McKnight - A Critique of Love Wins 2

http://www.patheos.com/community/jesuscreed/2011/04/04/exploring-love-wins-4/#more-15446

Exploring Love Wins 2
Scot McKnight
April 4, 2011
Filed under: Hell, Universalism

Because of the firestorm created, I am beginning these discussions of Rob Bell’s book, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived, with a prayer. I am asking that you pause quietly and slow down enough to pray this prayer as the way to approach this entire series:

O Lord, you have taught us that without love whatever we do is worth nothing:

Send your Holy Spirit and pour into my heart your greatest gift,

which is love, the true bond of peace and of all virtue,

without which whoever lives is accounted dead before you.

Grant this for the sake of your only Son Jesus Christ,

who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God,

now and for ever. Amen.†

Hell. That’s the subject of conversation today. And God. Our view of God is implicit and explicit in our view of hell. The question then is what view of God is suggested by your view of hell? And, how does your view of God shape your view of hell? [Forgot: If you like this conversation, please FB share it or Retweet it.... thanks.]

I want us to sit back for a moment to consider the single-most important problem Rob Bell is facing and seeking to resolve in this book. That problem for him is how many in the church, and by and large most in the 19th and 20th Century of American evangelicals, have understood hell and who and how many populate hell. And what that view implies about God. Here are the three big facts, and you correct me if I’m wrong here.

• Those who have heard the gospel and who have accepted it will go to heaven.

• Those who have heard the gospel and not accepted it will go to hell.

• Those who have not heard the gospel will also go to hell.

I am aware that some, I don’t know how many, believe in a fourth line:

• Those who have not heard the gospel may be in a special class, and could be judged in a different way — on the basis of the light they have received from natural revelation. [At the end of this post I briefly discuss other options.]

But my experience in the evangelical world, which historically has been more or less exclusivist (salvation only in Christ, but also understood as consciously responding in this life to the preaching of the gospel itself [again see end of this post]), does not lead me to believe that there’s much reason for hope for those who have not heard. And there’s no hope for those who have heard and who have not accepted the gospel. Yes, some are much more optimistic about the fate of those who have never heard the good news about Jesus Christ, but Rob is not responding to the optimistic evangelical.

But this sketch of three or four points isn’t all of Rob Bell’s problem.

If one takes that third fact seriously, and many evangelicals have done just that, it means that most — let’s say the vast majority — of humans will go to hell because most have not heard the gospel at all. And vast numbers who have have not accepted it. Witness contemporary Europe for instance, or much of Russia. Add now to this the millions and millions in the Far East, most of those in Africa until the missionary movement, those in Muslim countries and millions in South America and other places not mentioned on this good globe of ours… and then add to this those who a thousand years or ago in far off places … you get the picture. The problem that arises from these three (or four) facts is that God created millions and millions of human beings over time and only a select number of them will go to heaven. The problem that arises, therefore, entails what we believe about God.

Of course, there are some theologians and probably loads of Christians who have believed otherwise. But the fact is that if one believes salvation is only in Christ (exclusivism) and that to be a believer one must consciously believe the gospel, then Rob Bell’s caricatures or exaggerations are not as far fetched as some might be suggesting. And the more one fudges in the direction of inclusivism — that there’s a wideness in God’s mercy, or that there’s a different judgment for those who have not heard (and it’s merciful etc etc), that those who died before they were born, or before the age of accountability, etc — the less one fits the stronger exclusivist category. It’s fair to ask “Why infants who die will be saved but not those who have never heard?” And it’s fair to ask “If infants can be saved, why not others?”

I don’t believe anyone should be "for-or-against" Rob Bell’s book until one has grappled with this problem. It won’t do just to poke at Rob’s soteriology, or lack of interest in how the atonement occurs … yes, those issues need examination. But the problem probed in this book, as I see it, and this is dawning on me the more I ponder it and the responses, is this:

I believe most evangelicals Christians, and I won’t speak for Catholics and Orthodox etc, suppress this problem to where it doesn’t really matter. Furthermore, they not only suppress that question but they suppress what it makes them think about God in quiet moments. So, there’s a fifth approach that many take today:

We don’t know what becomes of the millions, perhaps billions, who have never heard the gospel.

But, this appeal to agnosticism is for far too many a cop-out. It is too often born in a conviction that doesn’t have courage. Many of these are true-blue exclusivists but don’t like its implications, so they say “I don’t know” or “That’s in God’s hands.” [On other kinds of agnosticism, see below.] Some use agnosticism as a cloak for a universalism or pluralism they don’t want to admit.

So, I contend we have to get inside this problem and explore it through the problem itself and not explore it simply through our already confident soteriology or doctrine of Scripture. The problem is that no matter how strong your view of Scripture or salvation you have to come to terms with who and how many are in hell or who and how many will be saved. We might not know numbers, but our theology will inform us about the “who” and that will also mean the “how many” is also clarified.

I’ve asked a question like this — how many North Koreans will be in hell? – a number of times to friends in the last month and I’ve had very few say “All” or “Most” but instead there’s been a nice genteel “I don’t know.” But that “I don’t know” seems to me to fly in the face of the dogmatism against Rob’s much softer — almost all or all or he hopes all — view.

You can’t condemn Rob’s view until you face the problem and tell the world your quantification theory. The more you say “I don’t know” the more Martin Bashir is asking you what he asked Rob Bell.

Some other options:

1. Double predestination, which is appealed to rarely and even more rarely claimed publicly in this sort of discussion, would say "For those who have not heard the gospel ... if they were elect, they'll be saved. If not they, they'll not be saved."

2. Other terms often used are inclusivism (that God saves through Christ but includes others on the basis of what work, and that inclusion is based on response to truth) and accessibilism (that God somehow reveals his saving truth to all humans who have ever lived, and has done so at least one time in the life of each person, and judges on that basis but salvation is only through Christ). I am ignoring post Vatican II Catholic thinking and Orthodox thinking because it does not appear to me Rob is speaking into those contexts.

3. Religious instrumentalism teaches that God uses other religions to point us toward God and, in some forms, that Christ is present in those other religions though in a lesser way than is present in the Christian faith.

4. It seems to me that many evangelicals, if not most, understand exclusivism through the lens of what Terry Tiessen calls "ecclesiocentrism": salvation is coextensive with the church whose responsibility it is to proclaim the gospel. So, exclusivism here means through Christ but that "Christ" is known only through the gospel, which is made known by the church's witness.

5. There are two other kinds agnosticism: some are optimistic, like John Stott and R. Mouw, and others are pessimistic, like J.I. Packer and D.A Carson.

This sketch was helped along by T. Tiessen, Who Can Be Saved?: Reassessing Salvation in Christ and World Religions:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0830827471/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=jescre-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0830827471

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

Selected below are miscellaneous comments to McKnight's blog above that show the various struggles Christians go through in attempting to work out the many expressions of God's love and justice; eternity-issues both hear and later; what "the kingdom of God" can mean now and later; what the good news of the gospel really is (or isn't); the expressions of Christ's atonment v. the TULIP system; how our "theology" more-or-less reflects our view of God, the Cross, the concept of salvation; and the list goes on-and-on. So here are some snapshots that were thoughtfully written by conciencious readers to Rob Bell's book Love Wins.

skinhead

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


Mel, there are good reasons to take the “agnostic” view but they have to be good reasons and not — as I often hear — a cop-out from confessing some hard beliefs. I could be wrong on this one, Mel, but it seems to me that part of Rob Bell’s audience is those who don’t want to own up to what they are really saying about hell and about God. I read through a number of studies of late, one by Chris Morgan and one by Terry Tiessen, and don’t see “agnosticism” as a consciously worked out theory so much as one way exclusivists don’t admit to themselves what they believe. For instance, Stott is agnostic but very optimistic; Packer and Carson are only partly agnostic because they are (I use this word guardedly) pessimistic.


Dan, how is that statement “unfair”? I believe it’s the case. One should say what one thinks if one is going to say Rob’s view of how many go to hell is wrong. Yes, I agree, many do say what they think. I’m not sure what apologetics books are saying has anything to do with the current wave of criticism of Bell’s book. I am asking those who speak against his view say what they think.

Comment by scotmcknight — April 4, 2011 @ 7:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------------

Bill, brother, you’re jumping the gun on this one. Yes, all the problems and issues are interconnected but first we’ve got to get the “problem” sorted out – the problem Rob Bell is addressing. Do you think the “number in hell” and what that says about God is the problem Rob Bell is addressing?

