Walter Wink: Naming the Powers: Language of Power in the New Testament (The Powers : Volume One)
i like wink a lot. anyone who can write an essay entitled "how i got snagged by the seat of my pants while reading the bible" is an instant hit in my book. couple this with an astute academic mind and a sincere desire to discover what it means to follow god in this generation and the man rises to virtual sainthood!
this is the first in wink's series on the principalities and "powers" mentioned throughout the bible. it is necessarily the most academic of the three as it sets the groundwork for the subsequent conclusions he pulls out on the other two books. but he writes well and covers the technical ground well.
this is an important book (particularly for the evangelical church i feel). wink's central thesis is that both the evangelical tradition (in believing the 'powers' to be wholly other-worldly, AND the liberation theology tradition (in locating the powers solely in this present world) are mistaken. both are challenged here - though his writing will raise the heckles of conservative evangelicals moreso than the liberationists i think.
this is a welcome surefire antidote to the inane and socially irresponsible teaching that spiritual warfare is conducted solely (or even mostly) on one's knees, rather than on the picket line, in the workplace, in the voting booth, in the day-to-day of normal living.
read it and buy an extra copy for your pastor! (***)
David Bodanis: E=mc2: A Biography of the World's Most Famous Equation
an immensely readable account of the equation most people are likely to be able to quote but few can explain. bodanis takes each element in the equation and tells the tale of the people responsible for the major discoveries in that area to show upon whose shoulders einstein stood and what the consequences for the 20th and 21st centuries and beyond have been and are.
don't be put off by the scientific nature of the subject matter, it really is written with the non-expert in mind. neat appendices tucked away at the back of the book and a web-site are where those wanting more detail are directed so as not to intimidate or overwhelm the masses. it really does read more like a social commentary/biography than a science book.
enlightening and light. a rare combination. nice. (****)
Peter Rollins: How (Not) to Speak of God
How_not_to_speak_of_god_cover how (not) to speak of god is an important and beautiful book. we are living in a fractured time. we do not yet know what we are let alone where we are going other than (in rollins’ words) “away-from-here.” we are defined by what we are not (postmodern) and by the fact that we are moving, or emerging, but not yet by what we are or by any final destination. it’s easy to lose hope in this generation. all the enlightenment promises of certainty, provability and universal Truth now look jaded in the cold and often terrifying light of postmodern philosophical thought.
into this arena steps my good friend, peter rollins and he is like a breath of fresh air. rollins is uniquely positioned to write this book of popular philosophical a/theology. he hails from the evangelical/charismatic tradition, so he is perfectly placed to offer a sensitive critique to that community; he has a doctorate in philosophy, so he is well-versed in nietzsche, jaques derrida, meister eckhart, jean-luc marion, hans-georg gadamer and so on and is able to appropritate their insights and criticisms into his and our theology; he has been a youth-worker and a conference speaker, so he has well-honed gifts in communication and is adept at making the profound intelligible to ordinary plebs like you and me; and he is actively involved in leadership of a christian community, so these issues are not theoretical to him, but deeply personal and practical.
if you’ve heard pete speak you’ll know how passionate he is about these issues. if you have heard him on more than one occasion, then to be honest there will be little new here for you. but that is a long way from saying that the book is not worth buying and reading. i read my copy in one sitting and will no doubt return to it again and again. as i do with every book i read this with a pen and a yellow highlighter in hand so as to be able to remember the important bits and note where i disagreed or was provoked to think about something. it’s now with some sense of dismay that i flick through a book where practically every page has a radioactive glow to it!
one of pete's chief gifts is in analogy and parable. how sad it is that jesus’ parables no longer take our breath away. truly great parables always have the audience nodding their heads as the story starts, thinking they know the ending right from the get-go only to be slapped in the face and completely offended by the shocking twist-in-the-tale. rollins stories are clever, poignant, offensive and often very moving. this is not a book of dull theology. this is a book of poetry.
