the truth behind and beyond dystopia

A few years ago, I spent a lot of time driving. To help with that, I would get some audio books from a library. I got to listen to audio book versions of the Dune novels, along with several of Asimov's Foundation books. More recently, I've taken an interest in the Warhammer 40K books, reading several of them.

Those are a few examples of dystopian stories. Yes, I think even Foundation was dystopian, even though I doubt that was Asimov's intention. Outside of not finding the appeal of those stories, not to mention the arrogance of the ideas behind the Foundation, there was simply the extreme cyclical view of history, such that the fall and rise of the space empire has to follow a certain pattern based on one man's researches and conjectures, and that everything must to done to insure that this pattern is not interrupted in any way. That's pretty dystopian, in my mind.

Dystopian fiction has been fairly popular. I suppose my first exposure to it was the old movie Logan's Run, though my interest at that young age had more to do with robots and lasers than in a deep and dark future world. But whether it's a dark future of the Alien movies, or a dark present or near future in which zombies rule the world, it's all dystopian.

So, what does it all mean?

“Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved. Some followers of the Reverend R.J.Campbell, in their almost too fastidious spirituality, admit divine sinlessness, which they cannot see even in their dreams. But they essentially deny human sin, which they can see in the street.” Chesterton, G. K. Orthodoxy (p. 7). Kindle Edition. While I suppose there might be dispute over whether original sin and the Fall are the only part that can really be proven, I think it's fairly clear that original sin and the Fall are as evident as Chesterton points out. We don't have to look far to see it, we don't even have to look in the streets. We need only look in a mirror.

This fact is all around us, and in us. And I'd say that it's in dystopian fiction (and utopian, too), whether or not that's the intent of the authors of those books.

We know that technological progress has not equated into progress as people. The fictional cave man with a club may have been able to only knock a few people over the head with his club, but the far too real modern terrorist can do so much more damage with a machine gun or vest bomb, and we can only imagine with dread what such a person might do with nuclear or biological weapons. We develop technologies for spreading moving images, and we use them to show off and celebrate our debaucheries and perversions.

What do I think is the truth behind these dystopian stories? Simply that we know that, left to ourselves, we cannot create utopia. Our attempts at utopia will not pan out, but will turn on us, and become something closer to a nightmare than anything we might dream of. We will be no less xenophobic in the 40,000s than we were in the 1940s. Our rulers will be just as despotic in the far future, as they have been in our far and near past. The best laid plans of mice and men will turn into well laid traps for mice and men.

Because, in the end, we know we are hopeless. We cannot change our own selves, let alone anyone else. We cannot make our own selves better, let alone anyone else. We are not improving as a race.

We know the truth of original sin. We cannot help ourselves, save ourselves, make ourselves clean.

If that was where the story ended, then let us rush blindly into the night, or rage against the coming of the night, both would be equally hopeless gestures.

But the truth is, that's not where the story ends. There is truth in that story, but if we stop with just that story, we will be left with hopelessness.

“But while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” Mankind is not the hero of mankind's story, and when we try to be, we can't find anything but dystopia. But where our works of righteous are no better than the vilest of rags, Christ's sacrificial death for our sins has made us clean. Where our sins are like a mountain, Christ's death has won forgiveness for us. Where our technology and intelligence and creativity have made our futures only more precarious, Christ's death has given those who believe in Him a real future.

There is truth in dystopia, but there is a greater truth beyond dystopia. Where we by our own efforts would only create hell on earth, Christ has promised us new heavens and a new earth.

so, no war on Christmas?

Kinda a follow-up to yesterday's post.


Media Finally Outraged Over Christmas Censorship – When It Involves the Word ‘Gay’

While the overall premise of the piece is interesting, this is what I want to focus on.

What you may not have heard covered in the MSM was an essay penned by one Colin Curran, a 16-year-old high school junior from New Jersey. Taking to the Huffington Post during this same time period, Colin told a story about a high school assignment which involved creating a music playlist for a young children’s holiday breakfast. There was one catch – none of the songs could contain a certain set of offending words, such as Christmas, Hanukah, Jesus, God, or Santa Clause. The reason, Colin explains, is that the “principal does not want to offend anyone with belief-specific music”.

So, this kid couldn't choose songs that had anything to do with the One whose birth is celebrated at Christmas. Heck, even Santa was verbotin, because I guess what with the word "santa" meaning "saint", that just wouldn't be PC.

Wow.

So, let's see...there goes "Silver Bells", because it mentions Santa. No "Rudolph", though I guess "Frosty" may survive the cut so long as it isn't too closely linked to the cartoon. "The Twelve Days of Christmas" gets axed. Ah, but wait, this kid could still put "Jingle Bells" on the list. Can't offend anyone with that one.

Oh, wait, maybe the PETA kids. After all, it's about riding in a one-horse open sleigh, which means that the poor little horsey is pulling the sleigh, running around and probably cold. Can't have that, gotta nix that one.

Wow, I'm struggling to find any songs at all that this kid could have put in this program. But we must press on, because woe betide if we offend anyone at all in our seasonal music, except those religious people who wonder what happened to anything about the Christ child whose birth is celebrated at Christmas. Don't worry about them.

peter rollins the postmodern pharisee

In short, such an approach reveals that Christianity exhibits the structure of a religion without religion. Belief thus has an important place; however, it is ultimately subordinate to the event that it points toward. The result is the idea that living within the event that is testified to in Christianity is more important than the affirmation that one is a Christian, or in other words, the event contained in the affirmation of God is more important than the belief in God.
Rollins, Peter (2009-01-29). Fidelity of Betrayal (Kindle Locations 1555-1558)

Look at what he's saying here--"living within the event that is testified to in Christianity is more important than the affirmation that one is a Christian...the event contained in the affirmation is more important than the belief in God". What is he saying?

Unlike the former reading, which sees Christianity as a worldview that can somehow be compared and contrasted with other worldviews, this latter approach questions the idea that Christianity can be approached as a religious worldview at all; rather, in this approach Christianity operates within all worldviews, at least in those places where people’s lives reflect love, hope, and passionate commitment to one’s neighbor. While the first interpretation sees Jesus as the founder of the one true religion, the latter interpretation sees in Jesus one who would set an axe to all religion.
Fidelity of Betrayal (Kindle Locations 1487-1491).

Because a miracle takes place at a radically subjective level that cannot be objectified or analyzed, it is not, strictly speaking, something that is believed in. Rather it is lived. Indeed it can easily be lived and not believed in.
Fidelity of Betrayal (Kindle Locations 1746-1748).

