Video! Audio! Disco!

A Little Bit of Good

2012-01-26T14:49:00.011-05:00

Here's the truth: the only reason I am a Christian is because of the community that comes with it. Ironically, that's the reason that millions don't want to be. I sympathize. Unfortunately, the Christian community - also know as the Church - has both good and bad. We're reminded of the bad quite often by our culture. But let me share something about the good.

I just finished a two week trip in Ontario. During the time I met with various Christian pastors or what we Jesus people like to call "brothers/sisters in Christ." Every single person I met was previously a stranger to me. My connection with them came through random email inquiries. In two weeks time I met with 9 different people for coffee or lunch or beers and half of them paid for my food/libation. All of them were eager to here about my life's story and were happy to help me in any way they can.

Pause.

Is this common?

Driving home I found myself pondering these experiences. Would I have been able to meet with random strangers under a different fraternity or in a different vocation? Perhaps. But it seems to me that this kind of camaraderie is becoming less and less common. Even I - who grew up in the church - was admittedly surprised by the kinship that I experienced with my sisters and brothers in Christ.

If I've understood anything from reading the Bible and listening to the Christian tradition, it is that human beings were meant to be a family and treat each other as such. It doesn't always happen. But sometimes it does.

Christian Salvation and the Concept of Freedom

2012-01-20T11:58:00.014-05:00

My last post was about the Libertarian-ized concept of "freedom." In short, I explained that I think that there is a one-sided overemphasis on the idea that freedom is all about being free from alien determination (i.e. freedom means others can't tell you what to do). But in reality, freedom is more complex than that: freedom means not only that others can't determine your destiny but also that you are free from "indeterminateness" or a "state of free suspension" (i.e. you're free from aimless, arbitrary wandering). In short, freedom means you have a purpose.

These thoughts sparked a correlation with the Christian concept of salvation. Freedom is closely related to the idea of salvation in Christian theology. Indeed, the overarching theme of the biblical narrative is the theme of exodus: the God of the Bible is the God who liberates people from bondage. The exodus motif is seen in Jesus' first sermon in which he explained that he had come to proclaim freedom to the captives (Luke 4:18). And Paul also wrote that "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom," (2 Cor. 3:17).

Freedom is part of salvation. The God of the Bible liberates. Salvation is freedom.

But in the same way that the libertarian-ized concept of freedom tends to overemphasize one side of freedom, I wonder if conventional views of Christian salvation also overemphasize one side of freedom.

It is quite common to hear Christians talk about the fact that they are "saved." Being saved means being saved from something. It connotes a new existence in which one has been saved or freed from an old existence. Like the slaves who came out of Egypt, the individual has been liberated from the bondage of sin (Rom. 6:6). Freedom, therefore, is an appropriate concept to describe Christian salvation.

But it seems that the contemporary [and deficient] understanding of freedom has influenced the common understanding of Christian salvation. I make this inference because I know of so many Christians who define salvation in this way: I am saved. I am free. The end. Salvation then becomes defined by what one has been saved (or freed) from and not what one has been saved for. This is precisely the kind of freedom discussed in my previous post. It is "freedom without the goal of determinateness." It is salvation without a purpose.

Free from what? And free for what? Likewise, saved from what? And saved for what?

The good news is that Jesus saves us from a broken world for a healed world. The good news of Christian salvation is that Jesus frees us from guilt, shame, and violence for self-worth, forgiveness, and peace. In short, Christian salvation is freedom from sin for the purpose of the Kingdom of God (i.e. the place where God's will is done).

It seems to me that only when we have a fuller understanding of freedom as that which grants both self-determination and purpose can we appropriately use freedom as a way to explain the salvation that is found in Jesus the Christ.

Libertarianism's (Scary) Indeterminateness

2012-01-20T11:42:00.003-05:00

Libertarianism scares me. There, I said it. The zeal for freedom in America, especially among the Libertarian/Ron Paul movement, has me a bit concerned. Here's why.

Freedom is a wonderful ideal. It is a democratic ideal. It is a strong theme throughout the biblical narrative. No wonder Americans love it. But freedom without a purpose is deficient. Freedom for the sake of freedom is bogus. As Anglican Priest, Ian Lawton, writes, "Freedom without responsibility is often lazy, and responsibility without freedom is often mindless obligation. Freedom doesn’t exist just for its own pleasure. Freedom is the basis for responsibility."

The concept of freedom is complex and I think Libertarianism oversimplifies one side of freedom: the state of being free from alien determination. German theologian Ebelhard Jungel offers a thoughtful explanation of freedom:

"Freedom has two sides: (a) self-determination as the opposite of alien determination, but also (b) self-determination as the opposite of indeterminateness (arbitrariness). Freedom understood without the goal of determinateness would be an impermissible abstraction. The will to determination is what makes self-determination, makes freedom something concrete. Thus freedom is something other than a state of free suspension which has no bonds or obligations. Faithfulness is constitutive of freedom." (God as the Mystery of the World, 36)

It is this second side (b) that seems to be lacking in much libertarian (and American) thinking about freedom. For what purpose are we free? Is the goal simply to de-regulate businesses for the sake of freedom? Is laissez faire capitalism's only goal to have freedom? Such freedom is not true freedom, but rather a one-sided "state of free suspension which has no bonds or obligations."

What frightens me is that such a one-sided state of freedom is ironically the breeding ground for all kinds of freedom to oppress others. It is like the post-lunch recess for junior high kids: there is no structure, no agenda, just "free" teens hanging around... and that's when the bullying begins. It is analogous to what Dr. King said: peace is not the absence of war but also the presence of justice. In the same way, freedom is not just the absence of regulations or government programs, but also the presence of determined purposes.

"The Bark Side"

2012-01-19T17:06:00.002-05:00

Ebelhard Jungel on the Concept of God

2012-01-17T16:14:00.002-05:00

"As far as the concept of God is concerned, the history of European Christianity until now has fallen prey to this danger in one regard. It has considered itself capable of thinking of God in his being as God without thinking of him simultaneously as the Crucified. A characteristic indication of that is the constantly recurring attempts ever since early church Christology to conceive of the death of the Crucified One as an event which only affected the 'true man' but not the 'true God.' The 'perfection' of God required by the law of metaphysics forbade imagining God as suffering or even thinking of him together with the one who was dead. This prohibition and its alleged reason are seen, however, from the perspective of the word of the cross, to be the basic aporia into which European theology has blundered."

- Ebelhard Jungel, God as the Mystery of the World, 39.

From Apology to Confession: Toward Better Online Dialogue

2012-01-10T23:46:00.048-05:00

It seems to me that apology leads to a lot of apologizing. I've gotten into a lot of arguments lately. Mostly on Facebook. And mostly about things having to do with religion or politics. And I have to say, I'm tired. I'm exhausted by the constant pressure to explain a thought here or defend a statement there. After a while, it just takes a toll.

I can't be the only one who feels this way. Debates seem to arise everyday in the Facebook 'News Feed' or in blog commenting. Surely there must be others out there who feel drained like me. Surely there are others who are tired of their stomach turning or their brow furrowing by another comment publicly challenging their perspective. Surely there are others.

My instincts tell me that I'm not alone. I see enough of it around the internet to infer that there must be a large number of people who, like me, are tired of debates. Debates are exhausting. They're exhausting because they demand that we stand on the defensive the entire time. I've played enough of basketball to know that constantly playing defense is exhausting. The same is true in social interaction.

I've noticed a trend - especially in online communication - and it seems that many, myself included, are constantly on the defensive. The default mode is defending. The default mode is apology, a word that comes from the Greek apologia, meaning "to speak in defense." Even when we are challenging someone else's perspective, I submit that we're really just defending our own. We attack the other's view because we want to make sure that our view is right and true. We're in apology mode.

And rightfully so, I must add. The views that we hold are precious. They make us who we are. They drive our behavior and give our existence value. The views we hold on topics of ultimate meaning are held near and dear to our heart. Like our heart, our beliefs are the center of our being. Indeed, our religions - i.e. our systems of meaning - are so close to our heart that it feels like we are sharing our heart itself when we talk about them. No wonder we want to defend them.

But at what cost? Is my heart more important than yours? Is your heart expendable? Should I step on your heart in order to save my own? Defending one's heart is exhausting. No wonder my heart is tired of thumping in fight or flight mode. There has to be a better way.

Samir Selmanovic writes, "Only when we believe that the other is not there to hurt us - though the other may struggle to understand us - can we begin to share not only the light but also the shadows of our religion." Perhaps Samir is right. But how can we genuinely believe that the other is not out to hurt us?

How can we be sure that our opinion will not immediately go to trial once it is posted online? How can we be sure that the other is not out to publicly condemn our perspective? How can we be sure that the other is not just trying to trample our heart and protect her/his own?

Perhaps the answer lies in shifting from apology to confession. This term confession comes from the 14th-century Latin confessio, which stems from the word, confiteri, meaning "to acknowledge." To confess is to reveal something personal with honesty and openness. Confession means to share from the heart and to own the confession as a personal opinion. Confession does not speak in universal propositions, claiming to know the truth for all people at all times. Confession speaks in the humble language of conviction. Confession does not speak for others, it speaks only for itself.

Confession cannot be deconstructed by debate because confession is simply the truth. It is a the admission of one's conviction. Whereas apology demands that the other conform to its will, confession invites the other to a safe place for exploration, regardless of whether or not the other conforms. Unlike apology mode, confession mode recognizes that others too are confessing their opinion. To see religious opinions as confessions allows us to see something that can be explored or ignored, but need not be attacked or "fixed."

And perhaps most importantly, confession mode requires "to acknowledge" others. It differs from apology because confession demands a true listener, not a debater. As Selmanovic explains, "Our mysteries need one another." The late, great Dietrich Bonhoeffer captured the necessity of listening when he wrote:

Just as our love for God begins with listening to God's Word, the beginning of love for other Christians is learning to listen to them. God's love for us is shown by the fact that God not only gives us God's Word, but also lends us God's ear. We do God's work for our brothers and sisters when we learn to listen to them. ... Christians who can no longer listen to one another will soon no longer be listening to God either; they will always be talking even in the presence of God. [Life Together, 98]

Perhaps online "listening" means refraining from instinctive apology mode and the need to respond immediately to a divergent opinion. Perhaps online "listening" means sending a private message rather than a public comment. Perhaps online "listening" means asking clarifying questions rather than making presumptuous condemnations.

Online "listening" demands that we renounce "a kind of listening with half an ear that presumes already to know what the other person has to say," (Bonhoeffer, 99). Authentic listening demands love. It is the kind of love that dares to slip into the shoes of another person and see the world from their perspective.

I believe that confession, rather than apology, can cultivate online environments that invite safe, authentic dialogue. We're all looking for a place to share our heart because, at the end of the day, our heart is who we are. But I agree with Selmanovic, we'll never share our hearts with each other until we believe that others aren't out to hurt us.

The thought of sharing my heart with brothers and sisters online brings me joy. The thought of confessing my deepest convictions without the fear of being hurt by others brings me peace. It brings to mind a community with little need for apology, let alone apologizing.

"Whose Justice?"

2012-01-04T15:27:00.005-05:00

With all the talk from political candidates about freedom and Constitutional rights, it's easy for Christians to forget about the kind of society that Christ desired "on earth as it is in heaven." Underneath much of the political discourse on rights and freedoms is the concept of justice. Here is a cogent reminder from Scot McKnight on how the concept of justice is subjectively defined and, for the Christian, ought to be "defined by Jesus and the Spirit." The following excerpt is taken from his book A Community Called Atonement.

"Before we look at atonement as the work of God that creates a pervasively just society, let me clarify the expression 'social justice.' We make a serious mistake when we write with adjectives: 'social' before justice limits justice and moves justice from the church in to the government. I propose that we drop the word 'social' in the term 'social justice.' First, such an expression tends to imply an old-fashioned dualistic spirituality in which some things are spiritual and some things are not.

In addition, the only way to define 'justice' is by reference to a standard. Social justice tends to be defined by its standard: the fundamental principles of the U.S. Constitution - or a watered-down version thereof. But justice for the Christian is not about freedom or liberty, rights, individualism, or the pursuit of personal happiness. When that is what justice means to the Christian, that Christian has adopted Western values as the standard by which justice is defined.

Christians can't let the U.S. Constitution (or John Stuart Mill or Karl Marx) define what 'justice' means. We have to define justice in a way consistent with what Jesus meant by 'kingdom.' Which raises postmodern a issue that cuts sharply into the deep caverns of what we mean by justice.

Kant taught that universal reason would lead us to a universal sense of justice, and then more recently John Rawls suggested rather hopefully that the consensus of reasonable people would lead us to a deeper sense of justice. But postmodernists and anti-postmodernists (like Hauerwas) have entered the fray to observe that justice does not come from answering "What is justice?" but that justice comes from those who are willing to ask "Whose justice is it?"

That is, when justice is defined by some party, the power of that party's definition determines the meaning of justice. Which is to say that justice is shaped by one's moral standards, and those in power get to do the most shaping.

I accept the postmodern critique, and I add the Christian view to the mix. I contend that a Christian sense of justice is one shaped by the Christian story. And that means that a Christian sense of justice is shaped by the love of God and love of others instead of a Western, individualized, and modernist concept of freedom and rights.

Lessle Newbigin spoke about the supposedly self-evident truths that "every human being has an equal right to the pursuit of happiness. What this affirms," he continued, "is the right to the pursuit of happiness, not to the pursuit of the end for which humans, as a matter of fact, exist." [from Foolishness to the Greeks] We might have the rights for happiness, but what makes humans happy is not determined necessarily by having those rights. We need to ask again what a Christian theory of justice looks like.

Justice in the Bible is behavior that conforms to God's standard, and we can plumb that standard in any number of ways - through detailed analysis of specific passages in the Torah, through summaries of the Torah, through the teachings of Jesus, or through the Spirit-inspired life.

Permit me two definitions: let us define justice as behavior tha conforms to the teachings of Jesus and, at the same time, as behavior that emerges from the Spirit's direction. You can have it either way; for, if I am right, these definitions end up at the same place. Justice is also structural at some level: it refers to the establishment of conditions that promote loving God and loving others or living in the Spirit.

For the follower of Jesus, justice is not defined by the Magna Carta, the U.S. Constitution, Kant's categorical imperative, or any other social formation of law. It is defined by Jesus and by the Spirit - and we learn of its Spirit-directedness through the Bible.

Some will say that this is too religious, that it is too Christian, or that it is not practicable for a pluralistic society. I care about none of those criticisms, not because I don't think working in the public square requires common sense and even agreement to the U.S. Constitution for amicable discourse, but because we need as Christians to recover what we think the Bible says "justice" really is: the conditions that obtain when humans are right with God, with self, with others, and with the world." [p.124-125]

Pray the Object Back to Life...

2012-01-03T12:17:00.004-05:00

This post of mine was originally published over at ThinkChristian.net (original here). Here is the manuscript, slightly altered.

September 7, 1927. That is the date of the first electronic video image. Since then the electronic screen has evolved into the hottest commodity in Western culture. From the inaugural TV programming (1948) to computers, digital cameras, smart phones and 3D TVs, this entire phenomenon is what I and others call "Screen Culture." If you're reading this sentence then you too participate in screen culture. What you may not know, however, is that screen images subtly affect the way you see other human beings.

One Stanford professor believes that the quantity of time we spend with screens (rather than face-to-face) is affecting our ability to connect with one another. While I agree, I am more concerned here with the direct effect that certain screen images have on us; namely, images of other human beings.

Take, for example, the image above. While the image is of two human subjects, it subtly invites the viewer to see not subjects but objects. When you stare at these people, they do not truly stare back. You may stare all you like. There is no reciprocation, no awkwardness, no shame. You the viewer are in control. It is not a human subject to which you relate, but an image - an object.

Now, what happens when we see hundreds of virtual screen people every day? I believe that we learn the habit of seeing other human beings as objects instead of subjects. Put another way, screen images decrease empathy.

Studies estimate that we in the U.S. see anywhere from 3-5,000 ads per day. In ads, the imaged person is so often tied to the marketed product that s/he becomes mingled with the product, a kind of piece of the object. In addition to ads Americans spend hours viewing virtual humans through various screen mediums (TV, movies, video games, etc.). There can be little doubt that seeing so many screen versions of humanity affects the way we see humanity off the screen. I find it hard to believe that anyone could spend hours playing Call of Duty (i.e. pretending to kill human beings) and not be influenced to view human life as expendable. I also find it hard to believe that anyone could spend hours gazing at porn and not be influenced to see others as objects for pleasure. I mention these as examples because the images that flood our screens are increasingly violent and sexual.

Objectification is certainly not a new trend for humankind. Ever since Descartes we have tended to view the world outside of ourselves as an object to be controlled and utilized for our own benefit. The proliferation of screens only furthers this trend.

As a devoted Christian and avid participant in screen culture, I have struggled with my own propensity to objectify other human beings both on and off screen. But over time I have found that if I pray for the other human being, whether imaged on screen or in person, it is extremely difficult to objectify that person. When I pray for my sister or brother, I no longer view them as an object but as a subject, a beloved child of God. I pray the object back to life.

When we see others as subjects instead of objects, I believe that we heed Jesus’ call to love our neighbors. Jesus challenges the objectification of any human being by naming them "neighbor."

