Crawford's Corner

Fundamentalist or Catholic???

2008-07-17T21:30:00.002-05:00

Having a child brings up many interesting dilemnas in the life of a parent that one never thinks of before having the child. One of these happened the other day. My wife and I are traveling to Rome at the end of August. The dilemna occurred when the question of "If anything happened to us, what would happen to Brody (our son)?" This led to a discussion of who we would want to have our child. And, the people we have in mind are Fundamentalist Baptist or Roman Catholic. This brought up an interesting problem - if something were to happen to us and we had to entrust our son's life to someone else, what religious affiliation would I prefer - Baptist or Catholic?

In thinking about this, I've come to realize that I have serious quandries with both of these traditions. And, I think for the most part, I believe my major criticism is the same for each tradition.

Both Make the Triune God a Quadrinity
In my opinion, both of these traditions lapse into the problem of putting a source for thinking about God into the place of God or of God's definitive revelation - something I'm not sure that we have. (I know, I know, I sound like Barth)

For the Fundamentalist, the Bible is practically placed at the same place as God. I'm not sure how many times I have been in a discussion with a fundamentalist to hear the words, but "God says in the Bible..." not understanding that the Bible is not the words of God coming straight out of the mouth of God. The Bible, for Christians, is not the Koran - however, the fundamentalist treats it this way and I find the incredibly troubling.

However, on the other side, I have the same issue with Roman Catholicism. I'll take a little heat here, but that's ok. I really believe that RC places the church and the tradition above all else and at a place with God. In fact, it seems that practically, many RCs believe that the grace of God is only dispensed, at times, through the RC church. Now, this may not be the case in the theory, but in practice at times it is (this is my major concern with the notion of transubstantiation - it makes the RCC the only legitimate power to disseminate the grace of God). It is also ironic because, in discussing issues at my RC school with colleagues, I have often heard it said, "But the tradition says..." It tends to echo the language of the fundamentalist (I would argue that there are RC fundamentalists as well, but that's a different post).

In doing this, it seems to me that both traditions try and have a certain amount of control over salvation, which is something that must be left completely up to God. The main concern of many fundamentalists is if someone is not "saved" or "born again." And, almost always, the criteria for this is purely the criteria of the tradition perpetuated (oftentimes, being saved does not seem to coincide with exhibiting the fruit of the Spirit). RC does the same thing though through the Pope and the sacraments. By making the claim that they are the only ones legitimate to give the sacraments, they have implicitly shut off certain people to salvation.

So, I have major issues with both of these traditions. But, I still need to make a choice - Fundamentalist or Catholic? My choice, purely from a religious point of view, is for Catholicism. If I had to have my son raised by one or the other, I'd choose Catholicism. And, it's because I believe that RC offers a more Christian ethic than does fundamentalism. I know too many fundamentalists who are sexist, greedy, racist, and, generally, awful people. The motto tends to become that everyone but me and my saved friends suck!

On the other hand, RC does teach love of neighbor. A major portion of RC teaching is helping the poor and the RC has been critical of war and a proponent of peace. It has also been a leader calling for better use of the earth's resources and, thus, fighting global warming. I believe that all of these are more in tune with the will of God than the fundamentalist vision of the world. And, I'd rather my son grow up learning to love people and the earth and not hear all of the evangelical calls for transformation than to hear those calls without any real call for a transformation that affects the world around him.

Upsetting Mail

2008-07-10T12:45:00.002-05:00

Yesterday, in the mail, I received my Asbury Link. It is one of those things that is supposed to keep alumni up-to-date with other alumni.

Yesterday's, the issue was devoted to alumni involved in the military in different capacities. It was a glorification of those alumni and students who have worked in the military and seen their ministry role there. And I have some issue with this.

My main issue is that, while at Asbury, it became apparent to me that most of the people that attend there see nothing wrong with war and the war-machine that is Western civilization. However, there is a strong contingent of people on campus, both students and faculty, who identify themselves as pacifists, or that are opposed to some of the unjust practices necessarily involved in war. The magazine upset me then because there is no mention of these students or faculty in the magazine or in the work. And I'm pretty sure the next issue I get won't be devoted to some of the alumni I know that have taken peace-keeping trips to Palestine and Iraq, or who organize people for peace and justice issues.

Why is this? Well, I think it's because it is about money. If Asbury Seminary openly endorsed their pacifist faculty and students, a lot of people would stop giving money because of their "liberal" politics (as opposed to Christ-like politics). And, I also find it a bit precarious to give this out in the middle of the presidential election, where this is an explicit endorsement of the military, which is an incredibly political statement.

And, I must mention this contrast. This last Sunday (July 6), I was in church, where a massive flag hung in the background right below the cross (at least it was not above), and we obviously saw the celebration of America. However, my denomination's magazine lay there and it was focused on the growing international look of the Wesleyan Church. It was a great contrast on a denominational level to the celebration of American, civil religion practiced at my church. I rip on my denomination a lot for it's lack of a social ethic, but I thought I should praise it for doing well here.

Five Most Influential Thinkers

2008-07-08T21:40:00.002-05:00

Since someone decided to bust my chops about not including the Bible on my most influential books list, I thought that I better make a quick caveat. Obviously, as a practicing Christian, the Bible is and has been the most influential text in my life and Jesus (and Paul) have been the most influential thinkers in my life. I figured since I am openly Christian on the blog, that would be self-evident.

Now, moving on to most influential thinkers, I have included people here that I have read but have not met. These are thinkers who fascinate and challenge me. One of the things about being an academic is that you read a lot of stuff and it all is not good. A lot of stuff is neat and interesting, but it does not challenge you. The thinkers below really challenge me when I read and think along with them. There is something about them that opens me up and exposes me. That's why they've been so influential.

1. John Wesley
If you know me or have read the blog, you know that I am a Wesleyan. Unlike many (most?) Wesleyans though, I have read much of what Wesley has written. Everytime I read him, I feel compelled to be a better Christian by seeking to be a person of love - both of God and neighbor. And, Wesley is not a theologian's theologian, trying to tie up loose ends or have everything sorted out; rather, he is interested in seeing people transformed and from him I have really seen how theology is a science of transformation.

2. St. Augustine of Hippo
Part of my dissertation is on Augustine's De Doctrina Christiana, like I said in the last post. However, the crown jewel of Augustine's work is De Trinitate, where he leads the reader through the doctrine of the Trinity by exposing the reader's very self to God. It is a very mystagogical thinking upon the Trinity that deeply influenced how I think about the Triune God and how I pray to this God. The goal becomes not about having the right doctrines as much as being open to communing with this God, although Augustine is after right thinking about God.

3. Thomas Merton
Merton is a brillaint thinker whose concern is communion with God. However, for Merton communion with God means that one has communion with all things; the necessity becomes about understanding that all of the world is God's world and that God resides in this world and in these people. So, Merton's work has a definite ethical quality to them, showing that love of God must be seen in one's love of neighbor, and to love one's neighbor means you cannot do something to kill them. His text Bread in the Wilderness discusses how the liturgy is a preparation for the person to go into the world and exude the love of God upon the world. It's truly beautiful.

4. David Tracy
If you have not read Tracy, I encourage it. Especially, I encourage reading some of his later stuff on the mystical-prophetic naming of God (if you need info on where to find the articles, let me know). Tracy figures pretty prominently into a lot of my research and its because he challenges me to think about the way that I think about theology's interaction with the nontheological. He calls for the ability of the theologian to really encounter those things that are not theological and to deal with them in a way that is fair and open, but also theologically relevant. He really opens the world up as a theological place that is very fruitful for the theologian's thought. Also, his earlier texts are just classics that must be dealt with, even if you don't agree with all he says.

