Mike Morrell from The Ooze says:

The Ooze, the Web’s most prolific ‘emerging church & friends’ website, is looking for 50 participants in a unique partnership with quality publishers. You will be mailed books for blog review on an every-other-month to quarterly basis, free of charge. These are books on culture, theology, church history, justice, faith & science, global issues, spirituality, novels–you name it. The Ooze pre-screens each title brought up for our consideration to ensure you that it is a book of singular distinction.

Interested? Well, if you’re an off-the-beaten-path, thoughtful blogger (you don’t have to identify yourself with ‘emerging church’ conversation per se, though it’s certainly fine if you do) who enjoys blogging about the above-mentioned topics, and you have a Technorati authority of 50 or higher, you’re an ideal candidate. Just send me your name, blog URL, authority ranking, and snail-mail address by March 25 to zoecarnate [at] theooze.com. (Please do not leave this info in the Comments section of this post.) Then I’ll send you a more detailed email as to what this entails and we can go from there. Feel free to post this invitation on your own blog as well.

Thanks for your interest!
Mike Morrell

Mike’s sent me some great books. If you’d like to get the hookup, email him as it says above.

I finished reading Ron Rolheiser’s excellent book The Holy Longing: The Search for a Christian Spirituality yesterday. Rolheiser is Catholic, a member of the Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate, and is clearly a fan of Henri Nouwen.

Rolheiser begins by making a case for certain essential elements of a Christian spirituality. I didn’t buy everything he said in this section, as some of his points were unsupported assertions that assumed a shared theological background, but I enjoyed his chapters on the roots of spirituality in the incarnation of Christ.

There’s an excellent chapter on social justice, and despite Rolheiser’s celibacy, he has a remarkably insightful and comprehensive perspective on human sexuality in the latter portion of the book. While reminiscent of the writings of Henri Nouwen, The Holy Longing strikes a balance with the average person that Nouwen - who, like Rolheiser, led a deeply contemplative life - never did for me.

The core of Rolheiser’s argument is that spirituality is about channeling our desires, our passions, in life-giving ways. If these desires are either out of control or dampened entirely, inflation or depression - explosion or implosion - inevitably occurs, leading to a fractured self.

In an age when arguments for or against a particular practice on strictly moral grounds seem tired or antiquated, The Holy Longing masterfully links time-honored mores with an insightful analysis of the influence on the self that these practices have. It’s not a book about morals or spiritual disciplines per se, but about nurturing a spiritual life that is truly life-giving.

If you’ve read dozens of books on spiritual disciplines, or are just getting started in the topic, The Holy Longing will be worth your time for its refreshing perspective and readable, almost meditative prose.

Our current book group is studying Miroslav Volf’s 1996 book Exclusion and Embrace, and though I’ve only read the preface and introduction, I’m impressed.

Volf is a Croatian-born theologian who currently teaches at Yale. Hailing from a country torn by ethnic strife, he writes with a deep understanding of the concept of “otherness” and difference. From p. 20:

…”tribal” identity is today asserting itself as a powerful force, especially in cases where cultural heterogeneity is combined with extreme imbalances of power and wealth. It may not be too much to claim that the future of our world will depend on how we deal with identity and difference.

That’s certainly enough to keep you reading. Volf goes on to point out that, while societal conditions are surely relevant factors, he will focus on “what kind of selves we need to be in order to live in harmony with others” (p. 21).

