A New Political Blog

Recently a friend of mine started a new blog dealing with the upcoming US election.  Since he’s one of my best friends, i thought a little shameless plug would be appropriate.  Here is the link.

Poll Results

Well, my poll didn’t generate a lot of action, or a decision.  It was a three way tie between three great thinkers.  So since i had to pick from those three, here is what I’ll be reading:

 

Ta Da!  John Webster’s dogmatic sketch on scripture.  It looks to be fairly short, so i’m hoping to review it in the next week or so.  I’ll have to set a deadline for myself, lest i quit reading it.  Thanks to everyone (all three of you) who helped me decide where to begin diving into theology again.

Multi-Part Book Review: Introduction

Borg, Marcus J., and N.T. Wright

 

The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions

San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2000.  Pp. xi + 288.  ISBN 0060608765

 

 

 

At the heart of Christianity stands the person of Jesus.  Jesus has always held a perennial interest for those who encounter him, but not always for the same reasons.  With the rise of modern scholarship, the person of Jesus remains riveting as ever, but the task of trying to discern just who he was and what he was about have become increasingly difficult to understand.  Most opinions regarding the historical person of Jesus often fall into two camps (ix).  One group, unable to deal with the historical and human aspects to the gospels, raises the drawbridge and refuses to engage the material, often leading to disastrous readings of the texts.  Others embrace modern studies in such a manner that they find themselves unable to make any sort of faith commitment to Jesus.  Despite their differences, both camps are alike in that each group is often unable to have meaningful and constructive dialogue with each other (x).

 

This state of affairs is part of what makes Marcus Borg and N.T. Wright’s book so engaging.  While neither author can be pigeon-holed neatly into any category like the ones above, each author has definite and differing convictions regarding the person and work of Jesus, with both seeking to take historical research into account (ix-x).  The book is structured around a series of topics related to the historical understanding of Jesus, with both authors contributing a chapter to the topic under consideration (xi).  They are each aware of what the positions of the other writer are, and at times they engage each other’s thought (xi).  Such engagements are charitable, and make for informative interchange that has a distinctly Christian tone (x-xi).

A Slightly More Formal Poll

So i recently made a vow to start reading theology again, regardless of my class load at seminary.  Since wordpress recently added a poll designer (which i’ve been dying to get in my very elementary version of wordpress), i thought i would let the people decide.  I’ll close this down on monday (after my fall retreat with my jr high students).  So, without further ado:

Poking Fun at the Hard-Core “Team C”

I recently found this funny set of mock motivators posters.  Here are a couple to get you in the mood:

 

While i don’t have a dog in their particular quibble, i thought that some of the satirical jabs were quite funny.  Enjoy!

Informal Poll: Who Should I Be Reading?

In my previous post, I talked about how seminary, while a great experience, has thus far pulled me away from my first academic love, theology.  I have decided to rebel against that somewhat, and am going to start reading in my favorite discipline again, lest i forget why i’m even in seminary. 

This is where you, my wonderful reader(s) come in.  I’m not sure what to read; it has been awhile since i’ve really dug my teeth into something, and I’m wondering what everyone else who finds their education less restrictive at this point than mine is focusing on.  So, since i lack the ability to insert a cool “poll widget” i’m shamelessly asking you to comment on this post with suggestions for what i should read.  I’m hoping to read something with substance that isn’t long for the sake of being long.  So, what say you?

Seminary and the Calling of a Theologian

So right now i’m in the midst of my first semester at seminary.  I have done graduate work already, but not at an official seminary.  I’ve learned much during these first couple of months.  One of the most surprising realizations i’ve had is that if one isn’t careful seminary can make you forget why you were there in the first place. 

For example, I love theology, but due to the quantity of reading i have in related fields (Social Scientific Studies, Church History, etc), i rarely get to read in the subject.  I’m so consumed by study in related fields that, while interesting at times, and relevant to my discipline of interest to be sure, i find myself losing my sense of purpose, my calling, in the midst of the very place where it was supposed to be honed!