Respond:

Try praying for the people you encounter – both on and off the screen.
Take an empathy quiz!
Learn more about the Christian movement to fight pornography addiction http://www.xxxchurch.com/whyporn/

Public Faith & Responsible Communication: A Reflection on Tebow

2012-01-02T22:05:00.017-05:00

Let me make this crystal clear: I genuinely like Tim Tebow. I think he's an awesome guy and I am happy for his success this season with the Broncos. He has shown a lot of class both on and off the field. I particularly commend him for the Tim Tebow Foundation, which aims to improve the lives of thousands here in the U.S. and abroad.

That being said, I do have an issue with Tebow's excessive, public displays of faith. It's not that I have any issue with prayer itself; or even praying in public per se. Nor do I have any doubt that Tebow's heart is in the right place.

My concern has to do with communicating one's faith in public in a responsible manner. Allow me to repeat: this post is not about Tebow's faith or Tebow's heart, it is about communication. The question I want to pose is this: What does a public act of faith communicate to others?

When the Bronco's QB takes a knee and prays before and after games, that is great. What does it communicate? To me, it communicates that Tebow is giving his all for his God and petitioning for the safety of others (I've heard him pray for this when he was mic'd). It might communicate that God is more important than football. Great. I like it.

But what about when his fingers point to the sky after a touchdown? What is being communicated? Once again, I am not judging Tebow's heart or his faith. This point deserves a digression.

There are many Christian billboards in the West. Some are good, some... not so good. The purpose of Billboards is communication. I would not want to challenge the motive of a church who pays to put up a billboard; nor would I challenge the heart of the pastor whose highway sign promotes creationism. I don't doubt her/his heart. But I do question what is being communicated. We must admit that a good heart doesn't always make up for poor or irresponsible communication. The question, then, shifts from motive to responsibility.

It is the same for Tebow's excessive public displays. I am concerned about what is communicated when he - and other players - point their fingers to the sky after a TD. Whether he intends to or not, he communicates through his actions. And what is being communicated is that God is to be thanked or praised for the touchdown (or the ability to throw the TD? Or the great opportunity to experience a TD? Or the amazing "platform" to praise God for throwing a TD?)

But I have yet to see Tebow - or any other QB for that matter - throw his fingers to the sky after an interception (neither would I). I have, however, seen Tebow remain positive and encouraging on the sideline post-INT. I commend him for that. I think he displays an incredibly Christian attitude all the time. It's awesome.

But, the question I am exploring here is: What is communicated when a QB points to the sky after a TD or an exciting win, but not after an INT or a loss? What is implied through such behavior? And are non-Christian critics somewhat justified in their perception of Tebow's public faith? (Don't get me wrong, I think what Bill Maher did just recently was terrible.)

Again: Not questioning his heart. I'm asking: How does this appear to audiences? What is communicated? And what is Tebow's responsibility to manage what is being communicated?

If you have watched the media and read the op-eds then you know that there is a mixture of what is communicated by Tebow's public displays. On the one hand it displays that he is more concerned with God than football. Great. But on the other hand, the excessive displays communicate that God is somehow responsible for TD's and wins. Tebow may not intend this, but it is what is communicated. Every criticism of his public faith cannot be dismissed as anti-Christian hate. Christians in the public eye have a responsibility to consider how they are perceived by others.

There is a saying in public speaking: It's not what is said but what is heard. Tebow and many others rightly see his "platform" as a way to speak publicly about faith. But I would encourage him to consider that it's not just what is said, it's also what is heard. There is an essential responsibility that comes with being a public "speaker."

I conclude with a story. 60 Minutes did a special on an Eastern Orthodox Monastery called Mt. Athos in Greece. During an interview with one of the monks the reporter asked if the interview bothered the monk because it took him away from his prayers. The monk began laughing. The reporter was puzzled. Why are you laughing? the reporter inquired. The monk replied that he was laughing because the reporter thought that a mere interview could interrupt the monk's prayer life. The monk explained that he cannot stop praying and was, in fact, still praying during the entire interview.

Bonhoeffer on the Incarnation & More

2012-01-01T14:20:00.006-05:00

"Behold God become human, the unfathomable mystery of the love of God for the world. God loves human beings. God loves the world. Not an ideal human, but human beings as they are; not an ideal world, but the real world.

What we find repulsive in their opposition to God, what we shrink back from with pain and hostility, namely, real human beings, the real world, this is for God the ground of unfathomable love. God establishes a most intimate unity with this. God becomes human, a real human being.

While we exert ourselves to grow beyond our humanity, to leave the human behind us, God becomes human; and we must recognize that God wills that we be human, real human beings. While we distinguish between pious and godless, good and evil, noble and base, God loves the real people without distinction.

God has no patience with our dividing the world and humanity according to our standards and imposing ourselves as judges over them.

God leads us into absurdity by becoming a real human being and a companion of sinners, thereby forcing us to become the judges of God. God stands beside the real human being and the real world against all their accusers. So God becomes accused along with human beings and the world, and thus the judges become the accused."

- from Ethics, 84.

Favorite Albums of 2011

2011-12-30T13:38:00.037-05:00

10. Fleet Foxes - Helplessness Blues

Quite similar to their first album (self-titled), Helplessness Blues is full of those washy vocals, catchy melodies, and quick-pickin' classical guitars. The four-part harmonies echo all over this album as if it was recorded at the top of a mountain. I think this album is more "mature" than the first in the sense that it isn't as childlike and happy-go-lucky; but rather the songs are complex and dynamic, ranging from somber solo vocals to giant, harmonious choruses. If this is your first visit with Fleet Foxes, try out Lorelai.

Favorite Tracks: Bedouin Dress, Helplessness Blues, Lorelai

9. Junior Boys - It's All True

The Hamilton duo released yet another fun album back in June, just in time for summer dance parties and cruisin' - and let me tell you, I did a lot of both. If you have a guilty pleasure for cheesy synth pop then Junior Boys is a must. It's All True is chalk full of they Boys' standard beat-chopping and synth loops. They have an incredible knack for cutting tempo into half-time and then speeding up in double time. This album is also one of the Boys' best produced records; if you listen you ought to do so on high quality speakers so you can notice the panning and layering. I think the Boys' strength is up-beat dance tracks rather than slow ballads and I wish this album had a few more of the former. If this is your first visit with J.B. then I recommend you begin with the first track, Itchy Fingers.

Favorite Tracks: Banana Ripple, Itchy Fingers, You'll Improve Me

8. Holy Ghost! - Holy Ghost!

Finally this summer the remix superstars put out a full-length album. For the most part everything that Holy Ghost! touches turns to gold (just YoutTube "Holy Ghost! remix"). And the same made be said about almost every song on this 10-track album. From the no-nonsense opener, Do It Again, to the instant dance classics like Jam for Jerry and Wait and See, this album was in heavy rotation in my home, car, and on the dance floor. The album contains some of the catchiest chord progressions and melody lines; if these songs were stripped down to their core you would find well written structure underneath (e.g. Wait and See, Jam for Jerry). If this is your first visit with Holy Ghost! then check out Wait and See.

Favorite Tracks: Jam for Jerry, Hold My Breath, Wait and See

7. Black Keys - El Camino

Where has rock n' roll gone? The Black Keys, that's where. And it didn't take long for this December 6th release to make my top ten favorites. In a cacophony of pop crap, the Keys are keeping rock n' roll alive. Their consistent guitar riffage and straight-beat drummin' is the heart and soul of the Akron-based duo. Though this album is a bit more poppy and produced than their older stuff, it is still grungy and raw. Not only are the guitar tones dirty but the vox are, as usual, distorted and punchy. As a follow up to Brothers, El Camino is a welcomed continuation of the stylings that we heard on Brothers. Ultimately, this is the kind of music that makes you want to buy an El Camino and cruise around. If this is your first visit to the Black Keys then check out the initial track on El Camino called Lonely Boy.

Favorite Tracks: Lonely Boy, Dead Gone, Stop Stop

6. Ryan Adams - Ashes & Fire

For a guy who puts out an album a year Ryan Adams isn't cutting back on quality. I'd like to know which god he stuck a deal with because this southern songwriter can't seem to write a bad song. Ashes & Fire is the closest that Adams has come to his debut album Heartbreaker. The songs are (for the most part) solo - just Adams and his guitar and they range from bluesy (Dirty Rain) to Dylan-esque country (Ashes & Fire) to light, adult-contemporary (Come Home). I have to admit that I didn't like the album at first but after a couple listens I was hooked. The album is subtle and simple but that is its charm and beauty. The lyrics on "Lucky Now" are phenomenal as Adams reflects on growing older. If this is your first visit with Ryan Adams then try out Lucky Now and see if you want a second taste.

Favorite Tracks: Come Home, Lucky Now, Chains of Love

5. The Pains of Being Pure at Heart - Belong

If Smashing Pumpkins and The Killers had a baby it would be The Pains of Being Pure at Heart. It's about time that a band recovered some of the 90's bass-driven sound that fueled that alt-grunge scene for years. But The Pains are a contemporary spinoff, implementing synth and electronic drums over top the grungy guitar and bass. If you ask me, their sound is a welcome reflection on my 90's era favorites. The vocals are eerily Corgan-esque, as are the guitar tones (remember the Q-tron effect, all you guitar nerds?). The third track "Belong" is a blatant Pumpkins rip-off but, if it means more of that 90's sound, rip away. This is really just a solid rock-pop album. Every song is accessible and full of energy. If this is your first visit to The Pains of Being Pure at Heart then have a listen to Heart in Your Heartbreak.

Favorite Tracks: Heart in Your Heartbreak, The Body, Anne with an E

4. The Good Lovelies - Let the Rain Fall

I first encountered this female trio at an intimate house show in Philadelphia and I have been smitten ever since. The Good Lovelies are good all-around songwriters and Let It Rain contains a variety of solid folk songs, ranging from upbeat bluegrass to slow love songs. But what stands out above anything else is the indescribable sound of their voices. When I hear these three women sing together I hear something more, something clearer and more real that touches deep down in my soul. They each have distinct voices that are beautiful when they take turns at solo vocals. But when they blend together in harmony I swear something phenomenal happens. Songs like "Best I Know" and "Mrs. T" will have you melting. If this is your first visit with the Lovelies I recommend listening to Old Highway.

Favorite Tracks: Mrs. T, Home, Every Little Thing

3. Bon Iver - Bon Iver

This album is simply incredible. Bon Iver blends together acoustic and electric instruments as good as anyone I've heard since Radiohead. Take, for example, the second song "Minnesota, WI" - underneath the entire song is an acoustic guitar/banjo picking and distant saxophones; but layered atop are synths and altered vocals. The sounds on this album are just simply beautiful. It's been a while since I've heard an album with the diversity of instruments as this. The album flows together into one masterpiece and I highly recommend listening from beginning to end in one session. The attention to detail is masterful as every song has tiny, minute sounds entering in for seconds-long cameos. This is an album that demands some attention but it is hard not to enjoy. If this is your first visit with Bon Iver, try Holocene.

Favorite Tracks: Calgary, Towers, Holocene

2. M83 - Hurry Up, We're Dreaming

I have already written a bit about this magnificent album. But it deserves repeating that m83's Hurry Up, We're Dreaming is one of my favorite albums of 2011. Like Bon Iver, it deserves to be listened to in one take. Like most of M83's stuff, it is a concept album and it therefore contains songs that are purposeful movements to carry the story along. Hurry Up, We're Dreaming is a nostalgic reflection on what it was like to be a child: dreaming, playing, imagining - especially in the 80's. The songs capture much of what it felt like to be a child and I find it difficult not to exhibit a cheerful smile as I listen. This album also utilizes an incredibly vast array of instruments; so much so that you might find yourself thinking 'Did I just hear what I think I heard?' on certain songs. The album's first single, "Midnight City," quickly became one of the hottest songs of 2011. If this is your fist visit with M83, try out Ok Pal or Midnight City.

Favorite Tracks: Intro/Midnight City, Wait, Steve McQueen

1. Feist - Metals

This is my favorite album of 2011. Leslie Feist is an incredibly gifted songwriter and this album only further demonstrates her gift. Unlike her previous albums, Metals has a bold edge that tells me Feist was pushing the boundaries on this one. The songs have unpredictable structures and incredibly complex arrangements sometimes played by strings and sometimes brass. Some songs like 'How Come You Never Go There' even explore unconventional time signatures. The guitar work, which is simple as usual, is perfectly placed with just the right amount of clarity and dirty tones. The album has an array of noise and extra sounds sneaking around: things like digital drum pulses, rattling metal, and random human-made noises (footsteps, handclaps, and breathing). Lyrically this, in my opinion, Feist's best work as she ventures into more obscure and poetic lyrics (e.g. Caught a Long Wind) rather than singing about obvious love experiences and personal relationships. While the album has a bit of an awkward flow, each song stands alone as simply a great song. If this is your first visit with Feist, please do yourself a favor and listen to Comfort Me.

Favorite Tracks: How Come You Never Go There, Caught a Long Wind, The Circle Married the Line

American Exceptionalism: An Idol Worth Discarding

2011-12-28T09:38:00.023-05:00

Apparently if you want to run for president in America you must proclaim that America is the most superior nation on earth. (And apparently if you want to comment on sporting events you must wear an American flag lapel pin; oh nationalism!) As Jerome Karabel notes in his Huffington Post article, the language of "American exceptionalism" has increased exponentially since 2005 and it stems from both Republicans and Democrats.

In a country where the majority of people (60-76%) self-identify as Christian, this is a big problem. Not just because it produces horrendous Christmas music. And not just because the claim that America is the apple of God's eye is polarizing and unattractive. It is a big problem because it is totally contrary to the will of God revealed in their own sacred Scriptures. The entire trend of "American Exceptionalism" is proof not of God's blessing America but rather the dire biblical illiteracy among American Christians. To keep this brief, I will cite only a few examples.

First and foremost, the heart of Christian (and Jewish) Scripture is the claim that God is One. This is found explicitly in Deuteronomy 6:4: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one." (This is often referred to as "The Shema," as "shema" is the first word of the verse in Hebrew). The significance of this is captured well by Yale theologian, Juroslav Pelikan:

"The God of Israel was not a tribal deity but the God of all the nations, the One and Only True God, which implied that there was a will of God for all the nations, not only the people of Israel" - or, in this case, America.

A second example is found in Amos 9:7. "The Lord says, 'Israel, you are no different to me than the people of Cush. I brought Israel out of the land of Egypt, and the Philistines from Crete, and the Arameans from Kir.'" Once again, the biblical prophet Amos reminds us that God is the God of the world, not just "one nation under God." This concept resonates with the Psalmist's words: "The earth is the Lord's and everything in it, the world and all who live in it," (Ps. 24:1).

A fourth and last example comes from the mouth of Jesus, the Christ who ought to rule the life and behavior of so-called Christians. Jesus' most intense condemnation of his people came during a visit to the Jerusalem Temple. In the 11th chapter of Mark's Gospel Jesus is quoted as reciting two passages from the Hebrew Prophets. Jesus first declares, "My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations," (Isaiah 56:7). This is not only a condemnation of "Israeli Exceptionalism," but also a revelation of God's true will for the world:

"This passage belongs, clearly enough, with those that predict, as one aspect of Israel's eventual blessing, the ingathering of the Gentiles into the one people of YHWH. ...Gentiles are to be welcomed in, but the present people of Israel, especially their supposed leaders and guardians (56:10f.) are under judgment." [N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 418]

Jesus' condemnation of the Temple is not simply an economic concern but a national one. It has to do with Israel's self-proclaimed exceptionalism. In effect, Jesus' condemnation says, "God does not play favorites; God is radically inclusive."

Allow me to conclude by stating that American society has many wonderful features: freedom of speech/press, many civil liberties, socialized water, plumbing, and transportation systems, and many more. But I must also warn of the dangers of viewing America "the nation" as superior to and more important than any part of the rest of the world in the eyes of God. After all, a nation is simply a conglomerate of people and people are made in the image of God no matter their global locale.

To be Christian - to follow the One in whom the nations put their hope (Matt. 12:21), this Jesus who so loved the world (John 3:16) - then American Christians must discard the idol of "American Exceptionalism" and catch the vision of the God Who is Lord of All.

Advent Reflection: Mary Our Model for Joining the Story

2011-12-23T09:53:00.019-05:00

Luke 1:26-38

²⁶ In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, ²⁷ to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. ²⁸ The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”

²⁹ Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. ³⁰ But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. ³¹ You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. ³² He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, ³³ and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”

³⁴ “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”

³⁵ The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called^[b]the Son of God. ³⁶ Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. ³⁷For no word from God will ever fail.”

³⁸ “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her.

When did you stop anticipating adventure, dear reader? When did you cease hoping for surprise? How is it that you came to expect only that which has been before? When did you stop trusting the Supreme Storyteller?

The storytellers of our world tells us what to expect: the same old. You know, death, taxes, and a lot of entertainment in between. The storytellers who would prefer to make profit off of us this Christmas season tell us not to expect surprise or anything New, but rather to expect the same old shopping experience, the same old politics, and the same old dreams.

It is no wonder we stop listening for a different story.

