Catching Up with Radical Theology

 

 

 

This summer, in my spare time, I thought it would be fun and interesting to join Tripp Fuller and Peter Rollins each Thursday night in a reading group centering on what Radical Theology is, and how it is important to the Christian faith. First, I wanted to know more about the subject itself, and second, to be with a group of Christians who are interested, like myself, in updating our thinking about God and Christianity. Especially as it relates to today's 21st Century's global communities.

 

Importantly, the reading group's discourses have been from a Christian philosophical approach whereas mine have come at it from a postmodern/emergent theological one, as I, and others, have tried to develop and underscore Christianity's relatedness to today's living churches and global societies. Especially since my own, personal faith has evolved out of an evangelic past once focused on a Jesus-faith and Spirit-movement, away from an evangelicalism that now seems to have become dogmatized, institutionalized, and rhetorically excluding to my ears.

 

I believe evangelic Christians who can adopt the spirit of a postmodern, emergent Christianity will find their fellowships and churches busier in the work of the harvest than if they were to remain content with their present-day church forms and teachings that are non-critical of themselves while remaining intensely critical of others. But to begin down this road is to let go (or undo) some of the things we have clung too tightly onto. Confusing worship forms, dogmas, and religious mindsets that have usurped centrality to the Christian faith but in hindsight seem filled with extra-biblical socio-religious boundaries holding the church back from progressing forward.

 

Over the decades it seems that the Christian faith has been broken into thousands of belief systems and centering doctrines, each one emphasizing a portion of Scripture that is thought most important to one's faith-fellowship. But according to the Lord, the church is one, and should utilize its unity as a strength, and not as an opportunity to point out how one group is closer to God than another because of what they believe or practice. Moreover, it seems that Christianity has gotten too defensive of itself rather than listening to the councils of the Spirit everywhere present through this world of ours - as harsh as they sometimes are. We are but burden-bearers and servants, and are not to behave as unthinking, strident voices protecting our dying cultures and decaying time periods. We cannot cling to the past simply because we feel comfortable there. But must allow others in, and in doing so, must learn to bear other's burdens and become servants to their spiritual needs.

 

After many long years of witnessing this state of affairs within the church I began more recently on a journey that would culminate in discovering a postmodern, emergent Christianity that was more expansive and progressive. One without denominational or institutional boundaries. That sought a new voice amongst the din of religious voices everywhere abounding. An assimilating faith that would try to put into words the gleaning processes necessary for an evangelic faith I believed had become irrelevant to a global society's needs and questions. Towards an historic faith that is in the process of becoming more relevant to both believers and non-believers alike. One that might uncover the heart-and-mind of our living God whose handiwork is everywhere present amongst us though our spiritual sight seems too foreshortened to recognize it. One that might allow the updating of a classically-expressed faith delved from its Medieval and Reformational moorings, towards a newer postmodern, emergent orthodoxy that would embrace the past. But would also be more willing to move beyond its classical limitations once culled from within the dark fires and suffering turmoils of the Dark Ages and that of the twin kindred ages of the Enlightenment and Industrial Modernity as expressed by their syllogisms, logic, and humanism. An orthodoxy that has become out-of-date with today's present scholarship and academic discoveries as it clings to fading transitory truths that no longer work but serve only to separate the church from its missional calling as well as from itself.

 

Enter Radical Theology, a philosophical approach that has been 200+ years in the making through the likes of Kant and Kierkegaard, Spinoza/Hegel and Nietzsche, Marx and Freud, in their good, and bad, and ugliness. To be translated and moved forward by this past century's existential and phenomenological philosophers by the names of Ricoeur and Heidegger, Bonhoeffer and Tillich, Caputo and Zizek (not to forget Derrida and Whitehead who turned it all around). Whose insights have now become the responsibility of today's newer Christian disciples in relating God's Word and Self, Spirit and ministry, to a sin hardened world-and-church become blind-and-deaf to the sonorous sounds of God everywhere abounding. And when combined with a postmodern, emergent theology searching for linguistic expression and fluidity of biblical message, Radical Theology seems to be a partial answer along the road of life as we live and die, suffer and laugh with one another. Thus my interest.

 

As Christ followers, we wish to bear forth as expansive a gospel message as is possible given today's social technology and expanding pluralistic, global communities of trade and commerce. A message that might resound from as many sources as is legitimately possible. Nor do we wish to qualify those avenues of help based upon previously built-in religious exclusionary thought. But to listen to all voices - both sacred and secular - while trusting the Spirit of God to lead and direct His Church throughout this period of seismic epistemic growth and assimilation. To begin, we need to look at our own faith and fellowship - both the good and the bad of it - and to judge where it has failed as well as where it has been a blessing. And upon this judgment move it forward towards a more holistic faith that would do justice to God's Word and Mission for this day-and-age.

 

As such, what messages have been bourne here upon the pages of Relevancy22 have not come easily nor without cost. It has been bourne through a very long process of evaluation and learning, research and listening. Of sharing a burden that might allow similarly burdened souls the Spirit's freedom away from the old epistemic boundaries that would bind and kill. That would legalize God's love as Law. A Law that would crucify again the Son of God upon the altars of human pride and religious zeal. That repented not of its judgmental spirit. Nor asked the Lord to open the doors of a closed-minded heart. Nor sought God's grace and mercy to fall afresh from the living councils of His Holy Spirit. An Incarnating God, who came as the Messiah/Savior Jesus to lift the sorrows we bear for the joy of the Cross set before Him.

