A Reformed View of the New Perspective (of Paul)

(A) Reformed View of the New Perspective

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2012/04/18/reformed-view-of-the-new-perspective/

by Scot McKnight

April 18, 2012

Comments

The clash was inevitable, but the clash has too often taken place under terms and categories that unfairly describe the other side. The traditionally Reformed have a stake in framing Paul’s gospel as justification by faith, and behind that they traditionally understand the problem to be humans who strive to establish themselves before God. A good proponent of this view, always framed in pastorally sensitive ways, is Tim Keller. But the New Perspective says "No" to this way of framing Paul’s gospel.

Why do you think the Reformed view of justification clashes so much with the new perspective on Paul, especially its view(s) of justification? What’s the essence of the clash?

First, that view assumes a view of Judaism that has clearly been undermined: Judaism was not full of self-righteous people seeking to establish themselves on the basis of the Law before God. Instead, one good way of describing Judaism is what E.P. Sanders called “covenantal nomism.” Covenant - and that means grace and election - have the first word and the Law (the nomism bit) is not how to become a Jew but how to maintain ones Jewishness, or sustain one’s relationship to the God of Israel. In effect, this knocks the former problem out from under one traditional view and sends people back to the NT and Judaism to see “what the problem was.”

In steps Alan J. Spence, in his book Justification: A Guide for the Perplexed, to say the New Perspective (1) gets it all wrong and (2) is designed to create a gospel shaped apart from what I’m calling Spence’s “justification worldview,” a worldview in which God is judge, humans are sinners, and Christ establishes as relationally right with God.

Spence got off for me on the wrong foot in five ways:

First, he misspelled E.P. Sanders’ name wrong every time, spelling it “Saunders.” He also called him “E.T.” Saunders, and this makes me wonder if he has even read Sanders. One should avoid speculating on such things, so I won’t. (Maybe I already have.)

Second, he kept seeing Sanders in terms of comparative religion and, well, yes, Sanders does talk about comparing the pattern of religion, but to say he’s into comparative religion pulls Sanders from the historian to the modern religions expert. Just not so.

Third, he failed to sketch that the fundamental insight of Sanders and of the whole New Perspective is a fresh re-examination of Judaism and that means, inevitably, what Paul was saying in the context of a sharper profile of Judaism. I see absolutely no interest in Spence in this historical question.

Fourth, Spence shows no awareness of the nuances of variation among New Perspective scholars — from Sanders to Wright to Dunn to Hays and others. For Spence, this is all about Tom Wright’s denial of his justification worldview, and this chp is dramatically different in tone from his chps on Augustine, Aquinas, Luther and Calvin and is more like — but stronger — than the chps on Schleiermacher and Barth. He blames the latter two for deconstructing a justification worldview, and thinks Wright is floating on that deconstruction.

Fifth, he says he will root his sketch of Tom’s view of justification in his What Saint Paul Really Said, in spite of the 2009 book called Justification, which ought to have been the place to base one’s observations, but I’ll forgive him for not living up to what he said: it’s just as much based on the 2009 book as the earlier one, though I don’t think he sees the nuances of the latter vs. the former.

Spence sketches Wright’s narrative, which is the narrative of Israel’s Story coming to fulfillment in Jesus, the true Israelite; he argues Wright’s view of justification is not about salvation but about ecclesiology (this is an overstatement); he doesn’t think there’s enough about forensics, in spite of Tom’s clear statements to the contrary though Wright doesn’t have Spence’s justification worldview; and he thinks Wright doesn’t have enough on faith as instrumental in salvation. Well, here’s a good summary of Spence’s criticisms:

I suggest the controlling motif of Wright’s soteriology is ‘the reinstatement of good governance through the kingship of Jesus’ or, in the evocative jargon of the comparative study of religions, ‘messianic nomism’. [Who uses this expression?] If one removed from his exposition of justification the few passing references to relational concepts such as grace, mercy, pardon and reconciliation [did he read Justification?], the structure would stand intact. None of these concepts serve as load-bearing terms. They are, however, integral features of Paul’s soteriology.

One could at this point stop for a long day discussing how Wright expounds grace and these other terms, and to ask if the proper approach is “The Western Tradition’s” view vs. recent NT scholarship’s view, and how one determines such things — surely by exegesis and history not by appealing to Augustine and Luther and Calvin – but I find this summary critique both hitting on the sensitive areas but grossly misrepresenting Wright’s stuff. But I’m sketching Spence, who says Tom’s use of those terms was only done in deference to others, the way Spence himself crossed himself in a Catholic school as a boy though he was Reformed.

In essence, Spence thinks the best Story of the Old Testament must be only the personal salvation story because the governance Story of Wright, by which he means Jesus as King as the true Israelite through whom God will put the world to rights …. and, well, we’ve got an exaggeration: Tom Wright believes in personal salvation; he thinks the NT teaches that; but personally is caught up in the larger Story. What Spence has is a theory of justification that no one in the Old Testament taught (unless one thinks Gen 15:6 is Abraham’s personal salvation), for which there would have been no back story in the New Testament and which is then assumed to be the true gospel of the apostle Paul.

The New Perspective’s view of justification deserves some good strong pushback; there have been some early overstatements and many take backs, including some by Dunn and Wright. I wonder if Spence might spend some time reading Jimmy Dunn’s big pumpkin book, his book on Paul’s theology, and read the chp on justification, and then ask if he has really sketched the New Perspective’s view of justification. He hasn’t.

