Dr. Paul Farmer in Haiti

Watch this: http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=4069409n

The work of Dr. Farmer and his team must be applauded. As FindingRhythm mentioned,

His story is incredible, inspiring, humbling. Playing in a rock band never seemed so lame.

While I can’t comment on playing in a rock band, this poses for me a couple observations.

1. OF ALL THE PHILOSOPHICAL AND THEOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS, WHAT ONE SIMPLY CANNOT ARGUE WITH, RHETORICALLY, IS GOOD WORKS/DEEDS OF COMPASSION LIKE THIS.

This is where I believe many people of faith get side-tracked. Theology is a position to be argued, a dogma to be defended, an abstract principle to be promulgated. And while that kind of work should never be discounted, it must also be said, that an argument spurs on (ironically enough) more arguments. At what point ought we come to realize that, just like the best kind of revenge, the best kind of apologetic is a life well lived. Like the grinch, your heart would have to be two-sizes too small to not be moved and inspired by this kind of work.

2. IF THEY ARE NOT AGAINST US, THEY ARE FOR US.

There is no religious discussion whatsoever in the 60 min. interview, so no inklings can be made regarding Dr. Farmer’s faith or the faith of his staff and organization. Given that, I have often wondered if Jesus’ words, here from Luke are applicable.

“Master,” said John, “we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us.” “Do not stop him,” Jesus said, “for whoever is not against you is for you.” [1]

Mark’s parallel passages uses “us” instead of “you” in the passage, but the gist is the same. In Luke, this dialogue comes right after the disciples arguing about which of them would be the greatest. Perhaps a viable interpretation of this passage could be, it really doesn’t matter what faith system or religion one believes in. If they are accomplishing the work that is in alignment with the Kingdom of God, they are in alignment with us. AND, if we, as followers of Jesus don’t get that right, then perhaps the greatest among us are really not among us, but rather are those who are accomplishing the will of the Father in far greater ways than those “on the inside” are doing.

Controversial, I know. But like Ginsu knives, “wait…there’s more.”

3. IF THE GREATER WORK IS COMPASSIONATE DEEDS, THEN THEOLOGIES ARE SECONDARY TO THE TASK OF KINGDOM WORK.

I am perhaps falsely dichotomizing good theology and good works, [2] but I would simply point out that if I am, then how much more could the rest of the Christian Church be accused of the exact same thing. The desire to rid the Christian canon of the “Epistle of Straw” (the book of James) and the content of its message has still influenced the way we think about Jesus work and Kingdom advancement. Perhaps, looking deeper into all that the Scriptures record, we would find a different kind of dimension to the Gospel.

REGARDLESS, I applaud Dr. Paul Farmer’s work, and I too am inspired to ensure that each moment of my ministry involvement keeps this kind of compassion (רחם) at the forefront of my thinking, and a goal to which I must continually strive.

—

[1] Luke 9:49-50
[2] And not only dichotomizing, but neglecting a potential causal relationship, that good theology, the kind that the Scriptures exhort us to, would actually lead to good works (Ephesians 2:10).

N.T. Wright Interviews with Trevin Wax

Trevin Wax has posted several entries on N.T. Wright, audio and transcript. Thanks Trevin, for your contribution to the theosphere.

Posted is the transcript of the interview with N.T. Wright on Surprised By Hope. Here are the questions Trevin asks:

You have described Surprised by Hope as the sequel to Simply Christian. Both of these books have titles that remind us of famous works by C.S. Lewis. Likewise, you have been described as the “C.S. Lewis of this generation.” What aspects of Lewis’ work do you fully ascribe to? And what aspects of his work would give you pause?

If you could change the entire eschatological outlook of your church setting in the twinkling of an eye, what changes in action would this bring about in local congregations?

Last week at the Together for the Gospel conference in Louisville, KY, Pastor and author Mark Dever critiqued the idea you put forth in Surprised by Hope that “the gospel is public.” More specifically, he worried that your readers may confuse the societal implications of the gospel with the gospel itself. What do you mean by saying the ‘gospel is public,’ and do you see such concerns such as the one voiced by Dr. Dever as valid?

In Surprised by Hope, you make a clear distinction between the terminology of “building the kingdom of God” and “building for the kingdom of God.” Why is it so important that we maintain this distinction?

For all of the right focus on the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, many evangelical Christians see the resurrection as some sort of ‘after-thought’ to what happened at Calvary. You have done much to correct this with works such as The Resurrection of the Son of God. But the ascension of Christ is perhaps even more neglected than his resurrection. The Western Church is preparing to celebrate the Ascension, an oft-neglected Christian holy day. Why is the Ascension so important and what would you recommend pastors do to increase the celebration of this monumental event?