Instead of rendering God present to the understanding, this way of reading the text interprets the phrase ’ehyeh ’asher ’ehyeh as a means of describing the nature of God’s presence among us. Here God is presented neither as reducible to the status of other objects, nor as outside the world and eternally distant from it, but rather as one who is received by us without ever being directly conceived by us. Here the mystery of God is revealed as an incarnated mystery, that is, the mystery of God is revealed in the midst of God’s presence. God is here being presented as saying something akin to, “Do not try to name me. my name is above all names; I am present to you beyond all names.” Here we find a different way of approaching God: here we come across the idea that God is made manifest as a happening, an event, a blessing. God is here revealed as one who is made present through the acts of love and liberation rather than through the categories of human understanding. This does not mean that we will come to an understanding of God through closely observing the actions of God. Here the text goes further: God is made known only in action, only as blessing.
Fidelity of Betrayal (Kindle Locations 1276-1275).

When Jesus spoke of being “born again” he was not referring to some proposition that could be considered through logic, religious sermons, Bible reading, or through some kind reflection on religious experience; rather he was speaking of an event that opens up a whole new world of experience. Religious experience, in its fundamental form, is not then an experience at all but rather a counter-experience, one that transforms our mode of being in the world rather than being reduced to some strange feeling. With the incoming of this truth nothing necessarily changes in the physical world, no new object enters our horizon. But in its aftermath the person is never the same again, for everything has changed. This luminous life can never be captured, contained, or pulled apart; it is lived. This event in which nothing changes is an event so radical that nothing remains the same.
Fidelity of Betrayal (Kindle Locations 1346-1352).

Look at how he denigrates belief. This is a common theme throughout the book. He is constantly playing games with belief, claiming that belief in the truth claims of the Bible or even in God are not important, and even the questions of whether or not the Bible is true or if there is a God are not important. Something else is, something he calls the "miracle", and is something that, as he says in one of the quotes above, can "easily be lived and not believed in".

Looking at Rollins' words about this "miracle" and conversion, one is struck by a complete lack of the things the Bible places as central to this conversion--repentence from sins, belief and faith in Christ who was crucified as a sacrifice for our sins. Instead, he goes on about change and experience, using nonsense phrases about nothing being changed but everything being changed.

In his own convoluted way, he's simply repeating what the Pharisees in Jesus' day believed. His definition of righteousness is some combination of works and experience, that for example in regards to worldviews those worldviews are acceptable "...where people’s lives reflect love, hope, and passionate commitment to one’s neighbor".

But what does that mean? God cannot be understood, so he says. Thus, beliefs are essentially meaningless. What the Bible says about God is essentially meaningless; indeed, God cannot even interpret His own Word, because that would somehow be an untrue interpretation. There are no answer, only questions. Believe in Christ, or not; believe in God, or not; put your faith in the gods of Greek mythology, for all that it matters.

All we have are works that somehow God is pleased in, though we don't know how we know that or why. Why, after all, should a god about whom we cannot know anything by reason or logic be a god who wants us to be kind to people. Mankind has had many gods who wanted their priests to take other people and sacrifice them in bloody rituals. Why should not that be how this unknowable god is? Or why should people not worship this god in that way, as other do so through kindness? How can we know that this god prefers one or the other, because if the priest who sacrifices captives from another tribe thinks he being kind to his neighbor in doing so, then what argument can be made against it?

As soon as we start looking at Rollins' claims, that we can learn little or nothing about God through His Word, that God did not really speak to the prophets, that it's really not important whether or not Christ really died and rose again, then we are simply brought up against Rollins' own opinions and beliefs about what this god approves of. And let us be clear, they are simply the biases and presuppositions of Rollins and those like him. Why the bloody Aztec gods should be shunted aside is simply a matter of preference, not of any standard that says human sacrifices are wrong.

Rollins is playing as a Pharisee, but at least the Pharisees had the Law of Moses, even if they abused it and misused it. At least they would have claimed that belief in Jehovah was important, even if it was more a belief in their own supposed righteousness. All Rollins has is his own law, his own beliefs that no beliefs are important, yet somehow love and hope and caring for others is important, simply because the Christ he doesn't believe in said so, even if He may not really have said those words at all. And why this god spoke through Christ more than through the bloody Aztec prophets is not a question that can be answered.

peter rollins ridiculous

In this parable we are reminded that a religious approach to the text is not one in which we attempt to find out its definitive meaning, but rather where we wrestle with it and are transformed by it. The parable tells us not that a God’s eye view is impossible, but rather that even if it were possible it would not be wanted. Why? Because a God’s-eye view of the truth would not be the truth. We can thus say that any interpretation of a verse that is given to us by God is not a true interpretation of the verse and must be rejected as such. For the problem resides not in having an interpretation but rather in the place that we give to our interpretation. No matter how wonderful our interpretation is, if it occupies an authoritative place then it undermines its own status.
Rollins, Peter (2009-01-29). Fidelity of Betrayal (Kindle Locations 1778-1784). Paraclete Press. Kindle Edition.

Really? A parable? Maybe one Jesus told? Well, let's see...

Is this not the wisdom that is contained in the Jewish parable that speaks of a heated debate taking place in a park between two old and learned rabbis? The conversation in question revolves around a particularly complex and obscure verse in the Torah. It is not the first time that these two intellectual giants have crossed swords over this verse; in fact they have debated it for years, sometimes changing their opinions but never finding a consensus. God is, of course, known to have the patience of a saint, but even God begins to tire of the endless discussion. So finally God decides to visit the two men and tell them once and for all what the parable means. God reaches down, pulls the clouds apart, and begins to speak: “You have been debating this verse endlessly for years; I will now tell you what it means. . . . ” But before God can continue, the two rabbis look up and say, in a rare moment of unity, “Who are you to tell us what the verse means? You have given us the words, now leave us in peace to wrestle with it.”
Fidelity of Betrayal (Kindle Locations 1771-1778).

Umm...no. Nope, not one of Jesus'. In fact, we aren't told where it comes from, just that he calls it a "Jewish parable", which raises the eyebrows, as by and large the ancient Hebrews were noted for their great respect for the Scriptures, except when they were following all the rest of humanity in worshiping idols. One could well imagine that, for example, some ancient false prophet getting honked off at Jeremiah, and making some kind of argument like that.

But, well, moving on...

In my lack of researches, because only modernists care for verifying whether a historical statement is true or not, I've discovered in my imaginative reinterpretation of a biblical account of a time Jesus told a parable and then interpreted it for his disciples the nuclear shadow of an event (or is that an Event) that happened but for whatever reason (probably the fault of those nasty Nicenes) it didn't make into the Bible. But, thanks to me and my ability to deconstruct and find messages hiding in the gaps in the wounds of the text, here is a summary of it.

In Matthew 13, we have the account of Jesus telling several different parables. Verse 36 says that he left the multitude, and went into the house, and his disciples came unto him, say, "Explain unto us the parable of the tares of the field"

Jesus is just getting ready to explain it when there was a sudden commotion, a strange throbbing noise and weird lights, and suddenly a strange, pale man appeared in their midst, wearing strange clothes, and he was speaking very loudly.

"Stop!!" The man said, and yes did so with two exclamation marks. "You can't do that!" This caused some consternation among the disciples, as he was speaking in the English language, which had not yet made it's way into the world. Jesus appeared unfazed.

"My name is Peter Rollins." Said the strange man. "And I've come from the future, because you cannot explain that parable, Jesus.

"No, you can't explain it to them, because if you do, your disciples and all the rest of us will not wrestle with it and be transformed by it. Don't you know that a God's eye view of your parable is impossible, even though you as God told the parable to the people. Even though they have asked you to explain it to them, they don't really want that, because even if it were possible, it is not really wanted. Because any explanation or interpretation you can give would not be the truth, even if you as God give them the God's eye view of the truth. Any interpretaion you as God give to your disciples is not the true interpretation, and so they would have to reject it. Because any interpretation you as God would give would be authoritative, and thus because it is authoritative it would undermine its own status as an authoritative interpretation.

"So, no, Jesus, you cannot explain your parable to them. I command you to be quiet, you traitor! Why, I know about your conspiracy, I know who the really hero of Bible is! It's Judas, I tell you, not you! Oh, no, I know about your conspiracy! You and Lilith and Pee Wee Herman and her little dog, too, and..."

Suddenly, something went "boink" in the time machine this strange man who called himself Peter Rollins was using, and he was shot back to the future very suddenly and more-or-less intact, though there are rumors that parts of his mind have been found floating around in the Mariachi Trench.

So, after a rather startled moment, the disciples looked among themselves and then finally turned to Jesus. Jesus began to speak, answering their original question, and said, "He that sows the good seed is the Son of Man, and the field is the world. The good seed are the sons of the kingdom, the weeds are the sons of the evil one, and the enemy who sowed the weeds is the devil, and the harvest is the end of the world. The reapers are the angels. As the tares are gathered and thrown into the fire, so will it be at the end of the world. The Son of Man will send forth his angels and they will gather out of his kingdom all thing that cause stumbling, and those who do iniquity, and cast them into the furnace of fire, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. And the righteous will shine as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear."

So, yes, I did detect the nuclear shadow of a time-traveling Peter Rollins in that account. Hey, it's just as likely as the myths of Lilith and his conspiracy theory about Judas.

To be plain (I was serious, even in mocking), can one imagine the hubris and arrogance of Rollins' statements? Can you imagine him saying such a thing about any other person? If, let's say, he were a lawyer arguing a case in a courtroom, and he were to claim that the testimony of an expert witness should be ignored and discarded because it is the testimony of an expert? That a professor should be ignored for the simple reason that he's educated and experienced in his field? That, let's say, Gary Kasparov's analysis of a chess game should be discarded because it is given by a former world chess champion and one of the greatest players of all time?

To say that an interpretation that God would give would not be the truth is absolute nonsense, and let's be honest, it's blasphemy.

peter rollins spews nonsense about prayer

I think it is becoming more and more apparent that nothing is safe from whatever passes through the mind of Peter Rollins, that he can take the most holy and sacred things, and make them profane. Quite the accomplishment.

Take, for example, prayer. Here's what he has recently had to say on that matter.

Prayer Works

This little story can perhaps help us to understand the underlying structure of prayer. In prayer we speak out to another and yet there is a second form of communication taking place simultaneously: we are also speaking to ourselves.

You can go to his page to read his little story, but the point behind it all is right there. And I would contend that, as the article progresses, his little nod to the idea that we may be speaking to another (God?) is set aside.

The question of prayer so often revolves around specifically religious issues such as whether there is a being to hear the prayers or why one needs to say anything at all (after all, if God exists, then God would know already what we want). But by bracketing these questions out for a moment and examining the underlying structure of prayer – a mode of communicating to an other (real or imagined) that results in a revelation of our feelings to ourselves – we can see that this is a universal act, one that transcends the theistic/atheistic debates.

May I translate that? Basically, he's saying that the question of whether or not there is a God or god who hears our prayers is irrelevant, that the main point all can agree on is that when we pray we are really praying to ourselves, revealing things to ourselves.

I am a great advocate of this form of communication; indeed it has been a lifeline to me many times over the last few years. Every day has been filled with prayer as I take time to speak out in order to come into contact with what lies within. It has provided the backbone of my intellectual project over the years as well being invaluable to my emotional wellbeing

So, we see what is valuable for Rollins in prayring--it helps him find what is in himself, to "come into contact with what lies within". Actually speaking to a God who may or may not be there is, at best, secondary.

When we speak out to the divine, or to those from whom we are distant, the ones we have lost to death or misunderstanding, those who we long to communicate with and yet cannot, we speak to something deep within ourselves. In doing this we bring into language that part of us which otherwise would continue to fester within our being and poison us. We bring light to something that would otherwise continue to lurk in the darkness of our unconscious and continue to plague us. And so, regardless of ones belief in the supernatural, we might be able to all agree that this kind of prayer works.

So, prayer is a lot like imaging a conversation with someone else. Yeah, right.

And, of course, when you see prayer merely as a form of therapy and self-enlightnement, well, it doesn't really matter what you think about the supernatural, whether there really is a God to whom you're praying to, or if the god to whom you are praying is merely yourself. Even atheist can pray to themselves.

oh, those thin-skinned pomos

So, for reasons best kept in the realm of mystery, a few days ago I'm cruising the web over at the Emergent Village blog. Though they do not seem to put new stuff up there very often, at least over the past few months, what they do put up tends to be ripe for the commenting on here.

But this time, it isn't really the contents of the new post that are currently of interest, though since it is a Pagitt contribution, I've no doubt it could be well worth the effort. No, this time, it's a bit of back-and-forth, of sorts, in the comments.

It kind of began with my comment to someone else's comment, where the other person some something about how theology starts with a "What if?" A rather strange statement, I though, and I responded with the comment that true theology starts with "God said".

For most people, I think that statement is pretty straight-forward, and with much controversy. For the EV crowd, though, well...there are those who took exception to it. As one person put it...

Whose interpretation? Mine or yours or some other or both or all or none? On what basis do we decide which interpretation is most fitting and when or where or how it is most fitting? When does reason enter? Or is true theology based purely on authoritative interpretation?

Now, having taken as seriously as I can the questions asked above, I've sought how best to interpret the questions this person is asking. Can I trust my interpretations of this person's questions (I'll say "he", though he could be a she, or (this being postmodernism and all) he could be becoming a she, or she a he, or a she trapped in a he's body, or vice versa, or whatever). Upon what basis am I to determine which interpretation of his questions and statements is most fitting? And when and where and how is an interpretation most fitting? Would the interpretation I had a day ago be fitting for today?

Oh, the dilemma! How am I to answer him if I am unable to interpret his questions?

So, I've been expressing this dilemma in some of my further comments on the post. Not without humor, of course, because postmodernism, so I have heard, is suppose to be light-hearted and humorous. Except when it's not.

Sadly, this person, who seems to think that we must ask oh-so-many-questions before we can interpret the Word of God, seems to be much less than patient when I am unable to interpret his statements. To use his own words.

You are being obnoxious. Please, either contribute to the conversation or take your ball and go home.

Of course, we must be careful with this statement, and not jump too hastily to an interpretation of it. While on the surface he may seem to be expressing irritation and to be insulting me, perhaps that is only my own subjective interpretation, and maybe he is really giving me the highest of postmodern compliments, and instead of wanting me to go home, he wants me to stay and continue the work of subverting his subversion. Subversion, after all, seems to be one of the highest of postmodern virtues, and surely he would not be so hypocritical as to say that his statements do not need to be subverted in the same way he is attempting the subvert the Word of God?

Surely not!

a correctiong, of sorts

A few posts back, I gave a quote from the book "The Heretic's Guide to Eternity" which was itself a quote attributed to one Carter Heyward. In that post, I referred to Heyward at least one time as "Mr. Heyward".

Silly me.

Carter Heyward

Isabel Carter Heyward (b. 1945 in North Carolina) is a lesbian[1] feminist theologian, teacher and priest in the Episcopalian Church - the province of the worldwide Anglican Communion in the United States.

Well, this was...enlightening.

Theology - the Nature of God
Author of a number of books and numerous articles, Carter Heyward's most distinctive theological idea is that it is open to each of us to incarnate God (that is, to embody God's power), and that we do so most fully when we seek to relate genuinely to others in what she calls relationality. When we do this, we are said to be 'godding', a verb Heyward herself coined.[4] God is defined in her work as 'our power in mutual relation'.[5] Alluding to mainstream Christian views of God, Heyward has stated 'I am not much of a theist'.[6] For her, 'the shape of God is justice',[7] so human activity can, as theologian Lucy Tatman has observed, be divine activity whenever it is just and loving. In her book Saving Jesus From Those Who Are Right, Heyward asserts that 'the love we make... is God's own love'.[8] In Heyward’s work, God is therefore not a personal figure, but instead the ground of being, seen for example in compassionate action, which is 'the movement of God in and through the heights and depths of all that is'.[9]

[edit] Theology - Jesus in Carter Heyward's thought
Again in contrast to the more traditional Christian focus (on Jesus Christ as God incarnated as a redeemer), Heyward believes that 'God was indeed in Jesus just as God is in us - as our Sacred, Sensual Power, deeply infusing our flesh, root of our embodied yearning to reach out to one another'.[10] This power works to change despair, fear and apathy to hope, courage and what Heyward terms 'justice-love'.[10] But God's Spirit is not contained 'solely in one human life or religion or historical event or moment'.[11] God was Jesus' relational power for 'forging right (mutual) relation, in which Jesus himself and those around him were empowered to be more fully who they were called to be'.[12] Insisting on the God-incarnating power of all, Heyward observes that 'the human act of love, befriending, making justice is our act of making God incarnate in the world'.[13] Interestingly, in her recent work she suggests that even the non-human creation may incarnate God, commenting that 'there are more faces of Jesus on earth, throughout history and all of nature, than we can begin even to imagine'.[14]. Not unrelated to this perception, Heyward founded the Free Rein Center for Therapeutic Horseback Riding and Education at Brevard, North Carolina, where she is an instructor[15]

Well, no wonder the Oozers quote her so favorably. And no wonder she wants people to belief it's ok to read the Bible in such different ways than those people long ago. She certainly does.

A New Kind of Christianity: The God Question

In this third part of the book McLaren puts his two prongs, the supposed Greco-Roman god Theos and the Bible as cultural library, into use.

He begins with the question "Is God Violent?". McLaren acknowledges that, as useful as his 'Bible as cultural library' proves to be for him, it just doesn't do away with all of what he considers disturbing images of God. "But as a serious reader of the Bible, I'm still a little uneasy, because I know about some of the other images of God that are also found in the Bible--violent images, cruel images, un-Christlike images", p 98.

What he posits to answer this is a form of 'progressive revelation', or as he called it, "this evolving understanding of God", p 100. He says there are five ways that the Bible shows such an 'evolving understand--God uniqueness, from a God supreme among many gods to one true God; God's ethics, from ritual and cermony to social justice; God's universality, from a tribal God to one who loves all people; God's agency, from a distant God to one close and involved; and God's character, from a violent God to one who is gentle, pp 100-102.

He claims that this isn't an evolution of God himself, but of how people understood God. "I am not saying that the Bible reveals a process of evolution within God's character, as if God used to be rather adolescent, but has taken a turn for the better and is growing up nicely over the last few centuries. I am saying that human beings can't do better than their very best at any given moment to communicate about God as they understand God, and the Scripture faithfully reveals the evolution of our ancestor's best attempts to communicate their successive best understandings of God...If we read the Bible as a cultural library rather than as a constitution, and if we don't impose a Greco-Roman plotline on the biblical narrative, we are free to learn from the evolutionary process--and, we might even add, to participate in it", p 103.

He likens it to math. Students in early grades learn simple math, and as they advace, they learn more complex forms of math, onesthat may even seem to contradict what they had previously learned. So, those early in the Bible who recorded what he considers less-mature images of God were simply understanding God as best they could, as a second-grader understands math in only a limited sense. But people like McLaren are more advanced. To make his point, McLaren uses one of his favority tactics--a series of unanswerable "What if...?", questions, p 104-105.

As if to show us what that is like, McLaren gives another example--people from today are somehow sent a bit over 1000 years into the future. People in this speculative future are some different from us, they are "deeply spiritual", they have "grown socially", they no longer fight wars, eat meat, or use fossil fuels, p 106. When those from today arrive, the people of the future are horrified that people used to fight wars and pray for God to bless them in doing so, eat their "fellow creatures" and even view vegetarianism as being 'pro-life', and thought it ok to ruin the planet by using oil.

People who don't like this way of thinking are, of course, stuck in the old Greco-Roman and constitutional way of viewing the Bible, p 108.

McLaren focuses on the story of Noah. Instead of seeing it as God saving a man and his family, he focuses instead on God practicing "ethnic cleansing", p 108, and a story in which people may find justification for similar destructions. "In this light, a god who mandates an intentional supernatural disaster leading to unparalleled genocide is hardly worth belief, much less worship", p 109. He even points out that the flood was a failure, as Noah and his sons soon enough start sinning and soon the world is a mess again.

He does say that, while for him the story of Noah is now distasteful, it is still a step up from what he considers to be the origin source of the story of Noah, something in Gilgamesh, where the gods kill mankind because man is too noisy for them to sleep.

"This approach helps us see the biblical library as the record of a seris of trade-ups, people courageously letting go of their state-of-the-art understanding of God when an even better understanding begins to emerge", p 111.

When coming to Jesus, McLaren quotes a Quaker scholar named Elton Trueblood, "The historic Christian doctrine of the divinity of Christ does not simply mean that Jesus is like God. It is far more radical than that. It means the God is like Jesus", p 114. Jesus, then, "...bring us to a new evolutionary level in our understanding of God. An old definition of God does not define Jesus--the experience of God in Jesus requires a brand-new definition or understanding of God", p 114.

"The character of God, seen in Jesus, is not violent and tribal. The living God is not the kind of deity who decrees ethnic cleansing, genocide, racism, slavery, sexism, homophobia, war, religious supremacy, or eternal conscious torment. Instead, the character of the living God is like the character of Jesus", p 118.

My thoughts on this.

A few years ago, I heard someone talk about "chronological snobbery", which essentially means that a person or people will look back on those before them as having been rather stupid. Maybe they will try to say nice things about those ancients, saying they did the best with what they had, but we today know so much more and know it so much better.

Essentially, McLaren's whole position here is an astonishingly towering tribute to chronological snobbery. The arrogance emerging from this part of the book is almost more than I can imagine.

About a year ago, I read parts of a book called "The Lost Message of Jesus" by a couple of emergents on the other side of the pond, Chalke and Mann. They say this about God in the Old Testament.

Hence, Yahweh's association with vengeance and violence wasn't so much an expression of who he was but the result of his determination to be involved with his world. His unwillingness to distance himself from the people of Israel and their actions meant that at times he was implicated in the excessive acts of war that we see in some of the books of the Old Testament. From the very beginning, Yahweh's dealing with Israel were motivated by his desire to demonstrate his love. But to a people saturated in a worldview that saw him as power, this was always going to be a slow uphill struggle

God's relationship with Israel took place in the messy and often brutal reality of their day-to-day lives, longings and ambitions. And in the ancient Near East, where war and unrestrained violence were commonplace, having a god of power on your side helped justify cruel acts of revenge towards those who wronged you. That is why, if we focus in on individual Old Testament verses and stories, it is easy to fall into the trap of seeing God as a vengeful despot...
Chalk and Mann, the lost message of jesus, p. 49

I called this god of Chalke's and Mann's "the incompetent god", because he was unable to get his real message across to humanity; for example, he was pacifistic, but kept having to send Israel off to war, because he was unable through his divine power to protect them.

McLaren essentially uses "the incompetent god", and adds a bit to it. For unspecified reasons, God cannot make ancient man understand Him, so He's doomed to have his character misrepresented in Scripture, at least until McLaren and other enlightened ones come along to set the record straight.

One of the most distasteful parts of his argument is positing a sort of conflict between God and Jesus. He claims that there are images of God in the Old Testament that were "un-Christlike". He says that we must compare views of God to Jesus, "The images of God that most resemble Jesus, whether they orginate in the Bible or elsewhere, are the more mature and complete images; the ones less similar to the character of Jesus are the more embryonic and incomplete...", p 114. As the quote states, he thinks that one can find 'images of God' outside the Bible, I suppose in other religions, that are better than some one can find in the Bible itself.

I noted before that McLaren seems to put a lot of the Bible on to the fiction shelves of his 'cultural library', and this is more confirmation of that. He pretty blatantly says that Noah is a made-up story, ripped off from another culture. More than that, he strongly implies that almost all of it was somehow made-up--it's a man-made book, not a divine revelation. It's a book of mankind's continual evolution in the understanding of God, and that evolution is still going on, an evolution was can still participate in today.

If McLaren's god didn't destroy the world in Noah's day, what does that do to other times that the Bible records God speaking? Does God not judge Sodom and Gomorrah, because that would be homophobic? What about what God did to Egypt? Did God really tell Israel to conquer Canaan, or was that just Moses and Joshua using god-language in support of their own agenda of conquest? And what about those prophets and all their dire warnings and predictions, did God really tell them to say those things?

In order for McLaren to hold to his positions, he must say that much of the Bible claims to have been spoken by God was not really God speaking. His continual emphasis on "an evolving understanding of God" makes that point as well, and is essentially saying that much of the Bible is simply made-up stories where a character called God is introduced, words put into his mouth, and those words given status as Scripture.

There is someone at the Christianity.com forums where I participate in discussions, who has a quote by Spurgeon in her signature area, which goes something like this: "It is a remarkable fact that all the heresies which have arisen in the Christian Church have had a decided tendency to 'dishonor God and to flatter man." As this seems a reasonable criterion, one can say that McLaren here soundly falls in the heretic category. Not only does he bring down God, he essentially places man, especially ones like himself, in a seat of judgment over God, pronouncing judgments on things God did and said, saying even the sometimes God is "un-Christlike".

Most people who read the Bible would probably agree that there is a sense in which God reveals things about Himself over time. But this is more of a sense of God adding knowledge of Himself to what knowledge was before, rather than "trade-ups" as McLaren posits. There is no sense in, for example, the New Testament that the God of what we call the Old Testament--God in the books of Moses, God in the prophets, God in the recorded history--is being traded out for a new, improved, better God, like an older man divorces his wife for a younger model.

In the end, I think what McLaren is most against is Hell. Instead of seeing Hell as an aspect of the the justice of God, even if a rather harsh and hard-to-understand one, he calls it "torture" several times, as if he's trying to equate Hell with liberal's views of Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib. I think McLaren's politics comes into play here.

Finally, McLaren resorts to 'scare tactics' in order to try to make his interpretive method more user-friendly. He essentially says that we much do violence to the message of the Bible for our own good. Like all liberals, he sees people who don't agree with him as simply stupid, brutish, small-minded sheep, motivated only by self-interest. Perhaps because he has dismissed the Fall, he must hold to such a low view of man to explain why he isn't universally accepted.

an oh ode to ankoc

('ankoc', btw, is the initials of A New Kind of Christianity, just to clarify)

Oh, to be among the enlightened ones, the advanced one, the ascended masters!!

Oh, to be among those who have advanced so far in humility that you know how far you have advanced over the common rabble, to know when to Fall is really to ascend, to know that we who have never seen the face of God (or gods, or the universe) may look with supreme pity on he who gave God a meal at his tent, or he who talked with God as a friend talks to a friend.

Oh, to be counted among those fortunate few, who can gaze upon the sacred words of the prophets of old, and determine that they really didn't mean what they said. Oh, to be able to see that when the prophets of old said that God would do something, they really meant that man would do it. Oh, to know that when the prophets of old spoke of a coming time when men would be full of vitality past the age of 100, they really meant that we who live now should pass Obamacare. What sublime prophetic ability, for those of thousands of years in the past to use such an outlandish notion as people living so long, to speak specifically to us today to follow the agenda of the enlighened ones!

