As promised on facebook, I decided to write a post about my joining of the Episcopal Church (it won’t be officially until May).Yes, you did read that correctly.  After years of wandering between theological traditions, unable to find an appropriate fit, the journey has ended.

After Florrie and I moved to Columbus, GA we continued our search for a “home” church.  We instantly fell in love with Trinity Episcopal in Columbus, GA.  And, after an impromptu conversation with Father Rich Martindale,  both Florrie and I agreed that the search was over.

Why, then, aren’t we just joining Trinity, rather than the Episcopal Church as a whole?  That’s a little more complicated.  I won’t presume to speak for my amazing wife, but here’s a listing of my reasons for joining the Episcopal Church (c’mon, who doesn’t love a good list?!):

1. A Loving Community. While this seems minor to many, I am sick of being in traditions that define themselves by what they are not, by the things they oppose.  Even the phrase “Bible-believing Christian” implies a distinction from those Christians who don’t believe the Bible.  My experience with Episcopalians has been loving and affirming (though every church has its pin-heads).  The Episcopal Church defines itself by its desire to share the love of Christ with the world.  I can really get behind that.
2. The Eucharist. Based on my study at Candler School of Theology, the psycologizing of the Bread and Wine in communion is a perversion of the early Church.  As early as Justin Martyr (d. 166 CE) one can find an understanding the that the bread and wine are transformed and transform those who partake of them.  This understanding, though it evolves, can be found throughout the history of the Church until Ulrich Zwingli abandoned it in the Reformation.  The Anglican Church, and its American sister, the Episcopal Church, respect and continue the Eucharist tradition began with the earliest disciples.
3. The Respect of History. The Episcopal Church deeply respects the history of the Christian Church.  Its Eucharistic tradition is just a small part of the historical nature of the Episcopal Church.  It’s leadership is educated in the history of the Church.  It’s people participate in the Liturgical Calendar.  While the Episcopal Church affirms the Reformation’s creed of “Scripture alone” as the firmest foundation for belief, it holds that the Scriptures can only be properly understood in light of their historical interpretation and appropriation.
4. Inclusivity. The Anglican Church was founded to be a ‘third-way’, a bridge between Protestant and Catholic traditions.  The idea behind the Church was the find unity in our dependence on Christ, rather than doctrinal assertions and divisions.  This has provides the Episcopal Church with the foundation for deep diversity within its unity.  One Church and one Body does not require on doctrinal statement or one set of beliefs.  It only requires the we all meet at the same table, admit our universal dependency on Christ, and partake in God’s grace via the Eucharist.  Therefore, the Episcopal Church provides the me with the theological latitude that I have been unable to find in other traditions.  The 39 Articles aside, there is no other doctrinal statement to sign my name to.  Questioning is encouraged.
5. A Respect of Theologians and Theological Education. This may seem petty to many people, but I genuinely felt chased out of my previous non-denominational evangelical tradition.  I was never asked to leave, but Non-Denominational Evangelicals (and their Pentecostal and Baptist compatriots) make a point of degrading theology and the theologians who dedicate their lives to such endeavors.  This is not the case with the Anglican/ Episcopal Church.  Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury (head of the Anglican Communion), is one of the most renowned theologians in the world today.  Williams aside, the Anglican Communion  is also home to a diverse number of contemprorary theologians  such as N.T. Wright, Alister McGrath, Mark A. McIntosh, Joy Ann McDougall, Kathryn Tanner, Stanley Hauwerwas, Miroslav Volf, John Webster, Desmond Tutu, John Macquarrie, etc.  As a second sub point, the Episcopal not only encouarges theological scholarship, it encourages education.  It requires its priests and bishops to be heavily educated.  It even mandates they continue education after ordination!  While in non-denominational evangelical circles I constantly had to justify my theological education and defend my role in the Church.  I have received nothing but praise for dedicating my life to the service of the Church since participating in Trinity.
6. The Ordination of Homosexuals? Undoubtedly, the issue of homosexual marriage comes up in conversation any time I tell a friend about my joining the Episcopal Church.  To be honest, this isn’t an issue for me.  Either I sit in a Baptist Church where I vehemently disagree and have to be silent, or I sit in an Episcopal Church where I am free to share my beliefs and join an ongoing conversation about the things I disagree with.  I’ll disagree with leadership wherever I am.  Why not join a Church that encourages conversation rather than stifling it?

So… there’s the summary. Add all these together and I honestly believe, after 5 years of searching, I will never find a better fit than I have found in the Episcopal Church.  Hopefully this will help convince some of my friends that I’m still a Christian (yes, I’m serious).  Regardless, I’d love to hear your thoughts.

-Earl

Perhaps I am just overly pessimistic, but based on its title this book wasn’t what I expected.  I mean that in a good way.  It’s Really All About God is an overflow of love and hope for the future of religion.  Whereas many interfaith dialogs seek to blur distinctions, mixing the world’s religions into a monochromatic stew of ethic teachings, Samir Selmanovic takes an alternative route.  He asks, “Can God be found in those outside of my religious tradition?”.  As a result, It’s Really All About God provides its reader with complimentary ways of understanding and experiencing God, despite their religious background.

For many, this will be an unnerving approach.  However, it need not be.  Samir carefully and calculatedly constructed a theological framework that speaks unilaterally, across religious divides.  His framework is one of asking deep questions about how we, as religious people, understand power, community, the nature, and knowledge of God.

Do we only participate in conversations we can control?  Must we have the last word?  Is a singular belief necessary for Spirit-filled community?  Are our religions equatable to the presence of God?  If not, how does that change how we look at religion?

