CCBlogs thinking critically, living faithfully

Last night my film professor friend, Andrew, brought over the movie Shattered Glass (2003) for Andrea and my viewing pleasure. This movie is closely based on the real-life story of twenty-five year old writer and associate editor of The New Republic, Steven Glass (Hayden Christensen), whose rises quickly in this prestigious political magazine by publishing stories that seem to good to be true. As it turns out, many of his stories are too good to be true. This movie captures the suspense of Glass trying to cover his tracks and hold his career together in the face of mounting evidence that he is a fraud. And the larger question looms: How could a high caliber magazine like The New Republic let these articles slip by? (For the story of Glass, which gives away the plot of the movie, see this wikipedia article.)Shattered Glass was absolutely fascinating for me, as it offers a look into the world of elite (and elitist) publishing. TNR boasts being the "in flight magazine of Air Force One," and Glass discusses the thrill of knowing that his pieces are being read by politicians and Presidents--and Glass is only a few years out of college!If the publishing world isn't your thing, the suspense in this movie is worth it in and of itself. And even if you aren't a huge Hayden Christensen fan (remembering his roles in flicks like Jumper or the new Star Wars movies), he is perfectly cast for this part. His character is immature and annoying, while also being brilliant and manipulative. The supporting cast also does an amazing job, especially Peter Sarsgaard, who was up for multiple film festival awards for this role. It is a shame this movie fell more-or-less still born from the press (as they say in publishing). It is one of the best movies I have seen in a long time. So go order it on Netflicks, and you won't be disappointed. Five stars.*Content note: This movie contains occasional brief strong language. Other than that it is just good, old fashion clean office drama.

The following is an introduction I gave to for my New Testament course last night on Paul's Prison Epistles (Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon). When you read them all in one sitting, certain themes begin to jump off the page. If you've never done so before, give it a try. Until then, enjoy this reflection. -DC


Why is Paul in chains? And what is this mystery that God has now revealed? I believe the answer to both of these questions is the same. And it might not be what we typically think it is. If we miss it, we will miss the importance of Paul’s prison epistles.

When Paul returns to Jerusalem after his third missionary journey, the crowds try to have him killed, but he calms the crowd by speaking to them in their language, Aramaic. He concludes his message by saying, “‘Then the Lord said to me, “Go; I will send you far away to the Gentiles.’” The crowd listened to Paul until he said this. Then they raised their voices and shouted, ‘Rid the earth of him! He’s not fit to live!’” (Acts 22:21-22)

Is Paul taken to prison for believing Jesus is the Messiah? Well, yes, but more importantly because he believes Jesus is the Messiah of Jews and Gentiles! As Paul states in his letter to the Colossians,

"I have become its servant by the commission God gave me to present to you the word of God in its fullness—the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints. To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory." (Colossians 1:25-27) So what, again, is the mystery for which Paul is in chains? Paul writes to the Ephesians, “This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.” (Ephesians 3:6)

This mystery has now been revealed through Jesus Christ: were are all one body. In Christ there is no longer any distinction. Again, writing to the Colossians from prison, Paul states, “Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.” (Colossians 3:11)

This passage might remind us of Paul’s message of the true gospel to the Galatians, “You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28)

The implications of this mystery, which has now been revealed, are earth shattering. Paul is stating not only that the separation between God and humans has been removed through Christ, but also that the separation between human and human has been removed. This message has such radical implications that it is all Paul can do to keep Christians from breaking all cultural norms and societal structures. Yes, we know that in Christ there are no distinctions, but given the society these new Christians found themselves in, it is still best for wives to continue to submit to their husbands, for example, or for slaves to continue to obey their masters. But Paul is very clear: we do these things out of reverence for God and deference for each other, not because Christ makes these distinctions.

Indeed, as Christians, Paul exhorts us to “submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” (Ephesians 5:21) In Christ we know that “there is no favoritism” (Colossians 3:25), and that master and slave alike are both under a greater Master (Colossians 4:1), who is also our loving heavenly Father.

Indeed, in Paul’s letter to Philemon, we find this mystery being lived out. In the Roman Empire, there are still slaves and masters. But in Christ’s kingdom, master and slave are dear brothers in the Lord. (Philemon 16)

As we approach the holiday season, we can with Paul affirm the truth of the last verse of that great Christmas hymn, “O Holy Night”:

Truly He taught us to love one another, His law is love and His gospel is peace. Chains he shall break, for the slave is our brother. And in his name all oppression shall cease. Sweet hymns of joy in grateful chorus raise we, With all our hearts we praise His holy name. Christ is the Lord! Then ever, ever praise we, His power and glory ever more proclaim! His power and glory ever more proclaim!

My middle/high school friend, Dennis, has put his wit, creativity, and hyperactivity to good use as a freelance writer. The other day he sent me this enjoyable poem that I thought I would share with my readers. Enjoy! -DC

The Tattered Tollway
Dennis O’Donnell

There once was a young boy named Simon
Who hailed from the small town of Mylan
He was as good as can be
And he was sweeter than tea
But he believed that he was his own island


Simon grew up on the North side of town
Which was South of The City, and just East of Around
He skipped rocks on the rivers and he fished in the creeks
And was the Bi-County-Champion of Hide-‘N-Go-Seek

He was the youngest of three in his family of five
Well, six, I suppose, if you count his cat Clive

He studied in school where he made decent grades
And cheered on his friends when they pranced in parades
He could fling a fast-pitch and he made many outs
And could tie 30 knots, which he picked up in the Scouts

He was a help to old neighbors who lived on his street
Who’d pinch his cute face and say, “Well-aren’t-you-sweet!”

He was zealous with zest as he zipped around town
People said he was blessed and On-Upward-Bound

He loved creating laughter, and could do so with ease
It was fun and it was good, like Macaroni & Cheese

Everyone who knew him was enamored by Simon
During others’ dark days, he’d shine brighter than diamonds
From an outsider’s view it would be a great start
To get an insider’s look at the boy’s golden heart

At times, of course, Simon would get a bit wild
But ruckus and trouble are normal for a child

Through all of the problems and funny-tales from the ‘hood
- And driving parents crazy from the stress they withstood
It’s still tough to deny - and certainly nobody would -
To say that as a young boy, Simon was certainly good


In Mylan he remained through his young-adult years
As he gained the respect of his elders and peers
He was considered a leader and did his best to walk tall
As he went on through his days, being friendly to all

And as he grew up his demeanor grew strong
He grew to be wise, and knew to spot right from wrong
He learned how to think, and strived not to be mindless
He learned how to love, and strived only for kindness

Motivated and willing, to say the least he was driven
And did the-best-that-he-could with the gifts he’d been given

But as Simon grew older, he began to grow torn
He had been only in Mylan since-the-day-he-was-born
He never disliked it, but he desired new scenery
Perhaps some bluer blue skies, or some greener green greenery
He loved his hometown and his life that was there
But he couldn’t help wonder, “What lay beyond the open air?”