Oh, to know that to read the Bible as a Jew means that one does not read the Bible as Jews of old. Oh, to see that the Law was not a constitution, though the Jew of old thought that it was very like one. Oh, to see that we have advanced so far! God gave Israel the Law and the Prophets, and did not ask a by-your-leave to do so, yet we today have advanced to the point where we may talk with each other, determine what is revelation, and so determine for ourselves "Hath God really said?"

For the moment, that is my last word, so I'll let someone else provide the word after that.


see more dog and puppy pictures

(why do I suspect that pup could get a lot of use?)

making it worth it

I must now confess that, yes, I did it. I suppose one could blame it on a touch of madness, perhaps brought on by the poison of the philosophy I had only a day before drained to the dregs. Perhaps it could be blamed on a curious so morbid the modern puritan would call it obese. Whatever the cause, whatever the reason, I did indeed give over the almost-$30 that I knew would be required of me by those gatekeepers of the law and the profits, and having surrendered the precious amount, I was free to take in hand and from the store a copy of the incontrovertibly controversial "A New Kind of Christianity".

When one does such a mad thing, it only shows a steeper descent along the slippery slope to begin to scour the pages looking for an adequate return on investment. Perhaps because McLaren is decidedly of the Left, and for the Left a return of any such kind seems to be a sin on the order of the original Fall they do not believe in, I have thus far found all attempts at such a return to be fruitless. I am left with mere pages, and the words upon them, which any postmodern will all too readily tell you are worthless, anyway.

If nothing else, McLaren has proven the Bible to be literally true when it says that a fool and his money are soon parted.

But if a book must be worthless, at least it cannot be completely worthless. I have never written a book, so cannot claim to know the joy of such an accomplishment. Perhaps those who bind books may have at one time found satisfaction in such a craft, though I would think that today those who bind books are machines who take little joy in anything. Those like myself, who read, can find a degree of joy in doing our part. But what if that joy is denied us? To borrow McLaren's favorite type of question, what if he who reads does not enjoy the reading? What if he learns nothing, or at least nothing of value? What if he longs to find some joy, some satisfaction, in a book? What is he left with?

Merely the shredding of it.

So, let the shredding begin...

if i wanted a circular god, i'd find a fat buddha

Theology after Google

Theology after Google does not divide up the world between the “sacred” and the “secular,” as past theologies so often did. All thought and experience bears on it, and all of one’s life manifests it. Thus the distinction between one’s “ministry” and one’s “ordinary life” is bogus. All of one’s life as a Christian is missional.. The great 15th-century theologian and mystic Nicholas of Cusa imagined God as a circle whose radius is infinite and whose center is everywhere. It only takes a second to realize that Cusa’s picture wreaks havoc on all geometries of “inside” and “outside.”

This is hardly a new idea. I was hearing this from people in the missions organization I was in several years ago. I think it's something that could be debated. For example, when God spoke to Moses in the wilderness, He called where they talked "holy ground". Wherever that perameters of that "holy ground" was, it was different than the normal ground Moses had been walking on before, and so he was told to remove his sandals. A similar thing happened later, when Moses and the people of Israel were at the mountain and God came down to them. The mountian was not to be treated by them as another mountain--the people were not to approach it, and any animal that touched it was to be killed. The Tabernacle and later the Temple were not common buildings, and even in them there was a place that was entered only once a year by the High Priest, the Holy of Holies. The Ark of the Covenant was not to be touched at all, and God killed a man who touched it, even for the theoretically good reason of keeping it from falling. The tribe of Levi was different than the others, they were not given land, but were the priests and keepers of the Tabernacle and Temple.

It's an interesting idea, perhaps not without merit, depending on what is meant by it. I think the last sentence of the paragraph quoted above gives an idea of what he means--that in trying to do away with the concepts of "inside" and outside", he's essentially sneaking in, though not so subtly, universalism. Perhaps not surprising, since TheOoze is Spencer Burke's site, and Burke has claims to be some form of universalist.

And that is where this writer's version of "no sacred or secular" falls apart. I doubt the New Testament could be more plain that there is a very real difference between those who believe and those who don't, between those who are children of God and child or wrath, the sheep who are welcomed and the goats who are condemned, the wheat and the tares, the wise virgins and the foolish ones, those in Abraham's bosom and those in Hades, those whose names are written in the Book of Life and those whose names aren't.

One can point to divisions people have made that have been silly or even stupid. But pointing those out does not mean that all divisions are wrong. And when the Bible plainly says there are those who are pleasing to God, and others who are subject to God's wrath, then it is not wise to try to dismiss those divisions simply because one doesn't like them, and simply because they do not most kind "picture".

Finally, a bit on the difference between the symbol of the circle and the more obvious Christian symbol of the cross, from Chesterton's "Orthodoxy", toward the end of chapter 2.

As we have taken the circle as the symbol of reason and madness, we may very well take the cross as the symbol at once of mystery and of health. Buddhism is centripetal, but Christianity is centrifugal: it breaks out. For the circle is perfect and infinite in its nature; but it is fixed for ever in its size; it can never be larger or smaller. But the cross, though it has at its heart a collision and a contradiction, can extend its four arms for ever without altering its shape. Because it has a paradox in its centre it can grow without changing. The circle returns upon itself and is bound. The cross opens its arms to the four winds; it is a signpost for free travellers.

So, God, Mohammed, and Buddha walk into an AA meeting...

For all of the attempted humor of the title here, the truth is that, again, real life is stranger than fiction.

First, ht to Mr. Silva and Christian Research Network for telling me about this. Very interesting, especially in light of the undisciplined five-year-old who insists on throw tantrums here for the past few days.

Is God ‘A Recovering Practitioner of Violence’?

And...

Is God ‘A Recovering Practitioner of Violence’?

The first link is to CRN. The second to a blog called zoecarnate. This excerpt if from z, though some or all of it can be found on CRN, too.

More explosively than his challenging theses, it was at this conference that Brueggemann posits that “God is a recovering practitioner of violence.” As Geoff Holsclaw summarizes – “By this he means that God used to think violence was a good idea, but then gave up on it. However, like all addicts, He has relapses. Of which the cross is either the final deliverance, or another relapse.” Of course this is potentially disconcerting, as we don’t like to imagine the repentance of God – and yet, this is precisely what is suggested in Jesus’ baptism in the Jordan (thanks, Jack Miles!).

So, we have emergents taking seriously the concept that God is an addict to violence, and that while he's trying to get over it, he does have relapses.

I remember hearing something some time ago, along the lines of "In the beginning God created man is His own image, and since that time man has tried to return the favor".

When emergents have to throw God under the bus, the game is over. When emergents need a God who can't control His own actions, they may as well adopt atheism. And when their God is equivalent to the drunk staggering down the street, they have left all ideas of His Lordship in the gutter.

