I recently had the opportunity to read a review copy of It's A Dance written by Patrick Oden. When I first heard about this book I was intrigued - a theology book about the Holy Spirit written in story form. I am aware that the role of the Holy Spirit is not mentioned often in emerging church discussions. Perhaps the fundamentalist/evangelical roots of many of us in this conversation who grew up being told that the salvation of Pentecostals and Charismatics wasn't for sure and that the Holy Spirit no longer works in our current dispensation may have something to do with that. But whatever the case, I haven't heard much talk about the holy Spirit recently and so wanted to explore It's a Dance.

The book is set up focusing on a writing assignment of a southern Californian journalist, Luke. His assignment leads him to visit and review churches in the area in search of something new and different to capture the readers attention. While the assignment is part of his job, the search echoes Luke's own spiritual quest to arrive at some sort of understanding and expression of faith he can accept. This quest leads him to a very different sort of church that meets in a pub. Luke then discovers the hows and why of this church's differences as he sits down for long discussions with the pastor and church attendees. Through these discussions we hear the stories of what brought people to this different church (often stories of pain) and are exposed to the basic theology driving the church. All the while the presence of the Holy Spirit makes itself known as the conversation returns again and again to how the Spirit is at the center of what drives the church.

I personally enjoyed reading the theological exploration in conversational format. Many of the conversations in the book reminded me of ones I have participated in from time to time. There were points where the writing slipped out of conversational mode into sermon mode, but then again when you are writing through the voice of a pastor, it is hard not to sermonize every once in awhile. Although the book does not use footnotes (they would have broken up the flow of the conversation), Oden lists his sources at the end of the book and one can tell that centuries of theological traditions and reflections informed the dialogue in the book. As I read I encountered ideas common in emerging church circles as well as explorations of the Holy Spirit that were new to my understanding of faith. It was a fun intellectual journey to take.

In the presentation of the "different" church Luke encounters, it is easy to recognize many of the trendy trappings of relevant churches. They met in a pub connected to a coffee shop/bookstore, they don't do programs, they offer a prayer room for contemplative prayer, they eschew the typical patterns of modern American churches and so forth. Nothing wrong of course with any of those things, they just fit the common stereotypes of what emerging churches look like. I appreciated that Oden went beyond describing the stylistic structure of the church and told the stories of the people who identify with that church. Reading their stories and discovering how they came to find a church home there fleshed out the theology presented in the book. Their lives represented theology lived out and were a great reminder of the real life implications of all that we believe. Through them one could see the Holy Spirit moving in the never-ending dance to draw us into faith and worship.

I think this book is a needed addition to the growing library of books on how we do church in an emerging culture. It is an accessible read and will be helpful to those who understand theology more relationally than didactically.

Labels: Book Reviews, Church, Emerging Church

I just stumbled across this article/interview with J.K. Rowling in which she discusses the religious imagery in Harry Potter 7. In it she confirms that the tombstone quotes epitomize the entire series (confirming my theories) and that Harry was a Christ figure overcoming death (sorry Dr. Jacobs).

I thought it was an interesting read and I liked her concluding quote - "I go to church myself," she declared. "I don't take any responsibility for the lunatic fringes of my own religion."

Labels: Book Reviews, Culture, Entertainment

I just finished reading a book that I highly recommend for others to read. Not because I agreed with everything in it or because it is necessarily spiritually transformative, but because it presents a constructive, faith affirming approach to a topic that is generally written about in destructive ways.

A few months ago Scot McKnight recommended to me Peter Enns' Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament. This book explores some of the difficult questions regarding cultural influences on the Bible, the diversity of theological views present in it, and whether or not it is necessarily unique. These are not new questions and have been bantered around the academic world for some time now, but most lay accessible books on these ideas take one of two negative approaches. They either present these cultural and historical facts in order to prove that the Bible is not to be trusted and that therefore Christian faith is misguided. Or the books are written from a defensive standpoint in order to generally deny the validity of the historical facts so as to prove the Bible trustworthy. These agendas on both extreme are lacking for the reader who is not persuaded to give up either her faith or her intellect.

Peter Enns' book takes a third way in its approach to the conversation. It apologetically assumes an evangelical faith in scripture from the outset and then sets out to explore the historical details in light of that faith. On this approach, the author writes -

The way we can begin to address this issue is to confess at the outset, along with the historic Christian church, that the Bible is the word of God. That is our starting point, a confession of faith, not creating a standard of what the Bible should look like and then assessing the Bible on the basis of that standard. If we begin with the confession that the Bible is God's word, that it ultimately comes from him, that it is what the Spirit of God wanted it to be, that there is no place in all the messiness of the Old Testament where God says, "Oops, I didn't really mean to put it that way - I'd like to try again, please" - if we begin there, we have the freedom to look honestly and deeply at what God is doing in the Bible." p108

I appreciate that perspective. Instead of pretending to be objective in trying to prove one's agenda, I appreciate knowing the author admits the particular lens he is using to view the Bible. It isn't the only approach out there, but I found it refreshing as it led to an exploration of scripture that didn't create a false hierarchy between scripture and history. It is that acceptance of an interpretive tradition and embracing of one's cultural context that I've found lacking in most evangelical treatments of this subject.

Enns places the Bible and modern evangelicals firmly in their historical settings. About the Bible he writes, "It was not an abstract, otherworldly book, dropped out of heaven. It was connected to and therefore spoke to those ancient cultures." p.17 and "That the Bible, at every turn, shows how 'connected' it is to its own world is a necessary consequence of God incarnating himself"p20. The issues arise when both conservatives and liberals approach the Bible expecting it to be something it is not. When we desire for the Bible to speak only to the issues of a modern scientific society we display our arrogance in assuming that we are the only one's God has ever cared about conveying his word to.

The book then presents three issues that have generally not been handled well in evangelical theology. First it explores why the Bible looks so much like other Ancient Near East literature. Then it looks at the theological diversity present within the Bible itself. And finally it looks the sometimes weird (and generally out of context) ways in which the New Testament authors make use of the interpretive traditions of their day to interpret the Old Testament. Basically, is the Bible really unique, does it have integrity, and how should it be interpreted? Each discussion is fascinating and is helpful in that it is very open about the difficult parts of scripture. The result is a unique perspective that sees the Bible as the inspired word of God, but that embraces its very human and cultural elements as God's incarnation to us. We can therefore appreciate its diversity instead of deny it and allow the Bible to be what it is instead of what we wish it would be. So if these are issues you have ever struggled with or are just mildly curious about, I highly recommend this book as an easy, informed, and faith-affirming approach to the subject.

Labels: Book Reviews, History, Theology

Warning, Disclaimer, etc... I waited a week. Exactly a week. If for some strange reason you have not yet finished Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows stop reading now. This post contains my thoughts on the themes present in the final book and therefore contains spoilers. Consider yourself warned.

As we finally hold in our hands the complete saga of Harry Potter what we find is not just an entertaining story of young witches and wizards coming of age in a parallel world to ours, but a beautiful story of repentance, love, and redemption. A lot has been said about these books not being great literature, but that really just misses the point. They are good stories that tap into the mythic nature of life and give us an imaginative retelling of the most common (and hence most visceral) story known to man - the sacrificial death and resurrection of the hero.