After taking his time, Simon made a selection
He was to go off on his own, though unaware of direction
So off Simon went, though awful heavy in heart
He was off on his way to make-up his new start

He told Mylan goodbye, and he thanked them for caring
As they sent him off cheering, with horns theirs a-boom-blaring
He bid his parents farewell, said, “Leave the rest of it to me -
I’m heading off to fulfill my own grand dest-iny”


Simon was weary, but marched ahead strong
He knew the road he was taking was to be more than just long
It was bumpy ol’ winder, and would prove a good test
A tattered toll-way would describe it at best

His first steps were stumbles and nothing short of a fall
As he struggled to grasp that he’d even left at all
But his humble beginnings exceeded all expectations
As he tasted the freshness of sweet liberations






He saw places so appealing, he believed his eyes had betrayed him
He almost forgot Mylan, though his heart had forbade him
Mountains and lakes began to take on a new meaning
They were no longer challenges, but opportunities for greeting

He found strength performing tasks that were generally draining
Like discovering the line where the rain had stopped raining
He just couldn’t contain his expanding curiosity
To do so, he thought, was an unforgivable atrocity

He learned his mind and his brain were in fact two different things
And flying, in fact, rarely required real wings

He began reading books he never knew could be written
He had found a contentness, indeed he was smitten
He learned of his soul, including with it, the duty
Of smiling upon others and recognizing their beauty

He had acquired a knowledge that created his goals
Which proved to be the match that ignited his coals
He was off very quickly in what he called his “new life”
And cut-through-it with ease, like warm butter to a knife

He made fantastic new friends who shared exquisite excursions
Each playing a part of each other’s conversions

Things continued looking up, as Simon kept schlepping on
His suitcase was light, and his worries were gone
He continued this way through the many full moons
Savoring each minute, passing two-moments-too-soon

Simon knew life was gourmet and he desired to taste it
Always cleaning his plate, and never wanting to waste it
The path that he chose had been smooth and spectacular
He achieved a good balance, even brushed up his vernacular

He appreciated the changes that his life had endured
His restlessness, he believed, had been adequately cured

But the road Simon enjoyed was to gracefully fade
For he was now quickly approaching its steep uphill-grade

Up to this junction, he could see all his old tracks
But one must remember, a tattered-toll-way’s not flat
There were holes up ahead that could not be foreseen
And places he’d travel that were much less than serene

He saw the road-signs, and had prepared for the hills
And he packed extra clothes because he’d heard of the chills
He adhered to his map, and he followed the instruction
But nothing prepared him for the toll-way’s construction

The switching of lanes proved a difficult transition
But a necessary change, to get the wish he was wishin’
Simon’s only desire was to find his way in the world
And to find the high road, and to bend with its curls

This was not the first time he had traveled on his own
But was the first time in his life he had felt so alone

When he considered the paths he had previously taken
He had a hard-time-recalling the thought of feeling forsaken
But that was precisely his position on this latest back-road
As he carried what he thought was the world’s heaviest load

He recalled past successes and the friends he had gained
All the awards he had won and great ideas he had brained
But Simon was saddened and more than just a bit strained
And no matter the forecast, it became cloudy and rained

He never would discuss it because Simon was certain
He was the only one who knew such a belittling burden

It was during these times, Simon noticed a change
All the thoughts in his head became tough to arrange
Even he would admit, it was just a bit strange
But he shrugged it all off, without verbal exchange

He would think these thick-thoughts and become lost in his maze
With vision and understanding becoming lost in the haze
He became quite confused, as people sheepishly do
Whenever they’re scared and feeling deepishly blue
He knew the importance of finding his mission
But no matter the options could not make a decision

He knew very few people and felt alone and left out
And for the very first time had encountered self doubt
He’d worry about the present and wonder where it was leading
He’d consider the future, and if he’d be succeeding



He had plenty room for two, but rode alone on his tandem
He suffered in solitude, believing no one could understand him
He longed for simplicity and just a-few-answers-clear
But his quest left him puzzled, like headlights to a deer

He was baffled wondering why his latest route had back-fired
And just when it couldn’t get any worse…Psssshhhhh – He picked up a flat tire
If Simon possessed patience, it was now that he tossed it
This straw broke his back, to say it nicely, he lost it.

“Why am I here and what the heck am I doing?
And why was it this road that I chose for a-choosing?
I see no bright lights at the end of my tunnel
All of my immaculate plans become lost in a funnel”

“Everyone around me seems to have all the answers
Its as if they’ve got brains that are juiced out on enhancers
Their routes are superior and better suited for travel
While mine falls apart as it quickly unravels”

“I’m the only one I know who feels lost and off-course
And I breakdown in mid-stride, like a two-legged horse
My mind is on fire and its only getting hotter
All it receives is gasoline, when all it requires is water”

“Im all out of options, I’ve done all that I can
Am I asking too much for just one helping hand?”

He continued to boil, mixing his anger with fear
And kept up with the grumblings now impossible to hear

Simon was flustered and overcome with despair
- Not the best time to notice he’d forgotten a spare

These were trying times indeed for our good buddy Simon
Who was currently convinced he was his own lonely island


He sat head in his hands with his heart nearly crushed
His body in shambles and withering with rust
He was far too exhausted from his previous fuss
And didn’t notice-the-figure-approaching, who arose from the dust

A man slowly crept forward and stepped into the light
Simon shot up like a rocket, expecting a fight


“Howdy Simon” called the man, in a quite comforting way
“I’m Antonio Andy Anderson, they call me Triple A”

“I couldn’t help notice, but Son, you look a little stuck
I might have just the elixir, let me check in the truck”

Simon was puzzled, and could not understand
Where did he come from, and exactly who is this man?

Antonio sensed the confusion, and said, “Simon, don’t panic
You’re with the world’s best and only Personal All-Car Mechanic.
These holes pop-up-pretty-quickly, not really something you plan
But I heard every word earlier when you had asked for a hand”

Simon wanted to speak, but he couldn’t find his voice
He wanted desperately to leave, but he didn’t have a choice

The man hurried back, to help Simon out of his rut
His two hands were bleeding, though he hadn’t been cut

“Are you OK mister, can I get you a towel?
That’s a pretty nice gash, I bet you let out a howl!”
Antonio declined, and said it was just an old scar
As he brought forth his supplies and looked in Simon’s car

“Ah yes, not a problem, I see this one all the time
I fix twelve of these a day, and charge only a dime
Looks like your car needs some rest, and your tires some air
And don’t worry about the old ones, count on Me for your spare”

Antonio kept searching as he popped open the hood
“From what I can tell, under here you’re all good.
I’ve got to be honest, I’ve been doing this a while,
So I’ll make some suggestions,” He said with a smile

“Your car is the easy part, I can fix that in a snap
But it appears there are other problems we should probably recap”

Simon was relieved that his car was repairable
The thought of being stranded was more than unbearable
He was admittedly confused by what Antonio had told him
But was happy to get the help, this guy’s wisdom seemed golden


Antonio cleared his throat and looked-up-ahead-far
He was providing diagnosis, but never looked at the car

“When drivers need assistance I’m always happy to help ‘em
Its my nature I guess, anyone who reaches is welcome
And as you have seen, accidents occur pretty often
Our goal at Triple A is just to see that they soften”

“Holes come unexpected and are surely uninvited
They often bring anxiety, people become over-excited
These bang-ups are everywhere, and they’re not-gonna-go-away
And at times you’re gonna hit some, I’m awful sorry to say”

“These roads are complex and every bit of a mystery
I’ve seen every little inch of ‘em and know all of their history
I was there when the dirt was laid down as foundation
And I poured out the pavement, stretching beyond imagination”

“I painted the lines to help keep drivers straight
And I threw in some red-lights, because they teach you to wait
Although it can be a slick road, especially during the pours
It’s still a beautiful path, despite the detours”

“Drivers never want to hear it, but I’ll say what I feel,
Cars are rarely the problem, it’s who sits behind the wheel
They try to fix their own rides, believing they’re aware what they need
But they lack the right parts, on top of that they all speed”

