Urbana 2012 Streaming Live! And recorded for later viewing.

This conference only happens once every three years.  This year there are over 16,000 college students and missionaries from around the world in attendance.  Urbana 2012, Intervarsity Christian Fellowship's world missions conference, can be seen streaming live @ https://urbana.org/live.  Also,the videos from earlier in the conference can be found below the "live" monitor.

These are great videos to watch if you're curious about Christian service in the world.

Please Rate Your Satisfaction.

Consumers rate third-party retailers on Amazon based on shipping speed and product quality.  Outdoor enthusiasts rate the weight and adjustability of the latest trekking poles.  Coffee addicts rate the latest local roast, the newest espresso machine and their favorite drug dealer.

People today--in this tech-savvy, consumer oriented postmodern world--want something that works.  We want the best product, and rightly so.  Who can blame their neighbor, who is about to backpack the alps, for checking the reviews on trekking poles?  Seems like wisdom to me.  And why not with their choice of World-View?  Don't people want the view of the world that will provide the greatest satisfaction and contentment with life?  Amazon asks, "Were you satisfied with your product?"  and the evangelist asks, "Are you satisfied with your worldview?"

I bought a Contigo coffee mug at Costco recently.  It doesn't leak, it keeps my coffee toasty hot, and it doesn't affect the flavor of my favorite roast.  You should buy one.


We, as humans, naturally tell people about the things we're satisfied with.  We want to share our blessings.  That's why I write this blog.  I'm trying--like I did with the Contigo mug just now--to tell people about the best view of the world, the best, most beautifully satisfying, life.  My primary purpose on this planet is to love its inhabitants in the best possible way and to seek justice for the oppressed.  God is most revealed and honored in my life when I am most satisfied in who He is, and in who he's created me to be.  I have no regrets.  At all.

And you?  Can you rate your view of the world on a 1-10 scale?  Are you content?  Would you recommend your worldview to your friends because of how unceasingly satisfied you are with your life?  If not, why not do some research?  We do it with running shoes, why not with that which decides our internal--and external--peace?

Think about it.

Is the New Testament historically reliable?

With all of the ideas floating around in Newsweek articles, Times Square Billboards, and conspiracy books under the guise of historical scholarship, people are confused about the identity of Jesus and the historical accuracy of the New Testament.  This is an interview with Craig Evans, one of the foremost New Testament scholars in the academic world, who's ideas influence the both the secular and confessional.  He comes to clear away the sludge.

pondering evil

In 1999 guns were just as accessible as they are now. In the last thirteen years there have been 31 school shootings. There were no school massacres before that.

Why?
I don’t know why.
Gun laws have actually tightened up in that thirteen years.

I suppose it's because there are more broken, forgotten people with no sense of community or family. More people for whom Christmas means a time of remembered hurt and abuse, effected by those closest to them. More people who, due to the current lack of any viable ethic, wonder why they shouldn't kill, if they're going to commit suicide anyway.

At least that way, if they massacre a bunch of children, somebody will notice them; just this once, they will be remembered.  People who kill are often people in pain.  Children are just collections of slimy cells and synapses and chemical responses to environments.  Right?  That's what we learn in BIO101.

What do you think?  Is it the guns?  Is it the breakdown of community?  Is it the lack of real communal communication due to the rapid rise of texting, emailing, facebooking?  It must be something.  There have been 31 school shootings in thirteen years, and before that there weren't any.  Why?

C.S. Lewis on The Problem of Pain

C.S. Lewis in The Problem of Pain:

“...Plato rightly taught that virtue is one. You cannot be kind unless you have all the other virtues. If, being cowardly, conceited, and slothful, you have never yet done a fellow creature great mischief, that is only because your neighbour's welfare has not yet happened to conflict with your safety, self-approval, or ease. Every vice leads to cruelty.”


“The human spirit will not even begin to try to surrender self-will as long as all seems to be well with it. Now error and sin both have this property, that the deeper they are the less their victim suspects their existence; they are masked evil. Pain is unmasked, unmistakable evil; every man knows that something is wrong when he is being hurt.”


“We can ignore even pleasure. But pain insists upon being attended to. God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pains: it is his megaphone to rouse a deaf world.”


“A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word 'darkness' on the walls of his cell.”

A brief response to Bart Ehrman's Newsweek article: "What do we know about Jesus?"

The cover story of a recent Newsweek, which can be found here, is titled thus: "Who was Jesus?"

The author of the article, Dr. Bart Ehrman, is a professor of New Testament Studies at UNC Chapel Hill.  For those who take Christianity seriously he's a proverbial button pusher.  Below is the final paragraph of his article, as well as my response to it.

"These are books that [are] meant to declare religious truths, not historical facts. For believers who think that truth must, necessarily, be based on history, that probably will not be good news at all. But for those with a broader vision, a more generous appreciation of 
literature, and a fuller sense of theological meaning, the story of the Christ-child and his appearance in the world can be founded not on what really did happen..."


If the events did not happen in real history (granted, precise dates aren't incredibly important), then there is no Christian theology.  The study of the Christian God is centered around God being born a man, living a man, dying a man, and rising again a man.  A real one, in history.  If those events did not take place then there is no real Christianity.  Without the reality of the crucifix and the empty grave, there is nothing to celebrate.  Death is not defeated.  Evil wins.

When you die you stay dead.

Sure, as Ehrman points out the birth narratives may be off by a bit as they concern dates and the number of wise men, etc., but if somebody loses their faith because there were 19 wise men and not three, then they probably didn't have much stock in their beliefs to begin with.  But if Jesus was not born and did not live and did not die and rise, then we've got nothing to hope in.

Dust to dust.  Good game.

One final thought:  There are many explanations to the problems raised by Ehrman, and many, many scholars (believing and non-believing) who straightforwardly disagree with his findings.

"But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised.For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied." (1 Corinthians 15:13-19, ESV)

Why did Jesus live?