This Guide for the Perplexed will make some folks happy; it leaves me perplexed.

Padraig O Tuama - "Go in Pieces" (poem)

 

Go in Pieces

Recited by Peter Rollins
http://peterrollins.net/?p=3602

Peter Rollins most recent book Insurrection ends with the following beautiful Benediction written by Pádraig Ó Tuama. This track comes from the Insurrection EP created by artist/musician Dubh.

The task has ended. Go in pieces.

Our faith has been rear-ended, certainty amended,

and something might be mended that we didn’t know was torn.

And we are fire, bright, burning fire,

turning from the higher places from which we fell,

emptying ourselves into the hell in which we’ll find

our loving and beloved brother,

mother, sister, father, friend.

And so friends, the task has ended.

Go in pieces

to see and feel your world.

A Call To Reality and a Benediction, "Go in Pieces"
by Pádraig Ó Tuama, from the Insurrection Pub Tour

In the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

In the name of goodness and love and broken community.

In the name of meaning and feeling and I hope you don’t screw me…

In the name of sadness, regret, and holy obsession, the holy name of anger, the spirit of aggression…

In the name of beauty and beaten and broken down daily.

In the name of seeing our creeds and believing in maybe, we gather here, a table of strangers, and speak of our hopeland and talk of our danger…

In the name of Mary and Jesus and the mostly silent Joseph.

In the name of speaking to ourselves, saying this is more than I can cope with…

In the name of goodness and kindness and intentionality. In the name of harbor and shelter and family.

Maranatha
And Some Doubted
"...And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted." (Mt 28.17)

Poetry as a dream of peace
http://www.greenbelt.org.uk/media/talks/14505-padraig-o-tuama/#

Download and Listen (1:09)

Greenbelt 2011 | Padraig O Tuama 

All rights reserved

Recorded at Greenbelt 2011: The Hub, 27 Aug 2011, 13:00

We aim to be as accessible as possible so we'd love to have written transcripts of our all our talks.

If transcribing is something you could help us with please get in touch.

Download
Buy the full talk MP3
Buy the full talk CD



Bio: Padraig O Tuama

Padraig blends poetry, spoken word and song in an achingly beautiful way. Many of his poems and songs have been spoken and sung in the context of Ikon in Belfast. They mix prayer and longing and raging in mystical fashion.

Padraig's poems and songs may be purchased at Proost -
http://proost.co.uk/padraig-o-tuama

You and I Have a Different God, I Think

April 5, 2012

by peteenns

Comments

I’ve been watching the Adam and evolution debates/discussions on line, in social media, and in print. I think I am beginning to see more clearly what accounts for the deeply held, visceral, differences of opinion about whether Adam was the first man or whether Adam is a story.

The reason for the differences is not simply that people have different theological systems or different ways of reading the Bible. A more fundamental difference lies at the root of these (and other) differences.

I think we have a different God.

Christians are supposed to think about God the way Jesus showed us to think about him.

That God does not hesitate to participate in the human drama, to encounter humanity within the limits of the human experience. That means that biblical writers wrote about the God they encountered as they understood him within their cultural limitations.

True encounters with God, expressed in truly human, cultural, terms.

That’s why I have no problem reading the Adam story as a story of origins like other stories of the ancient world, or understanding Paul’s take on Adam as an outworking of his Jewish world (where biblical texts are molded to fit an argument), and calling this kind of writing “God’s word.”

The Gospel teaches me that this kind of Bible reflects the character of God. This kind of Bible is what I have come to expect.

The Gospel does not teach me that it is a problem for God to enter into the human experience and allow that human experience to shape–from beginning to end–how the Bible behaves. The Gospel teaches me exactly the opposite.

And the Gospel certainly does not teach me that God is up there, at a distance, guiding the production of a diverse and rich biblical canon that nevertheless contains a single finely-tuned system of theology that he expects his people to be obsessed with “getting right” (and lash out at those who don’t agree).

When it comes to things like Adam and I hear how people explain their position, the question I ask myself now is “what kind of God are you presenting to me here when you say X….?” Is it

an incarnating God–Immanuel, God with us, or

a Platonic god–where you have to peel off the obscuring “down here” hindrances to get to the untainted “up there” god, with the Bible as an encoded inerrant guidebook to get you there.

I don’t like the platonic god. I don’t think Jesus did either.

You can tell something about the god people believe in by paying attention to how they talk about controversial issues of the Bible–like Adam.

Do you see a system-dispensing administrator who keeps his distance or “God with us”? If you keep your eyes open, my bet is that you will see one or the other coming through loud and clear.

Book Review: Genesis for Normal People

Genesis For Normal People

http://musingsonscience.wordpress.com/

by rjs5
posted April 24, 2012

Peter Enns and Jared Byas have a new e-book published through Patheos that is designed to introduce normal people (whatever this means) to the book of Genesis … the most controversial, misunderstood, and abused book of the Bible. Genesis for Normal People is written in an informal voice for Christians who have little if any formal training in biblical studies. It will rock the world for some because it presents the purpose and form of the OT in general and Genesis in particular from a point of view that is distinctly different from the approach the average Christian is familiar with. But this is an important lesson.