“A driver’s main goal usually provides the quick fix
As they ignore the real problems and rig up some slick tricks
When it doesn’t go right they become flushed with frustration
They forget that I, Triple A provide lasting salvation”

“I’ll get plenty-of-calls when their big-cars-become-broken
Though the number drops down when their tires are smokin’
I’m happy to help, though I get a bit sad
They forget I’m always behind them, through both the good times and bad”

“Whether their cars are ridin’ smooth and lack any big-bumps
Or they’ve got an old hooptie which has taken its lumps
Drivers don’t even have to call, they don’t-even-have-to-be-aware
Whether they feel me or not, you can trust me, I’m there




“Oh, I’ve done the best that I can to get my healing word out
I’ve used billboards, books, and my favorite; word-of-mouth
But it still seems as if people are too busy to listen
And just cant grasp the message, now matter how much it glistens”

“Some don’t believe me and most others just doubt me
As they fail to recognize that they are never without me
I am there waiting patiently for my opportunity to guide
To get them back on the road with a more durable ride”

“I wait and I wonder just how long it will take
Before the driver understands that my plans are not fake
I have one golden atlas for each driver that heeds -
Each individually tailored to their own special needs”

“I’ve gotta plan for you too, and it’ll fit like a glove
And its got no material, just built solely on love.”
Simon sat in amazement staring at Antonio’s face
He could not make the form, just its astonishing grace

It was there Simon sat when he started to weep
As he crawled on the ground toward Antonio’s feet
Simon wanted to thank him and let him know that he tried
But felt more than embarrassed, as he attempted to hide

Antonio saw the truth Simon was finally facing
But he did not run off after, he simply stood around pacing
Simon was sprinting, from what he wasn’t sure
But he couldn’t outrun that still voice so pure

“Your problems are common among people your age
You’ve grown wondrous wings but feel trapped in a cage
So times have been tough, you’re not hitting your stride
Your engine is running but don’t know where to ride”

“Your soul thirsts for knowledge but you can’t find a sip
And your mind runs for miles but you take two-steps-and-trip
You make yourself ill, but know you’ve got no infection
As you long for The Way, but can’t seem to find the direction”



“You feel distant and lonely, like you can no longer hack-it
And think no one understands, as you sit stirring in traffic
You think you’re the only one around who gets beat-up and tired
You think you’re off the right road, and don’t know where to inquire”


“Whatever the problem, whenever you feel you can’t do it
I can say without qualms, someone else has been through it
And you’re right, on your own, you may not stand a chance
But know that I’m in your corner and awaiting to dance.”

“Of course it can tough to be off on your own
But just take a look around, you are never alone
You’ll face significant obstacles, of that I can promise
But so will Susanne and your third cousin Thomas”

“When you fall on your face, which you most certainly will
Get back on your feet and get back on the hill
‘You can do it! You can do it!’ Ill be there to remind you
And even when you can’t see, I’ll still be right behind you”

“I’m the wind at your back and that still voice inside you
Let my love and my passion be the good force that guides you.”

“Every road in this world ends up tattered and cold
But there are high ones I know of which are covered with gold
The road you’re on now can lead directly to Me
You’re just paying the price, ya know the toll-ways aren’t free
There ain’t a person around who gets to the high road for free
And if you really wanna get there – you gotta get there through me”

Simon now knew that his first-thoughts-were-wrong
This guy was no stranger, he’d been there all along!
He’d been present beside him through all the valleys and peaks
Through the long days in Mylan and games of Hide N’ Go Seek

He was two steps behind, or in front of him rather
When Simon’s thoughts became too much trouble to gather
He’d been strong as an oak, even when Simon felt weakened
And when Simon became lost he became a great beacon

“There’s no doubt about it”, Simon said to his friend
“That you’re always going to be there, even after the end”


“It is you I will lean on through thick and through thin
And you I will call on whether I lose or I win
I’ve been blessed to have found such a wonderful guide
And to think the whole time, you been waiting inside?!”


Antonio cleaned his hands as he closed up the hood
“I’m glad you get the message, I just knew that you would.”
Simon and Antonio embraced as companions
As they walked off together and peered down at the canyons

Simon was thankful and had burst live into song
But when he turned to give praise, he saw Antonio was gone
Simon sat still as he brushed his hands through his hair
And he was beginning to feel like his young heart could tear

Simon was wondering why Antonio had to leave
Did he break his great promise? What did his visit achieve?
Simon finally calmed down and remembered the lesson
And all of the issues Triple A was addressin’

Whether he sees him or not, no matter when-why-or-where
He knew Antonio never leaves, and he will always be there
He’s there as a friend, just as he always had planned
Always happy to extend those two big-bleeding-hands

Simon felt comfort as he merged back on his road
As he now had some help with his very-large-load
He started his car and looked ahead in the distance
Understanding this road would be full of resistance

And Simon never looked back, or so I am told
As he traveled his days toward the high streets of gold
Whenever times became tough or he began to feel lost
He’d grab Triple A’s card, which was shaped like a cross

There was something about it, those words written in red
Simon just loved to re-read them, here is what they said:
“Whether you’re in New York City or the small town of Mylan
You have got remember no man is an island
I am always there with you, and always inside
Just have a little faith, and I’ll be your guide

You don’t need an appointment or a fancy reservation
Just call me up anytime for a free consultation
If you need some new tires or just a jump-start
A slick change of oil, or a quick change of heart
Let me know, Ill be there any-time any-day
I’m Antonio Andy Andersen, they call me Triple A”

Saw this at BW3's site and couldn't resist. I think they'd make a great team. We'll assume that after one of them looses, s/he takes up a career in dancing and the other, by virture of being (Vice) President, becomes the star.

I have been slacking a bit on posting due to a busier than usual schedule. Here are a few things I've been up to lately. If anyone is interested in hearing more about any of the below events, let me know. Perhaps I can do a longer post on it.

(1) Last Thursday my friend Sam and I drove up to Trinity for the debate between team Ware-Grudem and team McCall-Yandell on the question: "Do relations of authority and submission exist eternally among the Persons of the Godhead?" In my humble opinion, McCall-Yandell's critiques of Ware-Grudem were devastating, but Ware-Grudem's rhetoric probably worked the audience slightly better (though Yandell was probably the wittiest of the bunch).

(2) Last Sunday I preached at Keller Park Church, where Andrea and I have started to attend, here in South Bend. In good old Anabaptist style, the whole congregation participates in the service, including much good discussion on the message, which was on Luke 15 as viewed from the perspective of the older brother in the prodigal son story.

(3) Monday night I taught on Acts, Galatians, and Thessalonians in my New Testament course at Bethel. We did a theological case study on the issue of Jewish/Gentile relations and the question of the Gospel in Galatians and Acts 13-15. Interesting stuff, especially when read together.

(4) Tuesday night I went to a discussion on the question of whether or not to vote, featuring Mennonite historian John D. Roth (Goshen College) and Bethel College history professor David Schmidt. Roth gave a very compelling case from an Anabaptist perspective on why one may decide to abstain from voting, while Schmidt offered some personal responses on how engaging politically can be good for a Christian.

(5) Last night I attended Granger Community Church to hear Bethel philosophy professor, Chad Meister, speak on "Reasons for God: The Problem of Evil." Unfortunately, as a result of attending that event, I missed Keller Park's first Wednesday night tutoring program for local kids, something that will likely be added to my weekly schedule from here on out.