Before you begin reading, consider this: Without reading the whole of the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), there is no way to really get a feel for who Jesus was, what he taught and believed, and who he is. The following is my attempt at re-telling a story that has already been told many, many times. Maybe, then, this writing is just for me; maybe it’s just for my own development. Proceed with caution.  If you've already read the four part series, which I wrote last month, then scroll down until you see the picture of a sheep; that's where today's content begins.  If you haven't, start from the beginning.

Several days ago I wrote a post on ignorance in Eden. You can read it here. I recommend it, if only for the sake of your understanding where I'm going with the following paragraphs. It's short.

This is how the post ends:

"The leaves of the Tree of Life, from which we were once banished, are now for the healing of the nations. The first exile was from Eden, from that place of no dichotomy [between good and evil], to a place of dichotomy. If 'place' is confusing, think of it as a state of being. We are exiled out of the intended state of being -- that of no moral distinction between any word or deed -- and into a place running rampant with gross manifestations of evil, full of dichotomies.

One who walks in the power and knowledge of Jesus the Messiah is brought out of that exile. There's a new Exodus, and it's happening right now. I suggest you get your staff and satchel and join us, we're learning to bear the light of love and justice on this strange and dangerous planet."

This place of no moral distinction, now and still to come, is the gift of all Christians. Let me explain...

Click to read more »

NT Wright. Is His God...Right?

Over at Calvin College NT Wright gave a lecture this past January. If you have an hour, Wright offers a wonderful re-telling of the Gospel.  If you've been curious about what Christianity is, from an insider's perspective, or if you're wondering what N.T. Wright has to say, this is worth the time.  If nothing else, begin at the 35 minute-mark and watch for a few.  Or, to get his conclusion, hit the 56 minute-mark through the end.

1 of the amazing things Saint Augustine said.

“Late have I loved you, beauty so old and so new: late have I loved you. And see, you were within and I was in the external world and sought you there, and in my unlovely state I plunged into those lovely created things which you made. You were with me, and I was not with you. The lovely things kept me far from you, though if they did not have their existence in you, they had no existence at all. You called and cried out loud and shattered my deafness. You were radiant and resplendent, you put to flight my blindness. You were fragrant, and I drew in my breath and now pant after you. I tasted you, and I feel but hunger and thirst for you. You touched me, and I am set on fire to attain the peace which is yours.”
― Saint Augustine of Hippo, Confessions

what does thanksgiving mean?

Thanksgiving.

Giving thanks.

To who?  What is gratitude if simply sent into the air with no recipient?  Why should I be thankful if I fully believe that everything that has happened to me was either by chance or a product of my own diligence? Am I thanking myself?  Imagine this same scenario but with another concept.  Like love.

I could say, "I am a really loving person."  But, problematically, this isn't true if I am not loving anything.  I could claim to be the most compassionate soul on this desolate planet, but if all I did was sit at home and play Call of Duty, you'd surely call me a liar.

Click to read more »

some interesting quotes about Jesus.

I wanted to do something a little different and share these quotes that I've stumbled upon.  Enjoy.  Oh, and these in no way express my own views, except some of them--

"Being noticed can be a burden. Jesus got himself crucified because he got himself noticed. So I disappear a lot."

-Bob Dylan 

Click to read more »

Video on knowing God and Christian meditation

Trying out a videoblog!  

Obama and Romney will die, just like the rest of us.

The last traces of fall are slipping away; the leaves have done most of their falling and the orange and yellow glows are greying, preparing our eyes for the white winter.  Okay, enough of the sappy intro.

Lately I've been reading J.I. Packer's Knowing God, and page after page I'm humbled.  Not by Packer, per se, but by the recognition of my own "knowing" of God.  I've long prided myself on knowledge; if you know me, you know this.  I have lots of big, classy looking books; blue and red cloth hardcovers with golden gilt lettering.  Many of these books have tons of incredible information about the world and philosophy and God and language.  My primary interest in all of this is centered around knowing about God.

And that seems noble.

The problem, though, is that key word "about."

Click to read more »

Plato, The Good, And The God.

Deep within the first utopia, Plato's dialogue known in english as The Republic, lies the renowned "allegory of the cave."  In brief, the allegory goes like this:  There are prisoners chained to chairs with their necks and bodies fettered forward, so as to disallow any turning of their vision away from the end wall of the cave they're in.  Far above and behind them is a fire casting shadows on the wall before them--but, of course, they don't know the reality of anything behind them.  Between them and the fire is a raised road with a high wall, which is blocking the shadows of people who pass on the road.  The people are carrying constructed objects--like cardboard cutouts of sheep and boxes and children--putting them above the wall.  The objects cast shadows on the wall before the chained prisoners.

It's like a puppet show.  These shadows are all that the prisoners know.  They have games and honors for the prisoner who can guess which figure will dance next as a shadow across the wall before them.

Plato compares the shadows on the wall to the objects of our imagination...

Click to read more »

sunday encouragement from 1453

One of my favorite quotes.  It was written in 1453 by an Italian Christian, Nicolas Cusanas (1401-1464), in his major philosophical treatise De Visione Dei, "On the Vision of God."  Cusanus is considered the "principle gatekeeper between medieval and modern philosophy" (H. Lawrence Bond).

O Lord, how inclined you are to show your face to all those seeking you.  For you never close your eyes, never turn them elsewhere; and although I turn my self away from you when I direct my attention entirely to something other, yet notwithstanding this, you change neither your eyes nor your gaze.  If you do not look upon me with the eye of grace, I am at fault because I have separated myself from you by turning away toward some other, which I prefer to you.  Yet, even so, you do not turn completely from me, but on the contrary, your mercy follows me so that should I ever wish to turn back to you, I would be capable of grace.  If you do not regard me, it is because I do not regard you but reject and despise you. [...]  Everyone, therefore, who is seeking seeks only the good and everyone who seeks the good and withdraws from you withdraws from that which one is seeking.  (Translated by H. Lawrence Bond)

Death is dead.

Begin with part one of this series here.  Or, read this, and if it happens to interest you then go back to part one later.