rollins’ concern is that people often ask him what he believes but never how he believes. in his view belief should always be transformative
“the reversal from ‘right belief’ to ‘believing in the right way’ is in no way a move to some binary opposite of the first (for the opposite of right belief is simply wrong belief); rather, it is a way of transcending the binary altogether. thus orthodoxy is no longer (mis)understood as the opposite of heresy but rather is understood as a term that signals a way of being in the world rather than a means of believing things about the world… it is an approach which emphasises the priority of love: not as something which stands opposed to the knowledge of god, but, more radically still, as knowledge of god… orthodoxy, as believing in the right way, as bringing love to the world around us and within us … that will cost us everything. for to live by that sword, as we all know, is to die by it.” (pg 3.)
if you find yourself agreeing with everything rollins says here, he’d probably say himself that you’re not reading carefully enough. this is a book to rock our comfortable boat, to provoke thought, to engage and begin a conversation with the reader. don’t read this if your theology is rock-solid and water-tight, this book will either shatter that faith completely or make you want to crucify the author as a heretic!
i guess my only criticism of this book is that it’s left me hungry for more. i wish it had been two books rather than one. the first half of the book is the argument/discussion/theory; the second a series of ten liturgies, used by the ikon community in belfast to attempt to outwork the implications of living for christ today. liturgy needs to be experienced/said/shared to be truly effective. i want more of the thought-provoking insight contained in the first half. roll on book number two.
i’m concerned that this review doesn’t do justice to the book. rollins is a much better communicator than i am. his words are much more poetic than mine. if i’ve made it sound dull, philosophical and high-brow i’ve misled you. if you think this is another book of wishy-washy new-age theology again that’s probably my fault, for nothing could be further from the truth. read this book and if you ever get the opportunity, go and listen to this humble pilgrim. it sounds like i’m on his payroll. to be honest i struggle with much of rollin’s insight and thought. as paul tillich points out,
“most human beings of course are not able to stand the message of the shaking of the foundations. they reject and attack the prophetic minds, not because they really disagree with them, but because they sense the truth of their words and cannot receive it.”
i may disagree with his thinking at times (though I fear he is right more than i like to admit) but his commitment to and love for god are never in question. this book is a call to love god and love people.
sit up church. the voice of one calling “in the desert prepare the way of the lord.” there is a transformative message here for those who have ears to hear. (*****)
Bruce Ellis Benson: Graven Ideologies: Nietzche, Derrida & Marion on Modern Idolatry
ah what a welcome book! at last an evangelical who actually understands and takes seriously what nietzsche, derrida and marion (as well as many others such as husserl, heidegger, leotard, gadamer...) say. i'm so tired of reading christians, who really ought to know better, wailing a lament for a non-existent time past when everyone 'knew' the Truth, God could be proved and placed in a little rational box, and everyone knew right from wrong. these writers herald deconstructionism and phenomenology as simple relativism leading to inevitable nihilism; they set postmodern philosophy up as a straw man, astonishing (and sedating) us with their intellectual prowess, as they proceed to scare the big, bad, postmodern bogeyman away. benson points out that not only is this bogeyman not going anywhere fast, but he should be welcomed as a friend.
foundationalism is dead and gone - everyone (with the possible exception of the christian writers referred to above) knows this. the enlightenment deceived us. rather than nietzsche being the nihilist, benson points out that he simply pointed out the inevitable nihilism which results from modernism, and the christian morality which ties itself too closely with it.
now that we know that there is no foundation for knowledge (and never has been) which cannot be undermined somehow, benson forces the evangelical church to sit up and ask, 'what now?' here we find help in surprising places (at least for some). benson shows how the three thinkers in his title offer us some possible paths through this crisis.
his writing is clear and engaging and one quickly realises that this is somone who has read beyond the flycover of these authors - he has grappled with their thought at length. this would be a great first introduction to these philosophical greats, and really ought to be read by every thinking christian to see how we in the church ought to 'be' in our time.
brilliant. go. read.
now.
