2009 Year in Review

Well, it’s the last day of 2009, which means it is the last day I can conscientiously blog about the six different things I had planned to blog on over Christmas break. But as Christmas breaks always seems to go, I never get as much done as I had planned. Every Christmas break when we go to Indiana, I pack with me far more books and activities than I ever get around to—whether its because I enjoy the time off not feeling like I need to do anything, I am having fun with family and friends, or I get engrossed into my new Christmas presents, all the things I had planned seemed to fall by the wayside. I should feel good that at least this time I actually did read one of the books that I took with me!

Anyways, one of those activities I had planned, as I had already said, was to blog about at least six different things. So, since it’s about 10PM on New Year’s Eve, and I’m going strong on a martini and a half, a quick blurb about all six of them is in order!

EMERSON’S FIRST SNOWFALL

The Saturday before Christmas, Pittsburgh got five inches of glorious snow. It was Emerson’s first real snowfall, so we had to make the most of it. We pulled out Amber’s old sled from her childhood and pulled him around the neighborhood. He couldn’t quite figure out how to hold on yet, so if we started out pulling the sled to hard he just fell backwards and laid still on the ground (he looked a lot like Ralphie’s younger brother in the movie, “The Christmas Story”). But after a while, he was loving it. Later in the day, we took him outside and he watched me throw snowballs at a nearby electricity pole and he would burst out laughing every time I threw one and then turned around to look at him. Here are some pics!

EMERSON’S FIRST CHRISTMAS

Well, it was Emerson’s first Christmas and he pulled in the more gifts than he knows what to do with. Heck, we may even regift some of them and give them to him again at his first birthday! Seriously, he got so many gifts that he had to be put to bed before he even got to open them all. We told our family not to get him any clothes smaller than 18months outfits so he could grow into them and he’s already in 12 month outfits. Well, over the past two days, we’ve put him in some of his new clothes and they fit him like a glove. I never thought I’d have a nine-month old who wore 18-month clothing! Anyways, here are some pics!

SHOP CLASS AS SOULCRAFT

So, my father-in-law gave me perhaps the best (and most meaningful) gift this Christmas. It’s a book entitled Shop Class as Soulcraft written by a former philosophy PhD who is now a motorcycle mechanic (Greg Stoutenburg, this is definitely a book you would love!). One of the primary theses of the book (there are a number of really good points) is that the growth of “knowledge workers” at the expense of “labor workers” in our society has had a negative impact on our society: it has not only let to a shortage of mechanics, electricians, plumbers, etc in our nation, but has further increased our mind-body dualism, caused us to become detached from Nature, and has led us to believe that all physical labor requires little to no mental, ethical, or physical thought. Matthew Crawford not only addresses these issues, but makes many other memorable points. I mention only a couple: (1) Crawford points out that many times in our society we reduce our time to the amount of money we could make during that hour if we were at work. As a result, we reason: Changing my own oil of my car isn’t worth my while because in the amount of time it would take me I could have made $XX.XX. Crawford suggests that such thinking not only dehumanizes us (reducing us to consumers and money makers), but it detaches us from our world and our own things (we have no control over the possessions we own). Furthermore, there is an intrinsic value in learning how to change one’s own oil, learning some electrical, plumbing, or mechanical work that cannot be measured in dollar signs. (2) The caricatures we have made of blue-collar work – as if all such work is as mind-numbing as assembly line work or of the fat plumber with his butt crack hanging out – are poor misrepresentations. In reality, many blue collar workers make more than so-called white collar workers (like the plumber making $60-80/hr), and many white collar or “knowledge” work has now become just as mind-numbing and meaningless as the assembly line work so despised.

AVATAR

For our sixth anniversary (Dec. 27), Amber and I made good use of family members willing to babysit Emerson and went to a movie and dinner (dinner was a bit disappointing. We had planned to do Thai food, but apparently every Thai restaurant in Lafayette was closed for the break, so we had to settle on just going somewhere). So, we went and saw Avatar, which was the first movie we had seen in theaters since last Christmas break (we saw “Slumdog Millionaire” which is amazing) minus the drive in theater movies we’ve gone to this year with Emerson (We saw “UP!,” “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince,” and “Where the Wild Things Are” in the drive-in this year…all of which would have been worthwhile blog posts if I had found the time….).

Hm…So my review of Avatar is somewhat mixed. The special effects and colors are amazing, making one wish there were such a planet known as Pandora (seriously, they are amazing). On the other hand, the plot is entirely predictable, and if you’ve seen the previews you’ve gotten the entire gist of the movie: White man comes to invade the land of the “savages” and kill them (and the forests) in order to get their natural resources; A couple white people defect to the side of the “savages” and help them defeat the White man. In other words, Avatar is basically a sci-fi version of “Dances with Wolves” with a little bit of adult-level “Ferngully” mixed in. That’s the cold hard truth. And yet, amidst this extremely umambiguous plot line (i.e., not realistic), propagation of the “great White hope” viewpoint, and sad historical fact that the “savages” rarely (if ever) are on the winning side, I actually still liked this movie. Perhaps it was because these problematic issues were so glaringly obvious that I liked it, or simply because I empathize with a story that has been played out so many times throughout and continues to be played out and wish that the tide would somehow turn. For instance, the majority of the white people that side with the “savages” are those who have been assigned to appeal to them on a cultural level – learn their language, build them a school, etc – but these individuals’ roles exist solely to force the White man’s will on the minority. After reflecting on this scenario, it dawned on me that much of modern missions has had this kind of role: missionaries come in under the guise of bringing the minority group humanitarian goods but in reality (intentionally or unintentionally) serve to set the stage for the incoming of the Western power and cultural control. The history surrounding the Boxer Rebellion in China is a really good example of this, but many other examples abound (even down to the minute details, such as White missionaries who think Africans need to wear Western clothing before they get “saved.”).