The grasshopper-eating vagrant is down by the river again. People are gathered around; some are watching from a distance with folded arms, others are pressing in, water to the ankles, straining to get a closer look.  Some are well dressed, others look as if they've just awoken from a drunken slumber somewhere nearby.  It happens today that a certain young man has joined the interested crowd. Perhaps he's standing next to you and the warmth of his arm on your skin is lessening the shiver.  Then, suddenly, he steps forward to be put into the water, joining the ranks of those who've gone before.  He's placed himself as one of them.

***

Click to read more »

sin, death and the salvation of the cosmos. part three

-----The following is part of an ongoing process of discovery taking place in my inner recesses.  That said, these topics are still being wrestled out in my mind and heart and are in no way definitive.  This particular series has been written with much wrestling and reading, and I have no doubt that some of the statements contained herein will be tuned and transformed over the course of my life with God.  If you have anything to add or comment, I would appreciate it greatly; even if you disagree with the whole thing, tell me that too.  Wrestle with the truth alongside me.-----

you might want to start with part one here.

 

"I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you shall be my people, and I will be your God. And I will deliver you from all your uncleannesses. And I will summon the grain and make it abundant and lay no famine upon you."

(Ezekiel 36:25-29)

"When, Lord?" Cried his people.  "When will you make us clean from this creeping death, all these dichotomies of good and evil?  This life is painful.  Help us."

Click to read more »

...and the shimmers of a new birth. part two of three.

-----The following is part of an ongoing discovery that has taken place inside my mind for the past five years, before which I couldn't have possibly cared any less about any of this religion talk.  That said, these topics are still being wrestled out in my mind and heart and are in no way definitive.  This particular three part series has been written with much wrestling and reading, and I have no doubt that some of the statements contained herein will be tuned and transformed over the course of my life with God.  If you have anything to add or comment, I would appreciate it greatly; even if you disagree with the whole thing, tell me that too.  Wrestle with the truth alongside me.-----


Read Part One Here

God's just and loving character went uncompromised through the whole story of Israel.

Here's a little pop culture button-art.  Did you know--MLK had a PhD in Theology from Boston University?

mlk

After the exodus from Egypt, led by Moses and his brother Aaron, God called Moses to a mountain top (mount Sinai) where he gave him a list of commands.  The "Ten Commandments" or "Decalogue" made up only a small portion of these commands.  The books "Exodus," "Leviticus" and "Deuteronomy" contain hundreds of them...

Click to read more »

death, exile, and the shimmers of a new birth; part one

-----The following writing has been developing in my mind over the last five years or so, before which I couldn't have cared a bit less about this religion talk.  That said, these topics are still being wrestled out in my mind and heart and are in no way definitive.  This particular three part series has been written with much wrestling and reading, and I have no doubt that some of the statements contained herein will be tuned and transformed over the course of my life.  If you have anything to add or comment, I would appreciate it greatly.  Even if you disagree with the whole thing, tell me that too.  Wrestle with the truth alongside me.-----

Part One

Several days ago I wrote a post on ignorance in Eden.  You can read it here before continuing on with this post.  I recommend it, if only for the sake of your understanding where I'm going with the following paragraphs.  It's short.

This is how the post ends:


"The leaves of the Tree of Life, from which we were once banished, are now for the healing of the nations.  The first exile was from Eden, from that place of no dichotomy [between good and evil], to a place of dichotomy.  If 'place' is confusing, then think of it as a state of being.  We are exiled out of the intended state of being -- that of no moral distinction between any word or deed -- and into a place running rampant with gross manifestations of evil, full of dichotomies.

One who walks in the power and knowledge of Jesus the Messiah is brought out of that exile.  There's a new Exodus, and it's happening right now.  I suggest you get your staff and satchel and join us, we're learning to bear the light of love and justice in this strange and dangerous planet."


This place of no moral discrimination, now and still to come, is the gift of all Christians.  Let me explain...

Click to read more »

women and men in a world of despair.

As a married man and a leader in campus ministry and local church, allow me to attempt a response to the question of men and women.

I can't say that I speak for the whole of the Christian Church, but I do speak for a large part of it when I say what I'm about to say.

God created a man and then proclaimed that it was not good for him to be alone.  So, to complete the picture of humanity, he created a woman.  The man was ecstatic. "This is flesh of my flesh, bone of my bones," he exclaimed.

And God saw what he had made, and it was very good.

Humanity.

One entity, two parts.  We are, first and foremost, a community.  I don't know a whole lot about cars, so I take mine to a mechanic or to my father-in-law's garage.  If everyone had to do everything, society would be stuck in the stone age.  On this point I think we all agree.

This integral separation within the community of global humanity stretches all the way down to the smallest part.  One man and one woman.  The two are different.  But they are necessarily so.  Even biologically, the differences are required for the production of children.  It doesn't stop with biology.  Anyone who has been around young children for any length of time recognizes differences between the sexes...

Click to read more »

the knowledge of good and evil

A few days ago I wrote a short paper on the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the garden.  The last comment that my professor made at the end of the paper was this:  "Is the Genesis narrative somehow suggesting that the ideal life is eternal ignorance?"  My professor's question warrants further discussion.  Is eternal ignorance the ideal?


In Ajax, one of the seven tragedies by Greek playwright Sophocles (5th BCE), the central character, Ajax, says the following to his baby boy:

"O my son, may you become more fortunate than your father with respect to wickedness, but like him in other things!  Please don't become wicked!  Even now I have jealousy for you, in this at least: that you perceive nothing of wicked things.  For the sweetest life rests by no means in understanding, it lasts until you learn joy and sorrow" (550-555; my translation).

It is not eternal ignorance that is ideal, but the ignorance of good and evil.  That is to say, ignorance of the dichotomy separating something "good" from something "evil."  If there were no evil, no rebellion, then there would be no dichotomy.  This is what I will call "the ideal of Edenic ignorance."  Once more, this is not "ignorance" as it is generally construed, but the ignorance of the separation between something "good" and something "evil," which, if evil exists, is a necessary distinction.  Only after humankind disobeyed this all-good God of love, through temptation and mistrust, was there a need to distinguish the "moral quality" of actions.  In Edenic ignorance these primeval humans only needed to know (intimate, personal knowledge, not academic) the good God who walked with them in the cool of the day--and, of course, the names of all the rad animals.

And that very God is remaking it all.  Right now.  The leaves of the Tree of Life, from which we were once banished, are now for the healing of the nations.  The first exile was from Eden, from that place of no dichotomy [between good and evil], to a place of dichotomy.  If 'place' is confusing, then think of it as a state of being.  We are exiled out of the intended state of being -- that of no moral distinction between any word or deed -- and into a place running rampant with gross manifestations of evil, full of dichotomies.


One who walks in the power and knowledge of Jesus the Messiah is brought out of that exile.  There's a new Exodus, and it's happening right now.  I suggest you get your staff and satchel and join us, we're learning to bear the light of love and justice in this strange and dangerous planet.


It begins now and continues into the not-yet.  Live here, today.  God is here now.

The knowledge of God is where we begin:

“Knowing about God is crucially important for the living of our lives. As it would be cruel to an Amazonian tribesman to fly him to London, put him down without explanation in Trafalgar Square and leave him, as one who knew nothing of English or England, to fend for himself, so we are cruel to ourselves if we try to live in this world without knowing about the God whose world it is and who runs it. The world becomes a strange, mad, painful place, and life in it a disappointing and unpleasant business, for those who do not know about God. Disregard the study of God, and you sentence yourself to stumble and blunder through life blindfolded, as it were, with no sense of direction and no understanding of what surrounds you. This way you can waste your life and lose your soul."  J.I. Packer, Knowing God

thoughts on the resurrection.

Justin Martyr, second century CE. 

 “And to any thoughtful person would anything appear more incredible, than, if we were not in the body, and some one were to say that it was possible that from a small drop of human semen, bones and sinews and flesh could be formed into a shape such as we see? For let this now be said hypothetically: if you yourselves were not such as you now are, and born of such parents [and causes], and one were to show you human seed and a picture of a man, and were to say with confidence that from such a substance such a being could be produced, would you believe before you saw the actual production? No one will dare to deny [that such a statement would surpass belief]. In the same way, then, you are now incredulous because you have never seen a dead man rise again. But as at first you would not have believed it possible that such persons could be produced, so also judge ye that it is not impossible that the bodies of men, after they have been dissolved, and like seeds resolved into earth, should in God’s appointed time rise again and put on incorruption” (Apology One; cp. 17).


Thanks to www.apologeticsuk.blogspot.com for this reminder.  Keep reading below for more on the question of  the historical accuracy of Jesus.

john

an argument about justification between two really wise people.

Two Christian thinkers with some insights on what a certain part of "being saved" might look like; to use the lingo, "Justified."

Also, see Ian Campbell's post for more detail on N.T. Wright's view.


N.T. Wright:

John Piper:

Here's one more set:

N.T. Wright:

John Piper:

Thoughts?  feel free to comment.

Science and the Bible.

I sit down with a cup of coffee.

I open Paul's Letter to the Romans.  There before my eyes--

--first, let me to introduce some thoughts of Dallas Willard, professor of philosophy at the University of Southern California.  (Much of the following argument is taken from his thoughts)

"Many fear that the physical universe, being what it is, makes communication with God impossible.  It puts him too far away.  Even some who understand both the lowliness of God's greatness and the greatness of God's lowliness and who really live to do the will of God are still troubled by the thought that brutal nature imposes itself as a barrier between us and him" (Willard, 1999; 71-72).

This fear is a direct result of the impact of secularistic modernism (see my essay below), even in the church. (Since the existence of God cannot be tested for in a physical science lab, then it cannot be considered.)  This fear is also one of the primary causes of the anti-intellectualism in the church today.  Many are afraid that if they investigate the sciences and history and philosophy, they'll surely lose their faith. 

Let me assure you, with an open mind the opposite occurs.  An unbiased observer, walking in and looking around at the world, would be shocked at the order of our universe.  He would wonder who made these laws that control what we see. 

Willard reminds us that when we think about the process that is necessary for any physical communication (like talking), we remember that soundwaves must be bent; the physical universe must be altered.  But, "is this the only way in which God can communicate with us?" Willard asks (Willard; 73).  Then he gives us a bit of wisdom from Blaise Pascal (1623-1662):


"When I see the blind and wretched state of men, when I survey the whole universe in its deadness, and man left to himself with no light, as though lost in this corner of the universe without knowing who put him there, what he has to do, or what will become of him when he dies, incapable of knowing anything, I am moved to terror, like a man transported in his sleep to some terrifying desert island, who wakes up quite lost, with no means of escape. Then I marvel that so wretched a state does not drive people to despair.  I see other persons around me made like myself. I ask them if they are any better informed than I am and they say they are not.  Then these lost and wretched creatures look around and find some attractive objects to which they have become addicted and attached. For my part, I have never been able to form such attachments and, considering how very likely it is that there exists something besides what I can see, I have tried to find out whether God has left any traces of himself" (Pensées, or, "Thoughts").



Contemporary physics gives us some insight.  

Physicist Jack Sarfatti (1939-present) offers the following window into a trend in contemporary physics:  "'an idea of the utmost significance for the development of psycho-energetic systems ... is that the structure of matter may not be independent of consciousness'" (Willard, 76).  That is, the universe is more like a mind than anything else.  Willard stresses that he isn't arguing that contemporary physics proves theological questions.  

What he is saying is that "... there is, so to speak, an inside--or better, a nonside or an unside--to matter that allows for a non-spatial and yet causal dimension to be in action within the physical world" (ibid.).  Thus, this allows for a direct connection between the "mind" of God and the mind of the apostle Paul, the self-proclaimed chief among sinners.

Like Willard, I'm not arguing that this proves direct communication, but that God could have communicated to the apostle directly through this "unside" of matter.



Okay, back to reading.


I take a sip of coffee and open Paul's Letter to the Romans.  There before my eyes--if my argument about the historical accuracy of the New Testament convinced you--are the words of Paul, or, for the skeptics among us, someone who wrote and thought just like Paul.  

Paul as he saw it.  This letter contains direct theological statements about creation and Abraham,  exodus and Moses, covenant and command, sin and death, Jesus and glory, predestination and freedom, and so on.  

Did God have direct access to the mind of Paul?

Maybe.  Any firm answer to that question, be it a yes or a no, rests on faith.

I take a sip of my coffee and begin reading.  And I have faith that God, by his Holy Spirit and through the language of an first-century Jewish Christian, encounters my mind.

"3:21 But now athe righteousness of God bhas been manifested apart from the law, although cthe Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—22 the righteousness of God dthrough faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. eFor there is no distinction: 23 for fall have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 gand are justified hby his grace as a gift, ithrough the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God jput forward as ka propitiation lby his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in mhis divine forbearance he had passed overnformer sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus."  (Romans 3:21-26, ESV)

Book Review

Check out Nijay Gupta's review of DeSilva's new book.  This is some excellent historical research!

http://nijaygupta.wordpress.com/2012/09/26/desilvas-jewish-teachers-of-jesus-book-review-part-ii/

Memories of Jesus

Lately in the field of historical Jesus research there has been a strong surge of investigation into the processes of human memory and cognition.  Check out The Jesus Blog for more on this.

My two cents:  (1)Human memory is frail,(2) because of this, historical facts are always uncertain.

That human memory is frail does not, however, necessitate that it is entirely deceived or contrived.  Especially, I would argue, when there are several people who are invested in the protection of the memory.  I do understand that the more significant the memory the greater the embellishment, but how can we be sure that this early community was not a memory-centered scribal culture in which the exact memorization and protection of events was a central practice?  Can't we argue that at least some of the writers were Jewish religious folk, meaning that they had been practicing the art of memorization under strict instruction for decades?  Can't we argue that these memories belonged not to individuals but to communities who would have kept one another accountable?

When I was 9 years old I asked a girl to go out with me.  I remember her friend, Kristen, standing next to her on the playground saying "Say yes, say yes!" I remember Kristen coming up to me in the hall later that day and telling me that Jessica had said no.  I remember how I felt.  I was 9.  I didn't have a community to keep the memory alive, I didn't know how to memorize things.  Sure, I can't remember "exactly" what Jessica said.  But I do remember that she told me, in some way, that she would have to think about it and that she'd tell me later.

Sure, the gospel narratives might not contain a whole lot of "word-for-word" Jesus sayings (thought I happen to think that they do), but I bet the authors (or the eye witnesses who informed the authors) remembered how they felt.  I bet they remembered how they were situated in the upper room when Jesus began washing their feet.  It's just a bet.  I can't prove it.

Then there are memories I'm not so sure of.  When I was 21 I stole a car and went to jail.  I've told the story so many times that I've forgotten exactly what the judge said, or what I told my mom on the phone at 5am that Thursday morning.  But I do remember that I called my mom.  I remember it was a payphone.  I remember the sadness in her voice.  I don't remember exactly what she said.  But I bet I could form a pretty accurate reconstruction based on who my mom is.

Unless they are fairy tales, the gospels represent stuff that Jesus said.  Maybe not word-for-word.  But representations.  An artist who hasn't seen his home in forty years can usually paint a fairly accurate image of the landscape.  There might be a tree out of place, or the skyline might be a little bit embellished.  But the representation would be unmistakable.

I ask you to think of the most amazing Christian that you know.  This experiment won't work  if you don't know any.  And, for that I'm sorry.  But I can think of a few.  They are people of integrity.
And if we look at the letters of the early church fathers (100-200 CE) they seem to be people of the same quality.  They are disciplined in love and truthfulness.  This is another claim that must rest in faith.  You either have to believe that the writers of the New Testament were spiritually formed and inspired by the Holy Spirit, or these documents are just dead history.

A good point has been raised about the memory of Jesus.  If, in fact, these authors were standard early Palestinian revolutionaries, then the New Testament would be nothing but a collection of socio-political propaganda.  This has been a common misunderstanding among thinking non-believers everywhere.




Thoughts?

Following up on the essay below.

Okay. Let me tell you what I think.  What modern secularist historians do when it comes to historical Jesus research is this: they begin the research with a presupposition that the divine is not real. They do this because there is no way to test for the existence of the divine with secularistic methods, (namely, modern science) and since their research methods are fundamentally rooted in this secularistic approach, they must, to remain true to their discipline, look for explanations for the supernatural in natural ways (see my short paper on science and God and the Bible here). Because, for them, the supernatural does not exist. In short, it would take nothing less than conversion for a secularistic modern historian to admit that what the Gospels express actually happened. For a secularist the resurrection is not possible and, therefore, they must explain the early disciples' belief in the resurrection as some type of false myth designed to get people fired up about something (like revolution?).

A piece of the Dead Sea Scrolls

The cave where the scrolls were discovered

 With the rise of metamodern thought (post-postmodern) there has been a rise of investigation into the interworkings of social memory in an oral scribal culture. Here is my take: The first three gospels were written within 50 years of Jesus. They were written in a largely illiterate culture. This culture had strict patterns of memorization. In fact, Jewish teachers taught their students rules of memorization and when something needed to be remembered it was a communal event. In short, the community at the time would not have allowed false tales to be spun around the region. Sure, some things are embellished because the gospels are stories. But they are not mythic tales. That would not fit the culture of the time, especially in the Jewish circles from which many early Christians came. So, did the resurrection happen? Is Jesus the son of the Living God?  I cannot prove these things objectively, but I believe in the faithfulness and honesty of the early writers because I believe that they were both held accountable by their communities and filled with the Spirit. 

Until the dead sea scrolls were discovered in 1947 the earliest manuscripts that we had of the Old Testament book of Isaiah were from the medieval period. The Dead Sea Scrolls are dated to before the time of Jesus. When the portions of the dead sea scrolls that contain large chunks of Isaiah are put alongside those from the medieval period, they match almost exactly. In theological implications they do match exactly. That is a gap of over 1000 years. If the book of Isaiah can make it 1000 years, then the Gospels could have made it 50. Jesus is alive.  Miracles happen.

More Dead Sea Scroll

Modern, Postmodern and Metamodern: How should we then teach?