How does hell fit into your understanding that God is going to renew the whole creation. Do you believe that hell is the eternal experience of God’s wrath? What does the language of the Bible regarding hell imply?

In Surprised by Hope, you speak about hell as a process of becoming less and less human. You affirm very clearly your belief that the just will be raised at the last day to inhabit God’s new world. What about the resurrection of the unjust? Will those who inhabit hell be embodied, even as they are bearing less and less the image of God that makes them human?

You teach that Christians will be judged by our actions, in accordance with Romans 2. You also say that justification is our assurance in the present of the declaration of righteousness from the future. Do our sinful actions in the present still matter? If so, wouldn’t the Catholic concept of purgatory be necessary?

Douglas Wilson has recently praised your new book, but he has also strongly criticized your proposals concerning the forgiving of third-world debts. He says: “The problem with N.T. Wright’s call for action is not that he is urging us to do something. The problem is that he is (in effect) urging us to take sides as Christians in a tangle and conflict created by and for unbelievers.” Have you read Wilson’s critique of your thoughts on this issue? Do you have any immediate reaction?

Last time we spoke, you had just received your copy of John Piper’s The Future of Justification and had not had a chance to read it. What are your thoughts of the final version? Are you planning on responding to this book in any way?

A November 2007 audio edition of Wax’s first interview with Wright can be heard here. Full transcript here. Here are the questions asked in this interview:

Could you give us a brief definition of “the gospel”?

If the “gospel” itself then is the declaration of Christ’s lordship, where does the doctrine of justification come into play?

You have said in many of your books that justification is not how one becomes a Christian but a declaration that one is a Christian. What language do you use to explain how one becomes a Christian?

Some evangelicals within the Reformed tradition have taken issue with your division of present and future justification and your statement that on the Last Day, we will be justified “on the basis of the whole life lived.” Does this mean that our good works contribute to our salvation? Or is it that our good works prove our salvation?

You mentioned earlier Hans Kung. How would you distinguish your views on justification from that of official Roman Catholic teaching?

How does the doctrine of sola Scriptura influence your work and your method?

You have criticized very strongly the arrogance of Enlightenment modernism, especially in Enlightenment thinkers’ hasty rejection of the supernatural, Jesus’ resurrection, etc. – an attitude that claims we have needed 1700 years for modern science to tell us that dead people stay dead and so on and so forth. Yet, you are advocating what’s called the “new” perspective on Paul’s theology, a recent innovation in the history of Christian thought. Could it be that, ironically, even as you critique the arrogant attitude of the Enlightenment, you have opened yourself up to the charge at least, that you are sort of embodying that same attitude by discounting years of Christian theology, in effect saying, “Now, finally, we are coming to what Paul or Jesus actually meant to say!”?

In your opinion, has scholarly criticism of the New Perspectives in America, such as Carson, Piper, Moo and others, have they been fair? Or have they misunderstood the New Perspective?

Since you are placing the doctrine of justification within a broader doctrine of the Church, perhaps you might have a response to someone who wrote me from India. He said, “How do you think Paul would have reacted to a church congregation that was exclusively for Jews or for Romans? In India, there are many churches based on caste system and community (because of language), and many Christian leaders in India are not willing to address this sensitive issue.” How do you think Paul would react to such churches?

You have been a firm defender of the doctrine of penal substitution as one of the important atonement motifs found in Scripture, especially in your comments regarding Isaiah 53. Yet, it is puzzling to many conservative evangelicals that you recommend a book by Steve Chalke that seems to deny penal substitution, while calling a book that upholds the doctrine, the book Pierced for our Transgressions “disturbingly unbiblical.”

N.T. Wright: Sub-biblical.

[[Editor’s Note: Though Wright sought to qualify my quotation of him in this interview, despite his protest, in "The Cross and the Caricatures," Wright labels Pierced for our Transgressions both “hopelessly sub-biblical” and “disturbingly unbiblical."]]

TW: Sub-biblical… I suppose the question I’m slowly getting around to is: how do you define the doctrine of penal substitution and what is its significance for the church today?

It is becoming increasingly clear in evangelicalism that we have often emphasized the cross as central to the gospel and then treated the resurrection as an afterthought, a vindication of Jesus only. Your massive work on the resurrection has begun to stir up much thought about how we can better integrate the truth of Christ’s bodily resurrection into our theology and into our practice. What is the significance of Christ’s resurrection for us today? I know you’ve got 800 pages right here…

You stress the Christian’s eschatological hope as the new heavens and new earth. You are also very strongly committed to issues relating to social justice as a way of anticipating in the present God’s restoration of the world in the future. Some of your works emphasize social justice and give scant or no attention to evangelism, church planting, discipling, etc. Where does evangelism fit into this task? And how important is it for Christians to actively evangelize unbelieving people?

