theology

Bud Stark has written several good blogs on issues of theology, designed universe, science, and first things. God vs Stephen Hawking's Unbound Theory, Richard Dawkins, Witness to Eden, and Weinberg vs a designed universe.

A fundamental point is that there's no good scientific explanation for why anything exists. But the problem extends farther than that.

My daughter expressed the issue in its most unsophisticated and unanswerable terms when she was 6 or 7. She was riding in the back seat with one of her brothers and with another in a child's car seat in the front (this was before child seats were mandated to go in the back seat). My wife, running late on errands, was making a left turn at rush hour at a particularly busy intersection (N. Mills, along the railroad tracks, and Fortification, for anyone who's familiar with Jackson MS). As she finally started to pull out into the intersection, Liz piped up, without any preliminaries, with "what I want to know is who made God?" Janet kept her eyes on the road and the oncoming traffic.

Being the dork that I am, I went to see Star Trek last night. It was very well-done; the effects were spectacular, the characters were instantly recognizable, the acting was superb. The movie gave new life to Kirk, Spock, and the other heroes of the original series, and opened up a lot of possibilities for future exploration. In my Theology of Watchmen post a couple months back, I wrote that "like any narrative of artistic merit, Watchmen, as both film and graphic novel, raises profound theological questions." The same, of course, is true of the new Star Trek film.

Recently I've been reading J. Denny Weaver's The Nonviolent Atonement, an exploration of atonement from an Anabaptist perspective that assumes the nonviolence of God. Weaver discards both traditional Anselmian substitutionary atonement and Abelardian Moral Influence atonement, embracing instead the earlier conception of atonment (popular with the church fathers) "Christus Victor". In Christus Victor, Christ's death is seen as a ransom to the Devil; Weaver reformulates this theory as "narrative Christus Victor", explains the death of Christ not as a desirable facet of God's plan for humanity or as instance of "divinely-sanctioned violence", but rather as the inevitable result of a life lived in opposition to the violent powers of oppression in the world. The Resurrection thus demonstrates that the rule of these powers is shattered forever, and that the Kingdom of God is breaking into the world. Narrative Christus Victor emphasizes the entire life and work of Christ as central to the concept of atonement -- not just the crucifixion and resurrection, which are here viewed as the natural result and final victory, respectively, of Christ's message.

I went to see Watchmen last night, having read the comic book graphic novel some months back. The novel is a work of art; it's richly interlayered, accomplishing literary effects and conveying subtleties of meaning that are impossible in straight prose. It was of course impossible for the movie to live up the original, but the film nevertheless was well done. And incidentally, though many fanboys will protest over the film's changed ending, I thought it made the finale stronger.

Like any narrative of artistic merit, Watchmen, as both film and graphic novel, raises profound theological questions. Lengthy papers could be written on the "Theology of Watchmen", but this post will seek merely to briefly consider and draw attention to a few of the issues the story raises.

Dr. Manhattan, the only superhero in Watchmen with genuine superpowers, is seen by many as a godlike being. He can manipulate matter; he perceives his entire life, past and future, as a continuous present (mostly); he can walk on the surface of the sun; he can grow to titanic size.

I honestly don't know whether or not this is purely original, and if anyone can find something like it please let me know. But I far as I know, I came up with this more or less on my own.

The idea of the Trinity has always been one of the most fascinating theological concepts to me, along with the Incarnation. I love the the philosophical and metaphysical intricacies of such abstractions as hypostasis, mutual indwelling, etc -- ie, the study of the "ontological Trinity". But just as important as the technical discussion of "internal life" of the Trinity is the discussion of how the nature of God as Trinity affects his interactions with the world -- the "economic Trinity". This post deals with the latter topic.

Dwight Eisenhower understood that "people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than our government. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days, governments had better get out of their way and let them have it!"

One of those people on the forefront is the Anglican Reverend Naim Ateek, who has been seeking peace and reconciliation in the Holy Land by seeking justice; an end to the illegal occupation of Palestine and equal human rights for all people.

The Palestinian Ateek, became a refugee in 1948. He founded the Jerusalem based and internationally supported SABEEL organization in response to his experiences in 1948, the 1967 War and the first intifada [translates to: rise up and cast off] that erupted on December 9, 1987.

The theology of Sabeel is a theology that arose from the oppression of Palestinians under the state of Israel and also a theology of liberation from the watered down theology that keeps many Christians too comfortable.

Sabeel's liberation theology is rooted in righting the injustices inflicted upon the indigenous people of the Holy Land.

Sabeel offers an ecumenical and interfaith theology that seeks to unite the World Wide Body of Christ to the suffering of their sisters, brothers and cousins in the family of Father Abraham in Israel Palestine.

[This was originally published a while back on my personal blog, here; but I think it might interesting for many of you here at CrossLeft.]

As a Christian with a high view of Scripture, I believe in the full equality of women and men.

I fully support women's ordination. I think that the idea that men have some kind of inherent moral authority over women is not only wrong but dangerously wrong. (For those who think that these views don't align with Scripture or with my asserted high view of the latter, take a look at this site.) I also do not believe that God has an inherent gender: he is neither inherently male, nor is she inherently female. The biblical portrayal of God as male is primarily due to the necessities and norms of the cultures within which the Bible was composed, not to some actual divine gender quality. Men and women equally bear the image of God (Genesis 1.27).

Last night's Theology Discussion focused on the issue of same-sex marriage initiatives. As California has an initiative on this November's ballot, we thought it proper that the CrossLeft community speak out in the whole matter.

Those present (Rich Warden, Bill Peltz and Steve Rockwell) developed a sense that due to the wide variety of opinions/positions on homosexuality we should make a statement presenting a range of perceptions, not a formal position endorsing or opposing the initiative.

From our on-line discussion on homosexuality we have the sense that some of us favor gay marriage, others feel it is a civil matter; such separation of church and state - that no one religious tradition should tell another what to do or that the state should not deny homosexuals the right to marry, civil unions being one solution. Some feel it is a spiritual matter, that civil unions do not go far enough, that marriage is a matter of two consenting adults brought together by Our Creator, living in a committed relationship built upon love. We desired to affirm gay/lesbian people in a manner consistent with our beliefs and our feelings.

Nowhere in the New Testament do I find any reference to Jesus and homosexuality. Why I ask? I suspect it has to do with he being concieved, by divine plan, in the lowliest of stations in ancient Jewish culture that he was accepting of all persons, without exception.

As Our Creator accepts all of divine creation without exceptions, Jesus was conceived in this lowliest of states as Our Creator's living example of unconditional love for all, no matter their station in life. Moreover I believe Jesus could see into the hearts of all who came before him, and saw the love in their hearts. He understood that sexual orientation is a condition of birth, not a choice and thus accepted everyone where they were. Hence he did not, and could not, condemn anyone for being who they were by the nature of their birth.