At one point in the book, Harry visits Godric’s Hollow, his birthplace, and goes looking for the graves of his parents. In the graveyard he stumbles upon the graves of Dumbledore’s mother and sister. On their tombstone is the verse "where your treasure is there will your heart be also." Rowling deliberately refuses to explicate its significance at that point, but in it I see the theme of the whole series. What is a person's treasure? What is their heart's desire (as the Mirror of Erised revealed in the first book)? This is the theme that is repeatedly returned to throughout the series. We see characters that are hungry for power and wealth (Voldemort, the Malfoys) or for personal safety (Dumbledore's brother). Those "treasures" define their entire life. In Harry we see a boy who starts out desperately wanting a family and a place to call home gain and lose that over and over again. And it is only when he let's go of his desires (for family, for revenge, for home) and places the needs of all others before his own that he sees clearly what must be done to save the world. It is this overcoming of selfishness that marks the process of redemption for many of the characters in the book. In small ways they let go of selfish treasures they had been hording and take steps towards loving others more fully. Lupin overcomes his lifelong fears of hurting others to give Tonks and their child the love they need. The Malfoys, hurt and discarded in their attempts to gain prestige, money, and power, find that what really matters is family (a sentiment they had always ridiculed the Weasleys for). Even Dudley Dursley moved from being utterly self-centered to acknowledging that he needs Harry. They all had to sacrifice a part of themselves to become better people.

Two characters in the book though chose to give up everything for the sake of others. Like his mother before him, Harry realizes that in order to save those he loves he must be willing to give up his life. So to answer the question of whether Harry lives or dies, one can only answer yes. Harry, fully aware of the only way Voldemort can be defeated, willingly gives himself over to be sacrificed by the enemy. In a scene that recalls Aslan at the Stone Table, if not Golgotha itself, Harry offers up his life for the salvation of others. This sacrifice out of love stands in direct contrast to how Voldemort "sacrificed" parts of his life. Voldemort gave up parts of his soul (for Horcruxes) in desperate attempts to cling to power and overcome death. His sacrifices sprung from selfish ambition and not love and so each subsequent sacrifice made his life more miserable and helpless. So much so that even in the end, when faced with death and offered the chance to repent, he chose to cling to evil and power and remain in that misery.

But what of our sacrificial hero? Here we are treated with a scene that seems to come straight out of C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce or The Last Battle (Rowling has said all along that Narnia was her inspiration for these books). After being attacked by Voldemort, Harry awakes to find himself in a dark wood a mystical version of King's Cross station (talk about amazing metaphorical allusions) where he encounters his mentor and guide Virgil Dumbledore. Here he discovers that what Voldemort has killed in him is the evil part of Voldemort's own soul (represented as a crying baby). So instead of taking the heavenly Hogwart's Express further up and further in on the next great adventure for the organized mind (as Dumbledore had once referred to death), Harry returns to life to finally defeat evil once and for all. What I love is that it is at this point that Harry having already demonstrated sacrificial love offers Voldemort the opportunity to repent and feel remorse. As Harry offers him a choice and seeks to merely disarm Voldemort of his evil intentions, it is Voldemort's ultimate arrogance and refusal to repent that destroys him as his own killing curse rebounds. Our hero has sacrificed himself, conquered death, and lives happily ever after.

Oh yes the book held other gems in storytelling and was a very satisfying conclusion to the series. I applauded Snape's vindication. I cheered audibly as Mrs. Weasley took on Belletrix and Neville proved himself to be a true Gryffindor by pulling Godric's sword out of the sorting hat to slay Nagini. I cried as beloved characters died at Hogwart’s last stand. Rowling crafted an entrancing story and amazingly managed to tie up every loose end. I love this series as a story, but I resonate with the themes of sacrifice, redemption, and love that tie the stories together. Having defended the books for years to Christians who feared the magic, the wands, and all the "trappings of a world in which they do not believe" (who all the while promoted the "Christian" values of Narnia and Middle Earth), I restate my opinion that they owe Rowling an apology. For while the Harry Potter books aren't just Christian books (they can be enjoyed by people of all faiths or no faith), they echo the most central tenets of our faith. The allegory of the resurrection, the call to sacrificial love, and the reminder that for where our treasure is there will our hearts be also are themes that all Christians should be able to embrace. It isn’t perfect theology or a one for one allegory, but it is a good story. For in the retelling of our deepest and most mysterious truths Rowling has ultimately cast a goodspell.

Labels: Book Reviews, Entertainment, Theology

I am exhausted.

We had a great time at the Midwest Emergent Gathering. At least from a planners perspective everything went smoothly. Since I didn't participate as an attendee, it is hard to say what the feel and effect of the conference was to those really experiencing it. But I had a good time. I got to spend time with people I see maybe once a year and catch up with good conversation. I met new friends and am looking forward to continued dialog with them. But we were busy, very busy. I got just a handful of hours of sleep this past weekend. Mike has posted his summary of the weekend at his blog if you are interested in hearing all about what happened.

But of course tired or not I had to read Harry Potter. I started it at 5PM last night and didn't stop until I was done sometime after 3am. Loved it. Loved it. Loved it. It was satisfying in all ways. I think I cried for the last 300 pages or so (kinda hard not to when you read something like this when you are utterly exhausted and worn raw). I'll wait for now to post spoilery type things. But I do have to say that after this concluding book all conservative Christians need to make a huge apology to JK Rowling, lift the bans on the books, and give them a place of honor on the spiritual fiction shelf next to the Chronicles of Narnia and The Lord of the Rings (where I've kept my set all along...). And although satisfying, it leaves one empty in a way to see the story end. I want to read it all again, to linger in the world a while longer. Maybe I'll read it again once Mike is done (he started it as soon as I finished last night, or early this morning I should say...). At this point I'm just waiting for someone else to finish it so I can discuss it.

So I'm physically and emotionally exhausted. But it was good.

Labels: Book Reviews, Entertainment, Events

I went to see Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix today (my one movie of the season). While it didn't follow the book exactly, I thought it was a good version nonetheless. We got to see Professor Umbridge in her full make you squirm in your seat portrayal of evil. She is to me the most loathsome and scary "bad guy" in the whole series because unlike fantastical dark lords, she is utterly real. Even with all her tacky pink clothing, decorative plates with cat pictures, and sugary teas she represents to me the worst sorts of evil present in educational philosophies, child development theories, and unthinking "the government is always right" patriotism. Her character makes me seriously physically uncomfortable. I think its because I know too many people that resemble her...

But we are just about a week away from the long awaited conclusion to the series - Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Now some idiots planned a thing called the Midwest Emergent Gathering that same weekend, so I can't dress up in my Professor Trelawney costume and join the crowds celebrating its release nor start reading it at 12:01AM Saturday the 21st and not stop until I am done. No, I will patiently have to wait a full day before I can start reading it (and yes Mike I get it first!!!). But in the meantime, I have my own speculations as to what will occur.

