Boyd on The Shack

Greg Boyd reviews The Shack here. An excerpt:

"I felt like the portrait of God in this novel was beautiful and reflective of what we find revealed in the New Testament. And the theological and psychological insights of this book were at times profound and consistently communicated in brilliantly simple ways.
[...]
The only substantial disagreement I have with the theology of this novel concerns Young's view of time and the nature of the future. While his book breaks from the classical tradition on many points, on these two issues Young is a traditionalist. At several points God brings up his foreknowledge of all that will (not might) take place and Young seems to (mistakenly) think that this helps God achieve his sovereign purposes without violating free will (as though God were not infinitely intelligent and thus able to anticipates 'maybes' with the same effectiveness as 'certainties'). But given that the open view of the future is a minority view in Christian circles, it's hardly surprising Young espouses this view. And given the over-all theological, psychological and spiritual insight of this masterful novel, this one piece of theological disagreement is hardly worth registering."

I'm surprised Greg liked the book this much, to be honest. It is nothing less than a systematic theology in fictional form (it touches on everything from the Trinity to the problem of evil). Conservative evangelicals have been upset by its representation of God the Father as a woman (for most of the novel), and by its rejection of hierarchy in the Trinity. Personally, I find these unobjectionable.
What is deeply objectionable about this novel however, is its ecclesiological void. A hole, nay, a gaping chasm lies in the author's understanding of Jesus' ministry, insofar as the Church, as such, play no role whatsoever in his picture of Christianity. But Jesus was fundamentally a reform prophet in Israel to save the people of God. The utter absence of any communal considerations from Young's novel is deeply problematic. As if one could talk about Jesus' ministry without ever mentioning baptism or communion!

And so the picture that emerges from the novel is one of a nice, egalitarian God, who wants human beings to get along. This is all well and good, but it is not Christian. If non-Christians were to adopt such a picture of God, that would be great. But Christians can't afford to stop there. My understanding is that the author is not involved in any kind of Church life. This is very saddening.
My verdict? The Shack exploits Christianity for a (relatively accurate) picture of God, but leaves out the key biblical piece about God's plan for Israel and the Church. What's left is something we've seen far too often: an individualistic pseudo-Christianity.

By all means, read the novel, it's pretty good. But keep your thinking-caps on.

Peace.

Common Christian Party

Ran across a new blog today that I thought I'd recommend: The 'Common Christian Party' blog.
A sassy excerpt from a recent post:

"There are some who are very comfortable mixing church with politics, but they tend to do so in a very narrow and partisan way. The Common Christian Party is not interested in the false dichotomy of Left v. Right, Democrats v. Republicans, and Liberals v. Conservatives. We believe the lens by which we interpret reality, including political matters, should be Jesus and His cross. As finite, infinitely flawed human beings our sight will never be perfect, but wedding yourself to worldly ideologies will ensure that you are half-blind, with a patch over at least one eye. We must engage in a politics that is particular to the way of the Christ.

Perhaps (at least until we regain our Christ-centered political consciousness), we should at certain times refer to our selves as the "Body Politic of Christ", instead of simply the Body of Christ, and "the party," instead of the church. The notion of a body politic is very explicit in it's representation. Party is slightly less so, yet still provides much more clarity in terms of ecclesial politics, than the word church, currently does. When it is not used in a recreational context (e.g. birthday party) or in reference to a person or group, the term party has very strong political connotations and can be defined as a "political group organized to promote and support it's principles and candidates for public office," (dictionary.com). We believe in promoting, supporting, and more importantly living the principles of Jesus Christ, which have profound political implications, and this is why we designate ourselves as a party."

Check it out!

Israel, the Jews, and a sense of 'we'

In general, I'm fairly clueless about politics. But I'm fascinated by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. More specifically, I'm interested in how Jews around the world navigate common assumptions that they 'must' support Israel. The three-way Jewish virtual round-table conversation found here goes a long way to qualify that picture. Some key excerpts:

"[Carlo Strenger:] Let me begin with a basic belief of mine: any criticism of Israel that does not actually incite racism and antisemitism is legitimate. Many supporters of Israel automatically play the card of antisemitism to muzzle criticism. This is intellectually and morally wrong and it is dangerous. It empties the charge of antisemitism of serious content, and creates deep animosity not only towards Israel, but also towards Jews in general.
[...]
[Brian Klug:] As you say, Steven, the situation in Israel-Palestine is not 'a private business for Jews or Israelis'. Nonetheless, there is private business to transact; for Israelis and Jews need to think their identities apart. Which brings me, Carlo, to your remark that I am 'involved in this as a Jew'. You are right. But what does this mean? Steven, you refer to 'the tribal loyalties into which many [Jews] were born'. But I was born into something much larger - more generous and humane - than tribal loyalties. It's called Judaism (or Jewishness). Speaking out about Israel is not a way of 'breaking free' (in your phrase) of this identity; it is a way of reclaiming it.
[...]
[Steven Rose:] To invoke Holocaust memories in defence of one of the most heavily armed and militarised nuclear states in the world, supported as it is by the imperial might of the US, is a rhetorical device past its sell-by date.
[...]
But to expose Israeli racism and oppression is not to condone repressive Arab regimes, nor terrorist attacks on civilians, nor to suggest that Israel is the 'moral low point of the world'.
[...]
[Brian Klug:] You mention 'pride' in Israel's achievements. I feel neither pride nor shame about the state's doings, for Israel is not my country and I am not its citizen. If it is to have a future, Israel must shed the burden of Jewish fears and hopes that led to its creation. It must see itself as belonging to the Israeli - not the Jewish - people. In other words, it is time to move on, to cut the cord that ties Jewish and Israeli identities together. Insisting Israel be its own state and not ours: this might be the most constructive thing that we - Jews on 'the outside' - can do.
[...]
[Steven Rose:] Unlike either of you, I do not think that Jews outside Israel have a special status in 'solving' the problems of the Middle East. However, by dissociating themselves from Israeli actions and policy, as IJV have done, and by insisting that such actions are 'not in my name', they can help weaken Israeli and Zionist claims to speak for 'all Jews', and form an effective counter to the powerful Israel lobby both in Europe and the US.