 

These things have not come easily but at a cost... a cost of giving up old ways of thinking and doing. Of no longer clinging to the older doctrines intemperate of all things unlike itself. Of praying for spiritual wisdom and discernment so that God may again be seen as clearly today as He was eons earlier by Israel and the early church. Of learning to write a new language unlike the evangelic one I've grown too accustomed. A language that lives again under foreign names, tongues, symbolisms, and new theological categories; that is expansive, embracing, enjoining, and enlightening; that is reforming, reclaiming, renewing, rebirthing, and resurrected. May these things, and this mindset, become yours as well, as we pursue the Lord and His mission together by all the avenues made available to us by the Lord's Spirit. Amen.

 

R.E. Slater

July 23, 2013

 

*Side Note - Interestingly Bo Sander's article came out after mine own (Bo works with Tripp at Homebrew). So I have included it below, along with Peter's helpful outline, to help us better understand what Radical Theology intends or subtends.

 

 

 

 

High Gravity Radical Theology Reading List

http://peterrollins.net/?p=4657

 

by Peter Rollins

posted July 23, 2013

 

Recently I’ve been leading an in-depth, online reading group with Tripp Fuller that aims to introduce people to some of the seminal thinkers behind the movement often called Radical Theology.

 

With two hundred people having signed up for the six weeks the whole thing has been a great success and is something I’m keen to experiment with again. Anyway here is a list of what we covered in the course. If you sign up you can still access all the articles and video lectures.

 

Week 1 – Paul Ricoeur

 

“The Critique of Religion” and “The Language of Faith”

Union Theological Quarterly, 28, no. 3 (1973)

 

Week 2 – Martin Heidegger

 

“Phenomenological Explication of Concrete Religious Phenomena in Connection with the Letter’s of Paul”

 

The Phenomenology of Religious Life

 

Week 3 – Dietrich Bonhoeffer

 

Excerpts from Letters and Paper’s from Prison

 

Letters and Papers from Prison

 

Week 4 – Paul Tillich

 

“God above God” and “Two Types of Philosophy of Religion”

 

Theology of Culture

 

Week 5 – John Caputo

 

“Theopoetics as the Insistence of Radical Theology”

 

The Insistence of God

 

Week 6 – Slavoj Žižek

 

“The Fear of Four Words: A Modest Plea for a Hegelian Reading of Christianity”

 

The Monstrosity of Christ

 

Over Lent in 2014 we will be running another online reading group as part of Atheism for Lent. More information to follow.

 

 

 

For Additional Reading:

 

Paul Tillich's "God Above God" and, the "Restlessness of the Human Heart"

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2013/07/paul-tillichs-god-above-god-and.html

 

 

 

 

 

 Radical Theology Cliff Notes

http://homebrewedchristianity.com/2013/07/23/radical-theology-cliff-notes/

by Bo Sanders
July 23, 2013

Comments

 

Sometimes you stumble into something so wildly different than anything you have encountered before that it can give you a bit of whiplash.

 

When this happens in the realm of theology – it can cause a level of trauma to your faith that it feels as if it will never recover.

 

This is where translators and apologist can come in and play a healthy role.

 

I am not a practitioner of Radical Theology per-se. I am more of a practical theologian who is in dialogue with (or informed by) schools of thought that might be challenging to the population as a whole (or at least those who occupy the pews).

 

I received this week’s notes from one Mr. Tripp Fuller that he intended to utilize on the most recent episode of the High Gravity reading group co-hosted by the incomparable Peter Rollins. I took one look at them and thought to myself:

“Self… folks may not know what some of this stuff means. This is sad because much of it has deep implications on living out faith in the 21st century and even deeper implication on the cultural conversation that each of us finds ourselves caught up in the middle of.”

SO I thought it might be interesting to throw a few of the notes out there and to attempt to attach a helpful note on a few items.

 

Here is what I am up to: if you feel like you are interested in a Radical approach but find it out of reach or unclear … please respond in the comment section and we can either A) figure this out together or B) I will point you in a helpful direction if I know of one.

 

Before we start – a couple of overly-simplistic definitions: 

• Radical Theology – a theological approach that is not tied to a congregation, denomination or other sanctioning body. The freedom of not being anchored in a confessional approach allows thinkers to interact with daring, innovative and contemporary schools of thought without consequence of consideration of how the outcome will impact faith communities (at least not primarily). 

• Confessional Theology – a theological approach rooted in both historic tradition and local expression. Confessional theology takes classical perspective and either tries to update it for the current context or attempts to return to some previous incarnation with the hopes of a purer expression or acceptable orthodoxy/practice. 

• Theo-poetics – born out of an awareness that all of our god-talk is both perspectival and provisional. When we speak of god/the divine we do so in imagery, metaphor, and symbol. This awareness of our limitations of language release us to confess that our signifiers (symbols) can never fully or truly represent that which they signify. The result is a freedom to explore, innovate, ratify, renovate and adapt our god-language in order to both expose idolatry and inspire creativity in how we express our beliefs. 

• Big Other – The father-figure in the sky who watches over those [‘s/he’] loves and keeps track of who has been naughty and nice. This being can be called upon to bail one out of a jam or to intervene in some unpleasant situation. This Being also rewards those who live right with good things on this earth as well as eternal rewards and punishments as appropriate.

