Exclusion and Embrace by Miroslav Volf

I don't usually just quote authors at length, but this first paragraph really hit home...

After I finished my lecture Professor Jurgen Moltmann stood up and asked one of his typical questions, both concrete and penetrating: "But can you embrace a cetnik?" It was the winter of 1993. For months now the notorious Serbian fighters called "cetnik" had been sowing desolation in my native country, herding people into concentration camps, raping women, burning down churches, and destroying cities. I had just argued that we ought to embrace our enemies as God has embraced us in Christ. Can I embrace a cetnik-the ultimate other, so to speak, the evil other? What would justify the embrace? Where would I draw the strength? What would it do to my identity as a human being and as a Croat? It took me awhile to answer, though I immediately knew what I wanted to say. "No, I cannot-but as a follower of Christ I think I should be able to." In a sense this book is the product of the struggle between the truth of my argument and the force of Moltmann's objection. (9)

That is how Miroslav Volf opens his book, Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation. I had heard this book, written in 1996, was exceptional. This opening paragraph of the preface leads me to believe the reputation is merited.

So many questions rolled through my mind during just this opening paragraph. The most important: how can I update Moltmann's question? That is, who are MY enemies? and am I willing to embrace THEM? Other questions arise as well, such as: what possible conditions are there for this "embrace"? what does embrace even look like?

But I think there is an even more terrifying question that must be asked: what if I don't want to embrace? What if I am content with you over there and me over here? What if...

These are the questions I created this blog for. I don't have all the answers. I do know this: what ever the answers are, they will not be easy.

Richard Dawkins VS. Alister McGrath

I'm a bit past half way through Dawkin's God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life by Alister McGrath and find the discussion fascinating. My wife does NOT! I read aloud a page for Lorraine, we had to read a book you see, and Shaina remarked, "How can read that drivel!?! I can't repeat even a word of it!" We are all different, and that will be one of the main topics of discussion for this blog. Alas, the first book I want to work through for the blog is still on its way through the inter library loan system. I can't wait to dig in!

Back to McGrath. The main focus of the book so far is wrestling with the a/theological implications of the biological theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is taken for granted in this book, though the development of the theory given some attention. The main question of the book, however, is this: assuming the that the theory of biological evolution is true, does this require a thinking person to ascribe to atheism. Dawkins says, "Yes!", while McGrath responds, "No!".

I am with McGrath on this one. I see no reason to believe that biological evolution leads to atheism. I actually, to tell you the true, think it gives even more reason to believe there is something "beyond" our normal field of experience.

Whether or not evolution is compatible with Biblical, historic Christianity is another question (for another day :)), but, from the stand point of classical theism, there is nothing to fear.

I may expand this another day to a greater analysis of the arguments, but for now, Lorraine needs a diaper change!

John Walton on Genesis 2

There are some really interesting conversations going on revolving around the early parts of Genesis these days. John Walton is front and center to a lot of it. He has a couple of books out discussing Genesis 1 and then Genesis 2 and 3. I haven't had the opportunity to read them yet, though I hope to in the near future. Alas, I a relegated to merely watching his lectures on youtube. Here is one I watched today. The first part is the most vital. It deals with the hermeneutical issues involved with reading and interpreting ancient texts.

Incarnation and Otherness

We live in such strange times. The political ideologies of our day rain down on us their own sort of eschatological hopes and dreams; they spin and twist their agenda to procure our vote by aligning with a grand narrative that draws us in, but then undermines everything we claim to know and love.

This blog has emerged out of this strange, disturbing situation. The church has failed to head her prophetic call. She no longer speaks to the gospel, about what Christ has, is, and will be doing in this world. We will live in a day when the church embraces the ideological eschatology of the polis. Something must be done.

I was walking through Walmart today, wondering about the nature of power. (Yes, I do this: I think about deep theological, philosophical, biblical, and psychological issues while doing mundane things. I get lost driving on an almost daily!) I pondered why so much violence, and why we don't, as followers of the "Prince of Peace," do anything about it. I came up with this line of reasoning, or, rather, unreasoning:

The only thing more powerful than a gun is a newspaper,
And the only thing more powerful than a newspaper is a hug. 

 The thing that struck me most about this presentation was that it ridiculed BOTH political paradigms of this country! I laughed to myself while walking through Walmart as I realized the implications!

The conservatives of this country believe that the use of force, specifically the military, can or will bring about real change in this world. This is the most unChristian of ideas. Jesus changed this world in the most significant way by denying himself and taking on the cross. We are to take up our cross not our gun.

The liberals in this country believe that talking will solve the worlds problems. They are not as far off as the conservatives, but they still miss the boat. It is not in talking that Jesus saves us, but the cross.

Finally, we have Jesus. Jesus, the second member of the trinity, stood other than his creation. There was no need for him to come to us from his abode in heaven. BUT HE CAME FROM HIS OTHERNESS AND MANIFESTED A TOGETHERNESS!

We, as the church, need to stop standing aloof to our neighbors here and abroad. We must move from a posture of otherness and towards a posture of togetherness.

If we want to create real "change we can believe in", then we are behooved to follow the example of Christ in both the incarnation and the crucifixion and not the false eschatologies of our politicians. Guns won't save us; words won't save us; only the cross can save us.