A running theme from Enns and Byas is that we have to learn to read the OT through ancient eyes … this is how we can best understand the message. No – it doesn’t mean this is the only way we can find God in scripture, but it does put meat on the bones. Here is a great example used to make the point in Ch. 1 The Genesis of Genesis:

It’s easier to understand what you are reading if you know when it was written and under what circumstances. Orwell’s Animal Farm might make sense as a cute (better, disturbing) story about talking animals. But knowing when it was written (1945) and the circumstances that led to it being written (a critique of Joseph Stalin’s oppressive Communist regime) will help you see that the book is actually an allegory. If you don’t catch that, you miss the whole point. In other words, knowing at least something about the historical context of a story—when a story was written and under what circumstances—makes you a better reader.

The same is true of Genesis.

Just because Genesis is in the Bible doesn’t mean we can read it any way we please. And it certainly doesn’t mean that the stories were written with twenty-first century readers in mind. Whether we say that Genesis was written by ancient Israelites or even by God to ancient Israelites doesn’t change the fact that Genesis was written a long, long time ago, in a language that is now essentially dead (Jews in Israel today speak a different form of Hebrew). Genesis is really old, and if we are going to read it well, we have to make adjustments in our thinking.

The purpose of Genesis for Normal People is to provide some of this background and context in an entertaining and readable fashion. This is not an academic treatise (although I do find academics to be “normal people” thank you). The book may satisfy some, enrage a few, but should whet the appetite for more in many others.

Is it important to know the context when reading the Old Testament?

Should Genesis, or any other book of the Bible, make sense without this context? If so, why?

Some may wonder if we need another book on Genesis – can’t we just get over this whole science-and-faith controversy and focus on the gospel? The Fall, perhaps, is important because Paul tells us it is (Romans 5, 1 Cor 15) – but is anything else in Genesis really all that significant for “normal people”?

Here I’ll skip ahead a bit to a point made by Enns and Byas in the beginning of Ch. 8:

Oftentimes we are taught to read the Bible the way we read a book like Aesop’s Fables or The Adventures of Winnie-the-Pooh – as a collection of short, stand-alone stories. These stories may have some of the same characters, but there is no ongoing story line. We should not bring that way of reading to the Bible, where we are left with the “story of Noah’s ark” or the “story of Joseph” as stand-alone stories with moral lessons to be learned. These stories are part of a larger continuous story.

… Genesis is not a series of pithy short stories with moral lessons, but a series of vital stepping-stones in the story of Israel’s beginnings.

Genesis is a defining story without which it is hard to make sense of the rest of the Old Testament. The New Testament and the Gospel are likewise hard to interpret without making sense of Genesis and the rest of the Old Testament.

This is a very important point. The context of Genesis, and for that matter, Exodus and the rest of the Old Testament as well, is important, not just for a better understanding of Genesis, but for a sound understanding of the Gospel of Jesus God’s Messiah. A key point made by Scot in The King Jesus Gospel and By Tom Wright in How God Became King is that the roots for the Gospel of Jesus Christ told in the New Testament are inextricably planted in the story of Israel in the Old Testament. The understanding of Genesis then is not a detail of minor importance secondary to the Gospel – it is the beginning of the story of Israel and the story of the Gospel.

We’ve lost the understanding of the story of Israel. We move from the Fall to Incarnation to Crucifixion to Resurrection with everything in between of secondary or tertiary importance. "The OT is a collection of pithy stories demonstrating the power of God and providing moral lessons for our life." This approach makes for bite-size Sunday school lessons and powerful motivational sermons. But it doesn’t do justice to the story of God and God’s people; and it allows many to dismiss the scriptures as a collection of unbelievable ancient myths and stories. We’ve out grown these – or so I’ve often been told.

I am interested to hear what others think – but I think this is an enormous problem in our church today. The bible as a collection of moral stories and miracles does not touch the heart or mind of a large segment of our society. I am not a “normal person” perhaps. I am, after all, an academic. But from my perspective this piecemeal approach and lack of coherent narrative plays a huge role in the move away from faith as an intellectually viable option in our colleges and universities. We fail to convince because we do not understand our story and we do not teach or preach the whole story.

We’ve out-grown the stories contained in the Old Testament because we don’t know how to make sense of them as the story of Israel and the story of Israel’s God. Here we come to a place where Genesis for Normal People can help. Enns and Byas make the case, as Enns did in The Evolution of Adam, that the construction of the Old Testament as we have it is born out of the experience of exile and return from exile, sometime after 539 B. C. Some of the sources are most definitely older. No one is claiming that the text was constructed out of thin air at this late date. But the Old Testament as we have it was shaped, edited, and compiled in response to the experience of Israel in exile. The OT is inspired of God and points to Jesus, God’s Messiah. This is, after all, the Gospel. With this context, many of the little bits and pieces can be brought into focus … and this includes Genesis.

Enns and Byas conclude in Ch. 1

So how we read Genesis depends on us knowing these circumstances, just like knowing Stalin is vital for us to understand Animal Farm. Knowing that Genesis as we have it in our Bibles is written as part of the Pentateuch, and that the Pentateuch is written as Israel’s constitution in light of the traumatic events of the Babylonian exile helps us read this story with ancient eyes.

The book continues with chapters working through the text of Genesis …

Genesis from 30,000 Feet,
Genesis 1: Yahweh Is Better
Genesis 2-4: Adam Is Israel
Genesis 4-5: Cain Is a Fool
Genesis 6: Everyone Is Annihilated
Genesis 10-12: Babylon Is Evil
Genesis 12-22: Abraham Is Chosen
Genesis 23-25: Isaac Is the Father of Israel
Genesis 25-35: Jacob Is Israel (Literally)
Genesis 36-50: Israel Is Saved
Conclusion: Now What?

The book is well worth the price (which is quite modest - http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Normal-People-Controversial-ebook/dp/B007T9R8DM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1335363534&sr=8-1)… and should make a great conversation starter, for a conversation we need to have. This book should whet the appetite for more – whether you agree with Enns and Byas or wish to explore alternative ideas. I hope it comes out eventually in a form that will be easier to use in classes and group settings. You may disagree – but I find e-books, unless printable, of little use in such a setting.

What do you think?

Have you read – or been taught to read – Genesis as the foundational story of Israel and thus of the Gospel? If so how?

Do you think Enns and Byas and I are right – that we have tended to teach and view the Bible as a collection of short, stand-alone stories? If so, is this a problem?

Parenting & America's Public Educational Schools - "Waiting for Superman"

Addendum: Usually when I write I try to write for a global readership. But I apologize now for the following post written to my American readership. I will, however, speak to everyday concerns that may, or may not be helpful. For this, you be the judge. Thank you. - res

Many of Diane Ravitch's comments are worth reading at the bottom of this post (found in the Wikipedia section below). For myself, the issue isn't whether we promote either our charter schools or our public schools, but to create a school system in America that promotes our children's future from the bleak future they now may be experiencing in too many of our failing educational systems (and this includes our colleges and universities as well!). I have made several suggestions in past articles that could radically alter our current public school systems (also listed below). But in this article the fastest course of response seems to be by privatizing education and allowing those private groups to lead our public schools by example out of their current morass through competition for state and federal funds. Although privatizing education creates its own ills - primarily in the area of segregation and social inequality - it seems to be the only way to more quickly respond to public schooling's more immediate needs. My reasoning for this is that resistence in the school systems themselves seem too pronounced from the many organizations dedicated to serving public schooling. Consequently, competition for funding can be the greatest resource leveler for effective change by removing unhelpful organizational groups dependent upon public funding.

As concerning leadership, it often must find a toe-hold somewhere to create change. America's school systems at present must be revolutionized away from their pre-1930s production-factory philosopohies to the newer postmodern truths facing our societies today. Which means that "reading, writing, and arithmetic" forms of older education must be radically revolutionized on every level and scale of possibility and opportunity. Many public schools are focusing on classroom technologies, group learning and achievement, and mentoring techniques that pace individualized instruction within larger social group projects. They are turning to "curriculums within curriculums;" "specialized schools within schools;" and, a host of other methodologies and improvements to help our children effectively compete for global jobs requiring newer skill sets than once were promoted 100 years ago. Waiting for Superman admittedly is a frustrated view of exasperation by educators with our urban school systems focused solely upon outcome-based education. But rather than staying frustrated I would advocate that this tension can also lend hope to the dream of postmodern recreation in a reversal of mired opinions and social obstacles. A dream each of us ultimately must involve ourselves using any, and all, means - especially community outlets - to obtain. For it is imperative that parents first seek change through active involvement in their sons and daughter's schooling organization. This is by far the most efficient route than by simply voicing our opinions in the public square and pretending that we have then done enough.

And speaking of parents, it is to you that this burden is placed. Not to our teachers.... And not to our schools.... But to you! And its here that I must do a little preaching (forgive me!) by asking How is it a parent's responsibility for our present day educational system future progress? Because parenting is where it all starts. And it is the ONE thing that we can address immediately. But not by being passive parents. Nor neglectful parents. For poor parenting conduct and behaviors only harm our children. There are too many instances of broken homes harming our children. Of dysfunctionally abusive homes harming our children. Of parents not helping their children prepare for school by patiently helping them get dressed in the morning; or fixing a morning breakfast and evening meal; or by not listening to a child's fears and concerns; or even by not playing with their children which can be tremendously helpful in communication and relationship building. By neglecting even the most basic areas of a child's need can only serve to harm our nation's children for educational preparation and success. Too often we rely on children to raise themselves on their own; or at the hands of other children; or through substitutionary neighborhood gangs that reinforce acceptance and self-image; or impassively by the TV; or even public institutions like day care centers, sitters, and so forth. This is not parenting. This can be, and most often is,  neglectful and harmful to a child's self image when passively, or actively, providing negative or substitutionary influences in place of a parent's steadying love and healing friendship.

Moreover, parenting means personal involvement by the mom and dad. To parent is hard work. But shouting at kids, bossing them around, yelling at them, being childish in front of them with your spouse and other adult friends, being always angry, impatient, or not making time for a child is not parenting. This is defective parenting. Good parents work hard at becoming good parents. Learning to be patient, loving, forgiving, tolerant, personally involved with a child's life. To those parents who work hard at being a good, loving parents, God bless you.... But your responsibility doesn't stop there, does it? No, not even. Now go out and find another parent, or two, that you can mentor to become better, more effective parents! Show by your example how to parent children through personal involvement, patience, and love. Go coach your kid's team and have another parent help you. Go to your child's teacher's conference and provide a ride for a parent that can't get there. When at school greet other parents and school staffs civilly. And most of all don't expect similar responses. Be prepared to meet people in the struggles and difficulties of their work-a-day worlds. Be understanding and work at uplifting your community. Parenting is all this and more!

And this is the one solution that can most immediately affect our schools. Good parenting. Active, involved parenting at all grade levels. It forces a school system to improve through your personal involvement. And it provides community resources to a school system because of your involvement, imagination, skill sets, talents and abilities. How? By attending your child's school carnivals, band and choir concerts, parent-teacher meetings, ball games and cheer clubs, field trips and school-sponsored community drives. By providing a safe-haven in your home to your child's school friends. By being present in a child's life and by being involved in your child's life (there is no such thing as quality time with a child... quality time only comes through quantity time, as it would with any relationship). Schools love this when you do this. They WANT your involvement. Parents are a valuable resource to their school districts. Improving our schools does not start with teachers and administrators, but with the home and family. It is our responsibility as parents to raise our kids. Not the schools to babysit. Nor to undo all the toxic waste that we dump upon our children through harsh, vulgar words, childish tempers, de-meaning anger, and selfish un-involvement in their lives - no matter what age they are at. You must let your child - or teenager - or college student - k-n-o-w that they are important to you. That you love them. You do this through patient, loving, timeful expenditures of your own person and personable commitments in uplifting, loving, encouraging, relational engagements.

The best teacher to your children is  y-o-u  the  p-a-r-e-n-t.... So then, learn to love. Learn to forgive. Learn to be merciful. Learn to be patient and understanding. Learn to see life from your child's viewpoint, not yours. And most of all, pray to God for all these things and more... for this God will do and provide to you and your family. And most of all find mentors for yourselves. Find support groups of like-minded parents wanting to be GREAT parents. And in your spirit be teachable. Learn to listen. To cooperate with others. To find help. For these social qualities are the very same qualities that your children are being taught in school. Skills of cooperation. Skills of communication. to effectively disagree and engage one another.... And lastly, remember that across America are local area churches in every community that seek to help you in your burdens, your livelihood, and most especially with your family. Use them. Go to them. Become involved at your local church. For the Church holds the key to our families, schools and communities. They live to serve even as our schools wish to serve you the parent. And we, the parent, learn to serve both church and school. God and man. And one another.

So then, let your efforts be heard in a POSITIVE voice for change in your local school community. We all know what's wrong with the system but its an even greater task to figure how to make this system a better educational place TOGETHER. Your school administrators can help. They want to help. They began their careers wanting to help kids succeed in this world. Know this. Remember this. And work with your teachers and administrators to that end. They can be your biggest-and-best ally. Schools must change, and they will. But it takes more than a village to raise our kids. It must begin with our own personal involvement first and foremost. For those Waiting for Superman you need look no further. That Superman is you!

R.E. Slater

April 22, 2012

  

Waiting for Superman Official Trailer

 

 

Release Date: 2010 Filmmaker Davis Guggenheim reminds us that education "statistics" have names: Anthony, Francisco, Bianca, Daisy, and Emily, whose stories make up the engrossing foundation of WAITING FOR SUPERMAN. As he follows a handful of promising kids through a system that inhibits, rather than encourages, academic growth, Guggenheim undertakes an exhaustive review of public education, surveying "drop-out factories" and "academic sinkholes," methodically dissecting the system and its seemingly intractable problems.

 

 

WIKIPEDIA REPORTS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waiting_for_%22Superman%22

April 22, 2012

 

Film critics and general media reception

 

The film has earned praise and criticism from commentators, reformers, and educators.^[7] As of May 1, 2011 (2011 -05-01)^[update], the film has an 89% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.^[8]

Roger Ebert gave the movie 3.5 stars out of 4 and wrote, "What struck me most of all was Geoffrey Canada's confidence that a charter school run on his model can make virtually any first-grader a high school graduate who's accepted to college. A good education, therefore, is not ruled out by poverty, uneducated parents or crime- and drug-infested neighborhoods. In fact, those are the very areas where he has success."^[9]

Scott Bowles of USA Today lauded the film for its focus on the students: "it's hard to deny the power of Guggenheim's lingering shots on these children."^[10] Lisa Schwarzbaum of Entertainment Weekly gave the film an A-, calling it "powerful, passionate, and potentially revolution-inducing."^[11] The Hollywood Reporter focused on Geoffrey Canada's performance as "both the most inspiring and a consistently entertaining speaker," while also noting it "isn't exhaustive in its critique."^[12] Variety characterized the film's production quality as "deserving every superlative" and felt that "the film is never less than buoyant, thanks largely to the dedicated and effective teachers on whom Guggenheim focuses."^[13]

Geraldo Rivera praised the film for promoting discussion of educational issues.^[14] Deborah Kenny, CEO and founder of the Harlem Village Academy, made positive reference to the film in a The Wall Street Journal op-ed piece about education reform.^[15]

The film has also garnered praise from a number of conservative critics.^[16] Joe Morgenstern, writing for The Wall Street Journal, gave the movie a positive review saying, "when the future of public education is being debated with unprecedented intensity," the film "makes an invaluable addition to the debate."^[17] The Wall Street Journal's William McGurn also praised the film in an op-ed piece, calling it a "stunning liberal exposé of a system that consigns American children who most need a decent education to our most destructive public schools."^[18]

Kyle Smith, for the New York Post, gave the movie four-and-a-half stars, calling it an "invaluable learning experience."^[19] Forbes' Melik Kaylan similarly liked the film, writing, "I urge you all to drop everything and go see the documentary Waiting For "Superman" at the earliest opportunity."^[20]

The film also received various negative criticisms. Andrew O'Hehir of Salon gave a negative review of the movie, saying that while there's "a great deal that's appealing," there's also "as much in this movie that is downright baffling."^[21] Melissa Anderson of The Village Voice was critical of the film for not including enough details on outlying socioeconomic issues, saying, "macroeconomic responses to Guggenheim's query...go unaddressed in Waiting for "Superman," which points out the vast disparity in resources for inner-city versus suburban schools only to ignore them."^[22] Anderson also opined that the animation clips were overused. In New York City, a group of local teachers protested one of the documentary's showings, calling the film "complete nonsense," and noting that "there is no teacher voice in the film."^[23]

Educational reception and allegations of inaccuracy

 

A 2009 study done by Stanford University found that, on average, charter schools perform about the same or worse than public schools. The film does note, however, that most charter schools do not outperform public schools and focuses on those that do. It also states that only one in five charter schools outperform public schools (close to the 17% statistic).

"The film dismisses with a side comment the inconvenient truth that our schools are criminally underfunded. Money's not the answer, it glibly declares. Nor does it suggest that students would have better outcomes if their communities had jobs, health care, decent housing, and a living wage. Particularly dishonest is the fact that Guggenheim never mentions the tens of millions of dollars of private money that has poured into the Harlem Children's Zone, the model and superman we are relentlessly instructed to aspire to." - Rick Ayers, Adjunct Professor in Education at the University of San Francisco^[24]

Author and academic Rick Ayers lambasted the accuracy of the film, describing it as "a slick marketing piece full of half-truths and distortions."^[24] In Ayers' view, the "corporate powerhouses and the ideological opponents of all things public" have employed the film to "break the teacher's unions and to privatize education," while driving teachers' wages even lower and running "schools like little corporations."^[24]

 

The film does, however, note that since 1971, inflation-adjusted per-student spending has more than doubled, "from $4,300 to more than $9,000 per student," but that over the same period, test scores have "flatlined." Ayers also critiqued the film's promotion of a greater focus on "top-down instruction driven by test scores," positing that extensive research has demonstrated that standardized testing "dumbs down the curriculum" and "reproduces inequities," while marginalizing "English language learners and those who do not grow up speaking a middle class vernacular."^[24]

 

Lastly, Ayers contends that "schools are more segregated today than before Brown v. Board of Education in 1954," and thus criticized the film for not mentioning that in his view, "black and brown students are being suspended, expelled, searched, and criminalized."^[24]

 

Diane Ravitch, Research Professor of Education at New York University and a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, similarly criticizes the accuracy of the film.^[25] Ravitch notes that a study by Stanford University economist Margaret Raymond of 5000 charter schools found that only 17% are superior in math test performance to a matched public school, casting doubt on the film's claim that privately managed charter schools are the solution to bad public schools.^[25] The film does note however that most charter schools do not outperform and that it focuses on those that do. As well, the film explicitly stated that one in five charter schools (close to the 17% statistic previously stated) were the overreaching, superior charter schools. Ravitch writes that many charter schools also perform badly, are involved in "unsavory real estate deals" and expel low-performing students before testing days to ensure high test scores.^[25] The most substantial distortion in the film, according to Ravitch, is the film's claim that "70 percent of eighth-grade students cannot read at grade level," a misrepresentation of data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress.^[25] Ravitch served as a board member with the NAEP and notes that "the NAEP doesn't measure performance in terms of grade-level achievement," as claimed in the film, but only as "advanced," "proficient," and "basic." The film assumes that any student below proficient is "below grade level," but this claim is not supported by the NAEP data. A teacher-backed group called the Grassroots Education Movement produced a rebuttal film titled The Inconvenient Truth Behind Waiting for Superman. This film criticizes some public figures featured in Waiting for "Superman" and proposes different policies to improve education in the United States.^[26]

 

 

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

 

Additional Educational Posts

 

Vocational Educational Reform in America, Part 1

 

 Vocational Educational Reform in America, Part 2

 

 

 

 

Postmodernity's Challenge and the Radical Nature of Changing Educational Paradigms

 

 

 

 

'Unschooling' Gaining Popularity, Allows Children Alternative Learning Tools

 

 

 

 

Why Are Finland's Schools Successful?

 

 

 

 

1984 vs. Brave New World | Our own Distopia

 

 

 

 

 

Generation Unleashed - Concert Songs and Vids

Generation Unleashed - Our God Reigns

Generation Unleashed - I Am Alive

Generation Unleashed - He Lives

Generation Unleashed - Sing

Generation Unleashed - I Will Praise You

I am Alive - Generation Unleashed 2011 "Move"

For more 2011 Songs by

Generation Unleashed go here -

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=generation+unleashed+2011&oq=generation+unleashed+2011&aq=f&aqi=g4&aql=&gs_nf=1&gs_l=youtube-psuggest-reduced.3..0l4.16124.22454.0.22757.25.19.0.1.1.0.507.3803.3j1j6j2j2j1.15.0

Repost: Relational Theology in its Open & Process Forms

Relational Theology in its

Postmodern Open and Process Forms:

Working Towards a Syncreticism of Both Systems

In a previous post on process theology ( http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2011/11/why-and-what-of-process-theology.html ) I expressed a desire to elevate Classic Theism into postmodernistic process terms not realizing that Open Theology had already done that. I also declared a new name for this type of theism, calling it Relational Theism. Not realizing that that had been done too having discovered Thomas Jay Oord's version of Relational Theism which he calls by the same name. It is a blending of Open Theology (also called Open Theism), with that of his own Relational Theism, both of which elevate the concepts of Classic Theism into modernistic expressions.  And, it seems that process theology had at one time been considered under the label "relational-process theology," which is yet another theme Thomas Oord may have re-packaged from process theology like what I am attempting to do now, however belatedly.

Moreover, as I explore Open Theology I am discovering it to complete Arminianism's questioning of the Calvinistic concepts of God's foreknowledge and election. Which is helpful because a doctrine focused on man's free will in relation to God can only go so far (though Armenianism is more than this but I am generalizing here to pander to its opponents that grant ill-will towards its doctrines). Consequently, Open Theology coupled with that of Oord's Relational Theism helps to complete Arminianism's reaction against Calvinism's overemphasis on God's Sovereignty vs. man's free will. What I want is balance and what I'm finding is that Arminianism is curiously much better positioned to speak to God's sovereignty than Calvinism is (even though Calvinism's many significant themes all revolve around the sovereign, active control of God over His creation!... all of which has been discussed in numerous articles posted on the sidebars here in this website).

Further, Open Theology / Relational Theology are syncretising themselves with their larger, more sophisticated and better developed relative, Process Theology. But with an important distinction that the former differs from Process in terms of being non-panentheistic. However, to my mind, the understanding of "ex nihilo creation" pertaining to God's independence and interdependence to His creation can both be true without the denial of the other. The former as factually explicit in defining a Creator who creates; and the latter, as a Creator who willingly limits Himself to His creation.

However, this is not true panentheism in classic Whiteheadian terminology. But it does seem that a more liberal, modified, version of Process Theology away from its stricter definition of "ex nihilo creation" could allow for a syncretism between Process Theology with Open Theology. Which is the syncreticism that I had earlier mentioned and hope to see (if possible). If this be so, than I continue to be attracted towards investigating all the areas of similarity and dissimilarity between these two systems in hopes of seeing a newer expression of Theism arise. One couched within postmodernistic language and allowing for the double meaning for the concept of "ex nihilo creation."

Moreover, my originating concept of Relational Theism is not strictly at this time, the same as Thomas Oord's expression of Relational Theism.... Though as I read Oord, I find him expressing exactly my own sentiments, and to which am thankful for all of his hard work of "personalizing" Open Theology's animating basis that felt static, cold and impersonal without it.

But I think what I want to further see is whether Open Theology and Oord's Relational Theology will continue to intermingle and elevate themselves systematically towards Process Theology's postmodernistic language. If that then becomes the case then we will have as a consequence a more mature system of Open-and-Relational Theism/Theology. One that is both similar and dissimilar to Classic Theism and more in tune with Process Theology's pervasive (but not substantive) elements (as mentioned in a previous post). And postmodern. For me, this is where Relational Theism should be headed as I understand it right now. And it is a continuing interest of mine to study and examine in the year ahead once I get past several other topical issues expressed here on this blogsite.

And with these thoughts in mind, let us now continue to explore Thomas Oord's Relational "The-ism/Theo-logy" (sic, "God Study") that re-expresses its earlier historical fellow, Open Theology, into more relational terms between God, man and creation. Leaving us not with an uncaring, distant (or even a damning, judgemental) Godhead. But a Godhead more intimately involved in our lives then we had first imagined in our time-bounded past, present and future. And within the frailty of our fleshly constitutions pitted as they are against the harsher truths of sin, disease, calamities, and ruin. These truths give us hope. Hope any human most requires when apprehending God's divine love through His many salvific acts and benevolent rulership.

R.E. Slater

November 25, 2011

April 22, 2012

Questions to Ask

Open Theism/Theology

1. What does practical ministry look like from an Open view?

2. How should we think about science and culture as Open theists?

3. What biblical insights have Open theists to date either underemphasized or not noticed?

4. How should Open theists think about pain and suffering?

5. Can the Open view help us think better about prayer and pray with greater conviction?

6. What voices at the margins need to be heard for Open theology to be expanded and/or embraced by others?

7. What might missions and missional theology look like from an Open view?

8. Does the Open view suggest any new insights into Christology, pneumatology, or Trinity?

9. Where should the Open theology conversation go in the future? How might the insights of Open theology be more widely disseminated?

For more information - http://www.facebook.com/TheOpenView

For seminar information - http://www.theopenview.org/snapshot

Greg Boyd

Gregory A. Boyd received a BA in Philosophy from the University of Minnesota (1979), an M.Div from Yale Divinity School (1982) and a Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary (1987). He taught at Bethel University (St. Paul, MN) for 16 years and has been Senior Pastor of Woodland Hills Church in Maplewood Minnesota since 1992. He has authored and co-authored 15 books on a variety of theological and philosophical topics, including the Open View of the Future. His present interest is with the debate over future contingents throughout history, focusing especially on ancient Greco-Roman philosophy. He is currently working on The Myth of the Blueprint and Cosmic Dancing. Greg and his adorable wife Shelley reside in St. Paul, Minnesota. They have three children, one grand child, two dogs and a guinea pig.

Thomas Jay Oord

Thomas (Tom) Jay Oord is Professor of Theology and Philosophy at Northwest Nazarene University, Nampa, Idaho. He directs the Open and Relational Theologies group at the American Academy of Religion. He has written or edited about twenty books, including a number of books on Open and Relational theology. Such books are The Nature of Love, Creation Made Free, and Relational Holiness. A recent book, The Best News You Will Ever Hear, presents the gospel to nonChristians in easily accessible language. Tom blogs frequently on open theology and other subjects at ThomasJayOord.com. He is married to Cheryl, and they have three daughters.

John Sanders

Dr. John Sanders received his Th.D. from the University of South Africa in 1996. Former professor of Philosophy and Religion at Huntington College, he now serves as professor of religion at Hendrix College. Sanders has written several books outlining his path to open theism, including The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence, and The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God. He will be lecturing at the seminar on the basic themes and variations of Open theology.

The Emergence of Open Theology

http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/the_emergence_of_open_theology/

By Thomas Jay Oord

November 19, 2009

In 1994, a quintet of Evangelical scholars – David Basinger, William Hasker, Clark Pinnock, Richard Rice, and John Sanders – published The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God. This work has caused – and continues to cause – an uproar within Evangelical circles.

This uproar exposed the reality that many Evangelical Christians are influenced more by the theology of Reformers such as John Calvin and Martin Luther than has been often recognized. The theological voices championed by mainstream Evangelical groups have often explicitly or implicitly identified themselves with a non-open, non-relational view of God.

The uproar also revealed that a large and growing number of Evangelical Christians are looking for theological alternatives that better fit their reading of the Bible and deepest Christian intuitions. Open theology provides a potentially more satisfying alternative.

Open theology has both expanded and matured since 1994. It has become a well-spring for both theological renewal and controversy. Many significant biblical, theological, and philosophical scholars now openly embrace Open theology or at least recognize strong affinities between Open theism and their own work.

While important differences of opinion exist among Open theists, the similarities among them are also striking. Here are core themes affirmed by the majority, if not all, Open theists:

• God’s primary characteristic is love
• Theology involves humble speculation about who God truly is and what God really does
• Creatures – at least humans – are genuinely free to make choices pertaining to their salvation
• God experiences others in some way analogous to how creatures experience others
• Both creatures and God are relational beings, which means that both God and creatures are affected by others in give-and-take relationships
• God’s experience changes, yet God’s nature or essence is unchanging
• God created all non-divine things
• God takes calculated risks, because God is not all-controlling
• The future is open; it is not predetermined or fully known by God
• God’s expectations about the future are often partly dependent upon creaturely actions
• Although everlasting, God experiences time in a way analogous to how creatures experience time

These are brief statements, of course, and they do not address theological nuances that matter to Open theology scholars. But these statements are sufficiently narrow to distinguish Open theology from alternative theological options. And they are sufficiently broad to allow for differences among those who embrace the Open theology label.

I am optimistic about the future of Open theology. My optimism ultimately rests, however, on grace. I believe our loving God is, as John Wesley put it, “strongly and sweetly” calling and empowering us to live lives of love. In doing so, we participate in God’s loving reign. Open theology provides conceptual tools to make sense of these truths.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Characteristics of Evangelical Open and Relational Theology

http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/characteristics_of_evangelical_open_theology/

By Thomas Jay Oord

February 2, 2010

In a previous blog entry, I noted many of the theological beliefs that open and relational theologians affirm. I now identify three characteristics of Evangelically-oriented open and relational thinkers.

I find these three tendencies among open and relational scholars in the Evangelical tradition:

Scripture First

Open theists appreciate and draw from reason, experience, and the Christian tradition. But open and relational theologians place primary importance on the Bible for things related to God, salvation, and the big questions of life. Scripture is principally authoritative.

Open and relational theists are typically not committed, however, to affirming everything the Bible says about science, history, or culture. Most open theologians are not biblical inerrantists, if biblical inerrancy is defined as the notion that the Bible is without any error whatsoever. This rejection of what I call “absolute inerrancy” distinguishes open and relational theology from Fundamentalism.

Yet the typical open and relational Evangelical theologian also rejects the label “liberal theologian” as a way to identify their views. The primacy of the Bible steers them away from more liberal theologian traditions.

Evangelical Community Influence

While open and relational theologians may reside in just about any Christian denomination or subculture, a good number identify with the Evangelical Christian tradition. Virtually all of the major figures who adopt the label “Open theist” either teach at an Evangelically-oriented institution or attend a congregation whose members consider themselves Evangelicals.

The community with which we locate ourselves affects the way we do theology. Of course, the fact that Evangelical open and relational theists do theology in the broad Evangelical context does not also mean that they affirm all of the political and social issues normally associated with Evangelicals. In fact, Open theology sometimes draws advocates toward positions on political and social issues that do not fit either the typical conservative or liberal labels.

Humble Realists

Most open and relational theologians want to talk about how things really are or might be. This not only includes talking about the world, it also means talking about God in a realistic way.

In terms of epistemology, open and relational theists tend to be realists or critical realists. They realize that language about God and the world has limitations. But they affirm that some language better identifies what is true about God and the world than other language.

These three factors, in themselves, position open and relational theology differently than other theological alternatives. They provide fruitful avenues for engaging the sciences, for instance. They provide ways of engaging Postmodernism in constructive ways that avoids extreme relativism. And they draw upon and support the Evangelical witness and passion to the good news revealed in Jesus Christ and lived out within the Church.

Of course, open and relational theologies have critics. But I believe the ideas and theological proposals in this way of thinking are potentially more helpful today than any of the alternatives.