Mary, too, could not dream of any New Story. Her first and natural response is reasonable: How can this be!? Mary's natural response is guided by the status quo. She knows all too well the old story of the pax Romana: Roman client kings and pseudo-priests in the Jerusalem Temple trying to push their own agendas. She knows the plight of her exiled and scattered people. "How long, O Lord, before something different?" Hence her natural response: But how?

Perhaps the messenger doesn't reveal how the Story will work because the Story doesn't operate within the laws of the status quo. Could Mary even understand it if it was explained? The messenger does not offer a logical strategy; instead he offers hope: Your formerly-barren relative, Elizabeth, is in her sixth month with child! New things are possible!

Mary's ultimate response is our model: "Let it happen to me according to your word." Her words Let it happen to me demonstrate that Mary is going to join in on something that God is already doing; not that she's going to go and carry out something on her own volition. The Greek word translated "Let it happen" is γένοιτό. It comes from the Greek word γίνομαι, which essentially means "to come into being" or "to become." Hence, Mary is finally understanding the way God's Story unfolds: it is radically New. It does not come from past events or out of the status quo; it is that which has never been that comes into being.

God's Story is S U R P R I S E . Do not look for it in the fabric of the "same old." It comes to us in the invitation to the New.

Mary qualifies her response by stating, "... according to your word." This, too, is exemplar for us because Mary demonstrates that responding to God's Story requires believing in it. Mary illustrates that in order to respond to God's invitation we must dare to hold God to God's promises. "Let it happen to me according to your word." The offer to join the Story demands precisely that we hope in it.

Again, I remind you, reader, that Advent means "Coming." Kind of like that word γίνομαι, which means "to come into being." What is coming? A New Story. Something different than the same old. A Story that never ends. Who is coming? The One who brings the New. The One whose reign shall have no end.

What's this? A surprise? A better story? Let it happen to me according to your word.

Advent Reflection: Mary the "Favored" One

2011-12-20T21:49:00.010-05:00

Luke 1:26-30

In the sixth month of Elizabeth's pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendent of David. The virgin's name was Mary. The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you!"

Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God."

This is one of my favorite paintings of the Annunciation. It was painted by Henry Ossawa Tanner in 1898. Even though I don't think angels are celestial beings, I love the way that the angel's radiance overwhelms the young Mary as she seems to tremble in the corner (the word "angel" is literally just "messenger" in Greek; but Hallmark doesn't want you to know that). The painting is a beautiful display of God's message as light to a darkened world. It conveys the warmth of that message as the sun kisses your face on a cold winter day; and it also displays the frightful surprise of that message. Warmth and surprise. This is what happens when God's grace finds us.

"Greetings, you who are highly favored!" As I mentioned in the previous reflection, we haughty modernists are often inclined to read this as if Mary is somehow deserving of an angel visit. Mary, we think, must be special; she must have done something right to be chosen by God.

But Luke reveals something different in his original Greek writing. Our English translations have butchered the original Greek's emphasis on grace. When we read in verse 30 that Mary "has found favor with God," the Greek reads much differently. The Greek word translated "favor" is actually the word χάριν, which means "grace." Hence, the clause altogether could be read: "You have found the grace of God" or "the grace of God has found you." The same word for "favored" in verse 28 is also a form of charis (grace). The point, then, is Mary's encounter with the messenger of God is an act of God's grace.

As the painting portrays, these are some of the most difficult words to hear. Luke confirms this by telling us that Mary was troubled "at his words." It is not the celestial glow of the messenger that troubles Mary, it is the message of God's grace.

How does it feel to hear the words, "You _____, have found the grace of God"? It is quite an unsettling greeting to receive, is it not? It is what C.S. Lewis often called the "intolerable compliment."

But perhaps it is a greeting that we need to hear during Advent. After all, the news that comes to both Zechariah and Mary is not just news of grace for them alone. It is news of grace to the world.

Advent Reflection: The Prayers of God's People

2011-12-20T08:39:00.028-05:00

Luke 1:5-17

In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendent of Aaron. Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord's commands and decrees blamelessly. But they were childless because Elizabeth was not able to conceive, and they were both very old.

Once when Zechariah was on duty and he was serving as priest before God, he was chosen by lot, according to the custom of the priesthood, to go into the temple of the Lord and burn incense. And when the time for the burning of incense came, a multitude of the people was praying outside.

Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing at the right side of the altar of incense. When Zechariah saw him, he was startled and was gripped with fear. But the angel said to him, "Do not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to call him John. He will be a joy and delight to you, and many will rejoice because of his birth, for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit from birth. He will bring back many of the people of Israel to the Lord their God. And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the parents to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous - to make ready a people prepared for the Lord."

Where does the Advent story begin? Does it begin with Mary and Joseph? Or perhaps with Zechariah and Elizabeth? No. The story begins with God's people; the ones praying to God for liberation; the ones crying, "How long, O Lord?"

Luke's opening scene reveals a Levite priest named Zechariah carrying out his duty in the Jerusalem Temple. This was a special moment for Zechariah. Why? Because there were probably over 20,000 active priests in his day, all awaiting their turn to serve God and God's people. He had spent the majority of his life away from the temple but the day had finally come for Zechariah! And not only did Zechariah get to serve, but he had now received the unique privilege to burn incense inside on the temple altar. This minor detail is where the Advent story truly begins.

Ever since the return from exile in 538 B.C.E. Zechariah's people - Israel - longed for liberation and justice. It was a dismal time as Israel strived to live faithfully despite foreign subjugation. This discomfort led many Jews to look forward to a future when God would bring an end to exile and restore the community of Israel. Just how this might happen no one knew; but they longed for it with a deep hope.

The Advent story (which both Matthew and Luke rightly present as beginning ultimately with Abraham) begins in this dismal period, in "the days of Herod." This refers to the days when Herod the Great ruled over Judea. After almost 200 years of disorder, Herod had besieged Jerusalem in 37 B.C.E. and appointed a new high priest in the Jerusalem Temple. Judea had become like a police state and Herod the Great was the Roman "client king." The despair of God's people at this time was matched only by their hope in a new future. And much of Israel's hope revolved around the Jerusalem Temple and its culture. This is why the story begins not with Zechariah but with the people of God.

Though Zechariah is certainly unique, he is one of thousands of priests! This could have happened on any other day to any other priest. We too often view the biblical characters as especially deserving of their roles in the Great Story - as if they are chosen because of their abilities. But Zechariah's encounter with the messenger is a grace event; an event that is sown by the prayers of God's people. In that intimate room of the temple, Zechariah burns incense - a symbol of the people's prayers rising to God (Psalm 141:2). And outside a multitude of people are praying, longing, hoping - "How long, O Lord, until you make things right?" It is at this moment that the messenger of God appears with good news:

And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the parents to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous - to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.

This is not news for Zechariah only. It is news for all the people who have been waiting and praying for God's justice. It is not an answer to prayer for only Zechariah; it is an answer to the prayers of God's people.

And who knows who is among that multitude of people praying? Or whose prayers were rising to God in the symbol of that incense? Perhaps the sons and daughters of Israel. Perhaps also some Gentiles for whom the pax Romana was not so favorable. Perhaps a few widows who had been estranged by their families. And maybe some lonely tax collectors. Who really knows? It may just be that the people of God includes all of those who hope and pray for God's justice (Isaiah 56:7).

What is clear, however, is that the sweet story does not begin with one righteous priest. Rather, it begins with an oppressed people, crying out to the God of Justice. The story begins with the prayers of God's people.

Spend ten minutes listening to a song and thinking about the things you long for. Imagine a better world and ask yourself, "What are my sisters and brothers longing for as well?"

Farewell Rob Bell, For Real

2011-12-19T17:10:00.004-05:00

Here are some quotes from Rob Bell's last address to his Mars Hill Church in Michigan. You can read the full, 5,000-word letter here.

if you want to focus in on

astounding claims he made about himself,

how about the mind-bendingly revolutionary claim of the

divine being human?

weeping,

spitting in mud,

eating,

drinking so much he's accused of being a drunk,

letting people clean his feet with oils,

inviting people to touch his wounded sides.

humanity, now that's interesting.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Jesus invites us into the full spectrum of human experience,

from lament to exhilaration and everything in between.

from basking in the presence of God,

to cursing at the top of your lunges from the rooftops

because God is nowhere to be found,

shrieking till you're hoarse 'my God, my God, why have

you screwed me'

now that's life.

that's real.

- - - - - - - - -

here's the twist: the church is not an inanimate, impersonal

product. there is no 'mars hill' in theory. there is no abstract, disembodied entity mars hill apart from the people in this room

who ARE mars hill.

so when people say what's going to happen to mars hill?

they're asking what's going to happen to you. what are you

going to do. how are you going to respond?

you are the answer,

because you are the church.

God Wills to Be Ours: The Eros of God and Our Needed Response

2011-12-13T12:47:00.011-05:00

“For God so loved the world…” This is perhaps the most common phrase of contemporary Christianity, and rightfully so. For these words suggest not only the extent to which God loves the world but also in what manner God does so: in the Christ event. Yet most of Christian tradition has resigned God’s love to pure gift-love (agape) and has overlooked the desire (eros) of God that is evidenced in the Christ event and throughout the Bible. To our own detriment, this neglect has resulted in a deficient understanding of “the One who seeks and creates fellowship with us.”[1]

In the following essay I aim to explain that God’s love is best characterized by romantic eros and not by agape. Though the latter is essential to God’s love, it is the former that best expresses the ineffable love of God revealed in Christ. Only when we understand God as Lover are we afforded a view of the God-world relation that elicits the response of humankind to become the beloved bride of Christ.

Agape and the Classical God-World Relationship

God, we say, is love. But what is love? Our understanding of love is burdened by preconceptions (often unbiblical). Chief among Western preconceptions are the relics of Greek philosophy. For Plato, love was characterized by need: one only loves when s/he is not utterly self-sufficient.[2] Accordingly, God cannot love because God is complete and without need. Greek philosophy made little room for a personal God who loved with any sort of desire. Classical Theism, which was influenced greatly by Greek philosophy, thought of God as an “unmoved mover,” immutable and totally unaffected by the world.[3] In order to fit this God-world paradigm, God’s love has long been characterized by agape – total gift-love. Out of pure grace (or “overflow”) God loves the world but does not need nor receive anything in return. God does not truly feel for the world, God simply wills good for the world. Ultimately, as Paul Fiddes puts it, “Love can be ascribed to God as a purely intellectual appetite.”[4] This was the view of St. Augustine[5] and it has been defended by many, perhaps most strongly by Anders Nygren.[6] Though there is merit to this view, there are also many flaws.

First, the biblical narrative does not portray God as impassible; instead God is intimately connected to creation and “relates sympathetically to the world”[7] (e.g. Ezek. 16; Isa. 5:1-7; Hos. 1-3; Acts 17:28). Second, limiting God’s love to a charitable form of agape trivializes the value of humankind. Badcock puts it simply: “God loves but somehow does not love us.”[8] Third, God’s love as agape is unilateral and does not require a response from us. The lack of desire in God’s love produces a lack of desire for human beings to respond. Further, God’s unilateral love renders humans as the objects of God’s love rather than mutual subjects. Fourth, God’s love as agape overemphasizes the cross as sacrificial gift, while the resurrection is consigned to the margins. Lastly, the Classical view fails to take seriously the suffering and passion of God in Christ. As Moltmann potently states, a God who does not suffer is “a loveless being.”[9] If the Christ event is indeed the manner by which “God so loved,” then it behooves us to reconsider Classical Theism’s view of an impassible, gift-loving God. We must examine the Christ event afresh.

The Eros of God Revealed in the Christ Event

Barth rightly asserts that we cannot bring our own concept(s) of love to the revelation of God, but instead must let the revelation itself determine love.[10] Accordingly, we must allow the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus to determine the nature of God’s love. For Barth, the Christ event reveals that God is the “One who seeks and creates fellowship with us.”[11] This is quite different than the God who loves out of charity. The God revealed in Christ is the God who seeks and desires – indeed craves – to be with humanity. The Christ event invites us to imagine God’s love as eros. What is revealed in the Cross is not simply a sacrificial love, but also God’s desire to be with creation no matter the cost. As a lover yearns for her beloved, so too does God yearn for fellowship with creation.

It is imperative to remember that Jesus is not only the revelation of God, but also reveals the exemplar God-world relationship.[12] As such, Jesus discloses a love that may, in fact, resemble eros more than agape. Jesus brings into focus the intimacy that God desires and humankind’s necessary response. For example, the Incarnation itself makes clear that God’s love entails a kenotic, dare I say, romantic, relationship with creation (Phil. 2:7). In the Incarnation God comes near and is vulnerable to the rejection of humanity. Moreover, in multiple places God designates Jesus ho agapetos (“My Beloved”), while Jesus himself explains his mutual love with God (John 17:26). These elements point beyond agape to a deep, romantic eros between God and world. Ultimately, I believe the Christ event leads to a very different picture of the God-world relationship than Classical Theism. It is a picture that Sallie McFague captures in the metaphor of God as Lover.

God the Lover and the God-World Relation

In Models of God, McFague inquires why the model of romantic love, which is so central to human existence, has not been more seriously explored as a metaphor for the God-world relationship: “As the most intimate of all human relationships… does it not contain enormous potential?”[13] Building on this observation, McFague begins with the human experience of romantic love and explores its veracity as a theological metaphor. Here I have begun instead with the Christ event (following Barth), but have drawn a similar conclusion as McFague: that God loves the world with a romantic love (eros).

Before moving further it will benefit to clarify what is meant by this term eros. Here I adopt Lewis’ simple definition of eros as the state of “being in love.”[14] This is the state of being-in-relation that is characterized by desire for the other, the beloved. It is not simply sexual love, but a deep expression of desire and intimacy. Eros desires the beloved simply because s/he is who s/he is. “Eros,” as Lewis describes, “makes a man really want, not a woman, but one particular woman. In some mysterious but quite undisputable fashion the lover desires the Beloved herself, not the pleasure she can give.”[15] The desire of eros is so strong that it becomes, in some very real sense, a need to be with the Beloved. It is this understanding of eros that I shall apply to the metaphor of God as Lover. This has many implications for the God-world relation.

First and foremost, God as Lover intensifies the God-world relation. Rather than the distant, impassible God of Classical Theism, God as Lover is intimately connected to and affected by creation. This relationship may be seen throughout Scripture and I will note a few examples here. The creation narrative in Genesis reveals that creation itself may be seen as God’s “seeking and creating fellowship.”[16] Further, the creation of humankind in God’s image seems to imply God’s desire for intimacy (Gen. 3:8).[17]

The prophets describe God’s love for Israel as covenant love (hesed). This is not the language of agape but eros (though this does not discount agape). A covenant is not made out of compassion, but out of desire to fellowship. The initiation of the Abrahamic covenant evidences God’s desire to be with humankind. Grogan notes that this covenant first took the form of a treaty but then evolved into the form of a marriage covenant.[18] Throughout the life of Israel God is faithful to the covenant even when Israel is not (e.g. Hos. 11). Is this simply God’s grace? Or is it evidence of God’s romantic desire to be with the beloved? I am compelled to believe the latter. What is more, Scripture describes the telos of history in the language of romantic love. That the relationship between God and God’s people evolves toward a more romantic model (cf. Rev. 21:9) furthers the view of God as Lover and an intimate God-world relation.

Secondly, God’s love as eros affirms creation as inherently lovable. Whereas agape emphasizes God’s love in spite of our nature, eros suggests that God loves simply because we are. In this way, romantic love is the most precious of loves because it is bestows value to the beloved: “It says, I love you just because you are you.”[19] This is different – and I suggest better – than traditional understanding of God’s love as agape. In the traditional view, recipients of God’s agapic love are moved to love God for what God does (the “agapic act”); recipients are liable to love God only because of what God does for them. In the view of God as Lover, however, God’s eros moves us to love both ourselves and God because of who we are - together. God’s eros says to the beloved: You are precious and valuable. Surely it is hard to disagree with McFague when she states, “Being found valuable in this way is the most complete affirmation possible.”[20] We must take seriously the fact that God’s love as agape fails to elicit the same feeling of being valued. Only eros grants that ineffable feeling of being valued as God’s precious beloved (e.g. read Hosea from the perspective of Israel).

Thirdly and consequently, the view of God as Lover elicits a unique response from humankind. Lovers respond to one another out of mutual joy and desire. It is not a response that is calculated or founded. As McFague notes, “Lovers love each other for no reason or beyond all reasons; … in a love relationship, one responds in kind: one values the valuer.”[21] When God is seen as loving with eros, the beloved world will find it difficult not to respond in kind. Unfortunately, God’s unilateral agape has not proven to effect the same response.

This last point brings us to the central issue in the God-as-Lover paradigm: “The assumption that eros is the desire for union with, or possession of, the valuable suggests, however, that it lacks what it would have.”[22] The question is whether or not God needs the response of the beloved (and is lacking without it). As mentioned above, Classical Theism submits that God needs nothing. McFague, however, postulates the contrary. Here I would like to explore the possibility that God does, in fact, need the response of creation.

