - particularly verbs: they're the proudest - adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs - however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenatrability! That's what I say...I meant by 'impenatrability' that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppse you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life."

"That's a great deal to make one word mean," Alice said in a thoughtful tone.

"When I make a word do a lot of work like that," said Humpty Dumpty, "I always pay it extra."

Or try this one:

"Aren't you sometimes frightened at being planted out here, with nobod to take care of you?" Alice asked.

"There's the tree in the middle," said the Rose. "What else is it good for?"

"But what could it do, if any danger came?" Alice asked.

"It could bark," said the Rose.

"It says 'Bough-wough!' " cried a Daisy. "That's why it's branches are called boughs!"

In the first excerpt above, I quoted so much of it because of the way everything plays out. It starts out with a very meaningful conversation about language but ends up unraveling into a mere deconstruction of language, playing with language. Which is typically what you'll find throughout the book. You won't find profound statements about language but the way the characters interact with language says something, if nothing else, the oddity of languages.

But if I could read into the two excerpts a bit, there may be something more to be had. This entire book could be a critique on a realist theory of language or correspondence theory, that words have real referents or referents in reality, a thought Derrida spent much time dismantling (in most cases rightly in my opinion). I found it to be a critique in that it presents what an absurd world we'd live in if a correspondence theory of langauge really obtained. The book then is, in a sense, hyper-literal, almost satirically so. At many places in the book, the characters in 'Wonderland' assume that the signifier has intrinsic connection (by way of form - spelling, sound, etymology) to the thing signified, which ends up with Alice scratching her head at such absurdities. The thing that makes it so funny is that you follow right along, you understand the logic, faulty as it is: they aren't just arbitrary incoherent strands of words. So whether you want to have a good book to read to your kid, love to play with language, or want to blow past any notion of authorial intent (maybe?) and have yourself a full blown satire of language, Alice in Wonderland is the book for you!

Religious Understanding - Part 3 (Buddhism)

Well, I have learned a ton about Buddhism over the last few weeks and it has truly been enlightening (pun intended). Unfortunately, I wasn't able to actually go to the Buddhist temple. I called them but they couldn't speak English so I couldn't get the information I needed. If anyone has been to a Buddhist temple and could let me know some information about it, I am still willing to go. However, the temple is usually used mostly by Buddhist priests/monks, not as a 'place of worship' like Christian churches, so I don't think not going was too much of a hindrance in understanding the lay-people who practice Buddhism.

After all the research I did over the past few weeks, the bare bones of the Buddhist philosophy is the following:

The Four Noble Truths:
1. The Noble Truth of Suffering: Suffering exists.
2. The Noble Truth of the Cause of Suffering: Craving for the desires of the senses causes suffering.
3. The Noble Truth of the Cessation of Suffering: To be free of suffering, get rid of this craving: this is Nirvana.
4. The Noble Truth that leads to the Extinction of Suffering: The Eightfold Path leads to the ending of suffering

Eightfold Path:
1. Right Views: Accept the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path.
2. Right Resolve: Renounce the pleasures of the senses.
3. Right Speech: Do not lie; do not slander or abuse anyone.
4. Right Behavior: Do not destroy any living creature; do not steal; abstain from unlawful sexual acts.
5. Right Occupation: Earn your livelihood in a way that will harm no one.
6. Right Effort: Prevent evil qualities and strive to acquire good qualities.
7. Right Contemplation: Be observant, strenuous, contemplative, and free of desire and sorrow.
8. Right Meditation: Enter the four degrees of meditation.

Five Precepts:
1. Kill no living thing.
2. Do not steal.
3. Abstain from sexual misconduct
4. Do not lie.
5. Do not drink intoxicants or take drugs.

So first off, I was thrown off by the fact that the above has a lot of great things to say. My struggle comes in however, when I try to find any Buddhists who only practice these principles. Although these seem to be the "bare bones," I have yet to find anyone writing that only affirms the above. Oftentimes there are more mystical Hinduism or folk religion overtones thrown in. One author even said that Buddhism was meant to piggyback on Hinduism. There are so many different cultural variations it's hard to get a grasp on the singular Buddhism. My questions and concerns come in because of a website I found that had a practicing Buddhist Sensei that was also a practicing ordained Jesuit priest. I had heard of Christian Buddhists in college but of course, I wrote them off without a second thought, even though I had no idea what Buddhists believed. Anyway, I am still wrestling with whether it is possible. I do have some issues with some of the principles above (notion of sin [natural state of man], notion of senses being inherently bad, etc.) but I don't know if they are enough to deem them absolutely incompatible with Christianity. Any research or recommending reading would be appreciated. Again, I don't want to become a Buddhist or anything, but I do want to be able to understand and relate.

30 Days of Heck Yes

Do you remember Morgan Spurlock? He was nominated for an Academy Award for Supersize Me back in 2005. Well he began a series in 2005-2006 called 30 Days that ran on FX. Sarah & I were looking for a new TV show to watch on DVD and picked it up. It is amazing and one of the most educational and eye-opening shows around. The basic premise is that someone does something completely different for 30 days to step into the shoes of someone else in society or into the shoes of some other societal situation. So a Christian from WV lives with a Muslim family and practices Islam for 30 days, an Atheist lives with a Christian fundamentalist family for 30 days, a couple live on minimum wage for 30 days, etc. I know it's an old show by now, but if you haven't seen it, pick it up. It certainly makes me a lot more careful not to stereotype and to watch what I say about other people's religion and culture.

In the most recent episode we watched, a Christian man lived with a Muslim family for 30 days. It was interesting to see, first of all, his pyschological conflict as to whether he was able to pray the prayers since he was a Christian. He didn't know if that violated his own faith. More than that thought, it put a face to a nameless label. There were plenty of Muslims living daily lives in Dearborn, MI, just like any American. One thing was different however - the self-discipline. I was very impressed by their self-discipline and the practice of praying five times a day. That seemed to help them keep their focus on God. It is certainly something I could learn from.

There was one poignant point made by one of the teachers when the Christian was wrestling with whether it violated his faith to participate. He insighfully said, "You're here to learn, not to believe." I think this is a very helpful statement when dialoguing with people of other faiths. Rather than get offended, remember that most people aren't trying to convert, only to have you understand. So instead of being close-minded and defensive, we should try to remember that we dialogue to learn, no one said we had to believe. Sometimes our fear of lack of faith on our own part leads us to dismiss out of hand the faith of another.

Religion & The Democratic Party

There was a very interesting article in the Time this week about Democratic leaders now being willing to talk about their faith in the public arena. To read the article, click here. Some may see this as only a contrived effort to get more religious votes, others a sincere step forward. In any case, the article was a breath of fresh air for me, that this complete bifurcation and assumption that all Christians are Republicans is starting to break down. Here is a taste of the article:

"The most conservative white Protestants, he says, are all but
off-limits to the Democrats. But then there are more than 22 million voters he
calls "freestyle Evangelicals," worried about not only their eternal souls but
also their kids' schools, their car's fuel efficiency and the crisis in Darfur.
In the past, those voters may have leaned Republican in part because the GOP has
been far smarter about presenting itself as friendly to people of faith while
painting the Democrats as a bunch of sneering, secular coastal élites. But
the Republican lock on Evangelicals may be breaking. The percentage of white
Evangelicals who self-identify as Republicans has declined from roughly 50% in
2004 to about 44% this past February, according to Green. Now the number is
closer to 40% as more Evangelicals choose to label themselves independents.
"There is a loosening of the Republican coalition, particularly among people
under 30," Green says, "but it is not yet a movement toward the Democrats. It is
a small but real change.""

The Agronomist

A few months ago, I watched a documentary called The Agronomist. It is a documentary by Jonathan Demme (Famed director of both Silence of the Lambs & Philadelphia) and is absolutely inspiring and motivating. It is the story of Jean Dominique, told mostly through the eyes of Dominique himself (through interviews held 1991-2000), of the political corruption in Haiti. Dominique didn't start out political but rather had a degree in agriculture. He was also interested in the arts and helped start a cinema group that was later shut down because they showed a film higher political figures in Haiti didn't approve of. When he began to see that things just weren't right in his country he began broadcasting on the radio and ended up owning Radio Haiti-Inter which later went under literal gunfire because of their standing for the people. They even broadcasted in Creole, the language of the people, rather than French.

I recommend the movie to any and all. It was incredible to see the simplicity of standing up for what is right. Even though I often justify my not helping those treated unfairly by saying "I don't even know where to start," this film reminds me that standing up for my beliefs is so simple, but that it is certainly not easy. I loved that Jean Dominique and his wife could have lived a pretty easy life but chose instead to be with the people. He had status and he had some wealth, but he chose justice.

Religious Understanding - Part 2 (Catholicism)

Although the next few weeks will be probably more enlightening and “interesting,” the past two have been incredibly refreshing. As much as we evangelical Protestants like to tout our breaking with “tradition” and “religious dogma,” putting down Catholics for their rigidity and archaisms, I realized that we too have our own “tradition” and “religious dogma.” And at the risk of being called a ‘heretic’ (which means less and less to me anyway, overused as it is) I found the unashamed religiosity of the Catholic Church soothing. Sure, I found it boring after about 30 minutes, but I loved that they weren’t there to “get ‘em saved,” they were there to meet as the Church. I loved that they didn’t try to impress anyone with modern day marketing schemes or advertisement, only a huge crucifix hanging from the ceiling. I don’t at all want to criticize the contemporary church, their intentions are pure enough (for the most part). I can only say what I felt, and I felt relieved. It felt good to worship next to brothers and sisters in Christ who had such a different way to worship that same Christ.

