Bandits No More

August 18, 2010

Brief review of Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s Nomad

Filed under: Books,Clash of Civilizations,Islam — rheyduck @ 12:08 am

Ayaan Hirsi Ali tells many tales of her painful life growing up in and interacting with Islam in Arabian, African and European contexts. As one who has rejected Islam and belief in any god, she has become a full-fledged disciple of the Western Enlightenment. Her positive thesis is that “there are three institutions in Western society that could ease the transition into Western citizenship of these millions of nomads from the tribal cultures they are leaving. They are institutions that can compete with the agents of jihad for the hearts and minds of Muslims.”

From my angle of interest, she is a staunch advocate of a more vigorous Christian encounter with Muslims who have moved to the West. She sees the church as the most powerful vehicle of modernization and rationalization, which in light of her experience is the only hope for Muslims held captive in darkness. The Christianity she advocated, however, is a “moderate,” Lockean version of the faith, mostly interiorized and reduced to “God is love.” I’m not convinced that there remains a significant segment of the church in the West that is (a) evangelistic, (b) committed deeply enough to sacrifice to reach Muslim immigrants, and (c) convinced that they OUGHT to reach Muslims. In my experience, most of the “moderate” Christians who are energetic in their faith are perfectly happy to say Islam is adequate for Muslims, and repulsed by the idea of trying to change someone’s religion.

July 29, 2010

Current Books

Filed under: Books — rheyduck @ 3:12 am

This has been a finishing week, book-wise.

First up was Douglas Farrow‘s little A Nation of Bastards. Not being Canadian, many of the references were foreign to my experience. I do see plenty of rejection of marriage as a stable institution. Much better, like everything else in our society, to just make up as we go along. His Ascension and Theology also looks interesting.

Second, was Peter Scazzero‘s The Emotionally Healthy Church. Sure sounds like a good idea to pay attention to the emotional elements in the work of making (and being) a disciple. Being more of a thinking type, I know I’ve neglected it too much.

Third, tonight’s finish, was Kenda Creasy Dean‘s Almost Christian, a stydy of ways the church is implicated in and might go beyond the Moralistic Therapeautic Deism described in Christian Smith’s Soul Searching. I know I want nothing to do with MTD, but as a (nearly) life-long inhabitant of consumeristic, individualistic culture, it’s tough to completely evade its tentacles.

There are some I’m still working on. First is Pierre Manent’s, An Intellectual History of Liberalism, tracing the tradition from the medieval era through Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and so on. I’ve read as far as the chapter on Rousseau. He brings in much more of the political theory of these folks than I’ve read before, so it’s helpful. And no, what he means by “liberalism” is not what most folks in America mean by liberalism these days. The liberalism here in view is the radical individualism and emphasis on rights that lies beneath both what we call liberals and conservatives, though they play different variations on the theme.

For something completely different, I’m also reading Dee Hock’s One from Many: VISA and the Rise of Chaordic Organization. He’s one of those fellows I kept hearing Len Sweet talk about, so I thought I should get around to reading him.

Slower reads that I’m still working on include D. Stephen Long’s Speaking of God and Nietzsche’s On the Genealogy of Morality. And I’ll also be starting Daniel Bell’s Just War as Christian Discipleship.

And then I read some easy fiction for my down time.

Anyone out there reading something I might like?

April 26, 2010

Books I’m reading now

Filed under: Books — rheyduck @ 2:10 am

Having a short attention span, I tend to read several books at once. The ones I’m engaging in right now include these:

1. James Davison Hunter, To Change the World. I’ve just started it, so I don’t have much to say yet. It is a topic I’ve been thinking about for thirty years.

2. Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morality. Nietzsche is on a helpful track in his historical approach to morality. He seems to Hegelian, however, in looking for monolithic cultural forces to instigate change.

3. Richard Posner, A Failure of Capitalism. A book that is not directly related to any of my research projects, yet, hopefully, useful to my understanding of our times. Only through the first chapter – so far Posner is not optimistic about our situation.

4. Paul Ricoeur, Time and Narrative (v.1). A book (ok, the first volume of a series) that I should have read long ago. His discussion of Augustine’s understanding of time, particularly the relationship between past, present and future, is especially stimulating.

