James Dobson on Obama

A few disclaimers before I begin. First, my candidate didn’t make it past the primaries. As for which of the two viable candidates (yes, two. I may have some libertarian ideals, but they have no chance at this presidential election) I’m leaning towards, I think it makes little difference to this discussion.

CNN has an article regarding some things Dobson has said about Obama. Personally, it sounds to me like Dobson is raving. His arguments and jabs are half-baked at best. That works for Ice Cream, but not so much for logical discussion. I try to keep politics off of my blog. But I really can’t stand aside at this point.

First, Dobson criticizes Obama for saying that we can’t use the Bible as the sole document regarding how we govern. As evidence for this Obama puts forth Leviticus and Deuteronomy. To be sure these are some tired arguments. Obviously, a proper understanding of those two books makes them far less offensive than they might appear at first glance. But that is neither here nor there. Obama is right we can’t govern based solely on the Bible. Our world is not the Ancient Near East. It’s not even the modern middle east. Obama is also right when he says, “So before we get carried away, let’s read our Bible now. Folks haven’t been reading their Bible.”

Dobson’s response to this? According to CNN, “Dobson said Obama should not be referencing antiquated dietary codes and passages from the Old Testament that are no longer relevant to the teachings of the New Testament.” Now, this isn’t a direct quote. So one must be careful. But I really, really hope that Dobson didn’t say anything remotely close to “[certain Old Testament books] are no longer relevant to the teachings of the New Testament.” If that’s the case then I don’t think it is Obama who has no clue about how to read and interpret the Bible. CNN also reports that Dobson said the following (direct quote): “‘I think he’s deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology,’ Dobson said, later adding that Obama is “dragging biblical understanding through the gutter.’” Again, I don’t think Dobson has any clue here, nor does he have any business being the arbiter of what is or isn’t “biblical understanding” or “confused theology.”

CNN reports that Obama also asked a, in my view, legitimate question concerning what brand of Christianity one might govern by. In this case the Senator from Illinois actually mentions Dobson, “Even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson’s, or Al Sharpton’s?” I think that is exactly the issue. Now, of course, Focus on the Family came back with some argument that Obama was calling Dobson a racist. I don’t think that’s what Obama was doing at all. I think he was legitimately pointing out that we have Dobson on one extreme and Sharpton on another, and they will probably never agree on which brand of Christianity should be taught in schools, or which brand should be used to determine policy. He wasn’t comparing the two of them, he was contrasting the two of them. It’s a common practice, in rhetoric.

The solution? Christianity should stay out of politics and instead focus on helping the poor, blind and lame. After all, what could be more pleasing to God than taking care of widows and orphans? I hardly agree with everything Obama has ever said about faith, but I certainly find myself agreeing more with him than the self-appointed arbiter of Evangelicalism.

Celebration and thanksgiving

This evening Mandy and I participated in a Maundy Thursday service at our church. It has been wonderful this year to more fully participate in both Lent and Easter. By participating in Lent we’ve been forced to reflect on Easter, Jesus suffering and sacrifice and, of course, his resurrection. It has been a very great time. I’m looking forward to the festivities this Sunday more than I have ever looked forward to Easter before. Throughout all of this, as had already been taking place before it, I have come to see the Eucharist as a much more central element of my faith.

So, as we remember today Jesus’ institution of Holy Communion, his time in Gethsemane and his betrayal by Judas, I am forced to bow in humble thanksgiving to so great a God. This year, for me, all of this has really come home with meaning. In addition to all of this, I am also thankful that my parents will be able to make the trek up to MA to be with Mandy and I on Easter. We were both a bit disappointed, this was going to be the first year that we did not celebrate Easter with either my family, or Mandy’s family. But, through an odd circumstance, my parents are going to be arriving at our place tomorrow evening. It will be nice to be able to celebrate with them.

Jehu, Genocide and God

There is a fascinating post over at Wonders for Oyarsa dealing with a question we’ve all asked before: how can God be so mean? The thoughts are well articulated, and point out the salient issues. I’d encourage you to head over and take part in the conversation.

Posts worth reading, Vol 1

Over the past week or so I’ve read a number of excellent posts on other blogs that I’ve wanted to comment about. However, some of them I don’t really have enough to say to warrant an entire post. Most of them I simply don’t have the time to give a full post to. So, I’m going to lump them all into a single post, with links, a few observations from yours truly, and an overall encouragement that you read them.

The Thoughts of a Medialist – Kevin Wilson has a good read with a nice little anecdote about his own time at Johns Hopkins. What is perhaps most interesting in this entire debate is that almost everyone wants to say they are in the middle. William Dever does not consider himself a maximalist. Of course, Kevin doesn’t consider himself one either–though perhaps he considers Dever one, I don’t know. He also has some good thoughts on what amounts to demonizing people in order to “win” the debate. Which reminds me of a recent post by Art.

demonizing: the leading tactic in christian debate – Art is absolutely right. It’s unfortunate, but I’ve seen this all too often. Even recently, I’ve seen this take place. Honest questions are easily dismissed when the questioner can be made out to be something less than a person, or at least the type of person that one normally associates with.

Pensive Thoughts on Faith and Calling – Earl has some open and honest thoughts about calling. He and I have had many a discussion over coffee on this very topic. It’s always fascinating to watch as a person’s thinking on a topic develops, and Earl’s has developed greatly. As my comment on his blog indicates, I think the two of us are in a very similar boat. Regardless of all that, it’s a post worth reading and you should really check it out. It brings up some excellent topics, not least of which is the separation between the laity and academia in Christendom.

Not really a radical… – On a somewhat related topic, Wezlo waxes eloquent about how he’s not really a radical. I say he just needs to keep telling himself that. But in all seriousness, Wezlo brings up some good topics. The idea of seeing the way forward through the past isn’t new, but it’s always good to think about. Furthermore, Wezlo tries to differentiate between an activist and an idealist, a discussion that is worth having.

Sadistic Approaches to Teaching Biblical Languages – This is simply a brilliant post by John Hobbins. You should read it, twice. I have a few professors here at GCTS I’d like to force to read it. I’ve long been of the opinion that languages are best learned inductively. Memorizing endless paradigms, although helpful at points, is an extremely boring way to learn a language. The textbook I used for Hebrew I and II introduced each lesson with a sentence from the Hebrew Bible. Each time we learned something, we were learning it in context. It was a great way to learn. I’m taking Aramaic this semester, and although the language isn’t that different from Hebrew, the professor I have is much different from my Hebrew prof in undergrad. I was never made to learn paradigms, beyond the basic ones, in my undergrad Hebrew courses. Regardless of how one might feel on the necessity of learning paradigms, I managed an A+ in Intermediate Hebrew Grammar last semester. That means I did better than most of the people who had memorized all the paradigms. Yet, in our first Aramaic session of the semester, the class was assured that if one did not memorize a plethora of paradigms, one would not be able to achieve above a C in Hebrew, and likewise in Aramaic. All of this to simply say that there is no excuse for making a language boring and cold to your students.

At this point I’ll stop. Some great posts there, and I recommend you take a few moments to check them out.

Emasculating Men

Over the past couple years I’ve heard more about how the church is emasculating men than on any other church topic. It comes primarily from the blogosphere, or various conversations. Partially I think Mark Driscoll is to blame for the constant talk about it, though that stupid Wild at Heart book also deserves some of my ire. I’ve even heard it in some youth ministry circles. How as youth ministers we need to defend teenage guys from their mothers. We need to teach them, I assume, to belch, laugh at others’ pain, and defend themselves through physical violence. I find such things to border on genuine insanity.

However, my friend Art has recently posted an excellent critique of an article that basically rehashes the same things I’ve been hearing for two years, only the article throws in some horrid exegesis about Jacob and Esau.

I really can’t say things better than Art has, so I will let things rest by reiterating something I’ve said many times before. I have more hair on my body than any “manly man” you’re likely to find, yet I take the Scriptures’ exhortations to love, kindness, gentleness and self-control very seriously. These “feminine” qualities seem to be deeply a part of who Jesus was, and I’ll stick with those, you can keep the trucks and cheap bear.

Article published

I’m very excited to announce that an article of mine has been published at Youthworker.com. It’s not the print magazine, but it’s a step in the right direction. Apart from the excitement of having an article see the light of day on something other than my blog, I’m excited because I think the topic that the article focuses on is worthwhile, and needs to be discussed in youth ministry circles. Now, I don’t have any delusions of grandeur. I don’t think a single article is going to start a revolution in youth ministry circles. But hopefully it will cause some of us to begin thinking.

I’d love to hear any thoughts you all may have on the article.

Thoughts on the Golden Compass

Last night Mandy and I went out with two students from our youth ministry to see The Golden Compass, based on the book by the same name, but more properly termed The Northern Lights. As anyone who walks in the twisted corridors of modern Evangelicalism™will know, this book has generated no small amount of controversy among conservative Christians. This controversy has been aided by some comments by Phillip Pullman himself. My thoughts before seeing the movie can be found here.

Having now seen the movie I can say that my thoughts really haven’t changed, aside from to say that there is absolutely nothing controversial in this movie. The movie was, in my opinion, something to be compared to the movie adaptation of Eragon. It was short, moved rapidly through what could have been an interesting plot had it been given an extra 45 minutes, and ultimately, for me, lacked satisfaction in the ending. As much as New Line might want this movie to be another Lord of the Rings, that is simply not happening. I am amazed as to why producers apparently refuse to make movies longer the 1.5 – 2 hours. The first Harry Potter movie was quite long, and did extremely well. The Lord of the Rings trilogy, when put together, add up to over nine hours, and that is only the theatrical versions. The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is well over two hours, and provides excellent entertainment. Yet movies that could have been good, such as Eragon and, I assume, The Golden Compass, are neutered at slightly over 1.5 hours. You simply cannot have the development that a fantasy film requires in that time frame. Alas, I’ve wandered horribly off topic in this. Let me try to refocus.

Having said all of that, I wouldn’t be concerned at all about anyone seeing the Golden Compass in its movie form. After the movie we had some great conversation with the students who went with us over ice cream. We talked about God, the Church, church services, and a number of other issues ranging from the mundane to the profound. These conversation topics are a direct result, not of the movie, but of the controversy surrounding the movie. In all honesty, aside from some interesting thoughts on thinking for yourself and challenging what you’ve always been taught, the movie lacked any kind of philosophical or idealogical thrust. After we finished chatting over ice cream we stopped by a Borders and I bought the entire trilogy, which I am now reading. So far, I can say that the movie also corresponds to Eragon in that not a single scene has been pulled directly from the book. It’s not as bad as it was in Eragon, but it is close. I’m only six chapters into the book, but thus far I’ve found nothing horribly objectionable. I have been informed, by sources of varying repute, that it is not until the final book that the narrative becomes a diatribe against all things religious. I shall endeavor to report my findings via this medium once I have finished the trilogy.

Students and Youth Ministry Ownership

Tim has a great post on helping students take ownership of their youth ministry. I have some comments to make, and I thought rather than take up several paragraphs in his comment box I’d just post them here. Some background first, anyone who has been reading this blog regularly knows that we have just gone through some changes in our “main event” on Wednesday nights at the ministry I pastor. So this is something important to me, something that I’ve been thinking about, and something I think we (ie, the youth ministry blogosphere) needs to discuss.

First, I agree very much with time in his three steps. Students will have no interest in ministry if they don’t have relationships. It’s extremely important for us as youth workers to be diligent in developing those relationships. However, as I’m sure Tim would agree, we can’t develop them expressly for the purpose of getting these teens to work in our youth ministries. That is called using people. Which I think happens all too often in youth ministry when we begin discussing “ownership.” Too often what a youth pastor wants when she says “ownership” is actually “free labor.” We need to be cautious and check our motivations for wanting students to have ownership. The other two steps that Tim lists out are good as well. I remember Chris Seavey, in my undergraduate work, having two similar steps that he recommended. Something like having them join you in basic stuff (setting up chairs, sound tests, that kind of thing), then joining you in more “advanced” things (leading games or worship, being in charge of a section of an event), and then release them to do those things on their own.

Second, Tim mentions that jumping to #3 doesn’t work, and he’s absolutely right. We can’t just drop something in a students’ lap and expect them to want to own it, much less do well at owning it. It’s a process, and as all things in ministry (and life) it takes time. Now, I’m an impatient person, so I’d much prefer if we could just be like…”Okay, here ya go. Run with that.” Sometimes there are students in a youth ministry who are ready for that. If so, they are normally ready because they have had time to get ready, and people have worked with them to help them to that point.

Third, I’d like to add something to what Tim has said. He mentions this at the beginning of his post, but I think it deserves more attention. We need to make sure we are defining what we mean by ownership. We need to have tangible things of which students can take ownership. I think these “things,” whatever they are, need to be verbally defined as well as logically a unit over which someone could have ownership. Case-in-point, at our Wednesday night event we have a prayer room each week. This is something we’ve started very recently. The point of this prayer room is to allow students to, at any point in the night, take some time to just sit silently with God. At present the setup for the room is fairly basic. Over time my hope is that students will step forward and own that part of our Wednesday night gathering. I have verbally explained this, and it is a logical unit that students can wrap their minds around (as opposed to the intangible idea of “ownership of the youth group”). Another example, we do a time of Scripture reading on Wednesday nights. Again, my hope is that over time (and this is actually already beginning to happen) students will step forward and read the scripture passage for the week. Over the long-term I hope to involve students in selecting the passages to be read, and my real hope is that eventually I can step out of the teaching to some extent and allow students that role.

In fact, we have designed our Wednesday night program to include a number of logical units that we hope will eventually be “owned” by students. Scripture reading, explanation of the reading (ie, teaching), activity (to reinforce the topic), prayer time, discussion time. Before those things we have a time to hang out where students can play video games or use the prayer room, play card games or board games, or just hang out and munch on some snacks. Potentially each of these logical units could be owned by a student or group of students (taking care of setting up snacks and making sure there are enough, choosing and running the games for a given week, etc).

I’m not saying that the way we have chosen to configure our mid-week gathering is the perfect way. But I do think it incorporates something very important in helping students take ownership of a youth ministry. That “something” is allowing them to see, in very tangible ways, the things of which we are asking them to take ownership. Certainly, this needs to come after relationship building, as Tim has correctly pointed out. I do think it needs to come eventually though, and we need to be explicit in our expectations. Maybe this is one of those things to file under openness and authenticity.

Theological Diversity

One of the topics that came up several times in History of Liturgy this semester is how, as a theology of the sacraments developed, there are a corresponding movement, at least in the Western Church, to stamp out diversity in their practice and theology. I am not speaking of heresy here. Certainly there were issues with the Gnostics and what not, but once we move forward in time we are dealing with people who would affirm the Apostle’s and Nicene creeds. Yet this is, apparently, not enough. I mean, people are arguing and having to recant ideas under duress for issues dealing with the way in which Christ is present in the Eucharist. I’m not saying that this is an unimportant issue. At the same time, why is it that certain diverse theological beliefs cannot exist side-by-side? From time to time they are able to (Radbertus and Ratrumnus, for example), but over the long-term conformity is the rule within Christendom. Of course this has a long history, and we could blame it all on Constantine and state religion. But doing such a thing seems to be dodging the issue. It still takes place today, even in secular America. It takes place even among “reformed” Protestants.

I hope that, in my youth ministry and church, we are willing to tolerate, and even celebrate, diversity within the bounds of the Christian faith. I’m also interested to hear what others think on this issue. Am I being too idealistic? Is theological diversity within the Body of Christ actually an evil and destructive thing?

Ooze Book Reviews: Thank God for Evolution! part 1

So, I was planning on simply doing one large review once I finished Thank God for Evolution! by Michael Dowd. However, the author was kind enough to divide the book into parts, and there is enough information here to warrant breaking my review down into its constituent parts. Beyond that I need the chance to think through some things, blogging will help me to do that. First, since this is a book that wants to talk about how science and religion can get along, I think some background is needed regarding my own biases. I grew up in a borderline fundamentalist home — though the experience was mostly positive. My mother and father taught me a literal interpretation of the Scriptures, which I began to question during my time at Davis College. I no longer hold to an absolutely literal interpretation of the Scriptures. I have also come to the conclusion that evolution has a ton of factual evidence supporting it. I’ve been attempting to convince my parents that one could believe in the Bible, the authority of the Scriptures, and that Jesus rose from the dead (really…like…with a body), and at the same time acknowledge the evidence for evolution.

So, there’s my background. Now, on to part one of Michael Dowd’s book, the subtitle of which is “How the marriage of Science and Religion with transform your life and our world.” Which is as good a place to start as any. Am I the only one who think that subtitle could be taken off of one of Joel Osteen’s books? Sometimes I look at the book, and instead of seeing the nifty fish fossil/ichthus mashup I see Joel’s smiling mug. It’s crazy. Beyond that, I am against religion being married to anything. It only creates problems. When religion is married to government – problems. When religion is married to culture – problems. When religion is married to the self – problems. When religion is married to philosophy – problems. All these various things can inform one’s take on religion, and religion should interact with all of them, but marriage is out of the question. Which of course sets the stage of Dowd’s book. I was expecting a book that outlined how science and religion could inform one another. So far I’ve only seen a marriage of the two that is best represented by the stereotypical wife beating husband, with science playing the role of the husband. Of course, religion is still there, so I doubt Dawkins would be pleased either.