Now, since Volf teaches at Yale, and has been cited by more liberal-leaning types for quite some time now, I was expecting a pretty touchy-feely-can’t-we-all-just-get-along volume of wishy-washiness. But that’s not at all what Volf delivers. Even before chapter 1, he delves into the question of the cross: “…what does it tell us about the character of the Christian self in relation to the other?” (p. 22). He cites Moltmann’s “solidarity” theory of the cross:

The sufferings of Christ are not just his sufferings; they are “the sufferings of the poor and weak, which Jesus shares in his own body and in his own soul, in solidarity with them” (Moltman 1992, p. 130). …On the cross, Christ both “identifies God with the victims of violence” and identifies “the victims with God, so that they are put under God’s protection and with him are given the rights of which they have been deprived (131).”
…
The theme of solidarity with the victims (129-131) is supplemented by the theme of atonement for the perpetrators (132-38). Just as the oppressed must be liberated from the suffering caused by oppression, so the oppressors must be liberated from the injustice committed through oppression.
…
As God does not abandon the godless to their evil but gives the divine self for them in order to receive them into divine communion through atonement, so also should we–whoever our enemies and whoever we may be. p. 23

This attitude toward our enemies is difficult to develop, especially in situations where our enemies are killing us. More on this soon.

Defective Yeti (AKA Matthew Baldwin) is blog-hosting National Novel Reading Month, the less-ambitious alternative to National Novel Writing Month. He also hosts WriAShorStorWe, or National Write A Short Story Week, though that’s a matter for another time and place.

NaNoReMo last year focused on the horribly dull but nevertheless famous novel Moby Dick. Even Matthew did not finish. This year, the book is the (hopefully) more exciting and relevant classic Catch-22. You can follow Matthew’s NaNoReMo posts here.

Matthew is a very funny guy, and will do a great job of getting people through the book, so I’ve decided to read along. Interested? Pick up a copy of the book and read along with me.

I think bible study peaked in the last generation of evangelicalism. I can’t compete with that level of intensity, reading 5 chapters a day or what have you, and there’s more I want to read - and take into consideration - from the available Christian literature than the bible.

How do we keep the pendulum from swinging too far the other way, into ignorance and lack of concern for what our scriptures teach?

That’s all - thought it was time for a short post, possibly with a long discussion to follow. Cheers.

When I was young, probably my single favorite movie was 1981’s The Great Muppet Caper. It still holds a very special place in my heart. My favorite scene is the part when the Muppets are planning their scheme to break into the Mallory Gallery and stop the theives from stealing the Baseball Diamond. At one point, all the Muppets are talking at once, advancing their own theories, discussing, bantering, clamoring for attention - the noise gets to a level where Kermit the Frog yells “QUIET!”

Everyone stops talking except Janice (the lead guitar player of Dr. Teeth and The Electric Mayhem), who is caught mid-sentence. “…So I said, ‘Look, mother! It’s my life, oo-kaay? So if I want to live on the beach and walk around naked…’ [She realizes everyone else is staring at her] Oh.”

I finished reading Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches: Five Perspectives Monday night. It was a really enjoyable read, overall. I’ve always liked the “point/counterpoint”-style books, where I get to peek into the minds of various people, and see how people with different worldviews approach a problem. I like the atmosphere of mutual respect, admiration, and “agree-to-disagree” that authors generally provide for one another.

Such was definitely the case with this book. The authors, ranging from “conservative” to “liberal”, mainline to evangelical, and a host of other cultural and spiritual differences (although more than one stated his/her dislike for such labels), found common ground in discussing missional, incarnational theology in a postmodern world, and freely expressed their concerns without chasing rabbit-trails, resorting to ad hominem attacks, mischaracterizations, or bad faith arguments.

This goes for all the authors, that is, except Mark Driscoll. John Burke, Dan Kimball, Doug Pagitt, and Karen Ward seem to be having a really productive exchange - challenging each other, presenting new perspectives, discussing ways of “being” in the world, the role of Christianity and Christians, how to relate to unbelievers and people of different faiths, etc. - and then Mark would come in, guns blazing, blasting someone for not espousing his version of orthodoxy. Mark has always been a big fan of “man’s man” metaphors - I imagine he pictures himself as William Wallace in Braveheart: “I’m going to pick a fight.”