So, that's my last week in a nutshell. In the meantime, I'm preparing for my Major Comps. for my Philosophy of Religion M.A. at Trinity, which are next Friday morning.

That said, it's been a fun, busy, and interesting week. On the docket for blogging: Chapter 7 of Boyd's Myth of a Christian Nation (only three chapters to go . . . but what happened to all the good discussion?), Part 2 of McKnight's Blue Parakeet (which has hit stores early--good for you, bad for my blog series!), and some Writing on Writing from the New Testament (need to set a good example for my students and get back in the habit).

In chapter six, "The Myth of a Christian Nation," Boyd finally focuses on the heart of his argument: America has had a civil religion since its founding, but it has never been a distinctly Christian nation, when Christianity is understood as synonymous with "Christ-like."

Boyd discusses some of the cliches of civil religion, used to promote nationalistic ideals and agendas. In an effort to further the state's causes, the state ties their causes to the divine will, with rallying cries such as "For God and Country" or the currently popular statement that America is "the light of the world" or "the city on a hill." Boyd comments that "What is surprising, and cause for great concern, is that many evangelicals were not only not disturbed by [such rhetoric]--they applauded it" (109).

Boyd spends the bulk of this chapter highlighting two specific problems that arise from this blending of civil religion and the Kingdom of God. First, it has a disastrous consequence on world missions. Almost anyone who has traveled abroad will tell you that those in other nations have a different view of America than we do as Americans. When they think of America, they likely think of either (a) the America portrayed by Hollywood or (b) the American political/military machine or (c) some combination of the two. However, due to our blurring of American civil religion with the Kingdom of God, many outside the U.S. also equate (a), (b), and/or (c) with Christianity! Needless to say, this causes some major hurdles for cross-cultural missionaries to jump before ever being able to share the true Gospel of Jesus.

Secondly, Boyd argues that "when we fail to distinguish the civil religion of America from the kingdom of God . . . we end up wasting precious time and resources defending and tweaking the civil religion--as though doing so had some kingdom value" (114). Now, some may argue that there is value to promoting civil religion in as much as it keeps some sense of morality in the public sphere. But regardless of one's view on that issue, it seems that the amount of time spent by Christians fighting for those causes is disproportionate to the end good that may come from those fights: keeping public prayer in schools (as though Christians can't pray silently at any time), keeping the 10 Commandments posted in court houses (as though nonChristians will be impacted by the covenantal regulations made with the Israelites), keeping the words "under God" in the pledge (as though saying those words will change people's hearts), and so on.

Rather, Boyd calls Christians to begin actually living out the Kingdom in their families, churches, and communities. In many instances this will involve being counter-cultural, which will draw the attention of those used to civil religion. Boyd cites John Howard Yoder's argument that "everything about Jesus' ministry was socially and politically relevant." This wasn't because Jesus was grasping for political power, but rather, "Precisely because he did not allow the society or the politics of his day to define his ministry, he positioned himself to make a revolutionary prophetic comment, and ultimately have revolutionary impact on the society and politics of his day" (120).

That's the kingdom I want to be a part of. How about you?

What is the Gospel, the Good News of Jesus Christ? Is it the following?: You’re a sinner; Jesus died for you; say this prayer; and you can go to heaven. And remember, you’re a sinner!

Last week we struggled a bit with Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount. Jesus’ expectations were so high. He sounded more demanding than loving.

It’s my contention that without the Sermon on the Mount we only have half a Gospel. We have the part about forgiveness of sins, yes, but there is something fundamentally important to the Gospel still missing. Namely this: union with Christ.

By commanding us to “Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect,” Jesus is stating something revolutionary: we are capable of following the Law of God. Of course, we aren’t capable on our own, but IN CHRIST we can fulfill the Law, just as Christ fulfilled the Law.

There are many parts of Matthew that we didn’t get to cover in depth last week. There is Jesus calling us to “Come to me, all who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.” (Matt. 11:28). This is union with Christ.

Paul was the great defender of justification by grace alone through faith alone. But even Paul understood this idea of union with Christ. It was by this union that Paul exhorted us in Romans 6:

“If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin—because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.”
So, part of God’s grace is shown not only through his forgiveness but also through his empowerment to overcome sin. Likewise James teaches that faith without works is dead.

And Jesus’ last words in Matthew, the Great Commission, confirm this message:

"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."
This week we turn from Matthew to Mark. Here too be on the lookout for Christ’s authority over sin and death, and his call to overcome sin by becoming united to him.

In my first post on Scot McKnight's forthcoming book, Blue Parakeet: Rethinking How You Read the Bible, I mentioned three key words that McKnight uses to frame his book: Story, Listening, and Discerning. In this post I want to discuss his first part: "Story: What is the Bible?", which is comprised of three chapters.

Chapter 3: Inkblots and Puzzles

In light of his earlier discussion, McKnight subtitles chapter three "How, Then, Are We Reading?" McKnight argues that the Bible is a "three-dimensional" book--a story that is meant to draw us in, a story that includes a plot: a Beginning (Gen. 1 - 11), a Middle (Gen. 12 - Revelation), and an End (Matt. 25; Rom. 8; Rev. 21 - 22). But for many Christians, instead of understanding the story and how each part of the Bible fits in with the larger story, we try to take a shortcut for discovering biblical truth. McKnight lists and discusses five such shortcuts: reading the Bible as (1) Morsels of Law, (2) Morsels of Blessings and Promises, (3) Mirrors and Inkblots (i.e., reader response theory, where the Bible sounds strangely like how we would like it to sound), (4) Puzzling Together the Pieces to Map God's Mind (the classic seminary reading), or (5) Maestros (focusing on one author to the exclusion of the others--another popular seminary reading).

Chapter 4: It's a Story with Power!

Having showed us how we typically are reading the Bible, McKnight next asks "How, Then, Shall We Read?" This chapter might include some of McKnight's most interesting insights. He argues that we need to recapture the story of the Bible, stating that the "secret to reading the Bible" is to understand the meaning of the phrase "that was then and this is now" (57). According to McKnight, God has a grand narrative that he is trying to convey to his people, and he has chosen various people at various points in history to convey parts of that message in their own way--what McKnight calls "wiki-stories." Just as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written by various contributors, who all have their distinct perspectives, so the Bible was written by various authors at various times in various ways. For McKnight, understanding the larger story and how each wiki-story fits into that larger story is the key to understanding how to "make sense of the blue parakeets in the Bible" (65).

Chapter 5: The Plot of the Wiki-Stories

Finally, McKnight concludes this section by asking "How Does the Bible Work?" While McKnight affirms that the Bible records actual history, he nevertheless affirms that it is not just bare history. It is history written with a purpose, the purpose of telling God's story. As such, the Bible "has a plot . . ., characters . . ., and it also has many authors who together tell the story" (66). For McKnight, the basic structure of the story could be told under the following headers: (1) Creating Eikons (emphasizing "oneness"); (2) Cracked Eikons (emphasizing "otherness"), (3) Covenant Community ("otherness expands"), (4) Christ, the Perfect Eikon, redeems ("one in Christ"), and finally, (5) Consummation ("perfectly one").