But I’m getting ahead of myself. Let’s take a step back. Part I is titled “The Holy Trajectory of Evolution,” and contains the first three chapters of the book. In this Dowd basically attempts to explain his view of Evolution as religion. It is, put simply, the very thing conservative Christians have been warning about for years. They’ve said that evolution is a religion, and that it will try to eat Christianity. Dowd, far from putting their fears to rest, has only written three chapters that will say to them, “We were right!” It will be over no help to me in helping my parents to realize that one could still say the Scriptures are authoritative and inspired, but accept evolution.

However, all of this isn’t to say Dowd’s first three chapters aren’t worth reading. I disagree with almost everything he says, but it is interesting. First of all, he calls evolution our modern creation myth! How often have I said to people that evolution was the modern creation myth! I feel vindicated. However, he sees evolution than as a replacement for the Genesis account. Except, not really. It’s more like he sees evolution as a sort of Urstory. A sort of basic story that contains the basic truths to which various religions ascribe. The idea may not be that different from the idea that all ancient creation myths share a certain amount of truth. The different is, I think, that Dowd has made evolution the truth, as opposed to any one religions take on it. I disagree with this to some extent, and specifically the idea that evolution could ever be a replacement for Genesis. In the same way that the Genesis account interacted with ANE creation myths, I think that if it were to be written today, it would interact with — but differ from in key ways — the modern day evolution myth. That is to say, the underlying theology, I believe, would remain constant. So, whereas Dowd doesn’t want to see humans as unique (aside from being a way for the universe to perceive itself, but more on that in a moment), I think Genesis, from a theological perspective, teaches that humans are, in fact, highly unique among the variety of species out there. The way Genesis does this is by the whole creation of man account. God breath life into mankind. I think the underlying truth to that is accurate, if the literal description is not.

The second chapter basically lays out the idea that evolution is not a meaningless cycle of chance. Rather, Dowd argues, it is a journey of the universe. The universe is, in a way, creating itself. Strife and cooperation both of their place. There is quite a bit of fascinating reasoning going on in this chapter. I think that ultimately it proves untenable. In the end where he says “universe” I would say Adonai and be mostly satisfied with what he’s getting at, I think. I haven’t tried going through and reading it that way, so I don’t know. But, it sounds to me like his version of intelligent design is that the Universe (notice the capital letter!) is an intelligence (The Intelligence?), and as such is designing itself. I haven’t finished the book, so I could be wrong at this point. However, that is the impression I have come a way with.

The third chapter, and the final one in Part I, is an adaptation of a sermon Dowd gave once. It is titled, “Evolution and the Revival of the Human Spirit,” I can hear the conservative screaming already. To some extent they are justified, as all their fears come true. I haven’t gotten to the chapter where Dowd explains what he means by “God” yet, so I may be speaking out of turn. But, based on this sermon adaptation I think that Dowd views the universe, reality, existence, as God. As such we all live within it. Perhaps the most fascinating part of Dowd’s ideas in this chapter is the final subsection, on how “trusting the Universe means welcoming challenges” (pg 53). In here he basically makes the arguement, albeit briefly, that “sin” is all part of the universe, and need to be trusted like everything else. Conservative Christians will point to this as more evidence of the moral laxity of evolution as a religion. I feel no need to do so, however. What I would like to see discussed in more detail is the problem of evil in the world. So far Dowd has simply seemed to say that it is a requirement for progress, and although we should attempt to avoid it we need to realize that when it happens its all for the betterment of the Universe (with a capital U!). I’m hoping he goes into more depth on this idea later, because I’m sure that he would agree that what my current understanding of his thoughts on the matter are inadequate to the complexity of the situation.

So, having completed part one, I can say that I’m looking forward to reading part two. I will post a corresponding review and link to it at the bottom of this post. There are, I believe, five sections to the book. My present opinion is that this is not a book that adequately answers questions that Christians who see the evidence for evolution, but also want to continue affirming the inspiration of Scripture, may have. At the same time, I think it is an extremely interesting read. Since I’ve only read part one, I reserve the right to completely alter my opinions after I finished part two, etc.