I return again to the Christ event as paradigmatic. Christ reveals the dialectic of God’s love as both unilateral and mutual. In Christ God’s will is accomplished, but it is accomplished with and through the response of humankind (cf. Luke 1:38; 60; 80; 2:7; etc.). We may not speculate if God’s will would have been accomplished with or without humankind, for such questions are pointless and add nothing to theology! We may only theologize based on the revelation as it is. As Moltmann insists, “We can only say who he is for us in the history of Christ which reaches us in our history.”[23] The Christ event reveals the Triune God working in close relationship with creation to reconcile all things. When I examine the Christ event, I am compelled to believe that God does, in fact, need our response.

But for what purpose does God need our response? Herein lies the crux of the model of God as Lover. In this model, salvation is defined in terms of romantic love. Salvation is what The Song of Songs expresses in the phrase: “I am my beloved’s and my beloved is mine,” (6:3). Karl Barth captures this beautifully:

“He wills to be ours, and He wills that we should be His. He wills to belong to us and He wills that we should belong to Him. He does not will to be without us, and He does not will that we should be without Him. He wills certainly to be God and He does not will that we should be God. But He does not will to be God for Himself nor as God to be alone in Himself. He wills as God to be for us and with us who are not God.”[24]

When we consider God as Lover, salvation is conveyed in the mystery of romantic love: “The two shall become one flesh,” (Gen. 2:24). Is this not expressed in the Incarnation? And is it not suggested in the teachings of Jesus (John 17:21)? The ultimate expression of God’s love, therefore, is characterized by desire, mutuality, and reciprocity – that mystery for which romantic love is an image. It deserves serious consideration whether agape alone can offer this. I suggest that it cannot. As Donald F. Dreisbach contends, “One important element of what seems to be a higher form of love is reciprocity, that love is accepted, acknowledged, and returned.”[25] This is the kind of love revealed in Christ and emphasized in the model of God as Lover.

What, then, does God need in response? I suggest that the very thing God needs is that which God’s desires. Put another way, God needs precisely what God offers. The response that is needed by God from humankind is precisely to hear and believe God’s “I love you.” Again Dreisbach is helpful:

“The assertion ‘I love you’ then is not simply informational; we might call it transformational. In hearing it the hearer takes on value; he comes to understand himself as being valued. A proclamation of God’s love, if believed and accepted, has the function of giving the hearer a new self-understanding.”[26]

We respond to what God has already expressed in God’s eros (rather than one agapic act). I say “already” because it simply is the nature of the God-world relation. God is always acts prior to us. God has loved from beginning and to the End (cf. Jer.31:3; 1 John 4:19). This is to clarify that God’s eros is not confined temporally to the Christ event; though it is the event that reveals the nature of God’s love to us. Thus, the response of humankind is to become who we are in eyes of God. Walter Wangerin Jr. captures this in his phrase, “True obedience was ever an act of freedom!”[27] To be more specific, God needs the response revealed in Scripture and in Christ: to act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with God (Micah 6:8). This is similar to McFague who writes, “The response of the beloved, the need we fill in God, is directed toward God’s body, the world.”[28] This response, I contend, is practically irresistible when we come to see God as our Beloved, the Lover of the world. In short, responding to God’s eros becomes a joy.

Traditional Protestant theology is reluctant to acknowledge any work on the part of humankind in the act of salvation. But, as I have stated, God as Lover presents a different view of salvation. Rather than passively receiving God’s love (agape), we are invited into a truly mutual fellowship based on God’s everlasting desire (eros). When humankind does not respond – fails to hear God’s “I love you” – humankind fails to “be” God’s beloved.[29] Sin, argues McFague, is therefore the “refusal to be the beloved of our lover God and the refusal to be lover of all God loves.”[30] In this paradigm, to not participate in God’s act of salvation is to miss salvation altogether.

All of this implies that humankind genuinely affects God. In this model God is vulnerable and open; but, because of this, God loves humankind with a higher form of love: romantic love. This, I contend, is the nature of God, Who is Love, in Godself. The Immanent Trinity is open and vulnerable yet also erotic and perichoretic. The Trinity expresses the state of being “in love.” But God as Lover is for us and has invited humankind into the triune life. Many fear that this means that God is open to change: “To be affected by others is to be changed by others.”[31] But what if love is contingent upon change? What if God-as-Love is “change?” The fact that God is love cannot change; but because love is inherently dynamic, vulnerable, and mutual, God indeed “changes” to relate most lovingly with the world. In other words, God simply is relationship and that relationship is expressed most deeply in romantic love. If we take orthodox Trinitarian theology seriously then this ought not alarm us. In the final analysis, the Christ event reveals that the nature of God’s love necessitates a response from humankind who is the Beloved of God.

So Loved? So What?

Perhaps the boldest claim that anyone can ever make is that God loves the world. For in this claim a person imparts sacred value to all reality in the name of the highest Being and the highest expression of being. The Beatles echoed what humanity seems to universally understand: all you need is love. The ubiquity of love will never expire “because it is so central to human life: we never feel better than when we are in love, when we love and are loved.”[32] So perhaps, at the end of the day, it is not that God loves the world that compels us, but rather that God loves the world. The idea infatuates us. What is love and why does it seem to drive our entire existence? And so on we go. Yet the central claim of Christianity is not “God loves the world.” Instead, it is “God so loved the world,” (Grk: οὕτω, "in this way"). This small, adverbial modifier invites us to know the nature of God’s love for the world in and through the Christ event.

As I have argued, the life, death, and resurrection of Christ reveal the nature of God’s love as eros. The Christ event reveals the God Who loves closely and intimately with a love as strong as death (cf. Song of Songs 8:6). The God revealed in Christ is the One who needs the world and suffers with it. As a lover loves his Beloved, God “wills to be ours… and that we should be His.”[33] This view of the God-world relation is thoroughly compelling. Why? Because human beings recognize and crave this mystery we call romantic love.

In the end, we will not come to faith in God because we have carefully calculated the cost/benefit. No, we will come to faith because we desire God. We will come to faith in the God of the Bible because the God revealed in Christ is irresistible. And then, I believe, we shall discover that our faith is really not faith at all, but love.

[1] Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics II.1.28, trans. G.W. Bromiley, et. al., ed. G.W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance, (London, England: T&T Clark, 2009), 20.

[2] See Gary D. Badcock, “The Concept of Love: Divine and Human,” Nothing Greater, Nothing Better: Theological Essays on the Love of God, ed. Kevin J. Vanhoozer, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 2001).

[3] Kevin J. Vanhoozer, "Introduction: The Love of God - Its Place, Meaning, and Function in Systematic Theology," Nothing Greater, Nothing Better: Theological Essays on the Love of God, 6.

[4] Paul Fiddes, The Creative Suffering of God, (New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 18.

[5] Vanhoozer, 4.

[6] Badcock, 45.

[7] Sallie McFague, Models of God: Theology for an Ecological, Nuclear Age, (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress Press, 1987), 73. See also Badcock, 41.

[8] Badcock, 45.

[9] Jurgen Moltmann, The Crucified God, (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress Press, 1993), 222.

[10] Barth, Church Dogmatics II.1.28, 19-20.

[11] Barth, Church Dogmatics II.1.28, 20.

[12] “Truly divine and truly human.” Does not Jesus reveal true humanity as well?

[13] McFague, 126.

[14] C.S. Lewis, The Four Loves, (San Diego, California: Harcourt Brace & Company, 1960), 91.

[15] Lewis, 94.

[16] Barth, Church Dogmatics II.1.28, 18.

[17] Geoffrey Grogan, “A Biblical Theology of the Love of God,” Nothing Greater, Nothing Better, 61.

[18] Grogran, “Biblical Theology,” 55.

[19] McFague, 128.

[20] McFague, 128.

[21] McFague, 128.

[22] McFague, 130.

[23] Moltmann, Crucified God, 238. See also Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics II.1.27, 196. See also Barth God in Action, 12.

[24] Barth, Church Dogmatics II.1.28, 18.

[25] Donald F. Dreisbach, “On the Love of God,” Anglican Theological Review. 59 no 1 January 1977, 41. Italics added.

[26] Dreisbach,, 39. Italics added.

[27] Walter Wangerin Jr., Preparing for Jesus, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1999), 48.

[28] McFage, 135.

[29] To “be” God’s beloved is not a matter of substance or attribute; it is an ontology of personhood (i.e. being-in-relation).

[30] McFague, 139.

[31] Fiddes, 18, original italics.

[32] McFague, 127.

[33] Barth, Church Dogmatics II.1.28, 18.

Did Je$us$ Have Money in Mind?

2011-12-02T12:24:00.016-05:00

Remember that prayer that Jesus taught his followers to pray? Here's a quick refresher:

"This, then, is how you should pray:

Our Father in heaven,

hallowed by your name,

your kingdom come,

your will be down,

on earth as it is in heaven.

Give us today our daily bread.

And forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors.

And lead us not into temptation,

but deliver us from evil." (Matt. 6:9-13)

The reason I'm posting about this prayer is because we 21st Century people need a refresher in its ancient context. In fact, our domesticated version of "forgiveness of debts" has big implications for contemporary I$$UE$.

You see, when Jesus taught his disciples to pray, he was firstly not simply teaching a way to talk to God, but actually a way to learn God's will for humanity. The Church has a saying in Latin: lex orandi lex credendi - the law of prayer is the law of belief. This was the same idea in 1st Century Judaism: what you prayed is what you believed is what you lived. So, firstly, Jesus actually expected that whoever prayed this prayer way would live it out. Imagine that.

Secondly, Jesus taught his followers to forgive debts. But what kind of debts? Was he talking about moral infractions or inner, ungodly thoughts? Perhaps. But more likely, Jesus was actually talking about money. Yes, you heard correctly, money.

For those of you who think Jesus and money mix like oil and water, listen up. The word Jesus uses for "debt" is the word ὀφείλημα, which meant firstly a material debt or something owed legally; and only secondly a metaphor for "sin." The word that Jesus uses for "forgive" is the verb ἀφίημι, which means to give up a debt, forgive, or remit. This was the word used to talk about monetary debt forgiveness.

John Howard Yoder adds:

Accurately, the word of the Greek text signifies precisely a monetary debt, in the most material sense of the term. In the "Our Father," then, Jesus is not simply recommending vaguely that we might pardon those who have bothered us or made us trouble, but tells us purely and simply to erase the debts of those who ow us money; that which is to say, practice the jubilee. [from The Politics of Jesus p. 62]

Even more crazy: the very next words from Jesus after the prayer are about forgiveness of debts; only this time a different word for "debt" is used! The word in verses 14 and 15 for "debt" is the word παράπτωμα, which means a kind of moral lapse. So why the difference? Perhaps it is because there is indeed a difference between our contemporary Bibles' use of "debt" and "debt." In the one case Jesus is talking about literal, monetary debt. In another case Jesus is talking about the debt of immoral behavior.

Biblical scholar Craig Keener writes this about the Lord's Prayer:

Biblical law required the periodic forgiveness of monetary debtors (in the seventh and fiftieth years), so the illustration of forgiving debts would have been a graphic one (especially since Jewish lawyers had found a way to circumvent the release of debts so that creditors could continue to lend). [IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament, 62]

What? Jewish law taught to forgive monetary debt? It's been a while since your pastor preached on that one, huh? Well it's true. Check it out for yourself.

And not only did Jewish law teach the forgiveness of monetary debt, but Jesus taught his followers to pray for it every damn day. It starts to make one wonder who is really trying to follow Jesus in this age...

When Ideas Meet Real Life... (It Gets Messy)

2011-11-30T10:46:00.011-05:00

I assume that when PERF plans the various Occupy evictions IN THEORY, it always looks neat and clean. But in reality there is a total disconnect between the theoretical plans and the human beings performing the evictions. Recent clashes between police and protesters indicate that the "powers that be" are failing miserably to take into consideration the human element of the Occupy Movement. This became even more clear last night as hundreds of Philadelphia police came out to evict the Occupy Philly movement.

My good friend was there through the night as human emotions ran wild. What is evident to me from both his eyewitness account and the videos posted here is that the not all human beings (or animals!) can handle such intensely emotional situations.

My friend shared with me how a police officer hit him from behind without warning while he and others were walking. Many of the police officers were using their bicycles as a ramming or blocking device and such was the case as the cop hit my friend in the back.

Not only did police use excessive force, but my friend shared that police had also removed their name badges so as to not be identified by protesters (which, by the way, is illegal). Cops also refused to give their badge numbers when asked by protesters.

The worst incident last night, however, came when a group of officers on horse charged a crowd on a sidewalk. The videos above and below speak for themselves.

Life is messy. Human beings are complex, emotional creatures. How long will it be before city governments start considering solutions that take seriously our human nature? When human beings are put into emotionally-charged situations such as these, it's a recipe for disaster. How many more incidents of fear-filled individuals acting out of their intended behavior before PERF changes their tactics?

Perhaps most important (and tragic) is that it is not the Occupiers who behave violently out of emotion and fear but rather the hired forces who are unapologetically thrown into these calamitous environments.

OCCUPY ECONOMICS

2011-11-28T18:28:00.002-05:00

Economists are banding together to support new ways of looking at contemporary economics in order to benefit the people, the planet, and the future. See more at the website http://econ4.org/.

Occupy Economics from Softbox on Vimeo.

BUY NOTHING DAY

2011-11-23T10:40:00.013-05:00

The Global "Buy Nothing Day" is here again (official website here). But does it truly help the cause that it aims to address?

The Occupy Wall St. movement is rallying the troops to participate in an international day of non-consumption called "Buy Nothing Day." Ad Busters, the Canadian-based anti-consumerist magazine (who, by the way, initiated the Occupy movement) is also plugging Buy Nothing Day.

On the surface, BND is an exciting and creative way to live out the message of Jesus: it is an act of fasting and an explicit "No" to mammon. Jesus invites his followers to both of these practices. In Matt. 6:24 Jesus teaches, "You cannot serve God and mammon," (mammon is an Aramaic word that means "money, wealth, greed"). Jesus' words resonate exceptionally well with the principle motivation behind Buy Nothing Day. (Highly recommend this fantastic essay on mammon as a spiritual reality)

Beneath the surface, however, I am concerned with the ramifications of BND. Most specifically, I worry that a "successful" BND will only hurt the very people the Occupy movement desires to help. When "Black Friday" profits plummet, who takes the hit? The employees, not the CEOs. If seasonal sales are low, then companies are less likely to hire those extra holiday helpers. In short, my concern is that this all or nothing approach only hurts the middle class.

This is the catch 22 of our economy and, frankly, I think it is evil. We are told that the only way out of debt is to spend more. The only way to economic recovery is to shop! Do you remember President Bush's advice after 9/11? He told America to go shopping!

So... what do we do? As a frugal, graduate student who couldn't care less about holiday shopping, I am no bank of creative solutions. However, it seems to me that instead of quitting the game of consumerism altogether, we need to spend our money in smart, ethically responsible ways.

This means shopping at clothing stores like these rather than GAP or Banana Republic. It means shopping at NMC Toys rather than Five Below! There are countless companies trying to participate ethically in our capitalistic economy. Check out the Buyer's Guide on the website EthicalConsumer.org. Or try EthicalShopping.com.

As far as I'm concerned, BND is a great idea. But in the long run, I'm worried that utter non-consumption will only hurt the middle class and motivate company execs to seek alternative ways to maximize profit.

By playing the consumption game ethically perhaps we can transform things from the inside out (like yeast?).

Hurry Up, We're Dreaming

2011-11-18T07:24:00.004-05:00

Remember how excited you were when you first saw the preview for Spike Jone's Where the Wild Things Are? The imagination. The childlike adventure. The pure and joyful fantasy. The movie promised to take us back to the mystical worlds of our childhood.

Well now you can have it in audio (and superior) format. Like Jone's film, M83's new album Midnight City is a fanciful voyage back to childhood. The 22-track album sweeps listeners away to that world beyond where we all use to dream and play.

Here's a little taste...

M83 — Intro (feat. Zola Jesus) by tiago_custodio

We didn’t need a story, we didn’t need a real world
We just had to keep walking
And we became the stories, we became the places
We were the lights, the deserts, the faraway worlds
We were you before you even existed

Carry on, carry on, carry on
And after us the flood
Carry on, carry on, carry on
Our silver horn it leads the way
Banners of gold shine
In the cold, in the cold, in the cold
Footprints of snow
Blind from the road
Hail!

We carry on, carry on
Follow us, we are one
The battle’s fought, the deed is done
Our silver hum runs deep and strong
Hand to the heart, lips to the horn
Hand on my breast, I’ll keep you warm
Hail!

The Nicodemus Approach to Homosexuality

2011-11-17T09:36:00.005-05:00

Allow me to show my cards from the outset: I am Christian, heterosexual, and I won't be taking an explicit side on the issue of homosexuality in this post. This issue is far too complex for 600 words. What I do intend, however, is to assert that nobody should hold a strong opinion on homosexuality until s/he has personally interacted with homosexuals. I call this the "Nicodemus Approach."

I grew up in a fairly conservative evangelical community where nobody talked about homosexuality except when sharply condemning it. More accurately, I grew up in a community where nobody knew any homosexuals.* The issue did not concern specific human beings in our community; rather, it was about "them," those hypothetical people "out there." Accordingly, I learned that it was okay to hold conclusive opinions about matters that I knew little about and/or had never encountered in person.