Understanding this outline actually helps to clarify many individual parts of the story. For example, while most people have a general understanding of the purpose of Christ's death, many are a bit unclear regarding the meaning of Christ's resurrection. Regarding the resurrection, McKnight explains,

"Eikons, forgiven as they are, are now only in neutral. They are no longer dead. That's not enough. What do humans need? Life. Jesus is raised for us. I wish more of us would see how significant the resurrection is for God's redemptive plan, for the story that unfolds in the Bible. By becoming one with the Resurrected One through faith, we are raised to new life. Why? So that we might stand up and walk again as Eikons are designed to live--with God, with self, with others, and with the world. The resurrection creates dead Eikons walking again" (77).

Without understanding the whole story, we might miss the significance of the resurrection for the life of the believer. Sure, we know that it is Christ's display of victory over death, but what does that mean for us? How do we, as God's Eikons, fit into the message of the resurrection? Understanding that God is trying to restore his cracked Eikons helps us to understand how Christ's resurrection gives us the ability to not only be forgiven for our sins but also to overcome them with Christ's power and live as we were meant to live.

Having argued that the Bible is a story and explained what that story looks like, McKnight turns in part two to discussing how to listen to that story--a topic that will be discussed in my next post.

In chapter 5, "Taking America Back for God," Boyd finally turns the scalpel on the U.S. church specifically. Whatever one might have thought about all of his theoretically groundwork from the first four chapters, it is difficult to argue with the main thesis of this chapter: the American church has become far too aligned with State politics. Boyd recounts a "worship service" he attended in which a video was shown about the Gulf War. While this might be an extreme example, it vividly represents what is taking place to a lesser degree at churches across the nation.

Boyd's point isn't necessarily that what America is doing around the globe is "evil" per se, but rather that "we shouldn't expect kingdom people to applaud this fact, especially when the national self-interest involves taking lives!" (89-90) Not only is it wrong for Christ-followers to avidly support such policies, but it is ironic that in doing so they believe they can "take America back for God," as though there was a time in U.S. history when we were an explicitly Christ-like nation.

Boyd doesn't have a problem with American Christians expressing their political views, but he worries that in doing so they often think that their side is 'God's side.' Boyd discusses how Jesus continually refused to get wrapped up in the political fray of his time, despite the fact that it would have been very easy for him to have done so, and it would have seemed a quite sensible thing for him to have done. Yet ever since Jesus refused to play the political game, Christ-followers have been jumping on the politics bandwagon with full enthusiasm, thinking that they are somehow glorifying God through their political efforts.

Boyd's response is about as clear as it gets:

"If we look at historical reality rather than pious verbiage, it's obvious that America never really 'belonged to God.' As we've said, when the kingdom of God is manifest, it's obvious. It looks like Jesus. There was nothing distinctively Christlike about the way America was 'discovered,' conquered, or governed in the early years. . . . The fact that it was largely done under the banner of Christ doesn't make it more Christian, any more than any other bloody conquest done in Jesus' name throughout history (such as the Crusades and the Inquisition) qualifies them as Christlike" (99).
But what about the language of the founding fathers? They talked about "one nation under God," etc., didn't they? Sure enough, but there are two important qualifiers: (1) For many of the founders, "God" was a Deistic notion, not a specifically Christian one, and more importantly, (2) there is a difference between having the right Christian language and actually living in a Christ-like way. In theology this is often called the difference between orthodoxy (right belief) and orthopraxis (right practice). Boyd's point is that regardless of America's checkered history on the former, her history on the latter has been rather abysmal.

Boyd doesn't deny that some of what America has accomplished has had "good" results; he just argues that as Christians we shouldn't be satisfied with simply being "good." We should be "centered on being beautiful, as defined by Jesus Christ dying on a cross for those who crucified him" (103).

Lastly, Boyd argues that just as it is a mistake to think we can win America "back" for God, it is an even bigger error to think that we can win back the world for God "by acquiring the ability to control behavior through the power of the sword" (104). Rather, if we really want to win the world for Christ, it may often look like we are losing. But as he concludes,

"our task is to believe that, however much it looks like we may be losing, God will use our Calvary-quality acts of service to redeem the world and build his kingdom. However much we lose -- even if it's our own life -- we are to believe in the resurrection. Ultimately God wins, and each one of our acts of loving self-denial will eventually be shown to have played a role in this victory" (105).
It is interesting to contrast this message with the message being preached by the Presidential campaigns this season. If I hear one more time that America is the "shining city on a hill," the candidate(s) making such an idolatrous claim will be losing my precarious vote.

In fact, I think they've already lost it.

Any thoughts?

Dear Luke,

Just received your sequel, and I have to say, I'm loving it. These followers of the Way are such fascinating characters! I'm not quite half way through your book, but I wanted to send you some quick thoughts that are on my mind.

Last time I wrote you I mentioned how peculiar Jesus was, but I never anticipated that his followers would turn out to be just as radical as him. Would it be fair to call them Pentecostals? They speak in tongues; they talk about baptism of the Holy Spirit; they stress "signs and wonders"; and again they border on teaching egalitarianism, for example, when Peter quotes the prophet Joel talking about how "sons and daughters . . . both men and women . . . will prophesy." Those crazy Pentecostals always know how to push the lines, don't they?

Not only that, but it appears as though these Pentecostal followers are also hippie, communist, Jesus people types. They share everything in common, giving to the needy. You even go so far as to state that "there were no needy persons among them"! I can't even begin to imagine what kind of lovefest that must be like.

These followers of the way are so radical that it appears they have very little regard for the laws of the land. Perhaps they haven't yet received Paul's latest tract, sent originally to Rome for publication? I mean, I know our first allegiance is to God, but we shouldn't be openly resisting the state laws either, right? Even Jesus said to give to Caesar what is Caesar's.

One other thing that caught my attention is that these followers seem to be into that new "narratival" school of biblical interpretation. When Stephen is asked a simple question about blasphemy, he responds by reciting the entire story of God's dealings with the Israelites throughout all of history. Maybe he was just trying to delay his inevitable fate, but still all of this "theology is embedded in narrative" stuff sounds a bit too post-Platonic for my tastes. You always have to guard again such interpretations, which inevitably lead to radical relativism and denial of any absolute truths that transcend such narratives. I believe this is one of the greatest dangers in our synagogues and churches today.

Speaking of Stephen, he seems to be a chip off the old Christ block, doesn't he? As his enemies are unjustly stoning him to death, he prays "Lord, do not hold this sin against them." Who does he think he is to tell God how to go about his affairs? And again we have more of this "forgiveness before repentance" doctrine being advocated. Another dangerous trend in my opinion. I'm hopeful that the church will overcome this errant view, even if it takes us another two-hundred and fifty years or so to do it!

Until next time,
Theophilus

. . . Gooooooo White Sox!

I'm now four weeks into my teaching at Bethel College, and so far it has been a blast. For those of you who aren't able to join us, I thought I would share some of our happenings on the blog. Here's my introductory lecture for the course:

When it comes to studying the Bible, most of us fall into one of two extremes. For some, we view the Bible as a list of facts and figures, propositions, names, locations, and isolated verses to be digested and memorized. For others, the Bible is a book we read for “devotions.” We randomly open its pages to learn what it has for us today. We might call this the “Chicken Soup for the Christian Soul” extreme.

Now, certainly the Bible does present truths for us to learn—and of course we will be learning them this semester—as well as application for our daily living. But my goal for this semester is that we will learn to read and study the Bible in a way that allows it to speak on its own terms. That means learning not just facts or devotional thoughts, but the redemptive narrative of Jesus and his Church as it unfolds before us in the pages of scripture. It is my goal to put tools into your hands so that you can continue to explore the New Testament as a living and breathing document long after this semester is over. And it is my goal for us to have a personal encounter with Jesus of Nazareth as we study his life and teachings.