that is all. (*****)
Stanley J. Grenz: Renewing the Center: Evangelical Theology in a Post-Theological Era
stan grenz died in march 2005. his voice will be much missed in the contemporary debate within evangelicalism. although holding on to (too?) much traditional evangelical orthodoxy, grenz argues that evangelicals harken back to enlightenment principles (such as decartes' foundational view of epistemology) rather than facing up to the realities of the current thinking and new philosophical discoveries. this book is useful again as it addresses evangelicals in their own terms. no evangelical will be alienated by this book, but will find themselves gently nudged leftwards. therein lies my only criticism: the evangelical church needs dragged kicking and screaming and i wonder if this nudge is too subtle to really do the job. (***)
carl raschke: the next reformation: why evangelicals must embrace postmodernity
raschke writes from within the evangelical community. he writes with academic acumen and passion - a rare combination. this book is a really great introduction to the genuine postmodern debate, rather than the characature or straw man often presented in evangelical circles. raschke neither demonises nor lionises postmodernity, but simply shows the opportunities now facing church as a result of this new zeitgeist. rather than ignoring or rejecting culture outright, the church must realise that culture is amoral - available for appropriation and shaping - NOT immoral. that being the case, raschke is unrelenting in revealing just how completely the church has bought in to (or sold out to) modernity. the new challanges postmodernity presents us with as christians cannot be disregarded any longer. fore-warned is fore-armed. this book is apposite counsel. agree or disagree with raschke, he will not be easily dismissed. he is too briefly dismissive of the radical orthodoxy movement and his last couple of chapters are less rigorous and academic than the rest - he seems to come close to suggesting that the charismatic movement is the ideal representation of postmodern church. this could have been remedied by more rigorous editing as it is obvious they would be better suited to a more testimonial-type book. the rest, however, is excellent. (****)
E.P. Sanders: Paul: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introduction S.)
this is a lovely series of books - beautifully simple presentation. this one is a reprint of sanders earlier "paul" (1971). he single-handedly changed the way the apostle paul is studied in theology - reponsible for the so-called "new perspective on paul". this is a very readable and enjoyable introduction to the most important christian theologian of all time. whether you've studied theology or not this tiny little book will whet your appetite for more! while you're at it buy a copy for your pastor/minister/priest. easy to fit in your pocket and read in a couple of hours on the train. (****)
John Caputo: On Religion (Thinking in Action S.)
ok so jack caputo's a total heretic. tell him something he doesn't know! this book is beautiful. caputo is an inspirational writer. his most mundane prose still rings with a poetry that puts most authors (never mind theologians!) to shame. his thoughts are always challenging (especially to those of an evangelical persuasion) but this is postmodern theology at its best. you don't have to believe everything he says to appreciate the beauty of his thinking. highly recommended. (****)
James D. G. Dunn: A New Perspective on Jesus: What the Quest for the Historical Jesus Missed (Acadia Studies in Bible and Theology)
a genuinely fresh insight. james dunn's book attempts to do for jesus what he has previously attempted to do for paul - get back to the original. traditionally trying to get back to the 'real' jesus results in 'the jesus seminar' type approach - religating anything which smacks of the supernatural to get back to 'the historical jesus.' dunn argues tis approach is doomed to fail; that the ONLY record we have of jesus is that written through the eyes of faith. jesus' disciples talked about him, wrote about him, followed him BECAUSE they believed he was the messiah. the 'historical' jesus is therefore synonymous with the christ of faith.
wonderful insight. easy to read and thoroughly engaging. a great counter to post-liberal scholarship. a valuable voice in the continuing debate over the nature and identity of jesus. (****)
Alain Badiou: Saint Paul: The Foundation of Universalism (Cultural Memory in the Present)
an interesting find this one: an atheist writing on paul! now before you turn away in disdain, he's got some really interesting and profound insight. it's only 128 pages so it's not going to suck up your entire life to take some time looking it over. he argues that paul sees the world in terms of jews and greeks who look to prophets and philosophers respectively as sources of authority. badiou argues that paul is able to appeal for universal acceptance of the truths he proclaims by appealing to apostolic authority in opposition to jewish and greek authority figures. interesting, challenging and insightful. (****)
Brian D. McLaren: A Generous Orthodoxy: Why I Am a Missional, Evangelical, Post/Protestant, Liberal/Conservative, Mystical/Poetic, Biblical, Charismatic/Contemplative, Fundamentalist/Calvinist, Anabaptist/Anglican, Methodist, Catholic, Green, Incarnational, Depressed-yet-Hopeful, Emergent, Unfinished CHRISTIAN
What a breath of fresh air Brian McLaren is. He's another one like Jimmy Dunn who encourages me to stay within the evangelical church. he's DELIBERATELY provocative and abstruse to encourage and open up discussion rather than close it down (a point many of his detractors seem to forget!) He tries to take the best from the many traditions within Christendom while generously overlooking their weaknesses. of course i don't agree with all he says. but of course i've never found an author with whom i totally agree. How dull if i did! that's what makes them thought-provoking and challenging to me!