Over the past four years, however, I have learned a different approach. During my four years in Philadelphia I have worked closely with a homosexual youth pastor; was mentored by a brilliant, homosexual chaplain supervisor; and walked alongside a handful of gay peers in Christian ministry. Unlike the former method of judging what I do not know, I came face to face with people instead of ideas. Enter Nicodemus.

Nicodemus was one of the Pharisees and a member of the religious elite. He belonged to a community that saw Jesus as a sinner because Jesus did things that were contrary to what was written in Hebrew Scripture (John 4:9; 5:16; 9:16). But John's portrayal of Nicodemus is fascinating: instead of remaining in his comfortable, homogeneous community, Nicodemus goes to encounter the man who had stirred up controversy (John 3:1-15). Then, at the end of chapter seven we meet Nicodemus a second time (7:45-52). That Nicodemus reappears in the Gospel is one thing; but he does not return as a static character. Nicodemus advocates for Jesus (v.51)! Here we see the impact of Nicodemus’ face-to-face encounter with Jesus.

We meet Nicodemus a third and final time at the foot of the cross. When all but one of Jesus' disciples had abandoned him, who is there? Nicodemus. The Pharisee who risked his religious identity to meet Jesus in person is the man that is forever remembered for laying our Lord to rest.

For me, this confirms the absolute necessity of personal encounter when forming opinions toward people. It is such a simple method, yet very hard to practice. However, I think that both Nicodemus and, more obviously, Jesus demonstrate this method clearly. Furthermore, the kind of opinion about which I am writing is specifically a strong opinion. I am quite aware that everyone will have an opinion no matter what; for that is natural. My challenge is to go and test your opinion (Lamentations 3:40).

I can imagine a reader asking, "Should we also not take a stand against abortion or capital punishment if we've never personally experienced it?" No, take your stand; for this misses my point. We must be careful to distinguish between acts/events and people. My point is that we ought to take an approach to homosexuality that takes seriously the fact that, in truth, there is no such thing as homosexuality the concept. There is only the homosexual - the person.

* Statistically this statement cannot be true. There must have been homosexuals in that community. However, the issue is that a community can create a statistically false reality (i.e. no homosexuals in a community) through pretense and silence.

L I G H T

2011-11-04T07:11:00.004-04:00

When I see this video I see the visions of Jesus and Zechariah coming together.

Zechariah's vision of the Saviour Child was this: "You, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High; for you will go before the Lord to prepare his ways... to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death." (Luke 1:76,79a)

Jesus' vision for humankind was this: "He has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor." (Luke 4:18-19)

Beautiful Waves. Beautiful Stories. Beautiful Theology.

2011-11-04T00:05:00.004-04:00

I was re-watching the famous "Double Split" experiment on YouTube tonight (for about the tenth time!) and I later found myself pondering the mystery and the beauty of the event. If you have never seen the experiment, watch it and then return to this post.

In the experiment physicists fire electrons toward two rectangular holes in a wall to see what kind of pattern will be produced on the opposite side. The problem is that electrons behave as both particle and waves. Thus, depending on "who's watching," the electrons may produce a particle-like pattern, or they may produce a wave-like pattern.

As one can see in the video clip, the wave-like pattern is produced when intricate supervision is not happening. However, when the experiment is closely observed so that physicists might "figure it out," the electrons produce the particle pattern.

This got me to thinking about the difference between particles and waves as an analogy for the difference between propositional statements and stories. I was working on a statement about my Christology tonight and I realized as I was writing it that I did not want to simply list statements about Jesus; I wanted to write a narrative of Jesus' life. That, I thought, is how one comes to know Jesus; not through propositional statements but through story.

Propositional statements are like the scientist who wishes to observe the Double Split experiment up close so as to figure it out and possess the truth. The problem: that makes things boring and less beautiful. In fact, quantum physics suggests that reality actually behaves differently under these circumstances.

But when mystery is embraced reality creates beautiful wave-like patterns and shares more light! I wonder if this too can be said of theology. Perhaps what we need is a bit more comfort with mystery and stories rather than propositions and doctrine.

Who's Afraid of Postmodernism? Book Review

2011-10-31T19:07:00.011-04:00

Are you afraid of postmodernism? Well do not fear, James Smith is here. In his book Who's Afraid of Postmodernism? Taking Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault to Church James K. A. Smith presents a clear, concise introduction to postmodern philosophies and their ramifications for the Christian church. This is the best book on postmodernism/church that I have encountered.

This short work consists of five chapters, the last being the most substantive. Hence, I will devote the most space to it. Smith introduces each chapter with a film that illustrates major points regarding the chapter's content. I found his exposition of films both entertaining and beneficial for grasping various concepts (not to mention it made me want to watch Whale Rider again - great film). In the three middle chapters Smith dialogues with one of the three philosophers, providing good primary source quotations.

After a broad introductory chapter Smith delves into Derrida's claim, "There is nothing outside the text." Here Smith's goal is to unpack the "bumper-sticker" interpretation of Derrida's quote and better understand what exactly the Frenchman meant. Smith explains that Derrida essentially meant that "everything is interpretation" (42). Smith argues that this liberates Christians from having to prove Christian claims to be universally known by all people, at all times, in all places (48). Instead, the church may embrace a confessional theology in which the interpreting community determines meaning (53, see review of last chapter below).

In chapter three Smith corrects a bumper-sticker understanding of Lyotard's claim that postmodernism is the rejection of metanarratives. This claim seems to oppose the very nature of the church whose theology claims a creator God guiding the cosmos to a telos. However, this is not, in fact, what Lyotard meant. Rather, Smith explains Lyotard's definitiion of metanarrative as "universal discourses of legitmation that mask their own particularly; that is, metanarratives deny their narrative ground even as they proceeed on it as a basis," (69). Examples: modern scientific knowledge, Darwinism, capitalism. Thus, the narrative of Scripture, which does not attempt to legitimate itself "by an appeal to universal, autonomous reason but rather by an appeal to faith (or, to translate, myth or narrative)" is not considered a metanarrative by Lyotard's - or postmodernism's - standards (68). Smith correctly notes a beautiful ramification for the church: narrative does not attempt to prove its claims, but rather proclaims them within a story.

Smith's last philosophical sparring partner is Michael Foucault (chapter four). Again Smith attempts to situate a bumper-sticker understanding of Foucault. Here he tackles Foucault's claim that "power is knowledge." Essentially, Foucault's philosophy provides a comprehensive description of modern disciplinary systems (tracking from 18th century to modern day). In the end Smith understands Foucault to assert that "social institutions and relationships are necessarily constructed on the basis of power relations," (100). Smith paints Foucault as a "closeted Enlightenment thinker" (97) because he is so often understood as a "protest thinker" who champions the rights of the individual. As for the church, Smith would like to see the church reject the modernist notion of the autonomous individual and embrace the disciplinary form of the gospel (viz. Christ's Lordship). For me, this was the most difficult chapter because Foucault's philosophy is quite dense. But the concept of discipline is something that anyone who claims to be a disciple ought to explore.

In the last chapter titled "Applied Radical Orthodoxy" Smith offers a number of substantive thoughts in response (too much to cover here). Smith rightly argues postmodernism allows for "a robust confessional theology and ecclesiology that unapologetically reclaims premodern practices in and for a postmodern culture," (116). What I appreciate the most in this chapter is Smith's recovery of premodern epistemology. I think that this is truly the area where postmodernism offers the church a way out of modernity's epistemic prison and back into the movement of confessing Christ.

Specifically, Smith shrewdly points out that many postmoderns, including Derrida and Caputo, ironically endorse a Cartesian (modern) epistemology when they claim that we cannot know, we can only believe. The irony is that such a view equates knowledge with indubitable certainty (omniscience); faith is therefore located in opposition to knowledge (a Cartesian and Enlightenment definition). We cannot say we know things about God with certainty, we can only believe. What results is a "religion without religion" (119).

But what Derrida and Lyotard (see also Thomas Khun, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions) have shown is that all knowledge is uncertain and depends upon a degree of faith. Smith refers to pre-Cartesian epistemology that correctly distinguished between comprehending God and knowing God. The postmodern church may relinquish claims of absolute knowledge without giving up knowing altogether.

Ultimately Smith contends for a "logic of incarnation" (122) that allows the Christian church to resist the "modern notion of an ahistorical, a-geographical, transcendental religion." Instead, the Christian church may affirm and embody a particular, finite narrative; one that confesses that "God became flesh at a particular time ("under Pontius Pilate") and in a particular place ("born of the Virgin Mary")," (122).

This, I believe, frees the Christian church from the epistemic idols of modernity and allows us to once again embrace a confessional theology. And, ultimately, Smith's "Radical Orthodoxy" offers a solid middle ground between modern and postmodern extremes.

My only reservation about Smith's "Radical Orthodoxy" is the primacy he gives to specific revelation. I agree with him that God's revelation in Christ and Scripture should act as the governing revelation for the Christian community (126), but Smith offers no concrete suggestions as to what this might look like. My issue is that it is precisely the interpreting community (historical and contemporary) who makes sense of Gods' revelation in Christ and Scripture. What, then, is the role of the community? I imagine that Smith expands on this in his Introducing Radical Orthodoxy: Mapping a Post-secular Theology (2004).

As I've said throughout, this book is a fantastic introductory read. It is easy to read, entertaining, and provides a substantial amount of primary source quotations that allowed me to "get to know" Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault a bit. Whether or not you're just starting out in studies of postmodernism or you've been exploring for years, this book is a worthwhile read.

Why Shifts in Language are Important

2011-10-24T21:29:00.003-04:00

The Racist Internet

2011-10-24T16:08:00.020-04:00

So I've been working on a presentation about the church and postmodernism and I seem to have discovered a fairly large bias in our postmodern savior, the internet. It turns out that the default race for search engine image searches is - you guessed it - white.

I came across this as I was searching for images for my presentation. As I searched Google for images I began to notice that all of the people in my searches were white. Now, I realize that postmodernism is a very white (and predominately male) phenomenon. But I was not always searching for specifically postmodern people/things/ideas. Hence, it came as a surprise to me to realize that all of my search results were predominately white. Check out some of these searches and image results.

First, I searched for "Postmodern" and got a random array of images:

Later, I searched for "Health Magazine" and got a nice survey of smiling, white faces:

After that I searched for "iPhone Users" and got this:

I also searched for "Mens Health"...

As I began to notice the trend I decided to go a bit more generic to see if Google's bent was verifiable or not. So I searched for something vague and universal: "woman jogging."

Uh oh. Bent confirmed. So I tried "Man jogging" ...

Apparently only white men and women (and Barack Obama, the only black man many white people know) enjoy jogging.

What about kids? I tried "boy eating" and "girl eating." All white:

OK. So there is clearly a white bias for Google. What about Yahoo!? I tried the same searches at Yahoo! and discovered the same results.

"Woman Jogging" -

"Man Jogging" -

"mens health" -

"Womens Health" -

"Boy Eating" -

"Girl Eating" -

All of this is both fascinating and sad. I find myself wondering two things: Why haven't I noticed this before? And, How would I feel if I wasn't white? I imagine that it would be quite strange if every time I searched for images on the internet I was greeted with images of black women and men (or Arab or Chinese, for that matter). This bias is a cogent reminder that in a world that claims to have left racism in 1964, we still have a long way to go.

I invite you to do your own internet searching and see what turns up.* If, like me, you discover a racial bias, ask yourself how it might feel to be on the other side of your race.

*Beware that image searching is a dangerous endeavor and you may encounter images that you do not wish to see. Check the "Safe Search" settings in your search engine to limit any unwanted images.

Digital Space

2011-10-21T10:58:00.002-04:00

Citizens of the West, you may inhabit more digital space than geographic space.

Burs in Hell

2011-10-14T12:03:00.037-04:00

I saw hell. And it wasn't at all like Dante's Inferno or that Hell House movie. It was in a barn in Ontario and I felt like crying.

I stood and watched my friend as she struggled to pull the brush through the horse's hair. Each prickly bur seemed to be glued in the horse's thick, black mane. Ferley, the mare, expressed her discomfort by stomping her massive hooves and heaving her head up and down. "This," I thought, "is what hell is like."

For about ten minutes I observed Ferley's anguish while being cared for. The mess of burs entangled in her mane and tail had to be removed, but the process was slow and painful. I could hear the sound of hair ripping and snapping at the jerk of the brush. The very thing that tortured this poor creature was also her salvation. Something within me stirred as I witnessed my friend caring for her horse. There was something in her voice as she soothed the giant animal and reassured her: "I know... I know this hurts. But we're going to get you cleaned up." There was compassion in her voice and she lovingly removed the mess from the horse's hair. It was love, not revulsion. It was redemption, not vengeance. "This," I thought, "is what hell is like."

A few days later I found myself reflecting on that moment in the barn and I was reminded of Julian of Norwich's "Parable of the Servant" (found in her Book of Showings, chapter 51). In the parable Julian envisions a servant standing before his lord; his lord looks upon his servant "lovingly and sweetly and mildly." The servant is then sent to do his lord's will:

The servant "dashes off and runs at great speed, longing to do his lord's will. And soon he falls into a dell and is greatly injured; and then he groans and moans and tosses about and writhes, but he cannot rise or help himself in any way. And of all this, the greatest hurt I saw him in was lack of consolation, for he could not turn his face to look on his loving lord, who was very close to him, in whom is all consolation..."

But during the servant's fall the "loving lord looks on him most tenderly, and now with a double aspect, one outward, very meekly and mildly, with great compassion and pity, and this belonged to the first part; the other was inward, more to see how greatly he rejoiced over the honorable rest and nobility which by his plentiful grace he wishes for his servant and will bring him to."

Julian wrestled with this vision for nearly twenty years, trying to make sense of the mysterious showing of the lord and his servant. She understood the lord to be God and the servant to be Adam, who is also all of humanity. She therefore understood the vision to reveal how it is that God views fallen humanity: with compassion, not vengeance. She writes:

"And this was the beginning of the teaching which I saw at the same time, whereby I might come to know in what manner he looks on us in our sin. And then I saw that only pain blames and punishes, and our courteous Lord comforts and succors, and always he is kindly disposed to the soul, loving and longing to bring us to his bliss."

This is indeed the kind of vision that stirred within me as I watched my friend care for her horse. The mess of burs that plagued the old mare did not disgust her caretaker. Rather, my friend looked upon her horse with love and restored her. When I read the Bible I am compelled to view God's judgment in the same manner.

The idea that God must or chooses to send his beloved sons and daughters to a place of eternal punishment is not only tragic but also and very possibly unbiblical.

If we are to look at the very center of God's wrath and judgment in the biblical narrative we must look to the cross. It is here that we find Jesus being crucified and saying, "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do," (Luke 23:24). Is this the righteous judgment of God? Jesus did, in fact, say, "The Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son," (John 5:22). Then what are we to make of God's righteous judgment?

Jan Bonda writes, "God's righteousness is not about what we would call 'righteous judgment,' it is about restoration and shalom." God's judgment throughout the Bible and especially on the cross is redemptive judgment. It is never senseless punishment for the sake of God's holiness (whatever that really means). It is always purposeful. And that purpose is always reconciliation with God.

Contrary to what much of traditional Christian theology has endorsed, there is, in fact, substantial grounds for arguing that God's judgment is itself salvific (Isa. 48:9-11; Jer. 9:25; 30:11-17; 31:10-37; Ezek. 16; Hos. 6:1; 11:-13; Rom. 14:10-12). As K.F. Keil writes, "Judgments of the Old Testament must not be viewed as eternal punishments; they leave the possibility for future salvation."

There is one particularly paradigmatic passage in the New Testament that deserves quoting here. In his first letter to the church in Corinth, Paul writes:

By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as a wise builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should build with care. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the fire. (1 Cor. 3: 10-15)

Paul makes clear that not building upon the foundation of Jesus is a grave mistake: those who do not do so will suffer loss (let us be cautious as to what "building upon Jesus" might truly mean). But Paul also makes room for salvation after this suffering. It is not eternal damnation for the sake of 'justice'; it is God's punitive cleansing for our benefit. Let the reader be sharp about what this means: it does not mean that hell is without pain, suffering and, in Paul's words, "loss" (which, in the Greek, denotes injury and damage). Hell is indeed a terrible thought. It brings to mind the tragedy and sadness of the servant in Julian's vision. Such suffering is real. Building one's life on gods other than Jesus Christ brings real suffering and loss.

However, this suffering - this "hell" - does not have the final word in much of the Bible. Judgment in the Old Testament, including God's "eternal fire" (Jer. 17:4), is not the final word but rather a means to reconciliation with God (Jer. 31:38-40). Many of the Old Testament passages that speak of God's wrath/judgment contain nothing of the "unending punishment" that is endorsed by many theologies today. One reason for this is the common anachronistic view of the meaning of "eternal." The Hebrew word, olam, which is often translated "forever" and "everlasting" did not carry the same meaning in the Hebrew worldview. The word possessed connotations of intensity, not time. It was used qualitatively, not quantitatively.

All of this does not, however, mean that the concept of hell in the Bible may be totally disregarded or sugar-coated as a "means to reconciliation." Hell is real. It is as real and as horrendous as the exploitation of children (Mark 9:42-48). It is as real and tragic as the suffering of those in need (Matt. 25:31-46). It is as real as the burs that plagued a helpless horse in Ontario.