So how would you share all of this with an individual in the evangelistic task, if an individual were to come up and to say, “What must I do to be saved?” “How can I become a part of this…”

You have been critical of the post-Enlightenment secularization of government and society. What is the proper relationship between a church or a faith and the government? What is the proper status of minority faiths in any given society?

One final question… How is your writing coming along? What is the next book in the Christian Origins and the Question of God series? When do you plan on seeing it hit shelves?

Encounter Point - What To Do With The Pain

Encounter Point is an 85-minute feature documentary film that follows a former Israeli settler, a Palestinian ex-prisoner, a bereaved Israeli mother and a wounded Palestinian bereaved brother who risk their lives and public standing to promote a nonviolent end to the conflict. Their journeys lead them to the unlikeliest places to confront hatred within their communities. The film explores what drives them and thousands of other like-minded civilians to overcome anger and grief to work for grassroots solutions. It is a film about the everyday leaders in our midst.

Website here. Just Vision, the production company, has their own website with further information as well.

The beginning has this quote that sets the tone for the rest of the film:

Sometimes I’m very angry with myself, that I didn’t protect my child. So what do you do with this pain? Do you take it and look for revenge and keep the whole cycle going, of violence. Or do you choose a another path, to prevent further death, and further pain of other parents. - Robi

REVIEW

It is difficult to get a glimpse of the non-violent reconciliation movements that do exist in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Popular media thrives on drama, further acts of vengeance, and surprise. Somehow, in a sick and perverted way, this kind of reporting feeds a sinful appetite within the human psyche. But like C.S. Lewis’ “Turkish Delight” it is unsubstantial, and it ultimately leads to destruction.

Encounter Point is an honest documentary that seeks, not to be a “positive” alternative in the sense of balancing out negative imagery, but rather to be honest and true to the real emotions and feelings of family members who have lost loved ones and yet are able to pave a path towards reconciliation and peace. This is not some euphoric dream of happy neighborliness, but rather a hard look into the difficult and challenging steps of dialogue.

The two prominent characters, Ali Abu Awwad, a Palestinian who lost his brother to an Israeli soldier’s gun fire, and Robi Damelin, and Israeli who lost her son to a Palestinian sniper, become the heroes of the film, transforming their pain and their own ideologies into movements around reconciliation. They are not saints, however, which makes the message of the film even more captivating. Ali refuses to forgive the Israeli soldier, and Robi is challenged to put her words and movement to personal action by contemplating a meeting with the family of the sniper who killed her son. Neither Ali, Robi, (nor anyone else in the film) lay claim to any awards or accolades. Yet both, in their unique way, choose to be better than the hatred, the pain, and the desire for vengeance. Both choose to lay down their weapons, and pick up words. Both choose to believe in peace, no matter how distant it seems to be. They’ve been hurled stones; they have chosen to offer back open hands.

They, and the others in the film, are my newest heroes. I pray for their success in every mustard seed moment they have in helping others come to see that, as Robi puts it, “it works.” Reconciliation has, and can continue to work vigorously towards peace. I thank the producers for their efforts in documenting well the grassroots movements, and I can only strive towards being a contributor to these ends.

For everyone, I believe Jesus’ message rings true.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies [bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you] and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” [1]

I believe Walter Wink has some excellent insights for us regarding the above passage (my review of his book here), and though I have yet to read it, I believe Mark Kurlansky’s Nonviolence book sheds insight as well.

I end with Paul’s word to the Romans, which sums up nicely the teachings that we all ought to live by.

Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. [2]

—

[1] Matthew 5:38-48 (NIV)
[2] Romans 12:17-21

Challenging Tradition, Young Jews Worship on Their Terms - NYTimes.com

This post is just a reminder, for those who may be unaware, that all faiths are dealing with the challenges of changing times. This article in the NYTimes.com, back in November, reports on the various intricacies of the “minyanim,” (מנינים) the Jewish equivalent to the Christian “emergent” congregation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/us/28minyan.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Here are some parallels that I find intriguing.

BUILDINGS AND BUDGET; LESS INSTITUTION, MORE COMMUNITY. Both minyanim and emergents prioritize the organic gathering of the faithful over the gathering place. Organizational or institutionalized religion is also a turn-off. Many reject hierarchical structures for a flatter authority scheme.

GENDER. Both are more widely accepting of progressive theologies and practices regarding sexuality and gender roles within the context of Torah and Gospel.