Samir is interested in deepening our faith and opening our communities, rather than proselytizing a particular faith or ideology.  Taking the role of a prophet, Samir is careful to limit the answers he provides.  He merely confronts the reader with tough questions and allows the discomfort and silence of unanswered questions.  His hope is that, through the subsequent silence, God will make Godself heard and known.

However, this book is not just for theists.  Taking a road far less traveled, Samir also dedicates much of this book to discussing how non-theists may participate in and contribute to the conversation about God.  He argues that non-theists have valuable critiques to offer those of us within religious communities.  Moreover, he also argues that non-theist (or “atheistic”) faiths are fellow sojourners, rather than adversarial opponents.  Samir carefully offers a theological framework that allows each tradition to develop and grow through dialog, even traditions generally considered outside the religious conversations.

Though far from flawless, I applaud Samir for It’s Really All About God.  Many authors have attempted to facilitate inter-religious dialog, but few have done it with the pastoral care and artisanship of Selmanovic.  This book is a window into his life, his family, his struggles, and ultimately his trans-religious experiences of God.  Many may fault Samir for this transparency and for publicly confessing how God has spoken through religions besides his own.  I, however, have been deeply moved by this book and find myself both challenged and transformed.

I highly recommend this book.

- Earl

Constructive Theology: A Contemporary Approach to Classical Themes reads like a rolodex of prominent living theologians.  Edited by Serene Jones and Paul Lakeland, this introduction to Christian theology provides both a broad and a narrow window to doing theology in a contemporary context.

This book offers a broad perspective to theology in that it draws from the entirety of the Christian tradition to inform the reader of the history behind each doctrine.  It spends a large amount of its time discussion the theologies of Augustine and Schleiermacher, although the two are rarely placed into any form of dialog.  Augustine’s understandings of the imago Dei, free will, Spirit, and authority provide the basis for contemporizing understandings of human nature and sin.  Rather than particular theological formations, Schleiermacher provides the theological methodology referenced throughout the book.  Theology must speak of the human experience as well as speak of disembodied theological realities.  It provides a bold and innovative theological voice for groups previously marginalized.  This focus acts as a double-edged sword.  In voicing marginalized views, this introduction to theology marginalizes more traditional or conservative theological voices.  In pursuit of inclusivity, this volume ultimately excludes those who disagree with its authors.

Unfortunately, this book also offers a narrow perspective to theology in that it limits its perspective to liberation, feminist, womanist and similar theologies.  A strong conservative voice is all that this volume lacks.

Constructive Theology skillfully guides the reader through how to discern theological questions from everyday conversations.  It educates the reader on the necessary background and history behind each doctrine.  It provides brief commentaries on controversial issues (such as feminism’s aversion to post-structuralist philosophy).  It even provides at essays written by top scholars, as examples of a contemporary constructive theology; showing the reader what a constructive theology looks like when applied.

However, in spite of all these positive attributes, I still felt indoctrinated while reading this book.   While acknowledging theologies such as an exclusivist understanding of salvation (those outside Christianity will go to hell), this book almost immediately dismissed such notions as imperialistic and triumphalistic.  A second example is the book’s vilification of conservative convictions.  Constructive Theology has little place for traditional theologies.  In fact, it often presupposes theological convictions, such as the permissibility of homosexuality, the necessity of women’s ordination, and the immorality of capitalism, and the description of America as an oppressive empire, that alienate most conservative teachers and students.

Because of its solely liberal slant, I would not recommend this as an introductory text to theology.  However, I think this would make an excellent text for an intermediate class in theology.  Constructive Theology would work wonderfully for dissecting and categorizing theologies.  It also would serve well in familiarizing students with perspectives that are sometimes overlooked (I.e. liberationist, feminist, womanist, and queer theologies), especially in conservative institutions.

Regardless of its liberal disposition, this is an easy-to-read and authoritative text on what some of the world’s most renowned theologians are doing in theology.  A reader would be remiss, regardless of theological stripe, if he or she passed up the opportunity to read this book.

[This post has nothing to do with theology.  I occasionally take a break from talking theology to discuss other adjacent interests... hence, the 'Artists I Love' series]

"Patience" 2007, Oil on Canvas, 57in x 62in

I first discovered the work of Jeff Hein a few years ago.  I stumbled across an realistic portrait of Jesus teaching the 12 disciples around a campfire.  As a theology student with an affinity for Jesus I was immediately drawn to the work.  I was amazed by Hein’s ability to capture photo-realism in a painting.

However, I soon found out that Hein’s ability extends well beyond just his ability for realism.  As you can see in the picture above, Hein’s artistry also extends to his masterful use of color and composition.  Moreover, each painting is pregnant with meaning.  The choice of color, the subtle expressions, the body position, the choice of background and props all draw the painting’s audience into the act of interpretation.  One cannot help but look beyond the painting, in a deep pursuit of meaning (even if the artist left no “meaning” to be found).

If you really think this artist is great and want to work with him, he’s hosting a Portrait Workshop in a few weeks.

Jeffrey Hein’s Website

His Blog

What does God think about folks who decide to have gender reassignment surgeries?  What about folks who manipulate their gender via prescribed chemicals?  Consequently, what are Christians to think about such practices?

This was just the subject of a conversation I overheard yesterday.   In a post (I’m not going to link it) a Christian acquaintance went into a tirade on how “sick” and “perverse” it was that a father was having gender reassignment surgery.  They argued that a “sex change” is an act of ingratitude and disrespect toward God.  After all, if God has specifically and omnipotently designed each person then changing one’s divinely-designated gender may be understood as, ultimately, one’s dissatisfaction with God.