But these realities that had a beginning will thus have their End. Among the many portraits of God in the Bible there is the portrait of the One who cannot give up (Hos. 11); the One who will bring injury in order to heal (Hos. 6:1). I wonder if it it might be anything like a horse being rigorously brushed in order to be set free from infectious burs.

Babylon

2011-10-06T17:38:00.003-04:00

"Come, I will show you the judgment of the great harlot who is seated upon many waters, with whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and with the wine of whose fornication the dwellers of the earth have drunk." (Rev. 17:1-2)

An A-Historical Model of Atonement

2011-10-04T10:50:00.003-04:00

One of the many problems with the classic "Penal Substitution Theory" of atonement* is that it tends toward an a-historical understanding of Jesus and the cross. On this issue I have found Gregory Love's writing quite informative and I'd like to share it here:

By moving from an historical to an a-historical view of how Jesus saves us, penal substitutionary theory folds violence into saving motifs in the God-image, against the intentions of Jesus. It understands the divine-human relationship through an abstract legal formula, allowing it to locate the salvific work of God solely in the cross. By focusing on supposed "universal" principles - sin as disobedience; the need for retributive punishment punishment before divine forgiveness is possible; the saving role of an innocent substitute - rather than the concrete elements of the gospels' narrative involving Jesus' birth, message and ministry, execution by an empire, and appearances after the resurrection, the political elements in Jesus' statements and actions, death and resurrection can be ignored, as can the theorist's own political interests. Jesus' consistent nonviolence becomes irrelevant to the atonement model, and fails to inform its God-image.

* the theory that human beings are sinful and deserve to die/suffer forever (or any form of this) so God had to have someone die and decided to have God's own Son die in the place of human beings, thereby taking on the penalty of death.

SHAME ON US.

2011-09-29T15:37:00.001-04:00

Reposting a picture I saw on facebook...

The Scarcity Paradigm

2011-09-23T18:05:00.008-04:00

I am a white, middle-class man working on a master's degree. I'm supposed to eat lunch at an Asian-Fusion restaurant or Whole Foods or a sushi bar (tongue in cheek). I shouldn't be eating the free meals that urban churches are cooking up for people in need, right?

Or... should I? I'm beginning to think that I - we - actually should be.

Last Thursday I attended Breaking Bread at Broad Street Ministry in center city Philadelphia. Breaking Bread is a weekly program that offers a free community meal from 11 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. every Thursday. My good friend works at BSM and invited me to come down and share the meal with the many Philadelphians who currently have no home or live in shelters. At first I assumed he was asking me to volunteer. But he quickly corrected me and explained that Breaking Bread is a community meal; and that means that it is table fellowship for all. I accepted the invitation, but was still a bit nervous about the whole thing.

Thursday morning came and I stood on Broad Street in the Theater District of Philly. Across the street were giant billboards and flashy signs. Towering above me were BSM's massive stained glass windows. Below on the street was a mixed crowd of people waiting for doors to open. I stood on the fringe feeling overly self-conscious. Were these people staring at me? Judging me by my appearance? Would anyone ask me if I was a new volunteer? Did they know I didn't truly belong there?

These feelings remained throughout lunch. As I sat at a table of 8 people and enjoyed a three course meal I couldn't help but think that I was a fraud of sorts. I didn't need this meal, did I? Was I taking food away from those who might need it? Would others be angry if they found out I wasn't "in need" as they were?

These thoughts are the product of the scarcity paradigm - the view that the world is limited in resources and insufficient to meet the needs of all people. This way of thinking has been ingrained in me (and most in the West) and it subtly affects how I see everything - even acts of compassion and service.

To view the world through the scarcity paradigm only serves to divide people groups into social classes based on materialism. This is precisely the kind of thing that BSM's Breaking Bread is working against. Instead, Breaking Bread is a meal for all that provides a time and space to transcend boundaries of social class and materialism and meet on the level of common humanity. It seems strangely beautiful. And scandalously Christlike.

More importantly, it turns the scarcity paradigm upside down and preaches the Good News that there is, in fact, enough to go around. There is enough for me to eat a meal with my neighbors.

After lunch I went out for a cup of coffee with a woman I met at lunch. She has been without a home for at least 7 weeks. She and I sat at Saxbys Coffee inside the shops at Liberty Place on Chestnut/16th Street. As she shared with me her incredible story, I was overwhelmed with the hustle and bustle of people pouring in and out of the shopping center. Behind me there were shops of all kinds: clothing, kitchen supplies, a food court, etc.

I was utterly confused as I observed seemingly infinite supplies of food and clothing around me. My mind could not comprehend the dissonance between what I had just seen at Broad Street Ministry and the reality of abundance in Liberty Place mall. At BSM women and men play a lottery to win a trip to the clothing closet to obtain used clothing. At Liberty Place women and men fork over $60 for a shirt or a pair of shoes.

There isn't enough to go around? I simply can't believe that anymore.

There IS enough to go around. We live in a world of abundance and the Creator of this world is the God of abundance.

Don't believe me? Check out this recent video that I made commenting on the abundance of food in a world where people go hungry.

Can we believe in a world where there is enough? Can we trust the promise that the God of the Bible provides for us? Can we begin living in a way that manifests the abundance paradigm?

Or "Is the Lord's hand shortened?"

Feist

2011-09-22T21:35:00.002-04:00

What a beautiful way to start this dirty tune...

Don't miss Feist's new album "Metals" coming October 3rd....

The Power of Words

2011-09-18T09:12:00.005-04:00

This morning I read THIS news piece about Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi supposedly boasting of his sexual prowess. Evidently the man verbally boasted about spending one night with eight women (some of whom may have likely been underage thus making the man a pedophile and a law-breaker among other things).

However, it really got me thinking about the concept of boasting. The Oxford-American Dictionary defines boasting as "talking with excessive pride and self-satisfaction about one's achievements, possessions, or abilities." So first of all, boasting requires talking. Hence, the power of words.

Secondly, boasting (talking-with-pride) is a way of interpreting action. Interpretation gives meaning. Hence, the power of words gives behavior different kinds of meaning.

Thirdly, boasting is done for social purposes: to convey meaning to others. Hence, the power of words to persuade others about the meaning of various behavior.

What really upsets me about this news piece is that by boasting about his behavior, PM Berlusconi has spun his behavior with a 'color' - a 'color' that paints his behavior as something to boast about, something to strive for, something to achieve. By boasting about his night with 8 women, this man has interpreted his own behavior in a way that gives himself power and portrays his behavior as somehow preferable.

His boasting also serves as a purpose to defend his behavior (and disguise it). But, the defense through boasting is only valid if its hearers accept the behavior as something to boast about!

Here I beg the question: Would Berluscnoi's behavior speak for itself in the same way? Without words, would his behavior by itself be seen in the same light? The answer is NO. Immoral behavior can only be seen as acceptable through the deceptive power of interpretation - usually by words.

On the opposite side of the same coin, immoral behavior can only be condemned through the power of words. Too bad nobody around Berlusconi loves him enough to tell him that his behavior isn't worth boasting about.

Abundance & Scarcity

2011-09-17T15:42:00.001-04:00

GOD IS LOVE.

2011-09-07T16:12:00.008-04:00

Last evening I began a course called "Theology of Romantic Love." The class is designed to explore how contemporary conceptions of 'love' influence the way we think about the love of God: "With what kind(s) of love does God love us? With what kind(s) of love ought we then to love God and one another?" (from the syllabus)

In the first class we explored various relational dynamics implicit in our concepts of love. This led to an interesting insight for Trinitarian Theology. I've designed a little figure.

J.A.C.'s CHIP WAGON

2011-08-24T08:13:00.007-04:00

J.A.C's is located along Rt. 42 in the parking lot of the local golf course and driving range. This busy locale gives J.A.C.'s a steady flow of patrons and after having the poutine I can tell why. I knew that at some point one of these chip wagons would wow me, but I was beginning to worry that they were all starting to taste the same. Then I tasted J.A.C.'s poutine, the new front-runner in my poutine challenge.

FRIES: Perfectly sized, perfectly cooked, perfectly tasty. These chips are cut to a thickness in between Jeannie's and Ma's and allow for the mushy potato center with that crispy fried crunch. The chips at the bottom, however, do become soggy - but this ought not deter you because the gravy is so good (see below).

CHEESE: The curds are average on taste but plentifully scattered throughout, which is what a good poutine needs. You can have cheese in just about every bite of this poutine.

GRAVY: Phenomenal. This is the best gravy I've had from the local chip wagons. It has a more "golden mushroom" flavor than a generic brown gravy flavor. That is, it is salty and light. The cook claims that it is just simple beef gravy, but my taste buds suspect otherwise. The gravy is also a perfect consistency so that it spreads throughout the entire dish to the bottom, covering every nook and cranny.

ARRANGEMENT: Strongest element. The arrangement of ingredients makes this dish a non-stop poutine party. Ingredient proportions and distribution gives it a consistent flavor combination throughout. There is no need to pause and manually assemble your next bite, J.A.C. has it all prepared for you.

SIZE: Same size as Jeannie's and Ma's. Nice round cup for easy handling. Overflowing with poutine goodness.

COST: $4.75... but comes to $5.09 with tax! This is the only downer: tax. Tax on poutine? None of the chip wagons do this. But if you can swing the odd $0.09 extra, it is worth it.

OVERALL SCORE: 9/10 - J.A.C.'s strong ingredients and phenomenal arrangement makes poutine more than just a snack, it is an experience. If I wanted my friends to try a poutine, this would be the one. Way to go, J.A.C.'s!

Ma's Chip Wagon

2011-08-23T11:41:00.006-04:00

Located on quiet Perth St. in Elgin, Ma's Chip Wagon is a hidden treasure. Donna, the friendly owner and operator of this wagon has only been in business for 2.5 years. But one taste of her chips will have you convinced that she is a veteran potato chef. The poutine found here is quite good and rates almost as high as anything I've had.

FRIES: Outstanding. Cut thicker than other wagons, these fries allow for a bit more taste of the potato. They are fresh, hot, and crispy. The fries are the highlight of this poutine.

CHEESE: Also phenomenal. Best curds thus far. Very salty with a nice milky, mozzarella flavor.

GRAVY: Good by itself, not so great in relation to other ingredients. Too salty to compliment fries and curds. Also a bit thick and not enough (by the end there is no gravy at the bottom so that fries are a bit dry).

ARRANGEMENT: Layered. Good arrangement; but slightly lacking gravy.

SIZE: Wonderful size; exactly like Jeannie's (round dish).

COST: $5.25 (a bit high)

COMMENTS: This was very good poutine. I would have it again in a second, only asking for extra gravy to keep those chips covered up to the last bite. Altogether, however, this is phenomenal poutine and the Elgin locals are truly sitting on a Yukon gold mine.

OVERALL SCORE: 8/10 - outstanding fries & curds. But the gravy and price set this wagon a half point behind a Jeannie.

KIM'S CHIPS...

2011-08-21T16:18:00.004-04:00

Conveniently located along Rt. 15 in Crosby, Kim's Chips is a baby chip wagon that has only been in business for a mere two months. Unfortunately, Kim's infancy also brings a naivete that produces low quality poutine at a high price.

FRIES: Mediocre. They are good size but quite bland; and a bit too soggy.

CHEESE: Decent curds but not much flavor. The amount of curds was also low.

GRAVY: Also mediocre. It is good consistency, but very bland. The gravy is the weak point of this poutine. There was too much of it.

ARRANGEMENT: Most ingredients are added atop rather than layered. Too much gravy caused bottom fries to become soggy.

SIZE: Decent size for a small. But the dish is rectangular and has a top (like a to-go box), which makes it more difficult to hold (e.g. while driving). It is a two-hand food. The portion might be a bit bigger that Jeannie's.

COST: $6 (HIGH)

COMMENTS: For $6 I expected much more form Kim and her team. It was not bad per se, but there was nothing great about it. The gravy really brought the whole package down a few notches.

OVERALL SCORE: 5/10 - exactly 50% because it is just that: mediocre.

JEANNIE'S...

2011-08-21T16:07:00.007-04:00

Jeannie's Fresh Cut Fries is a historic chip wagon in the town of Elgin. It has been around for over ten years and knows the poutine game well. Thus, I had high expectations for this first stop on my tour. As one can see below, I was not let down.

FRIES: Awesome. They are crispy and salty.

CHEESE: Good curds. They are dispersed well throughout and have a nice salty flavor.

GRAVY: Solid. Good consistency (not too thin or thick) and a good beefy/peppery flavor.

ARRANGEMENT: Layered well with ingredients throughout. Amount of gravy just perfect so that fries stay crispy.

SIZE: Perfect size. Comes in a round dish that fits comfortably into a single hand for easy maneuvering.

COST: $4.50 (Average)

COMMENTS: This is the best poutine I've had since Montreal. The fries are the strongest element but the curds and gravy provide a solid backing to these all-star chips. It is going to be difficult to top Jeannie's.

OVERALL SCORE: 8.5/10 - This is high quality poutine and deserves high marks. Jeannie knows what she's doing and it's going to be difficult to find a contender to top this delicious treat.

The POUTINE CHALLENGE!

2011-08-20T16:35:00.003-04:00

One of the most obvious reasons to love Canada is Poutine. Originating in Quebec, this comfort food consists of three easy ingredients: french fries ("chips"), cheese curds, and gravy. That's it. Don't ask me why it tastes so good, it just does.

As a popular cultural treat, poutine can be found almost anywhere - including chip wagons alongside the road. Where I am currently vacationing in Westport, Ontario there are numerous chip wagons stationed along roads in the local towns. After passing by a handful of these poutine factories, I finally realized the destiny to which I have been called: to taste and grade each of these chip wagon's poutine.

I accept the challenge.

So, in the coming days I am going to be posting one report per day to determine just which of these local eateries produces the best version of this national delicacy. I will grade each ingredient separately (fries, gravy, cheese); but also grade the arrangement of ingredients; the portion size; the cost; and the all around satisfaction. These factors will amount to a grade based on a 10-pt system.

First up: Jeannie's Fresh Cut Fries.

Jesus the Name-Caller?

2011-08-06T16:53:00.066-04:00

It's not exactly the best picture of Jesus: a Gentile woman approaches him in faith and he responds by calling her a dog, reminding her that he was not sent for the Gentiles but for Israel. On the surface this doesn't look good. Jesus comes off as an arrogant, ethnocentric name-caller.

But is this truly what is going on in Matthew 15:21-28? Did Jesus really call the Canaanite woman a dog because that is what he thought of her? Most readers of this passage seem to think so. I have heard a number of interpretations that take Jesus' words as a direct, declarative statement toward the Canannite woman. Some readers explain that Jesus was being harsh yet truthful (i.e. she was, in fact, a Gentile, a dog). Others believe that Jesus was the product of his culture and experienced a kind of cultural slip up (i.e. even Jesus was culturally bias). And still others think that Jesus was merely testing the woman's faith.

At best, these interpretations are wanting; at worst, they are downright heartless. Moreover, I don't buy them. The Jesus I encounter in the Gospels is not like this. Does Jesus elsewhere turn away Gentiles because of their social location? No! (e.g. John 4; Luke 7) So how would it be consistent to interpret this passage as such? The problem, in my opinion, is that Jesus' words are too often read as if he was always speaking in declarative statements; as if he was always revealing little timeless truths. On the contrary, Jesus was human and deserves to be read as a human: with feelings, personality, and charisma! Furthermore, Jesus was a teacher. The Jesus of the Gospels uses questions, puzzles and parables to teach others about God and God's Kingdom. Along this more consistent portrait of Jesus, I believe that this controversial passage invites us to see even further how Jesus taught his disciples.

In what follows I would like to offer TWO ALTERNATIVE INTERPRETATIONS of this text. Before moving on to interpretation, however, I will paste the text from Matthew here. Mark also includes this in his gospel (Mk 7:24-30).

21 Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.” 23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.” 24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” 25 The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said. 26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” 27 “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.” 28 Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment. (Matt. 15:21-28, NIV)

ALTERNATIVE #1: Jesus Exposes the Woman's Cultural Prejudice

This interpretation hinges upon the social dynamics. Matthew tells us that Jesus and the disciples are on the move (as usual). But more specifically, they have left their home of Judea and are moving into Greek territory north of Judea, a locale that was historically hostile since the Israelite conquest over the Canaanites. Enmity between and Jews and Canaanites, as well as Jews and Greeks, was not uncommon (though the degree is difficult to assess in this passage). Additionally, the areas of Tyre and Sidon (within what was called Syrophoenicia, see Mk 7:26) were wealthy areas. Socially speaking, Jesus and his disciples are in an area of cultural tension.

Like most cultural conflicts, this conflict included specific manifestations of prejudice. In a lecture with biblical scholar Craig Keener, I learned that enmity between wealthy Greeks from Phoenicia and Jews from Judea was not uncommon. More importantly, some Greek writings from antiquity applied the term "dog" to the lower class, as well as Jews, as a pejorative. (I wish I could cite the texts but I cannot remember them. I plan to search for them and may add them to this post later) This is, in my opinion, a significant detail that demands a closer look at the passage.

The woman who approaches Jesus is a Canaanite/Syrophoenician; she lives in a non-Jewish province. She may be wealthy, though the text does not reveal. She may possess animosity toward lower class and/or Jews, though the text does not reveal. And, along with her culture, she may have even used the term "dog" as a pejorative in the past, though the text does not reveal. We do not know, we can only speculate.