5. Jacques Derrida
Derrida is a thinker who challenges me to be a better person because only the person that strives for the impossible lives a life worth living, as he shows in his meditations on justice, forgiveness, the gift and hospitality. He also challenges me to be a better, more thorough reader of texts. Many think that he just goes and does whatever he wants with a text, but this is not the case. He is an incredibly careful, observant reader of texts. It is due to this carefulness that one finds the other speaking in the text, coming through the text, where what is supposed to be absent overtakes what is apparently present. He calls for a thorough rethinking of thinking.

Five Most Influential Books

2008-06-20T14:09:00.002-05:00

I'm currently working on my dissertation proposal, along with a couple of papers for some conferences, and then putting together a course to teach for next semester. But, in the midst of this, I've been doing a little reflecting. Today, while writing, I was thinking about the five books that have been the most influential in my thinking. So, I decided to briefly blog about them. And a quick note on the order - they are in chronological order from when I first read them.

1. Karl Barth The Word of God and the Word of Man
To echo Kant commenting on Hume, Barth woke me from dogmatic slumber. Maybe, to put it better, when I read Barth in college (in an independent study with Dr. Bud Bence) I gave up any notion of a fundamentalist/ conservative evangelical reading of the Scripture. It really woke me up to some of the hermeneutical issues with the Bible and also showed that reading of the Scriptures were about an experience with God.

2. Jean Grondin Philosophical Hermeneutics
This book is more representative of an entire class that was very influential. My first seminary course was an August intensive on Philosophical Hermeneutics. This course set the trajectory for the way I began to develop theologically in seminary. It also set the trajectory for the people I would read and really engage with. This book is a great introduction to the topic, written from the perspective of a philosopher and one that really seeks to give a good overview of the hermeneutical enterprise.

3. John Howard Yoder The Politics of Jesus
Jesus was a pacifist and followers of Jesus should be pacifists. This book was a great read and really opened the doors for me to think theologically about the ethical decisions. I was a pacifist before I read the book, but this text really reaffirmed that while challenging me to do more.

4. St. Augustine De Doctrina Christiana (Teaching Christianity)
I have read this book more than any other (I think). In fact, it figures significantly in my dissertation - an entire chapter will be an interpretation of the text. In it, Augustine articulates the nature of how one should go about interpreting the Scriptures. In doing this, he shows that the goal of all interpetation is about love - love of God and love of neighbor. Any interpretation that does not encourage love needs to be rethought and should not be preached. I love it!

5. Martin Heidegger Being and Time
This text opened me up to phenomenology and the way in which a phenomenologist opens one up to interpreting the world. He now figures prominently into much of my thinking and it is because this text opens so many doors for different ways of thinking. It is also a classic treatise on a turn away from an Englightenment paradigm. It is almost like a rethinking of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, showing instead how it is that we exist instead of how it is we think. This also opens up the entire hermeneutical enterprises of Gadamer, Ricoeur, and Derrida. It is a classic text.

I limited myself to five, but I should really have a whole lot more on the list. Next time, though, I'll add the five most influential thinkers on me. It will be very different.

What?!?

2008-06-05T09:13:00.002-05:00

I was just wondering if anybody else saw that President Bush was doing the groundbreaking for the U.S. Institute of Peace? This seems to me to be a little...well...uh...odd. I just found this a little curious.

Continuing the Campaign

2008-06-01T16:02:00.002-05:00

A couple of quick thoughts here -- first, I'd like to post more. Just tend to think too much about what I would want to post on. Too many people out there willing to call me on my crap:)

But, the main gist of this post is delegated to politics. First, I'm really tired of people talking about how Michigan and Florida voters were disenfranchised. People were still allowed to go and vote, it was just an illegal vote according to the rules of the people in charge of the election. But, also, as I've said before, your vote doesn't really count. If no one goes to vote, the delegates still get to go cast a vote - not in MI and FL though because they broke the rules. But, in all other states, people may go and cast a vote, but delegates elect people. Sorry. The 2000 election is still a perfect reflection of this.

Now, to talk about real disenfranchisement, go talk to people in China or Cuba or Myanmar, etc. These people do not even get to vote, to voice an opinion or to voice their frustration with the inability to vote. This is disenfranchisement, not what happened in Michigan and Florida. It's time for people to tone down the continuing empty rhetoric.

Second, I'm pretty stoked about this Scott McClellan book that is coming out. It does not seem to present any new information per se. It seems that most of we already knew from previous books and articles. However, it comes from a guy who was there and really believed that Bush could unite the country, a guy who was with Bush in Texas. If anything, we see that this Texas neo-con group is incredibly loyal and for an inside member to break ranks is fantastic.

The McClellan book also excites me because it critiques the liberal media (really, it should critique all media as many stout conservatives were/are as upset with the war as liberals). The liberal media has obviously said that it did its due diligence and was misled by the administration. And this is true. But, Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! did a documentary on how the entire media, in the run up to the war, completely ignored anyone who said that the war was a mistake. Of the six major news bureaus on TV (Fox, NBC, CBS, PBS, ABC, and CNN), less than one percent of all the experts put on the air regarding the war were opposed to it. That means over 99% of people talking about the war were people promoting it. Even the New York Times and Washington Post were complicit. (One person I appreciate though is Chris Matthews because he believes that the media missed the boat and has called them/himself on it).

Changing my tune....

2008-05-05T13:53:00.002-05:00

So, today I have spent the day doing something that many of you (if there is still a "you") may find odd -- I canvassed my town for a candidate in the Democratic primary being voted on tomorrow. Not only did I do this, but I have actually already voted (in Indiana we have "early voting") ahead of the primary tomorrow.

Many of you will find this incredibly odd since I have previously posted that I did not vote. If you read why I said I would not vote, you'll see that I took this view because I thought the political system in the U.S. was fundamentally flawed -- that certain people were excluded from conversation just because they did not fit the right profile. (Contrary to what some respondents to the post said, it was not for theological reasons that I said this). Now, I still think that the system is flawed, but I think that with the current election we can see a fundamental difference in the campaign. This is most obvious with the fact that two of the candidates are from traditionally oppressed groups - women and African-Americans, not to mention that the African-American has a name that rhymes with "Osama".

Now, I voted for Barack Obama. I have canvassed for him. I have done this because in what I have read about him, what I have heard from his lips, and from what my wife told me in meeting him (yes, my wife met him at an invitation only event - I was invited but was unfortunately out of town when I got the invite), he actually stands for change. I can also say this because I have paid attention to him since his time in the Senate when I was an Illinois citizen. He has not taken money from lobbyists, has pushed for being ethical, and hasn't capitulated to some of the "crap" that necessarily comes with politics -- primarily, right now being his stand against doing away with the gas tax.

So, I voted for Obama. I didn't do it because I'm a Christian (although I'd argue that he is the candidate that falls "most" in line with my Christianity), but because I actually want to see something change in America. Other candidates have not actually looked for this. So, not only do I hope Obama wins, I actually voted for him and worked to ensure he wins.

Peace.

Evangelicals and the Israel-Palestine Crisis

2007-12-28T17:48:00.000-06:00

For those of you who may not know, evangelicals have recently embraced a call for lasting peace in Israel/Palestine by calling for a two-state solution. Essentially, they are saying that it is about time that the two were able to split and be two separate nations, able to elect whom they want, to govern the way they want (at long as it is democratic), and to be two separate nations. Let me just say that this is great and it is about time.