“HOME”

This one will have to just settle as an intriguing thought: At what point, after you have moved away from the city you grew up in do you no longer call it home? In college, I called Lafayette home, which I’m sure is pretty typical. Even when I lived in Indianapolis owned my own home for over three years, I still called Lafayette home. But over the past couple weeks, between driving back and forth between Pittsburgh and Lafayette for Thanksgiving and Christmas, I have noticed myself calling both cities “home.” I think the switch is finally taking place.

BATTLESTAR GALACTICA

Over the course of this semester, Amber and I have been watching through the entire “Battlestar Galactica” TV series on DVD at the behest of a friend, and I have found it quite intriguing (we also watched the short sci-fi TV series “Firefly” which is also quite good). There is much to be said about this series. When they originally aired, they addressed numerous timely (and some, timeless) issues including racism, torture, terrorism, the misuse of technology, ethical issues related to the justice system, and numerous other political issues. What intrigues me most, however, is the explicit discussion of theological topics. Like the Chronicles of Narnia, it seems like when theology is cast in a completely different light—in a fictional setting—people really listen. Battlestar addresses belief in the supernatural, god (and gods), interpretation of scripture, predestination and destiny, and many other theological topics.

YEAR IN REVIEW/MEMORIES OF 2009

So, after counting, I realize this is now my seventh category. … Ah well. I had also hoped to do a “year in review” or at the very least, recount some of the many memories (mostly of Emerson) that occurred over this past year. There are the many other movies I had seen over the year (at home on DVD since I didn’t see them when they came out last year in theaters!) that were profound and worthy of reviews such as “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,” “Doubt,” “Serenity,” “The Changeling,” and “The Lives of Others” (all of which I highly recommend). And then there were the ones that were not worth my time like the 4^th installment of “Indiana Jones” (ridiculous!) and “Twilight” (ugh).

Then, there are the many memories. Emerson’s birth, the day he fell off the bed, the day he first started crawling, the day he conscientiously said “Da-da,” and on and on. And there are the other events – getting rejected from nine PhD programs, and getting accepted into Duquesne (it only takes one!). Receiving my masters degree. My first official Father’s day. Winning an award at a philosophy conference. So many other things could be mentioned, and there’s not enough time to recount them.

So good-bye 2009. Good-bye the 2000s. Wow. I can’t believe its been a decade since Y2K (where were you? I was in Chicago at Navy Pier with a million others).

Baby Its Cold Outside

Ah the semester is finally over--I turned in my papers a couple weeks ago but had to grade some final exams this week which weren't turned in until yesterday morning. It feels good to finally have the stress relieved, which means I actually have time to update my blog. And who knows, there may actually be someone out there who still reads it... And since its snowing like crazy this morning, what better way to spend the time to provide a little update.

Over the past couple weeks, we've been relishing in the Christmas festivities and holiday cheer. We've gone to a number of Christmas parties, had one of our own on the 12th, went to Duquesne's Christmas chorale concert on the 6th (it was ok -- too much Latin music for Amber's taste), and went to the Pittsburgh Symphony Christmas show this past thursday night, which was fantastic. Thankfully, Santa's stage time was kept to a minimum at the symphony (which also included the Mendelssohn choir and some special guests). They sang one of my top five choral pieces, "O Magnum Mysterium," and performed a wide variety of traditionals (portions of the Nutcracker), hymns, and contemporary songs.

As for Emerson, he's keeping us busy, getting his hands into everything and crawling all over the place. Earlier this past week he crawled up our entire flight of steps in less than two minutes (he was pretty proud of himself!). He's taken a liking to a number of activities around the house. Just earlier today, we found him rummaging through Amber's purse and had pulled out a number of items and placed them into his own little pile. Here's a few other things he enjoys:

Going through the tupperware drawer... and licking every single one he pulls out. This is one of his new faves.

Reading, or, er, pulling books off the shelf. Actually he loves to read and even flips to the next page on his own (his books are over to the right and often pulls them all out too). And yes, he did rip that piece of the book out, but alas, I'm not planning on reading Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" anytime soon. "Et tu, Brute?"

Doing the dishes. Ok, so he pulls more dishes out, licks them, and then throws them on the ground more than anything, but he LOVES standing over there so much that we actually wait to do the dishes for when he's really bored and we can't think of anything else to do. He also tries to scamper into the fridge right behind him whenever we open it -- and seriously, that kid can hear the door open from anywhere on the first floor!

And using the restroom. So I wish he was potty trained, but alas, whenever he gets this close to the toilet is usually when one of us is trying to use it (no sense of privacy whatsoever!). It was definitely a shocking moment when I was going the bathroom the other day and suddenly he crawled between my legs and grabbed the toilet seat with both hands!! Actually, I think he likes the bathroom so much because he's come to love bathtime, and he just goes nuts when we turn the water on and take off his clothes. He's also learned that unraveling the toilet paper is quite fun too.