I know that everyone has to pay their dues, and luckily for me, i’ll be starting my PhD within two years (I hope), but at times it seems like i’m drowning in the preparatory work.  I think that there is something to be said for just jumping in swimming pool (or in my case, getting used to how cold the water is again).

So I’ve decided to start reading more theology again, even if I’m swamped with school.  I don’t want to view reading/studying merely as a burden, or boring.  I think that if i’m going to be successful (or even make it to) in academia, i can’t forget what my gifting, calling, and passion is, and that is to do theology.

Ecclesiology in a Globalized World, Part 1

As promised about a week ago, i want to recap a couple of my favorite presentations from our conference last week (If this is the first time you’ve heard about it, click here for more background).  Without a doubt, one of my favorite presentations was done by Rev. Andrew Grosso, who currently is a rector at an episcopal church.  His talk was titled “Ecclesiology in a Globalized World: Revisiting One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.”  I really enjoyed his presentation, and since there was much quality material (which i hope i can do justice to), i’m going to break up my reflections on his session into 2-3 posts.  WIthout further ado:

According to Grosso, there are two major ways experts view the process and factors behind globalization.  Rather than trying to tease out which one is more correct, Grosso assumes a level of validity to each and applies each model to the church.

Following the ideas of Philip Jenkins, Grosso labels one approach as the “bottom-up approach.”  Globalization is understood as to follow on the heels of the collapse of western colonialism, and with that, the emergence of indigenous churches.  In this view particularity and the unique embodiment of the faith are valued, thus many will seek to find the essentials of the faith in order to have the freedom to express their “individuality.”  

I believe that this approach is inadequate.  As Grosso points out, this model pushes toward increasingly narrow forms of the faith.  Further, these unique forms are highly enculturated, making true dialogue and interdependence on the church difficult, if not impossible.  In my view, if the “bottom-up model” were to become too dominant, churches in the world would find themselves to be increasingly isolated, turning into individual artifacts dispersed all over the more integrated and interconnected global world. 

Grosso articulates the other major model through the work of Fukuyama.  Grosso calls this the “top-down” approach to globalization.  In this model, globalization occurs primarily due to the dominance of the free market and the consequent imbalance of power that it engenders.  While the side effects of this are tragic, it is hard to deny that the free market is the primary means of cross-cultural communication.  This goes hand in hand with the spread of liberal democracy and the economic model of capatilism.  Add to these factors the instant access to information through technological means and you have the tools to become a global culture.     

This model, in contrast to the other one discussed, takes seriously universality.  It tends to view things as very interconnected.  However, as Grosso pointed out in the session, this alone isn’t a great thing.  This model if left unchecked tends to favor utility to the point where there becomes a genuine need for the explication of what Grosso calls “universal parameters of the faith.”  

While one can debate the merits of these two models (false dichotomy?), I believe that we can see evidence of both.  According to Grosso, we must neither wholly embrace or reject one approach.  In the next post, we will begin to unpack how Grosso believes we can meet this challenge of “the one and the many.”

At this point, i would love to hear feedback on his initial “two models” approach.  Do you agree or not, and why?  Is this a helpful way to start thinking about the issues for the church that surround globalization?

WFPS 2008

I just returned from our two day conference in Manhattan Kansas.  The Western Fellowship of Professors and Scholars conference this year was a success for several reasons.  To begin, we had a much better location this year.  Also, attendance was up, and we are excited about the possibilities of future growth.  Perhaps the most encouraging part from my vantage point was the high level of scholarship we had this year.  I’m planning on blogging on a few of the presentations this year over the next few days, but if you would like a brief primer on the nature of our conference click here.  For those of you who are interested, those of us who lead the conference are fairly certain that the 1st weekend in October is the date for WFPS 2009.  So obviously, clear out those calendars!