And if you it's just empty rhetoric that I say these people consider themselves "smarter than God", think again. That is exactly what they say.

an emergent action/horror movie

No, seriously, I'm (more or less) serious. Ok, pretty serious.

Anyway, recently, in my movie watching, I saw a preview to movie that I thought could have been written by Peter Rollins, or at least based on a Peter Rollins parable and then embellished by someone else so that it had lots of guns and grannies crawling up walls and all that stuff.

The movie is called "Legion". What made it seems so Rollins-ish is that the 'hero' of the movie is an angel who...

A. Decides to break his relationship with God because he disagrees with God having lost faith in humanity.
B. Tries to keep the instruments of God's wrath from killing a baby, one may assume at God's command.

Remember, Rollins is the one who thinks that disobedience is the sign of true discipleship and that god should have man's permission so he can stay in heaven. A movie where the archangel Michael has a falling out over God's wrath at humanity and starts working against Him, a movie where God is the big bad guy, how could such a movie not meet the approval of Rollins and perhaps other emergents? Wouldn't Michael be Rollins' ultimate disciple?

For a bit more on the movie, look here.

'Legion' film a slap in the face to Christianity

The premise of the movie is typical of the garbage that Hollywood spews these days. "Legion," in a nutshell, is about mankind, how we have angered God somehow, and how he is going to take vengeance on His own creation: man. God does this by unleashing various plagues, Gabriel the Archangel, and hordes of "warrior angels" on mankind. But wait, the blasphemy gets even better. Mankind's faux messiah is an unborn baby who was recently released from his wings and his allegiance to God. Archangel Michael has to protect the unborn baby. Michael, in his graciousness, decides to protect mankind from God and His angels. The blasphemy is really set up as a delightful dichotomy as Michael, releasing himself from his servitude to God and the Messiah, is essentially going to be reborn in a desert in the Southwest United States.

a question one emergent doesn't like

Coming up soon--emergents start having questioners screened to make sure they ask questions only emergents want to answer, so they don't have to sound like abject wafflers.

btw ht http://christianresearchnetwork.com/?p=13569

One day I hope to believe in God…

Bear in mind, Rollins is a pastor (or at least plays one on the internet).

The first question that William asked was, ‘do you believe in God’?

Yeah, such a plain, straight-forward question. In fact, one a pastor who is suppose to Christian should be able to answer with conviction in the affirmative. Heck, one would expect a dyed-in-the-wool atheist to answere it with conviction in the negative. I may disagree with such an atheist, but at leat the honesty would be respected.

But for Rollins, the question becomes...difficult, through no fault of the questioner.

The first thing to notice however is that the question itself rests on the idea that we all have a shared understanding of what belief is and what we mean by the word ‘God’. And, of course, in our cultural context most of us do have a shared understanding of these terms. If we use Saussure’s linguistic theory of the sign we can begin to isolate what that shared understanding is. For Saussure a linguistic sign is composed of a signifier (sound/word) and a signified (a concept that the word brings to mind). Using this idea the question basically can be broken down as such,

I'll let you check out the "as such". I just want to show you the types of hoops and loops he twists himself in to try to avoid the question.

Rather tell, though, is this statement, from a paragraph or two later.

If I was asked this question in the university I would be happy to discuss it, but being asked it in ikon is problematic as it might suggest to people that ones answer to this question is somehow important to the life of faith. To me it is as relevant in the setting of ikon as the question, ‘do you believe in string theory’.

So, to him, the question of his own belief or disbelief in God is not important to his life of faith? The question of any person's belief or disbelief in God is not important to their life of faith?

On may think that is what he's saying, by this statement later on...

So the question remains… as a Christian, do I believe in God? Well, while I am drawn to the idea that there is a Supreme Being I must confess that I don’t believe in God, at least most of the time.

One could certainly say that verbal shenanigans are going on in his "answer". For example, his attempts to redefine God.

The ideas that God should be described as love and that belief in God is intimately connected to how we treat our neighbor are, of course, deeply heretical and one must be wary of even suggesting them.

I've already dealt with someone else, Steve Chalke, trying to make the love of God the big thing with God while leaving out all the other things God tells us about Himself in the Bible. It's at this link...

come on, at least do a bit of research

And his attempt is make it seem as if how we treat other people is somehow only something a waffler like himself sees as important is laughable. As someone who has been for years in fundamentalist and evangelical churches, I know the ideas of "walking the walk" and "living like you believe" are very much a part of what they teach.

Rollins is a poser. That's all he is, that's all he has.

revisioning the future

Last time, I psted about Rollins' second-place winner to his parable contest. Now he has posted the winning entry. If the last one was a Oliver Stone-like retelling of the past, just wait...

And the winner is

It's a twist on the Footprints poem that is rathe popular. And by twist, I mean twisted.

To keep it brief, here's the ending.

And slowly God replied, his voice shaking with emotion. ‘The years when you have seen only one set of footprints, my child, is when you carried me.’

The man frowned for a moment, paused, and then looked up. ‘Surely Lord,’ he began rather embarrassed to be correcting the Almighty, ‘you mean when you carried me.’

‘My dear child,’ God said, twisting a loose thread of cloth from his flowing robes, his face suddenly a mirror in which the old man saw the battles he had fought and the doubts he had put asunder, ‘this was the measure of your faith: when difficulties came, you gathered up this tired and arthritic God, and carried your beliefs to safety.’

A small wind blew through the old photographs and worn papers, and the two men sat in silence for a moment.

‘I have prepared a room for you,’ God said after a while, ‘though I quite understand if you don’t want me to stay.’

Yep, that's right--at the last judgment, we're going to be the ones to judge God. And we can kick Him out if we judge him unworthy.

Wow, who do you think would find that scenario a good thing? Here's a hint, he tried to do such a thing long ago, but fell like lightning from Heaven.

idiotic

Who invented what?

‘God and humans are the invention of the story itself’

I'm becoming convinced that pomos are far less interested in truth, than in a false wit and their own feelings of cleverness.

As disgusting as this is, though, is Rollins' attempts to weasel out of it, both in the comments to this post, and in what he wrote in the next post.

The working out of the above "Hegelian synthesis" (whether really Hegelian or not) is that God is merely a part of the story, a character, someone only doing what the story tells him to do. Hardly a being worth worshiping and serving, which may be one reason Rollins' is so much into the disciple as the one who disobeys, which I pointed out in the previous entry.

But in the end, the statement Rollins puts forth is merely idiotic. And so is he.

he believes in...what? who???

ht a little leaven

Church authorities not to discipline Dutch 'atheist' pastor

The church authorities said disciplinary proceedings against Hendrikse, who is a pastor of the Protestant Church in the Netherlands, would be likely to lead to, "a protracted discussion about the meanings of words that in the end will produce little clarity". The letter also noted that people have debated the issue of "God's existence" throughout time.

Hendrikse gained attention with his book published in November 2007, in which he said that it was not necessary to believe in God's existence in order to believe in "God". The Dutch title of the book translates as, "Believing in a God who does not exist: manifesto of an atheist pastor".

In his book, Hendrikse recounts how his conviction that God does not exist has become stronger over the years.

"The non-existence of God is for me not an obstacle but a precondition to believing in God. I am an atheist believer," Hendrikse writes in the book. "God is for me not a being but a word for what can happen between people. Someone says to you, for example, 'I will not abandon you', and then makes those words come true. It would be perfectly alright to call that [relationship] God."

I can think of few things that more perfectly show what nonsense the postmodern virus is producing. I want to try something that may show how ridiculous his statement is.

"The non-existence of Santa is for me not an obstacle but a precondition to believing in Santa. I am an atheist believer,"..."Santa is for me not a being but a word for what can happen between people. Someone says to you, for example, 'I will not abandon you', and then makes those words come true. It would be perfectly alright to call that [relationship] Santa."

And that's all it is. One could insert any word in there, and it would work.

"The non-existence of is is for me not an obstacle but a precondition to believing in is I am an atheist believer,"..."Is is for me not a being but a word for what can happen between people. Someone says to you, for example, 'I will not abandon you', and then makes those words come true. It would be perfectly alright to call that [relationship] is."

I doubt even the Seinfeld comedy could have come up with a statement so clearly about nothing.

so this is what passes for pomo 'thinking'?

This is rich, not to mention ridiculous.

Comment of the Day 2

Apparently, a couple of guys are having some kind of online back-and-forth about pomo and Christianity, or whatever they think it is or will be or whatever. The guy whose writings are copied in the above link is one Peter Rollins, who's put out a book about how we ought to NOT talk about God. In my view, if this how he think who should talk about Him, then his book is only only worth using in an outhouse.

For me religionless Christianity operates without any metaphysical guarantees. There is doubt, complexity and ambiguity throughout. And so there can be no final foundational claim to an external source ensuring that everything will work out well in the end (one can, of course, hope that there is).

So, what does any of that mean? Take a guess; after all, they're pomos, to them the reader is more important than the writer.

Seriously, I think he's saying that he doesn't know if there is a God or not. Consider further...

'I have been reborn, transformed, renewed by God, but then again I wonder who, what or even if God is.'

So, a God who may not even exist has transformed, renewed, and reborn someone? Does that make any sense to anyone?

Instead of saying 'I am not sure God is there in my day to day life but I know that God really is there' (i.e. everything is ultimately going to be o.k), I am more prone to say that Christianity allows us to claim, 'God is here in our midst, although I am not sure God exists' (i.e. God is what we live here and now without guarantee that God is 'out there'). While the former justifies faith via a metanarrative the later lives Christianity as a meganarrative (a grounded story)

So, Christianity lets us say God is here, even if we don't know if God is really here, or there, or anywhere? And does his definition of God here...

God is what we live here and now without guarantee that God is 'out there'

...strike anyone else as being merely an empty collection of words without real substance or meaning?

And saddest still, this 'thinker' has been teaching in Youth With A Mission schools. As a former YWAMer myself, I find this insulting and sickening. YWAM's flirtation with WoF was bad enough, but if they continue to allow this heretic to fill their students with this nonsense, than they do not deserve to be supported.

I'm still waiting for these pomos to finally get the integrity to admit their atheism.

...find nothing but faith in nothing

IN ASKING ABOUT THE REALITY OF FAITH in the 21st century, the following questions arise: What is the meaning of faith? And what makes faith a reality? More importantly, however, to the question of the reality of faith is the reality of God, and it is this question of God that is under discussion in the present essay. For instance, if the Father-God of Christian tradition belongs to history, that, of course, has far-reaching implications for one's thinking about the reality of faith. In this essay I want to examine the work of H. M. Kuitert and Alain Badiou to show that a choice has to be made about this. It will be my argument that true faith can better be imagined without than with God.
Neven, Gerrit. ‚Doing Theology without God? About The Reality of Faith in the 21st century‚
Journal for Cultural and Religious Theory vol. 6 no. 3 (Fall 2005): 30-42.
PURL: http://www.jcrt.org/archives/06.3/neven.pdf

So, let's see, if that's how postmoderns are thinking, lets see where this trend in thinking will take us, with some remixing of the last phrase of that paragraph.

It will be my argument that true parenthood can better be imagined without than with children.

It will be my argument that true eating can better be imagined without than with food.

It will be my argument that true marriage can better be imagined without than with having a husband or wife.

It will be my argument that true reading can better be imagined without than with the written word.

It will be my argument that true swimming can better be imagined without than with water.

It will be my argument that true golf can better be imagined without than with golf clubs and golf balls.

It will be my argument that true driving can better be imagined without than with vehicles.

It will be my argument that true art can better be imagined without than with paintings or sculptures or any other art form.

It will be my argument that true internet surfing can better be imagined without than with the computer.

It will be my argument that true seeing can better be imagined without than with eyes.

It will be my argument that true hearing can better be imagined without than with ears.

It will be my argument that true living can better be imagined without than with life.

willing to throw God off the lifeboat

...Indeed, by distinguishing between the name and the event, between the name of God and the event that transpires there, I have laid myself open to the possibility that this event, or stream of events, can twist free from this name and that we might then find ourselves out in the desert, in a khoral place of namelessness and the desire for new names...The event of solicitation that is issued in the name of God stands on its own, calls and solicits us on its own, whether or not someone named God is th author of that solicitation, in which case the death of the author, which would be here the death of God, is the condition of hearing this solicitation. In the desire for God, it is not God but the event that stirs within that name that is undeconstructible, and it would always be possible for that desire to take other forms, to find other formulations, now or in times to come...For, however precious and prestigious it may be, the name of God remains a historical name and, as such, a contingent formation or unity of meaning...
John Caputo, in the essay "Spectral Hermeneutics", in the book "After the Death of God", pp. 69-70

In reading this, it seems that he really is saying that, if the name of God should someday become of no use (which such as he will intentionally or not bring out, if given time, I would add), then it is to be chucked aside.

Strange ideas, rather blasphemous, one may say. But is it not a logical followup to his notions that there is no sovereign God, no God Who is out there, no God who is in control, no God period? He has stripped the name "God" of all real meaning, has filled it with a meaning of his own (I shall probably have to give a bit about his use of 'event' sometime soon), and then says that if the name God does live up to what he calls the event, then we are free to discard it, and find a new name.

And yet, when God gave His name to Moses, He called Himself "I am". And He is still "I am".

God is not an empty shell, to be filled with what we will. Nor is He dead or weak.