At the time I just wrote the points off as the ignorant ramblings of someone who hadn’t bothered to think through what they were arguing (something I am sure is often thought of me as well).  Therefore I just let it go.  Arguing with someone who is venting is pointless.  So I let it go.   Besides, the positive comments didn’t really reflect an environment ripe for constructive discussion.

Although, after much consideration, I think those points are seriously flawed. The idea that a sex-change surgery is an abomination is entirely based on the notion that an omnipotent God hand-made each one of us.  Therefore, we are specifically designed by a loving creator.  That argument works well in protests outside abortion clinics, but it is deeply flawed.

What about birth defects?  What about stillborn babies?

I know a man who was born without an anus.  Does that mean the surgeon spat in the face of God when he or she surgically created a anus?  Of course not.   We live in a world corrupted by sin.  Unless we are willing to attribute the birth of every HIV positive baby, every brain-dead baby, or every crack-baby to God’s omnipotence, we cannot argue that every person is “woven together in their mother’s womb”.   Even if one were to argue that HIV and crack-cocaine are not part of the biological process, one must still compensate for the fact that they affected the fetus while God was “weaving it together”.  It is a futile to try to establish what is outside of an all-powerful God’s control.

If birth defects exist as a part of nature, why then is gender a non-negotiable?  What about folks who are born hermaphroditic, born both male and female?  Are you willing to tell them that God thinks they should not be allowed to ever get married?  After all, if they have both sets of genitals then any partner is a homosexual partner.  Yet still, what if their parents chose a gender for them at birth, and had the other gender removed?  Is a sex-change later in life still an abomination even though it wasn’t God who chose their gender, but their parents and a doctor?  A hard and fast rule about what God thinks of gender falls apart rather quickly when pressure is placed upon it.

I also realize that gender is not a birth defect for most individuals.  Most folks receive a gender at birth and function well within that cultural and genetic role.  However, there are many who do not as well.

Is it the job of the majority to establish the ethical norm and to enforce that norm over the minority?

A majority of the Church is right-handed.  Will we make that an ethical issue as well?  To label the minority wrong, based solely on its minority status, is to run the Christian Church by gang rule.

If God has a steadfast and knowable opinion on sex-changes, it cannot be found in one’s gender at birth.  If we are to continue with such arguments we must also condemn cures for Type 1 diabetics, cancer, HIV/AIDS, and leprosy as well.  We must tell them that God has chosen their cross to bear, and that they must bear it well.  Treatments and cures are unnecessary.  God, in all God’s omnipotence, has decided what’s best for them and they should just accept that.

It wouldn’t be the first time in the Christian Church.  However, I still hold out hope that there are loving, thoughtful Christians reading this who will keep such things from happening in the future.

- Earl

In recent memory, few issues have stirred the ire and hostility of evangelicals like homosexual marriage.  The sheer mention of homosexuality, in many circles, is enough warrant to display some of the basest human reactions conceivable.  Behind closed doors, where it is assume one can speak freely, otherwise loving people transform into bastions of hate.  In an instantaneous transformation, otherwise loving people turn and vehemently bellow, “Homosexuality is an ABOMINATION!”  Extended descriptions of how “sickening” and “perverse” such behavior is generally follow such outbursts.  These descriptions are often capped with proposed solutions for handling the problem.  In my experience, murder is often a solution offered.

Suggestions of murder may only be hyperbole, but these private conversations undoubtedly have fueled much of the Evangelical rhetoric regarding homosexuality in the media.  It does not seem impossible that the words of the late Jerry Falwell, Dr. Dobson, or Pat Robertson echo such private sentiments (although they may not have said such things themselves) However, it appears the sun is setting on this dark era of Evangelicalism.

Younger Evangelicals are rethinking older ways of understanding same-sex marriage.  Prominent evangelicals such as Richard Cizik, Tony Jones, and even “Purpose Driven” pastor Rick Warren no longer tow the traditional evangelical line.  Each has publicly expressed support for same-sex marriage and/or same-sex unions.  Moreover, they are hardly the exception.  Much of Evangelicalism is reconsidering its long-held opinions about the institution of marriage and same-sex couples’ to that institution.

Should younger Evangelicals reconsider the issue of same-sex marriage as well?  I believe the following five concerns should give pause to any evangelical of deep faith, and perhaps, if led, change their mind regarding same-sex partners’ right to marriage in America.

1. Affirmation of the right for same sex-marriages is not an affirmation of a homosexual lifestyle. A less volatile example of this concept is divorce.  In America, divorce is legal.  However, this does this mean that Evangelicals support divorce.  Despite being a legal option, many churches still speak out against divorce- and rightly so.  Extra-marital affairs are legal as well.  Despite being a heart-wrenching situation and a terrible violation of trust and commitment, the notion of outlawing such actions seems absurd.  In each of these situations, there is an unspoken line between the state and the Church.  The state assures the rights of all.  The Church concerns itself with proclaiming the Kingdom.
2. The teachings of Jesus and the Old Testament prophets speak loudly against injustice. Both the prophets and Jesus taught about the need for justice and mercy.  One should not understand justice as the punishment of wrong.  Rather, justice is the fair treatment of all, regardless of what they believe or how they live.  Building on a similar understanding of justice, the Declaration of Independence affirms an inalienable right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” for all Americans.  Assuming the Declaration is correct, are we to use governmental power to deny homosexuals a right to marriage because our theology says they are incorrect or immoral?  If one says yes, it would not be the first time.  Before and during the Civil War, many evangelicals used the Apostle Paul’s epistles to defend slavery.  Using only a Bible to determine legislation can be a regrettable practice.
3. History teaches us that Christianity and political power make for dangerous bedfellows. Despite what the Religious Right might have taught us, Christianity makes a poor government.  From Constantine’s establishing Christianity as a political power through the early 20^th century “Christian” governments have never been very Christian.  A Christian government slaughtered thousands during the Crusades.  A Christian government ruled by fear throughout numerous Inquisitions.  A Christian government perpetrated the Salem Witch Trials.  In recent history, Christianity has been used to deny equal rights to both blacks and women.  Let us not forget, less than 100 years ago, the fact that women could not vote was considered “Biblical.”
4. An expectation of “Biblical Marriage” is not very Christian. Upon diligent inspection of the Scriptures, we find the Biblical definition of marriage to be more descriptive than prescriptive.  How else can we understand the often-inferior status of women in Scripture; being sold and traded as property?  Even polygamy is not just an Old Testament practice.  Why would the Apostle Paul demanded that Bishops be “the husband of one wife” (1 Ti. 3:2) unless there were men in those Churches with more than one wife?  The Scriptures speak often and strongly regarding marriage.  However, the Scriptures mostly describe how one is to live righteously in the already existing social institution rather than prescribing a universal formula.  Reading “one man and one woman” in Genesis while ignoring the rest of the Old Testament seems at least self-serving, if not outright dishonest.
5. Legislation should not be used to define morality. Why do we need a law against something for it to be wrong?  Evangelicals learned during prohibition that laws do not change morality.  In fact, one might even argue that America has lost its ability to determine right from wrong because it has come to rely on its laws to determine right and wrong for it.  Jesus taught that morality is something that happens within a person, not in legislation.  Refusing rights to homosexuals will not encourage them to get to know Jesus; in fact, it usually will do the opposite.

I have intentionally sidestepped discussing the homosexuality within Christianity.  The morality of homosexuality is peripheral to same-sex couples’ right to marriage.  Just as the morality of drunkenness, avarice, gluttony, lust, and divorce are peripheral our nation’s laws regarding such behaviors.

According to Jesus, morality is a matter of our hearts.  Why not welcome homosexuals with open arms to our communities and let the Holy Spirit do what the Holy Spirit does best, change hearts through community?  I ask that we would at least give pause and think through the issue of same-sex marriage one more time.  Is the route the previous generation chose the best to bring about the Kingdom of God?  Perhaps there might be a better path, a path leading to the Kingdom through community and equality rather than superimposed morality.

- Earl

Ok, Let’s all begin by reading that title again:

Jesus, interrupted by Bart Ehrman.

Either that is a humorous twist of fate or Bart Ehrman has concocted the best title ever.  I lean towards that later as it aptly describes the thesis of the book; Bart Ehrman stepping all over the toes of the biblical Jesus.

In case you’ve lived under a rock (or just outside of Evangelical circles) for the past few months, Bart Ehrman (the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor at UNC: Chapel Hill) has been the topic of much Evangelical controversy.  The reason for this controversy?  His newest book Jesus, Interrupted, is a cataloging of major historical and logical inconsistencies in the New Testament.  I hate to over-simplify the work of someone such as Bart Ehrman, but the book really is that simple.

Luckily for me, Ehrman even opens the book by acknowledging that material covered is nothing new to Seminary and Graduate School students.  And he is correct.  Ehrman’s book really does present what we’re all taught regarding the Historical- Critical method and its critique of the Scriptures.  It’s chalk fully of problems.  And when one judges the Scriptures according to the Historical-Critical method, it especially does not meet the bar that many church folk would like it to.

In fact, church-folk are the people who Ehrman had in mind while writing this book.  His “problem” is that what is taught in Seminaries and Graduate Schools never trickles down to our churches.  Ehrman hopes that by collecting the problems of the New Testament he can alleviate the lack of trickle-down by opening the floodgates.

Because I am not a biblical studies major anymore, this review will steer clear of critiquing the accuracy of Dr. Ehrman’s arguments and instead focus the foundation he writes from.  If you’re interested in an in-depth analysis of Jesus, Interrupted, feel free to visit Art Boulet’s critique of the book.

I enjoyed the book overall.  This was the first Bart Ehrman book I’ve sat down and actually read for myself…

That’s probably something I shouldn’t admit publicly.  As a fellow disenfranchised Evangelical, I have just never saw a need to read people I already agree with unless I am going to learn something from it.  And, honestly, Ehrman just wasn’t teaching the kind of stuff I wanted to learn.  However, I digress…

Ehrman has a very readable style.  When he said he was writing this book for a lay-audience he wasn’t kidding.  This book was very accessible.  Ehrman avoids large words and discussing Greek conjugates.  Instead, he just focuses on the historical data and the logical inconsistencies in the NT itself.  Of course, however, Dr. Ehrman provides color-commentary along the way.

My biggest problem with the book is Ehrman’s commentary throughout the book.  I can handle Ehrman’s scathing attack on a particular understanding of Biblical inerrancy.  I can handle his frustration with conservative Evangelicals.  What I cannot handle is the disjointed messages in the book.

On the one hand, Ehrman repeatedly affirms that one can hold a genuine Christian faith while still affirming the historical and logical discrepancies he is describing.  He then, however, turns and almost simultaneously scoffs at such notions through his constant references to his agnostic faith.