The two big questions swirling around the book are - Can Snape be trusted? and Will Harry die? I personally have to go with Dumbledore and say that Snape can be trusted. I think in the end he will prove himself to be on the side of good. My thought is that Snape will end up sacrificing himself to save Harry. But as for Harry's fate, that a harder one to call. It would wrap things up nicely to have Harry die (and stop the call for sequels) and allow Harry to reunite in some form of the afterlife with his parents and Sirius Black. But it would require killing one of the most beloved characters in children's literature. So unless Rowling can pull off a better "heaven" than C.S Lewis did at the end of The Last Battle, she will have some really disturbed kids to deal with. (and would she really want to be telling children that death is a good way to get back together with your parents who have died?) I also think that perhaps we will see in the end that Harry isn't really all that important. He has been a celebrity in the wizarding community his whole life and everyone places so much faith in his ability to destroy Voldemort, so it would be nice in a way to have him discover that he is just an "ordinary" boy. I personally think that the "prophecy" (either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives) actually refers to Neville Longbottom (as has been hinted at) and not Harry. So I think Neville will be the one to eventually defeat Voldemort (and possibly be killed in the process). That is unless Rowling works in some possible means of redeeming Voldemort. Anything could happen then. (although I do think there will be some redemption for the Dursley's, for Petunia at least).

Of course I could be way off base. But it's fun to speculate. And to point you to a much more thoughtful set of predictions, I'll send you to Alan Jacob's thoughts over at Books and Culture. It was Dr. Jacobs who first introduced me to Harry Potter by assigning Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (just beginning to gain popularity in the USA at the time) as required reading in my literature Senior Seminar class. Harry Potter was our selection for studying the pleasures of reading. And what a pleasant adventure it has been.

Labels: Book Reviews, Culture, Entertainment

I've recently started reading Eat, Pray, Love by Elizabeth Gilbert and am thoroughly enjoying it. The book is a chronicle of the year the author spent traveling to Italy, India, and Indonesia. The stories are witty and the musings about life, love, language, faith and food are well worth the read. One bit that struck me today was her description of following a guru. That's right a guru. She went to an ashram in India to study under a particular guru. The author fully admits how weird such a thing sounds to our American sensibilities. To put something as personal and private as our faith into the hands of another person is not a normal part of our typically protestant experience. In fact we look down on people who follow gurus as deluded hippies (or something of that sort). And yet the author overcame all of those stereotypes, found a guru, and went to India to study her way of yoga. Interesting.

Besides a few painful classes at the community rec center, I have never done much yoga (not that I wouldn't like to try) and any that I have done has been of the strictly physical sort (hatha yoga I think it is). I am not looking for a yoga guru (although apparently there were a number of Christians at the ashram), but the concept itself is appealing.

A guru. A mentor. A guide.

All good things even to us protestant believers. I think the issues arise when the concept of a person attracting a following comes into play. That scares us. We shy away from personality cults, fear leaders being placed on pedestals, and ignore whatever a person has to say if they get too popular. I see all the dangers in such things, but should someone be dismissed as a guide just because a lot of other people see them as a potential guide as well? If they have the ability to inspire, teach, and mentor is it really all that bad to want to study under them? I see this all the time in the emerging church. For just reading McLaren or listening to Rob Bell, I am told that I care more about them than about God. So respecting someone as a teacher and wanting to learn from them means I worship them above God? Oh, I've seen personality cults form and devotion that borders on idolatry even in the emerging church (and yes even of those two men). But can't I desire to learn from a person I respect without being accused of idol worship? There has to be a balance there.

So, why am I rambling and ruminating about such things. I think I'm just frustrated in my inability to find a person I can see as a mentor. Oh there are a number of authors, pastors, and bloggers that I respect and look to for a sort of guidance. I greatly appreciate that input in my life. But unlike in the yoga guru system, such leaders wouldn't dream of taking on disciples (especially not a woman, but that's another issue). I could pay a lot of money for a spiritual director, but while she may function as a guide, the personal connection gets mired in the business transaction. It is an odd predicament of wanting a mentor, but not knowing anyone who could fit that role. I think that's why I liked reading about the concept of following a guru. There's this ready made system in place where one can choose a person to guide them who has no issues taking on pupils/disciples. It's a very convenient method of mentorship.

Labels: Book Reviews, Church, Personal

As I continue to post silly personal things...

So Mike tagged me in the 8 Random Things About Me Meme. I think he did it with malicious glee since he hates the things. The official rules for this one are -

The rules of getting tagged are simple. If you get tagged…

* Post eight random facts about yourself.
* Tag eight other bloggers (hopefully those who haven’t been tagged before).
* Post these rules.

I always feel really stupid trying to think of eight (or seven or five) facts about myself. So I tried to think up a theme to play along with. I toyed with the idea of crazy stuff that has happened to me in foreign places (mugged in Naples, car stolen in Barcelona, certain incidents with tequila in Cancun), but there weren't quite enough to make eight (that I am willing to share). I already did the seven books I'm reading now one and a list of my favorite books would just be too hard. But I like the book theme. So I'm going to go with the "Eight Female Fictional Characters that I have Most Wanted to Be." Okay, I'm sure that it says something weird about my personality and that I have serious issues that I want to be like characters in books, but I do it anyway (and not all of these are from when I was a kid!). I never wanted to be the typical choices either. All my friends when I was a kid went around pretending to be Princess Leia, Anne of Green Gables, or Madonna (yes it was the 80's), but I chose lesser known characters to emulate. (I probably would have wanted to be like Anne of Green Gables, but I think I was too much like her to begin with...)

So here my list of really cool female characters I aspired to be -

1. Betsy. There are two types of women in the world. Those who grew up loving the Betsy/Tacy books by Maud Hart Lovelace and those who have never heard of them. I would check these books out of the library over and over again during my childhood (they have since been reprinted so I have my own copies now). Set in pre-WW1 Minnesota, they tell the story of a girl, Betsy, as she grows up and sees her world expand into the modern era. She is outgoing and loves to write. Her experiences as a teenager, falling in love, and traveling abroad shaped my conceptions of life. Part of me truly thought that high school would hold dances where one filled out dance cards and selected who one danced the waltz with. Or that hanging out with friends for entertainment involved reading Shakespeare, writing stories, and singing around a piano. I think I was most shocked by traveling to Europe when I was 12 and realizing that it was a modern as the USA. Not that I really expected different, but the descriptions I had come to know through reading Betsy and the Great World were ingrained in my mind. I loved Betsy because she was a writer - my dream as a child. She also had no limits. She was encouraged to live life fully - to pursue her dreams, to travel, to follow her heart. I wanted to grow up and be like her.

2. Meg from A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle. Another go to again and again book from my childhood. Meg was smart, but not in the way that fit the system. I always did exactly what was expected of me and did it well. I wanted to do more than that - to be creatively intelligent and find myself on adventures. Meg wasn't a fearless hero, but she never gave up and did things out of a love for her family.

3. Aerin from The Hero and the Crown by Robin McKinley. The quirky misfit princess who trains herself to become a dragonslayer and saved her Kingdom. Although most of my Christian friends have issues with her because of the way her relations play out in the book, I still love her for her courage. She didn't fit the expectations of a princess and never gave up trying to discover who she really was. I love that she broke the mold and took on the most dangerous tasks because she was the only one who could.