Six Degrees of Separation

The weekend of the 13th-15th, I was at a graduate philosophy conference in Carbondale, IL (Southern Illinois University) presenting a paper at a conference devoted to "building bridges" between Islam and America. My paper was on Al-Farabi's Religious Pluralism as Prolegomena (isn't that a great word?!) for dialogue between Islam and the West. It wasn't my best paper (actually, it was a paper I wrote for a previous class and just happened to be a great fit for the conference), but every chance to present (and have the promise of the proceedings get published) is good for the resume. The skinny of the paper: Al-Farabi, Medieval Islamic philosopher, had a notion of Religious pluralism/inclusivism that viewed religion as a subcategory of philosophical truth (basically "philosophy for the common people") that viewed any religion as true that could trace its concepts back to the Greek philosophy of Plato and Aristotle. We could debate the problems of such a view (both from a Christian or pluralistic perspective), but my whole point in using his work was to point out the limited number of ways it is relevant to current religio-political discussions between Islam and the West--especially for those Westerners who think Islam is one-dimensional, inherently violent, and exclusionary (ahem, Pat Robertson, among millions of others).

Anyways, like I said, it wasn't my best paper, but the chance to get away and hang out with other graduate students was a blast. Actually, in all honesty, in the past I've felt quite like an outsider at these kinds of things. Perhaps, its because I don't have the cool philosophical look and can't speak all the nice philosophical jargon that everyone else speaks. Who knows, but this one is different. You might toss it up to the fact that SIU is in the middle of nowhere (no exaggeration), but their philosophy department had the best cameraderie of any department I've ever been around. They do everything together, even with some of their professors. On Sundays, for instance, they play flag football together, and two of their 50+ year old professors play with them (and I'm told they hit the hardest!). They even arranged for all the presenters to be picked up at the St. Louis airport (two hours away) and stay with fellow grad students.

What made this trip even more exciting were the people I met that, turns out, I had some commonality with. The second person I met upon arriving on campus, for instance, happened to be a graduate from Cedarville (my undergrad). Now, Cedarville is a small school (3000 students) with tiny philosophy program (there are like 4-5 students a year getting their degree in philosophy). So, for us to meet up well, I guess I'd have to call it providential. We never met at Cedarville (we only overlapped for a semester), but we had so many similar stories and experiences, and a similar theological-philosophical viewpoint to reflect back on them, that we wound up chatting for quite a long time.

Then, as it turned out, one of the other presenters was from Purdue University and knew quite well Justin, an old friend of mine who was in my wedding and now doing philosophy at Loyola-Chicago. He told me some stories about the early years at Purdue and the crazy things he and Justin did, and we got to talking about our faith, the difficulties of being a God-follower while being a philosopher, and various theological topics.

Finally, to top it all off, as I was chatting with my host the last evening I was there, I mentioned a previous paper I had presented at West Chester University. His girlfriend looked at me and said, "Wait, you mean just last January? (yeah) We were there too!" Wow. I live in such a very small world. In my previous life, I lived in a very small conservative baptist world largely in the Midwest. The world I now live in is spread across a much larger part of the country, and there are thousands of people doing philosophy in the U.S., but the contingent of the philosophers I am connected to as a Continental philosopher in the Eastern part of the states may only be slightly larger than the world I've come from. So maybe I'm not a tiny fish in a great big sea. I'm just a tiny fish in a very crowded lake full of much larger fish all vying for the same living space (and jobs!).

Weekends of getting away and having new experiences and meeting new people are so enriching and encouraging. And then I got to come back to see my son so ecstatic to see me after being gone for three days, that he refused to take a nap the rest of the day! There is no hierarchy of "good, better, best" to compare these experiences and opportunities. We cannot place a value on these nuggets of eternity we are given--the laughter of a child, a conversation on faith with a new friend, the experience of camaraderie and hospitality from total strangers. These are the experiences that help mold us and shape us, realize what really matters, and remind us that life is a gift to be taken up and embraced every day. These are the opportunities that show us that each day, each encounter with a new person, can literally change the way we see the world. "This is the day the Lord has made. Let us rejoice and be glad in it." What brings you joy? What fills you with life, hope, and appreciation for what you've been given? What helps you remember to make the most of each day?

Emerson's Health Survey

[Ok, so it has been way too long since my last post. It is nearing the end of the semester, and its crunch time to write papers--which isn't easy with an infant in the house!]

So earlier this week, we received a package in the mail addressed to Emerson. We're not exactly sure where it came from, but it included a survey that is supposed to be a "Behavior and Symptom Identification Scale." Now, obviously, whoever sent this thing obviously didn't know that Emerson not only is too young to read a survey, he's can't even cognitively contemplate on this level.

Nevertheless, I had a hilarious time giving him the survey and asking him to answer the questions. He couldn't really check the appropriate boxes [each question had five possible answers, essentially using terms like "none/never," "a little/rarely," "moderate/sometimes," "quite a bit/most/often," "all/extreme/always"], so I had to settle for his nonverbal communication. Here are some of the results:

During the past week, how much difficulty did you have...[#2] Coping with problems in your life?

... [#3] Concentrating?

During the past week, how much of the time did you...[#5] Get along with people outside your family?

... [#6] Get along well in social situations?

During the past week, how much of the time did you... [#9] Feel confident in yourself?

... [#10] Feel sad or depressed?

During the past week, how often did you... [#14] Think you had special powers?

... [#16] Think people were watching you?

...[#18] Have mood swings?

... [#19] Feel short tempered?

During the past week how often did you ... [#21] Have an urge to drink alcohol or take street drugs?

... [#23] Try to hid your drinking or drug use?

A Conservative Bible?