Please, do not misunderstand me.  I am fine with Dr. Ehrman’s agnosticism.  That’s completely his choice.  However, because of his moving argument for agnosticism, his frequent comments about faith being compatible with an errant Scriptures strike me as just a placation.  He believes it is possible, but it distinctly feels as though he is only saying that to keep conservative Christians reading the book.  If the most moving arguments in Ehrman’s book are in favor of his faith, one can hardly argue Ehrman is just “presenting the facts.”  This book is not a presentation of facts alone.  It is a polemic against a particular form of Biblical inerrancy- And any form of faith that rests on that belief.

As a second and final point of critique, I really this book was about the failure of the trickle-down method of education rather than a categorizing of Biblical inconsistencies.  Perhaps I am just skeptical, but it seems that if Ehrman was genuinely concerned with a broken system he would talk about the system.  Instead, he just bypasses it and dumps many facts on folks who are unequipped to handle them.  Ehrman obviously places knowledge above faith and piety.  I seriously disagree with that decision.

I recommend this book for anyone who has an interest in a critical analysis of the Bible.  However, I suggest approaching this book very carefully.  After all, you will be reading a book about how the Bible is fully of lies and errors written by someone who has admittedly walked away from the Christian faith.  There is no such thing as “just the facts.”  I suggest reading God’s Word in Human Words by Kenton Sparks, before reading Jesus, Interrupted.  It will save your faith a lot of heartache.

- Earl

Is an Evangelical faith still possible in light of the rise of postmodernity?  Must one choose between universal standards or radical relativism?  Or can postmodernity provide a new form of foundation from which an Evangelical theology can grow?

Published in 2001, Beyond Foundationalism: Shaping Theology in a Postmodern Context by John R. Franke and the late Stanley J. Grenz sets itself to answering those questions.  Grenz and Franke divide the book into three sections.  The first section dedicates itself to identifying the historical situation in which contemporary theology finds itself.  In this section, Beyond Foundationalism begins by discussing the mutual fragmentation and collapse within both conservative and liberal schools of theology.  From this position the book presents the collapse of modernity as an opportunity to rise above the modernity’s search for a universal, unchanging position.

Instead, Grenz and Franke propose a “localized” theology.  They propose a theology that speaks to and for each individual community, a theology that concerns itself with Spirit-filled living rather than superimposed doctrinal absolutes.  They hope to

“foster conversation about and participation… that will nurture an open and flexible theology that is in keeping with the local and contextual character of the discipline, that remains thoroughly and distinctly Christian, and that fosters a renewed listening to the voice of the Spirit speaking to the churches through the scriptures” (p.27).

The second section of Beyond Foundationalism discusses “Theology’s Sources”: scripture, tradition, and culture.  In short, the book argues that the Scriptures provide theology’s “norming norm.”  While one cannot simply point to a verse to prove reality or “Truth,” the scriptures provide the source and cannon for the Spirit’s working in the community.

Tradition establishes the “Hermeneutical Trajectory” for the community. Borrowing an illustration from N.T. Wright, Grenz and Franke argue that which tradition provides the first four acts of a five-act play.  The Church is the actors.  However, the fifth act is unscripted.  The actors must improvise based on the first four acts.  They must develop the characters and story in a manner congruent with the first four acts.  In this way, Church history provides and authoritative direction if not an authoritative cannon of standards.

As the final theological source, culture provides theology’s “Embedding Context.”  Theology should not assume to speak universally, to all generations.  Instead, the Church is to understand that its answers are to specific questions raised by its cultural context.  As  much as it may hope for an a-cultural position from which to judge culture, theology is unavoidably shaped and formed by the culture in which it finds itself embedded.

The third section of the book focuses on “Theology’s Focal Motifs.”  The first motif is the Trinitarian nature of God.  The second motif is community.  The third motif is eschatology.  Because theology concerns itself with a Triune God, it is ultimately communitarian, and that community must be focused on a present and future hope for redemption.

My reaction to this book is rather simple.  This is the best theology book I have ever read.  Beyond Foundationalism provides an easy to read exposition of a postmodern theological method.  However, it provides much more than that as well.  Grenz and Franke have the hearts of teachers.  Throughout the book, the authors dedicate themselves to thoroughly explaining every move they make.  Whereas many theological books presuppose a minimal knowledge of both history and terminology, Beyond Foundationalism is easy to follow and accessible by a lay-audience.  It provides all the necessary history and a careful explanation of important terminology so that any reader can follow and participate in the conversation.  After all, if theology is truly communitarian then it should be done by everyone in the community- not just the clergy and the academics.

Lastly, my usage of the term “Evangelical” should not scare off mainline Christians or those who consider themselves of a liberal stripe.  Grenz and Franke have carefully charted a path that weaves between conservative and liberal theologies, borrowing from both but the possession of neither.  A theology beyond foundationalism is accessible to both liberals and conservatives, concerning itself more with hearing the Spirit speak in our local communities than with maintaining theological and denominational affiliations.

If you have an interest in postmodern theology, theological method, evangelical theology, even postmodernity in general, this book is worth picking up and reading.

-Earl

Notes from the Tilt-A-Whirl: Wide Eyed Wonder in God’s Spoken World by N.D. Wilson is an nontraditional, yet still fabulous read.  The premise of the book is, essentially, Wilson’s meandering through topics such as life and death, the existence of God, the existence of evil, and a weird fascination with Friedrich Nietzsche.