What most people don’t understand is that the Bible is first and foremost a missionary document. It is about a God who is on a mission to redeem his people and his creation, to draw all men unto himself. Later tonight we will look at how this missionary story unfolds throughout the Old and New Testaments. In the meantime, I want us to consider a verse from the gospel of John. After rising from the dead, Jesus goes to meet with his frightened disciples. He tells them, “Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you” (John 20:21). In other words, Jesus calls his followers not only to learn about this missionary story, but also to be a part of it! Though the canon of scripture is long closed, we as Christ-followers actually bear the responsibility and privilege of continuing this story, of being key players in the drama of theological history. Jesus has sent us out, just as the Father sent him. That means we are to be the very incarnation of Christ, his hands and feet sent to serve our communities and our world. Thus, my final goal for this semester is that we will not only learn more about the New Testament, but that we will learn how to live out the New Testament in and through our occupations, neighborhoods, and families. As the Father has sent Christ, he also sends us.

The Blue Parakeet: Rethinking How You Read the Bible

By Scot McKnight. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, November 1, 2008 (in stores soon!)
ISBN 0-3102-8488-0; 240 PAGES, HARDCOVER, $18.99

Hi. My name is David, and I'm a seminarian. Today I stand here before you to make a confession. In the words of Scot McKnight:

"I have to make a confession. Somewhere along the line when I learned to read the Bible and when I was coming to terms with my own question, during seminary . . . my wide-eyed wonder of Scripture diminished and the jaw-dropping surprises were fewer and farther between. My desire to master the Bible and put it all together into my own system drained the Bible of its raw, edgy, and strange elixirs. I was caging and taming the blue parakeets" (36).

If this confession rings true to you (maybe not in the exact seminarian details), then prepare to regain your wide-eyed wonder; prepare for your jaw to drop; and prepare to get a parakeet dropping or two dumped in your wondering wide eyes. (Was that last part too graphic? Did you like my chiasm at least?)

Why blue parakeets, you ask? Well, if you were a member of the Audubon Society like Scot (I'm not by the way), you would know that blue parakeets aren't the type of bird you expect to see fluttering around in your backyard bushes. In fact, if you see them anywhere outside of a cage in a pet store or in some kid's bedroom, you are likely to be more than a bit taken back. You're likely not going to believe what you are seeing. And once you do figure it out, you just might try to catch the thing and put it back where it belongs: a cage.

And so it is, according to McKnight, with far too many of those seemingly idiosyncratic passages in the Bible (passages, for example, about the Sabbath, tithing, foot washing, surrendering possessions, and a whole host of contentious issues). In keeping with his extended metaphor, McKnight calls these passages—and those people whose lives make us reconsider these passages—"blue parakeets." Unfortunately, instead of allowing them to freely sing their own tune, we often try to cage them up, to either awkwardly force them to fit our pre-set systematic theology or to simply ignore them altogether. McKnight calls this "picking and choosing" (19), and though in some respects this is inevitable, McKnight wants us to recognize that we are doing it and to learn to avoid it at all costs or to at least do so in a more reflective way. Rather than reading the Bible through the lens of tradition, McKnight invites us to read with tradition—to become conversant with traditional interpretations of scripture without letting tradition completely shape how we view the text and without always giving tradition the final word.

For McKnight, the big question boils down to this: "How, then, are we to live out the Bible today?" (17) If we can't sensibly answer this question, what is the point of biblical study in the first place? So to answer this question, McKnight offers three key words, each to which he devotes a section of his book: Story, Listening, and Discerning. Then in the final section, McKnight applies this all to a case study on "Women in Church Ministries Today" (more on that later).

But since I've found that the attention span of blog readers is just below that of second graders with ADHD at Chuck-E-Cheese's, perhaps it would be best to make this review into a multi-post series. Of course, that also means that I will now leave you hanging.

For anyone interested, I will be preaching this Sunday at Keller Park Church, South Bend. I will be preaching on Ephesians 4:1-16 about the "marks of the church."

Chapter 4, "From Resident Aliens to Conquering Warlords"

Chapter four concludes Boyd's theoretical basis before turning in chapter 5 to addressing America specifically. Here Boyd again alludes to the "already/not yet" concept I spoke of earlier. He says that we are one humanity in Christ in principle, but that that it is "painfully clear that what is true in principle has not yet been manifested as accomplished fact" (68). We are called to be the "first fruits" of the Kingdom, following in Christ's path by conveying Christ-like love to all those we encounter until what is true in principle becomes true in fact. Boyd argues that even after Calvary, Satan is "still the god of this age . . . who opposes the advancement of the kingdom at every turn" (70). This means there is nothing Satan would rather see than Christians killing each other and others in the name of God.

In this chapter Boyd spends quite a bit of time talking about kingdom people being set apart as holy, as "peculiar" people, which will be our "witness to the world" (72-3). However, rather than taking the high road, Christians often get off track by trying to simply "do good", to tweak the system instead of repudiating it. Boyd argues that this was one of the very temptations Jesus was offered by Satan, and that ironically after Jesus refused this temptation, Christians have willfully fallen to it ever since!

Here Boyd tells the often told story of the shift from early Christianity to Constantinian Christianity (around A.D. 312). The Church went from being the persecuted to being the persecutors. It seems to me that only a very warped sense of God's providence could view this change as a good thing for Christianity (see, e.g. , here). Yes, it has brought about some quantitative successes, but it has come at a pretty high cost qualitatively. At any rate, Boyd traces this violent history all the way up to the present day, arguing that it "has to be considered one of Satan's greatest victories" (81).

Finally, Boyd pleads to Christians to resist the temptation to follow kingdom of the world tactics and to instead love all unconditionally as Christ loves. In a very poignant passage, Boyd asks,
"Yet if loves is to be placed above all other considerations (Col. 3:14; 1 Peter 4:8), if nothing has any value apart from love (1 Cor. 13:1-3), and if the only thing that matters is faith working in love (Gal. 5:6), how is it that possessing Christlike live has never been considered the central test of
orthodoxy? How is it that those who tortured and burned heretics were not themselves considered heretics for doing so? Was this not heresy of the worst sort? How is it that those who perpetrated such things were not only not deemed heretics but often were (and yet are) held up as 'heroes of the faith'?" (83)
Often naysayers of Boyd's kind of view argue that people like Boyd overplay the "love" aspect of the faith, downplaying other elements. But a simple word study (even looking at just the passages Boyd quotes above) would show that for the follower of Jesus, love trumps everything else. And lest you think Boyd is simply pandering or offering empty rhetoric here, you should do a little study of the top four or five theological heroes in Christian history, and you will sadly be guaranteed to find an example or two of precisely what Boyd is talking about here. And as one who has often had the 'heretic card' tossed in his direction (mainly for his Open Theism), I am confident that he does not use such terminology lightly.

Thoughts? Confessions? Changes of heart?

Dear Luke,

Thank you for your very thoroughgoing investigation into the life of Jesus of Nazareth. You have answered many of the questions I had regarding my teaching and have done so in a quite orderly way, as I would only expect from such a detailed doctor as yourself. With your permission, I would like to help you get this piece published. Just consider me your financier or personal publicist. I think your writing has promise and could become something of a best-seller if we approach it correctly.

Regarding your main character, Jesus, he is a rather peculiar fellow, isn't he? I must say that as one who loves God (no pun intended), I am a bit unsure of what to make of this Jesus. Often he speaks on behalf of God, but yet, his views are so idiosyncratic and in many cases seemingly in direct contradiction with the religious views that I have been taught. Let me offer a few examples.