However, I have a few problems with the drawing up of this statement. The first major problem I have is that 4 of the 5 Wesleyan schools did not have a representative; Houghton was the lone exception. Now, the GS’s for my denomination did sign the statement, but we were missing the signatures from the presidents of four of our schools. To me, this is incredibly disappointing. However, I am also ecstatic that we got all three of our GS’s to sign. This is fantastic and real progress for my denomination.

Second, I have an issue with the reasons given in the statement for the adopting of this statement. The first reason is for the safety of Israel. Now, I do not disagree with this, but it begs the question of the safety of Palestinians as well. I understand that evangelicals have traditionally “kissed up” to Israel and favored Israel. However, in this crisis, Israel (and the creation of Israel) is the real culprit for much of the violence and many of the problems in the area. This comes about through many Israeli policies, not the least of which is to erect a wall around Palestinian territories so as not to allow Palestinians out (this is a similar tactic to that of the Berlin Wall, always a symbol of evil in the West). And so, where is the call for Israel to be actively engaged in creating a peace-full place where Palestinians are allowed to thrive, to have economic success, and to not be treated like second-class citizens. It seems that to me, it is time for evangelicals to stop bowing at the feet of Israel – and giving them a free pass – and to start holding them to the same standards.

The second reason given for the statement is the safety of America and Americans abroad. I find this to be completely narcissistic and naïve. A statement is made to the effect that many people in the Middle East view America through the Israel-Palestine conflict. And, while this is true, people in the Middle East also view America through the Soviet-Afghanistan war (and America’s involvement therein), the first Gulf War, and continuing to label various countries as terrorist states. America is not popular because of America’s policies in the Middle East. And, so now, evangelicals call for peace between Israel and Palestine to keep America safe. Perhaps the next call should be to America to attempt to repent and right wrongs to keep itself safe? This should be strictly about Israel and Palestine, not about America.

I want to end this by saying that I am incredibly encouraged by this statement. It seems that evangelical leaders are starting to understand that they have more of a role to play in the world than has traditionally been supposed. This is a good thing. It is also very encouraging that the people signing this are educators in evangelical schools, meaning that hopefully these schools are raising socially-conscious evangelical leaders.

Personal Update

2007-12-12T19:49:00.001-06:00

So, it's been about 10 months since I have published on this blog. I'll get to why in my next post, but in this one I just wanted to give a quick update on my life and some current things I am thinking about.

First, my wife and I and our son moved from Chicago about a year ago. We moved to Plymouth, IN into an old farmhouse - our nearest neighbor is about 1/4 mile away. This is a drastic change from our place in Chicago. We moved to be closer to family, as this greatly helps with doing my doctoral work.

Second, over the last year I have been studying for and taking my comprehensive examinations for my doctorate at Loyola University of Chicago. This was fantastic to finally get through. And now I have a good story about getting ripped in part of my oral exam by Adriaan Peperzak over some stuff I said about Heidegger and language. I'm just happy I did not cry.

With my exams finished, I am now beginning to think about my dissertation more fully. I've worked to narrow it down, so that this is not my life project. And, basically, I am going to work with deconstruction and theology. I'll make an initial claim that deconstruction is less about taking apart of destroying a tradition/text and more about a right attunement to be able to listen to the entire history of a tradition/text, including the internal differences. I then want to take that structure and look at how Christian theologians have a similar method of attunement in their theological thinking; specifically I'll be looking at some by texts by Nicholas of Cusa. I may also look at Augustine and Simone Weil, but we'll see.

I have also spent the last semester teaching Introduction to Philosophy at Indiana Wesleyan University. It was a great experience - I love to teach. I had a good group of students and I feel like we all learned a lot.

Lastly, I'm working on a few papers for conferences and for submission to some journals. At the Wesleyan Theological Society this year I am presenting on Emergence theories of Consciousness and Entire Sanctification - looking at how some new emergence theories of consciousness inform our understanding of entire sanctification, specifically a more Maddox/process view. Sorry Collins! Second, I'm presenting at the Society for Pentecostal Studies on the role of experience in the religion/science dialogue. I'm looking at more "pop" level books (Dawkins, Collins, and McGrath). I've learned more about biology than I ever cared to. Lastly, I'm presenting a paper at the Interdisciplinary Nineteenth Century Studies Society: it is a conference on human rights and I am presenting on Luther Lee and how he puts forward a natural theology based upon the humanness of all humans. I'm going to specifically look at what he says about women and slavery.

On the submission end, I'm tinkering with an Eastern (specifically, Kyoto School of Buddhism) reading of the Sermon on the Mount. I'm also working on the idea of prayer as a political practice, specifically if viewed through contemporary phenomenology.

Well, I'll post more regularly and hope to see people around.

peace.

Theology Today

2007-02-13T13:47:00.000-06:00

I'm concerned. That should not be surprising to you if you read this blog much. If you don't, scroll down and you'll see I'm a concerned person - I think.

Anyway, I am concerned with the state of theology today - these are thoughts that have been ruminating for a few months. I feel theology falling into two general camps today. One would be an inward theology and the other an outward theology. Let me briefly explain.

I see inward theology as a "closed" theology. It is becoming more and more prevalent in theology today. It is typified by a couple of groups - narrative theologians, Barthians, Balthasarians, and Radical Orthodox theologians. Essentially, I am talking about anti-modern theologians. These theologians all take aim at modernity and the thinking of modernity, specifically the turn to the subject and the subsequent subject/object distinction that is made. They feel as though the goal of theology is not to "play the games" of modernity or "secular" thinking, but to articulate what it is that the church believes and has always believed. The audience is usually the church or believers or sympathizers.

This theology is beneficial at times, but it takes few if any pains to articulate the beliefs of the church to people outside the church. The goal is not communication, but belief and dogmatics (for a good discussion of these terms, see Bernard Lonergan's Method in Theology). And I find this theology detrimental - and ironic - in that I do not think it is true to the Christian tradition. If one looks at what this theology does, it articulates the Christian position strictly from what it finds in the Christian tradition. It says that it's only source is the Christian tradition (even though many are based upon secular philosophies and thinking, specifically that of Wittgentstein and Geertz). In Christian tradition, though, theology finds much inspiration from that which is not specifically Christian - think everyone from Justin Martyr, Origen, the Cappadocians, Augustine, Pseudo-Dionysius, John Scotus Eriugena, Thomas Aquinas, Nicholas of Cusa, etc.

So, if you can't tell, this theology concerns me because it seems to have lost that specifically theological function of communicating the Christian to the secular - and seeing that the secular may contain elements of the sacred.

On the other end of the spectrum is an outward theology, or a theology that only looks outward for its sources. This theology is typified by the fact that it tries to make the secular sacred. Many times, this theology is more concerned with legitimating that which is outside of it. These theologies are usually focused around social issues, although much of the theology and science debate is shaped by these types of concerns. The concern of theology is always set by those outside of theology.

This theology is becoming more and more prevalent the more that theology becomes in dialogue with other disciplines. I find the dialogue great, but become fearful when the agenda is set for theology by those outside of the discipline. For example, in current discussions of what makes a person, science has said certain things and set the criteria for what makes a person. Theology then is required to capitulate to this for the dialogue to take place.