Wilson has gone to great lengths to make the book appear random and disorganized.  However, this is one of the book’s greatest strengths rather than its weakness.  Wilson’s voice is incredibly unique.  He has managed to develop a writing style based around the way the human mind works.  Wilson intentionally walks in disconnected circles and yet somehow arriving at the desired destination.

Here is a brief example of Wilson’s style:

“…In God’s absence, rape is no longer fundamentally evil.  In our country, you’ll get confined to a cell (if caught and convicted), but that just means we enforce our taste, not that our taste has any real authority over anyone else.  In other societies, girls have been passed around and traded like baseball cards.  Is that wrong?  Neither.  You like exploitation; I like apple pie.  The two exist on the same plane.  There’s no such thing as moral and immoral.  In this country, we eat gyros.  In this one, we eat pizza.  And we’ll give you a ticket for jaywalking.

Stunning.  Such wisdom is like a kiss on the lips.

To quote one contemporary prophet: “You and me, baby, ain’t nothing but mammals, so let’s do it like they do on the Discovery Channel.”

I’ve watched the Discovery Channel.  I’ve enjoyed the Discovery Channel.  But in that world, if I want to reproduce with you (or to tear you limb from limb), I just need to be bigger and stronger than you are.  You look pretty small and a little sickly.  Shall I feed you to my young?  Why not?  Cannibalism might not be condoned in your culture, but it has a long and storied tradition in mine.  Are you saying your culture is superior, that it is somehow right while mine is wrong?  You’re being a racist, but luckily you’re still small, and even racists taste good in casserole” (72- 73).

Bear with me for just one more quote, discussing the nature of God:

“After the fourth time Roy Sullivan was struck by lightning, he allegedly told a reporter that a higher power was trying to kill him.

That’s ridiculous.  A higher power was not trying to kill him.  That would have been easy.  Every last one of us is bagged in the end.  The more impressive trick is striking someone with lightning seven times and keeping them alive” (86).

Be assured, however, Notes from the Tilt-a Whirl is anything but random thoughts without a message.  As the key motif throughout the book, Wilson uses seasons to frame his semi-biographical discussions.  Closer one looks at this book, the more the structures and intentionality pop out at them.  Few authors can distill Ancient and Modern Philosophy to a basic core that anyone can grasp- let alone doing it with humor and ease.

Lastly, this book intentionally avoids the didactic method that permeates much of the Christian literature published in the last 50 years.  If you want someone to argue for a specific way of thinking or specific set of values, this book is not for you.  Instead, Wilson’s faith and argumentation are more subversive.  Rather than provide the reader with plain answers, Wilson guides the reader through asking rich and thoughtful questions, encouraging the reader to make decisions for herself or himself.

If you’re a fan of Donald Miller, philosophy, or just fun reads by an author with a deep faith, I highly recommend picking up a copy of this book!

-Earl

I’m presently reading Notes from the Tilt-a-Whirl by N.D. Wilson and just stumbled across a paragraph that couldn’t wait for my review:

“Aeschylus should have known he’d have an interesting final scene.  He was, after all, the founding father of Greek tragedy.  Before Emo, before the existentialists, there was Aeschylus, preaching.  He didn’t fuss about meaninglessness, because he wasn’t a white, middle-class kid with a comfortable life, no butt, and tight pants.  He wasn’t French, awash in despair after the horrors of World War II.  He was just a Greek who saw the world as a meat grinder.  He knew there were gods, and he knew that if you achieved greatness, they would notice you and cut your ass down”

I love this book.

Earl

This review was also posted for The Ooze Viral Bloggers.

A Lover’s Quarrel with the Evangelical Church instantly reminded me of the ominous opening to a popular album: “The car is on fire, and there’s no driver at the wheel…” [1]

In A Lover’s Quarrel…, Warren Cole Smith flexes his literary, anthropological, historical, philosophical, and theological muscles to address a crisis within Evangelical Christianity. According to Smith, the philosophies of the world have enamored American evangelicalism.  Smith’s words capture this sentiment well, arguing that

“God wants the church to be the church.  It is the church that doesn’t want to be the church.  That’s the core problem (pg. 99).”

Moreover, A Lover’s Quarrel… offers a prophetic voice hoping to apply the brakes before the out-of-control Evangelicalism careens off the impending precipice. For Smith, the cliff is a spiritual depravity of self-absorption and cultural ineffectuality.  He hopes to apply the brakes to Evangelicalism’s runaway syncretism through an opposition to what Smith calls “sentimentalism,” the romanticizing of reality.

If A Lover’s Quarrel… halts, or even slows the collapse of Evangelicalism, it is due to the accessibility of Smith’s writing and the cogency of his analysis of the Evangelical subculture.  One such example is chapter 4: The Christian-Industrial Complex.  In this chapter, Smith draws the reader into a deep analysis of the business-orientation of Evangelicalism.

Smith is not afraid to ask the hard question of whether or not Evangelicalism has sold its soul.  A Lover’s Quarrel… excels at its readability and impeccable cultural analysis; reminiscent of Randall Balmer’s classic analysis Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory.

Whereas Smith excels at writing and cultural analysis, his historical, philosophical, and theological analyses come up a bit short.  Historically, Smith seeks to identify modern evangelicalism with the Second Great Awakening in America.  Smith conveniently paints the Second Great Awakening and Charles Finney therein, as a movement of pseudo-religion and heresy.  This obviously paints a complex movement responsible for the rise of both the abolitionist and feminist movements, with a overly-simplistic and convenient brush.