4. Vicki Austin from Madeleine L'Engles' Austin Family books, especially A Ring of Endless Light. So yes, the books about her are total coming of age, discovering oneself, and falling in love books. I so wanted to be Vicki when I was in 5th grade. She was a more normal person than the others on this list, but she got to hang out with family and friends that sat around discussing literature and philosophy. She also got to help do scientific observations of dolphins (this was my I want to be a marine biologist so I can swim with dolphins phase - 5th grade remember...). I wanted a life like hers - full of neat experiences and good conversations.

5. Mara Jade from the Star Wars Expanded Universe created by master Star Wars writer Timothy Zahn. So she is just an awesome, super sexy, totally independent, Jedi Master (who ends up marrying Luke Skywalker). The part of me that wants to be a kick-butt I'm going to save the world type of girl loves Mara Jade (same reason I love Sydney Bristow, but I'm sticking to books here). She's fun and the exact opposite of my conflict avoiding pacifist nature. But then again if you know me only as Mara Jade from The Ooze, the description sorta fits.

6. Eowyn from J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings. Another kickbutt girl who is determined to fight for what she believes in. I love her passion even as I understand her uncertainty in who she is as a person (even though I hate the way Tolkien resolved her character in the end - he CANNOT write women). I share her fears of life becoming "A cage. To stay behind bars until use and old age accept them and all chance of valor has gone beyond recall or desire." She appeals to the part of me that wants to make a difference in this world.

7. Liadan from Son of the Shadows Book 2 of The Sevenwaters Trilogy by Juliet Marillier. This book is a retelling of the Tam Lin tale - a Scottish poem where the damsel rescues the prince. I love most Tan Lin based novels, but mix in Celtic healing lore and ancient tribal factions, and this becomes more than just a feminist love story. The pagany side of me enjoys stories of wise women who are attuned to the earth and the natural power of plants. I like the idea of that sort of connection and would enjoy having that sort of knowledge.

8. Phedre from Jacqueline Carey's Kushiel's Legacy series. Um. If you've read the books, you may understand. If you haven't, I really don't want to explain.

Update - The picture is me as Eowyn back in 2003

As for tagging. I'll leave it open. It you want to be tagged (for 8 Random Things or 8 Characters that you Want To Be...), consider yourself tagged. Just let me know if you decide to continue the meme.

Labels: Book Reviews, Fun Stuff, Personal, Star Wars

So I mentioned in my last post about wondering what I will be reading next. Then I saw this fun meme with a blanket tag over at Emerging Grace and Calacirian and decided to play. The point is to list 7 of the books I'm reading now (because you can tell about someone by the books they're reading). Well, I technically haven't started any of these, but they are what will be read very very soon.

1. Eat, Pray, Love by Elizabeth Gilbert. For the Emerging Women book club July discussion.

2. The Irresistible Revolution by Shane Claiborne. For our church's Vision Team meeting this Thursday. I guess I should start it soon...

3. Chasing Sophia by Lilian Calles Barger. It's been recommended by a few people (including the author) as something I might like, so I'll give it a go.

4. Justice in the Burbs by Will and Lisa Samson. I've been looking forward to this book for awhile and we just got an advance copy. There are days when living "justly" in the suburbs seems near impossible, so I'm interested in hearing their take on how it might be done.

And for the sci-fi fantasy...

5. Blade of Fortriu and The Well of Shades by Juliet Marillier. Books 2 and 3 in the Bridei Chronicles, an historical fantasy series that focuses on the Picts.

6. Exile by Aaron Allston and Sacrifice by Karen Traviss. Books 4 and 5 in the Star Wars: Legacy of the Force series. I've been trying to avoid reading spoilers about the fate of Mara Jade in book 5...

7. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows by J.K. Rowling. Just three more weeks, just three more weeks...


And to continue the meme - if you read this and want to play, consider yourself tagged. Just let me know you played!

Labels: Book Reviews, Personal

Back when I was a student at Wheaton College before I had ever heard of this thing called the Emerging Church (back before Emergent even existed I think) I began to encounter the philosophical roots of postmodernism. I was intrigued and in an attempt to find out more about this way of discussing and perceiving truth and reality I signed up for a class called "Christianity and Postmodernism" taught by Bruce Benson. Needless to say I was in over my head as I struggled to comprehend new ideas and unfamiliar terms. I somehow managed to stumble through the class with a passing grade (and that includes the utterly nervewracking oral exams that I to this day have no clue what I actually talked about).

A few years later Benson published his lecture notes from that class as the book Graven Ideologies. (btw- I am so not one of the students listed from that class that he acknowledges as helping him refine his thoughts and all that...). Anyway, after recently reading Peter Rollin's How (not) to Speak of God I knew that I had heard the idea of conceptual idolatry discussed before and remembered that class. So to make a long story short, I finally got around to reading Graven Ideologies. It's amazing how much more sense it all made now that I've been a part of this emerging/postmodern discussion for a number of years.

But my point here is not to point out how stupid I was a few years ago (or now), but to highly recommend this book. For those of you who are fans of Rollins' book and/or find yourself forced into endless discussions on the nature of truth Benson's book is a must read. It is an accessible introduction to the main ideas and writers of postmodern philosophy that interprets their implications for Christian faith. It is all about sounding out idols in our conceptions of and language about God. As with Rollins' book, it asks how we can ever manage to actually speak of God without falling into blasphemy, but goes a lot further in how it answers that question. I fully admit to feeling too lazy to write a detailed review of the book at the moment, so I'll send anyone who is interested here. But this book is now high on my list of recommended must reads for anyone who wishes to think through postmodernism and its influence on the theological discussions of the emerging church.

Why read the philosophical background and discuss these ideas at all? Besides being fascinating and intellectually provoking, it has everything to do with how we practice our faith. I want to leave you with two quotes from Benson's epilogue regarding that. Basically we explore these ideas and sound out the conceptual idols in our faith so that we can have a right relationship with God and participate in true worship.

p.226 - "...one recognizes that everything one 'knows' about God still falls short: we do not own the truth. While we point to the truth, we are not that truth, nor is it something we possess. At most, God provides glimpses of his truth. Yet to say that we have glimpses is to say that we indeed see. God has not left us blind. We have a glimpse of the Word made flesh. And as Jesus attests, "If you know me, you will know my Father also" (Jn 14:7). Scripture is clear that we can know God and his truth in a real sense. Yet we know him in the sense of a personal relationship, not in the sense of grasping his eidos. There is true sight, but it is not an exhaustive seeing."

p.240 "... praise results precisely when the limits of predication regarding God are recognized. That recognition leads to a simultaneous revelation: we "see" both how limited we are and how unlimited God is. It is in this moment of revelation that true praise can take place. Note that, properly speaking, praise isn't usually something that we can make happen. Instead praise is something that happens to us. And it doesn't really happen very often. Why not? The answer is that we don't really recognize our own limits most of the time. We may acknowledge them intellectually, but actually experiencing them - having them placed in front of our face -is rare. Thus true worship, in which we have a keen sense of God's worth, takes place relatively infrequently."

Labels: Book Reviews, Emerging Church, Theology

My Mother's Day gift was tickets to a play of my choosing. So yesterday we dropped Emma off at a babysitter and went down to the University of Chicago's Court Theater to see one of my favorite plays - Tom Stoppard's Arcadia. We also got to wander around the campus stopping at Chicago Theological Seminary (my top choice in my wishful thinking return to school). It was a fun day and a great production of the play (read the Chicago Trib's review here).