First, and perhaps most obviously, Jesus seems to be rather socially liberal. He begins his ministry with the well-worn soap box speech about helping the poor, working to release prisoners and freeing the oppressed, etc. I have to be honest, sometimes I tire of all this liberation theology and social gospel rhetoric. Hasn't Jesus read any of Paul's stuff? (I suppose that's a bit anachronistic, but you know what I'm saying.) Moreover, he makes it sound like it's a bad thing to be rich, as though we should look down on all those who through hard work and sacrifice have fulfilled the Roman Dream. Instead, he speaks blessings on the poor and woes on the rich. What an upside-down worldview. And that doesn't even begin to touch all the ways he has strayed from the conservative faith. He spiritualizes the Law, breaking the Sabbath and calling the judicial system into question. It sometimes seems as though he hasn't read the very plain words on the pages of the Torah! Even a Gentile such as myself can see the ways he's twisting the text for his own pet interests.

Secondly, Jesus comes across as some kind of pacifistic liberal too. If we take his teachings about how to treat our enemies literally, our whole military and court systems would be in shambles! Surely he means this all on a personal rather than a societal level. Think if an entire society tried to follow these dictates! I can only imagine how quickly they would be eradicated from God's green earth. Indeed, when he tells his disciples to pray so that they will not to "fall into temptation" in the garden, it seems that the "temptation" he is referring to is the temptation to defend him and themselves violently. Since they don't in fact pray (but keep falling asleep), their first reaction when the guards come is to ask, "Should we strike with our swords?", and one actually does the sensible thing and takes action. But Jesus rebukes him. Listen, Luke, let me put it this way: I'm all for treating my neighbors respectfully, and it's not like I love all the violence of the Coliseum, but if someone lays a hand on my family or friends, they will receive the full fury of my wrath. Case closed. Let's just be realistic here.

Oh, and not only that, but Jesus has no sense of justice either. He asks God to forgive those crucifying him "for they do not know what they are doing." Well, if in their utterly depraved, fallen humanity, they don't even recognize sin when they see it, then how does Jesus expect God to forgive them? Jesus needs to learn the first thing about a sound theology of forgiveness: If someone doesn't confess or ask for forgiveness, then it is impossible to truly forgive them. What is he, some kind of universalist when it comes to atonement? I shudder to think of it.

Thirdly, and perhaps most troubling, Jesus seems to be some kind of liberal feminist. As a child Jesus' parents allow a prophetess to bless him in the Temple! This widow, Anna, is allowed to stay in the temple worshiping, fasting, and praying day and night. What's worse, she actually "spoke about the child"—in the Temple—"to all those who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem." I'm sorry, but that's just not right. It seems that Jesus and his family and followers are trying to completely feminize or (dare I say) emasculate the house of God. Jesus' entire ministry seems to be bankrolled by these uppity women, who constantly hang around Jesus and his disciples, as though they are some kind of ministry partners. A couple obvious questions come to mind: Where are their husbands? Where are the children they should be raising? Have they lost all sense of gender roles? Now, don't get me wrong, Luke, I'm all for empowering women to a certain extent. But we still have to acknowledge the specific roles God has clearly ordained in his infinite wisdom. (If not, our whole theology will unravel, and we might even start viewing the Trinity in an egalitarian fashion!) Jesus even allows women to interrupt his sermons with their feminist messages: "Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you!" And let's not forget that these women are even the first to declare the news of Jesus' resurrection. And look what happens, they mess it up so much that the male disciples can't understand them—"their words seemed to them like nonsense." Need I say more?

Fourthly, and perhaps somewhat paradoxically, Jesus often comes across as a fundamentalist charismatic of sorts. He even seems to take the existence of angels and demons quite literally. He speaks to the psychologically disturbed as though there is some kind of spiritual element to their sickness, and he often comes across as more of an exorcist than a healer. I wonder, Luke, what your perspective on all of this is as one established in the technologically modernized Roman medical industry? Do you not find his spiritualizing a bit passe?

All that to say, I would love to see what becomes of Jesus' disciples. Do they take all his teachings seriously, or do they level them out some with a bit of common sense? In fact, Luke, why don't I give you an upfront stipend to allow you to do some further investigatory work on Jesus' early followers? If our first publication goes well, maybe I can have you put together a sequel. In the meantime, stay well, and don't get too sucked into the Jesus movement. (I heard about some of your recent treacherous escapades with that adventure-loving Paul. Sometimes I worry.)

Best regards,
Theophilus

Here are Jason's unedited notes from the night. If you follow Plantinga's or Rae's writing, see if you can identify which of them is giving which response.

The New Atheism
Al Plantinga and Mike Rea at SBCRC

Dawkins and Dennit and Hitchens and Sam Harris…

Is there anything new about the new atheism?

Not much in content is new. It's the approach. A lot of intellectual atheists were content calling religious belief irrational, but being nice to their Christian jewish and muslim friends. Over the past seven years atheists have become very evangelical.

The arguments in the books are terrible. Rea was tempted to not take the stuff seriously at all. But the evangelicalism of it is causing people to stand up and take notice… it's becoming popularized.

So the books are grandstanding (sexy) making outrageous claims in a persuasive way.

An example of a bad argument from these guys:

· The claim that the universe is without design. He considers the thought that unguided Darwinism has brought the variety of life that we see around us. Then he refutes objections to this theory. Then, since he's proven that it's possible that his position is true, that it is true.

· He argues that theism is wrong in the god delusion because complexity is inversely proportional to probability. The more complex something is, the less likely that it exists. Living things are more complex, so it's less probable they exist.

Rea says that, in spite of their poor arguments, these guys ought to be taken seriously.

Rea says that the people that the New Atheists remind him most of are Christians arguing against evolution. (creationists)

Take this stuff seriously because people who are still exploring their views are susceptible to this influence.

Why is this happening?
9/11 has been blamed on religious fundamentalism, opens the doors for critique.

Christianity has become more visible in the academy in the past 40 or 50 years (even in discussions about what should be taught in schools). So it's more present, pulling out these reactions. Proliferation of highly visible scandals in the lives of people who were extremely outspoken against things they were themselves caught in.

Are Christians partly to blame for creating an environment that's conducive for Atheism? The intelligent design movement was maybe too heavy-handed. Their arguments fell short and they became laughable in the academy.

Lots of people who think of evolution think of it purely as unguided evolution. The scientific theory of evolution doesn't say that. To say the mutation is random says that there are no mechanisms inside the organism able to determine which mutation is most advantageous and then effect that mutation. This is completely compatible with theistic creation.

There are kinds of evidence apart from scientific evidence.

The conservative Christian line went astray because it felt like it had to argue that evolution is bad science. They should have said, it's good science, but there are other types of evidence. There are suppositions within science that can be challenged without challenging the empirical evidence that science has attained.

The right position from which to critique the New Atheism is straight forward classical Christian belief.

A lot of these new atheists make exactly the same mistake that antievolutionists make. They point to a puzzle and say 'you can't solve that puzzle so your view is now good'. But really, those are just research puzzles. There is a broad view that works, and any broad view will have certain puzzles that don't yet make sense. E.g. it's hard to understand the mystery of the Trinity. It's hard to understand how Jesus could have two natures. It's hard to understand why God is hidden. But for Christians, those are just research puzzles because we have a whole lot of background reasons that support the overall belief. The puzzles don't make you give up your belief… they're just objects of further inquiry.