Philosophically, his argument that the written word is the “preferred medium” of God (178- 180) is especially disturbing.  His argument really is what it seems: Because historically God used words rather than pictures or video screens, we are to do the same.  This leads well to our discussion of theology in A Lover’s Quarrel…

Theologically, I really felt this book was a fish out of water.  The most obvious manner is in Smith’s thesis that God’s ideal form of communication is the written word.  He “proof-texts” his argument, but fails to take into account the living Word of God that is Jesus Christ.  Instead, he opts for a flat understanding of the word of God that makes it solely synonymous with the Scriptures.  The bible-centricity of such a view instantly marks Smith’s theology as a unusual version of evangelicalism, but evangelical nonetheless.

Moreover, Smith attempts to undercut Evangelical theologies such as pre-millennialism and Arminianism, as just two examples.  Smith also uses women’s ordination to defend the theological collapse of a denomination (143).  He also identifies penal substitutionary atonement as a “core Christian value” (142).[2] Despite being a great writer and Spirit-filled critic, Smith’s theology is off-the-wall and seriously detracts from and undercuts the argument of the book.

Overall, I recommend this book to anyone who is disenfranchised with American Evangelicalism.  Despite its shortcomings, A Lover’s Quarrel… is worth reading if you have an interest (or investment) in American Evangelicalism.   Warren Smith Cole provides an alternate view of the Church to counter the out-of-control Evangelicalism in America.  If you enjoyed Frank Viola’s Pagan Christianity, you will love A Lover’s Quarrel with the Evangelical Church.

- Earl

[2] Smith only argues that substitutionary atonement is a core belief.  But he excludes Charles Finney’s governmental theory of atonement from being a “substitutionary theory.”  The only remaining way of understanding Smith’s usage of “substitutionary” is synonomously with “penal substitutionary.”

Here’s a brief  excerpt from the preface:

If you watched a movie about a guy who wanted a Volvo and worked for years to get it, you probably wouldn’t cry at the end of the movie when he drove off the lot testing the windshield wipers. You wouldn’t tell your friends you saw a beautiful movie or go home and put a record on and sit in a chair to think about what you’d seen. The truth is you wouldn’t even remember that movie a week later, except to feel robbed and want your
money back. Nobody cries at the end of a movie about a guy who got a Volvo.
But we spend years living those kinds of stories and expect life to feel meaningful. Maybe that’s why we go to so many movies, because our real lives don’t feel meaningful anymore.

I look forward to reading this book.  I hope you do as well.

Earl

Sorry for the lack of posts lately.  I’ve been reading up a storm and should be posting a few new essays and book reviews soon.

In the meantime, I’m going to be in Raleigh, NC for a few days this weekend (7/9- 7/14 or so).  If you’d like to chill and chat over coffee, give me a shout.

contact@earlbarnett.com

Earl

RELEVANTmagazine.com just e-published and essay I’ve been working on.  It’s entitled ‘Why I Don’t Care About Darfur‘.   Here’s a brief excerpt:

Over the last 10 years, Africa has become chic.  George Clooney has petitioned the president on behalf of Darfur.  Countless movies have been made.  Evan Brad and Angelina have adopted children from Africa.  Madonna has recently followed suit.  However, not only celebrities appear to be cashing-in on the Africa-craze.

It seems as though every time I surf a Christian website or open a Christian publication I read of a new, hot organization that is changing the African landscape. Undoubtedly, the Christian Church must rush to end human rights violations throughout the world.  However, we must be very careful that we do not step over our own neighbors to do so.

Go read the rest here.  Feel free to comment over there as well.

Earl

I just found out that a Queermergent blog is up and running.

If you presently find yourself wondering, “What in the world is “Queermergent” ?!?!”

Here’s a brief bio:

Queermergent  is a play on the words Queer and Emergent. Queermergent is a place for those who identify as LGBTQ who are desiring a safe place to partake in mature discussions regarding the LGBTQ community of faith within a 21st Century, postmodern, emergent/emerging church context.

Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with their theological views, you should be very excited that something like this exists.  This site provides a safe place for folks who don’t fit well into either Christian or Queer communities to find fellowship and continue their pursuit of the Christian faith.

Even if some disagree with their theology or ethic, we should still thank God that they’re pursuing.  With the all-or-nothing stance many Churches take towards LBGT faith, a place for fellowship might be the only thing keeping these folks from walking away from the Christian Church and never coming back.

I tip my hat to these folks.

Earl

(HT: Zoecarnate)

This is one of those books that I feel uncomfortable critiquing.  As  an evangelical man, I feel as though reading this book was equivocal to eavesdropping on someone else’s conversation; as though I should just be glad to have listened in.   However, eavesdropping or not, here are my thoughts on ‘Evangelical Christian Women: War Stories in the Gender Battles‘.

Dr. Ingersoll’s book is just what you would expect it to be.  That is not intended in any sort of a derogatory fashion.  It just means that there are no plot twists along the way.

Ingersoll’s book traverses through two primary sections: War Stories and Analysis and Interpretation.  War Stories consists of Ingersoll’s telling the story of Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE) and its struggle for acceptance and survival.

Ingersoll also recounts Evangelicalism’s recent transition from Biblical Inerrancy to Gender Issues as the litmus test of theological orthodoxy.  She, at length, discusses the institution of Al Mohler as the president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and the subsequent theological shift in the Southern Baptist denomination.

Lastly, Ingersoll recollects interviews and retells histories regarding the struggles of Evangelical women.  These stories stretch from discrimination against sexually abused evangelical Bible School students to overlooked and mistreated female faculty members of theological institutions to the abuse of female pastors by certain members of their congregations.  All reflect the patriarchal bias and disadvantage that faces evangelical women.