This concerns me in that theology's criteria and concern is set by those outside of theology. Theology becomes a sub-discipline. It's methods and criteria for meaning, meaningfulness and truth is not really taken seriously.

What I propose is a theology that mediates these two. It has to be a theology thoroughly informed by the Christian tradition and with the intention of communicating this tradition, but it cannot close itself off to the outside world. It must communicate the message to those outside of itself - and this means attempting to articulate this in the language and worldview of the people with whom the conversation is taking place. However, theology must not allow the outside to dictate what it is that it should be saying, talking about, or seeing as adequate information.

I'm Back...Kind of

2007-01-23T20:57:00.001-06:00

Well, I decided to post again. I'll probably be more erratic now than I was before. I am a new father (my four month old boy is a blast and I love being a dad) (I also wonder at what point I stop being a new father and just am a father - does the newness every wear off?). I am also taking a doctoral seminar on the Trinity with Mark McIntosh (if you have not read his stuff, you should - especially his book Mystical Theology....Fantastic stuff) - this means that I have lots of reading to do. I am also studying for my comprehensive exams (which means I have 90-100 books that I need to know inside and out by October). And, I am presenting papers at both the Wesleyan Philosophical Society and the Wesleyan Theological Society (which reminds me, if anyone wants to share a room, let me know).

I just wanted to put up a few quick thoughts.

First, I watched a documentary on Howard Zinn (professor emeritus of political science at Boston University) yesterday. He is a major person in the promulgation of nonviolent resistance in the U.S. and of giving a voice to those who have traditionally not had one. It was a very good portrait of the man (the movie could be much better). It showed all the work he has done and how he has continued to stand up for those and with those who have had no voice or could not stand up for themselves - from the Civil Rights movement to the current Iraq War. In watching it, I wondered what it would be like if Christians had been inthe midst of standing up with Howard Zinn against oppressors? What would a Christian who took the actions of Christ seriously act? Like Howard Zinn?

Second, my beloved Bears are in the Super Bowl. This utterly excites me. However, it is also exciting that this Super Bowl will have two black head coaches. This is the first time that one black coach has coached in the Super Bowl (and we have two). To me, this is significant. Oftentimes there is still a certain amount of racial profiling that happens, where people assume that blacks play while whites coach/run the team/etc. And generally, this is how it goes (for wrong in my opinion) - just look at college football, where there are nearly no black coaches. However, these two men show that black coaches are just as capable. It also allows people who normally do not, black people in positions of leadership and authority - which is positive. Whether we like to admit it or not, the U.S. still has much racism to overcome (see Bonilla-Silva's book Racism without Racists).

One more note on the Super Bowl - I hope the Bears destroy the Colts...I really do. However, I hope that someone, some media person covers the story of the year that Tony Dungy has had. About a year ago, his son committed suicide. He almost quit coaching because it devastated him so much. Now he is in the Super Bowl. It could never replace his son, but Dungy has overcome a lot.

Peace.

I'm Back...Kind of

2007-01-23T20:57:00.000-06:00

Why I Don't Vote

2006-10-26T14:01:00.000-05:00

Yes, you read the title correctly. I don't vote. At least, I don't vote right now. I won't vote on November 7. I'd like to give you the reasons why I don't vote. This should be fun.

When I got the right to vote in 1998, my pastor, youth leaders, teachers told me that I had to vote. It was a necessity. That the fate of the world depended on my slip of paper. I took that seriously. I really did. I voted. I cast my ballot, even when I didn't know who I was casting a ballot for. I voted because that was what I had to do.

Then, in 2000 something happened to me. I saw that my vote did not really count. No, really, my vote did not count. I, surprisingly enough, voted for Ralph Nader. (Or, at least, I tried to vote for Ralph Nader - but in Indiana, Nader was not allowed on the ticket for whatever reason. So, to vote for Ralph Nader required me filling out a write-in vote. This was a large hassle.) The only two people that anyone else knew was running was George W. Bush and Al Gore. Surprisingly enough, Al Gore won the election - he got the most votes. But then there was that whole debacle with Florida and it ended up that while Al Gore got the most votes, George W. Bush got the most electoral college votes. So, it did not matter who voted for Gore - GW got the most electoral college (the most of the right kind of votes) and therefore, he's the winner.

My vote did not count. And if you voted, neither did yours.

In 2004, I was faced with a different dilemna. I realized that my vote did not count. However, I still saw it as imperative to participate in this structure by voting. So, I started to do my research and try and figure out who to vote for. When I did this, I realized something. Our democracy necessarily cuts off conversation in elections. Leading up to election time, pollsters and government officials and candidates tell the general public what they should find important. These things then become important and it works out nicely. Also, the only people that are really given a voice are Republicans and Democrats - the people with the most money. Anyone else that may have an opinion or an answer or a voice is disregarded. They are not allowed in the debates, they do not get TV adds or newspaper ads. I began to realize that our democracy is set up to elect the rich and keep the rich in power.

Then I looked at the two candidates being touted. One was a white guy from Texas with lots of oil money and who used to own the Texas Rangers. The other was a guy who married a rich woman who owns Heinz Ketchup. Yes, it was the battle of the white, Ivy league rich guys. And the answers being proposed by these guys were answers and solutions to problems that only mattered to them. They were only talking about those things that they thought could get them elected. And, they were not allowing other people to participate.

Then I got it. Our democracy necessarily shuts people out. People are excluded just because they are not the right kind of people or do not belong to the right party.

(People will argue that this is not really a democracy, but a republic. Ok, fine. But, it still operates under the notion that people are democratically elected).

At this point I started to think about what I should do. I mean, I had to vote. Then I realized that in a true democracy people should willfully choose not to vote. I realized that everyone refused to participate in the system, the system would have to reform, right? It's obviously corrupt and going nowhere, doing very little good, so I don't participate.

I have made a democratic choice to cast a (non)vote in favor of reform and dialogue. I refuse to continue to allow the system to exclude people and ideas and to not count my vote.

Something I found ironic after the 2004 election was that media outlets touted the great American way of going to the polls for the highest voter turnout in decades. The turnout was right around 60% of registered voters. That means 40% did not participate for whatever reason. No one said this. But there is a real problem here. When 40% of American voters do not want to participate in the system, shouldn't the system begin asking why. Not ours - we applaud ourselves for getting 60% out to the polls - in record numbers.

New Life

2006-09-25T19:59:00.000-05:00

I would like to announce that on September 21, 2006 at 7:46pm, my wife gave birth to Broderick Mark Neidig Crawford (nickname of Brody). He was 8lbs, 9oz. and 20 1/2 inches long. He is absolutely beautiful.

I would love to go into a long discourse on how amazing new life is, but it would be useless. Until you experience it, there's no explaining it. He's beautiful, the process was beautiful, new life is beautiful. I offer that.

Defending My Beef - Pt. 2

2006-08-29T22:35:00.000-05:00

So, in the last post, I responded to the issues circling around pacifism and Christianity and war. In this post, I'm going to respond to being called "old" and "crotchety" by Benson for my views on worship, or at least the certain style of worship.

First off, I played bass and my wife sang (and we loved it) on a contemporary worship team while I was in seminary. It was fantastic, we had a great leader who was lovely (yes, I said lovely) and it was fantastic. In fact, I found much of the music we sang better than some of the hymns even theologically (some hymns, like some contemporary songs have incredible lyrics and some are terrible, also like hymns). So, I have little initial beef with the contemporary worship movement.

However, I did have beef with a service I sat in a few weeks ago.

The first beef I had was that it was loud. Now, in high school, I played in a couple of punk rock bands. I have seen over a hundred bands in concert (mostly punk bands in small venues) and generally do not mind loud music. But this was church. And it did not sound good loud. It was loud for the sake of being loud and not for the sake of the worship service, the people, the glory of God, etc. And, acoustically, the sanctuary we were in was terrible. So, when it gets loud with terrible acoustics, sound echoes and bounces and it sounds like a muffled mess.

Second, songs were generally terrible. I mean, they were not very meditative, contemplative, or even spiritual. There was little to nothing to distinguish these songs lyrically from anything I hear on secular radio at work. There was little mention of God, no mention of Jesus. However, there was a lot of mention of mountains and trees and whatever else, which seemed to be pretty terrible metaphors as we were in Indiana, far away from mountains.

And then, the preaching was terrible. In fact, it was not preaching but a self-help talk about how people need to get along. No mention of Jesus or God or the Spirit (no, not kidding). I've read better theology in Nietzsche!

So, what do I want in a worship service. Well, I want thoughtful music that is theologically meaningful. I understand that the metaphors must change in Christianity and that we talk and use different language today. That is fine. But, I just wish people were more thoughtful with the music - allowing it to be worshipful and lead people into meditation upon God - and with the lyrics - again, theologically correct while also leading people to better understanding of God and an experience of God.

I also want preaching that is based upon a biblical text and that leads people into deeper relationship with God through the loving of God and the loving of neighbor (I'm so Augustinian and Wesleyan). But really, I think the goal of preaching should be to push people, in every sermon, to a greater love of God and of neighbor simultaneously. One cannot really be done without the other. And this preaching should actually be challenging and gripping and bring people deeper.

I'd also love to participate in the sacraments every week, but I know this will not happen in my churches, so I just feel greedy asking.

Anyway, there is my last defense of my beef.

Defending My Beef

2006-08-23T22:25:00.000-05:00

In the comments from the last post, there were a couple of things that came up. My next post will most likely deal with the nature of worship. However, both Benson and Feltzy brought up issues of pacifism (I'm going to leave Rick Warren alone, but if anyone would like a paper where I begin to outline some of my "beef" with him, let me know - it's a paper I delivered at a conference in April).

However, to answer some of Feltzy's questions, I feel like I have to dig deeper than just to issues of peace. I have to dig into thoughts on method, specifically my method of doing theology. These questions seem to consistently come up, so why not take a little time to address them.

First off, I unabashedly "do" theology from an evangelical, Wesleyan perspective. This is for two reasons - first, I think that it is Scriptural (thus, the evangelical part of me) and second, I think that my experience as a human leads me to places of hope and striving after more of God by God's grace. I do not experience myself as a robot or as preprogrammed. I also experience myself in the full grace of God at times, "touching" the holy life. For these reasons, I do theology as an evangelical Wesleyan.

What is an evangelical Wesleyan in the Crawford sense? Well, first, I believe that Scripture has a place of authority in my theology. This is a long discussion, but essentially, I think that at some point I have to deal with Scripture when I do theology, probably needing to use Scripture as my rubric for the metaphors I use when doing theology. Second, I believe that tradition is important. Obviously, I am much indebted to those people (in my tradition, we include both men and women) who went on before me in the Christian walk, not only as theologians but as practitioners and lay persons. We are a tradition that believes in learning from those before us, even if not "in" our immediate tradition. Lastly, I do theology from my experience. I am learning more and more that for me, this is key. The experience of a person allows the person to "use" the metaphors so prevalent in Scripture and to read traditions in a certain way. However, this is much more than I want to say here.

With this in mind, when I do theology, I am not looking for some sort of ultimate truth or to give final answers. I am looking to lead people closer to God and to better understanding of God. I am trying to give people the tools necessary to encounter God in some way. And, as I do this, I believe that this encounter must fundamentally change people, transforming them in some way. The goal then becomes not for the truth of God, but for the grace of God that allows the person to grow closer to God, living in God and leading to a life where God is loved and the neighbor is loved.

And, so, the goal of theology, in my opinion (and Augustine's and Wesley's) is love of God and love of neighbor. This is the rubric under which Christianity does theology.

With this in mind, I believe that God, through the discipline of theology, makes a call upon one's life where one must respond to God. This is an ethical response in that it requires action on one's part. To love God and to love neighbor is not something that can be done by an individual, alone. No, to love neighbor and to love God means that the individual must encounter others. The response necessitates the going outside of oneself and interacting with others - the ethical response becomes clear here.

For me, this is where my pacifism begins to come into play. God has made a call on my life (and I believe all lives) that requires me to love the other, no matter what. For me, it is completely irreconcilable to say that God has called me to love this other person, and then to go to war with them, trying to kill them. To love the other is to put down my gun, and to let the other kill me. This is the only ethical response, in my opinion.

Interestingly enough, I believe that this is the ethical response of Jesus in the Incarnation. God's call upon the life of Jesus leads to the death on the cross. Jesus never once fights the authorities that are trying to kill Him, but only calls them to a deeper love of their God and of their neighbors. Jesus goes, not willingly, but completely selflessly into the arms of his captors, allowing Himself to be killed. What I find most interesting about this is the fact that God does not rescue Jesus in this place. God is notoriously absent at this point. God is present in Jesus at the cross, but absent in the other two persons of the Trinity. (With this, I find no hope that in laying down my gun, God will somehow save me. The call is to die and to trust God that God is God and that that is enough.)

The argument often brought against this is that humans are sinful and cannot attain this. However, appealing to my Wesleyan tradition, I believe fully in the full overcoming of sin in this life - both individual sin and institutional/social sin. So, I fully affirm the notion that sin can be eradicated and that we can live at peace, full peace.

So, I've written much to much while trying to do other things. I've probably raised more questions than answers, but this is how it goes.

Two Beefs

2006-08-13T22:45:00.000-05:00

I have two "beefs" at the moment. I have not blogged in a while and am quite irritated at both of these, so I thought I would kill two birds with one stone. So, here they are.

Beef #1

I just found out that Indiana Wesleyan University - my alma mater - has just received an ROTC on campus. I would find this acceptable (although would not be happy about it) if IWU actually owned the school itself. However, The Wesleyan Church owns IWU. All the land, buildings, etc. is actually owned by the denomination. It is also payed for through some denominational resources. So, every time that I or you drop some money in a tithe, that money goes to IWU (and other facets of the denomination).

This is upsetting since now my money given to the church is going to support ROTC and military. I find this to be quite inappropriate and terrible for reasons that should be obvious to anyone who knows me or has read the blog. But for that one person who does not exist, I will enlighten you. First, I am a pacifist. I believe that war is wrong (and, on a side note, am becoming less of a purely Christological/Christian pacifist and more of a pacifist for pacifist's sake). Second, I believe that the church should in no way be supporting war and especially the unjust wars that are being fought at the moment with our military and tax dollars. Third, as Wesleyans, we really do believe that sin and evil (all sin and evil) can be overcome in the world through the power of God's grace (yeah, we actually believe that God's grace has power in a person's/society's life) - thus there is no need for war.

So, in having an ROTC on campus, I believe that the Wesleyan Church has made a few bold claims. First, they have essentially said that war is necessary, thus sin and evil are necessary thus negating our belief in the overcoming of sin. Second, they seem to see it as ok to use denominational money to support the US armed forces (I find it terrible enough that my tax dollars do this and not fight poverty or find real solutions to other social problems). Third, and this is what truly bothers me, it seems that we have given up our belief in social holiness - we were the first denomination founded on a social issue (we began the break-off from Methodism over slavery). To me, this represents a bucking of this tradition and an embrace of the move to make sure that holiness stays strictly within a person not cussing, smoking, drinking, dancing, etc. and not in the life of a person to fight poverty and war and ecological disaster.

Beef #2

I hate Rick Warren's theology. As a good Wesleyan, I think he has good intentions, but he has terrible theology and we should not buy it. I also think he is quite behind on some stuff, but that is beside the point. Again, as anyone who knows me or has listened to me, this should come as no surprise.

I went back to my home church today and it is copying Rick Warren's Saddleback Church. It was terrible. First, the music was incredibly loud, to the point that I could not even hear any lyrics. When actually reading the lyrics I realized that they were "I wish Jesus was my boyfriend" lyrics. And the people onstage were more interested in putting on a show then actually ushering people into worship. The commands were not to quiet the heart or to meditate on God, but to sing loudly and to make noise and rock concert type stuff. I found it quite not-worshipful (and, just for the record, I played bass in a worship band in seminary and actually find much of the contemporary music to be rich and vivid when done thoughtfully and well - today it was not).

Then the preaching happened. Not once did I hear anything about Jesus and our text was from Romans 12. In fact, not once did I hear about love or transformation. No, we heard about being in God's family and how that meant that sometimes I might not like someone, but I needed to not rock the boat. I heard about how God wants everyone to live in harmony and how this church was doing a great job at being diverse and living in harmony - at which point I took a look at the 250 people in the auditorium (not a sanctuary) and realized that they were all middle class white people in a town that is now at least 30% Latino. It was a sermon telling me and everyone else that living life meant being good and getting along with people or just ignoring them if I don't. It saddened me.

The thing that really bothers me is that I would never have been a Christian if not for the work of God through this church and if this church had not been challenging, offering something different and gripping. What I heard today was easy and self-help. It was about giving (and I quote here) "God's family purpose" but the purpose was completely insular and did not extend the bounds of me.

So, there's my beef. You got any beef? I'm sure someone has some beef with me.

Book List - Thanks Joel

2006-08-06T21:49:00.000-05:00

So, Joel "tagged" me to do a book list. Here it is.

1. One book that changed your life:
Word of God and Word of Man - Karl Barth

2. One book you've read more than once
The Alchemist - Paulo Coehlo

3. One book you'd want on a deserted island
Pat answer - the Bible
Real answer - The New Seeds of Contemplation - Thomas Merton

4. One book that made you laugh
Catch 22 - Joseph Heller

5. One book that made you cry (or feel really sad)
Night - Elie Wiesel

6. One book that you wish had been written
Right now - what it will be like to be a new father in a Theology Ph.D. program in a big city

7. One book that you wish had never been written:
All books are good to have, except for Joshua Harris' Boy meets Girl. What a terrible way to date, "fall in love", get married, etc. It should be the hand model for how not to do it.

8. One book you're currently reading: (I'm going to list everything I'm reading, sorry)
Namesake - Jhumpa Lahiri
She Who Is - Elizabeth Johnson
Questions and Answers about Faith - M. Fethullah Gulen
Foundations of Christian Faith - Rahner
God Who May Be - Richard Kearney

9. One book you've been meaning to read
The Complete Works of Plato and also, The Basic Writings of Aristotle

Daniel 9

2006-07-29T14:31:00.000-05:00

In my last few blogs, I've basically been thinking and working out issues of method in theology. I'm still thinking these things and will post on them in coming weeks - especially a revision of David Tracy's revisionist theology. However, right now I am consumed with thoughts of Israel and Lebanon. It bothers me and honestly, worries me. But, this is not the point I want to make.

I'd like to turn to Daniel 9. This is an interesting piece to me. It is a prayer, written in the midst of what is often associated with Daniel's apocalyptic part. This prayer, though, I think offers a proper way of viewing the Mideast Crisis (when I say this, I mean Israel-Lebanon, along with Iraq, U.S.-Iran, U.S.-Syria, etc.).

This prayer is written after Daniel and the rest of Israel has been taken into exile by the Babylonians. The reason for the exile, as expressed in multiple prophets, is due to the fact that Israel has not followed God. They have been disobedient and have led lives that are not consistent with the lives that God would have them live. It is the fault of multiple generations of people.

By contrast, Daniel is a godly person. The book seems to portray him as an extraordinary testimony to faith. He has God "all over him." He is someone who is in close communion to God.

Yet, Daniel 9 offers us something very different. This close communion with God leads Daniel into a prayer. I would label it as a prayer of mourning, of repentance. Although, it is not a prayer for the repentance of Daniel, but a repentance of the whole nation of Israel - the Jewish people are repenting through the prayer of Daniel. Daniel is becoming the prophet that leads Daniel into this repentance. He does this by being godly and placing himself in the midst of Israel's wrongdoing - of their sin and turning to God. Even though Daniel has been a Godly man, he places himself with the ungodly. He sees himself in the others, the sinful and the ungodly, the ones who placed this nation in exile. Daniel has seen himself in that who is not him, and yet is him.

I think this offers an interesting way of viewing the current state of war in the Middle East. In the rhetoric proclaimed, no one is ever wrong. No one sins. And no one, ever, ever identifies with that who is other than themselves. It is not heard of. We do not do this because it may show weakness or give the enemy an upper hand. And besides, God wants us to be strong.

This is not the way of God though. The prophet seems himself in that who is sinful. Daniel sees that he is in the ungodly, that the capacity for the behavior that got him into exile exists within himself. It becomes time for him to realize and pray like he is the ungodly (I think here, it would be interesting to draw parallels with the prayer of the Publican and the Sinner in Luke).

So, what am I saying here? Well, first off, I am saying that we must identify ourselves with those who we are not, but really are. We have the capacity to make ourselves into anything we wish. I have the capacity to be Osama Bin Laden, or Ghandhi. The issue is to understand that and to embrace myself in the other - realizing that we really are not that different.

Second, I am asking for someone to admit that someone is wrong. Everyone in the Mideast has been wronged in some way. However, they have all committed wrongs as well. There comes a time to admit that one is wrong. I would argue that it is the first thing that one should do. However, I am saying that the time has come for all to admit their sin, to confess, and now is the time to begin the repentance.

Lastly, I am saying that I have been wrong. I have used the rhetoric of "us vs. them". I have implicitly supported Israel in some way and Hezbollah in others. I have been complicit in U.S.'s invasion of Iraq through my use of oil and electing of government leaders who voted to invade. I am there by participating in a system that put us there. My job now becomes to begin to repent by, in some way, changing the system or refusing to participate. I don't think the second is a real option, so the first it is.

My Hood

2006-07-19T23:05:00.000-05:00

I live in Chicago. Chicago is made up of 77 different neighborhoods. I live in the northernmost neighborhood in the city, which is also right on lake Michigan (which makes for spectacular mornings and crazy winters). My hood is called Rogers Park.

Today, on my way to work, I saw that the Redeye's (the Redeye is a free newspaper put out by the Chicago Trib - essentially, all the ads and rarely any of the good stuff) feature article was about diversity in Chicago. In looking inside and reading the article, it was essentially a case study of Rogers Park. You see, by almost all estimates, Rogers Park is the most ethnically and economically diverse neighborhood in the city, and some say that it is in the country.

To give some stats - I am in the minority (first time in my life). Less than 30% of Rogers Park is white. 32% is black and 20% is Latino. The other 18% is quite a hodge-podge. But, this is a bit deceiving. Much of the 30% are refugees and people from Eastern Europe - my building of 6 apts. has 3 people from Poland living in it. The Rogers Park community council even suspects that in our neighborhood, there are more than 80 languages spoken. Incredible!

This is my hood. This is where I live. It is my community.

Why do I bring this up? Well, it's because it is out of this community, this place where I live my everyday life, that I do theology. I readily admit that my main sources for doing theology are Scripture and "tradition", but I would be lying if I did not admit that I interpreted these through the course of my everyday life and being. They help to give me a way of life to live into, but this life also comes back to reinterpret them.

I do theology in my neighborhood. My theology comes from my neighborhood. My neighbors (the ones Jesus says to love), really are as diverse as the world is. For me, it would be irresponsible and unChristian if my theology did not embrace these people. For me, theology is always a response and reflection upon the Other/other. These "others" encounter each other on a daily basis. For example, my theology must not only encounter the beauty I see in God's creation with the sunrise over the Lake, but it must also reflect upon and respond to the homeless man I see everyday lying on the bench next to the lake on my way to work. My theology must embrace the Jewish children I see driving to the mall, the Muslim man I buy water from, the Hindi lady I work with, and the girl with the FEndi bag and chihuahua that sits at Starbucks in the morning (she is like a brown-haired Paris Hilton). For me, theology covers reflection upon and response to the encounter I have with these people and how, in that encounter, I see them encountering God.

As you can see, my thoughts are jumbled. Essentially, I am looking to say a few things. First, while our main sources for theology are Scripture and the tradition, we interpret and deal with these in light of our experience and our everyday life. Second, I am saying that theology must not only be reflection upon Scripture and tradition, but it must also be reflection upon the God that still loves everybody, raining and shining on all people - and then responding to this reflection. Third, it is a call to embrace the Other in the other - to see God in the face of whoever else is there. I believe that it is here that we can begin to do theology the way Scripture and tradition actually meant for theology to be done.

Ann Coulter and Radical Orthodoxy

2006-07-02T22:27:00.000-05:00

So, much to the amazement of some of the people I know, I read the first part of Ann Coulter's new book Godless. It is amusing, to say the least. (For those of you who are now concerned, I did not buy the book.)

The reason that I read this book is that because, this time, she made a very explicit move in her writings. She moved from the realm of political and social commentary to the realm of doing this with reference to God. Anytime someone is making reference to God (and/or religion), then they have begun to enter the terrain of theologians, which is my terrain. So, I read the first part of the book as a theologian.

What struck me about Coulter was the sources that she used and the way she used these sources. Coulter's main source is an ideological tradition that she sees as steeped deeply in the ground of Scripture. She sees this tradition as being almost strictly Jewish and Christian (she makes no qualms of bashing Muslims, even though they share some of the same Scripture stories as Jews/Christians and share many of the same ethical concerns). For her, anyone who does not agree to this tradition is, well, wrong.

This tradition, for Coulter, is a tradition that was put together for the pursuit of happiness for all Americans. The people who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were Bible-believing Christians who were worshiping the Triune God every day, would have never believed in evolution, found no problem keeping the poor poor (because, well, if the poor did not want to be poor, then they just have to decide to pursue happiness), etc. etc. What is funny is that this comes from a very specific reading of the tradition and the American tradition. It is also to read the tradition outside of the context of the world around it. I mean, sure, it is easy to see that the founding fathers were very much about the pursuit of happiness, but only if you fell into the "right" group. These people were also not theistic Christians writing Biblical norms into politics, but were at best deists concerned with espousing Enlightenment political philosophy and bringing it together in the founding documents. I mean the heroes of the founding fathers were not Abraham, Moses, David, Peter, Paul, and Jesus, but were Hobbes, Locke, Smith, and Rousseau. Coulter misses this in the tradition because of her selective reading of the tradition.

This reminded me very much of Radical Orthodoxy's use of the sources. What RO does is a very selective reading of the tradition. In this reading, what they are pursuing is a specifically Christian bent on everything. In this theological setting, Christianity becomes the answer for everything. THere is nothing outside of Christianity and Christian truth.

However, I am not sure that this is a very accurate reading of the tradition. It seems that the tradition has always looked everywhere it can for truth and when it finds it, it makes the truth fall within the range of God. Origen definitely did this with the "truth" that was the Neo-Platonic understanding of the order of the universe (See On First Principles). Augustine did this with the Neo-Platonic understandings of truth around him. Thomas did this again with the more Aristotelian forms of truth in his world.

I find RO's weakness, then, to be the same as Coulter's - they are both closed systems. They both read the tradition in a certain way and do not allow anything in that may rebut or rethink it. It also diminishes the role of controversey and discord that comes in the tradition. The Christian tradition and the American political tradition are not single, unified traditions, but are traditions that take shape through difference, disagreement, and discord. Differences arise and we see what is accepted and what is not. For Christians this takes place very much in the Christological controversies: in America this takes place in the way communism was silenced in the 50's and 60's.

So, really, this is a critique of method. I think that a method of thinking something (whether politics or theology or anything else) must be open. We must bring as much other thinking to bear upon a subject so as to get to the best understanding, but always realizing that this understanding is not truth, but opinion. There are better opinions (usually ones that are more thought out) than others. However, the goal is to continue to push understanding. We cannot do this with singular visions of traditions and Scripture, but must continue to see and hear the other and to listen to what as many people as possible may say. This will never get us away from selective readings of the texts (since we will always, necessarily, make judgments upon the text), but we will begin to read the texts with as many other people as possible, sharpening our understanding.

Theology of Creation

2006-06-20T22:05:00.000-05:00

I recently saw the movie "An Inconvenient Truth." I think that all Christians should see this movie. I think it because Christians need to know, or realize, the destruction that is happening to the earth. This is precisely because the earth is God's "gift" to us. Not to mention that our very survival may depend on it.

I am admittedly an academic and a scholar. Due to this, I found the real argument of the movie to start in one spot. This spot is when Gore talks of taking a survey of 956 scholarly articles (out of specialty journals) and seeing what they said about global warming. This is because in popular media and outlets, the issue is so questioned. Well, out of the 956 articles, 956 took global warming to be a fact. That is 100 percent. Folks, that is as close to a sure thing as it gets.

Gore then goes onto talk about how the levels of carbon dioxide in the air now are reminiscent of those levels found just before the last ice age (this is known through some fancy scientific work in Antarctica - I question scientific methods and still found this rather convincing). Essentially, all the emissions that G8 countries let into the air coupled with the destruction of many forests, especially rain forests, leads to this.

This also means that glaciers are melting. For this, Gore shows pictures of glaciers actually melting over the past 30-50 years. It's quite astonishing. And, if some of these glaciers melt fully, then there could be some pretty heavy destruction, like Nepal being wiped out, along with parts of India and Bangladesh. This does not even get into the melting of the polar ice caps, which is also occurring.

There is much else in the film, and I really implore whoever may stumble across this to see it.

However, the movie is not about giving facts and I would do a major disservice to the movie if I just gave the facts of the movie. The goal of the movie is to change. Gore (and scientists) believe that we have not crossed the point-of-no-return. There is still time to change and help the earth to begin to recover, but we must change now.

For Christians, this means actually taking the issue seriously. I am convinced that many Republican Christians could be standing in a foot of water in Colorado and still say that global warming is a myth of the left. So, it is time to stop giving them any lip service. They obviously are not the experts, nor do they have any idea what is going on. So, just ignore them.

Also, they are to be ignored, because even if global warming is not true (which I am 100% convinced it is), it is the call of God upon God's people to actually take care of the earth. The earth is God's gift to humanity, but humanity is also God's gift to the Earth. Humanity is given the task, by God, to take care of the Earth. We are to be the "good shepherds", taking care of the home that has been given to us by God. To be told not to or that by doing this we are disobeying God is nonChristian and to buy "hook, line, and sinker" into an anti-Christian ideology.

So, I say, be Christian. Live in communion with God through God' s gift to us by being God's gift to the Earth.

2006-06-06T22:43:00.000-05:00

This week President Bush declared his approval of a Constitutional Amendment which says that homosexuals cannot be married in the United States. I find this amazing.

What amazes me about this is the timing of the call and publicity for this amendment. We are roughly five months away from the next set of elections. The summer is a major time for campaigning and fundraising. Bush and the right know that they need money and support to keep control of the government through Congress. I think that they are now using homosexuality as the pawn to bring in this money and support.

I also think it is a ploy to get people out to vote and to vote for conservative Republicans. This is because the homosexuality debate is a tipping card. Like abortion, whichever "side" one is on is constitutive of how one votes for leaders. However, I think abortion has lost the power it once had on voters because abortion rates, while dropping under Clinton, have risen again under George W. Bush. (Funny. It is under the president who vehemently opposes abortion where abortion takes place more often. I think this has a direct link to the structures that Bush has set up)

What most angers me about this though, is that evangelicals are the pawns in this game. For the next few months, evangelical churches will begin to preach against homosexuality. They will give "calls" asking congregants to stand up against the sin that is homosexuality. "God" will become the ideal political structure that opposes homosexuality and calls us to live up to this ideal of standing against homosexuality. The argument will be that it is homosexuality who is the sinful structure threatening to destroy America.

What we will not here though is the God who is the ideal political structure calling us to share our goods with one another, like the early church in Acts. We will not hear the God that calls us to "turn the other cheek" and "pray for our enemies"; who commands Peter to drop the sword. We will not hear about the God who calls us to give the poorest and sickest in society. These are not the moral issues that we will be "called" to commitments for. We will be called to vote for those who stand against this God and the work that this God wishes to do.

Thoughts on Living Faithfully

2006-05-20T19:57:00.000-05:00

Andrew Benson recently posted about living life in a way that was faithful to the gospel and not capitulating to the consumeristic world in which we live. His real question was how one may go about this. I think this is the question we must struggle with. (To see Andrew's blog, which is great, link to AP's blog from his comment somewhere on this page and then go to his links and you will see Benson and link from that - if I knew how to link, I would post it but I don't.)

I am convinced that finding a way to live that is faithful is impossible. There is not one faithful way to live. However, what one must begin to do is to ask the question, "how should I live?" It is in asking the question that we can begin to see the opportunities in our lives to live more faithfully. It is in asking the question that one can begin to see those things that are definitely unfaithful and to stay away from them. I also think that asking the question opens one up to God's guiding in that it can be very prayerful and can help one to commune with God.

What follows are some ways that my wife and I have chosen to live faithfully in our lives, in Chicago. (An aside is important here - it is easier for us to make some choices and harder for us to make others because we live in Chicago. I think that it is incredibly important to begin to evaluate where one is living and the status of one's family and to try and live faithfully in light of that situation.)

First, we have chosen to use public transportation as much as possible (in fact, today was the first day I drove my car in a week). We really take it all over the city. We do this for a couple of reasons. The first is that it is expensive to drive. Gas is not only expensive, but then we must find a parking spot (and usually pay for it). It is also expensive to keep the maintenance up on the car. Also though, we realize that by buying oil, we support some pretty terrible people. If we think about it, most of our oil is produced in the Middle East under very oppressive and terrible rulers. They mistreat women, commit human rights abuses, and do some very terrible things. Oil gives the money that gives these people the control. We have problems supporting that.

Another thing we do is to buy fair trade coffee. Very simple and a little more expensive (but I can afford it from the money I save on gas). However, in buying fair trade coffee, we are buying a product that we know someone is getting a fair price for along with education and health care. We know that we are supporting a community that we have the means to support. It also means that more major coffee producers must begin to reconcile the fact that they are completely unethical and take beans from people that they barely pay and essentially abuse. We don't deal well with that.

Lastly, but I think most importantly, we give to our local church. But we also involve ourselves in the local church to make sure that what it is doing is faithful to God. We want to make sure that the church is working to overthrow some of the sinful structures that we participate in daily. We want to make sure that the church is giving to the orphans and widows, that it is making sure people are fed and that others can find the services. It means being an active part of a community that lives to reconcile the world to Christ in spiritual and physical ways.

Overall, we are just doing a little part to overcome some of the problems in this world. We hope to encourage others to remember those who have not, the poor and the weak and to prayerfully consider them in our everyday lives. However, we also realize we are by no means perfect (we bought a condo in Chicago that forced multiple out of their homes) and are always looking to become more faithful. This is how we hope to grow in the grace of God.

So, any suggestions on how to live a faithful life in all aspects of one's life? Please, help.

Consumerism and Christianity

2006-05-02T15:32:00.000-05:00

Well, I got back from presenting my paper at the Conference on Christianity and Consumer Culture. It was an overall great experience and I got meet and talk to some great people.

The conference was an attempt to get practitioners (read: pastors) together with professional theologians to try and work out what must be done about the infiltration of consumer cutlure and Christianity. A lot of the ideas for the conference came out of the work of Vincent Miller, specifically his book Consuming Religion.

Hearing Miller talk was quite a thrill and quite a lot of fun. He talked about the commodification of spirituality. Basically, he started his presentation with a meditation on the IPOD. For him, what the IPOD does is to pull things out of context. No longer do you have to listen to an album, but you can hear just one song from the album. Songs no longer fit in their context - in their place in the album. In fact, the IPOD has now become the person's own personal album. He then went onto talk of how this has happened to spirituality. Essentially, spirituality has now become de-contextualized. Spirituality no longer develops in and through a tradition, but is a personal, "me" thing. Spirituality is commidified into something that makes money and is no longer part of a much bigger tradition, whatever tradition that may be. It was very interesting. I like it thoroughly. (And Tim, I am not sure that he would disagree with my paper).

I also got to hear Ron Sider and Sondra Ely Wheeler speak on what the Bible says about wealth and poverty. Both came to very similar conclusions. The fact is that the Bible does not speak with one unified voice on wealth or poverty, but that there are a multiplicity of voices. They also both said that being wealthy does not necessarily negate one from the tradition. However, to be wealthy and continue to promulgate the sinful structures that keep the poor poor is to participate in sin. A lot of their discussion was taken out of the Gospels and Amos, along with Proverbs. It seems that Sondra Ely Wheeler's book is a good introduction to this. Overall, though, they best said that the Bible has no ethic as to how one must act (funny since Wheelers is a Christian ethicist), but that the Bible calls people to wrestle with the issues and struggle with what one must do.

Really, what I took from the whole conference is that we must begin to ask the questions as to how we live in a world where the structures of society necessarily oppresses people and keeps people in captivity. How do I particpate in these structures and how can I go about stop participating in the structures? Or, in realizing that these structures do exist, how shall I then live?