This is just unreal. Perhaps you've already heard about this as its been recently highlighted by Steven Colbert and dozens of other media outlets, but the people of Conservapedia have committed to create a new, conservative translation of the Bible, that eradicates all the so-called liberal "translation bias" that exists in every existing English translation. Talk about "remaking Jesus in their own image." Rob Dreher at beliefnet.com depicts it best: "It's like what you'd get if you crossed the Jesus Seminar with the College Republican chapter at a rural institution of Bible learnin'."

The absurdity of this project is unimaginable, and the flaws in their logic, mindboggling. They seek a new translation that is without bias, as if they have no bias of their own. They seek to create a translation that avoids the "wordiness" and "ambiguities" of liberals (such as those updating the NIV) but is also not written at a dumbed down reading level (such as the NIV. How are they going to do that without using big words?). They seek to obtain an accurate translation of Scripture by resorting back to the KJV rather than original texts (and if you read any of what has already been translated, it basically reads like the NIV which they abhor), making it a translation of a(n) (outdated) translation. They state that one of the benefits of this project is that it will force the liberals who criticize them to read the Bible (but if they're the ones translating the NIV, wouldn't that mean they have not only read it, but quite closely?).

They claim terms such as "laborer" and "comrade" in the Bible are signs of socialism--but this political view didn't exist in the time the KJV was written--and propose substituting contemporary conservative terms instead, as if the authors of the Bible had 21st century America in mind when they were writing. They want to highlight the "numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning" (as if parables are meant to be literally interpreted...). And worst of all, they suggest excluding certain passages such as John 8:1-11 and Luke 23:34 because they are supposedly "later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic" (as if those who purportedly inserted these texts in the 2nd and 3rd centuries were left-wing radicals!). How is arbitrarily deleting passages considered conservative?

Really, I'm quite dumbfounded. When one is so right-wing leaning that even the Bible is now deemed "liberal" (whatever that means), something is definitely wrong. But this is a good reminder for all of us, no matter the lens we use to read Scripture (which we can never fully remove), that Ernesto Tinajero from Sojourners points out: "if you read the Bible and it does not challenge you, then you are reading yourself and not the Bible." If the Bible is not provocative, if it does not force us to rethink the way we live our lives and view the world, than we are not really reading it.

The Shack and Universalism (Part 2), [or why Brock could never get a job at a Baptist church]

In my previous post, I critiqued some of the arguments made to show that The Shack presents universalism. If it is not universalism, what position then, does it offer? [If this explanation is too long, sorry. I had material for more than double what I've placed here!]

Allow me to begin with an excerpt from The Shack:

“Who said anything about being a Christian? I’m not a Christian… Those who love me come from every system that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims, Democrats, Republicans and many who don’t vote or are not part of any Sunday morning or religious institutions. I have followers who were murderers and many who were self-righteous. Some are bankers and bookies, Americans and Iraqis, Jews and Palestinians. I have no desire to make them Christian, but I do want to join them in their transformation into sons and daughters of my Papa, into my brothers and sisters, into my Beloved” (182).

There are at least three ways this passage can be read, but for the sake of the attention of my readers, I will focus on one: There are religiously practicing Buddhists, Mormons, Muslims, and even non-religious folk who are just as much followers of Jesus as Christians. Or we might say, some practitioners of other religious groups look a whole lot more like Jesus and live a life of agape love far better than some life-long members of Christianity.

On this reading, let’s pose the question: “Can a Buddhist/Mormon/Muslim go to heaven?” Well, for starters, since Buddhism can be conceived as a way of informing one’s life to connect with ultimate reality, rather than the worship of a particular deity, it’s certainly possible that one could engage in some of the life practices of Buddhism while maintain faith in Jesus Christ. As for Mormonism and Islam, if one views these religions as heresies of Christianity rather than entirely different religions, it’s possible to conceive there are some within these ranks that have managed to connect with the real Jesus. Indeed, there is testimony of Muslims, based solely on reading the excerpts about Jesus in the Koran who have believed in Jesus, and “if anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him” (1 Jn. 4:15).

But this answer only speaks to the possibility of people with other religious labels to also be connected with the real Jesus through some level of [untraditional] connection to the historical Jesus. But is it possible to be rightly related to God without having knowledge of the historical Jesus? This is the question posed by Christian Inclusivism (CI), a position held in some way or another by Justin Martyr, Origen, Karl Rahner, C.S. Lewis, Brian McLaren, Tony Campolo, Dallas Willard, and even Billy Graham in recent days. CI preaches the orthodox message of the Good News of Jesus, but leaves open God’s grace and mercy to extend beyond the walls of Christianity. To state it otherwise, CI teaches that Christ is “the way” (Jn. 14:6), but he may even be “the way” for people who have never heard of Jesus or been exposed to Christianity.

Let me backtrack to help make this clearer. Some Christians hold that knowledge of the historical person, known as Jesus of Nazareth, who died and rose again as a 1st century Jew is necessary for salvation. This view holds that there is some salvific power in the name spelled “J-E-S-U-S” and knowledge of the historical person who bore that name is necessary. But if knowledge of the historical Jesus is absolutely necessary, then Abraham, Moses, David, Elijah, and every Old Testament saint do not qualify. Sure, the OT figures placed faith by looking forward to a future hope of a promised Messiah (as described in Gen 3:15; 12:3; 2 Sam. 7), but what they envisioned hardly amounts to Paul’s summary of the gospel message (1 Cor 15:3-4).