5. Martin Heidegger, Being and Time. Another slow read. I prefer Heidegger’s Being-in-the-world to the usual subject-object dichotomy of modernity – a big improvement. Wish he hadn’t gone Nazi.

6. Bible reading this week is focusing on Joshua, the book I’m reading with the guys, and Philippians, my primary text for next Sunday.

April 3, 2010

10 Books

Filed under: Books — rheyduck @ 10:36 pm

Joining in the train that has been following Tyler Cowen, here are ten books that have shaped me to make me what I am today.

  1. The Bible - While I first encountered the Bible as a young child, only in high school did I start reading it on my own. As a follower of Jesus, I find it very valuable as I seek to know him, his purposes and his ways of acting in the world. I like John Wesley’s idea of being homo unius libri.
  2. The Lord of the Rings – This is another set I first read in high school. Though I was an extensive reader beforehand, somehow I didn’t even learn of Tolkein until my sophomore year. But then I read them again and again, to myself and to my little brother.
  3. The Journal of John Wesley - By the time I arrived at college, I knew I had a call to ministry in the United Methodist Church. Though I’d been a member of the church for years, I thought it would be a good idea to go to the source. I read Wesley’s Journal from beginning to end in my free time, finding a man seeking to know God and passionate to see others learn of Jesus and take up his way of life.
  4. Father Brown - The first Chesterton I read was Everlasting Man, but the works I keep going back to are the Father Brown Mysteries. The root of Father Brown’s insight that allows him to solve mysteries stems from his deep insight into sinners, knowing himself to be one of their number.
  5. After Virtue – I first saw Alasdair MacIntyre’s After Virtue at the Asbury Seminary bookstore, shortly before I graduated. Since I was about to return to Texas, I was trying to hold off on book buying, so I wasn’t able to read it until I started pastoring. By that time I was far from any sources other than Inter Library Loan. MacIntyre’s picture of the fragmented status of ethics in modernity struck me as eerily similar to the status of doctrine in my own denomination. Reading After Virtue wasn’t enough, so I went on to read most of his other works, the most important of which was likely Whose Justice? Which Rationality?
  6. Genesis of Doctrine – I remember struggling to justify paying the price Blackwell wanted for this book. The subject was already under my skin, so I had to get this book. It helped put some skin on the bones of my thinking begun by reading MacIntyre.
  7. Theology in an Age of Scientific Reasoning – I encountered Nancey Murphy’s book during my second semester of doctoral work, not surprisingly, when I was taking a course she taught on postmodernity. Nancey became the lead professor for the rest of my work and introduced me to the relevance of the philosophy of science.
  8. How to Do Things with Words – J.L.Austin’s little book has always struck me as a book many have picked up and few have finished. His notion of “performative utterance,” introduced in the first chapters has so captured people that they often fail to notice what he does with it by the end of the book. But in an age where so many are inclined toward anti-realism, it sounded like an easy way out.
  9. New Testament and the People of God – Though my main area of study was philosophical theology, I didn’t limit myself to that field. I think it as Colin Brown who suggested I read NTPG. I’ve read just about every book Wright has put out since then (I think I missed his Y2K volume, but not much more). His take on Jesus and the First Century world has deeply shaped my preaching and teaching. Along with others, I’m eagerly awaiting his next Big Book.
  10. Sources of the Self - Charles Taylor was another philosopher I discovered while in graduate school. Where MacIntyre writes as an insightful critic of modernity, Taylor writes as an insightful acquaintance, neither friend nor foe. Beyond Sources of the Self, many of Taylor’s papers and other books have shaped my thinking also.

November 17, 2009

Wright on Justification – 6

Filed under: Bible,Books,Justification,N.T. Wright,Paul,Salvation — rheyduck @ 2:07 pm

Some notes on N.T. Wright, Justification: God’s Plan & Paul’s Vision, Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2009.

Chapter 5 – Galatians

Like other authors, Paul cannot ever say everything that needs to be said all at once.

Justification in Galatians means “to be reckoned by God to be a true member of his family, and hence with the right to share table fellowship.” (p. 116) The “works of the law” in Galatians are not referring to morality, but to the elements of the law that divided Jews from Gentiles and marked them off as a separate people. Rather than being marked off by the law, the people of God now are marked off by faith, by trusting in Jesus the Messiah.