At first, this made me really mad (see, for example, my earlier post) - I wanted to yell at Mark for being unfair, for using logical fallacies, for nitpicking abstract theological “issues” (penal substitutionary atonement, eternal literal hell, plenary biblical infallibility) and ignoring the real substance of the other authors’ statements about collaborative theology, the importance of community, incarnational ministry, and the realities of living in a post-Christian, pluralistic society. After continuing to read it, though, I stopped being mad/offended. I realized the dynamic of what was going on in this discussion: Mark Driscoll was simply not having the same conversation that everyone else was. He wasn’t absorbing what the others were saying in order to respond thoughtfully; he was in full battle mode, looking for errors to expose. It stopped being a tragedy, and turned into a farce. Any admission by him of missional living, or of the centrality of praxis in the life of a church/Christian, was absolutely tangential to “theology” in the abstract. He made it abundantly clear that that was his topic, and he wasn’t going to be sidetracked by what anyone else was saying.

As the book went on, I took him less and less seriously. He was so far afield from the conversation everyone else was having, he may as well have been saying “…So I said, ‘Look, mother! It’s my life, oo-kaay? So if I want to live on the beach and walk around naked…’ ”

Mark Driscoll as Janice the Muppet.

I thought I was pretty clever coming up with “muppet theology”, so I googled it. Yes! Only two prior hits!

“Gonzo, Divine King of the Muppets, Most Benevolent, Guardian of the Blue, Patron of Frilly Head-Antennae” - oh my…
(BTW, it doesn’t work in Firefox - IE Tab that sucker).

I picked up a copy of Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches: Five Perspectives at the library recently. It’s one of those point/counterpoint books, in which five church leaders (Mark Driscoll, John Burke, Dan Kimball, Doug Pagitt, and Karen Ward) each write a chapter on what they believe about the church’s role, and the other four authors all make a short response/rebuttal.

The first chapter, called “The Emerging Church and Biblicist Theology”, is by Seattle’s own Mark Driscoll - pastor of the Calvinist hipster megachurch Mars Hill Church, blogger at TheResurgence, and all-around bad-boy of the conservative evangelical subculture (Donald Miller’s famously referred to him in Blue Like Jazz as “Mark the cussing pastor”). Mark’s main objective in his chapter, as evidenced by the 700 (!) Scripture verses he references in the endnotes, is “to defend the traditional Protestant doctrines of scriptural authority, the Trinitarian nature of God, and the substitutionary atonement” (p.16, from the introduction by Robert Webber).

Mark represents a passionate adherence to the particulars of a Reformed evangelical theology, and in that sense, is not typically emerging. He is a theological traditionalist leading a cutting-edge church that ministers primarily to the new emerging generation. (ibid.)

I think that his perspective is valid, and I understand the concern of [some] theological “conservatives” that some doctrinal essentials are being overlooked or ignored [by some] in the “emerging conversation”. With that said, however, I think that Mark setting himself up as the arbiter of truth is a bit disingenuous. “This chapter is my attempt to address three of the hottest theological issues in our day and to correct emerging error with biblical orthodoxy” (p.21). I get the impression that he thinks that he’s the only one that does theology; that if everyone else would just read the Bible and take it seriously, they would come to the same conclusions that he has.

The following lengthy quote is from pages 34-35. It’s the climax of his chapter, in which he defines and defends his position on hell:

The following Old Testament truths about hell are worthy of note:

• Hell is unending, conscious, loathsome torment.¹⁵⁹
• Heaven and hell will have people in them forever.¹⁶⁰

Also, Jesus had much to say about hell, including the following:

• The pain in hell will be excruciating, causing “weeping and gnashing of teeth.”¹⁶¹
• The torture in hell comes from Jesus.¹⁶²
• Jesus is coming to throw people into the fiery furnace of hell.¹⁶³
• The physical pain of hell is like being burned in a fire.¹⁶⁴
• Unrepentant sinners will be thrown into a fiery hell.¹⁶⁵
• Hypocrites will be butchered and spend eternity in pain.¹⁶⁶
• God will send unbelievers to the same fate as Satan and demons.¹⁶⁷
• Jesus said the eternal torment of Isaiah 66:22-24 is literally coming.¹⁶⁸
• The punishment of hell is like a painful beating.¹⁶⁹
• Hell is a place of unending torment.¹⁷⁰