REDEMPTIVE MOVEMENT. I found this quote to be appropriately descriptive of both, “Members of the minyanim are looking for ‘redemptive, transformative experiences that give rhythm to their days and weeks and give meaning to their lives.’ ” Both of these communities are highly experiential, introducing a new kind of phenomenology to their respective faiths, one that is more of a “centered-set” rather than “closed-set.” [1]

YOUNGER, BUT NOT ALWAYS. Both find themselves dealing with a paradox of generation. While consisting of mostly younger adherents, each has older “sages” that help them along the way.

THE TENSION OF TRADITION. Both are desiring to uphold the “traditions” of their faith — the liturgies, rituals, celebrations, etc. — while shedding the pious “traditionalism” that has tainted the fullness and depth of its expression.

There are definitely other parallels, but this is just to whet the appetite. I’m working on a post on S3K (Synagogue 3000) which will share a bit more about the implications of all of these cultural evolutions. I believe that this tells us, not so much about each respective religion, but about the nature of faith itself. I also believe that we ought to listen carefully to the relationship between faith and culture in a way that honors the Creator of them both. And I believe this stance will help illuminate, strengthen, and make each come alive in a way that we only pray about.

—

[1] “Centered-set” simply states, in contradistinction from “closed-set,” that a participant is neither “outside” nor “inside” the boundaries of faith (such as a “believer” or “non-believer”), but rather someone who is either moving more towards the center of redemption, or further away. The image below is one way to graphically depict this idea.

Pangea Day - The Tower of Babel and The Healing Of The Nations

On May 10, 2008, an international media event called “Pangea Day” was seen on over “one million screens,” (according to the website). Their purpose? To bring the world together through film.

Pangea Day is a global event bringing the world together through film. Why? In a world where people are often divided by borders, difference, and conflict, it’s easy to lose sight of what we all have in common. Pangea Day seeks to overcome that – to help people see themselves in others – through the power of film. [1]

This reminded me of “the healing of the nations” in Revelation 22 and I thought it worth considering how the Biblical narrative plays into events like these. What does this kind of event tell us about ourselves? Is “Pangea” Day, biblical? Revisiting the Genesis story helps to shed light.

The Tower of Babel of Genesis 11 tells a story of how the scattering of the nations came to be. Their goal, to “make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth” was not necessarily displeasing to God, but rather threatening.

If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. [2]

This seems odd. After all, shouldn’t the Creator of the universe have a decent sense of security regarding pride of place. What endeavors could humanity possibly accomplish together that would warrant such a drastic intervention?

In context, humanity was commanded to “fill the earth,” a spreading of God’s image and blessings. But instead of following the command given to ADAM (אדם-humanity) to “be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth,” which was a way of God spreading his image and blessings around, humanity decided to pursue their own glory and achievement. Remember their motive — to “make a name” for themselves. Add to that the existence of a tower, and you have a solidified vision of establishing a long-term monument, not to God (אלהים), but to man. Again, the story of Babel explains how pride and vainglorious ends are in opposition with the original intended order.

Revelation dreams of a day when the depravity of humanity is reversed, and that Genesis order is truly restored. Listen to Revelation along side key elements of Pangea Day’s Mission & Purpose.

Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, [pd: In a world where people are often divided by borders] bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations [pd: difference]. No longer will there be any curse [pd: and conflict]. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him [pd: its' easy to lose sight of what we all have in common.] They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads [pd (seeks to overcome that): to help people see themselves in others]. There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light [pd: through the power of film]. And they will reign for ever and ever. The angel said to me, “These words are trustworthy and true. The Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent his angel to show his servants the things that must soon take place. [3] (italics mine)

I may be over alluding a bit, for sure. But I don’t think it’s a far stretch to say that deep in the psyche of humanity lies a very real sense of connectedness with the rest of the earth coupled with a sense of disunity and distance. And so it ought not surprise us, and in fact delight us, that globalization is allowing a “re-convergence” of humanity to occur in new and phenomenal ways. Revelation simply describes what we all wish to realize.

Perhaps we ought to think spiritually about gatherings like these, to be very careful to avoid building a name for ourselves, to monument humanity over the greater unifying spirit of the Creator. We may be wise in heeding the cautions of the Genesis story; that the reason to come together is to bear the image of God and the fullness of his blessings to the world, all of it. Genesis 11 commissions that to us, as “all the earth” (כל-הארץ) shows up five times in the narrative as a key phrase. You etymological fans are ahead of me already for we see one last parallel with the name “pangea” meaning “all the earth.”