Arcadia published in 1993 was written by Tom Stoppard (most commonly known for his play Rosencranz and Guildenstern are Dead and the screenplay for Shakespeare in Love). As explained by Wikipedia - "Arcadia explores the relationship between past and present,order and disorder, and the certainty of knowledge. It looks at the nature of evidence and truth in the context of modern ideas about history, mathematics and physics. It shows how the clues left by the past are interpreted by scholars. The play refers to a wide array of subjects, including mathematics, physics, thermodynamics, computer algorithms, fractals, population dynamics, chaos theory vs. determinism (especially in the context of love and death), classics, landscape design, romanticism vs. classicism, English literature (particularly poetry), Byron, 18th century periodicals, modern academia, and even South Pacific botany. These are the concrete topics of conversation; the more abstract philosophical resonances veer off into epistemology, nihilism, the origins of lust, and madness.

Arcadia is set in Sidley Park, an English country house in the years 1809 and 1989 alternately, juxtaposing the activities of two modern scholars and the house's current residents with the lives of those who lived there 180 years earlier. In 1809, Thomasina Coverly, the daughter of the house, is a precocious teenager with ideas about mathematics well ahead of her time. She studies with her tutor, Septimus Hodge, a friend of Lord Byron, who is an unseen guest in the house. In 1989, a writer and an academic converge on the house: Hannah Jarvis, the writer, is investigating a hermit who once lived on the grounds; Bernard Nightingale, a professor of literature, is investigating a mysterious chapter in the life of Byron. As their investigations unfold, helped by Valentine Coverly, a post-graduate student in mathematical biology, the truth about what happened in 1809 is gradually revealed. The play's set features a large table, which is used by the characters in both 1809 and 1989. Props are not removed when the play switches time period, so that the books, coffee mugs, quill pens, portfolios, and laptop computers of 1809 and 1989 appear alongside each other in a blurring of past and present. "

The title refers to the pastoral ideal of Arcadia and to the memento mori spoken by Death: "Et in Arcadia ego" ("Even in Arcadia, I exist"). This theme presented itself a few times as I reflected on the play. The concept of determinism is a constant theme in Arcadia. Are our lives determined? If we had a big enough computer (or enough time, paper, and pencils) could a formula be written that tells the future and explains the past? We can program fractals - why not everything? But if populations are "determined' to follow a formula even taking into account small fluctuations of nature (the populations of goldfish regulates) where does that leave the concept of justice? If everything (even tragedy and death) can be explained mathematically there can be no room for grief or outrage in the face of an inevitable determined universe. But death intrudes even in Arcadia and we are grieved. The influences of human emotion and love contradict the faith in an all encompassing deity of science. Romanticism and Classicalism collide.

Death also enters the play in a more concrete form. We learn that the mathematical genius Thomasina dies in a fire on the night before her seventeenth birthday (the age her mother insists she should be married by before she is "educated beyond eligibility"). Her tutor then takes up the pursuit to prove her theories, become a lunatic hermit to do so. But the death of a woman "condemned" by genius in a fire has direct parallels to the "madwoman in the attic" theory. Referring to Bertha, Rochester's insane wife in Jane Eyre, who died in a fire, this concept was adopted by feminist literary theorists as a metaphor for the madness imposed upon women when they were denied using their talents because of their sex. Here Thomasina on the verge of great discovery and threatened with the cage of conventionality finds that even in Arcadia, death exists. Paradise has its flaws (especially a paradise of human creation). For all the talk that the universe is determined - demands of society and the accidental tipping of a candle intrude to shatter dreams and introduce chaos to the mix. Understanding the fluctuation of populations of pigeons and goldfish through math and science doesn't see death as a bad thing (unless you are the pigeon), but the death of a friend and family member has a more serious effect.

Not that death is the main theme of the play, it just struck me during this encounter with the work. I was also intrigued and amused by the exploration of interpretation and truth. Our assumptions in the present influence our reading of the past. Texts takes on new meaning and small bits of evidence become the shaky foundation for entire theories. Our postmodern humility in accepting the limits of our understanding was clearly illustrated in the negative examples of characters' hubris. The discovery of knowledge and the fame in brings them prevents them from actually seeing the truth and leads to their downfall. It is a much more relevant theme to me now than it was a decade ago when I first encountered this play.

Anyway, it was a fun day and great play. It's run has just been extended if anyone in the Chicago area in interested in attending.

Labels: Book Reviews, Entertainment, Reflections

Wright sees the quest to find the solution to the problem of evil not as the search to answer why it exists at all, but as "a search for ways in which the healing, restorative justice of the Creator God himself - a justice which will one day suffuse the whole creation- can be brought to bear, in advance of that ultimate reality, within the present world of space, time, matter and messy realities in human lives and societies." This job of changing reality is a way mopping up the spilled milk instead of just crying over it. As I mentioned before, I don't share his dismissal of the emotional implications of evil, but I do find much of value in his "mop up" strategy.

In our anticipation of a world without evil, Wright suggests that the task of Christians is not "waiting passively for that future to arrive," but instead involves "anticipating such a future world in prayer, holiness and justice in the present." This "already but not yet" approach doesn't deny creation or evil. Yes - evil does exist in the here and now and we can do something about it in the here and now. Wright suggest five ways that we can start to imagine a new world.

First is to let our lives be transformed through prayer. This involves asking God to intercede and transform the world not just enjoy spiritual comforts for ourselves. The next suggestion is for Christians to live holy lives that don't clamor to return to slavery to sin/evil but instead celebrate Christ's victory over evil.

Wright then turns to politics and calls believers to hold authorities accountable to their God-given tasks of doing justice, loving mercy, and ensuring that the weak and the vulnerable are properly looked after. If we truly believe that all power and authority is God-given then we must insist that the authorities live up to the mandate to do good and no evil. Who or how someone comes to power does not matter as much as what they do with that power (so we need to get over the idea that the mere fact of getting elected is a carte blanche to do whatever a leader wants. Elections mean nothing is the leader is promoting evil).

Wright's fourth suggestion involves promoting restorative justice. In such systems "the whole community is committed to naming evil for what it is and to addressing and dealing with it, not by shutting people away from the embarrassed eyes all around, but by bringing together offender and victim, with their families and friends, to look hard at what has happened and agree on a way forward."

Finally Wright suggests we need to approach international evil "not by ignoring it on the one hand or by blasting away at it with heavy artillery on the other." International structures that engage those communities that neither deny evil or believe that might makes right are more and more necessary if the message of the cross is to prevail.

Obviously Wright has engaged the issue of evil from a faith perspective that cares for those created in God's image. His solutions are meant for those who want to see God's kingdom on earth as it is in heaven. It doesn't matter (in this sense) that it is often those who claim to follow Christ that perpetrate the most evil. The point is to do the hard work to change that. It is easier to deny that evil exists or to lash out in anger. Bombing a country or spanking a child is easy if you are the bigger more powerful entity. Working to reform and forgive is a lot harder. I appreciate that Wright insists hat this isn't a magic formula that will eliminate all evil, but a means of imagining the way things can be and of claiming how it will someday be.

