The Supremacy of Christ and ....... [fill the blank]

A little while ago I was reading a book by John Piper and Justin Taylor The Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World and posted on it. Well I've just come across the audio files of the conference that the book was based on. I haven't listened to them, but I'm sure they're good. It's good solid reformist theology type talk (if you like that stuff) as they look at Christ in our postmodern world.

Click here to follow through to them.

Philip

Levinas and the Transcendance of God

It's exam time and I'm mainly studying except for when I'm counselling. However, I am trying to at least read a few pages a day of books I would usually otherwise read. I read this passage today by Bruce Benson talking about Levinas's view of the relationship between human's and the metaphysical 'other.' In this passage 'other' can be taken to be God.

"Attempts at mastery of the other are often manifested by way of cognition. Here we come to a complication in Levinas, one difficult to resolve. On the one hand, to recognize the other as truly other is to recognize the other as a subject rather than merely an object of my cognition. On the other hand, in an important sense I do not "recognize" the other at all, according to Levinas. The other is not merely some phenomenom that submits to consciousness and cognition. I want to control the other by defining the other as I wish, but the other simply refuses that control and continually disrupts it. The other comes to me in a direct and unmediated way - not mediated by my categories. Thus the other is truly transcendent." pg 116. Graven Ideologies by Bruce Benson.

I like the bit about the 'other' coming to us unmediated by our categories. However I do wonder whether God does sometimes in order to reach us, to try and define God is to at the same time lose him.

Cheers

Jimmy

Theology of George W. Bush

Well I read a chapter on 'George W. Bush's Theology of Empire' by Jim Wallis in Bruce Benson's Evangelicals and Empire. While I exist in New Zealand it was at least slightly interesting as the States have quite an influence on the world. It has been a hard call - a call in which I have avoided to make - as to whether the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan were honestly a call of God or not. Caputo has written about 'just wars' and stuff, but I have found Wallis' perspective of Bush to be interesting. Bush is quoted saying:

"If we are an arrogant nation, they will resent us. If we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us." pg 27

However since then the two wars have come into being, as well as the war on terrorism. Not to mention the numerous tactical strikes that pass by in the news and their ever lasting presence in foreign lands. I'm not trying to be an authority on what Bush should have done, but the actions of the States gone past don't really sound like a 'humble nation, strong and welcomed.' In fact I feel that the States have come under alot more criticism.
Perhaps the more interesting point Wallis points out is the National Idealism within North America. As a part of his speech at a conference in 2001 Bush said:

"This ideal of America is the hope of all mankind...That hope still lights our way. And the light shines in the darkness. And the darkness has not overcome it."

Sounds good, but it comes from the Gospel of John. In the Gospel the light shining in the darkness is the Word of God, and the light is the light of Christ - not America. There is a large difference between a nation, and Christ (or the gospel). Perhaps Freidrich Neitzsche - if he were still around - would have a field day on their idolatrous use of their Nation as a representative of Christ. What comes to mind recently when thinking about this was when we were watching the news and seeing avid Republican supporters speaking out against Barack Obama merely because he is deemed less patriotic than his rival McCain (I think one comment was around the fact Obama doesn't salute the flag enough, as if that's what it takes to lead a country or even true).
I hope and pray that people don't react to Bush's use of theology in the wars overseas (and other areas of his administration) by ditching theology all together, but by responding to it with good theology.

Take Care All

Jimmy

The Nature of Deconstruction (Part 3)

Well the book What Would Jesus Deconstruct? by John Caputo has been a good read. He plays off the popular phrase "What Would Jesus Do?" by stating the ambiguity generated in such a statement/question.

One of the many things I've taken away from the book is another tool to add to my hermeneutical repertoire - deconstruction. When reading about Jesus in the Gospel's it is good to keep in mind what it is the Jesus is deconstructing and responding to - for example, the religious hypocrisy of the Pharisee's. What is it about what the Pharisee's are saying or doing that he is deconstructing and responding to?

I have been asked a couple of time's something along the lines of 'Isn't that what liberals do?' I guess in a simplistic understanding it is - only because questioning tradition (and everything else) is in the nature of deconstruction. However I do not consider it to be aligned at any particular point across the spectrum from Conservative to Liberal. Think of it along the lines of 'critical analysis,' it questions 'why we do things the way we do', or 'why the way things are the way they are.' I would like to think this is something all people do rather than taking things for granted. I don't think it descends order into chaos, rather if done in the Spirit of love and justice, it has the ability to improve, move forward, and brings 'ways of doing things' into alignment with beliefs and values. I suggest that in order to change, we first deconstruct, and then construct. I thought to finish off I'd include Caputo's second to last paragraph of the book:

"But what, then, is the Kingdom of God? Where is it found? It is found every time an offense is forgiven, every time a stranger is made welcome, every time an enemy is embraced, every time the least among us is lifted up, every time the law is made to serve justice, every time a prophetic voice is raised against injustice, every time the law and the prophets are summed up by love." pg 138.