—

[1] http://www.pangeaday.org/aboutPangeaDay.php, viewed 5/12/2008
[2] Genesis 11:6
[3] Revelation 22:1-6 (NIV)

MINI Insider - How My First Born Will Be Named “Cooper”

As the vehicular life cycle comes to a close for one of our cars, the need to research other options that are sensible, economically wise, environmentally friendly, and still practically functional has birthed itself into my calendar. So, while researching the BMW MINI’s, I became an “Insider” which, with the rest of the legalese, included the following statements that were intriguing, fun, and provocative. I’ve included the full text of the agreement below.

For the sole purpose of giving me the best service possible, I agree to let MINI share the information I provide with other groups in the immediate MINI network, such as MINI dealers. MINI will never ever sell the information I have given. Nor will they share it with any 3rd parties that have no clear and direct link to MINI. Furthermore, even other gorups within the immediate MINI network will never contact me in any way shape or form until I have explicitly grated them permission.

I also agree to avoid ruts.

And I agree to change my locker combination to include the numbers 1964 (the year we won our first Monte Carlo rally).

I agree to chase squirrels around the park every now and then and giggle like a madman while doing it.

I agree to be more adventurous and try to avoid homogenized restaurant chains.

I agree to name my first-born Cooper.

I agree to bare the soles of my feet to the earth and feel grass, sand, stones, and streams.

I agree to watch the movie “The Italian Job” as soon as I can. I agree to at least think strongly about learning to play a musical instrument.

I agree to consider painting the roof of my house in contrasting colors.

I’m not sure if BMW-MINI will ever sue me for breach of contract, but there is a small part of me that feels obligated to fulfill each of these items.

THE COVENANT, THE CONTRACT, AND THE CUSTOMER

VIA is about faith and life and culture. What does this have to do with any of that?

It is for me another reminder that life, all of life, works around relationships bound in contracts and covenants with identified parties involved, stipulations and agreements, benefits and consequences. And even in this fun and quirky contract with BMW-MINI, there’s a naming agreement. There is something almost “spiritual” about each of the items; naming, celebration, commissioning, ritual…it’s all there.

Far fetched to draw this kind of connection? Perhaps. A bit whimsical? Sure. But I also hope that just like I clicked (”signed”) the agreement with delight, knowing that I was entering into an agreement that would ultimately bring greater joy and excitement into my life, so I would hope that we would do the same with the covenant agreements of our faith, knowing that the contract is really there to bring more life.

And, if I fail to name my first born “Cooper,” I willingly forfeit the blessings. For BWM-MINI, I suppose that’s fine. I’m not so sure I want to do that with my faith contract.

The Soul of Christianity - Huston Smith

Smith, Huston. The Soul of Christianity: Restoring the Great Tradition. HarperSanFrancisco, 2005. (176 pages)

One of my favorite reads with too many highlights and underlines to reference here.

Suggesting that we are now living in the second of two great human revolutions, Smith follows the “best defense is a good offense” strategy stating,

“[This book] champions Christianity by telling the Christian story in a way that is more persuasive than secularism’s attacks on it,” (p.xxv).

Smith is well known for his work and teaching on The World’s Religions (1991). This work is placed in a symbolic three parts, 1) The Christian Worldview, 2) The Christian Story, and 3) The Three Main Branches of Christianity Today.

In Part 1, he posits 15 principles of which he sums at the end of the section in this paragraph:

The world is objectively there and intelligible. It is infinite and includes the finite with its value-laden degrees, hierarchically ordered. As virtues ascend in the hierarchy, they meld into one another until their differences disappear in the Simple One. Evil features in finitude but not in the Absolute, and because the Absolute is all-powerful, in the end absolute perfection reigns. Human begins intersect the degrees of reality, but in them they appear inverted, as if seen on the surface of a glassy lake. We cannot comprehend the fullness of Reality on our own, but its outlines are revealed to us. The key to unlocking the truths of Revelation is symbolism. Knowing is both rational and intuitive, both concrete and abstract. After we have done our best to understand the world, it remains mysterious, but through the shrouds of mystery, we can dimly discern that it is perfect. (p.33)

In Part 2, he quickly covers the main points of the Christian story, starting, of course, with Jesus, His life, death, burial, and resurrection, Saul of Tarsus, a few doctrines, and Revelation (the Apocalypse).

In part 3, he does a synopsis of the three main branches of Christianity: Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestantism.

I found much of this book having quite a bit in common with the tensions that contemporarily lie in the discussion of the Emerging Church (a discussion that is primarily Protestant). His way of communicating esoteric concepts for a more popular audience is refreshing, but in addition, he shares a “convincing argument for a vital alternative that is a deeper more authentic faith, a faith that guided the Church for its first thousand years,” (back cover, emphasis mine).