In other words, even the most fundamentalist, exclusivist Christians hold to some level of inclusivism. They must hold to some view of God’s mercy that extends beyond knowledge of the death and resurrection of Christ if OT figures are to be saved—as well as infants who die or the mentally incapable, a position held by many Christians.

In his latest book, Knowing Christ Today, Dallas Willard points out that belief in the “historical” Jesus was not even what his closest disciples needed to believe in. In John 14, “his closest disciples still did not know him (14:7-9), though they knew Jesus of Nazareth. It was not the historical Jesus that Philip did not know (v. 9). Who he was clearly amounted to much more than a carpenter of Nazareth… He was and is the eternal Word” (185). Thus, Willard distinguishes between the historical Christ and the “Cosmic Christ,” the eternal God and Savior.

Let’s put this conclusion into a question: Is it possible to be connected to Jesus, the Logos who was at the beginning with God (Jn. 1:1) without having knowledge of the historical Jesus? To this question, scholars throughout church history have answered, “Yes.” Justin Martyr, one of the first Christian theologians, suggested Plato, Socrates, and the Greek philosophers were Christians without realizing it by their commitment to the Logos (Reason) and their love for Wisdom/Truth.

Romans 2:14-16 suggests there will be Gentiles who stand before God on the day of judgment whose consciences will defend them even though they “do not have the law.” These individuals will be saved on account of God’s promise that “To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life” (2:7). Those who seek the Good (God) through faith will find him (cf. Heb. 11:6), even if this search amounts to an extremely limited blind groping for an “unknown God” (Acts 17: 27, cf. v. 23). God has “overlooked” ignorant and imperfect worship of him in times past (Acts 17:30) and pursues and finds even those who were not looking for him (Rom. 10:20; Isa. 65:1)! Indeed, he accepts imperfect worship from all of us!

What would be the content of such a person’s faith if they had never heard of the man known as Jesus of Nazareth? Paul’s message in Acts 17 provides clues where he neither mentions Jesus’ name nor even alludes to any atonement theory (instead, he quotes from two sources of pagan literature!). We get the most cryptic allusion to Jesus, namely that God is going to judge the world via a “man” he has raised from the dead. This was the content of those who believed Paul’s message. Sure, Paul would have encouraged the believers to increase their level of knowledge about God; but if such scant information is all that is necessary to “reach out for [God] and find him” (v. 27), clearly we can posit the possibility of people who have never heard of Jesus, contemplating a belief in a Supreme Judge, being convicted of a need to be put in right relationship with him, and concluding that God somehow has taken care of it.

Keeping the Acts 17 account in our minds, we might look at this issue from a literary perspective. Jesus, as a redemptive image, is an archetype and parallels of his story and message can be seen both in the Old Testament and in the surrounding religious and mythical stories of his time. In the Old Testament, the redemptive acts in the stories of Joseph, Moses, Joshua (which is the Hebrew name for the Greek, Iesou, or Jesus), and David all foreshadow Jesus as Messianic figures). And Rob Bell notes, (in his Nooma video entitled “You”) that at the time of the 1st century, one of the most popular gods of the Roman Empire was Mithra, a god believed to be born of a virgin, was a mediator between God and man, and had ascended to heaven. And Caesar Augustus believed himself to be the son of God, sent down from heaven to inaugurate an unprecedented reign of peace (in fact the disciples, in Acts 4:12, borrow from Augustus’ most famous catch phrase, “there is no other name under heaven by which men are saved but Caesar”). Many similar parallels have been made between Jesus and gods from other religious traditions, such as the ancient Egyptian sun-god, Horus.

So if Jesus is the ultimate redemptive archetype that all of these messianic stories point to, if all of these other redemptive stories ultimately culminate and are fulfilled in Jesus, what is to prevent one from becoming rightly related to God through other “redemptive analogies” (to quote Don Richardson from the “Peace Child”)? Consider this: what if there exists a person who has read The Chronicles of Narnia but has never read the Bible (which is quite possible), who believes in Aslan, hoping his message is true, and whose life is changed by the truths of Narnia? Are they in right relation to God? Lewis himself suggests something similar at the end of The Last Battle when Emeth, a Calormene and follower of Tash winds up in “heaven” standing before Aslan, the real God he took for a myth. When Emeth sees Aslan, he recognizes him as the “Glorious One” and despairs that he had worshiped in ignorance all of his life. But Aslan explains to Emeth, who was a sincere seeker of the truth, that all the good deeds he did in the name of Tash (who does not really exist) must have been for Aslan, the author of all things good.

This scene raises the question, going back to Romans 2:7, what would it look like for someone without knowledge of Christ to persist in doing good and seek glory, etc? Certainly it would involve more than what it means to “be a good person” in our common understanding today, and it would have to involve faith over some belief that I can attain God’s pleasure through my own deeds alone. In this vein, Dallas Willard (180) recalls 1 John 4:7 - “Everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.” In other words, it is impossible to practice agape love without real connection with God. James reminds us, “Every good and perfect good is from above, coming down from the Father” (James 1:17). We might translate, all the goodness we see in the world, even the good actions of people, is evidence of God’s goodness in the world.

Who then determines if one passes such a test? I’m not running for that position and choose to leave it up to God. But CI leaves the door open for God’s mercy to extend as far as possible while providing an adequate interpretation of New Testament faith.

The Shack and Universalism (Part 1)

So it has been a while since my previous post, and I was right in the throes of discussion issues related to the book, The Shack by William P. Young when the full force of this semester's obligations took over! So this post will involve another afterwards, but hopefully less time will commence between the two.

In my previous post, I highlighted a number of criticisms that have been leveled against William P. Young’s book, The Shack. In this post, I hope to address one of them, namely the issue of universal salvation that some say the book teaches.

Now, among the criticisms leveled against The Shack on this front, there are really two questions going on here: (1) Is William Young a universalist? And, (2) Does The Shack teach universalism? The answer to (1), according to theologian James B. DeYoung, who is also a friend of William Young, the answer is yes, citing Young “has affirmed his hope that all will be reconciled to God.” Young’s position is that God's primary characteristic of love will ultimately win out in bringing all people to salvation (a similar view can be seen in Philip Gulley’s If Grace is True). DeYoung then suggests that Young’s views are also the position of the Unitarian-Universalist Church (UUC). [you can find a link to DeYoung's pdf article under “Journal Review” here.]

Personally, I don’t know William Young, so I cannot answer (1), but I am interested in (2). While others who point out Young’s so-called universalism merely criticize him for saying that Jesus is merely the “best” way to relate to God rather than the “only” way (109), DeYoung highlights ten ways The Shack endorses universalist views, even though the editors of the book worked hard to erase such claims. I summarize them here:

1) God is primarily a God of love (The universalist creed of 1899 states, “there is one God whose nature is love”).
2) There is no eternal punishment for sin (The 1899 creed states God “will finally restore the whole family of mankind”).
3) Young does not mention Satan, nor the “enormity of sin.”
4) God’s justice is subjugated to his love.
5) Young’s wrong view of the Trinity, that the Father also suffered, which leads to modalism; and making God into a goddess.
6) Reconciliation is effective for all without needing faith as Papa has reconciled himself to the whole world (p. 192), not just those who believe.
7) No future judgment.
8) All are equally children of God and loved by him (155-156).
9) The institutional church is rejected.
10) The Bible is minimized.

In response, I would contest that none of these things implicate The Shack as a book on universalism or necessarily represent the position of the UUC. First, Young cannot be a Unitarian-Universalist, as the UUC ascribes to no creed and represents an incredibly diverse number of congregations. UUC’s commitment to Christian teachings is basically limited to the Bible’s command to love our neighbor as ourselves. In other words, for the UUC, Jesus is simply a good example to follow to bring about social justice in the world. But in stark contrast, Jesus plays an incredibly central role throughout The Shack. Papa says, “Mackenzie, the Truth shall set you free and the Truth has a name; he’s over in the woodshop right now covered in sawdust” (95). And then later on, “Like I said, everything is about him. Creation and history are all about Jesus. He is the very center of our purpose and in him we are now fully human, so our purpose and your destiny are forever linked… There is no plan B” (192). Indeed, this point rebuts the critique that Young falls short by calling Jesus merely the “best” way to relate to God as well. In fact, at one point, Mack calls Jesus “the way in” (177).

Second, to say that Young affirms a “hope that all will be reconciled” seems to be no different than saying God is patient, “not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance” (2 Pet 3:9). If God hopes for reconciliation is he a universalist too?

As for #1-10, I’m not sure what 5, 9, and 10 have to do with universalism, and I already addressed them in my previous post. #1 and 4 would implicate the Apostle John who wrote repeatedly that “God is love” (aren’t you glad God showed mercy and love to you instead of justice?). #8 would implicate the Apostle Paul who proclaimed to the pagans in Athens, “We are God’s offspring” (Acts 17:29). #6 takes Papa’s statement out of context, as the passage clearly states that “reconciliation is a two way street” (192). #3 can be attributed to The Shack’s neoplatonic view of evil, namely that evil is a privation (e.g., dark is the absence of light) and not really a thing/being (136). This may not bode well with current views of Evangelical thought, but it was widely held by Christians thinkers for a thousand years. This leaves us with #s 2 & 7, which address punishment/judgment. I stated in my previous post that Young has a minimalist position on God’s punishment; however, and yet the absence of explicit affirmative statements about punishment does not mean Young denies it (i.e., arguments from silence are not that powerful). Indeed, at least implicitly, two comments by God in The Shack suggest the possibility of eternal separation. To Mack’s question, “Will all roads lead to you?” Jesus replies, “Not at all. Most roads don’t lead anywhere.” And Papa says later, “It is not the nature of love to force a relationship but it is the nature of love to open the way” (192). In other words, God does not force a relationship where one does not desire it. To those who desire independence from God, life in heaven would be a greater torment than hell--those who are in hell desire to be there (a position C.S. Lewis posits in The Great Divorce and elsewhere).

Well then, if The Shack does not prevent universalism, what is it that it teaches? I will address this in my next post!

The Shack and Its Critics: A Review

I finally got around to reading The Shack. OK, I actually listened to this book on MP3, and then got the book afterward to look more closely at the ideas that most struck me. There's a lot I could say about this book and the many reviews it for quite a long time. So, let me get to the point.

First Impressions: The book is quite slow at the beginning with an added dose of cheesiness. In the first couple chapters, the writing is awkward, and sometimes so detailed the reader feels like he is reading a to-do list. To add to that, the book runs back and forth between theology and fiction, which not only makes it hard to pin down what the author wants you to believe theologically, but makes for too much dialogue and not enough story. In other words, if one wants to hear a provocative sermon, read this book; if one wants a really good novel, look elsewhere.

The Shack is littered with theological topics, far more than I can cover here. Young covers a lot of ground in these few pages. One could probably do hours of reflection on some of the chapters in this book.

Of course, it is regarding many of these topics Young has received extensive criticism. To a degree, I think Young can write some of his critics off simply because it is, indeed, a work of fiction (would these same critics read a book, like, C.S. Lewis's The Great Divorce and believe every statement in that work represents Lewis's own views?); on the other hand, the majority of the theological statements made in the book come out of God's anthropomorphic mouth, an inherent “Thus saith the Lord” if there ever was one.

Some of the criticisms are just way over the top. Critics say Young rejects sola scriptura, because Mack (the main character) gets his theology from extrabiblical sources. But this is like saying the 12 disciples rejected sola scriptura because they spent time with Jesus in the upper room instead of reading their Hebrew scrolls (calling God an “extrabiblical source is a little wrongheaded). The word (logos)--the Bible--is intended to point one's attention to the Word, Jesus (called Logos in John 1:1ff).

Others say he has broken the first commandment by making a graven image out of God and that the three members of the Trinity have never appeared in the flesh, that only Jesus comes in the flesh. But to say that The Shack creates a graven image is to miss the entire point Young is making, that God is not who we think he is, that he does not fit into the stereotypes and graven images we have made of him in our minds (doesn’t the Passion of the Christ or any Easter Passion play create a graven image too?). And thinkers as far back as first century Jewish philosopher, Philo, believed the appearance of Abraham's three visitors was a tri-fold appearance of God (cf. Gen 18). And there are a number of other Divine appearances in the Old Testament (e.g., the Angel of the Lord) that are difficult to explain on this point. Others say that the appearance of God in three physical figures promotes modalism, the view that God is revealed through different modes throughout time. Uh, hello? It can't be modalism if the three persons of the Godhead are all revealed differently at the SAME time.

Closely related, critics say the book promotes goddess worship because the Father is portrayed as a black woman named, Papa (God appears as a man later on), citing that the Bible does not speak of the God in feminine terms. But this again, is simply inaccurate. First of all, Papa states emphatically that God is "neither male nor female" (if God were predominately male, how could God have created both male and female in his image!?). Besides, God doesn’t have body parts (and personally, an omnipresent penis weirds me out), so any physical appearance of God in the flesh should not be taken as corroborative of God's essence. And second, the Bible uses feminine terminology to describe God and his characteristics on a number of occasions (Prv. 1:20; 3:13ff; Matt. 23:37; Luke 15:8-10). That the Spirit is called a "comforter" connotes, generally understood, a feminine characteristic. In fact, one of the most used names for God in the Old Testament, El Shaddai, is a female name. "Shad" comes from the Hebrew word for "breast," and sometimes "womb," and thus symbolizes God's characteristics of fertility/blessing (cf. Gen. 17:2, 28:3; 35:11, 49:25), comfort, nurture, satisfaction, care, etc. Unfortunately the term is mistranslated as "Almighty" (El means "might" and the translators of the Septuagint thought Shaddai came from a different root which meant "to overpower"). So, for those committed to a literal, word-for-word translation of Scripture, more accurately, Psalm 91:1 should say, "He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High will rest in the shadow of the Mighty Boobs."

Critics also say Young denies the authorial hierarchy laden within the Godhead, citing that his “egalitarian view of God” does not accord with the Scriptural commands of submission and obedience. This criticism cites a statement coming from Jesus in the book: “Mackenzie, we have no concept of final authority among us, only unity. We are in a circle of relationship, not a chain of command… We don’t need power over the other because we are always looking out for the best. Hierarchy would make no sense among us” (122). First, this criticism involves a false assumption that hierarchy is necessary for submission and obedience. But it isn’t. Young even alludes to Jesus’ submission to the Father when he speaks of his dependence on God while on earth, citing that Jesus’ miracles were performed “as a dependent, limited human being trusting in my life and power” (100). Second, the criticism ignores the fact that Scripture calls for mutual submission between one another (Eph 6:21). Indeed, this mutual submission is exactly what Young is depicting in the Godhead, who are always in humble service to one another, giving themselves over to each other. This picture highlights a powerful theological concept about God, known as perichoresis, which was held by many early Church Fathers (John of Damascus and Gregory of Nazianzus) and has been highlighted in contemporary theology by Jurgen Moltmann and Miroslav Volf. Third, this criticism misses out on the value of what Young has to say about hierarchy and power. One need only study church history to see how damaging the emphasis on hierarchy has been. God establishes hierarchies, and they necessarily exist to instill order and accountability where chaos has been made through sin—and checks and balances have been established to keep those in authority accountable too. But the Scriptural commands of hierarchy/submission have a hint of cultural context that need to be called into question (e.g., Master-Slave). And in a relationship of perfect love, it hardly makes sense that order and accountability needs restoration.

Now, I do find some of his views suspect. That God the Father bears the nail holes from the cross in his hands seems odd if they truly are distinct persons (it was also a view rejected by the early church). But this idea can easily be discarded without distracting us from the wholly provocative notion Young posits that when Jesus cried "My God, why have you forsaken me," he was only speaking from his human, emotional reality and not ontologically. Just as God never left or forsook David (when he cried the same words), and promises to never leave or forsake us, so too did he not turn his back on his only begotten Son in his darkest hour.