Lastly, the apostles also speak of hell in the following terms:

• Jesus will repay unrepentant sinners with everlasting destruction.¹⁷¹
• Jesus today holds the unrighteous in punishment.¹⁷²
• Jesus will rule over hell as well as heaven.¹⁷³
• Hell is like spending eternity in a fiery lake of burning sulfur.¹⁷⁴

---

Footnotes:
¹⁵⁹ Is 66.22-24
¹⁶⁰ Dn 12.1-2
¹⁶¹ Mt 8.11-12; 13.40-42, 49-50; 22.13; 24.50-51; 25.30; Lk 13.27-28
¹⁶² Mt 8.29; Mk 1.24; 5.7
¹⁶³ Mt 13.40-42, 49-50; 22.13; 25.30
¹⁶⁴ Mt 13.49-50; 18.8-9; 25.41; Mk 9.43-48; Lk 16.19-31
¹⁶⁵ Mt 18.8-9; Mk 9.43-48
¹⁶⁶ Mt 24.50-51
¹⁶⁷ Mt 25.41
¹⁶⁸ Mk 9.43-48
¹⁶⁹ Lk 12.46-48
¹⁷⁰ Lk 16.19-31
¹⁷¹ 2Th 1.6-9
¹⁷² 2Pt 2.9
¹⁷³ Rv 14.9-11
¹⁷⁴ Rv 19.20; 20.10-15; 21.8

Honestly, this section has me fuming. To my reading, Mark’s tone seems to be giddy to “correct [this] emerging error”. I can understand and respect that people hold to the traditional doctrine of hell as “eternal, conscious torment”, but I just can’t deal with the smugness, superiority and presumption that he exudes here.

Additionally, I think that his over-eagerness to stand up for orthodoxy causes him to overstate his arguments. I didn’t have the time or energy to investigate all the verses he cited, but two of the claims struck me as preposterous, if not disgusting - and here I find his exegesis dubious at best:

• The torture in hell comes from Jesus
  Mt 8.29 - “What do you want with us, Son of God?” they shouted. “Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?”
  Mk 1.24 - “What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!”
  Mk 5.7 - He shouted at the top of his voice, “What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? Swear to God that you won’t torture me!”
  So, some demons ask Jesus not to torture them, and Mark sees this as saying that Jesus does torture? That’s just wrong - not to mention that even if it were a valid argument, the passages in question are about demons, not people.
• Jesus is coming to throw people into the fiery furnace of hell
  Mt 13.40-42, 49-50; 22.13; 25.30 - all variations on The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
  Quite simply, these verses do not say what Driscoll says they say.

I’m done. If anyone wants to evaluate the rest of his claims, that’s fine; I think I’m going to wash my hands of this whole thing. It’s neither useful nor helpful in living an authentic, spiritual life - rather, it seems to be only concerned with defining the boundary markers of acceptable belief, in order to decide who’s in and who’s out. I’m tired of it.

Elaine, who is part of the church to which all three Radical Congruency authors belong, put together a terrific summary of Parts I and II of The New Testament and the People of God (more here), which must have been a substantial project to accomplish in one week.

The New Testament and the People of God, Part I and Part II: Tools for the task of approaching the New Testament texts, Historical data of the first century, and Theological questions

In these first two sections, Wright places his work to look at the Gospels, the persons of Jesus and Paul, and the historical context of it all, within the context of intellectual knowledge since the Enlightenment.

He draws on what others have said and hypothesized regarding epistemology (how we know things) and movements within the last century in the fields of theology…Read More

Great work, Elaine! You’ve set a high bar for the rest of us as we take turns leading our weekly discussions.