An updated, shortened version of this same essay can be found here.  Let me introduce this essay.  It's audience is the world of Academia.  It is not designed to be an essay about how school should be taught in a seminary or other confessional setting.  It is a call for compromise in a non-believing world.

“To whatever degree he may have desacralized the world, the man who has made his choice in favor of a profane life never succeeds in completely doing away with religious behavior.” 

― Mircea Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion

Not long ago a small mob of preacher men came to campus.   Their sermon of damnation and salvation extended more than eight hours, the excited emotion of which awarded them front page feature on the next day’s school paper.  What really caught my attention during my time standing in the crowd of students were the hateful slurs being thrown around, not by the preachers, but by the “college educated young people.”  A young man standing next to me cried out above the crowd in a mocking tone, “How ‘bout if I come to your church and preach atheism!  I bet you wouldn’t like that!”  For a minute it sounded coherent.  Then I thought to myself, “Wait, is he saying that this is the equivalent?  That these guys are preaching Christianity (albeit a strange form) in an atheist church—in the free speech zone on a liberal campus?”  One certainly could graduate with this mindset.  But if the goal of a liberal arts education, as is boasted by the University of Montana, is to “liberate the mind”—with the implied meaning of “liberal” having nothing to do with politics and everything to do with an open mind—then why are students leaving here thinking that there is only one way to approach history or literature, religion or language?  I wonder how long this system will last. 

Over the next several pages I want to address the ethics of sustaining the modern secularistic approach to the humanities in the contemporary, non-sectarian, academic world.  I will argue that it is not ethically sustainable and ought to be replaced by the post-postmodern approach (which I refer to as metamodern).  I’m going to argue this point with much reference to biblical scholarship and historical research, as these are the two disciplines in the academic world that I enjoy most.   I’m going to need working definitions of modern, postmodern, metamodern, secular and secularistic.  Much of what is written below has come from years of thinking and reading on the topics at hand, and I have done my best to give credit where credit is due.

Let me begin by defining modern as it pertains to the academic world.  The term “modern” is applied to a dizzying number of disciplines and beliefs; arts and architecture, science and literature, religion and philosophy, etcetera.  What I’ve focused on in the current research is the term with respect to its relationship with the philosophy of ancient history.  Modern philosophy of ancient history boasts that with enough research, textual evidence and good social science, we can clear away our own interpretations, as well as those of the original authors, and get down to what really happened over 2,000 years ago in, say, the Middle East.  We can get direct access to the real story.  Let me foreshadow a bit here; the real story is somebody’s rendition of what they saw; that somebody had preconceived ideas about the world that colored everything he/she did.  So do I.  We can’t get to the real story.  There are a bunch of different “plausible” stories; but, not all plausible stories are equal.  In the words of Dale Allison Jr., “It is time to rethink much” (Le Donne, Forward xi).

 One important implication of modern philosophy (especially as is exemplified by David Hume) it its assertion that reason and rationality are to be followed at any cost, and ought to be based upon purely empirical evidence.  Because you can’t test for the existence of the supernatural in a science lab, it is not empirical, and is therefore thrown out before the theorizing even begins.  This overconfidence in human reason is made clear by Renes Descartes (1596-1650).  As Anthony Le Donne (a secular scholar in the field of Historical Jesus Studies) points out in his new book, Historical Jesus; What can we know and how can we know it, Descartes thought that he had direct access to what happened inside of his mind.  Philosopher Bertrand Russell agreed with Descartes and argued further that “a person’s relationship to his/her thoughts is direct, without error and non-perspectival, meaning that there is no barrier, filter, or lens between you and your thoughts” (Le Donne, 17).  Although this seems logical, (doubtless because we in the modern university still blindly follow the methods and beliefs of the Enlightenment) we know now that there is much more going on inside the mind than some sort of direct vision, especially when social memory happens before the case is documented.

To offer up a current example from one of my favorite disciplines, historical Jesus research, modern historians often use certain “criteria of authenticity” to determine which of the statements of Jesus were spoken by the actual historical Jesus and which were later inventions for ideological purposes.  An example of one such criterion is the “Criterion of Embarrassment.” Early on in the Gospel According to John, Jesus rebukes his own mother.  In the Jewish shame/honor culture at the time, this would not have been looked upon well; remember that one of the Ten Commandments is “honor your father and mother.”  As the criterion goes, if Jesus didn’t actually rebuke his mother, then the author certainly wouldn’t have wanted to make up this embarrassing moment and write it down (Le Donne, 45). 

Let me give Le Donne a little bit of space, as he sums up the problem exquisitely.

Many previous generations of ‘modern’ historians tended to look at these criteria as a way of locating an authentic past reality—as if a core of past events could be stripped of all interpretive agendas and treated like a bedrock artifact.  If these criteria are to be useful, historians must realize that history always must be about explaining how memory emerges and evolves.  These criteria cannot uncover historical facts that are devoid of perception and memory (Le Donne, 51).

Modern historians continue chiseling at old evidence with bleeding hands, and, with far too much confidence, they try to reconstruct what really happened.  These reconstructions are often used in biblical scholarship to make overarching claims either for the actuality of the resurrection or against it.  These reconstructions are, at best, interpreted reconstructions of an already interpreted collection of memories and perceptions.

This mention of memory and perception brings me to the definition of “metamodern.”  The metamodern philosophy with respect to the study of history is a reaction against that of the postmodern, which was itself born from a reaction to the modern approach.  Before moving along, then, I need to clear the scum from the word, “postmodernism.”    Since we know that the modern idea is undergirded by the idea that we can have direct perceptions of our thoughts, and that postmodern though was a reaction to modern thought, what did they react against?

Some time ago I read an essay about the study of “myth” by a renowned postmodern scholar of religion, Russell T. McCutcheon. Near the end of the essay McCutcheon quoted Paul Veyne, who affirmed McCutcheon in his answer to the question of truth (what is real):  “truth is the most variable of all measures.  It is not a transhistorical invariant but a work of the constitutive imagination…” (McCutcheon, 201).  Postmodern thought sees writings within the realm of religion as ideological constructs designed to encourage a group of people to do this or that thing.  Postmodern historians, for example, often see the gospels as nothing more than socio-political manifestos designed to rally the low-class Judeans into working for the expulsion of the Roman Empire.  Why not invent a “Kingdom of God?”  They were written for their time, relative to that setting, and only that setting. 