Comment by scotmcknight — April 4, 2011 @ 7:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------------

Jeff, I don’t say it is “illegitimate.” I clearly outline a few kinds of agnosticism. I am against using agnosticism as a cop out, and frankly I’m seeing it on both sides today: some use it to cloak universalism or pluralism while others use it to avoid stating the real implications of their exclusivism.

Rob Bell, so I think, is asking people to own up to what they say they believe.

BTW, I doubt very much that most careful thinkers on this topic are actually full blown agnostics.

And I also doubt very much that “I don’t know” was at work in the missionary movements of church history.

Comment by Scot McKnight — April 4, 2011 @ 8:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------------

I really like this paragraph:

“Faith is being confident about what God has promised; presumption is being confident about my own speculations. God obligates Himself by His word, but He is not in any way obligated by my speculations.”

If we get to heaven and Rob Bell turned out to be right I will dance an eternal jig that everyone I have loved, but who haven’t loved Jesus in this life, has been shown mercy beyond what I thought was taught in scripture. However, though I would be delighted to discover Bell was right all along, I don’t think that is clear in scripture, and while it is a great thing to hope, it can be a dangerous thing to believe and teach.

Comment by Robin — April 4, 2011 @ 8:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------------

I heard a Sunday school lesson several years ago by Sam Waldron, he is definitely a old school, calvinistic baptist and is fairly influential in the reformed baptist movement (he has written one of the only modern expositions of the 1689 Baptist (Calvinistic) Confession of Faith).

For some reason he was on the topic of hell and children, especially newborns. His basic points were that (1) the bible teaches hell is the destination for people who do not repent and believe and (2) we need to trust in the goodness and mercy of God that whatever the conclusion is, God is still good and just.

I think he wanted to be both faithfully exclusivist and hopeful at the same time. That is where I find myself.

Comment by Robin — April 4, 2011 @ 8:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robin,

Good points, but let me push back slightly. It is not without import to say that one’s view of how many go to hell says something about God. And I’m not making a case for what to believe here. For many, to say that God sends millions, or billions, to hell forever — and we can say it is their fault and that God doesn’t “send” but that people “choose”(forget the nuances a minute) — is to say something about God, too. In other words, there’s a “theology” at work in what we believe about hell and it has a direct connection to what God is like. It is a fact that some think this shows that God is sovereign, gracious to those whom he is gracious, and to others that God gives us freedom and to others that God is sadistic. I don’t take that last view, but I don’t think it is deniable that a theology is at work in one’s view of hell. Two simple options: for some it proves God is holy and just, eternally so, and for Rob Bell, because he hopes for an empty hell, that God is loving, eternally so. Yes, of course, there’s a spectrum here but my only point is that hell implicates God.

Comment by scotmcknight — April 4, 2011 @ 8:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------------

Jamie,

I think your comment (26) is partially true and partially false. While I agree that more spreading of the gospel is demanded from an exclusivistic theology, the gospel is almost exclusively spread in this age, and in the past several centuries by people who held an exclusivist theology.

William Carey, George Whitefield, Adoniram Judson, Hudson Taylor, C.T. Studd, John Paton, David Brainerd, Jonathan Edwards, Jim Elliot, Amy Carminchael, Lottie Moon, the moravian brethren, John Knox, John Calvin, Martin Luther, etc. there isn’t a single, famous, missionary since the reformation that I can think of that didn’t hold an exclusivistic theology.

Likewise, in our time, the biggest senders of missionaries, by far, within evangelicalism are Southern Baptists, but we could also talk about Heartcry, China Inland Mission, etc. Exclusivists support missions a great deal, but I do agree they could, and should, always do more.

Comment by Robin — April 4, 2011 @ 8:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------------
 Jose,

Are you sure that the Jesuits weren’t exclusivists. I seem to recall that the whole reason they did stuff like torturing people during the inquisition was to save the people from heresy (and hell).

Comment by Robin — April 4, 2011 @ 9:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------------

I do agree that I, being an exclusivist, am usually a practical agnostic because I just don’t like dealing with the weight of hell. I abhor the thought of it, and cannot bear to think very long about it, but it has never really negatively affected my view of God. It could be because I was an adult convert and knew what I was signing up for, and loved Jesus despite that doctrine.

The fact that this doctrine repulses me personally, doesn’t change the fact that I still see God as infinitely loving and just.

Last thought, if the eternal (time) punishment of hordes of sinners makes us recoil in horror and question the nature of God, why doesn’t the infinitely horrible (intensity) punishment of God own perfect, sinless, spotless son, who never deserved any punishment for anything, but bore the full weight of the father’s wrath, similarly make us recoil.

I ministered to a muslim in college who found to thought of a father pouring out his wrath on his blameless son incomprehensible and refused to the gospel for specifically the reason that doesn’t give most Christians a second thought.

Comment by Robin — April 4, 2011 @ 9:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, I see a connection between how we view hell and how we view God. What is being assumed here, however, is that the traditional view of hell is somehow biblically accurate. This is a huge assumption.

Which Hebrew word means “hell” in the OT? Sheol? That is NOT the traditional hell, so the OT does not support the traditional hell view.

Which Greek word means “hell” in the the NT? Gehenna? Hades? Gehenna was an actual place in Israel. One could walk over and see it. It would be like me writing about Manhattan, and years later translators substituted their word “hell” for my word Manhattan as though I was talking about hell and not Manhattan. Hades is also a word with a meaning in Greek — but in Greek mythology. If we assume that their mythology is correct on this point, then Hades is where everyone goes when they die. This is not the traditional view of hell, either. Moreover, is Jesus validating Greek mythology when he says Hades?

So, it appears to me that neither OT nor NT vocabulary support the traditional view of hell. I was raised believing this view, and do not consider myself a liberal, agnostic, or atheist. I am a Christian, but am having a difficult time continuing with the traditional view of hell anymore. The word is just not there in the Bible!

Therefore, my view of hell is that is not a doctrine clearly defined in the Bible. Yes, punishment and judgment, but these are not the same thing as hell. God, to me, is then the one who loved the world, sent his son, and will reconcile all things unto himself (Colossians 1:20).

Comment by keo — April 4, 2011 @ 9:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------------

keo,
 
Thanks for your comment, but it is ahead of our discussion of hell next week. But I’ll give you a hint of where we are going. As I explain in One.Life “Gehenna” is as surely a burning pit outside Jerusalem as “heaven” is the blue sky (ouranos means sky), but neither Jesus nor his Jewish contemporaries were so flat-footedly literalistic to think “Gehenna” could not also be a metaphorical term for a final destination. And any study of the Jewish apocalypses makes that abundantly clear. The traditional view of hell, I would suggest, is more derived from Revelation 20-21 than just “Gehenna” in Jesus’ teachings. More of this next week.

Comment by scotmcknight — April 4, 2011 @ 9:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------------

Robin, purgatory for Catholics is for Christians who need to be purged of venial sins. Rob connects purgatory to hell, which is decidedly not (or mostly not) Catholic (for Catholics purgatory is the antechamber to heaven and not at all connected to hell). Furthermore, he pushes the universalism theme in connection to purgatory so he’s got far more going into purgatory than Catholic theology, which again is only for Christians who are certain of hell and how need to be purged of sins. So far as I can see purgatory is not about a second chance, and Rob explores that theme too.

Comment by scotmcknight — April 4, 2011 @ 9:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------------

K. Rex Butts,

I agree that there are difficulties with these issues, but the way to deal with them is to get the evidence on the table — say Acts 10:34-35; Rom 2:14-16; Acts 17:24-30; Romans 10:9-10 — and to process theories in light of what the texts say and don’t say, so that we say is within those parameters. There are really solid reasons why the Church has always been exclusivist, for instance, and why it has been more than wary about universalism and second chances, and there are reasons why there have been discussions about those who have not heard, but yet not entirely optimistic either. These issues deserve exploration.

Comment by scotmcknight — April 4, 2011 @ 9:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------------

Scot – I may be misreading you, but it seems like you’re saying “I don’t know” is not an okay answer and is a copout. Why? I’ve always understood that we should speak where Scripture speaks and be silent where its silent (generally…I know there’s always implied things we say, etc.). Since Scripture doesn’t say anything clear about all those that haven’t heard the Gospel, then why do I have to have a strong opinion. The times that I’ve said “I don’t know” to non-Christian classes of students they have appreciated it and it became a starting point of conversation. When I say “I don’t know” I truly mean that I really don’t know. There’s no hiding what I really think. Just my experience and opinion. Again, I could have misunderstood and want to understand better.

Comment by Matt — April 4, 2011 @ 10:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------------

To add to that last post, I come from a conservative exclusivist background. If I had to answer I would say that God would only hold them accountable for what they knew and it’s very possible people from Korea who don’t hear the Gospel could get in based on God’s grace and mercy. But again, I feel like I’m talking about something I am unsure of.

Comment by Matt — April 4, 2011 @ 10:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------------

Matt,
 
I’m not saying that and I’ve not communicated it clearly enough so I will say it again: For some agnosticism is a cop out; I think I said “for far too many”. Others are in the bracketed discussion at the bottom of the post, and those are being agnostic about what the Bible is not clear about. But there are many, many who really are strong exclusivists who may have hope for a few but overall think all the others are going to hell who say “I don’t know.” That’s the agnostic I’m picking on here.

Comment by scotmcknight — April 4, 2011 @ 10:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------------

I’ve noted jabs at making God’s love the controlling attribute (e.g., Rob Bell) and others arguing for God’s holiness being supreme. With belief in the unity of God and that God’s attributes do not create schizophrenia in God, we need to ask how does “hell” equate with God’s justice? If as a finite being I sin 75 years worth of sins (i.e., a finite number) how is God just in *punishing* me eternally? Secondly, if Jesus died for my sins (even if I never believed in him or received him), why does God require a second payment? Mine. Is that not double jeopardy? Jesus paid it all (in my case) and I have to pay it all for eternity. Let’s talk justice, too, and not just love and holiness.

Comment by John W Frye — April 4, 2011 @ 10:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------------

John Frye (72),

That is why calvinists will contend that you cannot say Jesus died “for every individual”…he died for his elect.

To put it more succinctly, I think this was Boice’s paraphrase:

Calvinists believe in limited atonement, explicitly, they believe that the atonement procured by Jesus was limited in scope, it only secured salvation for God’s elect. However, (exclusivistic) arminians also believe in limited atonement, implicitly, they believe that Jesus’ death provided a limited atonement for every individual, but that the atonement was “limited” in its effectiveness. It doesn’t actually forgive all of your sins, bring you into right relationship with God and usher every individual to heaven, it requires that each individual, who already received this “atonement” cooperate in some manner for the atonement to be effectual.

For this reason calvinists are, generally, very ready to say that universalism is a much more logical position if you believe that Jesus died “for every individual” because they see little reason for Jesus to pay for the sins of someone on the cross, only to see that person, let’s say Hitler (assuming he never repented and believed), also pay for those sins a second time.

Comment by Robin — April 4, 2011 @ 11:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------------

Robin,

Thanks for commenting on atonement justice (77). I am aware of TULIP and the dreaded middle L–limited atonement. Within the TULIP system, it all fits symmetrically. But double predestination or God actively choosing some and passively passing over many, leaves us with a God who decrees the eternal conscious torment of billions. And according to comment 66, God finds “pleasure” in the eternal torment of billions of conscious being bearing God’s image because, after all, God is God. Yet, may Calvinists back off the L and say, as Arminians do, that Jesus’ atonement is sufficient for all, but applied only to those who respond. IMO, that implicates God participating in the double jeopardy for one set of sins….Jesus’ death (sufficient to satisfy the wrath of God for ALL) and requiring the eternal punishment of the unhearing-the-gospel sinners and the gospel-hearing, but unrepentant sinners.

Comment by John W Frye — April 4, 2011 @ 11:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------------

John Frye,

I think that it is important to remember that TULIP is, at best, a sincere attempt to harmonize scripture in a logically consistent manner. I think there is a biblical basis for its teaching, but the only reason there is an “L” in TULIP is that people starting asking “If Jesus has already ‘paid for the sins’ of the entire human race, then why are some people still going to end up in hell?”

Calvinism has a lgical answer – “he didn’t really pay for the sins of the entire human race”

Universalism has a logical answer – “you’re right, they won’t”

And other belief systems, on this point, are murkier or less logical.

Likewise regarding other dilemmas, calvinism and universalism are less logical, biblically faithful, or both.

Comment by Robin — April 4, 2011 @ 11:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------------

“Any thoughts on why this teaching is so strongly resisted?”

or

“Why people that are exclusivist are so against the idea of Heaven and Hell being present here and now through the decisions that we make?”

This isn’t about exclusivists just loving the doctrine of hell, and that God sends people to hell, and that it is eternal. It isn’t about our preferences at all, it is about what we view as the most biblically faithful exposition of scripture. We could be wrong, but that is, generally, the motivation for people who aren’t fond of Bell’s theology.

I have said on this comment page that I will dance a jig in heaven if he is right, or if any universalist is right. Throw Hitler and Pol-Pot in heaven too and I will still be ecstatic that no-one is suffering, but it isn’t about what I want heaven to look like. I, and most exclusivists, think the bible teaches one thing and that some people teach something contrary to the bible and that teaching things contrary to the bible can have bad consequences if they do indeed turn out to be wrong.

You could contend that even if he is wrong, it isn’t a big deal because noone is going to stop evangelizing, or telling people to repent and believe, or that noone will really believe they can put of repentance until after death and keep enjoying their vices in this present life. I think that, based upon my reading of the bible, widespread acceptance of a “second chance after death” theology could have terrible consequences and eternity is at stake, so up to this point, I’m not a fan of it.

Comment by Robin — April 4, 2011 @ 12:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------------

I have a few issues with your discussion – 1)”Many of these are true-blue exclusivists but don’t like its implications, so they say “I don’t know” or “That’s in God’s hands.” [On other kinds of agnosticism, see below.] Some use agnosticism as a cloak for a universalism or pluralism they don’t want to admit.”

When I say I don’t know or It is in God’s hands means that I have grappled with an issue, sought clarity through scripture and truly can’t find a clear answer. This isn’t a cop out. If we could totally understand/quantify God, then He wouldn’t be God. There is a reason that God didn’t spell out totally ABC what Hell was/looked like. But if you believe that the Bible is the inspired, infallible Word of God, then Christ is the only way to heaven (you know – I am the Way, the Truth, the Life, no one comes to the Father, except by Me., I am pretty sure He meant that). SO, where does that leave the little man in Tibet (what my friends and I have affectionately named those who have never heard the name of Jesus)? I don’t know. If you can say with certainty that you do know, I would like the scripture upon which you base this knowledge. I do know antedoctal evidence where missionaries have reached new people groups and when reached, they said we were just waiting for the name of that which we already know.

The issue I have with Love Wins (and what my friends and I can’t get past) is that they say that if everyone is not reconciled in the end, then it says or shows the blood of Christ was not enough. I say that to deny the existence of an eternal consequence of not accepting Chrsit is to deny the Justice of God. We have so neutered God. If you read through the WHOLE Bible, God is a God of mercy – yes, but He demands Justice. Even after Christ, He demanded justice – Revelations anyone?????

My other issue is that if everyone is reconciled in the end, if Love conquers all, then why earth. Why waste our time on earth, which is a poor shadow of heaven, if not to see as many saved as can be saved? If there is no eternal consequences to our choices, then why not bring heaven back NOW and let us get on with eternity? I don’t get it. That would be a cruel God that I would want no part of.

Comment by Lori Jefffries — April 4, 2011 @ 1:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------------

Lori Jeffries: Why waste our time on earth, which is a poor shadow of heaven, if not to see as many saved as can be saved?

And there it is: the one-sentence summary of why the usual exclusivist, Four-Spiritual-Laws, “all the non-Romans pages of my Bible are stuck together” evangelical soteriology sucks.

It tells me that my life is a waste of time and I’d be better off dead. It is objectively pro-suicide.

Discuss.

Comment by Mark Z. — April 4, 2011 @ 2:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------------

I disagree DRT. I think I would go full bore epicurean if all this world was just sounds and fury, signifying nothing. If there is no heaven or hell, then we should, in the immortal words of Dave Matthews Band “eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die…tripping billies”

Comment by Robin — April 4, 2011 @ 2:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------------

Robin#122, One of the great joys of my life that I have found is that the upside down teachings of Jesus are indeed true. I have found my greatest pleasure and most satisfaction in giving rather than receiving, and in the relationships with others and the world rather than making the world the way I want it.

Without a heaven or hell I think we should still live the life that Jesus teaches us because he is right, we can experience the Kingdom of God here and now and it is wonderful and beautiful unlike anything else.

Comment by DRT — April 4, 2011 @ 3:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------------

Lori #113 I wonder if you see the dualism presented in this comment “if Love conquers all, then why earth. Why waste our time on earth, which is a poor shadow of heaven”. Do you see you are pitting earth against heaven? The physical (bad) against the spiritual (good)? It’s dualism… more specifically gnosticism. Maybe that’s not what you meant, but that’s how it sounds when I read it. I think we can all agree that in Genesis God declares His creation “very good” and in the Incarnation I see God re-affirming His declaration. We were not designed for Heaven, we were designed for earth… that is where God put us from the beginning. In Jesus, we see God bringing about his Kingdom here on earth “as it is in heaven”.

N.T. Wright wrote a wonderful book about this “Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church”.

Comment by Ann — April 4, 2011 @ 3:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------------

The kingdom is a society doing the will of God — on earth.

Comment by scotmcknight — April 4, 2011 @ 7:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks Scot. Now, I hope the following is clear. To “get inside” the problem, as you invite us to do, I think we have to deal with what it means to “be saved”, which also means dealing with the question “What is the good news?”. Remember a while ago when you were asking questions about the subject of another book (sorry, can’t remember which) and you were trying to ascertain what peoples’ experiences had been wrt what they were told -as Evangelicals- about “how to be saved”? And the significant majority of people said that what they were taught “in the pew” was basically “turn or burn”? And remember how you kept saying, no, that’s not what’s taught, it’s more nuanced than that? And remember how people kept telling you, “But Scot, that *is* actually what we heard and understood, not only as children but also as adults.” What people heard was hardly anything like your definition, except sometimes the relational aspect vis-a-vis God and others was included. But really, the only message of salvation most of us heard was, “Accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior so that you can go to Heaven (a far-off place) after you die, and avoid Hell (also -probably- a far-off place).”

Both of these questions touch on the Kingdom of God, because that is the subject of the announcement of the good news, according to the Gospels. As an Evangelical, I heard that the KoG was what we got when we “got to Heaven” and/or was “only spiritual” – again, having nothing to do with your definition. A notable exception was John Wimber, who, as someone who believed the Gospels should be the lens through which the rest of the bible was to be interpreted, at least grappled with the concept and incorporated it into his vision for the church. (He didn’t have the formal linguistic and historical training to do much more with it than that, which was perhaps a good thing at the time.)

The interesting thing to me is, in your comments in the post, you go along talking about “being saved” and “accepting the gospel and going *to* Heaven/Hell” with seemingly no reference to the definitions you just gave me. I see an incongruity there, an incongruity I’m not sure you grasp: it seems you are using the same vocabulary that you say isn’t really involved in the “Evangelical message” of “salvation”. I think this is at least part of the inner problem you want us to address, and is related to eschatology as well. (So the circles of theological ripples widen… )

I think Rob is addressing the on-the-ground, in-the-pew teaching. I think at least part of the reason you couldn’t, in your part 1, “hear” what he was calling toxic is that maybe you can’t yet see the incongruity. The way Joel in comment 70 explained it was the way I read the quote with which you had difficulty. Now, I could be wrong. At the same time, I’m just putting it on the table that you might have a bit of a “tin ear” to what Rob is hearing from people who tell him their stories, because you couldn’t seem to hear the common thread in the overwhelming majority of the stories people were telling you in that other series about what they were taught was “the Gospel” and what constituted “salvation”.

That said, I really, really appreciate the tack you are taking. It sounds like the book is, more than anything else, an interaction with a sort of “sociological” circumstance that Rob keeps encountering, and you recognize its importance as the real issue, not simply a matter of bare doctrinal correctness.

Dana

Comment by Dana Ames — April 4, 2011 @ 11:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------------

Dana, I agree: the categories being used in the various lines are the categories used by the very common approach to salvation, and it is the categories Rob is using in his book and seeking to deconstruct. And, yes, I would not frame the gospel story this way. The first book you are talking about is McLaren’s — and your summary is a softened version of his Greco-Roman narrative. Rob’s approach is much closer to the ground level of how the average evangelical hears the gospel message.

Comment by scotmcknight — April 5, 2011 @ 5:53 am

Book Review: "Whose Afraid of Postmodernism?" by James Smith

Baker Academics: The Church and Postmodern Culture

About the series: The Church and Postmodern Culture series features high-profile theorists in continental philosophy and contemporary theology writing for a broad, nonspecialist audience interested in the impact of postmodern theory on the faith and practice of the church.

http://www.bakeracademic.com/ME2/Audiences/dirmod.asp?sid=0477683E4046471488BD7BAC8DCFB004&nm=&type=PubCom&mod=PubComProductCatalog&mid=BF1316AF9E334B7BA1C33CB61CF48A4E&tier=3&id=75F7292BC832431CBAA221BD8EF247D8

Who's Afraid of Postmodernism?: Taking Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault to Church

James K. A. Smith
March 2006 pub.

"[A] provocative little book. . . . A clear and accessible introduction to postmodern thought that no doubt de-mythologizes many of the common criticisms leveled against [it], causing us to engage the issues from a new perspective."--Cynthia R. Nielsen, American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly

The philosophies of French thinkers Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault form the basis for postmodern thought and are seemingly at odds with the Christian faith. However, James K. A. Smith contends that their ideas have been misinterpreted. In an introduction and four fulsome chapters, Smith unpacks the primary philosophical impulses behind postmodernism, demythologizes its myths, and demonstrates its affinity with core Christian claims. Each of his accessible chapters includes an opening discussion of a recent representative film and a closing "tour" of a postmodern church in case study form--with particular application to the growing "emerging church" conversation.

The award-winning Who's Afraid of Postmodernism? is the first book in the Church and Postmodern Culture series. The Church and Postmodern Culture series features high-profile theorists in continental philosophy and contemporary theology writing for a broad, nonspecialist audience interested in the impact of postmodern theory on the faith and practice of the church. Contracted authors include John D. Caputo, Bruce Ellis Benson, Graham Ward, Carl Raschke, and Merold Westphal.

Endorsements

Who's Afraid of Postmodernism? will help many of us. By pointing out dangers and highlighting possibilities, it will help those who are already grappling constructively with postmodernity. And perhaps it will prompt some who seem to be afraid of postmodernism to relax a little more, critique others a little less, and 'redeem the time' a little more fruitfully."--Brian McLaren, author, lecturer, activist (anewkindofchristian.com)

"Who's Afraid of Postmodernism? will be a boon for those working in and for the churches, especially in the world of evangelicalism. It will wean them from unexamined commitments to modernity and introduce them to a world of new ideas that are perhaps more useful to Christianity than they would have ever thought possible."--Kevin Hart, University of Notre Dame

"This delightful book is a twofer. Smith first shows, through a careful reading of the texts, that central themes of three major postmodern philosophers are a threat not to biblical Christianity but only to an all too modern, all too complacent church. He then argues strongly for a church that learns from postmodernism how to revitalize its premodern heritage. The movie analyses that open each chapter render the argument at once more concrete and more powerful."--Merold Westphal, distinguished professor of philosophy, Fordham University

"I find Who's Afraid of Postmodernism? to be stunningly clear. Smith's writing is not an argument whose logic you must follow but a narrative that opens windows. I continually found myself saying 'Well, of course, why didn't I see that before? It's so obvious.' Smith helps us understand why postmodernism sets the stage for the restoration of the ancient faith."--Robert Webber, Myers Professor of Ministry, Northern Seminary; author of Ancient-Future Faith

"Who's Afraid of Postmodernism? by James K. A. Smith is a powerful and persuasive rejoinder to those in the evangelical academy who persist in pushing the now discredited canard that postmodernism is incompatible with both historical Christianity and the history of orthodoxy. Smith weaves an incredibly insightful exposition of three key postmodern philosophers--Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault--with illustrations from both popular media and culture. He concludes with a proposal for recovering liturgy and 'redeeming dogma' while rethinking the mission of 'confessing' Christianity in a global setting. Postmodernism, according to Smith, is something you not only don't need to be afraid of any longer but you can even take it to church!"--Carl Raschke, professor of religious studies and chair of the department, University of Denver; author of The Next Reformation

Praise for the series: "The proposed series is not just a good idea; it is actually essential. If mission, liturgy, and pastoral care are to be effective today, then churches need a better understanding of so-called postmodern culture as something to be reckoned with and sometimes resisted. Increasingly, there is an educated interest in religion, but there is also a need to be well-informed about postmodern thought and its very complex relation both to postmodern culture (to which it is often actually hostile) and to religion. Again the need is for a critical appreciation--not dismissal and not empty adulation. This new series aims to provide this in an accessible manner. I am convinced that the main ideas of postmodernism are actually not as 'difficult' as people suppose and that a clear and simple presentation of them actually assists wider cultural discussion. An additional purpose of the series is to introduce to a wider audience theologies that are already trying critically to assimilate the postmodern turn. Since some of these, for example Radical Orthodoxy, are intensely focused on the importance of 'church,' it is crucial that this occur. Although it is already happening, it needs to crystallize. This new series may be just the thing to bring it about."--John Milbank, University of Nottingham

Reviews

[This book] aims to make accessible the philosophical and religious contributions of three postmodern thinkers: Jacques Derrida, Jean-Francois Lyotard, and Michel Foucault. Smith . . . does this cleverly by employing illustrations and examples from such films as The Matrix; Memento; One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest; O Brother, Where Art Thou?; and, surprisingly but successfully, The Little Mermaid. Along the way, Smith also dissects the popular teachings of postmodern writers like Brian McLaren . . . Leonard Sweet and Robert Webber. . . . It's one of the most accessible introductions to postmodern thought to date, and its concluding chapter--in which Smith brilliantly employs the movie Whale Rider to explore how Christianity might be simultaneously faithful to tradition and open to change--is alone worth the price of admission. Ironically but persuasively, Smith argues that postmodern Christianity's most powerful contribution could be a return to ancient, premodern church traditions and liturgy."--Publishers Weekly (starred review)

"If you're already developing a familiarity with the broad trends in the history of thought that have led to postmodernism and are now looking for someone to guide you through some of the major 20th-century figures in postmodernism, then Smith's book should be your next read. . . . Smith is good at answering questions in a way that provokes people to think. If you've ever tried to read Derrida or Foucault, you know that they can be simply mystifying to the uninitiated. Consider Smith's book your initiation. Each chapter begins with the discussion of a popular movie that will show you what you've already begun to experience and to grasp the Derridean and Foucaultian concepts Smith then smoothly and cogently introduces."--David L. O'Hara, Prism

"Smith takes a sharp, insightful look at some of the tenets of postmodern philosophy and various Christian responses to it. In particular, I appreciate that he articulates some of the flaws in certain factions of the emergent church movement, as they adhere to postmodern thought in an attempt to be 'culturally relevant.' What's impressive is that he does all that in a very accessible, reader-friendly way."--Kris Rasmussen, Beliefnet.com

"Giving a readable summary of Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault is no small task. For this Smith should be commended."--Michael J. Vlach, Master's Seminary Journal

"[A] provocative little book. . . . Though himself a philosopher, Smith has written this book not primarily for philosophers, but rather for students, spiritual seekers, and laypersons desiring to familiarize themselves with the issues of postmodernity in order to better engage the culture in which they live. For those interested in more philosophical and scholarly discussions of the issues, Smith includes numerous resources in his footnotes and an annotated bibliography for additional reading. . . . [A] valuable aspect of the book . . . is the way in which [Smith] closes each chapter by considering how postmodern thought might shape the practice of the church in terms of cultural engagement. . . . Smith has presented a clear and accessible introduction to postmodern thought that no doubt de-mythologizes many of the common criticisms leveled against postmodern thought, causing us to engage the issues from a new perspective."--Cynthia R. Nielsen, American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly

"Leavened by references to contemporary movies and by church case studies, this accessible introduction to postmodernism points out the problems of modernity for the church's life and health and invites Christians into the space that postmodernism opens for nurturing strong confessional identities."--Amy Plantinga Pauw, Christian Century

"Making postmodernism less intimidating and recognizing its potential as an ally to Christian faith is the aim of Smith's latest book. [It is] well written and brief. . . . The book makes helpful connections with pop culture; each chapter begins with a synopsis of a contemporary film that articulates certain postmodern features launching the discussions that follow."--Chris Emerick, Religious Studies Review

"Are we to resist [postmodernism] as a demonic attack on the foundations of the faith, or are we to bow and adore as the messianic secret itself has found new form? Well, probably neither, as Smith shows with good practical examples and relevant applications. This is a well written, sensible short book defining 'postmodernism' as a school of interpretation of life and showing how it can be helpful and not hostile, how it can even chime in with what lots of Christians think about life."--Regent's Reviews

"[Smith] reveal[s] a passion for the Church and the historic Christian faith. . . . In his approach, Smith is an Evangelist, bridging the gap between those outside the Church and those who hold to the historic faith. . . . His chapters can be read as stand-alone assignments on each individual. [He] provide[s] ample footnotes for citation and offer[s] helpful explanatory text. As a result, readers who are not as familiar with the subject matter can gain additional background, and those interested in further research will find valuable leads. An added benefit of Smith's text is the review of an appropriate movie at the beginning of each chapter. . . . Smith provides readers with a greater understanding of the potential for ministry, if the foundational themes of postmodernism are correctly interpreted. . . . As it relates to use within the classroom, particularly by professors of youth ministry, Smith's book seems to have an edge. His use of film . . . provides a contemporary link to the content, and a pedagogical example our students need to see."--Doug Barcalow, Journal of Youth Ministry

"Very readable, and has an impressive grasp of details and interconnections. . . . It represents some of the best writing that postmodernists have produced. . . . [It] is a useful introduction to postmodernist thinking and how it relates to theological issues."--John C. Poirier, Westminster Theological Journal

"In this short, engaging book, [Smith] takes on the three major thinkers of postmodernity, the Frenchmen Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault, and argues, surprisingly, that their claims about truth can have deep affinities with central Christian convictions. . . . The book is valuable in introducing contemporary French philosophy, which often baffles the neophyte with its complex, in-house language."--Mark C. Mattes, Logia

"Smith desires to engage a considerably broad audience. . . . Such a text obviously would require a writer who is conversant with the philosophical complexities of postmodernity and able to explicate them in an accessible and lucid fashion. Smith, fortunately, has proven to be such a competent source. . . . The book flows with a winsome charm as Smith keeps technical jargon to a minimum and cleverly opens each chapter with brief sketches of popular movies . . . in order to illustrate the overall points that he believes Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault were trying to assert. This strategy is so well done that most readers will be captivated by Smith's analysis and judicious flare even if they disagree with his conclusions. Also, this work is helpful because it contains a concise annotated bibliography of sources for further reading and even a short list of online resources. . . . This book is an engaging read for scholars, pastors, students, and laity alike."--Everett Berry, Southern Baptist Journal of Theology

"Supporters and critics of postmodern theology should pay attention to this little book by James K. A. Smith. . . . Smith embodies the attitude, and likely the influence, of Francis Schaeffer. Willing to tackle nuanced philosophic issues head on while remaining intelligible to the nonspecialist, Smith will introduce postmodernism to many Christians. . . . Who's Afraid of Postmodernism? is a primer. . . . It is one of the better popular introductions to the significance of postmodernism for the church."--R. J. Snell, Calvin Theological Journal

"Smith does a remarkable job in his book to offer a basic understanding of postmodernism. . . . Smith's analysis of these philosophers [Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault] and their respective ideas from a Christian perspective is eye-opening, particularly for anyone who has difficulty nailing-down the concepts of postmodernism."--Aaron Vriesman, Reformed Review

"The core chapters on Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault are the most helpful, for Smith interprets their arguments according to the principle of charity. In accessible prose, he presents the best, most persuasive aspects of their critiques without turning the three into anonymous theologians or infallible sources of truth. . . . The core chapters of Smith's book are useful to introduce philosophers associated with postmodernism to high school and college students, seminarians, religious educators, campus ministers, and preachers."--Robert A. Cathey, Interpretation

"This is a stimulating read. The presentation is lively and engaging, often built around films--from Memento to The Little Mermaid. I recommend it for anyone trying to rethink mission today--especially if you fear postmodernity!"--Tim Chester, Themelios

"Smith writes in a very readable style. . . . The strength of Smith's work is his ambitious interpretation of postmodern philosophy and how it can be used to correct modernistic tendencies at work in both the modern and emergent church ethos without throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. . . . I highly recommend this volume to seminary students, teachers, those with interest in postmodernism, the church, and postmodernity. . . . At its core it deals with academic elements and therefore is better suited to those with academic backgrounds. However, to relegate this volume to the ivory tower libraries of the strictly academic would be a great disservice to the church and the struggling minister who could glean much from these pages that would help them along this transitional ecclesiological sojourn from what has been to what will be."--David Paddick, Stone-Campbell Journal

Smith's book is balanced, patient, and gracious. What's more, it is one of the few books to speak eloquently and incisively of the giants of continental philosophy. Still, its greatest virtue is its relatively modest aim. . . . Smith simply puts three postmodern slogans under the microscope, describes them to us in a bit of detail, and suggests how they might serve the Church. . . . Helpfully and (rare in many attempts) sensitively, Smith introduces each of the five chapters with a movie. . . . He looks in turn at Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault, taking up a threatening slogan from each and showing how the claims being made in context can actually be appropriated by churches for their own good and that of the world."--Matt Jenson, Cultural Encounters

Pastors and Christian leaders need good tools to teach the things we need to know to be able to speak intelligibly to our postmodern listeners and give us a comprehensive view of the often unfamiliar context in which we live and work. Here is a book, which provides this knowledge as well as informs our practice. . . . Smith persuasively suggests that postmodernism presents the church with an opportunity to confidently move forward with change. . . . Who's Afraid of Postmodernism? asks a bold and intriguing question. Smith's book is a welcome challenge to the church, encouraging, and perhaps, imploring us to engage the postmodern world in which we find ourselves, and which we cannot escape. His use of popular movies to begin each chapter provides a touchstone for the lay reader to begin to grasp some of the more sophisticated and nuanced points found in postmodern philosophy. They also show how immediately visible the ideas which drive postmodernism are in the world around us. For the scholar, Smith's work provides an accurate context for Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault, allowing for further understanding of how their influence is so pervasive across academic disciplines. This reader gladly recommends Smith's work to both the interested layperson and scholar alike."--Chad Lakies, Missio Apostolica

"Smith is a philosopher who works hard at staying accessible, effectively mining such films as Memento, The Little Mermaid and Whale Rider to expound ideas. . . . Smith has done a tremendous job of getting the ideas of postmodernism on the table for a wide audience to interact with. Even if one might disagree with some of Smith's applications, his expositions of Derrida, Lyotard and Foucault are very helpful for understanding the relationship between postmodern thought and Christianity."--Rob Haskell, Evangelical Review of Theology

"Thankfully, Christian thinkers, writers, and philosophers are deciphering postmodernism in ways that reject its errors and embrace its insights. [A] helpful [book is] Who's Afraid of Postmodernism? . . . [It] approach[es] postmodernism with intellectual and theological honesty, sorting through its claims and thinking about its interaction with Christianity. . . . Reading books such as Smith's . . . alongside the work of postmodern theorists helps us to gain skill in evaluating the claims of postmodernism while not throwing the baby out with the bathwater, especially when postmodernists criticize the church."--Alissa Wilkinson, Comment

"The true strength of the [Church and Postmodern Culture] series [is that it] has something to say and it demands response. It preaches and it stirs me to preach. . . . [It] both draws Christians into the postmodern conversation and provides space for readers to think about their own vocations. . . . [Smith's] work can embolden preachers in their proclamation and encourage pastors in their discipleship, thereby facilitating the call of more preachers, pastors, and professional thinkers."--Aaron Perry, Asbury Journal

Book Review: Graham Ward's Becoming Postmaterial Citizens

Here is a book for those who lean to the left in American politics; for myself and those who lean right you'll struggle throughout Ward's unfair politicalization of the American right. And this I think is the conundrum in American religion, to separate ourselves from as much of politics as we can as part of a "kingdom not of this world" found in Jesus. And yet, we live in the tension of the here-and-now, and must necessarily speak of money and commerce, government and power, social institutions and communities, education and welfare, health care and jobs. The Russian emigrant and popular American writer from the 1940-50s argued for limited government and the altruistic responsibility of society in its parts (and not within its state functions). Ayn had left ruthless, dictorial, communistic/socialistic regimes for America's free democratic lands of individual rights and liberties. But I digress....

And so, I get a sense in postmodernistic Christianity that the church seeks a globalization of its message to the pluralistic masses, a de-nationalisation of its American message, and the de-westernization of its cultural message. All well and good, and this we must do, but does one smell the encroachment of a one world governement ripe for an antichrist to someday arise and take over? Whether as a figurehead or as a group of empowered tyrants? Thus, might I suggest that we work for the globalization/pluralization of the church's message while at the same time seek to maintain the nationalization of its seperate governments and resist the urge to re-build a modern day Babel. It didn't work the first time and the book of Revelation says it won't work the second time. We live in a sinful world requiring checks and balances as everything runs downhill when "man" is in power. Let's all agree to be citizens of the universal, postmodern church while working to maintain the best (and not the worst) of nationalism.

skinhead

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

Baker Academics: The Church and Postmodern Culture

About the series: The Church and Postmodern Culture series features high-profile theorists in continental philosophy and contemporary theology writing for a broad, nonspecialist audience interested in the impact of postmodern theory on the faith and practice of the church.

http://www.bakeracademic.com/ME2/Audiences/dirmod.asp?sid=0477683E4046471488BD7BAC8DCFB004&nm=&type=PubCom&mod=PubComProductCatalog&mid=BF1316AF9E334B7BA1C33CB61CF48A4E&tier=3&id=C5E01AF419374641BEA3063DB0415D7D

Politics of Discipleship, The: Becoming Postmaterial Citizens

by Graham Ward
September 2009 pub. date

"The quality of [Ward's] diagnoses, the energy of his writing, and the vigour of his engagement make this a rewarding manifesto for the agenda of political theology and ethics today."--Samuel Wells, Theology

In this fourth volume in the Church and Postmodern Culture series, internationally acclaimed theologian Graham Ward examines the political side of postmodernism in order to discern the contemporary context of the church and describe the characteristics of a faithful, political discipleship. His study falls neatly into two sections. The first, which is the more theoretical section, considers "the signs of the times." Ward names this section "The World," noting that the church must always frame its vision and mission within its worldly context. In the second section, "The Church," he turns to constructive application, providing an account of the Christian practices of hope that engage the world from within yet always act as messengers of God's kingdom.

Ward's study accomplishes two related goals. First, he provides an accessible guide to contemporary postmodernism and its wide-ranging implications. Second, he elaborates a discipleship that informs a faith seeking understanding, which Ward describes as "the substance of the church's political life."

Ward is well known for his thoughtful engagement with postmodernism and contemporary critical theology. Here he provides a broader audience with an engaging account of the inherently political nature of postmodernity and thoughts on what it means to live the Christian faith within that setting.

About the series: The Church and Postmodern Culture series features high-profile theorists in continental philosophy and contemporary theology writing for a broad, nonspecialist audience interested in the impact of postmodern theory on the faith and practice of the church.

Endorsements

"Extraordinary! Graham Ward's The Politics of Discipleship is an extraordinary book. Ward does nothing less than help us see how 'world' and 'church' implicate each other by providing an insightful and learned account of the transformation of democracy, the perversities of globalization, and the ambiguities of secularization. Perhaps even more significant is his theological proposal for the difference the church can make in the world so described. This is an extraordinary book."--Stanley Hauerwas, Gilbert T. Rowe Professor of Theological Ethics, Duke University

"In this book, Graham Ward boldly offers a fresh description of the consumer economy and the processes of globalization, examining the illusions they generate, the states of amnesia they call us into, and the slavery they impose. In the process, he constructs a counter-narrative of a Christian discipleship in the service of postmaterial values that is founded on an eschatological humanism and ecclesiology. The result is a new political theology, powerfully presented, rooted in Scripture and tradition, and fully engaged in reading the postsecular signs of the times."--Peter Manley Scott, senior lecturer in Christian social thought and director of the Lincoln Theological Institute, University of Manchester

"For some time now, Graham Ward has blended orthodox theology, biblical study, and cultural theory with an independent originality. Now he has added politics to this mix. The result is simultaneously a greater edge to his own theology and an imbuing of contemporary political theology with more realistic depth and practical prescience than it usually exhibits. An extremely significant volume in the present time."--John Milbank, professor of religion, politics, and ethics, University of Nottingham

"With erudition, insight, and sheer imaginative power, Graham Ward examines the complexities and tasks of Christian discipleship in a globalized world. There is no surer guide than Ward to the enticements and dangers of postmodern, postmaterial life--where values themselves have become virtual, adopted for a day--or to the hope of finding the true meaning of our still-present materiality in the practices of church and in the ecclesiality of the body of Christ. Yet Ward's encyclopedic grasp of political theory; his detailed, often dazzling readings of Scripture; and his profound inhabitation of theology are deployed with a humor and lightness of touch that renders this book both challenging and immensely readable. It is political theology but also a page-turner: impressive, provocative, and impossible to put down."--Gerard Loughlin, professor of theology and religion, Durham University

Praise for the series: "The proposed series is not just a good idea; it is actually essential. If mission, liturgy, and pastoral care are to be effective today, then churches need a better understanding of so-called postmodern culture as something to be reckoned with and sometimes resisted. Increasingly, there is an educated interest in religion, but there is also a need to be well-informed about postmodern thought and its very complex relation both to postmodern culture (to which it is often actually hostile) and to religion. Again the need is for a critical appreciation--not dismissal and not empty adulation. This new series aims to provide this in an accessible manner. I am convinced that the main ideas of postmodernism are actually not as 'difficult' as people suppose and that a clear and simple presentation of them actually assists wider cultural discussion. An additional purpose of the series is to introduce to a wider audience theologies that are already trying critically to assimilate the postmodern turn. Since some of these, for example Radical Orthodoxy, are intensely focused on the importance of 'church,' it is crucial that this occur. Although it is already happening, it needs to crystallize. This new series may be just the thing to bring it about."--John Milbank, University of Nottingham

Reviews

"[Ward] attempts to reconcile the challenges of a postmodern world with the call to discipleship. First, this rich but densely argued book addresses the postmodern nature and definition of democracy, global culture, and religious practice. The second portion asks how contemporary thinking Christians are to deal with the postmodern world in which they live. Ward's answer seems to be, somewhat shockingly, a renewed embrace of theocracy. . . . Ward's provocative notions call for a wide readership. . . . His best audience will be seasoned scholars."--Library Journal

"This is a superior book in the lively field of political theology. . . . Ward goes behind the news to give readers a philosophical and sociological analysis of our current situation. He acknowledges its complexity, and wisely does not reduce his diagnosis to clichés about the evils of the market/state. . . . He follows this with his theological response to our predicament."--Richard A. Davis, Theological Book Review

"Ward offers a stirring call to engaged discipleship. . . . The quality of his diagnoses, the energy of his writing, and the vigour of his engagement make this a rewarding manifesto for the agenda of political theology and ethics today."--Samuel Wells, Theology

"[Ward's] oeuvre is characterized by a provocative engagement with contemporary urban culture from the perspective of a radical theologian steeped in continental philosophy. . . . Insightful cultural references to the Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings books and movies as well as other cultural phenomena abound. . . . Reflecting expertly on a range of texts from the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament, he creatively re-imagines political authority from an explicitly theological perspective. . . . It is difficult to see how students or scholars of political theology at any level, or graduate theology students generally, could fail to find The Politics of Discipleship anything other than bracing and rewarding--even if they disagree with some of the author's fundamental premises. Seminarians, priests, and pastors interested in the intersection between culture and theology will also find Ward engaging and insightful on some of the baleful contradictions of contemporary social and economic life. As a contribution to Christian political theology, The Politics of Discipleship is a work of estimable quality."--Greg Walker, Journal of Markets & Morality

"I am quite certain the ideas and information contained in this book will make their way down through seminary classes and undergraduate courses and eventually the church laity. This would be an excellent book for upper level graduate courses and doctoral work. . . . On an academic level, [Ward's] ideas do speak, if only generally, to the future of ministry to adolescents and their families as the church continues to adapt to the changing cultural milieu. This book would be an excellent in depth reading companion with other books that deal with cultural engagement and hermeneutics."--Steven Bonner, Journal of Youth Ministry

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

More politics than discipleship, July 27, 2010

http://www.amazon.com/Politics-Discipleship-Becoming-Postmaterial-Postmodern/dp/0801031583/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1301822841&sr=1-1

By Joseph M. Hennessey - I had higher hopes for this book than it delivered. The title made me think of "Gaudium et Spes," the document of the Catholic Ecumenical Vatican II Council, regarding the Church in the Modern World. But The Politics of Discipleship divided World from Church, not interweaving the two, as much as Gaudium et Spes did.

When I hear or read the word 'Politics,' even when it claims to be about the Aristotelian notion of politics, humans acting to govern their city (polis), or nation, I reach for my wallet, and I'm glad i did in the case of this book.

From the title, one would expect that the author would be equally congratulatory, or equally severe, on every human political party (in this case, American) orientation. But one would be wrong. By my count, there are at least 7 or 8 references to US President George W. Bush, and each one of those are derogatory. Now, it is fine for one to deplore the presidency of George W. Bush, but do not make him into paradigm of all evil. Also, the first half of the book, and many places in the second half, on the Church, are very hard on "laissez faire" capitalism, and not nearly as hard on the much more materialistic Marxism--the words 'Soviet Union' are not found in the book.

But no one I know is in favor of laissez faire, completely unregulated capitalism, so Ward is arguing against the proverbial straw man. Indeed, the word 'capitalism' is most reminiscent of Marx' Das Kapital, which hardly qualifies as a reputable source in our day.

Regarding both capitalism (which Pope John Paul II would rather call the 'market economy) and democracy, everyone would agree that they are the worst economic and political systems, except for all the others. Thus, Ward's book comes across as a brief for the Left.

On the other hand, I found in Chapter 7, the last chapter, much good Biblical exegesis.

Take this book 'cum grano salis.'

Book Review: Merold Westphal's Philosophical Hermeneutics for the Church

Baker Academics: The Church and Postmodern Culture

About the series: The Church and Postmodern Culture series features high-profile theorists in continental philosophy and contemporary theology writing for a broad, nonspecialist audience interested in the impact of postmodern theory on the faith and practice of the church.

http://www.bakeracademic.com/ME2/Audiences/dirmod.asp?sid=0477683E4046471488BD7BAC8DCFB004&nm=&type=PubCom&mod=PubComProductCatalog&mid=BF1316AF9E334B7BA1C33CB61CF48A4E&tier=3&id=93437D33F4174C939F63E6532BFA8130

Whose Community? Which Interpretation?: Philosophical Hermeneutics for the Church

Merold Westphal

September 2009 pub. date

"Masterfully appropriating the insights of postmodern hermeneuticists, Westphal brings greater honesty to the interpretive practice of Christianity. . . . This book . . . should be disseminated at the threshold of every church and seminary."--Christopher Benson, Christian Scholar's Review

In this volume, renowned philosopher Merold Westphal introduces current philosophical thinking related to interpreting the Bible. Recognizing that no theology is completely free of philosophical "contamination," he engages and mines contemporary hermeneutical theory in service of the church. After providing a historical overview of contemporary theories of interpretation, Westphal addresses postmodern hermeneutical theory, arguing that the relativity embraced there is not the same as the relativism in which "anything goes." Rather, Westphal encourages us to embrace the proliferation of interpretations based on different perspectives as a way to get at the richness of the biblical text.

Endorsements

"In this beautiful little book, Merold Westphal brings to bear on the interpretation of Scripture his life-long interest in hermeneutics. With his customary clarity of analysis and style, the author debunks the common equation of interpretation with relativism, showing theologians, pastors, and laypeople what the church can learn from philosophical hermeneutics about reading and performing God's word. Besides showing how 'Athens can be helpful to Jerusalem,' this book provides an excellent introduction to Gadamer's hermeneutics and to the most-central issues and thinkers surrounding interpretation theory, including the important aspects of community and politics. This book is a gift not only to the church but also to anyone looking for a clear and thoughtful introduction to contemporary interpretation theory."--Jens Zimmermann, professor of English and Canada Research Chair for Interpretation, Religion, and Culture, Trinity Western University

"Westphal deftly navigates between hermeneutical despair and hermeneutical arrogance to arrive at a hermeneutic that affirms the vital importance of interpretation and yet insists that Scripture itself truly speaks. The result is not only a judicious and correct theory of interpretation but also a striking demonstration of what such a humble and respectful hermeneutic looks like in practice."--Bruce Ellis Benson, professor and chair of the philosophy department, Wheaton College

"Merold Westphal is a clear, insightful, and astute interpreter of philosophers for Christian understanding and of Christianity for philosophical understanding. A faithful and learned churchman, Westphal here mines his deep philosophical learning but wears it lightly, enabling beginners to access important insights while inviting others to probe significant issues. This book deserves a wide readership."--L. Gregory Jones, dean of the divinity school and professor of theology, Duke University

Praise for the series: "The proposed series is not just a good idea; it is actually essential. If mission, liturgy, and pastoral care are to be effective today, then churches need a better understanding of so-called postmodern culture as something to be reckoned with and sometimes resisted. Increasingly, there is an educated interest in religion, but there is also a need to be well-informed about postmodern thought and its very complex relation both to postmodern culture (to which it is often actually hostile) and to religion. Again the need is for a critical appreciation--not dismissal and not empty adulation. This new series aims to provide this in an accessible manner. I am convinced that the main ideas of postmodernism are actually not as 'difficult' as people suppose and that a clear and simple presentation of them actually assists wider cultural discussion. An additional purpose of the series is to introduce to a wider audience theologies that are already trying critically to assimilate the postmodern turn. Since some of these, for example Radical Orthodoxy, are intensely focused on the importance of 'church,' it is crucial that this occur. Although it is already happening, it needs to crystallize. This new series may be just the thing to bring it about."--John Milbank, University of Nottingham

Reviews

"Aimed at academic, pastoral, and lay theologians, [this] book fights against the hermeneutics of violence in the church, proposing instead a hermeneutics of peace. . . . Masterfully appropriating the insights of postmodern hermeneuticists, Westphal brings greater honesty to the interpretive practice of Christians. . . . This book . . . should be disseminated at the threshold of every church and seminary because the reader is not likely to read in the same way again."--Christopher Benson, Christian Scholar's Review

"In clear, accessible prose, Westphal orients the reader to major voices in hermeneutical theory, most centrally that of Gadamer. He argues that the relativity and dependence intrinsic to our creaturehood must be acknowledged in all our efforts to interpret scripture, but that this 'relativist hermeneutics' does not imply an 'anything goes' relativism."--Christian Century

"Even though the authors who write in the [Church and Postmodern Culture] series are specialists in continental philosophy and contemporary theology, their aim is to communicate to nonspecialists, especially pastors and lay people. This work admirably accomplishes this goal by introducing its readers to the study of philosophical hermeneutics. Over the space of twelve chapters, Westphal nicely traverses basic hermeneutical issues . . . [and] various hermeneutical thinkers . . . while constructively arguing a middle viewpoint between the extremes of an 'anything goes' and a 'we have the interpretation' attitude. . . . The book provides some helpful insights for the church on how to read and perform scripture better."--Stephen J. Wellum, Religious Studies Review

"Westphal's superb little treatise is . . . intended for everyone in the Church and delivers on that intention by careful tailoring for a wider readership. That the book retains theoretical sophistication while avoiding specialized jargon and sweeping generalization that so frequently tarnish books for 'wide audiences' only further evinces the author's proven literary talent. The general flow and order of the book is sensible and easily understood. . . . . When the material takes a more technical turn, Westphal organizes central concepts and questions into lists that are then elaborated on and made to fit within the broader function and work of interpretation itself. Charts, diagrams, and lucid examples are employed regularly throughout the text, bringing concrete shape to otherwise wholly abstract and perhaps unsettling philosophical ideas. As a review of philosophical hermeneutics for the Church, there are perhaps no better introductions so easily accessible to ministers or interested lay people. . . . The book is warmly recommended for those interested in the twentieth-century crisis of textual authority."--Matthew Arbo, Expository Times
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amazon Reviews
http://www.amazon.com/Whose-Community-Which-Interpretation-Philosophical/dp/0801031478/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1301819678&sr=8-1

Westphal on Gadamer's "Relativist Hermeneutics", September 16, 2009
By Seth Thomas - In his "Whose Community? Which Interpretation?" Westphal has - as he so often does - written a lucid, masterfully organized and beautifully styled book. Those who are familiar with Westphal's (prodigious) body of previous work know that this is about as surprising as hearing that the sun rose again today; those who are not familiar with Westphal, should be.

I can't really think of any work by Westphal that I don't find to be of commendable quality, so I must say at the outset that I was quite favorably inclined toward it from the beginning. What I found within it as I read, however, is a particularly unique variegation of focus that I think it deserves a special explanation of and advocation for its ample merit.

I'm a 26 year old philosophy student who, after over 15 individual philosophy classes over the last 7 years - each of which had us reading a glut of "primers," "introductions" or "companions" to this philosopher, that philosophy, or these philosophical movements - has come to realize that most of the works in this book's genre fall into one of two categories:

1) Overly simplistic, reductionistic to the point of misrepresentation or plain error, and able to do little but create or propogate a false understanding of good philosophical thinking in undergraduate minds, especially those non-majors who, outside of having - hopefully! - taken Philosophy 101 their freshman year will probably never again think about Plato aside from inadvertent contact occasioned by, say, a fortuitous spelling goof while googling certain pieces of dinnerware for their new apartment, or...

2) Books which are primarily, quite possibly entirely, composed of sentences like this: "Considerable historiographical scrutiny, especially within certain veins of later French post-structuralism which exhibit a latent and sure-to-be-protested proclivity for phenomenological approach and methodological syntax, has been given to what have come to be seen as the 'pre-post-modernist' rumblings of 19th century thinkers like..." No joke - this is a real sentence in one of my "primers."

This book, however, is among those rare few that actually manages to walk the line between reductionism and academic drivel, and it does so better than most of the rest of this already elite class of "popular-level" scholarship.

Anyway, enough prefatory praise. What makes this book so unique is that although there are no official groupings of chapters in the table of contents to signify this, it addresses three very different issues or concepts over the course of the course of its content - each of which is roughly a third of the book - but does each of them WELL. The first part of the book, chapters 1-5, is an introduction to the hermeneutical issues and questions germane to the relativism inherent to postmodernism as well as a history of the (failed) attempts to formulate an objectivist methodology which guarantees certainty and universality in interpretation, particularly biblical interpretation, with brief but informative discussions of greats like Schleiermacher, Ricoeur, Foucault, Derrida, et. al.

The focus of chapters 6-9 is an extremely well-written overview and exploration of the hermeneutical theory of Hans-Georg Gadamer, with an eye towards his hugely influential "Truth and Method," which somehow manages to fit most of the salient questions and issues into 4 measly chapters while still diving well beyond the surface level of this (extremely) difficult thinker. At the risk of using up all of my hyperbole credit (if I haven't done so already) these 4 chapters alone are worth double the price of the book: there are not many readable, clear guides to Gadamer out there, and those who have tried to read him alone without any prefatory context or learned guidance know that unless one possesses a Gadamerian intellect oneself it can feel about as difficult (and successful) as, say, trying to create a glassblown exact replica of the statue of David while underwater and in the dark. Without arms.

The last part of the book, chapters 10-12, are Westphal's own ideas as to how to analyze, appropriate, and apply Gadamerian insights into these hermeneutical issues to Christian church praxis. I won't give away the details, but this part is no less helpful or worth reading than either of the other two parts.

So, there you have it - Westphal packs it into 12 chapters but unpacks each chapter's ideas in a way that is informative and just difficult enough to be challenging without being discouraging, making this book a proverbial diamond in the rough, indeed. Given the glut of books on hermeneutial theory out there, I hope this helps persuade you to steer your wallet Westphal's way. You won't regret it.

Awesome, January 24, 2010
By Dean Chia - For Christians who are dissatisfied with the way some Christians handle truth and meaning and biblical interpretation/hermeneutics, this is awesome. Showing us how the tables have changed with Postmodernism (while not giving into an "anything goes" mentality/attitude). Awesome read. Very accessible and well-written.

Inspiring, January 24, 2011
By Charles Wenzel "Sold Out For Truth" - I thought of giving this a a 4-star rating but this would have been unfair. For, in effect, I would have been punishing Westphal for taking me on an exhilarating intellectual-imagination flight in his first 9 chapters while bringing me back in the last 3.

His exceptional writing, clarity of thought and deftness in opening Gadamer's writings on hermeneutics were so stimulating that the insights generated caused me to write a small book upon his book's margins.

When reading--especially my KJV Bible--I will no longer look for THE {object} writer's meaning but rather the exchange/interchange {communication} between the 2 living, subjective beings which--I now understand--could only ever be a writer's objective: creation {writing} and re-creation {reading} [remove the hyphen and note that term's 2 senses.]

Oh, we are "fearfully and wonderfully made"! The very fact that we can comprehend i.e. grasp meaning, should be proof enough of God.