Labels: Book Reviews, Theology

In N.T. Wright's Evil and the Justice of God one finds a lot about about how God deals with evil and not so much about what most people define as the problem of evil. Basically Wright claims that we can never really answer the question as to why evil exists (or even why God allows evil) so we should focus instead on what God is doing (or will do) to deal with evil. It is not a typical approach and does little to satisfy most people's concerns. Honestly I think that most people really would rather know why God allows evil to begin with before they are ready to accept that God is working to overcome evil. Wright says to want to understand why evil exists (to solve the problem of evil) is to belittle evil and want to use human means to overcome it (progress). He sees that as a dangerous and immature response influenced by modernism and not scripture. He then proceeds to tell us that we have to believe that evil exists and that God is working to overcome it. He writes, "what the Gospels offer is not a philosophical explanation of evil, what it is or why it's there, nor a set of suggestions for how we might adjust our lifestyles so that evil will mysteriously disappear from the world, but the story of an event in which the living God deals with it."

So my question is - why can't we believe that God (not humans) is working to overcome evil and still ask why it exists? Wright's approach has a bit too much "just deal with it and move on" to satisfy the spiritual questioning of many readers. Telling someone that their need to understand why their child died of cancer is immature and based on an inappropriate allegiance to Modern philosophy is not what is needed no matter how good your subsequent theology. I did have to laugh at points in the book at how stereotypically "male" his approach was. The old thing about men wanting to solve problems while women want to be emotionally understood and comforted. Not that solutions are bad or unneeded, they just often miss the point of the whole discussion. But maybe it's just personality and depends on the reader and what they are looking for. I guess I was hoping for a holistic approach that doesn't dichotomize between the theology and spirituality.

Once I got past my frustration with the basic premise of the book, I appreciated Wright's take on how God is dealing with evil. I especially liked his insistence that since evil exists in this world, then God will work to overcome evil in this world. Since God is the creator it matters that "the existing creation be set to rights rather than scrapping it and doing something else instead." Our hope is not in escaping it all when we die, but in God's kingdom actually coming on earth. As to Wright's ideas for how that happens, I'll save that for another post.

Labels: Book Reviews, Theology

In continuing to read N.T. Wright's Evil and the Justice of God, I am intrigued by his rationale for why he dislikes the modern notion of progress. In his view, the concept of progress that sees the world as basically a good place with its problems eventually to be eradicated through technology, education, development, and Westernization has lead to the three major issues with the problem of evil in out day.

1. We ignore evil when it doesn't hit us in the face. For example, we know Al-Queda was a threat, but didn't take it seriously until it was too late. This of course raises the question as to how our ignoring the issues of third world debt and global warming will eventually play out.

2. We are surprised by evil when it does hit us in the face. We expect places to be safe and people to be good. We have removed death from our homes to the hospitals. So when evil, harm, and death appear it takes us by surprise and we do not have the means to understand it when it intrudes in our life.

3. As a result, when evil appears we react in immature and dangerous ways. We either

a. Project evil on to others and blame them for our woes. It's always then someone else's fault - it's society's fault, it's the government's fault, and I am an innocent victim. Society's ills are caused by terrorists, illegal immigrants, drug dealers, and criminals.

or we

b. Project evil on to ourselves and blame ourselves. The terrorists are terrorists because of what we allowed to happen in their countries, illegal immigrants are fleeing the effects of our foreign policy...

Wright acknowledges the elements of truth is both extreme views, but asserts that it should not be an either/or. Wright recommends that we take to heart the view of Alexander Solzhenitsyn that the line between good and evil is never between "us" and "them." The line between good and evil runs through each of us.

I generally like his criticism of the current way of viewing evil. I see how I have leaned to far into both of the "immature" responses at various points in my life. But I find myself wondering if being surprised by evil is really such a bad thing.

I understand the need not to be naive or innocent in regard to evil. I fully admit that evil exists and that it is a seriously problem. But I think that becoming callous to evil is just as dangerous as not expecting evil to happen to you and then being surprised. So perhaps surprised isn't the word I am looking for. Offended might be a better choice. Offended that evil occurs and hurts people. In taking offense at evil, one still cares but is not so overwhelmed by evil that one is too paralyzed to respond. Accepting that evil exists should never cause us to forget that this is not the way the world is meant to be.

Labels: Book Reviews, Reflections

...but wait, how can you be nostalgic for something that never went away?


So here we go again. Rampant sexism, this time aimed at kids. And if the other anti-sexism voices that have spoken out about this are any indication - bring on the hate comments, the name calling, and the attempted censorship of the female voice.


And yes I'm talking about the recent American release of The Dangerous Book for Boys. (read about it here) Amazon describes the book as -

Equal parts droll and gorgeous nostalgia book and heartfelt plea for a renewed sense of adventure in the lives of boys and men, Conn and Hal Iggulden's The Dangerous Book for Boys became a mammoth bestseller in the United Kingdom in 2006. Adapted, in moderation, for American customs in this edition (cricket is gone, rugby remains; conkers are out, Navajo Code Talkers in), The Dangerous Book is a guide book for dads as well as their sons, as a reminder of lore and technique that have not yet been completely lost to the digital age. Recall the adventures of Scott of the Antarctic and the Battle of the Somme, relearn how to palm a coin, tan a skin, and, most charmingly, wrap a package in brown paper and string. The book's ambitions are both modest and winningly optimistic: you get the sense that by learning how to place a splint or write in invisible ink, a boy might be prepared for anything, even girls (which warrant a small but wise chapter of their own).

There's the part of my that likes the concept of the book. Getting kids off their butts, getting them outside and active, and discovering the world around them. These are things I enjoyed as a kid. Learning how to build stuff, writing in code, playing spy games in the neighborhood, collecting all the discarded Christmas trees and making a huge fort at the local park, building fires, learning to identity trees and flowers, studying ancient history... These are all good, fun things. And I agree that often safety and fear of being sued have led to many fun activities (paper airplanes, field trips, snowball fights...) being banned. I think we should all learn about where our food comes from, survival skills, and historical perspectives. There are basic skills that just aren't taught these days (as cramming useless facts for standardized tests takes up more and more time). This book has some good stuff in it.

But

Here's where women and moms are being muzzled. The premise of the book is that this is fun stuff for boys and dads, of course moms won't like it. So any criticism from women is met with a role of the eyes and a "see I told you so" aside. Pretty nifty marketing plan there. (see the promo video here). So at the risk of being dismissed before I even open my mouth, let me say I have issues with this as well.

No matter how you slice it its sexist. Beyond being marketed as a book for boys, the authors say that the book exists "to celebrate boys, because nobody has been doing it for a long while." Why does this have to be about gender? Why is learning about history, nature, sports, and building things something just for boys? And when have boys failed to be celebrated? Is this anti-feminist backlash or just savvy marketing that capitalized on that backlash? I sick of reading on blogs that girls aren't into this stuff anyway and that its so refreshing to be "beyond" feminism and PC". Give me a break. Do we have to have the "all guys are like this and all girls are like this" lie once again? Must girls continue to feel like unwanted guests at the party and second class citizens? Do we really have to re-interpreted messages like this for our kids (yes Emma, I know it just addresses boys, but really you can try it too)?