It's how I like to think I'm doing theology.
Photo from Lomography.com

Caputo, Deconstruction and Hospitality (Part 2)

This is another observation as I continue reading What Would Jesus Deconstruct? by John Caputo. This post isn't intended to be motivational, but self-evaluative.

I thought John Caputo had some interesting thoughts around hospitality. They have more fully realized that of which I want to be doing more of. Hospitality, Caputo outlines, is simple enough to understand; welcoming the other into our own house. But the ones we really invite over are generally those in whom we enjoy the company of. Perhaps we even expect some future reciprocity. Caputo identifies this as the 'inhospitality in our hospitality.' To be true to the word 'hospitality' would be to welcome any other into our house. I'll let Caputo speak for himself:

"Should [hospitality] not be extended beyond our neighbours to strangers? Beyond friends to our enemies? Beyond the invited to the uninvited? In fact, is not the very act of invitation foreign to the idea of hospitality...isasmuch as "inviting" is a selection process whereby one puts in place in advance a set of prior conditions under which the hospitality will be exercised?...Derrida insists on distinguishing between invititation and visitation: hospitality by invitation is always conditional, a compromised and programmed operation, as opposed to hospitality to the univited other - who pays us an unexpected visit - which is unconditional and unprogrammed." pg 76

I guess one of my hopes is that our place is like a sanctuary, not only to me and my wife, but for others aswell. I find this hard to bring into reality however as I regard our home as a sacred space. It is hard to give up sacred space (and in a sense sacred time) for those in whom you find the company hard. I imagine it gets even harder when kids are in the picture. How many people should we be open to? Is being hospitable also being like a drop-in-zone for the needy? I can imagine this puts serious strain on a family. What sort of boundaries are needed? But I get the point Caputo is making, hospitality is much more than invitation. Perhaps it is translatable to availability, to those that usually go uninvited - like in-laws, unlikable people, troubled adolescents, the putrid smelling homeless - as well as the invited. I think hospitality can be achieved away from the home, by going mountain biking with the troubled adolescent, a drink at a cafe with the in-laws, movie with someone unlikable, or a couple new pieces of clothing and a feed for the homeless. I guess that's the force behind "Love your enemy" and "Love your neighbor as you love yourself." I really feel for the homeless and wish closing the disparate gap between the rich and poor was so much closer. I have often wondered what Jesus meant by saying that he is found in the poor and weak. Caputo finishes his section on hospitality by saying:

"We constantly pray and call for Jesus to come, but the question is...do we really want him to come, or is his true appearance always really uninviting? Is not Jesus showing up the last thing we really want to have - dressed in rags and laying claim to us in all his neediness, as one of the least among us?...Christianity would be well advised to consider itself under the permanent promise/threat of just such a visitation - quite uninvited - by Jesus, who may at any time show up at the doors of our churches, requiring of us an accounting of what we have made of his memory or asking for a cup of cold water - or perhaps an increase in the minimum wage and basic health insurance." pg 78.




Lomography.com

Truth, Christ and the Postmodern World

Well I read Voddie Baucham Jr's paper on Truth and the Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World found in the book The Supremacy Of Christ in a Postmodern World (edited by John Piper and Justin Taylor) last night. Through the questions 1) Who am I? 2) Why am I here? 3) What is wrong with the world? and 4) How can what is wrong be made right? he juxtaposes Christian theism with postmodern secular humanism.
Baucham Jr based his Christian theistic answers from Colossians 1:12 - 21. He works consistently from a reformant styled theology and was a good read in that respect. For example 'Who am I? The crown and glory of the creation of God. What is wrong with the world? What is wrong is me.'
In regards to the postmodern worldview he makes some interesting points against the consumer styled society. For example;

'What if we saw our studies as stewardship? What if we raised our children not to go and do something just because it would make us proud but instead raised them so that they would discover the way that God has put them together?...What if we continually taught them to focus on the supremacy of Christ in truth and how he relates to our very purpose for existing?'

However, while making these points it seems his view on postmodernsim is pessimistic and possibly simplistic. He arrives at the conclusion that the postmodern worldview leaves humanity

'empty and hopeless; man is left worthless, and you are left to pursue your own satisfaction and never find it.'

However despite this feeling I enjoyed his analysis of postmodernism more than the Christian theistic break down.
In the end he arrives the anticipated place where Jesus is supreme and the basis for Christian truth. From him we derive our meaning, purpose and a directive. I didn't find much new in the Christian breakdown, but I enjoyed his analysis of the postmodern worldview, despite the pessismistic feeling.