What the text does reveal is that there is a clear-cut cultural boundary between Jew and Gentile. The one who makes this clear, however, is Jesus - the last person that one might expect to emphasize cultural boundaries.

What is going on here? Why would Jesus, who previously accepted and ministered to Gentiles (Matt. 8:5-13; 8:28-34; 9:18-26), now decide to endorse cultural prejudices between Jew and Gentile? To interpret Jesus' words as an endorsement of Jew/Gentile division is inconsistent with Matthew's portrait of Jesus.

Instead, I believe that Jesus' hyperbolic division between Jew and Gentile invites the Canaanite woman into a new perspective. This is a woman who most likely embraced cultural divisions between Jew and Gentile; and Jesus skillfully invites her to see the limitations of such a worldview. This is a woman who may have formerly used the term "dog" to refer to Jews; and Jesus cleverly summons her to see the pain of such prejudice.

Does Jesus still, in fact, call the woman a dog? Yes. Does Jesus truly think of the woman as a dog? No. He does not devalue her because she is a Gentile or for some other reason. He uses such language rhetorically - and powerfully.

As per usual, Jesus' pedagogical method is the invitation to experience. He is not simply stating facts or timeless truths. He is guiding this woman to experience firsthand the ramifications of her own sinful worldview.

One might ask, What if the woman had not played into Jesus' rhetorical game? What if the woman had not urged him further? What if the woman had simply accepted Jesus' hyperbole and turned away? I believe that Jesus knew this woman's heart because of how she addressed him. In verse 22 the woman calls Jesus "Son of David," which was practically synonymous with Messiah. This woman knew who Jesus was (more so than the disciples! cf. Matt. 16:16) and Jesus saw this woman's unrelenting faith. He therefore challenged her to reimagine her world; to see firsthand what the Kingdom of God looks like.

I admit that this interpretation is somewhat speculative because it hinges upon assumptions about social dynamics. But, for me, it offers a much more consistent interpretation of the Jesus I encounter in Matthew's Gospel.

ALTERNATIVE #2: Jesus Exposes the Disciple's Cultural Prejudice

Given what has been said above regarding the cultural tension between Jew/Gentile, we may move on to a different interpretation that teases out similar ideas. In this interpretation Jesus makes use of the Canaanite woman in order to teach his disciples about the Kingdom of God, namely to expose their anti-kingdom prejudices. Let us revisit the passage.

Jesus and the disciples are on the move. No crowds. No religious leaders. Just private time with the disciples for Jesus to teach and groom them. Jesus' focus is on the disciples. But suddenly a Canaanite woman came out and cried. As aforementioned, this woman addresses Jesus correctly as "Son of David." She knows more than the disciples. And Jesus realizes that this woman can teach his disciples if he responds skillfully.

So what does Jesus do? This moment is incredibly important: Jesus does not say a word (v.23). Jesus leaves space. This is the brilliance of his teaching. He leaves space for the disciples to respond to the woman. And they do. The disciples are the ones who initiate a response to the Canaanite woman. They "urged him, 'Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.'" From here onward, I believe, Jesus responds according to his disciples' perspective.

Thus, in verse 24, Jesus says, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." While many readers interpret this as Jesus' ethnocentric calling to the Jews (and corollary denial of the Canaanite woman), I read this as Jesus' double-layered challenge to the disciples (and corollary invitation to the Canaanite woman to demonstrate her faith).

The first layer of the challenge is Jesus' use of "lost sheep." Exactly who are the lost sheep Jesus is talking about? If I was a disciple of Jesus and I had spent months, maybe years, with this man, I think it would be difficult not to wonder if he was referring to me at this moment. Could it be that Jesus is effectively saying, "I was sent to teach these nimrods because they don't get it!" (rather than Jesus stating that he came to "help" or "save" only Israel) Could it be that Jesus is challenging the disciples to see that, despite their Jewishness, they are like lost sheep? (cf. Matt. 15:16)

The second layer of the challenge is Jesus' use of the disciples' (incorrect) worldview/theology. By endorsing their Jewish prejudice, Jesus invites the disciples to see the limitations of their view/theology. As mentioned above, I believe that Jesus knew that this woman would press forward because he knew her faith. I believe that Jesus knew that this woman could break down the prejudice that his disciples held.

So the woman presses closer and stronger: "Lord, help me!" And Jesus responds again with an even stronger pro-Jewish/anti-Gentile prejudice: "It is not fair to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." (v.26) I cannot help but wonder what the disciples are doing at this moment. The text reveals nothing. We can only speculate. The only thing that the text does reveal is that the disciples wished the woman would be sent away. So I cannot help but wonder if at this point the disciples are silently cheering Jesus' remarks.

But again the woman responds in faith! And this time Jesus finally responds in kind. All of the sudden, Jesus completely changes his disposition and praises the woman for her faith. Now, are we really to believe, as most interpretations do, that Jesus was stubbornly refusing the woman at one moment and then emphatically praising her the next!? Does that interpretation really make sense?

Or... is it possible that Jesus was skillfully allowing the woman to expose the blindspot in the worldview of the disciples? For me, this makes much more sense. It makes more sense in both the immediate and overarching contexts.

The immediately surrounding text includes a similar teaching moment in which Jesus maneuvers his encounter with the Pharisees and scribes to teach his disciples (Matt. 15:1-20). Afterward, two more episodes of teaching occur (15:32-39; 16:5-12). All of these occur on the road toward Caesare'a Philippi where the disciples finally discover Jesus' identity (after much teaching and help from others like the Canaanite woman).

The overarching context of Matthew's gospel also helps me to get an idea of how Jesus is to be understood. Matthew's portrait of Jesus as a teacher/prophet suggests that we read the gospel, especially scenes involving the disciples, with an appreciation for Jesus' skill as a teacher. Additionally, Matthew's complex portrayal of Judaism (i.e. seemingly both pro and anti) invites readers to wrestle with the narrative's relationship to Judaism, not least Jesus' challenges to his Jewish disciples.

CONCLUSION: Both/And

In the final analysis, I actually choose to interpret this passage as both of the alternatives presented above. I believe that Jesus, in all his wisdom and skill, effectively brings together two conflicting social groups in order that he might challenge both on their prejudices and blind spots.

a gift.

2011-07-13T00:11:00.002-04:00

a long visit ends

the despondent man whispers

"it's good to be seen."

My Nuclear Genogram

2011-07-08T21:22:00.002-04:00

on call.

2011-07-05T23:44:00.002-04:00

there is a moment

that is unlike all moments

it preys upon a chaplain

like a lion in the grass

the moment does not meet you

or await your arrival to it

it swallows you in an unforeseen lapse of time

it may come in a hallway

or in a staircase

or in an empty office

but it is always the same.

when the moment

sinks in its teeth

you know:

you

are

everything.

the moment reveals what is true

about chaplaincy

about life

about being human.

you

are

everything.

A Working Statement of Christian Faith

2011-06-22T19:11:00.008-04:00

PROLEGOMENA:

***My theology is always evolving. But, I have come to discover some truths that have impacted me so profoundly that I cannot, at this point, let them go. In fact, I have found that with some of these truths, the more I devote myself to them, the more I feel liberated and more connected to the cosmos, especially humankind. Nevertheless, I provide this statement to convey the evolutionary nature of my world view. I am open-minded.

Presupposition #1: My world view presupposes a Creator God. This presupposition stems from three reasons:

1. The beauty, grandeur and complexity of the created world (Isa. 40:26). My experience of the created world causes me to believe that the world is too good physically, biologically, aesthetically, and 'corporately' to deny something greater behind/within creation.

2. Humankind's general orientation toward something "greater" exemplified in: a) our ability to transcend ourselves (Ecc. 3:11); and b) our desire to worship (Jer. 2:5; Ex. 20:3-5) [e.g. Dostoyevskey's Grand Inquisitor...]

3. Much of humankind's orientation toward a Creator God. For me, the witness of many (not all) who presuppose a creator God is powerful "evidence." I should note that I struggle equally with the witness of those who endorse other views.

Presupposition #2: My world view presupposes the concept of a Meta-Narrative. Myths, stories, and communal narratives are as old as human existence. We live in the realm of narrative and I believe that, whether we like it or not, we live out our lives according to at least one (often more) narratives.

Presupposition #3: Creation is profoundly Future-Oriented. The concept of time is extremely complicated, but I do believe that we live toward or out of the future. This causes human beings to be oriented toward the future. And, for me, orientation toward future implies un-fulfillment of the present. It suggests that creation is not yet finished...

THE STORY OF CREATION: ONGOING & NOT YET "FULLY" FULFILLED

"In the beginning God created..." but did not finish creating! Creation is an ongoing process and we find ourselves in the middle of a cosmos being birthed; a process of self-discovery, purpose, and everlasting meaning.

1. A Process View of God - God is not omnipotent in the sense of being coercive, but rather God's power is the empowerment of other life. God therefore exists in intimate and dynamic relationship with the created world, participating in its very ebb and flow, intending to guide the cosmos toward the ultimate goal (telos) for which it has been created: that God will be "all in all "(1 Cor. 15:28 ) and "dwell with humankind" (Rev. 21:3). I interpret this as meaning that all of the cosmos and God will exist in loving relationship/community.

So HOW does God guide or empower creation in this process? I believe through revelation and action.

2. The Revelation of God - Anything that we can know about God is revealed to us by God (i.e. originates in God's Self-disclosure). For me, this concept alone suggests that God desires to be known and is more than a mere principle or metaphysical force; perhaps the subject of life who can and does relate to us. I believe that God's Self-disclosure occurs in two ways: A) General Revelation; and B) Specific Revelation.

A) General Revelation is the "imprint" that God leaves on the very nature of life: the created order, the beauty/aesthetic value, etc. This revelation is latent within creation, waiting to be dis-covered by us for our own good pleasure and strengthening of relationship with God.

B) Specific Revelation is a fuller kind of Self-disclosure in which God directly reveals God's Self to person(s). This may have occurred through a burning bush, a voice, an angel, a dream, a sign, or a feeling.

BOTH General and Specific Revelation, I believe, occur through God's Spirit (the "Holy Spirit" in much Christian terminology). The Spirit of God is moving/speaking all the time in my opinion; She reveals to us our purpose and our goal. However, there is one additional and unique revelation in my tradition.

C) The Scandal of Particularity: The Most Specific Revelation of God in Jesus of Nazareth. In addition to the revelation of God both historic and current, I believe that the fullest revelation of the Creator God has come at a specific place and time in history in the person of Jesus.

Why do I believe that Jesus was God Incarnate (God-in-the-flesh)?

1) I believe that Jesus' words and actions (as recorded in the Canonical Gospels) provide cryptic revelations of his identity as God-in-the-flesh (e.g. his relationship with the Jerusalem Temple, his self-identification with certain Scripture/parables, his self-understanding in relation to God-YHWH, his prophetic teachings/actions that seem to fulfill "end-time" promises, etc.)

2) I trust the witness of the earliest followers. John's Gospel reads, "No one has ever seen God, the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, has made God known," (John 1:18). The entire New Testament refers to Jesus in ways characteristic of God. I wrestle with this witness and ultimately trust it.

3) Personal Relationship with this Jesus the Christ - as I have followed Jesus' way, I have encountered profound and ineffable (Divine?) truth. I have encountered this in Jesus' way of loving God-YHWH first, loving thy neighbor through non-violence, peace-making, compassion, and trying to live under the "Reign of God" (here the term denotes the way of being exampled by Jesus).

4) I find a non-Incarnational view lacking in beauty and truth. For me, the notion that the Creator of the Cosmos is so loving that S/He would become like humankind, model true humanness, and then suffer the extent of violence at the hands of humankind provides the best story I have ever encountered (i.e. I find this narrative most compelling).

Not only do I believe that Jesus is the fullest revelation of God, but Jesus is also the fulfillment of God's purpose for humanity - Jesus is the "True Adam." While "Adam" may represent the archetype of broken humanity, Jesus is the archetype of reconciled humanity, living as humanity was meant to live: under the loving reign of God in community with God and each other.

In much of Christian theology, including my own, this is called an "eschatological" truth: Jesus is considered the "End" (the telos) of creation. And Jesus' presence in the middle of history is as if the end/goal of creation has broken into the present to reveal the ending in medias res. One might imagine the end of a long scroll being folded back onto itself to place the ending into the middle. This, I believe, is truly how the earliest followers of Jesus made sense of their experience, and it is how I too see things.

(This has big implications for me: it affirms the goodness of creation and the body; it suggests that God is redeeming creation "from the inside out" and is [still] desiring to co-operate with humanity to guide creation toward its goal and transform a broken world).

Yet, I have also come to discover the limitations of my own attempts to follow Jesus and realize more and more that I am incapable of "saving" myself - I NEED A SAVIOR. And I believe that God's actions in Jesus were God's decisive saving actions of me and the entire cosmos.

My need for salvation is due to my tendency to resist God's guidance. I believe that we humans resist the purpose for which we have been created. This, in my tradition, has often been labeled "sin."

3. False Narratives -

I believe that this resistance from God's purpose is manifested in the following of false narratives (what could also be termed "worshipping false gods/idols"). As we know, stories take place all the time within and overtop one another. So it is quite complicated. But I believe that we can most easily discover what narrative(s) we are following by examining a) what frightens us or makes us uncomfortable, and b) what we worship with our time, energy, resources, etc. For me, "sin" is the turning from God's True Story toward false narratives that dehumanize us and disconnect creation. What is essential for me, therefore, is to stay "on track" with God's Story; to live into it and be an actor within it.

This demands that I remain connected to the Author, hence the importance of spiritual disciplines and connectivity. For me, my connection to the Story is founded upon the theological claim that the God revealed to creation through the biblical narrative, most fully in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, is the "Word," the Author of Life and Author of the Great Story.

[images taken from The History of Redemption]

Changed Is Not Victorious...

2011-05-17T13:56:00.011-04:00

First, a parable:

A 12-yr-old girl had a golden retriever puppy name Jack. One day Jack was sniffing too close to the road and was hit by a car and killed instantly. The girl, who did not see the accident, was unaware that Jack had died, so the girl's father went and found the girl a new pit bull puppy. When the girl came home from school to play with Jack she was greeted by Bud, the pit bull. Despite the girl's confusion, the father was immovable: Bud was Jack. The father's lie escalated and he explained to the girl that Jack was hit by a car and killed but was then revived in the form of Bud the pit bull. The girl eventually acquiesced and rumors of Bud the resurrected dog began to spread...

This parable serves to demonstrate the flaw in one of the most common interpretations of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. In this fallacious opinion, Jesus was put to death in the body but raised in a disembodied spiritual state of sorts. Again, this mistaken view supposes that, despite being crucified on a Roman cross and buried in a tomb, early followers of Jesus encountered a 'spiritual' Jesus of sorts.

The flaw is this: Jesus cannot have defeated the death of the human body if Jesus was merely changed.

The crux of New Testament theology is that human death, the consequence of sin, has been conquered. The crux is not that something incredible happened to a controversial Jewish man, which therefore made him special. The heart of it all is that death has been defeated.

To hold a view that Jesus was not raised in bodily form fails to take seriously any claim that Jesus was victorious. Changed is not victorious. The resolution has nothing to do with the problem. Bud the pit bull does not make up for the loss of Jack the golden retriever.

We all know that Bud the pit bull is not Jack the golden retriever. We all therefore know that the father is a liar.

The same applies to the historical claims of the early Jesus movement. Either we wrestle with their testimony and take seriously their claim that Jesus defeated death by being raised to new life in the resurrected human body. Or, we declare them all liars and quit pretending to be followers of a dead dude by making up allegorized versions of the gospel.

Mysterious Conversion: The Resurrection from James' Perspective

2011-05-17T10:21:00.007-04:00

Scholars agree that Jesus had brothers (all younger we hope!). In the gospels of Matthew and Mark we find a list of Jesus’ brothers: James, Joseph, Simon and Jude (Matt. 13:55, Mark 6:3). None of these siblings, however, are cited as being followers of Jesus – before his crucifixion. The two James in the group of disciples were, of course, James son of Zebedee and James son of Alphaeus (Matt. 10:2-4).

In fact, Mark gives the impression that most of Jesus’ family thought he was crazy: “Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, ‘He is out of his mind,’ (Mark 3:20-21; see also John 7:3-5).

Other than this, we have no indication of Jesus’ brother James being a follower of Jesus during his ministry. This argument from silence is strong because all four gospels refer to those closest to Jesus by name, including his family. So, we can be fairly certain the James the brother of Jesus was not a follower of Jesus during his ministry.

This is interesting. Why? Because after Jesus’ crucifixion, James became a follower of Jesus! The brother who did not follow the crazed messiah-wanna-be who was put to death later became a servant of Jesus. Indeed, very interesting.

Not only did he follow his brother, he became a leader in the early Jesus movement as bishop of the Jerusalem church: Late in the Second Century, Clement of Alexandria wrote, “Peter, James and John, after the Saviors ascension, though preeminently honored by the Lord, did not contend for glory, but made James the Just Bishop of Jerusalem.” That Clement refers to the James the disciple distinguishes James the Just (Jesus’ brother).