An ‘easy’ read, but not a ‘quick’ one; a concise work with sentences and ideas that require mental and spiritual marinating.

Manga Messiah - Japanese Anime Jesus

Tyndale House publishers has created a series that tells Bible stories in the manga style.

Manga Bible’s website here, and Tyndale’s website here.
Manga Life’s review here.

NEXT is excited over this opportunity to present today’s young people with the biggest selling book in the history of the world, containing the greatest story ever told, about the most controversial man who ever lived, in the most popular graphic novel format on earth. [1]

And yet again, faith and popular culture come together to provide, what will most likely be, a polarizing product that has some jumping for joy, and others decrying the dumbing down of Christianity and the syncretistic “bedfellowing” that faith has with culture. This of course, leaves only a small minority of the population ambivalent. Read the review above. It’s worth catching the nuances (like using the name Yeshuah, and Miriam instead of the Anglicized equivalents). They say that it’s fairly accurate to the Gospel accounts. I’ve placed my order.

WHAT SHOULD THE POSTURE OF OUR ATTITUDE BE TOWARDS PRODUCTS SUCH AS THESE?

This reminds me of the hoopla that happened when Thomas Nelson did something similar in 2007 when they published “Revolve,” the Bible in a teen magazine format. (Baptist Press article here). The main fear? Compromise of the Gospel. And as with all cultural forms, with every new kind of fancy packaging of the Bible, there is an immediate fear that we are perpetuating a message that is inauthentic to the original.

But is not any translation automatically inauthentic to the original? Is not a distant modern ecclesial culture inauthentic to the original?

Yes. And for that, we must caution, but not condemn.

Even those who are so excited about the ESV (English Standard Version) translation must realize that any English translation is in some way, a compromise of the original, both in the attempting to maintain true to the “spirit” of the message, not to mention the “letter” of the message. That’s the nature and the essence of any culture throughout history being a carrier of a message that really, ultimately does change. We can either be honest with that, or we can be arrogant in suggesting that how we understand and see the Gospel is the Gospel. Given that I do believe in God, bigger than culture, translations, and even my understanding, I’ll maintain a healthy sense of mystery.

So, I welcome Manga. As the review mentioned, it’s probably not going to have the widespread interest that the original Manga is going to have, either as an evangelistic tool, or as an educational one. But, it’s exciting for the producers, helpful for those who are intrigued and curious, and I suggest that those who are deeply concerned would do well to believe that “whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this, [we ought to] rejoice.” (Philippians 1:18)

A DISTINCT CULTURAL DIFFERENCE OF INTEREST

According to Manga Life’s review,

since there is so much information to convey, the pages are loaded with captions and dialogue, which is much more of a Western style of comics storytelling; Japanese manga more often uses quiet moments and pages of wordless or near-wordless action to tell stories.

I find this compelling and worth reflecting on as many — in all the various religious traditions — are verbose and homiletic, standing on the “spoken/preached Word” for the salvation of souls. Perhaps there are other ways to communicate that are more compelling, and one ought to think intentionally about how to leverage those mediums for the message that one wishes to convey.

—

[1] http://mangabible.com (cited 5/4/2008)

The Namesake - Racial and Cultural Lessons for a Better Humanity

The Namesake movie (website here, trailer here) was produced in 2006 and is based upon the book by Jhumpa Lahiri. I found a very eloquent review of the book here, and a blog dedicated to the movie here.

The review linked above is going to be difficult to outdo (well done). So, for the purposes of faith, life, and culture, below are a few things for consideration in public and private discourse.

“Every day since then has been a gift.”

1. There is no better way to communicate the essences of culture and of life than through the genre of story.

In some of my “classes” on cultural studies (seminary), I’ve found myself frustrated at the lack of sensitivity and awareness as we sit in a classroom and make statements such as “black people do this…” or “whites hate this…” or “asians love this…” or “latinos generally behave like this…” “Did you know,” the professor states, “that ___s love to ___? That’s how they communicate love.” Well, that may be true — for some — but not all, and certainly not the ones I know in America. Why the generalization? Why make statements with such conclusiveness as to encapsulate all people of that color or race?

We have a challenge in this “melting pot” of the world. Cultures are not as they seem, and the kinds of syncretism that are happening in our ever globalizing society is as diverse as the people. It seems, then, that cross-cultural studies miss something huge when diverse peoples are boiled down to anthropological analysis. Why am I so frustrated at this kind of study? There is no story. How does one truly get at a higher level of understanding? Instead of starting with statements such as “This race/culture is…” begin the conversation with, “Once upon a time…”

I need to know people, characters, background, history,…in other words, I need a fuller phenomenological context. Textbooks will never provide that. Only stories will; movies, films, novels, etc. And so for all of the racial and cultural tensions we face, perhaps this one element, missing from the greater conversation, can bring us closer towards resolving the negative tensions we feel. Perhaps by telling, and listening to the stories of other people will we rise above mere categories of anthropological analysis, and get down to the heart of humanity that cries out to live out reality, rather than bullet-point it.

I find this applicable to what is currently going on in the media with Jeremiah Wright. Using him simply as an example, we can see how statements and people are taken out of the context of their stories, thus providing a different framework of meaning for the various strains of discourse that we are engaging in. I believe, and perhaps you’ll agree, that racial tensions by this kind of discussion only exacerbate the problem. What would happen if we took the time to listen to the fuller stories of each other rather than 2-3 min. sound bytes?

2. There is no better way to discovery than through experiencing contrast.

Exemplified in the movie, and taken from sociological observations, the only way that we understand truly who we are, and therefore what the world is all about, is through contrasting ourselves with something we are not.

My wife and I discuss frequently the necessity of travel and cultural engagement for the students that we lead. Isolationism and individualism is epidemic — many social analysts would conclude — and instead of truly discovering who we are, if we continue down those paths, we will merely myopically implode. The healthy alternative is being in close proximity to people and cultures unlike our own, listening, engaging, eating, learning language, compassionately understanding, and just being a part of a contrasting world. This kind of healthy communal interaction actually illuminates the individual soul. It is the paradox of discovery, “Whoever tries to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it.” (Luke 17:33) Perhaps then will we be able to do damage to all kinds of “isms” that we fight so vehemently against: racism, sexism, absolutism, etc…

3. In that discovery there is no better way to “find oneself” than by staying deeply connected in relationships with others.

As you may imagine, these concepts are steps toward an ultimate ethic. The next step, after understanding contrast, and getting in proximity to cultures and people who are not of your own ilk, is to respect the heritage and traditions deeply enough to actually partake in them.

Many may decry this as blasphemous syncretism, suggesting that, especially for the deeply religious, that it does irreparable harm to a person’s soul. But we must understand that cultural practice does not equal adherence, and to suggest that entering into another’s world for the sake of respect, conversation, experience, and redemption is a bad thing, ought to take an honest look at one’s own personal syncretism, for none are immune. For “evangelists” of their faith, it must be understood that the very influence that religious people attempt to have on others can only be accomplished by first taking the steps to listen and engage so as to be influenced first by them. To respect is to participate in ways that allow the tradition to touch you, and inform your life’s experience.

I suggest that these kinds of connections are imperative to healing and redemption, and that people of faith ought to find their full presence of being in the presence of others.

4. There is no better way to love than through laying down one’s life for his friends.

The ultimate ethic, therefore, is truly to love. To be so in tuned with the other, that the individualism and isolationism of self-seeking service begins to slowly dissipate as it is sacrificed for a greater life. If we are to continually look out for our own lives, to “each his own,” to “look out for number one,” etc., we ultimately destroy ourselves. It is first through a denial of self for the sake of the friends and relationships around us that we find a whole new kind of life that is abundantly more than we could have ever imagined on our own. This is the joy of culture, of race, of being diverse people’s in our one world. And when we decide to move, to step, to embrace one another in these very real, tangible, narrative ways, we too will be able to say that “every day since then has been a gift.”

EXPELLED: An Unintelligently Designed and Devolving Debate

After reading through several posts, philosophically pondering, and having several conversations with friends and students, here are my contentions about the debate, why “Expelled” is an example of good faith, and good science gone bad — on both fronts, and what ought we now do about the matter.

CONTENTION 1: Faith and Science are separate disciplines that are harmonious, but not academically compatible.

I owe this observation to my friend through a breakfast conversation. While science and faith seem to be fighting over each other’s turf, fundamentally the disciplines of science and faith are of different realms that ought to be kept segregated for the purpose reaching the best possible conclusions of both worlds. When we violate this ordained “anti-relationship” we end up with unintelligent discussions and base debates about who is right and who is wrong, using terminology that means completely different things to different people because of the segregated disciplines, and we relegate ourselves to using the most primitive and virulent of tactics to win this “mind-war.” And that gets us nowhere, except a lot of bloggers cheering each others’ sides on, with little, if any honest faith or good reason.

And both sides are guilty. I’m unsure who started it first, so I’ll begin with Dawkins simply because his book was published before “Expelled” was produced.

While Dawkins may be an excellent scientist and evolutionary biologist, his utilization of philosophy, metaphysics, and especially theology is horrendous. I once heard a prominent theologian say something to the effect that “The God Delusion” was one of those kinds of books that, once they put it down, it was very difficult to pick back up again. Why? Well, in my perusing of the book (I’ll admit that I have not “read” it), and in the glimpse in the movie by the recited quote, one fails to find any clear substantial arguments against theism. The book — consequentially the thrust of Dawkins’ arguments [1] — is not much more than a personal rant against the ails of religion, much like Bertrand Russell, and it completely dismisses the vast majority of material that does exist on the subject. All this, by the way, is fine, it just cannot be accepted as good theology, or even good philosophy. The ad hominem, straw men, and illogical arguments are just too much to make any real sense.

At the same time, Stein’s attempt at discounting the science of evolutionary biology (under the guise of a conspiratorial repression of Intelligent Design scientists) is equally repulsive. Using “docutainment,” false pretenses, poor editing, and personal emotional persuasion, the movie ends up being contrived, disingenuous, and succeeds in only solidifying the personal commitments of those who have already bought in to the one-sided perspective. Also, questioning all theories of science simply based upon unknown variables that are scientifically acceptable is to throw the baby out with the bathwater, that is, if the bathwater is even that dirty, which one could argue. We cannot relegate science to mere humanistic debased intentions. That’s bad science, and bad philosophy. Again, having a mission of discovering root causes of evil in the world is an honorable endeavor, but to tie it so closely to a science is again, dishonest, and just poor form in both disciplines, disregarding all other reasonable statements, thoughts, and conclusions.

I once heard Ravi Zacharias say, “If you throw dirt at each other, not only do you get your hands dirty, you also lose a lot of ground.” For all those who are engaging in these kinds of debates, the earth beneath them is deteriorating.

So if we’re really going to get the best of both worlds, they must be kept completely distinct from each other in what it attempts to accomplish. And if we were ever to mix them, it ought only be for the purpose of reconciling a personal conviction that one’s worldview is incomplete and needs additional puzzle pieces to make a whole.

CONTENTION 2: Therefore, the evidence does not lead to Intelligent Design (ID), faith does.

However one “concludes” the evidence found through empirical study, let’s just be honest in saying that ID is really not a scientific theory, but a metaphysical philosophy that brings a non-theoretical belief statement to the table. Therefore, to make the statement that “the science leads to Intelligent Design” is actually untrue. What lies beyond the physical universe, causality, originality, morality, etc., can only be encapsulated in metaphysical terms and ideas. And it’s fine to use ID as that explanation, but it’s not fine to say that the science leads there. Only the soul can make that jump.

[SIDE NOTE: It has been brought to my attention that ID also adheres strongly to the idea of irreducible complexity, the concept that complex mechanisms came into being/existence in the very state of their complexity due to the nature of the organism (Michael Behe's work). If this is true for ID adherents, then the above contention would have to be fairly adjusted. I welcome comments.]

CONTENTION 3: Therefore, a scientist’s theistic beliefs cannot be based on science.

Consequently, just because a scientist discovers more and more about the universe, and can encapsulate it in laws, theories, and general physical principles, this cannot mean that it leads to either the very presence of a god or the complete absence of one. I suggest that “observation is not explanation” in the ultimate sense. I also argue, that even though Stephen Hawking may have discovered the beginning of the universe, this does not automatically provide conclusions about any metaphysical reality.

CONTENTION 4: Ultimately, the ID war is a political one, not a scientific or religious fight.

All this to say that as the movies, books, publications, articles, and blogs portray a rampant contentious fight, it only proves that those engaged in the fight are neither doing science, nor religion. Rather, this is politics, pure and simple. That is, this is merely about governing people’s minds, hearts, and ultimately their behaviors. Each side is leveraging their disciplines, and the findings within each, as good or as bad as they may be, to persuade people to think more solidly about their a priori convictions. And as that persuasion becomes more intensified, as with all politics, it (and we) will become more polarized.

And though I suggest a segregation of the two disciplines, I also said that they are harmonious. And if we continue to rage in this way, we will do ultimate damage to both disciplines, and more importantly, we’ll do damage to the very humanity that we are trying to persuade for a greater redemptive ethic. If science is going to continue to benefit humanity in the way that modernity has already proven, there must be an embracing (and celebrating) of the existence of metaphysical adherence. If religion hopes to move people’s hearts and minds towards greater compassion, meaning, and purpose, it too must embrace the empirical observations that compassionate, purposeful, and visionary people make. Then, perhaps instead of opponents to be beaten, people of faith and science can see each other as the other side of the human coin, facing in opposite directions, but inextricably connected around the edges of our existence.

—

[1] I would include Christopher Hitchens in this line of reasoning as well.

[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihYq2dGa29M.