So its a how-to book I find fascinating, but it supports gender biases I am trying to change. And the word out there is shut up and just enjoy it for what it is. Sorry, but if everyone does that things will never change.

Labels: Book Reviews, Gender Issues, parenting

Do I believe in progress? That question has been on my mind the last few days. I recently started reading N.T. Wright's Evil and the Justice of God and was forced to ask myself that question before I finished the first chapter.

Wright claims that our conception of evil and inability to process it is due in part to our having bought into the Modern myth of progress. He writes -

The heady combination of technological achievement, medical advances, Romantic pantheism, Hegalian progressive Idealism and social Darwinism created a climate of thought in which, to this day, a great many people - not least in public life - have lived and moved. In this climate, the fact that we live "in this day and age" means that certain things are now to be expected; we envision a steady march toward freedom and justice, conceived often in terms of the slow but sure triumph of Western-style liberal democracy and soft soft versions of socialism. Not to put too fine a point on it, when people say that certain things are unacceptable "now that we're living in the twenty-first century," they are appealing to an assumed doctrine of progress - and of progress, what's more, in a particular direction. We are taught, often by the tone of voice of the media and the politicians rather than by explicit argument, to bow down before this progress. It is unstoppable. Who wants to be left behind, to be behind the times, to be yesterday's people? The colloquial phrase, "That's so last-year" has become the ultimate putdown: "progress" (by which we often simply mean a variation in fashion) has become the single most important measuring rod in society and culture.

Wright is surprised that this belief in progress has survived Auschwitz and that some people still think the world is basically a good place. He welcome the postmodernism because it deconstructs the "dangerous ideology of 'progress'" and "encourages a cynical approach: nothing will get better and there's nothing you can do about it."

I'm having a hard time with this. I don't buy into the fairy tale version of progress or think that science will solve all the ills of the world (which is why I was always amused by the gravity stones at Wheaton and other colleges). But cynical though I am, I don't buy into Wright's portrayal of postmodernism that preaches that the world will never get better either. Since I have barely started the book, I have no idea where Wright is going with this but I'm uneasy with his distinctions so far.

How can there be redemptive history without some sort of progress? I don't place my trust in government systems or technology as the key to a Utopian dream. I'm not part the postmil camp that thinks things are getting better and better all the time. But I'm also not premil "we're all going to hell in a handbasket" either. God seems to have a purpose in history, a story that is unfolding, a redemption that is taking place. Within the Judeo/Christian worldview we generally hold to a linear view of history. We are moving forward in history and there are eschatologies to be had. We have goals to achieve and a Kingdom to spread. If we are working at all towards such things I would say progress is occurring.

What good is there to work for the good or to fight injustice if things can never get better? I'm not interested in letting evil triumph or living in some world where the Force has achieved perfect balance. I want to see the Kingdom on earth as it is in Heaven. And I think that after 2000 years of practice, we should expect that some things should have changed by now. So if Christ and Paul were preaching it then, the church should be doing it by now. I have no problem in seeing redemptive trajectory at work in scripture and then applying that same concept to history. If the point is to bring Christ's message to the world, I would hope that doing so not only is possible, but is actually happening.

Maybe I am misunderstanding terms here. Perhaps Wright is referring only to trust in political systems and science as an obstacle for our understanding evil. I need to read more and figure out where he is headed with this.

Labels: Book Reviews, Theology

This post is part of my ongoing response to the questions I posted as part of this month's book discussion on Colossians Remixed by Brian Walsh and Sylvia Keesmaat over at the Emerging Women blog. (read my other responses - here).

Question #6 -

What is your reaction to this quote? "Does the child who sits in front of a television set for three to four hours a day, shops at the mall with her parents, goes to school and recites the Pledge of allegiance, plays computer games, listens to her president encouraging everyone to go out shopping in order to defeat terrorism, wears clothes from the Gap, and plays with the toys created out of the imagination of Disney and Hollywood, ever actually choose the American way of life? ... Was there a moment of conversion in her life when the American dream became her dream? No. She imbibed the monocultural consumerist dream in the fast food she ate, the polluted air she breathed and the visual culture she inhabited. And so she was converted, made into a cult member, before she knew what was happening." (p171).

So I read this quote the other evening. Emma was sitting on her Elmo chair wearing her "Future Jedi Knight" t-shirt and watching Dora the Explorer. We had spent the afternoon at playgroup at the mall. Oh, and we had gone through a fast food drive through for lunch on the way to the mall. My initial response – “oh crap, I’m a horrible mother/person. I need to feel guilty.”

But I don’t. Well, not completely.

I’m a fan of moderation. As I’ve mentioned recently in other posts, I don’t think most (if any) things are evil in and of themselves. Kinda Shakespearean “there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so” sort of thing. So while I think there are serious things wrong with the world we live in, I don’t see the best response to be withdraw from that world.

For example I see the abuse of alcohol as a bad thing, but I don’t think that means that all people should always avoid alcohol. I see being consumed by greed and the desire to acquire stuff as well as an ignorance of the global implications of our purchases as bad things, but I don’t think it means that all shopping must end. I see a world where children lose the ability to be imaginative and creative as a bad thing, but don’t think imaginative stories/movies (even if they have an agenda) should be condemned and avoided. (As for the fast food thing. That’s just pretty much evil and harmful to our bodies, our families, and the environment. I have no excuse there).

I’m a fan of engagement over withdraw. To explore with my child the world around her. To not mindlessly accept and consume, not reject for the sake of rejection. To teach her to value people over stuff. To encourage her imagination. Will this affect our habits? – it should if we are in any way different from the empire around us. Just being aware that our shopping habits affects families and children around the world changes a lot.

And I see nothing wrong with enjoying life. I enjoy a well cooked meal. I enjoy a good glass of wine. I enjoy a good movie or book or TV show. I try not to be consumed by such things (although there are times in my life when I’ve leaned in that direction, especially when it comes to certain fiction genres. And please no LOST comments…). I see no problem with Emma enjoying Dora, or the children’s museum, or the Zoo. But if our enjoyment comes at the expense of others (dark chocolate made by trafficked children…) then there are issues.

Its the whole in but not of the world thing. At this point I see it as possible to live in this world counterculturally. That doesn’t mean a rejection of all that the world has to offer, just a need to engage thoughtfully with it and to constantly be self aware.

All that said, there is still some guilt. I know there are still things I need to change. Areas of my life where I knowing support the empire over Christ. I want to get past the guilt and find positive ways to live. It’s a fine balance between guilt induced through education and awareness and the healthy changes they can effect. But I’m trying to be aware. To not let my daughter be initiated mindlessly into the cult. To not promote values that I disagree with just because they are easy or expected. And to encourage her to subvert the empire when it needs correction. Do I have a clue most of the time as to what I am doing? No, but I’m going to keep on doing it.

Labels: Book Reviews, Colossians Remixed, parenting

This post is part of my ongoing response to the questions I posted as part of this month's book discussion on Colossians Remixed by Brian Walsh and Sylvia Keesmaat over at the Emerging Women blog. (read my other responses - here).