fresh and inspiring. (*****)
D. A. Carson: Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church : Understanding a Movement and Its Implications
ok so it's carson so you prety much know from the outset where he's coming from. I'm fascinated by the emerging church movement (no doubt you'll read more and more about it on this site.) The biggest criticism i have of the it is that often it's a movement in search of a theology.
although carson critiques the movement from the right he gives a more sympathetic hearing to emerging church than you might think. it's certainly a good book to introduce mainstream to conservative evangelicals to the opportunities (as well as what carson sees as some pitfalls) presented by living in our times. (***)
G.K. Chesterton: Orthodoxy
what do you mean you haven't read this???!!! Stop wasting your time on the internet and GET THIS BOOK!!! I first read this book 15 years ago but i think it's only now that i'm appreciating the sheer genius of the man! If anyone can read chapter 4 'The Ethics of Elfland' without a huge smile on their face i'll eat ... well at least a donut on your behalf!!
Truly postmodern apologetics at it's best. Chesterton argues persuasivley that the MOST real and factual things we know do not come through science or mathematics but fairy tales.
GENIUS!!! (*****)
Leonard Sweet: Church in Emerging Culture: Five Perspectives
Another book that gives me hope. The Church in general and the evangelical church in particular seems hell-bent on ignoring culture at best or, in the scant attention it does pay, seems to be focused soley on denouncing rather than on understanding and assimilating where appropriate. This book is a good popular attempt to support a dialogue within the evangelical church on various options for progress.
The foramat of this book is also novel and interesting. Each of the authors writes their owb chapters (coming from very disparate theological stances within evangelicalism) which are interspersed in grayscale with supportive or argumentative responses from the other authors. [Not really sure i'm communicating that well. Take a wee look at the book and you'll instantly understand what i'm talking about.] The overall impression becomes one of an emerging conversation and discussion rather than a univocular polemic.
This isn't an academic book (i mean that in a good way!) so definitely pick it up and give it a go. (****)
Anthony C. Thiselton: The First Epistle to the Corinthians (New International Greek Testament Commentary Series)
Well it's not exactly a quick read weighing in at an astounding 1480 pages but this commentary is EXCELLENT. What can i say. I've had the privilege of being taught by Anthony. He's a legend. Reading Anthony is like reading EVERYONE who's ever said ANYTHING theological about 1st Corinthians. It's easy to become overwhelmed with the sheer enormity of the research this volume represents, but Anthony's style is always fresh and engaging. He gives his own translation from the Greek and then gives lucid and (IMHO) balanced comment on the various positions that have been taken on this letter while not hesitating to nail his own colours to the mast.
This is highly recommended for anyone who has an interest in hermeneutics or Pauline theology in general or 1st Corinthians in particular. (*****)
James Dunn: The Theology of Paul the Apostle
jimmy dunn's a bit of a star. he's one of the authors that keeps me calling myself an evangelical. if there's room for the likes of him there's room for me. his writing is easy to read, scholarly and engaging - an unusual mix! add to this dunn's ability to take on board the latest theological discoveries on Paul without losing the wonder of the salvation Paul himself seeks to describe and proclaim and you've got a great theology text. (****)
Bible & Culture Collective: The Postmodern Bible
an interesting collection of essays on various approaches adopted by postmodern theologians to biblical criticism - including reader-response, deconstructionalist and a host of others. (***)
« Jesus Made Me Puke : Rolling Stone | Main | the phobias of a chronic amnesiac! »
in this second installment i talk about the intelligent design movement. although i'm very sympathetic to the general worldview espoused by the movement, i ultimately agree with the detractors who say it's simply not science.
as always if you like spread the word by digg, stumbleupon, delicious, facebook, blogging, gossip or any other means you can think of. the fake revolution is coming... :o)
watch the waffle and tell me what you think.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/578314/28781882
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference fake tv (episode 2):
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Great episode, though even with the couple of ruthless cuts I saw it could have stood to be a smidge shorter :)
Technical point: could you talk a little louder or somehow reduce the background noise? It's not too distracting, but definitely noticeable.
If you haven't already, have a check at baraminology.blogspot.com. It's by a guy blogging about ID and the field of baraminology. Baramin being the hebrew for 'created kind'. Baramins are like species, but different.
Three points on the content as presented:
i) I pretty much agreed with almost everything, though I'm not too hot on the certainty of things turning out the way they have done. Sure, I didn't fall in the river today, but at the time it far seemed less certain. Say I was dealt a hand of cards. Then the pack was shuffled and I got the same hand dealt in the same order. Well, it happened, so the probability of it ocurring is one. But think about the probability before each card was dealt. I can't be bothered going through each step and multiplying and remembering to reduce the denominator each time, but before I was dealt the first card, the probability of getting any particular card was still 1/52.
ii) I read Allister McGrath's 'The Re-enchantement of Nature' a while back and it wasn't as good as your discussion, by a long way. One thing that struck me about his book as well as your show was the separation of science and philosophy. As you showed they are indeed very different spheres, but at the same time I don't think they can be entirely divorced. A teacher should not necessarily proselytise their worldview in science class, but it would be a very boring school where scientific arguments were not allowed in RE and where RE was banished from science, or geography. Outside school, people like Richard Dawkins serve a useful purpose to the church. Perhaps he's not as great a philosopher or theologist as the next man, but when he raises objections we cannot merely dismiss them. If his logic is wrong, then that's an easy one, but perhaps his point arises from a flawed perception? Perhaps in responding gracefully that is a good witness to him and to others. What if he had a good point and we really did need to take action within the church?
iii) You described in excruciating detail the effects of being infested with one type of worm, but didn't mention the fallen state of Creation. Yes that raises the further problem of why would a loving God let things get so bad, but at least it starts to bring in the seriousness of sin.
Long comment? Long video! Though with only one datapoint I can't say if there's a propotionality :)
Finally: Darwin observed one thing in particular - finches beget finches :)
Posted by:John Ferguson | Monday, 05 May 2008 at 07:26 PM
thanks for the comments john. i take the length thing on board. i'm a waffler and need to practice my precision!
on the specifics:
i) this was an attempt to illustrate the anthropic principle - that basically we interpret the universe as having been designed specifically for us, but conversely were the universe any different, or were multiverses to in fact exist, we would not be around to observe them at all. i do love fred hoyle's comments on the staggering balances and tweaks involved in our universe being able to support life. (see also paul davies "the mind of god")
ii) i really appreciate the mcgrath comment, though i doubt it's actually true - that man has a brain the size of a small galaxy! as a christian, obviously whatever i teach and wherever i teach it my worldview is going to shine through. thus when i'm teaching "lord of the flies" and we're discussing morality; or mathematics and we're showing how the fibonnacci sequence appears in nature, or the nature of infinity; or in psychology and we're discussing the mystery of consciousness, my faith can't help but shine out and be spoken in a non-proselytising kind of way. but i.d. guys want to take the next step and MANDATE that a faith position (no matter how weak) be taught. this crosses a line for me.
iii) i do think the fallenness of creation is a very important concept in all theodicies - but here we are talking about SCIENCE. unless the i.d. guys will agree that we are basically discussing theo-philosophical issues then the fall is utterly precluded from the discussion.
thanks for interacting in such a thoughtful manner john. i'll check out that site now, though i have read quite a bit of "according to their kinds" type stuff. come back on me if i've said anything here that's still unclear or you disagree with.
peace.
Posted by:shane magee | Monday, 05 May 2008 at 08:07 PM
o lastly, on dawkins: irenic interaction and debate is ALWAYS to be welcomed. i LOVE dawkins when he writes about what he knows - 'the blind watchmaker' and even 'the selfish gene' were wonderful. but 'the god delusion' is simply popularist pulp for itching ears. there's nothing really to debate there. he's a fundamentalist with whom there is no reasoning. he makes straw man arguments (as i believe sam harris and christopher hitchens also do) and refuses to take seriously the claims of the vast vast majority of humanity (living and dead) who believe in some kind of god. he's the atheistic jerry falwell/ pat robertson (a comparison i'm sure he'd just love!!)
the REAL atheistic arguments are found in the truly great thinkers: hume, russell, sartre, camus and my personal favourite, nietzsche. god forbid that we would neglect the issues they raise. but by comparison, dawkins is such a lightweight - another dan brown-esque attack on our faith methinks.
Posted by:shane magee | Monday, 05 May 2008 at 08:18 PM
no further comments from me, unless someone else chimes in (though that's as much to do with me knowing my depth). Just keep doing the TV show. One of my church's elders said he enjoyed the first video.
Posted by:John Ferguson | Tuesday, 06 May 2008 at 04:39 PM
I have problems with intelligent design for the same reasons you pointed out in your show. The God of the gaps philosophy relies on science not explaining something, but when science is on a slow relentless march of explaining the unknown it seems inevitable that whatever gap you choose it will eventually be explained. Then you are left with holding on (futilely?) to a philosophical position that completely contradicts the best scientific knowledge we have.
Another problem in my mind with the creationist/intelligent design community is the misinformation that comes out of it. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard on a Christian radio talk show that more and more leading scientists are rejecting evolutionary theory. This is clearly misleading since there is widespread consensus on the fact that evolution happened, the main debate being in the details (how it happened). There are other examples, but I’ll stop it there.
When the world’s leading scientists support evolutionary theory and the ones who don’t all seem to start with a conclusion then work backwards to try and find evidence that is massaged into supporting their predetermined conclusion while at the same time calling it science..... there seems to me to be an obvious problem. I thought science used evidence to determine a conclusion?
Posted by:Brian | Wednesday, 07 May 2008 at 01:43 PM
i agree with you that the misinformation can be frustrating. for better or worse it really is only a small subsection of the scientific community that is having these deep seated issues; the VAST MAJORITY of them are american and the few others are british or australian/kiwi. pretty much everyone else seems to accept neo-darwinism with arguments (as you say) being only over detail.
that being said i don't agree with dawkins et al that i.d. is basically the same as creationism. creationism is utter make believe. i.d. is definitely MUCH more thought through and important.
i still think there is something useful in the i.d. arguments AS PHILOSOPHY and i personally see the fingerprints of god everywhere i look - but i say this as a statement of faith, not anything verifiable by science.
lastly, ideally science is supposed to follow the evidence. the truth is MUCH more blurred though. scientists are just like you and i and are just as prone to error and bias. this is reflected, not only in the conclusions that are drawn (eg. does this drug work?) but even in the questions that are asked in the first place (is restless leg syndrome something to cure?) so many of the answers in physics, chemistry and biology depend on who is funding the research, what the male to female ratio of the research team is, whether the study is done in the west or the east and about a billion other factors.
scientists are just as likely to be fundamentalists as christians and to bring their underlying worldview to bear in drawing conclusions way beyond what the evidence allows for. this is clearly seen when dawkins gets all pseudo-philosophical and disproves god!!! we need active thinkers in that debate to show up the inconsistencies and unsubstantiated claims being made.
Posted by:shane magee | Wednesday, 07 May 2008 at 05:52 PM
Point taken, anyone is vulnerable to bias and fundamentalism. Sorry, I guess since I start from the point that ID is an argument against a scientific theory, I have trouble seeing it as a philosophy.
The proponents of ID have put a lot of work into their ideas, but I think it’s unfair to say that they have just been brushed away as utter make believe (at least not by all). The makers of it have pushed it as a scientific theory and the scientific community, I think, answered well.
As a philosophy though I'm still missing something, if we boil it down to just seeing beauty in God’s creation, and His fingerprints on creation, is the core of what ID is supposed to be still there? I'm not so sure. As a person opposed to ID and supportive of evolution for example I can see Gods fingerprints on the universe, and beauty in His creation, I would argue, just as well as a believer in ID. I certainly agree with that portion of ID, it’s just the nature of the fingerprints and beauty that I disagree with. So I guess I'm still missing the point here, since at this level the two theories are compatible?
As far as Dawkins book on God, I haven't read it so I can't really comment on it. I agree though that we need to answer his arguments. It’s tough to get those answers as much hype as someone "disproving" God in a book though.
Posted by:Brian | Thursday, 08 May 2008 at 11:45 AM