The second half of Ingersoll’s book, Analysis and Interpretation, seeks to make sense of the recent (post 1930’s) resurgence of chauvinism within Evangelicalism.  (For those who are unfamiliar with Evangelical history, feminism actually began as a movement within Evangelicalism.  It didn’t become perceived as a “secular” or “lesbian” threat until much later.  The Religious Right re-wrote Evangelical history… but that is a bit beyond the scope of our review).  The Analysis and Interpretation half of Ingersoll’s book also seeks to talk about the ramifications of the gendered nature of Evangelicalism.  Although Ingersoll does so skillfully, I still have some reservations.

My biggest concern with Evangelical Christian Women is that it sometimes feels too polemical.  Now, granted, considering the things that Dr. Ingersoll has seen I can fully understand how one can become biased.  However, while reading this book, I never felt that Dr. Ingersoll sought to empathize with the evangelical tradition.  Instead the book read as a testimony to everything that was broken within Evangelicalism.

I understand that Ingersoll’s intention with this book was to empathize with weather-beaten women; to provide battle-worn women with some solace that they are not alone and to continue to fight patriarchy and dualism within the tradition.  Nevertheless, acknowledgement that evangelicalism is not a closed unit would have gone a long way to open a dialog with the Evangelical tradition.  Evangelicals are not only Evangelicals.  Evangelicals are also republicans and democrats, carpenters and artists, athletes and academics.  It seems unfair to condemn Evangelicals as overly patriarchal without a deeper discussion of the deep patriarchy that still exists within American society.  After all, Evangelicals are unsurpassed at accommodating and duplicating secular culture.  If patriarchy flourishes within Evangelicalism then it likely also still flourishes in American society.

With my reservations aside, I found this book to be a great read.  I found myself quite moved by Ingersoll’s accounts.  I found myself about to cry at some points and terribly angry at others.  Ingersoll has magnificently collected and retold the stories of these evangelical women.  My heart broke hearing stories of many who left evangelical churches, some leaving their faith altogether because women were denied an equal role in their communities.  However, I also found myself deeply admiring many women who found strength to remain and fight for women’s rights within the tradition.  Consequently, Ingersoll raises anew many old questions, causing those of us within the evangelical community to reconsider our role in the present evangelical gender crisis.  Are we helping or harming the cause?

I highly recommend this book for anyone with an interest in evangelicalism or the intersections of gender and religion.  Hell, I even recommend this book even if you are not interested in either of those things.  This is an issue in the evangelical church that we cannot continue to ignore.

Earl

It’s not directly theological, but it made me burst out laughing. Although, it may just be funny because I subject myself to listening to the Rush Limbaugh program on a regular basis.

Regardless, Candorville is a great comic strip. Give it a shot on Comics.com

Earl

Philadelphia Neo-folk rockers mewithoutYou have just released the first music video off of their album that dropped last month.  The album is entitled “it’s crazy! it’s all false! it’s all a dream! it’s alright“.  The most interesting part is that the lead singer and song-writer, Aaron Weiss- a freegan and outspoken Christian- cites the writings of Sufi mystic Bawa Muhaiyaddeen as the influence for the album (The final track is called “Allah, Allah, Allah!” and sings about how ‘Allah’ can be seen in everything).

We’ve been a fan of mewithoutYou since Florrie and I first saw them live in 2003.  Aaron came out on stage frantically waving a bouquet of flowers throughout the set.  We immediately bought their newest album and rushed to the car to listen to it and read the lyrics.  We were blown away at the dept and self-disclosure that Aaron’s lyrics provided.

Click to Preview the New Album

I even remember going to a show the night before Easter in 2006 where the band offered an open invitation to the crowd to file onto their bus and go to Philly with them for a Sunrise Service- AND THEY WERE DEAD SERIOUS! They wanted everyone that could fit to pack onto their bus (which is powered by vegitable oil) and drive 3 hours south to Philladelphia to celebrate the resurrecton of Jesus Christ.  That is something that’s really stuck with me.

As an aside, I really appreicate mewithoutYou’s attempt to push Christian sensibilities by using Arabic to refer to God.  However, rather than a Christianizing of Islamic culture I think mewithoutYou is genuinely integrating pieces of Suffi and Christian faith.  I applaud their efforts and hope others take time to think about this before flippantly dismissing the band as synchronists.

Their newest video ‘The Fox, the Crow, and the Cookie’ is far more allegorical; it works itself out like a story.  Watch the video.  I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Click Here To Watch ‘The Fox, the Crow, and the Cookie’

Earl

In case you were interested in more mewithoutYou:

taken from Outreach Magazine

In case you were wondering… It is garbage like this that makes me hope that I’m out of town when the rapture happens. Jesus can leave a note and I’ll catch up with the gang later.

Obviously, I’m exaggerating (well… mostly exaggerating).

However, I do not conceive how this can be considered love. No, I do not want to fund abortions. No, I do not want to fund alcohol and drug abuse. But, do you know what? I do want to help fund medical attention for PEOPLE WHO NEED IT.

I don’t care if they did it to themselves. I don’t care if they should have known better. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is that God loves the world so much that God responded to ignorance with love rather than justice.

Jesus said to “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Perhaps we Christians need a refresher in who is our neighbor.

Earl

For those of you who are my friends on Facebook, I apologize for posting this again. However, I felt this was worth a second post. If for no other reason than it is a perfect picture of why I am opposed to both FOX News and CNN.

Here’s an edited piece from the ‘Fire David Letterman’ Rally last Tuesday afternoon: