September 08, 2008

Resolved: Most of the church is not Christian

In a discussion at TitusOneNine, I'm being politely asked, between the lines:  If I don't believe the church's teachings about the divinity of Jesus, the Trinity, etc., why am I intruding into the private club of those who do?  In response, I posed this proposition for debate, Oxford Union-style (I've edited it slightly here): 

RESOLVED:  No one may call himself a Christian if he demands more, as a condition of church membership, than doing one’s best to follow the Summary of the Law — Jesus (reportedly) said in Luke 10.25-37, do this and you will live, so to presume to require more than this would be to set one’s self above the Lord.

Another commenter responded

Disputed. ... Christianity is based on accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior and belonging to the community of faith—which includes belief in certain key precepts ....

Those who have come to believe those "key precepts" cannot be faulted for where their faculties and their consciences have led them. But I would disavow membership in any “community of faith” that went beyond this, insisting that its answers are the final ones and that those who don’t agree with the party line must either assent anyway or leave. Folks like that are like idolators, pridefully setting up their own conceptions above the reality that God has wrought.  (Hard experience has taught us that we don’t know everything about that reality, and that what we do “know” is necessarily provisional.) Fortunately, most of the Episcopal Church isn’t like that.

August 25, 2008

Evolution in the classroom - great NY Times article

You've probably already seen the article from this past Saturday's NY Times: A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash, by Amy Harmon.

David Campbell, the Florida biology teacher portrayed in the piece, deserves our gratitude for his persistence in defense of facing the facts. Equally laudable are his tact and his obvious concern for his students. The latter two qualities are clearly important in his efforts to wean the students off the creationist wishful thinking that they've been infected with by their parents and churches.

Pulitzer, perhaps?

August 10, 2008

History's promise is not serenity, but possibility

George F. Will, recalling a 1908 racial pogrom in Springfield, Illinois, points out that things today are not as bad as some would think:

Today, Russia's government is despotism leavened by assassination, China will achieve universal emphysema before meaningful universal suffrage, and Americans, in a slough of despond about economic difficulties that have not yet even reached a recession, gloomily embrace an inversion of the Whig Theory of History, which holds, or once did, that progress —  steadily enlarged and ennobled liberty — is the essence of the human story.

So, remember Springfield. The siege of the jail, the rioting, the lynching and mutilating all occurred within walking distance of where, in 2007, Barack Obama announced his presidential candidacy. Whatever you think of his apotheosis, it illustrates history's essential promise, which is not serenity -- that progress is inevitable -- but possibility, which is enough: Things have not always been as they are.

George F. Will, A Long Road Out of Springfield, Washington Post, Sat. Aug. 9, 2008 (emphasis added).

August 08, 2008

Is the Bible of divine or human origin?

OK, I'll bite.  Reader Phil asks:  "D.C. : Would you care to debate whether the Bible is divine or human in origin?"

My own view:  We don't know the origin of any works of humanity, whether we're talking about the various books of the Bible, or Einstein's relativity papers, or Mozart's compositions. That's because we don't have a clue how the human mind gets ideas.

I suspect that God somehow has a hand in all of these. But I'm not overflowing with confidence about it. If I needed to make a case for taking action of any consequence, that certainly wouldn't do it — especially if the action might hurt others.

Related post: Do You Believe in God?  That's Only Half the Question

August 05, 2008

Esau was the mensch, not Jacob - John Buchanan

I was struck by Christian Century editor John M. Buchanan's observation about Esau and Jacob:

Every time I read a portion of the Jacob-Esau saga, I end up reading the whole drama. Esau is so good, straightforward and innocent; Isaac so vulnerable, trusting and human; Jacob so opportunistic, devious and dreadful; Rebekah so committed to the success of her favorite son, Jacob, and so efficient in her choreography of one of history's greatest scams.

And in and through it all, God uses Jacob for God's ultimately good purposes. You simply cannot read this story without being stunned by the mysterious reach of grace. If God can use Jacob, then there is hope for all of us.

The story turns finally on the outsider's magnanimity and graciousness. When Esau and Jacob meet at last, Esau does not kill his brother as he vowed, but runs to meet him, reminding the reader of that aggrieved father in the New Testament who runs down the road to welcome a wayward child home. Esau, not Jacob, represents the radical notion at the heart of Judaism and Christianity that the justice God requires is not revenge but forgiveness.

John M. Buchanan, The reach of grace, The Christian Century, Aug. 12, 2008, at 3 (emphasis added).

August 03, 2008

A duff attitude toward evidence

"The problem with flat-earthers, creationists, homeopaths, and the rest is not so much that they have a duff conception of truth as that they have duff attitudes toward evidence."

- Simon Blackburn, Truth's Caper ($), The New Republic, Aug. 13, 2008, p. 40, at 43 (reviewing Beyond the Hoax: Science, Philosphy and Culture, by Alan Sokal).

July 31, 2008

NT Wright's Lambeth lecture about scriptural authority reveals his exaggerated view of humanity's importance

At the decennial Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops, traditionalist English bishop N.T. Wright (known as Tom) gave a lecture yesterday about the authority of Scripture. He reportedly spoke to a packed house. The lecture is worth reading in its entirety; it's a wonderful blend of erudition and foolishness. (Hat tip: Thinking Anglicans.)

An unsupportably-provincial view of history

Bishop Wright urges us to read the Bible as though it were a five-act play. Hmm, an interesting concept. He says the play has "Creation and Fall as the first two acts, then Israel, then Jesus himself, and then the act in which we ourselves are still living, whose final scene we know from passages like Romans 8, 1 Corinthians 15 and Revelation 21 and 22."

In other words, according to Wright, the story of the universe revolves around a collection of tribes wandering the land bridge between northeast Africa and southwest Asia. The climactic event — the execution of one Jesus of Nazareth, and its aftermath — has already occurred.  Since then, all the universe has been killing time waiting for the grand finale.

We're familiar with this view of history, of course. For nearly 2,000 years, that's been the narrative taught by the church.

The church fathers might have been excused for taking such a provincial view. In their day, humanity knew virtually nothing about the universe outside the earth's atmosphere. We knew nothing at all about the origins of our planet, and of our species. (Correction:  What we thought we knew was proved inadequate by later-revealed evidence.)  Indeed, it's not evident that the fathers, so focused on Israel and its putative history, were much aware even of other human cultures to be found in, say, China, India, and the Americas. The Jerusalem church fathers been taught that Israel was the Chosen People, and (all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding) that's all they needed to know, except of course "Christ and Him crucified."

We of today can't justify taking such a narrow, self-centered view of history. Unlike the church fathers, we know that on our planet alone, all kinds of diverse peoples each have their own history, and there's no plausible reason to privilege any particular one of those histories as the essential narrative of the creation.

Let's also consider that it might not be just our own planet that deserves our attention on this point. Astronomers are busily discovering planets orbiting other stars; it's estimated that some 10% of sun-like stars may have planets.  And we're fairly confident that what we used to think of as "the Sun" is but one of hundreds of billions of stars in the Milky Way galaxy, and that our galaxy is but one of an estimated 125 billion galaxies. Our observations (for example, this week's discovery of water on Mars) give us reason to think that the conditions for life may well exist on more than just our planet.

With all this in mind, you don't have to be a cultural relativist to be unconvinced that the folk tales of a single small people are truly the central narrative of the universe. Bishop Wright seems content to assume that it is, however, and that nothing else we have learned about the history of the universe is of any real consequence.  His Lambeth lecture reveals what Paul Zahl might call an extraordinarily-high anthropology; others might refer to it less charitably as cultural egotism.

For hundreds of years, humanity has been blessed with the steadily-increasing ability to observe the reality God wrought. We've likewise been blessed with inspirations about how those observations can be fitted together into coherent, testable models of the universe. Moreover, it seems eminently reasonable to conjecture that we are expected to put these gifts into the service of the continuing creation.

Yet the church insists on continuing to espouse an overly-simplistic narrative based on an exaggerated view of humanity's importance in the cosmic scheme of things. At best, this is self-indulgence; at worst, a breach of the First Commandment.

Wright's strong point: The unfinished narrative

Bishop Wright does come close to making an excellent point:  He argues that:

... scripture offers precisely the unfinished narrative of God’s heaven-and-earth project, God’s great design, as Paul puts it, echoing the Law and the Prophets, to join everything in heaven and earth into one in Christ. And the unfinished narrative functions like an unfinished play, in which those who belong to Jesus Christ are now called to be the actors, taking forward the drama towards its intended conclusion.

Within that unfinished play, he says, we human actors are supposed to be improvisers, "which as any musician knows doesn’t mean playing out of tune or out of time but rather discerning what is appropriate in terms of the story so far and the story’s intended conclusion."

July 30, 2008

Story-telling defeats truth - Scientific American

From Scientific American Weekly Review:

... we have evolved brains that pay attention to anecdotes because false positives (believing there is a connection between A and B when there is not) are usually harmless, whereas false negatives (believing there is no connection between A and B when there is) may take you out of the gene pool. 

Our brains are belief engines that employ association learning to seek and find patterns. Superstition and belief in magic are millions of years old, whereas science, with its methods of controlling for intervening variables to circumvent false positives, is only a few hundred years old. 

So it is that any medical huckster promising that A will cure B has only to advertise a handful of successful anecdotes in the form of testimonials.

Michael Shermer, How Anecdotal Evidence Can Undermine Scientific Results - Why subjective anecdotes often trump objective data, July 2008 (emphasis and extra paragraphing added).

And so it may also have been that reports of an empty tomb, and of post-mortem encounters with its occupant, quickly evolved into what has become one of humanity's most long-lasting belief systems.

July 29, 2008

Interesting comment thread in Tigger vs. Eeyore post

The comment thread in my Be a Tigger, not an Eeyore post on Dr. Randy Pausch's death has some interesting points in it.

July 25, 2008

Be a Tigger, not an Eeyore - Randy Pausch RIP

Dr. Randy Pausch ("The Last Lecture") died this morning.  May he rest in peace and rise in glory.

UPDATE:  Thanks to commenter "Randa" who pointed out that Dr. Pausch was a Unitarian Universalist, which is confirmed at the UUA Web site.

Related posts:

July 17, 2008

Eight reasons for a rationalist to follow Jesus

In a long discussion thread on TitusOneNine, a commenter, the Rev. Kevin Maney, asked me (cordially): Why would you want to follow a dead guy?   Here's an edited version of my response.

I try to “follow Jesus” for two main reasons: 

1. Jesus stressed the Summary of the Law: I’m persuaded that the Summary of the Law, which Jesus emphasized, touches on something fundamental in the fabric of the universe, at the heart of the processes by which the creation continues. Specifically, we seem to do our best in life — both individually and as a species, both in passing on our genes to future generations and in serving as God's created co-creators:

  • when we put God first — more concretely, when we face the facts of the reality that he wrought, and when we rejoice in, or at least acknowledge, the goodness of that reality; and
  • when we seek the best for others as for ourselves.

2. Jesus was faithful, even unto death, to what he believed to be his duty. For whatever reason(s) — growing up in the military, my own military service, whatever — that kind of faithfulness is a huge hot button for me. 

These are the two main reasons why in an earlier posting I called Jesus a heroic prophet, someone eminently worthy of admiration and emulation.  Off the top of my head, I can think of several other qualities about him to admire and emulate:

3. Jesus was personally kind. I’m going to assume readers can “take judicial notice” of this without my having to cite chapter and verse.

4. He was willing to admit that he didn’t know everything, viz., the day or the hour when the Son of Man would come in the clouds with great power and glory [Mk 13.31-32].

5. He believed in facing facts. When the imprisoned John the Baptist sent emissaries to ask Jesus, are you the one who is to come?, Jesus responded, look around you, and draw your own conclusions: "the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have good news brought to them" [Matt 11.5]. When predicting the return of the Son of Man [Mk 13], he urged his listeners, pay attention to what you see happening around you!

6. He was willing to change his mind, to be persuaded by other points of view, viz., that of the Syrophoenician woman whose daughter was cured even though she was not an Israelite [Mk 7.24-30].

7. He was willing to “tell it like it is,” another matter for judicial notice.

8. He was personally courageous, physically confronting the moneychangers in the temple, and seemingly not being rattled by the crowds that wanted to kill him.

On reflection, it probably would be fair to characterize what I do as seeking, not to follow Jesus as Jesus, but to conduct my life in accordance with the principles and values that he emphasized and exemplified. 

Phrasing it another way, I put Jesus in roughly the same hero category as the late Dr. Michael DeBakey, who died a few days ago — except that:

  • Jesus’ impact on the world has so far been several orders of magnitude greater than that of Dr. DeBakey;
  • so far, none of Dr. DeBakey’s later followers have taken it upon themselves to persecute and even kill those who disagreed with them.

Granted, arguably this view of Jesus is scarcely any different than wanting to “be like Mike” [Michael Jordan]. But I don’t see a problem with that.


Related posts:

July 14, 2008

In Japan, Buddhism may be dying - NY Times

Christianity in Western Europe isn't the only faith experiencing a net membership decline due to apathy and death:  The NY Times reports that Buddhism in Japan is likewise fading away.

Over-exalting Scripture is a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit

Thoughtful Christians must reject teachings by some in the church that exalt Scripture to the point of making an idol of its various writings. That goes, for example, for the scriptural writings about sexuality, which are in the limelight again with the opening of the Lambeth Conference.

The various scriptural writings might indeed have been God-inspired.* They can indeed be useful for teaching, correction, etc. (see 1 Tim. 3.16).   And for the sake of argument, let's assume that those writings were a complete and totally-undistorted presentation of what God had to say to us at the time.

We can't rule out that God might have something different to say to us now, at a later stage in our development as a species. When my son was younger, he would sometimes ask if he could have a glass of wine with dinner. My response was no. Now that he’s an adult, when he's home from college I’m the one who offers him a glass. 

For all we know, God might well be doing something similar. Anyone who presumes to claim otherwise with (false) certainty would seem to be setting himself above God.

Time and change were created by God as much as anything else.  Given the dramatic changes of the past 2,000 years, it's certainly conceivable that God might have different instructions for us now than he did back then.

It's breathtaking that some traditionalists seem to think otherwise — that God had exactly one chance to say everything he was ever going to have to say to us, and therefore what he caused to be said in Scripture was “it,” once and for all. 

They blaspheme against the Holy Spirit who deny even the possibility that God might say something different to us now.  It might happen to be true that God would never change what he putatively said before. But categorically declaring that to be the case is way, WAY above our pay grade.

Paul had the right advice in 1 Thess. 5.20-21:  Don’t despise those who claim to be inspired by the Spirit — test everything, and keep that which proves to be good.


* There's no reason reason to assume Scripture was any more God-inspired than, say, Newton’s Principia or Einstein’s special- and general-relativity papers. If anything, Newton's and Einstein's writings arguably had an additional divine credential: they weren't merely creatures of their authors' creativity, they were testable against the actual reality that God wrought (cf. Deut. 18.20-22).

July 12, 2008

Refusal to flip-flop might be the sin against the Holy Spirit

Over dinner last night, my wife and I agreed it's unfortunate that political candidates get excoriated for changing their minds: if they don't cling rigidly to whatever position they happened to take in the past, they're accused of flip-flopping.

I ventured that someone who categorically refuses to change his mind, even when new evidence or new insights are revealed to him, might well be guilty of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, the sin that Jesus said would not be forgiven (Mk 3.22-30; Mt 12.31-32).

And it won't be forgiven, I speculated, precisely because it's an ongoing sin, meaning that at the time in question, there's no repentance.

I did a quick Google search, and wasn't surprised to find that others, including Augustine, have expressed somewhat similar views.

July 09, 2008

Mixing religious and legal blogging - not for me

This afternoon I heard from a friend and former law-firm colleague who has hung out a shingle and is building a Web site for his new practice. He said he was going to follow the lead of Rice University professor Jim Turner Jim Tour and include a statement of his faith on his professional site.

I had previously toyed with the idea of having one, consolidated blog. But I concluded that I wouldn't be comfortable mixing my religious- and professional writing.  Few of my religious readers would be interested in my legal writing, and on my legal blog (100 Feet Up), I figure I owe it to those readers to keep my religious opinions to myself; if they’re interested in my religious views, they’ll find their way here via cross-reference links, as my friend did

It's like a restaurant chef whose guests do him the honor of visiting his place of business (as opposed, say, to being his house guests). We expect the chef at work to offer opinions about cuisine; that's part of why we came. But unless the chef is aiming to establish a cult of personality, my guess is that most diners would probably prefer that he do them the courtesy of remaining silent on sensitive non-cuisine subjects like religion.  (Unless asked, of course.) 

I'm uncomfortable with mixing religious- and professional writing for another reason.  Religious beliefs are unavoidably conjectural and non-verifiable. It therefore seems just a bit detrimental to a pluralistic society for the host of a professional-type Web site, who holds himself out as an authority on "factual" matters like science and law, to post a personal faith statement on the site.  The better practice, I would submit, would be not to do so.

This is just my personal opinion; reasonable minds can surely differ on this point.

June 22, 2008

The faith once delivered never actually existed

Go read "Rescuing the faith once delivered to all the saints," written by an unnamed friend of Katie Sherrod (a leader of the loyalist faction in the secessionist Diocese of Fort Worth) and posted on her blog. The piece marvelously demonstrates how, when traditionalists bemoan the abandonment of the faith "believed by all people in all places at all times," they're indulging in wishful thinking and even in willful self-delusion.

The piece sketches the main theological parties of the early church, whose various doctrines were often mutually exclusive:

Primitive Jerusalem Christianity:  "... the final age has begun ... history will close upon [Jesus'] imminent return; ... Jesus seen more as messiah than divine being ...."

Primitive gentile Christianity: "the concept of messiah means nothing; ... Jesus the son of God came to earth, died, was resurrected and restored, is now Lord and present to his worshippers ...."

Pauline Christianity: "... life in Christ produces what the law cannot but with few hard and fast ethical rules; love, not law: little interest in Jesus’ life, emphasis on him as Second Adam ...."

Johannine Christianity: "Jesus’ life [was] secondary to his relation to the Father and the divine nature of Christ ...."

Jewish Christianity: "... a continuation of Judaism, Jesus is messiah in succession to the prophets, not divine, not virgin born, will be Messiah/Son of Man at return; ... an ethnic religion; they loathed Paul."

Gnostic Christianity: "gnosticism antedates Christianity, has roots all over the place and a vast literature ...."

The piece also recaps how, around 300 years after Jesus' death, the Emperor Constantine knocked heads in the church leadership, provoking the production of the Nicene Creed as a brokered compromise:

[Constantine] gave the various church parties an ultimatum: clean up your act and give me a church that knows what it believes, an instrument of unity and centralization instead of the morass of claim and counter-claim and diversity and uncertainty I see now.

So the church did what it always does: it held conventions—or councils or synods as they called them—meetings where people met and argued and voted. [Extra paragraphing added.]

Read it all.

June 15, 2008

Stop punishing impermissibly positive thoughts - Gregg Easterbrook

Gregg Easterbrook has a very sensible piece in Friday's Wall Street Journal that's worth a read.  He criticizes political campaigns and the news media for "seek[ing] to punish impermissibly positive thoughts," and points out that there are "two realities of life in the United States today:  The way we are, and the way we think we are. The way we are could use some work, but overall, is pretty good. The way we think we are is terrible, horrible, awful. Possibly worse."  Gregg Easterbrook, Life is Good, So Why Do We Feel So Bad?, Wall Street Journal, June 13, 2008, p. A15 (emphasis added.)

May 25, 2008

The evolution of social skills may be what has advanced humans over lower primates

A recent study suggests that what sets us humans apart from our chimpanzee- and orangutan "cousins" might not be any difference in intelligence (which doesn't seem to be especially pronounced).  Instead, the crucial difference may be the ability we have evolved to empathize with and to learn from each other, in ways that lower primates don't seem to be capable of.

Human beings have evolved to coordinate complex activities, to gossip and to playact together. It is because they are adapted for such cultural activities — and not because of their cleverness as individuals — that human beings are able to do so many exceptionally complex and impressive things.

Of course, humans beings are not cooperating angels; they also put their heads together to do all kinds of heinous deeds. But such deeds are not usually done to those inside “the group.”

Recent evolutionary models have demonstrated what politicians have long known: the best way to get people to collaborate and to think like a group is to identify an enemy and charge that “they” threaten “us.”

The remarkable human capacity for cooperation thus seems to have evolved mainly for interactions within the group. Such group-mindedness is a major cause of strife and suffering in the world today.

The solution — more easily said than done — is to find new ways to define the group.

Michael Tomasello, How Are Humans Unique?, NY Times, May 25, 2008 (extra paragraphing added).

If this aspect of human evolution has been part of an ongoing continuing creation, it's pretty damned clever of the Creator, wouldn't you say?

May 24, 2008

Nirvana may be a right-brain phenomenon

"JILL BOLTE TAYLOR was a neuroscientist working at Harvard’s brain research center when she experienced nirvana. [¶] But she did it by having a stroke."

Read the rest.  [UPDATE: See also the video of her TED talk is here (thanks to commenter 'RedLefty').]

At first I thought this was a GOP campaign commercial

Watch it.  (Hat tip: TitusOneNine.)

Obama and Florida Jews: Still more proof (as if we needed it) that we humans regularly get it wrong

The presidential campaign is giving us fresh evidence that we humans tend to get our facts wrong, for example when under the influence of anxiety. (Regular readers know this human tendency has strongly influenced my view of some of the stories told in Scripture, especially in the New Testament.) Here's an excerpt from a NY Times story this week about Obama and the Florida Jewish community

Among many older Jews, and some younger ones, as well, he has become a conduit for Jewish anxiety about Israel, Iran, anti-Semitism and race.

Mr. Obama is Arab, Jack Sterns friends told him in Aventura. (He's not.)

He is a part of Chicago's large Palestinian community, suspects Mindy Chotiner of Delray. (Wrong again.)

Mr. Wright is the godfather of Mr. Obama's children, asserted Violet Darling in Boca Raton. (No, he's not.)

Al Qaeda is backing him, said Helena Lefkowicz of Fort Lauderdale (Incorrect.)

Michelle Obama has proven so hostile and argumentative that the campaign is keeping her silent, said Joyce Rozen of Pompano Beach. (Mrs. Obama campaigns frequently, drawing crowds in her own right.)

Mr. Obama might fill his administration with followers of Louis Farrakhan, worried Sherry Ziegler. (Extremely unlikely, given his denunciation of Mr. Farrakhan.)

Jodi Kantor, As Obama Heads to Florida, Many of Its Jews Have Doubts, NY Times, May 22, 2008

May 21, 2008

Your gold jewelry came from a supernova explosion

A powerful event in my faith journey was when I began to grasp how creation has been an ongoing process. It's exemplified by the way a supernova explosion — which has to be about the best example there is of complete and utter destruction — manufactures the elements (literally) of new planets and of life here on earth. As one astronomer told a New York Times reporter, "If you're wearing gold jewelry, it came from a supernova explosion." See Dennis Overbye, Scientists See Supernova in Action - New York Times, May 22, 2008.

May 19, 2008

Send in the Latrines - New York Times

If you want to appreciate how much progress the human race has made in the First World — but also how much work there still is to do elsewhere — consider Rose George's op-ed piece in today's Times, about the danger posed by the lack of sanitary facilities in "Myanmar" after the recent Cyclone Nargis:

... Food, shelter and clean water are what aid agencies emphasize. But human excrement is a weapon of mass destruction. A gram of human feces can contain up to 10 million viruses. At least 50 communicable diseases — including cholera, meningitis and typhoid — travel from host to host in human excrement. It doesn’t take much: a small child, maybe, who plays in soil where people have been defecating, then dips his fingers in the family rice pot. The aftermath of a disaster like Cyclone Nargis — with masses of weakened people on the move — is a communicable disease paradise. ... ¶ ...

In poor countries, diarrhea is the reason you find malnourished children in well-fed families. It's why millions of girls drop out of school, and why millions of dollars' worth of productivity is lost from workers sick with this week's bout of dysentery.

Good disposal of human excreta can reduce diarrhea by 40 percent. Washing hands reduces it still further. Health economists reckon that every dollar invested in sanitation can save $7 on health costs and lost productivity. No wonder the readers of The British Medical Journal last year voted sanitation the greatest medical milestone ever, over penicillin and anesthesia.

Send in the Latrines - New York Times, May 19, 2008 (emphasis and extra paragraphing added).

May 18, 2008

Jesus' mission was a bust - at least if that mission was what the church has long claimed

Over at TitusOneNine, commenter Jody+ asked me "what [my] understanding of soteriology is if it doesn’t include Jesus’ victory through the Cross and resurrection.  And Tory asked whether I believed that Jesus’ mission was a failure, "since Romans continued to run roughshod over Israel and other occupied peoples?  What kind of salvation did Jesus accomplish, if at all, for it certainly was not geo-political?”

------------------------

If Jesus thought of his mission as that of liberating Israel from worldly oppression and ushering in God’s reign:  then yes, that mission was an utter, abject, desperate, and miserable failure. To refuse to face that fact is to live in a fantasy world.

------------------------

If Jesus thought of his mission as that of winning victory over sin and death, and bringing eternal life to all who believed in him:  we have just about as much reliable evidence that he succeeded, even partially, as we do that the Heaven’s Gates suicides succeeded in joining the hidden spaceship that they believed was coming for them. 

Intellectual honesty requires us to admit that while we can hope, we simply don’t know, what happens after we die.  To claim otherwise is, again, to live in a fantasy world.

------------------------

What we can say with some confidence is that what Jesus characterized as the way to eternal life — the Summary of the Law — seems to touch on something fundamental in the fabric of the universe:

• The evidence for the existence of a Creator is pretty compelling, certainly more so than the evidence against;

• History suggests that, in the words of Lutheran theologian Philip Hefner, we seem to be “created co-creators,” participating unwittingly in a titanic process that has been gradually, and often painfully, creating order out of the chaos of the Big Bang;

• On balance, over the long term, those who seem to contribute the most to this process of creation — and who seem most likely to survive, reproduce, and pass their genes and memes on, not just to their children but to their grandchildren — are those who face the facts of the reality wrought by the Creator, including the fact of our human fallibility.  Who don’t insist that the world must be a certain way merely because they imagine it to be so.  Who seek the best for others as they do for themselves.  In short, who seek (whether they know it or not) to follow the Summary of the Law.

For all we know, when we die, the Creator will simply discard us his tools, the way we would throw away a worn-out drill bit. But it’s not totally implausible to conjecture that it won’t happen that way.  It’s not irrational to hope, and trust, that we’ll get to share, somehow, in the end result of whatever unimaginably-wonderful project the Creator has been up to.

------------------------

Returning again to whether Jesus’ mission was a failure:  If Jesus thought of his mission as being to inspire all people to organize their lives around the Summary of the Law, he didn’t completely succeed on his own.  But the church he catalyzed hasn’t done an altogether terrible job of continuing the mission.

If we would stop insisting that everyone believe traditionalist soteriology, christology, and theology, and return to simply preaching the Summary of the Law, we likely would have much more success in reaching nonbelievers and doubters with Jesus’ message.

Is Jim Webb maneuvering to get Obama's VP nod?

Virginia Senator Jim Webb sure seems to be maneuvering to be picked as Barack Obama's vice-presidential running mate:

  • The cover story in today's Parade Magazine is an excerpt from Webb's latest book, A Time To Fight: Reclaiming a Fair and Just America. Judging from the excerpts and reviews, this is a classic — and remarkably well-timed — example of a political statement, of the sort written with an upcoming campaign in mind.
  • This past Friday, Webb plugged his book on National Public Radio's All Things Considered. He's scheduled for more interviews on Letterman and elsewhere next week.

Webb would clearly bring some strengths to the Democratic ticket:

  • In some respects, Webb is a younger version of John McCain.  He served heroically in Vietnam, was badly wounded in combat, and was medically retired from the Marine Corps as a result. There's little room for doubt that many conservative- to moderate independents would view him favorably.
  • Webb has a track record of acting as a political independent, sometimes pugnaciously so. He resigned from his position as Ronald Reagan's Secretary of the Navy because of policy disagreements.  In Virginia's 2006 election he switched parties; beating long odds, he captured the Democratic senatorial nomination and went on to unseat long-time GOP incumbent George Allen. At a White House welcoming reception, Webb minced no words with President Bush (to the point of being insulting if you ask me); say what you will about Webb's manners, this year seems to be one in which his kind of blunt, maverick independence might be appealing to some of the electorate.
  • Webb's home state of Virginia has long been reliably Republican in presidential elections, but some polls suggest that this year its 13 Electoral College delegates could be up for grabs. The opportunity to put a popular Virginian on the ticket would certainly be of interest to the Democrats.

I'd love to know what's been going on behind the scenes, and how much (if at all) the Obama camp has been involved in Webb's conveniently-timed book promotions.

My Photo

Your email address:


Powered by FeedBlitz

Favorite Posts

Google Ads


Adv.

Episcopal Church

  • Come and Grow

Advertisement

Blog powered by TypePad