 

Here are some of Tripp’s notes:

Radical Theology v Confessional

 

 

1) Radical Theology is parasitic to Confessional Theology… on its behalf. Radical Theology is being faithful to what is harbored in the name of ‘God’ – the event & not the tradition on the tradition’s terms.

 

2) Radical Theology reserves the right to ask any question. Because Confessional Theology is accountable to a tradition & its institutions there will be places where questions-conversations-operating conclusions will serves as “conversation stoppers.” Places in which that activity of critical thinking puts one out of the building. (ex. Trinity or Same Sex Marriage)

 

3) Radical Theology seeks to be EXPOSED to the Event w/in the Confessional Theology tradition but not PROPOSE a new articulation of the tradition.

 

4) Radical Theology rejects both the apathetic silence about the Big Other & the theist\atheist debate about the Big Other. The Big Other does not exist.

 

5) Radical Theology displaces the boundaries & certainty of ‘belief’ w/in Confessional Theology – the “how” w/out articulating another ‘what.’ Why? Whatever the ‘what’ is w/in a tradition doesn’t correlate to ‘how’ it is enacted.

 

6) Radical Theology affirms the Event contained IN but not BY Confessional Theology.

 

7) Radical Theology is a material (therefore a political) theology. God’s insistence is about our existence, here in the world, in relationships, & not about our continued or reanimated existence elsewhere. Radical Theology is about faith enacted for this world, not faith in another.

 

8) Radical Theology leaves the logos of Confessional Theology behind for theo-poetics. For the Radical Theologian there is no divine-logic to be learned or sacred syllogisms to be mastered. When ‘words’ are used to close the circle around the truth, the poet protests ‘words’ enslavement… their demonic possession of the impossible possibilities that vanquished on behalf of the actual – the certain – the final – the verdict of Confessional Theology.

.....................

I thought it would be helpful at this point to outline how [John] Caputo frames the turn from Confessional to Radical Theology in his amazing and short book “Philosophy And Theology” . In chapter 5 he illustrates 3 turns that converge together to make the BIG turn:

 

 First up is the Hermeneutical Turn – this a confession we each read a text or interpret our experience from an angle [(e.g., "...from our own personal, socio-religious, point of view." - re slater)]. We all have a location and that means that we all see things from an angle.

Second is the Linguistic Turn – this is a recognition that every discipline and every tradition has its own set of vocabulary and [ideological] concepts that form the ‘rules of the game’ [(or, the rules of our religious faith or religion. -re slater)]. Just as one can not play ‘Sport’ but plays A sport (football or baseball) so one can not speak ‘Language’ but A language. One can not practice ‘Religion’ but A religion. One must learn and abide by the rules of language game that one is playing.

 

Third is the Revolutionary Turn – this is an admission that things change… or rather that the way we see things changes. Working off of Kuhn’s idea of ‘paradigms’ and scientific revolutions, we readily admit that even where the data does not change (the universe) the way that we conceptualize it does periodically alter in radical ways.

 

These three come together to form the Postmodern Turn. They are also helpful for illustrating the sort of thing that Radical Theology is up to [(e.g., Relational Theology will help one to "de-construct" his/her's images of God and faith so that it stands out more clearly, or more purely, against the idolatrous images we unknowingly would serve without thought or question otherwise. It is a form of deep spiritual insight or awareness.

A purity of aspiration or revelation to unlink from ourselves as religious beings, and to leave the "window-dressing" of our faith for its more singular elements of devotion, trust, belief and love. As example, its like becoming a monk without leaving the world; or becoming a more tolerant form of Christian without exposing more rules and confessional creeds; or becoming more devout in your heart, mind, and soul, without seeking the external dresses of devoutness so that others may see it about you. - re slater)].


 

How Postmodern Hermeneutics Helps in Reading The Bible

Today's article rehearses once again a subject we have spoken to in earlier discussions (please refer to the sidebars under "Science," "Creation," and "Genesis"). To rehearse, today's discoveries states that "ex nihilo creation" is probably untrue according to quantum physics. This means that matter had to be present in order for it to be "re-purposed, re-arranged, and re-ordered" (in the thermodynamic sense of energy conservation).

What it doesn't mean is that God cannot create matter from nothing (as most infer when jettisoning the idea of "ex nihilo creation) but is simply a testament that God re-created, re-formed, or re-fashioned, the matter present in the early universe into the universe we know today. Since this idea is usually misunderstood by the traditional Christian reading of Genesis we may leave the possibility open at both ends dependent upon our ideas of "God being God" (simplistically put: Is God "above/beyond the universe?" per classic doctrine. Or, is God "beside/alongside the universe?" per process theology and various perambulations of panentheism). Again, we have addressed both concepts in previous posts under the sidebars by the same name and shall defer to those ideas without rehearsing them here.

In earlier eras - and without the practical help of science - biblical theologians and church philosophers subjugated their answers within previously formed philosophical opinions (e.g., Greek Platonism or Greek Aristotelianism). As such, Justin Martyr argued for Platonism while Tertullian argued for Aristotelianism. Many years later, and with the advantage of many years of church discussion, thinking, and evaluation, we find ourselves with a few more options than just those of Plato and Aristotle. Especially so since the science of biblical hermeneutics has rapidly developed beyond these classic dualistic Greek approaches to the study of the universe and man, God and the bible.

 

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

 

Platonism - noun (philosophy)

 

The philosophy of Plato (428 - 348 BC) or his followers that taught the belief that physical objects are impermanent representations of unchanging Ideas. And that the Ideas alone give true knowledge as they are known by the mind.

 

Aristotelianism - noun (philosophy)

The philosophy of Aristotle (384-322 BC) speaks to logic, metaphysics, ethics, poetics, politics, and natural science; "Aristotelianism profoundly influenced Western thought." As a philosophy it placed emphasis upon deduction and logic upon the investigation of concrete and particular things and situations.   ----------------

Events like our singular universe's birth at the "Big Bang" - or the birth of Multi-verses in similar, simultaneous events - demonstrate the idea mathematically that "ex nihilo creation" is untrue contra ancient ideas. This means that it would be wrong to approach Gen 1-3 scientifically and to read our 21st Century ideas into the Hebraic text's ancient cosmological myths and observations (I like to refer to the bible's ancient accounts as historic(al) theological narratives rather than so crudely as myths).

... As an aside, I should note that the Genesis text was written in the 7th or 6th century BC from an Ancient Near-Eastern perspective that would fall into the category of comparative mythology to the other ancient societies around it (Mesopotamia, Sumeria, Egypt, etc).

What this means then is that the later Greek philosophers deduced their philosophies upon what they then knew (even as we do today). Which may have been considerably more material than what the early church theologians had to work with later after so many long years of devastating world war by the kingdoms of Persia, Greece/Mesopotamia, Rome in their lootings and burnings of the treasuries of the surrounding nations and one another. By inference the ancients - like the Greek philosophers and historians - probably had demonstrably more resources at hand than perhaps the latter day theologians of the early church like Justin Martyr and Tertullian who were working off the remaining Greek ideas of their day, along with what they could find of surviving ancient Near-Eastern documents lost within the ancient libraries of Alexandria, Athens, and Rome. Even now this is our problem today as we rely on surviving archaeological resources and archived documents over the many long eons of chaotic world history.

That said, Greek philosophy (Hellenism) was captured by the church and drawn into itself as its resident-cobbled-dogmas of the day. To this perceived knowledge was added regionally formed opinions that either survived, or did not, as the church's theology developed through early and late Medievalism until theologians like Thomas Aquinas came along to restore some order to Christian thinking and philosophy along the lines of Scholasticism. As a 12th Century Catholic monk and scholar Aquinas "was the foremost classical proponent of natural theology, and the father of Thomism. His influence on Western thought is considerable, and much of modern philosophy was conceived in development or refutation of his ideas, particularly in the areas of ethics, natural law, metaphysics, and political theory. The works for which he is best known are the Summa Theologica and the Summa contra Gentiles." Scholasticism is "not so much a philosophy or a theology as a method of learning. Scholasticism places a strong emphasis on dialectical reasoning to extend knowledge by inference, and to resolve contradictions."

... But I digress and only mention this abbreviated history of Christian Thought to show how the church's received tradition of classical Christianity is being re-applied under today's postmodernistic biblical studies that must de-construct and re-interpret past historical contexts within the evolving fluidity of contemporary language and its linguistic ambiguity from one era to the next, from one culture to the next. To so simply state with assurance that one believes in "ex nihilo creation" or not is to carry with these phrases many unqualified assumptions. Assumptions that don't get us anywhere except into ad naseum discussions round-and-round-and-round without accomplishing anything.

For me, I am interested in the logic, the deductions, and the context of these statements. Practically this means that a simplistic literal reading would weigh out each word without regard to cultural and historical development of this statement's background (including us today as modern interpretive redactionists). Whereas a non-literal reading would weigh out the content of what is being said, why its being said, who is saying it, and explore the reason for such observations. In my estimation, "ex nihilo" discussions then cannot be formed from a literal reading and should be politely put to bed as uninformative, unhelpful, and passé. They only serve to show our short-sightedness about God, His paradoxical Creatorship, and His Sovereign rule, as He moves heaven-and-earth towards redemption completion.

To debate the Creed, as one had said, is to debate its philosophical and theological orientations only. For Justin Martyr, he adopted Platonic ideas, while Tertullian on the other hand moved towards a straightforward deductionism about the one eternal God. To me, this is all well and good, but it seems more helpful to rely on today's postmodern sciences, philosophical ideas, and their gathering theological import for biblical studies, while resisting overtly reading our religious preferences backwards into the creation texts of Genesis as interpretive (classic) redactionists. This means that from today's scientific discoveries it seems very apparent that God created from the material than extant in our pre-existent universe. This doesn't mean that He didn't create that material, simply that He used that material, thus voiding the early church's arguments for one view over the other. Such arguments limited our expanding knowledge of God, the cosmos, ourselves, and globally responsible communities.

Under a postmodern frame of theological development we may do this, and not be so dependent upon ancient church observations for our contemporary derivations today. And this would include even that of the biblical writers viewpoints couched within their ancient cosmologies! What is more important is to try to determine why those biblical writers wrote their observations. And why God chose to utilize their observations and understanding towards a formed biblical revelation. This then frees the postmodern theolog to focus on the biblical content using all that we know (against what we have lost and have failed to recover through death, time, war and prejudicial bias) in the ancient world of biblical cultural and sentiment. And to not treat the bible so naively. Nor our heritage as so emphatic. Nor language as so propositional and definitive. Nor even time itself as without its dithering effects and affects upon God's Word and our accumulating understanding of it.

Consequently, a postmodernistic hermeneutic gives back to us God's Word in an amazing array of complexity and spiritual import more so than if we were to relax and fall back upon the church's classical doctrines, beliefs, and arguments. Arguments too often deemed more important than God's Word itself. For me and my house, I would chose the postmodern route of narrative and anthropologic hermeneutic (among others).

I leave you with these thoughts:

Genre (Genesis 1-2 as myth, history and science)
See also: Literary genre, Myth (disambiguation), and Narrative

The genre of a piece of writing is the literary "type" to which it belongs.^[79] The meaning to be derived from the Genesis creation narrative will depend on the reader's understanding of its genre: "it makes an enormous difference whether the first chapters of Genesis are read as scientific cosmology, creation myth, or historical saga".^[80] Misunderstanding of the genre of the text - meaning the intention of the author/s and the culture within which they wrote - will result in a misreading.^[81] Bruce Waltke cautions against one such misreading, the "woodenly literal" approach which leads to "creation science" and such "implausible interpretations" as the "gap theory", the presumption of a "young earth", and the denial of evolution.^[82] Another scholar, Conrad Hyers, sums up the same thought in these words: "A literalist interpretation of the Genesis accounts is inappropriate, misleading, and unworkable [because] it presupposes and insists upon a kind of literature and intention that is not there."^[83]

Genesis 1-2 can be seen as ancient science: in the words of E.A. Speiser, "on the subject of creation biblical tradition aligned itself with the traditional tenets of Babylonian science."^[84] It can also be regarded as ancient history, "part of a broader spectrum of originally anonymous, history-like ancient Near Eastern narratives."^[85] It is frequently called myth in scholarly writings, but there is no agreement on how "myth" is to be defined, and so while one scholar can say that Genesis 1-11 is free from myth, another can say it is entirely mythical.^[86] (Brevard Childs famously suggested that the author of Genesis 1-11 "demythologised" his narrative, meaning that he removed from his sources (the Babylonian myths) those elements which did not fit with his own faith.)^[87]

Whatever else it may be, Genesis 1 is "story" [or "narrative" - res], since it features character and characterisation, a narrator, and dramatic tension expressed through a series of incidents arranged in time.^[88] The Priestly author of Genesis 1 had to confront two major difficulties. First, there is the fact that since only God exists at this point, no-one was available to be the narrator; the storyteller solved this by introducing an unobtrusive "third person narrator".^[89] Second, there was the problem of conflict: conflict is necessary to arouse the reader's interest in the story, yet with nothing else existing, neither a chaos-monster nor another god, there cannot be any conflict. This was solved by creating a very minimal tension: God is opposed by nothingness itself, the blank of the world "without form and void."^[89] Telling the story in this way was a deliberate choice: there are a number of creation stories in the Bible, but they tend to be told in the first person, by Wisdom, the instrument by which God created the world; the choice of omniscient first-person narrator in the Genesis narrative allows the storyteller to create the impression that everything is being told and nothing held back.^[90]"

- Ibid, Wikipedia
 
R.E. Slater

July 22, 2013 

 

* * * * * * * * * *

 

 

Creation Debates Are Not New

 

by Scot McKnight

July 22, 2013

 

The first two centuries of the Christian church included serious debates between major theologians — like Justin Martyr and Tertullian — and they debated one essential idea: Did God create out of nothing or, did God create from pre-existing material? A problem actually arises from the translation of Genesis 1:1-2.

KJV: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”

NRSV: In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

Notice how this works: in the KJV, after God created the heaven and the earth, there was “without form, and void” while in the NRSV God’s creation turned things from formlessness and voidness into created order. The KJV, in some sense, has a problem setting up the possibility of a two-stage creation: first matter, then order out of matter. The NRSV’s translation could well imply the same, but perhaps not. Both translations are legit.

We talk about creation and science often on this blog, mostly through the posts of RJS (who is a professional scientist), but creation is not just a debate. It is an affirmation about God, that God is Life and that God is responsible for creation. Do you see any prospects for a resolution among Christians of a traditional bent to see legitimacy in theistic evolution or evolutionary creation or creationary evolution? Or is this a make or break issue?

All of this is discussed in Ronald Heine, Classical Christian Doctrine, because the first lines of the Nicene Creed says:

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth, 
of all that is, seen and unseen.

At the time of Jesus and the apostle Paul, and a set of ideas still central by the end of 2d Century AD, there were two basic views: the Platonic view was that God “created” out of pre-existing materials while the Aristotelian view was that matter existed eternally.

Christians differed, too. Justin Martyr was like Plato in thinking God created out of existing materials while Tertullian argued — and his view captured the church — that God created out of nothing (ex nihilo). Tatian said God created matter and then out of matter created the order we see.

The fundamental issue comes down to the doctrine of God: if God alone is the origin of life, matter depends on and comes from God, and therefore the Aristotelian and pre-existing theories are defined off the map. If God alone is Life and if God is creator, then at some point in time matter did not exist and came to exist. Thus, creation is ex nihilo in orthodox thinking.

Of course, this says absolutely nothing about how God chose to create. A creationary evolution that affirms all comes from God coheres with orthodoxy as much as the creationist’s view.  
 

 

Tony Jones Responds: "Can Postmodern Theology Live in Our Churches?"

Can Postmodern Theology Live in Our Churches? #STN2

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/2013/04/06/can-postmodern-theology-live-in-our-churches-stn2/

 

by Tony Jones

April 6, 2013

Comments

 

That is the overarching question at Subverting the Norm 2, a conference that I’m attending this weekend in Springfield, Missouri. Honestly, not many people addressed the question yesterday, at least not in the sessions I attended. So far this morning, the presenters have pivoted to talking about it.

Last night, I responded to John Caputo‘s plenary address. Some here accused me of failing to actually respond to Caputo, others have wondered if I made a Derridian move, and still others have thanked me for speaking plainly and forthrightly. Some requested that I post my response, so I will do so here. But before that, some prolegomena:

First, Caputo is the rock star of this conference. Several people here are his former PhD students, and many are his acolytes. I, too, am a big fan of Caputo — I think his Weakness of God is a brilliant text — and I had no desire to present a deep critique of his work in this context.

Second, due to no fault of his own, Caputo did not provide me with his manuscript in advance. In academic conferences, respondents are usually able to see the paper in advance so as to write a prepared response.

Third, Caputo is a philosopher of the first order. I am not. I’m a (practical) theologian, well-versed in postmodern philosophy, to be sure, but not at the level of going nose-to-nose with someone of Jack’s caliber. To do so would have been stupid of me and disrespectful of Caputo.

For all of these reasons, to attempt an on-the-fly response to Caputo would have been nigh on suicidal — or at least would have held the potential for a massive trainwreck. So, instead, I composed 13 points of challenge and exhortation for those in the crowd — particularly clergy — who are really trying to answer the question, “Can postmodern theology live in our churches?” Some of these points I prepared before Jack’s talk, and some are a direct result of and response to it:

1. There are two types of radical theologians: those who want there to be a God, and those who don’t. I‘m interested in the work of the radical theologians who want there to be a God, even if they’re not willing to affirm that there is a God. There are 7 billion people on this planet, and the vast majority of them want there to be a God.

2. Process theology had its chance. If process theology couldn’t get traction in the American church under the auspices of John Cobb in the 1970s, I doubt that it will gain traction with his acolytes. Outside of Claremont (and Homebrewed Christianity), I hear little about process theology. I am not saying that popular theology = good theology; that would make Joel Osteen a theological genius. What I’m saying is that process theology did not capture the imagination of a critical mass of clergy and laypeople in its heyday, so I doubt that it will today. But maybe I’m wrong. Maybe Cobb was ahead of his time, and the church is only now ready for process.

3. Put less words in scare quotes. Just answer the question. In his talk, Caputo went through the entire question, ”Can postmodern theology live in our churches?” He put each word in quotes, and deconstructed it. ”Can” “postmodern” “theology” “live” “in” “our” “churches.” That’s a fun exercise at an academic conference, to be sure. But it rarely works in pastoral ministry. Postmodern theologians and the churchmen and women that are inspired by them — including the emerging church movement — have become adept at eternal deferral. People ask real questions, the questions that they want answers for, and we respond by deconstructing the question, telling them, “That’s not the right question,” or saying, “That question doesn’t interest me.” I’ve grown tired of this posture. I’d like us to answer some questions, and to do so forthrightly.

4. Let’s double down on epistemic humility. One of the benefits of deconstruction is that it imbues all of our intellectual activity with the reminder that even our most strongly held beliefs are, ultimately, deconstructible. You might be wrong about there not being a God, and I might be wrong about there being a God.

5. Be loyal to this tribe. We have a better version of the gospel than the regnant [(reigning, popular, widespread)] view of the gospel in the West today. If our version of the gospel is to stand a chance, particularly among the “nones,” then we’ve got to stick together in spite of our doctrinal, theological, and philosophical differences.

6. Indefatigably produce original content. Again, if we’re going to change the conversation about what is Christianity, then we have to fill the world with content about this version of the gospel.

7. We must maintain our sense of humor. Like #4 above, postmodernism demands that we don’t take ourselves too seriously, because we might be wrong. Like #5 above, if we can maintain our senses of humor, it will be a more attractive alternative to the earnest, overly serious, even hateful versions of the faith that many people see today.

8. My next book will disappoint you: but I’m not writing it for you. I have a different vocation than a university philosopher like Caputo, or a subversive free-range philosopher like Peter Rollins. My vocation is to think and write through the issues that vex modern-day Christianity. Your vocation is something else — to preach or write poems or blog or something. Don’t try to be Caputo or Rollins. Be yourself.

9. I have never read a word of Žižek. You can’t do it all. You can’t read every book and blog; you can’t listen to every podcast. Find what you want to read and know, and embrace that, but don’t beat yourself up if you can’t read it all.

10. Beware of the allure of the word “atheist.” I’ve lived through the waxing and waning popularity of terms like “postmodern” and “emergent.” The term “Christian atheist” is currently waxing. It, too, will wane.

11. People aren’t talking about God. They’re talking about Jesus, the bible, angels, heaven. This conference, at least on day one, was consumed with talk of God. That’s fine. But in my experience, people outside these walls are asking less about God than they are about other volumes in the theological encyclopedia.

12. Don’t get so far out ahead of your army that they mistake you for the enemy and shoot you. That’s a danger after a conference like this, that you’ll go home and preach a sermon on the death of God. Chances are, your congregation isn’t ready for that.

13. Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh of Ex 3:14 means “I will be that who I have yet to become.” It doesn’t mean “I am who I am,” or “I will be who I will be.” It is much more eschatological than that. In fact, Jewish Bibles leave this passage untranslated. That commitment to untranslatability should stand in critique of all of our talk about God.


 

How the "Great Recession of 2008-2010" Has Affected Today's Youth

 

Study: Youth attitudes shift in Great Recession

 

MARTHA IRVINE
Published: Jul 11, 2013

 

Drew Miller, poses for a photograph, at a building under construction, Wednesday, July 10, 2013 in Silver Spring, Md. Miller quit a steady government contract job to take a chance on a company that's using "smart technologies" to help big corporations cut lighting costs. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

                

CHICAGO (AP) - Drew Miller clearly remembers the day his father was laid off.

Miller, now 25, was a freshman at an Ohio college, full of hope and ready to take on the world. But here was this "red flag ... a big wake-up call," he says. The prosperous years of childhood were over, and his future was likely to be bumpier than he'd expected.

Across the country, others of Miller's generation heard that same wake-up call as the Great Recession set in. But would it change them? And would the impact last?

The full effect won't be known for a while, of course. But a new analysis of a long-term survey of high school students provides an early glimpse at ways their attitudes shifted in the first years of this most recent economic downturn.

Among the findings: Young people showed signs of being more interested in conserving resources and a bit more concerned about their fellow human beings.

Compared with youths who were surveyed a few years before the recession hit, more of the Great Recession group also was less interested in big-ticket items such as vacation homes and new cars - though they still placed more importance on them than young people who were surveyed in the latter half of the 1970s, an era with its own economic challenges.

Either way, it appears this latest recession "has caused a lot of young people to stop in their tracks and think about what's important in life," says Jean Twenge, a psychology professor at San Diego State University who co-authored the study with researchers from UCLA.

The analysis, released Thursday, is published in the online edition of the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science.

Its data comes from "Monitoring the Future," an annual survey of young people that began in the mid-1970s. The authors of the study compared responses of high school seniors from three time periods - 1976-1978 and 2004-2006, as well as 2008-2010, the first years of the Great Recession.

They found that at the beginning of this latest recession, more of the 12th-graders were willing to use a bicycle or mass transit instead of driving - 36 percent in 2008-2010, compared with 28 percent in the mid-2000s. However, that was still markedly lower than the 49 percent of respondents in the 1970s group who said the same.

There were similar patterns for other responses, such as those who said they:

-Make an effort to turn heat down to save energy: 78 percent (1976-1978); 55 percent (2004-2006); and 63 percent (2008-2010).

-Want a job directly helpful to others: 50 percent (1976-1978); 44 percent (2004-2006); and 47 percent (2008-2010).

-Would eat differently to help the starving: 70 percent (1976-1978); 58 percent (2004-2006); and 61 percent (2008-2010).

Psychologist Patricia Greenfield said the findings fit with other research she's done that shows that people become more community-minded, and less materialistic, when faced with economic hardship. "To me, it's a silver lining," says Greenfield, another of the study's contributors, along with lead author Heejung Park, an advanced doctoral student in psychology at UCLA.

Their analysis found that, of the three groups, the Great Recession group was still most likely to want jobs where they could make a "significant" amount of money. But the authors say that may simply be attributable to the ever-rising cost of day-to-day expenses, from groceries to electric and gas bills.

In comparison, they note that the Great Recession group also showed a bit less interest in luxury items than the students who were surveyed in the mid-2000s.

For instance, 41 percent of high school seniors questioned 2008-2010 said it was important to own a vacation home, compared with 46 percent in 2004-2006. Again, both percentages are higher than the 34 percent who said the same in 1976-1978.

These findings have a margin of error of plus-or-minus 1 percentage point, or less.

Tina Wells, CEO of Buzz Marketing Group, which tracks youth trends, says the analysis fits with what she's seen in her own work.

Many young people, she says, are living in what she calls "millennial purgatory," unemployed or under-employed, working in jobs below their qualifications, and sometimes still living at home with their parents. During the Great Recession the unemployment rate for 15- to 24-year-olds has risen above 20 percent - more than double the overall rate.

"If you're 22 and trying to jump-start your life right now, it's not so easy," Wells says.

As a result, various 20-somethings have tempered their career expectations in different ways.

Until the economy improves, "I've been opting for security over the perfect job," says Calvin Wagner, a 24-year-old accountant in suburban Cincinnati. As he bides his time, working for a small company with little chance for advancement, he's studying for the exam to become a certified public accountant.

Like many of the survey respondents, Ashley Rousseau, a 25-year-old in Miami, says she's now more focused on a job that helps her community in some way than in landing "a corner office."

"The recession made it even more clear that I'm not going to find job satisfaction from a high-paying career," says Rousseau, who's getting her MBA and works at the medical school at Florida International University, which she says "improves the medical care in the community."

"I'm proud to be part of that mission," she says.

Miller, the 25-year-old whose dad was laid off, left Ohio when he couldn't find work there in his field, electrical engineering. He moved to Alexandria, Va., after finding a government contracting job. But he recently decided to take a chance on a new company that's using "smart technology" to help big corporations cut electrical usage for lighting their spaces.

Though it meant taking a small pay cut, he says having a job that helps the environment was a "huge" motivator.

It remains to be seen, however, how members of this generation will cope with this economic adversity.

Brent Donnellan, an associate professor of psychology at Michigan State University, has found that how parents handle the stress of an economic situation affects a child's resilience. But so does the child's personality. Perhaps not surprisingly, Donnellan says, studies have found that young people who have more self-control and who do well in school tend to weather economic hardship better.

Still others wonder if the shifts in attitudes noted in the study will last.

Lane Kenworthy, who's looked at the impact of various recessions, isn't so sure.

"In almost every case, public opinion has roughly gone back right back to what it was before," says Kenworthy, a professor of sociology and political science at the University of Arizona, who co-wrote a chapter on this topic for a book titled "The Great Recession."

The biggest exception, he says, is the Great Depression of the 1930s, when unemployment rose as high as 25 percent.

That major economic downturn saw a big shift toward the Democratic party, he says, and an embracing of government programs such as Social Security.

The downturn of the 1970s - which caused public opinion to sway Republican - was the only other noteworthy exception he found, he says.

Kenworthy says this recession might impact young people more because they tend to be more impressionable than their elders. But he says a lot will hinge on how long the economic downturn lasts - and how deeply they feel the pain.

Miller, in Virginia, says he still sees a lot of his peers living beyond their means and that worries him.
"I hope that mentality will change to say, 'Hey, we have to plan ahead' because this could happen again," he says.

But Monica Raofpur, a recent graduate of the University of Texas at Dallas, doubts the Great Recession will forever change her generation.

"People usually adapt to their surroundings and make decisions based on what is going on in the present, not in the past," says Raofpur, a sales consultant in the tech industry.

The UCLA/San Diego State study was funded by the Russell Sage Foundation, which focuses social issues and has funded several projects related to the Great Recession.

__

On the Internet:
Russell Sage Foundation: http://www.russellsage.org
___

Martha Irvine is an AP national writer. She can be reached at mirvine@ap.org or at http://twitter.com/irvineap.


 

Kids React to Controversial Cheerios Commercial

 

The Best Thing You'll See All Day:

Kids React To Interracial Cheerios Commercial (VIDEO)

http://globalgrind.com/news/kids-react-interracial-cheerios-commercial-video

 

Posted July 15, 2013 by Christina Coleman for Global Grind Staff

 

 

Remember that "controversial" (but not really) interracial Cheerios commercial that got all the racists in the world upset?

 

Well, some genius thought it would be a good idea to put the commercial to the real test to see if adults are bugging for no reason, or, if the subject of interracial marriage/dating is still very much taboo.

 

The findings from this very non-scientific but brilliant experiment? Racism is stupid.

 

See these insightful kids drop some real knowledge...and say the dardnest things. I bet you won't be able to keep a smile off of your face.

 

 

 

 

This episode featured the following amazing children:

 

Samirah, age 7
Dash, age 8
Morgan, age 8
Asher, age 9
Morgan A, age 10
Shannon, age 9
Dylan, age 11
Elle, age 11
Marlhy, age 11
Olivia, age 12
Darius, age 13
Jake, age 13

 

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

 

KIDS REACT #82 - Controversial Cheerios Commercial
KIDS REACT to Just Checking

 

© 2013 Fine Brothers Properties
This format and title of this program is protected under Copyright and Trademark Law .

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/31/cheerios-commercial-racist-backlash_n_3363507.html

 

 

Cheerios Commercial Featuring Mixed Race Family Gets Racist Backlash (VIDEO)

 

The Huffington Post  |  By Braden Goyette

Posted: 05/31/2013 12:44 am EDT  |  Updated: 06/15/2013 3:15 pm EDT

 

 

An adorable Cheerios commercial featuring an interracial couple and their daughter generated such a strong racist backlash on YouTube that the comments section had to be closed.

 

The ad had received more than 1,600 likes and more than 500 dislikes as of Thursday evening.

You can watch the full ad in the video above.

Prior to the closure, the comment section had been filled "with references to Nazis, 'troglodytes' and 'racial genocide,'" according to Adweek.

YouTube comment sections have a reputation for breeding racist flame wars. CNN focused on the issue earlier this year, after a panel addressing racism and race on YouTube was held at South By Southwest:

"Everyone gets hate comments on YouTube," said Andre Meadows, the creator of the Black Nerd Comedy channel. "You can make the most wonderful video in the world and you will get 'Fake!' and 'Gay!'" 

But for minority creators, "when you get comments, it seems to be targeted toward race almost immediately. A lot of people get 'dumb video, stupid video' -- but with mine it immediately goes to racial slurs."

Commenters on the cereal's Facebook page also said they found the commercial "disgusting" and that it made them "want to vomit." Other hateful commenters expressed shock that a black father would stay with his family.

However, many took to Facebook to express their appreciation for Cheerios' decision to feature a mixed-race family.

"Having been mixed in the '70s, I'd like to thank everyone at Cheerios for making a commercial with an interracial couple! Going to buy boxes today! Many thanks for reflecting what my family looked like," Beschelle Lockhart posted Monday.

"Just watched your commercial with the biracial family. Beautiful. Thank you so much," Alexandra Burt wrote.

Cheerios was unfazed by the racist Internet backlash. "Consumers have responded positively to our new Cheerios ad. At Cheerios, we know there are many kinds of families and we celebrate them all," Camille Gibson, Cheerios vice president of marketing, told Gawker.