Scholars also believe that James the brother of Jesus authored the The Letter of James. In the beginning of this letter James refers to himself as “a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Further evidence is found in Acts 15 when the apostles gather in Jerusalem with the “elders” and James speaks. This could not be James the disciple since he was put to death earlier (Acts 12:2). Most probable is that it is indeed James the brother of Jesus, the bishop of Jerusalem (see Acts 21:18)!

Paul also witnesses to Jesus’ brother as an early apostle: “I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie,” (Gal. 1:18-20). That James was residing in Jerusalem fits the historical evidence.

So what happened? Why did a non-follower of Jesus become a leader of the early church and refer to himself as a “servant of the Lord Jesus Christ” (as opposed to a scoffer of his crazy brother!)?

Allow me to pause for a moment to gather the reader’s attention: something happened. We cannot be honest historians without surmising that something had to motivate James to become a leader of the early Jesus movement.

Can we speculate further? I believe we can. Evidence provides further clues.

In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul writes that Jesus appeared to James after he had risen from the dead (1 Cor. 15:7). This could not have been the James of the disciples because Paul mentions that Jesus appeared to the disciples first, then to James.

Now, let’s ask some logical questions.

(1) Would a non-follower of Jesus experience an illusory vision (for a man he likely did not grieve or miss)?

(2) Would a non-follower of Jesus discern some kind of ‘disembodied spiritual presence’ of the man who was crucified?

(3) Would a non-follower of Jesus suddenly associate himself with the followers of a crucified, would-be messiah? (“would-be” because he was proven to be false by crucifixion)

(4) Would a non-follower of Jesus attempt to experience some kind of spiritualized connection with the crucified Jesus?

(5) Would a non-follower of Jesus refer to the crucified Jesus as “Lord” and “Christ”?

These questions suffice, I believe, to point out how absurd it is to think that a devout Jewish man, who did not follow Jesus, would suddenly become part of a movement whose primary claim was that Jesus of Nazareth has been raised from the dead (Lk 24:7; Jn 21:14; Acts 2:24; 4:1-2; 10:34-43; 13:30-41; Rom. 6:4-9; 1 Cor. 15).

The most logical and supportable explanation is that the resurrected Jesus of Nazareth appeared to his brother James in bodily form. Only this could counteract the fact of Jesus’ bodily death on the cross.

What would James have made of this? As the post below suggests, Judean Jews expected a resurrection of the dead in the new age. For James, then, Jesus' bodily resurrection likely confirmed both God's vindication of his Messiah (Acts 2:22-28) and the in-breaking of the new age.

Is there any evidence that James did, in fact, interpret the resurrection of Jesus in this way? Yes.

Following his Jewish worldview (and all of the surrounding evidence), James considered himself and others to be living in the new age because Jesus had been raised. In his letter James refers to followers of Jesus as "first fruits" (James 1:18; cf. 1 Cor. 15:23). James refers to his contemporary audience as "heirs of the kingdom," (2:5). He also exhorts his sisters and brothers to wait for the "coming of the Lord" (parousia, 5:7), the common expectation of Jesus' literal return. All of this evidence within James' letter suggest that he believed that Jesus was the One whom the Lord had anointed to be Israel's savior.

I began this post by noting that scholars agree that Jesus had brothers, James being one of them. Once this is accepted, however, one is forced to wrestle with a whole lot of strange happenings. Why did James the brother of Jesus decide to follow the man he previously thought to be a lunatic? Why the 180? Where does the evidence point?

Think James may have been an anomaly? Jesus' brother Jude also became a follower!

Made Alive in the Spirit: A Study of 1 Peter 3:18

2011-05-15T17:11:00.005-04:00

Was Jesus raised in the body or in the spirit? Could Jesus have died in the flesh and then been raised as a disembodied spirit? Well, the post below would suggest that this kind of dualism between body and spirit that we take as normative today may not have necessarily been the the norm for Judean Jews like Jesus and the disciples. In fact, in Jewish thinking, speech about the "spirit" did not necessarily denote the non-physical world as much as it suggested the right way of being in which a person lived in and by God's Spirit.

I recently studied 1 Peter 3:18-22 in which Peter refers to the resurrection of Jesus in such terms. The following is a portion of that study that demonstrates why Peter's wording of Jesus being "made alive in the spirit" refers to bodily resurrection.

Verse 18 continues θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκὶ ζῳοποιηθεὶς δὲ πνεύματι (“being put to death in the flesh on the one hand but on the other hand being made alive in the spirit”). The Greek μὲν and δὲ provide a formulation for contrast: “on one hand… on the other.” This antithetical structure contrasts Christ’s “being put to death” and “being made alive,” as well as “in the flesh” and “in the spirit.” While it is agreed that “being put to death in the flesh” refers to the crucifixion of Christ, there is less accord about the meaning of “being made alive in spirit.” As I have noted above, some interpret this phrase to mean an intermediate state of Christ’s soul during the triduum mortis. Worse, others may believe that Peter here intimates a spiritualized resurrection. The grammatical and contextual evidence suggest otherwise. Because this is the crux of the entire passage it deserves ample attention.

As Bandstra observes, the verb, “to make a live” (ζῳοποιηθεὶς), “is virtually synonymous with ‘to raise from the dead,’”[42] and is used throughout the New Testament to describe the resurrection.[43] In Romans 8:11 especially this verb is used interchangeably with ἐγείρω (“to awaken, arouse”), also used to describe the action of bodily resurrection.[44] It is therefore most likely that Peter here speaks of Jesus’ bodily resurrection.[45] If one wishes to argue that Christ was “made alive” as a disembodied soul, s/he must evaluate the meaning of ζῳοποιηθεὶς. Not only this, but such interpretation must explain why the immortal soul (as in Greek thinking) would require being “made alive.”

The meaning of πνεύματι [46] (“in the spirit”) is also related to Christ’s resurrection. The Spirit of God is closely associated with the resurrection of Christ throughout the New Testament (Rom. 1:4, 8:11).[47] That Christ is raised “in the spirit” does not imply a kind of ‘spiritual resurrection’, but rather the kind of resurrected life only possible by God. The interpretation of an exact antithesis between sarki (“flesh”) and πνεύματι (“spirit”) is a presupposition read into the text. More likely, the antithesis is an example of a common death/life contrast found elsewhere (Rom. 8:34).[48] Moreover, the contrast between flesh/spirit in the New Testament[49] never once indicates a division of body and soul.[50] Dalton affirms the biblical view: “It refers to two orders of being, the flesh representing human nature in its weakness… the spirit representing the consequence of God’s salvation, the presence and activity among us of the Spirit of God.”[51] Indeed, it would seem odd, given the antithetical structure, if Peter contrasted the death of Christ with some intermediate soul state.

Ultimately, it proves effective to compare 3:18 to its immediate context in 1 Peter and also to the rest of the New Testament. Firstly, the consensus of the New Testament affirms that Christ was put to death in the flesh and raised in/by the Spirit of God in bodily form (John 20:27, 1 Cor. 15:20).[52] Secondly, Peter mentions the resurrection twice in his letter, including in this very context (1:3, 3:21). Thirdly, Peter’s encouragement in the preceding context is to endure suffering and to be “fearless” because of Christ’s triumph. I find it difficult to believe that such a message would hold any weight of persuasion if it merely meant that Christ’s soul was revived in the spirit world. Rather, these and the subsequent verses support that Christ’s bodily resurrection and ascension prove his vindication in the Spirit of God and cosmic lordship, which is the content of Christian hope amidst suffering.

[42] Andrew J. Bandstra, “‘Making Proclamation to the Spirits in Prison’: Another Look at 1 Peter 3:19,” Calvin Theological Journal, no. 38, (April, 2003): 121.

[43] John 5:21, 6:63; Rom. 4:17, 8:21; 1 Cor. 15:22,36,45; 1 Peter 3:18.

[44] Also explicit in Rom. 8:11 is the detail of the spirit giving life to mortal bodies.

[45] John S. Feinberg, “1 Peter 3:18-20, Ancient Mythology, and the Intermediate State,” Westminster Theological Journal, 48, no. 2 (Fall, 1986): 313. See also William Joseph Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation to the Spirits: A Study of 1 Peter 3:18-4:6, 2nd ed. (Rome: Pontifical Institute, 1989). 135-142.

[46] For eight different interpretations of pneumati, see Feinberg, 314.

[47] John 6:63; 1 Cor. 15:45; 2 Cor. 3:6.

[48] “Christ Jesus who died, yes, who was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God.”

[49] Matt. 26:41; Mark 14:38; John 3:6; 6:63; Rom. 1:4; 8:4,5,6,9; 1 Cor. 5:5; 2 Cor. 7:1; Gal. 3:3.

[50] Dalton, 138.

[51] Dalton, 138.

[52] Matt. 27:53; Acts 1:22; 2:31; 4:33; 17:18; Rom. 1:4; 6:5; 1 Cor. 15:21;Phil. 3:10-11.

Wrestling with the Resurrection

2011-05-09T19:24:00.004-04:00

Over the course of the next month I'd like to write a number of posts on the topic of the resurrection of Jesus. The posts will vary in content but I hope that it provides some food for thought about this difficult topic. The endeavor will no doubt provide helpful study for me as I wrestle with this strange and significant matter.

To begin, I have copied some of Craig Keener's research on Ancient Views on the Resurrection from his commentary on 1-2 Corinthians:

"Educated, elite Corinthians probably followed views held by many philosophers, such as immortality of the soul after the body's death [e.g. Plato Phaed. 64CE, 67C; Cicero De Re Publica 6.24.26; Seneca Dial. 11.9.3]. Many viewed the body as earthly, the soul as heavenly (Heraclitus Ep. 9; Seneca Dial. 12.11.6), including some Jews (Wis. 9:15-16; Sipre Deut. 306.28.2). Many philosophers viewed the immortal soul as the divine part of the person [Seneca Nat.Q.1.pref.14; Epictetus Diatr. 1.3.3]; some Hellenistic Jewish thinkers concurred (Philo Creation 135).

Contrary to the erroneous guesses of many NT scholars, most Jews in this period accepted the distinction between soul and body, and that the soul remained immortal after death. But most Judeans, and at least some Diaspora Jews, also accepted the doctrine of future bodily resurrection alongside the soul's immortality after death.

Some Greeks (like Epicureans and popular doubts on tombstones) denied even an afterlife. Yet even Greeks who expected an afterlife for the soul could not conceive of bodily resurrection (which they would view as the reanimation of the corpses) or glorified bodies. The closest analogies were old myths about deceased souls brought back from Hades; annually returning underworld deities; and (most common in novels) recovery from merely apparent death.

Most Palestinian Judaism, however, emphasized bodily resurrection, as the canonical status of Dan. 12:2 almost required [e.g. 2 Macc. 7:9, 14, 23, 29; 14:46; Pss. Sol. 3:12; 1 En. 22:13]. Later rabbis felt that the Sadducees' denial of the resurrection deprived them of sharing the afterlife (m. Sanh. 10:1; 'Abot R. Nat. 5A; 10). Some Diaspora Jews in this period also embraced the concept (e.g. Sib. Or. 4.179-82), although often accommodating it to Hellenistic understanding of immortality, as Josephus does.

It is thus possible that Paul's Judean conceptions created friction not only with Gentile but even with Jewish elements in the congregation. Paul seems to move as far in their direction as possible here ("spiritual," heavenly bodies of glory; even further in 2 Cor. 4:16-5:10) without compromising his insistence on the bodily character of future hope; rooted in the goodness of God's physical creation."

WELCOME TO PHILADELPHIA

2011-03-02T12:33:00.002-05:00

When the monotony of the Penn. Turn Pike sets in, I take video footage. Then, I play with it. Here is a little video from the lame ol' 476, through the Lehigh Tunnel and into Philadelphia...

The End is Near? A Little Exercise in Historical Perspective

2011-02-16T13:27:00.012-05:00

December 21, 2012? May 21, 2011? Or is it October 21, 2011? The rapture? Judgment day?? The END??? Take a second and breathe. And while you do so, take a gander at this list that I've put together to help gain a little perspective on humankind's futile obsession to predict the end of history:

Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170-236 C.E.) predicts that 500 C.E. will mark the end of the world.

2nd Cent. Montanist movement predicted the return of Jesus at any moment.

A man by the name of Hilary of Poitiers (c. 365 C.E.), announced that the end would come that year.

Saint Martin of Tours (4th Cent.) claimed that "the Antichrist has already been born."

An eclipse in 968 C.E. is interpreted by Otto III to predict the end.

The year 1,000 C.E. was popularly believed to be the end according to Christians in Europe.

1205 C.E.: Joachim of Fiore predicted in 1190 that the Antichrist was already in the world, and that King Richard of England would defeat him. The Millennium would then begin, sometime before 1205.

In 1284 Pope Innocent III computed this date by adding 666 years onto the date the Islam was founded.

Christopher Columbus sailed to the New World partly because he believed he was bringing about the new heaven and new earth prophesied in Revelation.

Martin Luther, the "father" of the Reformation, expected the end of the world within a century of his lifetime.

Thomas Muntzer in 1524 took part in the Peasant's Revolt because he expected the final judgment and end.

Many Americans believed the Revolutionary War to be the final war and King George III to be the Antichrist.

William Booth, founder of the Salvation Army, believed his group to be the chief agent in establishing God's kingdom.

[ NOW THE REALLY GOOD STUFF... ]

Jehovah's Witnesses have predicted 1874, 1878, 1881, 1910, 1914, 1918, 1925, 1975, and 1984 as times of eschatological significance.

Clarence Larkin, a popular representative of the dispensationalist school, predicted that Christ would return by the end of the 20th century.

Edgar Whisenant writes a book called 88 Reasons Why the Rapture Could Be in 1988 (over 3 million copies sold). In 1989, Whisenant offered a revised edition :)

In 1979 a man named Colin Deal wrote a book about a computer in Belgium known as "the beast," which he interpreted as the Antichrist.

Grant Jeffrey predicted Christ's return in the year 2,000 in his book Armageddon: Appointment with Destiny. Those who base Christ's parousia on his date of birth are usually far off since scholars now believe Jesus of Nazareth was born in 7 B.C.E.

Jack Van Impe (currently living and as prophetic as ever) predicted in 1975 that "the Soviet flag would fly over Independence Hall in Philadelphia in 1976."

And, of course, the current predictions based on the Mayan calendar that the world is ending on December 21, 2012 or May 21, 2011.

So... what now?

I think there are two brief thoughts to take away from this little exercise. The first is that as human beings we easily become fixated on our present situation at the expense of healthy perspective. What most, if not all, of these examples have in common is a very small view of history and the world. In short, they possess an extremely self-centered eschatology.

Second, for Christians interested in eschatology, we ought to take seriously Jesus' words that no one knows these things except God (“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father," Matt. 24:36). Accordingly then, Jesus predicted that there would be eccentric fruitcakes trying to predict that which is only known to God ("And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray," Matt. 24:11).

In the final analysis, I prefer this little classic:

The Daughter

2011-01-10T19:08:00.007-05:00

Twenty-six was too young to have such a degenerative disease. But she did. She drifted from shelter to shelter but could never remain in one place because of her condition. Some twelve years ago her family had abandoned her since her condition was unacceptable to bourgeois. She had no friends. She lived on the outside. Alone.

One morning she sat under a busy overpass drinking cold coffee when she saw a group of men walking on the opposite sidewalk. Suddenly she found herself standing up as she tried to make sense of what she saw. Could it be? She moved out of the darkness and into the daylight. The sun bathed her body and exposed her sores. Blood gradually meandered down her leg.

Slowly she followed. Bare feet upon the stone sidewalk. Now close enough, she overheard the men speaking. Some were speculating if he could really do it. Others followed in silence. Then all came to a stand still at the crosswalk.

The woman had come this far, she had no reason to turn back. She knelt down and crawled between the men. Nervously, she reached out her hand and closed her eyes. Her fingers quivered in the dark, grey shadows as she elongated her arm and winced her brow.

It was a soft, whisper-like graze of his pants. Like a gentle word was spoken by her finger tips. Yet, almost antithetically, she felt an overwhelming jolt of power in a place within. A place behind her heart.

And all of the sudden her bleeding ceased. Her sores were no more. They were merely scars. And the woman immediately cowered in fear. For she realized that she was dealing with something more powerful than she had anticipated.

"Who touched me?" asked the man.

One of the young men spoke up, "We're standing in a crowd on a city block and you ask 'Who touched me?'" They all laughed and jabbed at him. "I'm touching you!" "No, it was me!"

The man continued to look around. When the joking died down it was silent. Immediately the woman made her presence known. At first, she stood. The men were startled. But immediately she fell down at his feet in fear and trembling and told him the whole truth.

But the man in the center looked at her and said, "Daughter! Your faith has made you well."

The woman slowly raised her face from the ground. Her eyes moved from the dark, shadowy ground toward the light of day and the voice above. By the time she met his gaze the tears in her eyes refracted the sunlight so that she could not even see.

And then he spoke again, "Go in peace! And be healed of your disease."

The young woman could still barely see who it was who was speaking to her. Reaching down to her tattered dress she lifted a the stale fabric to her face and wiped her eyes. When she opened them she saw nothing but the pale, blue sky. Light abounded.

Immediately turning to the horizon, she saw the group of men walking some distance away.

(Mark 5:24-34)