In full-fledged postmodernism, absolutely everything is relative.  The problem is that we run into what has been coined the “self-contradiction of absolute relativism.”  Basically, it is an absolute statement claiming the relativity of everything, which, it would seem, would include itself. 

Metamodern research reacts against this circularity.  While maintaining the postmodern idea that everything is colored by perception, metamodern methods move away from absolute relativism and, with the help of psychology and the social sciences, attempt to discover what is doing the coloring and how that paint is affecting the final image we see.

This is where the terms “secular” and secularism (secularistic as an adjective) come into the picture.  Calling an action or institution secular simply means that it isn’t in place for religious purposes.  That is to say, when Buddhism is taught at the University of Montana, the professor doesn’t begin with a prayer and consecration of the class in session to the Buddhist religion.  It’s the same with Christianity.  I’m learning about Buddhism and Christianity.  I’m learning what Buddhists and Christians believe about X, Y and Z.  Or, as in the case of Historical Jesus Scholarship, I’m approaching the study with an open mind about what may have happened.  Otherwise all that I will be doing is attempting to prove a preconceived idea.  In a sense, in using secular methods I’m attempting to look through the eyes of another

Secularism, on the other hand, has its own doctrines and sets of values as well as its own particular worldview.  The Oxford English Dictionary defines secularism as, “The doctrine that morality should be based solely on regard to the well-being of mankind in the present life, to the exclusion of all considerations drawn from belief in God or a future state” (OED, 2704. Italics added for emphasis).  Notice the words “doctrine,” “morality,” and “exclusion.”  Those are generally terms used with reference (often, especially the aspect of exclusivity, pejoratively) to a religious worldview.  Although the difference between secular and secularism might not seem so radically different at first, the former is an open playing field for all, while the latter involves its own ethical worldview that excludes the worldviews of the vast majority of the world.  A secularistic individual, then, would approach historical Jesus research having already ruled out the historicity of the gospel narratives.

Let me offer up a personal example of the way that secularism and secular approaches impact my day to day.  I’m taking a course in which the study of the Bible plays a major part.  The purpose of the course is to look at some classic texts that have shaped the way we think and write and live in our world today.  In our investigation of the Bible, however, the professor’s main objective is to look at the Bible with a blind eye to any discussion about what the god that it presents might be like.  If the topic does arise, the professor stops the discussion and reminds us that we’re not doing theology.  This is modern secularism.

In another class we’re reading through Homer’s Odyssey.  It’s a capstone course for the Liberal Studies Department and is taught by the director of the program.  While looking closely at The Odyssey, one discussion that keeps coming up, naturally, concerns the nature of the Homeric gods and goddesses.  We talk about Zeus and divine justice in Homer’s epic poetry.  I can’t imagine the professor in the course dedicated to Homer’s Odyssey stopping the discussion once it turned toward the nature of the gods.  There would be nearly nothing left to read if it weren’t for the place of the gods in Homer.  This is secular.

I would argue that it is impossible to get any sort of feel for the Bible if one doesn’t talk about the nature of its god.  I feel like I’m missing out.  What’s more, the Bible is read today because people have been—and still are—influenced by what it says about its god.  Granted, there are those scholars who spend their lives decoding ancient tablets that talk about the religions of dead cultures, and this same group would be doing the same thing with the Bible, had people not continued reading about its god.  Don’t get me wrong, the purpose of my research is not to gain leverage against my professors, nor is it to convert my reader.  My intention is to assess the ethical sustainability of modern secularism in the study of the humanities in the present-day secular university.

The secular metamodern philosophy of history holds tightly to the idea that all thinking individuals have preconceived ideas and worldviews and opinions, and that these color everything they do, including science.  Metamodern historians are not saying—as the postmoderns did—that there is no objective truth.  What they are saying is that there is no way to scientifically prove that objective truth in the writings of the ancient past.  It all gets colored by our perceptions, which are, in turn, colored by our preconceived ideas about the way the world works.  These ideas are, problematically, very different from the preconceived ideas of the ancients. 

The metamodern historian doesn’t give up here though.  The metamodern historian recognizes these perceptions as contributing a great deal to the way that reading works and writing happens.  Thus, we study the way perception works, and, with the help of brilliant contemporary scholarship in psychology and the social sciences, we can now begin crafting reasonable arguments for the way perception worked in the ancient world of primarily oral tradition.  They were homo-sapiens-sapiens too.  We are therefore able, with the help of recent scholarship, to analyze and critique our own perceptions in our reading as well as the perceptions of the original author in his or her writing.

Take, for example, the literature class studying Homer’s Odyssey.  A modern approach would be to remain in a strict objective discussion of, say, the literary forms, the historical accuracy, or the comparison of characters without reference to the perceptions of the students doing the reading and discussing.  If, however, the students read The Odyssey and, while looking at the forms, history and characters, were also discussing why and how they, as students, have come to think as they do, as well as how the author came two write down what is before the student on paper (i.e. a study of social memory as is exemplified in Anthony Le Donne’s 2011 publication, Historical Jesus; What Can We Know and How Can We Know It?), then class could be labeled metamodern.  Many classes are a blend of the two.

How should we then proceed?  To perform well in the academic world, students need to identify the lenses through which they gaze, and, in the historical sense, need to know what lens the author of the history being read looked through.  Otherwise, as a spider clings to a shadowy web beneath the bed and slips silently beneath the covers to inflict a fatal wound, so will our personal interpretations cling unnoticed, and later, having slipped silently beneath the assuring covers of objectivity, inflict a fatal bite.  (Sorry about that last sentence if you’re afraid of spiders, I was having a little fun.)