There isn't a view that won't have puzzles.

Is it a sound argument to say you can't have a scientific method without God ordering the natural world?

From a naturalistic point of view, you can't trust your faculties. Evolution isn't interested in producing true beliefs, only those beliefs which are advantageous.

We aren't Christians because of arguments. And the same is true for atheists. Something else. Anger. Despair. They've suffered. The arguments maybe help reinforce either position, or remove barriers to arriving at either position.

God isn't a fan of religion per se. He finds most religions offensive, as bad as atheism. Maybe worse, in some respects.

One of the nice things about living in South Bend is that you get the occasional opportunity to see Notre Dame's big guns in more intimate settings. Such was the case last night (9/19/08), when I got to hear Alvin Plantinga and Mike Rae in casual conversation on their thoughts on the "New Atheism" at their home church, the South Bend Christian Reformed Church.

I believe my friend Jason took pretty detailed notes, so maybe I'll be able to post something close to an outline of the discussion in a later post. For now, I'll simply direct you to the podcast of the night (including some live jazz to open the night), which you can find at SBCRC's website here.

For the most part, Plantinga and Rae were in agreement that there isn't much that's actually "new", philosophically speaking, about the "new" atheism. Rather, it is more or less just a more evangelistic and bombastic repackaging of much of the good old twentieth century atheism. While Plantinga and Rae didn't see eye to eye on every issue addressed (though they could practically recite the other's views verbatim!), they were both in agreement that the actual philosophical arguments of the new atheism are laughably weak, though the need for Christian philosophers to respond to them responsibly is of utmost importance to the Christian community.

Anyway, a fun night. Hope you enjoy the podcast. (You might even catch me in a moment of weakness questioning Plantinga's contention that the new atheism very rarely shakes the faith of Christian believers.)

Dear John Mark,

Thank you for your recent submission to the Roman Theological Library: New Biographies Series. We have read your piece on this interesting Jewish insurrectionist, Jesus, and will be sending it out for blind peer review shortly. (Though we can't reveal our reviewers' names, I can mention that one of them was a longtime follower of Jesus and before that was a trusted Jewish employee of the Roman Empire, and the other is a professional in the medical field, who will also serve as a good fact-checker of your account.) We will let you know when we receive any comments or revisions from either of these two reviewers.

We appreciate you taking the time to explain the strange customs of the Jews in language understandable to our readership, including your translation of the Jewish name of one of Jesus's followers, Boanerges, as "Son of Thunder" and similar translations, such as Talitha koum! into "Little girl, I say to you, get up!", or Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? into "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" This will be quite helpful for our readers, who typically despise the language of the Jews and most of whom do not have an Aramaic/Greek dictionary readily accessible anyway.

We must admit that we are rather troubled by what seem to be some anti-Empire undercurrents of your book, however. From the very outset, you claim that this insurrectionist was the "Son of God", which (as you well know) is a title reserved solely for Caesar. Moreover, you often quote Jesus proclaiming the coming of the "kingdom of God," which we can only take to be a subversive message, meant to challenge Caesar's lordship. It would be one thing if this were merely an account of another rival nation-kingdom (of which we could, of course, easily squelch with our superior Roman weaponry). But this so-called "kingdom" seems to be completely contrary to anything we have seen before, and frankly, we aren't sure how to best handle it.

We are quite fond of some of Jesus's peculiar Jewish stories, though again, we are often divided on their meaning, which some take to be deeply subversive as well. We do love the way Jesus responded to those obnoxious Pharisees, who are always trying to stir up trouble with the Empire, as well as those Sadducees and Herodians. What a miserable lot, all of them! (Oh, and we like the line about "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's." Very clever guy, that Jesus was.)

Again, we are divided about your portrayal of our excellently crafted capital punishment system. Some of the editors believe that it accurately portrays the glory of Rome in the way we deal with dissenters, but others feel that you might once again be using certain literary devises to subtly call our imperial systems into question. And quite honestly, no one knows what to make of your resurrection story. You certainly wouldn't be so audacious as to suggest that this wandering Jewish rabbi has somehow conquered our methods through his cowardly nonviolence, would you?

Regardless, we do enjoy your story from a purely literary standpoint. You keep the action moving at a quick pace. And on a personal note, we're sorry to hear about your troubles with one of our citizens, Paul. He seems to be a bit strong-willed at times, and just between you and me, we can't make heads or tails of any of his recent article submissions either. At any rate,

All the best,
RTL editors

In chapter 3, "Keeping the Kingdom Holy," Boyd further explains his rationale for making a sharp distinction between the kingdoms of the world and the kingdom of God. First and foremost this comes down to not defiling the latter with the former, however good the former may seem by worldly standards.

Boyd argues that the very definition of a Christian is one who imitates Christ. Thus, whatever else our political or theological views may be, our actions should be guided by the way we see Christ conducting his life. For Boyd Christ's life is marked most distinctively by his "Calvary-quality love" (51). I suppose if we were bare theists, we might not have the same standard, but as Christians it is difficult to avoid Boyd's assertion here.

I think Boyd answers some of our earlier questions when in this chapter he states:

"Not everything about the kingdom of the world is bad. Insofar as versions of the kingdom of the world use their power of the sword to preserve and promote law, order, and justice, they are good. But the kingdom of the world, by definition, can never be the kingdom of God. . . . No version of the kingdom of the world, however comparatively good it may be, can protect its self-interests while loving its enemies, turning the other cheek, going the extra mile, or blessing those who persecute it. Yet loving our enemies and blessing those who persecute us is precisely what kingdom-of-God citizens are called to do. It's what it means to be Christian." (54)

It seems, based on these comments, that Boyd wants to distinguish between how we conduct ourselves as Christians and how we view the government. For example, it may be theoretically possible to support a strong military defense at a government level, while at a personal level repudiating violence and showing love toward all. I'm not sure if Boyd would accept such a dichotomy, but it seems like one possible logical outworking of his view here.

At any rate, Boyd thinks that as Christians we should always keep a "healthy suspicion" about worldly governments, especially the one we find ourself in. This might be one of the most important points for the reader to grasp, especially one who is highly supportive of a particular political party of governmental institution (such as the military). It is amazing some of the loopholes Christians will jump through to justify military atrocities committed on behalf of their nation. (Think the A-bombs, for example.) As Boyd states, "Every version of the kingdom of the world defends itself and advances its cause by rallying the self-interest of its citizens into a collective tribal force that makes each citizen willing to kill and be killed for what it believes to be the good of the society" (56). An example here in the U.S. might be our collective vested interest in the world oil market. We find it alarming that China, India, and other developing nations are starting to use a larger percentage of the world's crude oil, as though America is somehow entitled to the majority that it currently consumes!

Boyd next explains how politically volatile the world was in Jesus's day. Yet, Jesus repeatedly refuses to be baited by politically charged questions. Instead of taking a side on a political issue, he points out how absurd the question posed to him is. Moreover, according to Boyd, Jesus's disciples came from different political stripes, from the Roman sympathizing tax-collector, Matthew, to the Roman hating zealot, Simon. Nonetheless Jesus brings them both on board and they serve side-by-side for the duration of Jesus's ministry and beyond.

Boyd sums this all up as a challenge to embrace a "difficult simplicity" (64). It's simple in that it doesn't involve figuring everything out politically, but it's difficult in that it means living Christ-like in every facet of one's life.

Did this chapter help bring clarification? Did it raise further issues?