Since I grew up in the church, I heard lots of religious jargon. Probably 20-30 times since college have I heard something like the following:
“Do Catholics believe that too? I only thought Christians believed in that!”
“There were lots of religions there, Christians, Buddhists, Catholics, etc…”

As evangelical protestants I think we’ve done a poor job at encouraging fellowship with our Catholic brothers and sisters. Sure, they believe some things differently than us, but if we only and often emphasize those differences we raise up kids (and adults) who have cut off an important part of the body. Whether Protestant or Catholic, if we are Christian, Catholicism is our heritage, it is part of our roots, it is our grandfather in the faith. And just like our biological grandfather, I feel like we have to say, “sure we don’t always agree, sure I think he’s wrong about some things, but I love him anyway, and I respect him, and I have to, he’s family.”

Sorry, that was little rabbit trail. I did feel lost a few times in the service and that made me wonder how awkward it would have been for someone who had never been to a church before to have been in that building trying to follow along. Just a thought. Overall, the experience was great and it has really incited me to read much more Catholic theology, especially Aquinas.

“Calvin at least was accustomed to appeal to Thomas of Aquino (Aquinas). And I for my part am not ashamed to confess that on many points my views have been clarified through my study of the Romish theologians.” -Abraham Kuyper, a very Reformed Protestant in his Lectures on Calvinism

Choice as Neglect

I was at a party on July 4, talking with JR Briggs of Resonate about books. He said that he gets anxious in a bookstore because every book he chooses is his choosing 1000 other books to NOT read. I can definitely relate to that. But as I thought about that statement later I found it to be true in almost every sphere of life. In fact Derrida talks about this in his Gift of Death, which is an excellent book by the way. But it is true that our choice in almost everything is a choice that excludes almost an infinite amount of other possibilities. And this has very practical implications in our Christian lives. Every time I choose to eat a fancy restaurant, I am choosing to not send that money to a starving family in Africa, and I am responsible for that decision. But every time I choose to send that money to a starving family in Africa, I am choosing to neglect a starving family in Asia. Of course this could go on infinitely, but hopefully it helps us to see that our choices affect more than just those things or people that are directly influenced by that decision. So it seems somewhat funny and trite when we think about this concept in terms of books, but not so funny when we think about it in terms of hurting people in this world. Now this could easily lead to despair, a labyrinth of neglect, a drowning in the awareness of the profundity of every decision we make, but it doesn’t need to. But then again, maybe that’s the point.

Religious Understanding - Part 1 (Antiochian Orthodox)

This past Sunday was my first trek on my summer of religious understanding. I am starting slowly, just going to a few places that are very different than my own but undeniably Christian. This week I went to St. Philips Antiochian Orthodox Church (pictured left). It was a great experience.

First, the artwork was incredible. There was artwork on every square inch of the sanctuary, in typical ancient Eastern Christian style. Deep blues, reds, and lots of gold. The pictures told so many stories, I felt like I was a part of the stories themselves, surrounded. Right in front of me was a giant representation of Jonah being swallowed by the fish. I could've stared at it for a long time. Orthodox Christians allow icons and other pictures in their worship so this wasn't surprising to me. When you first walk in you are greeted by a small painting of St. Philip (the patron saint of this parish) on a podium. Everyone kissed it and crossed themselves as they walked in. If a couple had a child, they picked up the kid so that s/he could also kiss it. Interesting.

Second, the sounds. They chant everything in a sort of antiphonal sing-song. It was hard to tell the difference between a hymn, prayer, and Scripture reading, they all sounded similar. But I absolutely loved the ancient melodies and harmonies. I have to admit though, they got a bit tedious after an hour or so.

It wasn't all that surprising that no one brought a Bible with them to this church. But instead of being critical (which is my typical response to everything) I realized that they had the Bible all around them in pictures, in song, in chant, and in several Scripture 'readings.' Who am I to judge which medium is 'best' for church? Do we have to have a preacher preach every Sunday? They didn't seem to think so and I don't at all doubt their authenticity and devotion. We have such an Enlightenment focus on knowledge and 'the text' in so many churches, this was actually quite refreshing.

My final surprise came when I was studying about their beliefs and happened upon their website. One of the "What we believe" sections talked about why they pray to saints, something Protestants are notoriously critical of. But the explanation was quite good I thought. Basically the argument is this: We believe that Christians have eternal life. That is, they remain alive even after phyiscal death. We often ask our friends to pray for us, why not ask our friends who are physically dead but still very much alive? Anyway, I won't be praying to any saints any time soon, but that truly did change my perspective.

Overall, I loved the experience. I will probably go back sometime soon.