Let me sum up where we’ve been.  Secular refers to something not purposed for or against religion, while secularism refers to a specific worldview that excludes religion.  The term “modern,” on the one hand, (with respect to ancient history) is associated with the belief that the real, unadulterated truth can be found with good scientific inquiry, and that we can see clearly with reasoning and rationality (The Enlightenment Twins).  My critique of the postmodern approach rests primarily with its argument for absolute relativism. The metamodern view, on the other hand, generally involves the historian’s acceptance that he or she can’t get to the whole truth via the scientific method; that no matter how he or she tries, there will always be lenses over the eyes searching the documents of the past, and there will always be lenses over the eyes of the writers of that past.  The best that we can do is identify our lenses and move humbly forward with a recognition of human fallibility.  In the case of historical Jesus research and biblical studies, we can’t get any closer than propositions of the most plausible case; any assurance greater than plausibility necessarily falls into the category of faith, whether or not you wind up believing in the resurrection.

Now let’s look at a couple of outside arguments for and against secularism.  Because the metamodern philosophy of ancient history asserts that nobody has the final say, that nobody can prove truth, at least not with objective science—that is, without the coloring of subjective (personal) perception—then the academy in the metamodern world can teach what is seen from any sound, valid viewpoint.  The first argument comes from an article written by a University professor of Philosophy from the University of Kwazulu-Natal, in Durban, South Africa.  This setting is important to the topic at hand in that the scars of Apartheid are still fresh.  Because of the past regime’s association with a certain sect of Christianity, many academics are justifiably leery of any teaching that involves the subjective views of Christianity.  Professor Patrick Giddy tells us that “There is a residual fear of any one cultural group imposing their ideas and beliefs on other groups” (Giddy, 527).  This is certainly a justified fear.  The metamodern academy, however, would teach from a number of perspectives, giving no particular viewpoint greater authority. 

Giddy is especially interested in the philosophy of education, and, in particular, the philosophy behind the arguments for and against the study of theology—Christian, Hindu, or otherwise—in the academic world.  Giddy argues that theology should be taught.  His linchpin is an argument about what makes up what we consider to be “real.”  This is where the metamodern argument comes in.  By calling something real, we generally (according to Giddy) refer to its material reality.  But Giddy claims that what is real is anything that influences the human nature (thus, our perceptions), and that if we want to “liberate the mind” with a “liberal” education, then we ought to allow for the teaching from perspectives that see through the material and consider real—thus teachable—anything that influences the human being.  Giddy argues that avoiding the subjective approach is damaging; it “pushes out religion and the expressivist dimension of human living to the detriment both of the religious traditions, which [come] open to fundamentalist anti-intellectualism, and the sciences which fail to connect with the larger world of values” (Giddy, pg. 531).  Now, this is not to say that everyone needs to study theology in order to attain citizenship in the metamodern world, but, if we wish to liberate our minds, then we ought to learn to see in the way that a majority of the world sees.  Deep knowledge generally leads to deep respect. 

So what does the other side of the argument have to say?  Richard Rorty is an individual against the teaching from perspectives other than secularistic philosophical pragmatism.  Rorty’s pragmatism is, basically, the belief that everything in the public square—including ideas—should exist for the building up of a secularistic society, that is, a society without religion.  Therefore, Rorty claims that expressions of religious belief are to be kept out of the university and public life at large because they are, simply, the making of “one’s own private way of giving meaning to one’s own life—a way which romanticizes one’s relations to something starkly and magnificently non-human, something Ultimately True and Real—obligatory for the general public” (Rorty; Philosophy and Social Hope, 157).  Because Rorty sees the world as a secularist and a pragmatist, any reference to the religious beliefs of a person should be, in his ideal world, bracketed out of any public conversation.  This is not just because he disagrees with religious principles or beliefs, but because he sees religious dialogue as counterproductive toward the creation of his desired, religionless utopia.  In short, he thinks that anyone who doesn't hold religious convictions is ousted from a conversation concerning religion at the outset, and that we ought to only discuss (and teach) the reality that everyone agrees on.  Rorty's theory is invalid because his problem with religion is that it excludes those without religion from conversations concerning its precepts. But the people with religion are, in the same way, excluded from his conversations that are fundamentally secularistic. So either way somebody is getting excluded, which is what he is arguing to avoid. They're two separate worldviews. People need to learn both, not just one or the other.

Another approach, the one I've been arguing for, would be to educate students on the principles of various religions so that they can participate in a respectful dialogue, which, for better or worse, isn’t going anywhere. One final point before we wrap this up:  I am not arguing for the protection of failed religious systems.  We need critical methods.  Like I said, not all plausible stories are equal, and this applies to everything; including religion.

In light of all this disagreement, what can we do?  How can our education be sustained in an ethical manner that respects the views of a global population?  Should we just cast out religious dialogue because we disagree with it, thus silencing more than half of the globe?  Should we convert our schools back into religious institutions as originally intended at their inception a couple of centuries ago?  I want to argue for a compromise.  I want to argue that the metamodern university can do us a great service; that we can learn from believers and atheists, scientists and sectarians, theologians and naturalists.  If the world is a blend of views and beliefs and methods, and a secular education is designed to prepare us for that world, shall we continue on as if most of our world either (a) doesn’t exist, or (b) doesn’t matter?  I think not.  How, then, can we move toward developing a university system that, when an angry preacher comes to “prepare ye the way of the Lord,” has prepared its students to respond with thoughtful, well-articulated questions and respect?  I’ve argued that it must begin in our classrooms.  It must begin with thoughtful, deliberate discussions, designed to prepare the student body for an engagement with the real world.  And, again, the real world does and will always include religion.

Bibliography

_______________________________________________________________

Giddy, Patrick. “Why Theology Can and Should be Taught at Secular Universities: Lonergan on Intellectual Conversion.” Journal of Philosophy of Education, vol. 45, no. 3 (2011): 527-543.

Le Donne, Anthony.  Historical Jesus; What can we know and how can we know it? Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2011.  Print.

McCutcheon, Russell T. Chapter 14: Myth. In Guide to the Study of Religion, ed. Willi Braun and Russell T. McCutcheon, 190-208. New York:  T&T Clark, Continuum Imprint, 2000.

Rorty, Richard. Philosophy and Social Hope. New York: Penguin, 1999. Print.