Question #5 -

In Colossians 3:5-17 Paul tells us to put to death the things of our earthly nature (sexual immorality, greed). The authors write, "Why end a list of sexual sins with an economic sin? Because sexual sin is fundamentally a matter of covetousness, an insatiable, self-gratifying greed that has the control and consumption of the other person as its ultimate desire" (p160) and "In our culture, the unrestrained economic greed of global market capitalism pimps sexual promiscuity along with its entertainment products, communications systems, automobiles and running shoes. You see, if the empire is all about economic growth driven by a lifestyle of consumption, then all of life becomes a matter of consumption - including our sexual life. ... There is no point in getting all morally absolute about sexual promiscuity if Christians are screwing around with the same consumeristic way of life as everyone else. This text gives us the language to identify what is going on here for what it is: idolatry." (p162). How do you see sexual immorality as being greed and idolatry? What is the value of the alternatives?

I’ve always been uneasy with views of sex that paint it as evil in and of itself. The views that dichotomize body and soul. That disparage the physical world as evil. That are ashamed of our bodies.

Like it or not or intended or not those are the views that dominate the church’s approach to sex. There is something shameful about our bodies, they are finite, they wear down, they tempt us and are therefore evil. In a culture mesmerized with Platonic conceptions of reality the heresy of dualism finds an easy hold. Sex is evil because it is sex.

Christian women are taught to be ashamed of their bodies. To hide away their physical selves lest they “cause” their brother to stumble. Sex is the quintessential sin to be avoid at all costs. Do not think about it. Do not explore or attempt to understand your physical self. You will be ruined as a person for life if you slip up here. Take pride that you have stripped yourself bare of any desire to partake of that tainted act. But from your wedding night onward you had better be prepared to enjoy sex – creatively and proactively or else you will cause your husband to sin from neglect...

I remember the first time I asked (really asked) “why is sex outside of marriage wrong?” The answers I was given (because it is for pleasure and not procreation and because God says so) didn’t cut it for me. And I discovered that was a question you just didn’t ask. Ever. I wanted to affirm the conclusions but wanted better reasons and I just couldn’t seem to find them.

That’s why I liked the the take presented here. It explores the deeper reasons. It doesn’t turn sin into a concrete object or action that is performed, but sees it as an attitude of the heart that gets lived out in various ways. It allows for sex and the body to be celebrated in and of themselves, but still provides caution and care in their expression. And it gets past the hangup of seeing sexual sins as the only moral issue out there.

Idolatry is whatever causes us to turn away from the image of the invisible God and be consumed with other images. When the structures and mandates of empire usurp our worship. When the materialism of the marketplace captures our imagination. When other image-bearers become commodities for us to use. Then we have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator.

Labels: Book Reviews, Colossians Remixed, Theology

This post is part of my ongoing response to the questions I posted as part of this month's book discussion on Colossians Remixed by Brian Walsh and Sylvia Keesmaat over at the Emerging Women blog. (read my other responses - here).

Question #4 -

4. But wait a minute you cry! Aren't Christians supposed to subject ourselves to the governing authorities and all that? The authors respond - "Rather than read [Romans 13] as providing carte blanche legitimation for any regime, regardless of how idolatrous and oppressive it might be, we suggest that Paul is actually limiting the authority of the state. The state is a servant of God for our good. it has no legitimacy or authority in and of itself, apart from subjection to the rule of God. and when the state clearly abrogates its responsibility to do good, when it acts against the will of God, then the Christian community has a responsibility to call it back to its rightful duty and even to engage in civil disobedience (see Acts 12:6-23). The state has no authority to do evil". (p185)

I like the balance created here.

I have often heard the “subject yourself to the governing authorities” used as that sort of carte blanche. It is a line used to silence all opposition and dissent. Question the war, the Patriot Act, or No Child Left Behind and you are treated as if you are questioning the existence of God. And labeled a liberal (its hard to tell which is worse)

Then from another camp if I merely attempt to say that the government is in a good position to help make the world a better place and I’m told that I look to the government for my salvation. And that I’m a liberal.

So I like this response. That government thing – it’s there because of God. You know “for by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.” The government is just one more thing that can serve God for his glory. Can it be corrupted by power and swayed by greed? Of course and we have the empires to prove it.

But the responses that say “well even if it is doing God’s work we won’t let it or support it” and those that say “well even if it’s doing evil, we have to support it” just don’t make sense to me. To me the government can be used as a tool to advance God’s kingdom (and I so don’t mean this in a theocratic dictatorship sort of way) or it should be called out when it engages in practices contrary to kingdom values.

So to pledge one’s allegiance to the government (or to a party within that government) instead of God (or as it is subtly twisted – in the name of God) misses the point. Our purpose is to serve God and spread God’s love. If the government is on board with that great. If it is working against that mission, then it needs correction.

For another interesting take on this check out this post over at Theolog.

Labels: Book Reviews, Colossians Remixed, Politics, Theology

This post is part of my ongoing response to the questions I posted as part of this month's book discussion on Colossians Remixed by Brian Walsh and Sylvia Keesmaat over at the Emerging Women blog. (read my other responses - here).

Question #3 -

Poetry of subversion. The authors explore how the hymn presented in Colossians 1:15-20 is a hymn of subversion of Empire. It takes the language of Empire and proclaims the supremacy of Christ over Caesar - radical, subversive, dangerous. They then contribute a "targum" (an extended translation and expansion that reads our world through the eyes of the text) of this passage. You can read it on p.85 or here. (and a short article on the point they are making here). What is your reaction to the poem? Does this imagination of an alternative to empire make sense?

I love that poem/hymn. We do live in a culture of images vying for our attention, or allegiance, our time and our money. The numbers vary, but it is thought that an individual is generally exposed to around 600 advertisements per day. We pay companies for the right to wear their name brand on our chest or butts.

I watch TV, I buy stuff, I surf the web (a lot). I don’t see any of that stuff as evil in and of itself. In fact most of that stuff has and can be used for good. I see the value in patronage and support and sponsorship. Issues arise though when said images and economic structures dominate our consciousness. When we allow the greed promoted by our economic system to let us forget that Christ is the image we should focus on. As Walsh writes, “this means that the ideology of economic growth is not Lord over our lives. We are not subservient to the imperatives of consumerism, ecological despoliation, technological innovation, and seeking our own self-interested security because we are subjects of another kingdom. We are committed to submitting our lives - including our economic aspirations, consumer habits, ecological practice, political involvement - to the one in whom, through whom and for whom all things are created.”

So this is about being image bearers for Christ rather than for someone else. I personally don’t see this as a polemic against style but an attitude encouragement. And neither is the point to eschew name brands in favor of whatever the cheap brand is. The allure of Walmart is just as seductive as that of Abercrombie – when both challenge the supremacy of Christ’s love by using his children in sweatshops our patronage of either demonstrates our allegiance to an economic system over Christ.

I don’t do a very good job at this. I live in suburbia. So many days I really don’t stop to think if my economic purchases put Christ first. Scratch that, most days it is only about my needs and wants. The poem proclaims -
the church reimagines the world
in the image of the invisible God

I’m trying to figure that out. To see the good in stuff. To not be a slave to systems of greed. To think about if my purchases are just. To be an image bearer.

Labels: Book Reviews, Colossians Remixed, Reflections, Theology