And his notion that God does not judge because "sin is its own punishment" also falls short. That sin is its own punishment, I totally agree with—sin automatically separates us from God, which is the worst punishment of all. But Mack need only look at his own life as a Father to recognize that part of the role of a parent is to use correction and punishment as a form of guidance. As a parent, to not judge at all would be an even worse punishment (have you ever seen unruly kids in the grocery store who are the result of totally lax parents?)! But again, think about the context. Mack's ultimate problem, as for many people today, is that he thinks that God is evil, that he is the ultimate perpetrator of all the bad things that have happened in his life. Young opts for a view that God limits himself (cf. Phil. 2 - "he emptied himself”), to make space for human freedom. Some make the charge that this is Open Theism (as if Open Theism were a heresy too...). But this need not mean that God lacks knowledge or is not sovereign (actually, I felt like the book emphasized God's expansive knowledge). It simply stands as an alternative (one can find throughout church history) to the determinism that exists in some forms of Calvinism, particularly those who follow Jonathan Edwards, whose view of God's sovereignty cannot deny God as the author of evil (at the very least, as a secondary cause). Frankly, I'd take Young's theodicy over John Piper's, who feels he has the capacity to determine how God orchestrates tornadoes and bridge collapses to divinely punish people, any day.

Proverbs says that friends sharpen one another as "iron sharpens iron." We only grow, we only decide more concretely what we ourselves believe, when we encounter opposing views. That is the beauty of this book—even if you disagree with it—as it puts a new light on topics that we have glossed over so many times that they have lost their meaning. Furthermore, some of the critics seem to think that any theological position different from theirs is worthy of the title, "heresy" when in fact, the majority of Young’s positions are simply historically Christian positions not held by the person criticizing the book! These critics seem to think that all those who have read The Shack and have said it has changed their lives have been deluded and duped into believing every word Young has said and criticize such readers for not being more careful in their reading. But this assumes that one must agree with every jot and tittle of a book to be provoked and encouraged by it. I have been compelled by many books from authors who hold very different theological viewpoints than myself—Jews, atheists, Catholics, Muslims, humanists, Arminians, Calvinists, Open Theists, charismatics, cessationists, the list could go on and on. One can disagree with a host of details in the book and still walk away challenged in their walk with God.

Now I have refrained from commenting on a whole host of issues. There is so much more that could be said but this post is already way too long for most people to read it. But there is one topic that has probably been at the top of the criticisms that I will address in an entirely separate post, namely Young’s position on salvation and whether The Shack promotes universalism.

The Un-Pacifier

So Amber is working tonight, which means I have to figure out how to get Emerson to bed. Since, I don't have the almighty ta-tas, typically when I'm home with him during the day, I feed him and then take him out on a walk and he falls asleep for his mid-day nap. But I'd rather him sleep in his bed rather than his stroller at night...

At 7pm, he started fussing, which I wondered if it were a sign of being hungry more than tired since he usually goes to bed at 8. So I putg him in his highchair (which he really fought) to feed him some yams/carrots homemade baby food. Either he wasn't interested or was just way too tired, because instead of eating the food, as he normally does, he starting "talking" (quite loudly too) and made these weazing noises that he has recently started doing. There's Emerson talking with food in his mouth, yams dribbling out of the corner. I think he thought this was funny.

Since that didn't work, I gave him a bottle with a of milk and took him upstairs. I walked him around as he ate, and he seemed to be settling in. And then I ran out of milk and he wasn't very happy. I didn't want to give him more milk, for fear that I'd give him a bellyache, and gave him a "Nuk" pacifier to see if he would take that and go to bed. And to my surprise, he actually did take it and start settling down. So I laid down next to him in our guest bed, hoping for the best. He then started playing with the pacifier, which he often does, as he sometimes puts the hard side part in his mouth instead, apparently because its more soothing on his teething gums. So, I started singing to him to get him from "playing with the pacifier" mode to sleep mode. He, indeed, was calming down again, and then suddenly he began screaming. I reached my hand over to the front of his face (it was dark and he was facing away from me) to discover that somehow he had managed to turn the pacifier around, put the handle in his mouth, and get it stuck sideways between his tongue and the roof of his mouth (ouch!). A teething child hurts his mouth. Now that's a double wammy.

So I immediately tried to come up with ways to calm him. I gave him some teething tablets and a touch of baby tylenol and that didn't really help. So I gave him a different kind of pacifier that we got from the hospital when he was born. Emerson has traditionally favored the "soothie" over the other pacifiers (when he takes them, which is rare these days anyway), so I thought it would calm him down. To add to the pacifier, I took him out on the front porch, which usually distracts him from whatever he's upset about. Apparently, the soothie wasn't soothing enough, as he kept pushing on it with his hand and moving it around. Again, he's often chewed on the side of this pacifer too and played with it (I sometimes wonder if he thinks its just like any other toy). But this time, he managed to get the entire thing into his mouth! Honestly, I still can't believe he did that because it makes me gag just to put the whole thing in my mouth (yes, I actually tried). I pulled it out immediately, and alas, had to opt for a different soothing technique.

I took him on a walk. Didn't work. He was just past the point of needing to go to bed that he started crying and trying to turn circles in his stroller. Finally, I gave him a bottle, and he calmed down, almost went to sleep instantly. When the bottle ran out, and he still wasn't asleep, I put him on my shoulder and he fell asleep (which doesn't happen very often). But then when I tried to lay him down in his crip a few minutes later he woke up and started crying again (ugh). I picked him up, and he burped really loud (nice). Back to the bottle again. Finally, after six ounces of milk (he usually only drinks 4 at a time) and nearly two hours later, he was asleep. Maybe I can start on some of my homework now...