What, according to Wright’s reading of Galatians, was the purpose of the law? He says,

The law was given to keep ethnic Israel, so to speak, on track. But it could never be the means by which the ultimate promised family was demarcated, partly because it kept the two intended parts of the family separate, and partly because if merely served to demonstrate, by the fact that it was impossible to keep it perfectly, that Jews, like the rest of the human race, were sinful. The Messiah’s death deals with… this double problem. (p. 118)

In much of contemporary Christianity, the perceived problem Jesus came to address was the fact that I – and everyone else – am a hell-bound sinner in need of salvation so I can spend eternity with God. Wright sees Paul in Galatians identifying the problem differently. The problem Paul sees is defined in terms of Abraham, Israel, and God’s covenant – and the appearance that God’s way of working (the law) wasn’t working to achieve God’s desired ends. For Paul, therefore, the Messiah comes “So that we (presumably Jews who believe in Jesus) might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.” (p, 124) God’s original plan, laid out in the promise to Abraham in Genesis 12 (1. I will bless you; 2. All nations on earth will be blessed through you) is still in effect. The problem was Israel almost always settled for the first part of the promise and cared nothing for the second part. They liked being the Chosen People, but forgot that they were Chosen specifically to be God’s agents of blessing to the rest of the world. The Messiah came to fulfill that unfulfilled (and apparently unfulfillable) mission. Through this way of looking at things, doctrines we separate – soteriology and ecclesiology – are held tightly together. This point is absolutely essential for understanding Wright’s take on justification.

November 14, 2009

Wright on Justification – 3

Filed under: Books,Justification,N.T. Wright,Salvation — rheyduck @ 4:58 pm

Notes on N.T. Wright, Justification: God’s Plan & Paul’s Vision, Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2009

Chapter 2

Wright lays out the basic rules he works from:

  • Let the various writings interpret each other.

  • He sees the battles over the authenticity of some of the Pauline epistles as being warped by the theological conviction that a particular reading of Romans (and secondarily, Galatians) is the “Real Paul,” providing us with criteria to exclude other works, most importantly Ephesians and Colossians, as non-Pauline. Wright, who often wonders how things might have been different had the modern church started from Ephesians rather than Romans, find a coherent teaching through the whole traditional corpus.

  • Scripture and the Christian tradition must be brought together, with creativity and close attention.

  • Following Thiselton, he claims “we need to understand doctrines, their statement, development, confutation, restatement and so on, within the multiple social, cultural, political, and of course ecclesial and theological settings of their time.” (p. 45)

  • Exegesis of Pauline texts, not a Procrustean effort to make the text fit our tradition or desires, is the essential starting point.

  • Work from the Greek text. Wright believes that anyone who relies on the NIV to understand Paul, will, because of that translation’s errors and idiosyncrasies, surely fail to get Paul.

November 12, 2009

Wright on Justification – 1

Filed under: Books,John Piper,Justification,N.T. Wright,Salvation — rheyduck @ 4:50 pm

In this and future posts I will be sharing my notes on N.T. Wright, Justification: God’s Plan & Paul’s Vision, Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2009. If you haven’t read it yet,  it’s well worth your time.

In light of the talk in some segments of current American Christianity about the “plan of salvation,” I find Wright’s subtitle ironic, and exactly to the point. Usually “plan of salvation” refers to the explicit steps an individual needs to take to get saved, which in this context is the equivalent of getting eternal fire insurance. Wright holds the OT and the NT much closer together, seeing “God’s plan of salvation” as stretching from Abraham, through Israel and the church, to the current day. God’s objective is not merely to rescue individual sinners (more, not less!) from hell, but to rescue all of broken creation, damaged, marred and corrupted as it is by Adam’s sin.

This particular volume is a response to John Piper’s The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright. Wright’s account of justification has been seen by the hard-core Reformed as insufficiently biblical (by which, according to Wright’s account of their account, they mean insufficiently in line with the tradition of reading the bible on justification stemming from Luther and moving onward). Wright, along with many others associated with the so-called New Perspective on Paul, believe the starting point to understanding Paul is neither Augustine vs. the Pelagians nor Luther vs. Medieval Catholicism. Instead, Paul must be read as thoroughly immersed in the OT. To the extent that we miss Paul’s close reasoning about Jesus from the OT (his Bible), we will fail to understand his teaching on justification (and just about everything else).