So I end by echoing - and extending - Brian's words. To survive, he says, Israel must cut the cord that ties Jewish and Israeli identities together. I would add that the cord that binds Israel to Europe also needs cutting, and Israelis must find their place, not as settlers in Euro-America's last colonial outpost, but as good neighbours in a culturally rich and diverse Middle East." (emphases mine)

(HT: Fuad Rahmat)

Looks like Christians aren't the only ones trying to disentangle a 'we' from patriotic identification with a particular nation-state...

Peace.

On patriotism

And a scary article on patriotism, again at Christianity Today. An excerpt:

"Christians ought to be the best citizens and the finest patriots. Certainly they have a prior allegiance to God Almighty. But this can only make them better Americans. They need not gloss over the nation's defects or sweep its failures under the rug. They need not claim that their country is always right. When it is right, they will support it; and when it is wrong, they will love it and work to correct it. Even as the Apostle Paul could speak proudly of his Roman citizenship, so should every American Christian speak proudly of his. The day that patriotism ceases, that day we will have ceased to be a people." (Read the full article here.)

Since when are 'we' a people?

Was it not Paul who said "Do not become partners with those who do not believe, for what partnership is there between righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship does light have with darkness? And what agreement does Christ have with Beliar? Or what does a believer share in common with an unbeliever? And what mutual agreement does the temple of God have with idols? For we are the temple of the living God, just as God said, 'I will live in them and will walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.' Therefore 'come out from their midst, and be separate,' says the Lord, 'and touch no unclean thing, and I will welcome you, and I will be a father to you, and you will be my sons and daughters,' says the All-Powerful Lord." (II Corinthians 6:14-18, NET)
If this is the apostle being 'proud' of his Roman citizenship... well I'll be darned. It sure doesn't look like it to me.

Cooperate with the State if you must, don't cause the Church to be maligned unnecessarily, but we are the Body of Christ, we are the people of God, the city on a hill, we are the enemy-loving servants and slaves of the Creator, we wield the sword of the Spirit--not the sword of the empire. Christians, this fourth of July, stay home. Or even better, do something the U.S.A. will never be able to do--love your enemies, and pray for those who spitefully use you.

Christ's Peace.

Virtues and presidency

Some great reflection (by Bethel U profs!) at Christianity Today on the need for virtuous presidents. An excerpt:

"Are we to believe, yet again, that Democratic candidates can find the money in a real Congress for all the social equity promises they make every four years? Or that Republican candidates can actually, even if they want to, dramatically shrink the size of government? Or that anyone is genuinely revolutionary or powerful enough to invoke overwhelming "change" in Washington? There's a systemic momentum to government and its bureaucracies that eats ideology for lunch. Simple realism indicates we have a better chance of making a generally accurate assessment of a candidate's character—and hoping in that—than we have of using policy or ideology to predict their future actions or success." (Read the full article.)

Free will?

So I'm taking a course on the free will debate, and I just have to say, boy am I confused. The debate that got me into theology and philosophy was the theological counterpart to the free will debate in its Arminian, Calvinist and Open Theist disguises. But of course, the theological question isn't particularly precise, since concerns about human freedom are tied in not only to human responsibility but also to providence and divine foreknowledge.

The philosophical free will debate (between hard determinists, compatibilists and libertarians) is a little bit more focused, but not extremely so. The reason I've finding this topic difficult is because I've been a de facto libertarian for the past six years (at least) and I'm now finding that the central intuitions grounding libertarian claims (namely, the need to justify attributions of moral blame and praise) aren't that central in my worldview anymore.
This has largely to do with my more recent views on afterlife theology. From a heavy emphasis on 'heaven' and 'hell' as post-mortem destinations for disembodied human 'souls', I've learned (from NT Wright, Andrew Perriman and others) to tell a different story about who we are and where we're going. Needless to say rewards and punishments don't figure so centrally in my new picture (though perhaps they're still there in a mitigated form).
Combined with some recent shift in my ethics (informed here by Alasdair MacIntyre, Stanley Hauerwas, and Margaret Urban Walker), practices of praise and blame no longer require the repudiation of determinism I once thought necessary.

Determinism, however, is still a bad hypothesis. There is every reason, as I understand it, to suppose that indeterminacy is woven into the very fabric of Creation, and every reason to suppose that this leads, not to chaos, but to beauty, creativity, and change.

So my metaphysics are averse to determinism, but my ethics are not. Freedom of will lies somewhere in the intersection of these two, but I'm not sure where or how. Any insights would be welcome...

Peace!
-Daniel-