Wright identifies four themes, marginalized by Piper and the narrow version of the reformed tradition he represents, that come together in Paul’s teaching on justification.

  1. Jesus is the Messiah of Israel. Jesus’ Messiahship cannot be understood apart from the call and story of Israel.

  2. Based in the story of Israel, Paul’s approach to justification is thoroughly covenantal. Justification in Paul follows more or less directly from God’s covenant with Abraham.

  3. Justification is lawcourt language. It has to do with the verdict God the judge pronounces. It has nothing to do with moral performance – either positive (Jesus) or negative (ours).

  4. Justification in Paul is mixed up in eschatology. There are two movements, present and future (or final) in justification.

June 4, 2009

Books I’ve just finished

Filed under: Books — rheyduck @ 4:46 pm


I read a fair number of books in the course of a year.  Here are a couple I’ve just finished.

Bill Hybels, Just Walk Across the Room: Simple Steps Pointing People to Faith.

You’ll have to look a long time to find someone with greater evangelistic passion than Bill Hybels. Beyond modeling this value (and practice) for his congregation the past few decades, he’s written books and developed video courses to help others join the adventure. This book focuses on simple things ordinary Christians can do to help people connect with Jesus. At the heart of evangelism, Hybels suggests, is a love for people that compels us to build relationships. In some of these relationships we might have the privilege of seeing someone come to faith. In others – probably the majority – we’ll simply have the role of introducing some questions or providing resources. We can be certain there will be no harvest without sowing, watering and cultivating.

Timothy Keller, The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism

Keller is pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City. Far from the religious safety of the bible belt, Keller has planted this church in the largest city in America and seen it grow to several thousand (while assisting in the planting of numerous other churches in the region). His primary audience is composed of young, educated people, many with little or no Christian background. This book addresses many of the questions he’s heard people asking over the years. Having read the book, I can attest that I hear the same questions here in Pittsburg. Some of the challenges he addresses include, “There Can’t Be Just One True Religion,” “How Could a Good God Allow Suffering?” and “How Can a Loving God Send People to Hell?” Keller handles these and other issues with a well-reasoned, biblical and gracious approach. Though he is a Presbyterian of a strong Calvinist bent, he succeeds in his aim of writing in the context of what C.S. Lewis called “Mere Christianity,” the faith shared by mainstream Christians throughout the ages and around the world.

April 30, 2009

Reading Tribal Church

Filed under: Books,Evangelism,Spirituality,church growth — rheyduck @ 9:09 pm

I just finished reading Tribal Church: Ministering to the Missing Generation by Carol Howard Merritt, the book we’re supposed to be reading for our next monthly district clergy gathering.

The book’s points can be summed up fairly briefly:

  • Young people are crunched from many directions today. They desperately need people to love them, accept them, and encourage them.
  • Most young people reject traditional sexual morality, if not for themselves, then for their friends. If we want to void alienating them, we will have to find ways to accommodate this rejection.
  • Most young people tend to be religious pluralists and soteriological universalists. We’ll need to respect and encourage diversity on all levels if we want to reach them. If we’re narrow-minded and preach/teach that Jesus is the only way, we won’t have younger people in our churches.
  • The church tends not to be very friendly or accessible to younger generations. We need to find ways to not only include people from younger generations in what we do, but actually give them power within our churches.

As one who would, in many settings, be labeled conservative, I find the first and last points more congenial to my convictions and approach to ministry. As one who used to be young, I know what it is to feel economic distress. I’ve been unemployed. I’ve had to move every few years. I do not own my own home and even with declining real estate prices see them as beyond my reach. In that context I know the pressure to have my wife and me both work full time “real” jobs so we can provide for our children and our future, and yet make the sacrifice to not do so for the sake of our children (one of whom has autism and needs and will always need special care).

I know how difficult the church can be for younger people. I’ve served churches where I get stern lectures for not kowtowing to racist attitudes and where I have the district superintendent called in to complain about my bringing in too many neighborhood kids. My wife and I have worked intensively with young couples to bring them into the church only to have them run off on their first visit to worship.

I know what it is to have church leaders consider “traditional” worship the only real (“reverent” is the commonly used word) worship, while folks from younger generations (including my own children!) yearn for a newer, livelier style. My own children are still a captive audience, but for how long?

The first generations of Christians were considered odd balls. They stood out in their communities. One characteristic that differentiated them was that they loved each other. This love was not merely in terms of kinship or blood relation. Well, it was blood relation – not their blood, however, but participation in a common redemption by the blood of Jesus. That kind of love across social boundaries attracted outsiders.

Christians in the ancient world were also considered odd for their exclusivism. When persecution arose, the authorities would have been happy to release their Christian prisoners – if only they’d add Caesar to their pantheon. It wasn’t like they’d have to actively worship Caesar or the gods of the state. Just a pinch of incense, just enough to fit in as good citizens. Those wacky Christians would rather suffer than honor any god other than the One incarnate in Jesus.

I suppose a difference between my position and the authors is that I see a need for Christians to be distinct from the broader culture. We need to be distinct from the broader “conservative” elements of culture (notorious for an emphasis on wealth, prosperity and economic freedom) and from the broader “liberal” elements of culture (notorious for an emphasis on sexual expression and freedom). The Christianity pictured in the New Testament was extremely diverse – but not diverse in every way. It wasn’t the diversity of say, having a pitcher, a goalie, a quarterback, and a forward on each team. Rather it was more like the diversity of having a pitcher, a catcher, outfielders and infielders on a team, playing a common game. The diversity of the church was also a transformative diversity – more than “let’s be friends and each pursue our individual projects and feel good together.” All were invited to Jesus. All were challenged to – and needed to! – repent. Some needed to change in their economic practices. Some needed to change in their sexual practices. Some needed to change in their relational practices.

I read this book as one yearning to reach the younger generation. But my call is to reach them specifically for the sake of Jesus, so they might become his followers. I know not all will initially be attracted. I’ll have to lovingly pursue them. I’ll have to befriend even people I don’t agree with. I’ll have to pray like crazy. But they’re worth it.

April 14, 2009

Inerrancy and the Spiritual Formation of Younger Evangelicals

Filed under: Bible,Books,Evangelicalism,Inerrancy — rheyduck @ 4:20 pm

bookIn his book by this title, Carlos R. Blovell argues that institutional commitments to a doctrine of biblical inerrancy like that found in the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society are not conducive to the spiritual formation of younger evangelicals. He notes,

“It has been my experience that younger evangelicals feel the tension most when they are left with an authoritative Bible whose authority has been practically all but voided by philosophical and exegetical details that regularly keep popping up. What ends up being authoritative in the end is the evangelical tradition and this tradition  has to be taken on faith to the effect that it best represents what is ‘in’ the Bible.”

As younger evangelicals face the demand that inerrancy is the doctrine on which evangelicalism, or, more personally, their true faith, stands or falls, along with the multitude of qualifications, challenges and even incoherencies in that doctrine, Blovell sees the tension leading them away from the Christian faith altogether. If inerrancy is strictly essential to real Christianity, and inerrancy falls apart under what they take to be rigorous examination, then they are left with no choice but to leave.

Blovell wishes to remain both a Christian and an evangelical. He challenges the current generation of evangelical teachers to discover ways to have a high view of the Bible and its authority that are (a) truer to Scripture, (b) truer to the history of the way Scripture has been used by the faithful through out the ages, and (c) sensitive to the spiritual needs of their students. While he says that he wishes to contribute to such an account in the future, this book serves to identify the need rather than to offer the right way forward.

Evangelicals, especially those in positions of authority in evangelical institutions, are faced with the constant challenge of “going liberal,” or appearing to “go liberal.” Since maintaining the centrality of inerrancy is perceived as the main bulwark against going liberal, I’m not optimistic that many will listen to Blovell any longer than it takes to write him out of evangelicalism. One might think that Wesleyan evangelicals, given the fact of less of an interest in inerrancy in their own tradition might be able to take this step. Since Wesleyans are already suspect in an era when evangelicalism is primarily defined by Calvinists, it will likely be hard for them to take this step, however.

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress