Common, "Blue Sky"

One of my favorite songs and music videos from last year. The emerging track, the lyrics, the flow, everything works mellow like La La.

Check it out!

--Nick

Calvin & Hobbes and my Love Life

Reminds me of the first time I got a flock of butterflies let loose in my tummy. ;)

--Nick

Roger Olson, "How Serious a Heresy is Universalism?"

Blah blah blah interesting comment blah blah blah Roger Olson blah blah blah.

Olson:

I have called universalism “the most attractive heresy.”  For a lover of God’s love, universal salvation might seem to be necessary.  (I guarantee you that some neo-fundamentalist will take that sentence out of context and attribute it to me without acknowledging what follows.) 

However, I’m not a universalist.  On the other hand, I’d rather be a universalist than a true Calvinist (i.e., a five point Calvinist who believes in double predestination).  

Someone once asked me whether I would still worship God if somehow I became convinced the Calvinist view of God is correct.  I had to say no.  Sheer power is not worthy of worship.  Only power controlled by love is worthy of worship.
If somehow I became convinced that universalism is correct, would I still worship God.  Yes, but…. 

I would have to wonder how a God of love can enjoy love from creatures that is not given freely.  Of course, someone might argue that, in the end, every creature will freely offer love to God and be saved (e.g., Moltmann).  I would just call that optimism.  There’s no way to believe that true other than a leap of optimistic hope. 

Everyone harbors some heresy in his or her heart and mind.  The only question is–how serious are the heresies one holds?  Of course, nobody thinks they harbor any heresies (in the sense of theologically incorrect beliefs).
I agree with Swiss theologian Emil Brunner (and others) that universalism is heresy.  It is unbiblical and illogical.  However, that does not mean a person who holds it is not a Christian.  I have never met a Christian who was one hundred percent theologically correct.  Scratch hard enough and you’ll always find some heresy beneath the surface (if not on the surface).  That’s true for me as much as for anyone else.  If I thought I held no heresies, I’d think I had already arrived at the fullness of truth–something even the apostle Paul did not claim. 

I think universalism is a minor heresy SO LONG AS it does not interfere with evangelism.  (See my earlier post here about why universalism should NOT interfere with evangelism.)  I also evaluate the seriousness of universalism by its context–viz., why does the person affirm it?  If universalism is evidence of a denial of God’s wrath and/or human sinfulness, then it is much more serious.  Barth’s universalism (yes, I believe Karl Barth was a universalist and I’ll post a message here about why later) did not arise out of those denials which is why he didn’t like the appellation “universalist.”  The term is usually associated with liberal theology.  In that case, as part of an overall liberal/modernist theology, I consider it very serious indeed. 

Strictly historically speaking, any universalism is heresy–according to all major branches of Christianity.  The Catholic church allows hope for universal salvation but not confident affirmation of it.  But, of course, as Luther demonstrated, all branches of Christianity can be wrong.  That is why I reject paleo-orthodoxy and any appeal to absolute authority of tradition.  Tradition gets a vote but never a veto.  The Bible trumps tradition. 

When universalism is believed on biblical grounds (as in The Evangelical Universalist by Gregory McDonald–a pseudonym), it is much less serious than when it is believed as part of a liberal theology that denies the wrath of God and the sinfulness of all human beings (except Jesus Christ, of course). 

(Sidebar regarding neo-fundamentalism: A neo-fundamentalism is someone who will take what I have written here and claim I have affirmed universalism or at least given aid and comfort to heretics.  A neo-fundamentalist, like a straightforward fundamentalist, is a person who cannot distinguish between non-absolute condemnation of error and error itself.  Count on it.  Some probably Southern Baptist heresy-hunting neo-fundamentalist will pick up on this blog post and spread it around as “proof” that Roger Olson harbors sympathies with universalism.  That is, however, evidence of either a weak mind or ill will.) 

So, what is my final word on universalism?  I don’t have a “final word” on it because “it” is not all that clear.  What kind of universalism?  Based on what?  I consider all positive affirmations of universal salvation that include denial of everlasting hell heretical.  But not all are equally bad or condemnable.  Some are based on confusion.  Some are based on liberal theology.  Some (e.g., Karl Barth’s) are based on the logic of God’s love and electing grace (viz., “Jesus is victor!”).  All are wrong, but not all are equally bad. 

Let me be clear.  (This is necessary because of the power of neo-fundamentalists within evangelicalism today!)  I am not a universalist nor do I sympathize with universalism.  I am simply trying to get people to consider the possibility that not all versions of universalism are on the same level of error.  There is egregious error and there is simple error.  One kind of universalism (based on denial of God’s wrath and human sinfulness) is egregious error.  Another kind (based on confusion about God’s love requiring his overriding free will) is simple error.  I hope I don’t hold any egregious errors, but I’m sure I hold some simple errors.  I am open to having those pointed out to me.

Roger Olson/Heresy & Universalism

A postscrip thoughtt: I'm not certain if Olson really defines heresy. I also think Olson should read Eric Reitan's post in Universal Salvation? The Current Debate where Reitan engages with Jerry Walls and Thomas Talbott on the issue of libertarian freedom and universal salvation. Reitan doesn't see that as much of an issue and neither does Talbott.

I think getting Reitan, Talbott and Olson to sit down and break open a bottle would be a great experience for all.

Yeah, I'm still plugging that book. :)

--Nick

A Picture of my Cat

Monty

My baby.

--Nick

The Boondocks, "Only in America"

;-)

--Nick

Daily Dose of Humor; Loaded Pork

 I'm still laughing.

--Nick

The "Joke" on Alan Moore?

I often thought Rorschach was considered by Moore to be a satire of "objectivism" and "dogmatism", but I think the joke is on Alan Moore:

He gave us a character that is satirical, but also quite the badass. And also the best part of Watchmen.

So, is the joke on us or on him?

Pretentious question for the nigh.

--Nick

Pretentious and not-well-thought-out question. ;)

--Nick

Hopped and Bothered; Hoegaarden

Hoegaarden -- Original White Ale.

Alcohol 4.9%. Brief scent of carbonation and cloves. Coriander tang. Head dissipates quickly. Very cloudy. Wheat texture. Orange peel kiss on the tongue. Watery texture. Very light, almost creamy. The grapefruit is stronger here, coupled with said coriander and lemon tart. Finishes light, almost dry. The alcohol is not strong, and it doesn't balance the final finish very well.

Buy if: you want a light Belgium.

Overall: great scent and taste, but a lackluster finish.

3 out of 5.

--Nick

TCM, "Heresy Hunting"

I had the pleasure of being involved in a podcast on heresy hunting. Ya'll should listen and give me some thoughts. We go from orthodoxy to gospel to heresy back to orthodoxy. Its long but worth it, I think.

The Christian Manifesto/Heresy

--Nick

Peter Enns, "Ten Commandments of How Jesus Wants You to Fire a Colleague"

I thought this was quite interesting. Both honest and respectful. 


Enns:

I wanted to follow up a bit on my recent post citing Larry Hurtado’s prophetic denouncement of the increasingly common acts of injustice toward Christian faculty members. 

The following are reasonable parameters to follow when administrations find themselves, for whatever reason, at odds with a colleague, who is also a brother or sister in Christ. 

1. Christian colleges and seminaries have every right to establish theological parameters that are consistent with their mission and understanding of fidelity to the gospel. Academic freedom does not mean “anything goes.”

For the rest, check Enns/Patheos.

--Nick

Summarizing the Gospel in One Word:

Liberation. 

In a sentence:

Liberation from the wages of sin, which results in life instead of death. 

What about you?

--Nick

NY Times, "Young People's Priorities"

NY Times:

NYTimes/LINK

--Nick

A Conversation with An Agnostic Dressed as a Beer Can

Most conversations about God happen in the dead of night, most often amidst points of inner apathy and impatience. I was hanging out with a close friend, ended up at his friend's house and decided to hang out by the car. His friend, whose name I cannot for the destiny of me remember, was dressed for halloween as a beer can. I kid you not.

It was around 1 in the morning. I was shivering outside, listening to Eminem. I don't know why I was, but it seemed important at the time. He came out and began to talk to me. As all conversations go, the topic switched from sex to God.

I don't remember much from the conversation, though it was both frank and without malice. He brought up reasons for doubting God's existence, I tried to answer, and it kept on going. I remember expressing doubts on some things as well, and that seemed to help him, though I can't give any specifics. 

A non-specific conversation about God. How often does that happen?

Anyway. Most of his friends were Christians and he asked if he could tell me something. I said sure. What he said next almost broke my heart. 

He was at a party, and he blatantly asked the Christians in the room if they had any good reasons for believing in God. They were either drunk or not interested. He then told me that if they had given him one reason to believe, he would've done so with his whole heart. He spoke as if each word were stuck in the center of his throat. I had and have no reason to doubt his conviction. 

That night, I hated Christians. 

I don't remember his name. I don't remember much about him, save for his costume. I remember that, if someone had given him an answer, he may have believed. Or he may not have. Who knows. I'm not certain that is my place to know.

What makes me sad is to know that there are honest people out there, searching for something. When we are given the chance to offer an opinion, we very easily do so with the force of a sledge hammer and forget we are dealing fragile people. 

I still think about him, and wish I had better answers. Or that I was a better listener. But I take comfort in hoping that he was heard. And I hope he and souls like him will be heard in the future. 

--Nick

Thomas Talbott quote

‎"It is the good news that Christ has achieved a complete victory over sin and death, that there is therefore no such thing as a hopeless condition, and that the ultimate truth about the universe is glorious, not tragic."

--Thomas Talbott.

Drive, a brief review

I have mixed feelings about Drive. It's been a few months since I've seen it and honestly, I don't remember much of anything except the final shot. That's only because it was the most interesting part of the film for me. I'll lay out seven points in regards to my final thoughts:

1) The action scenes are interesting, but not tense or particularly memorable. I remember the hammer scene only because it was featured prominently in the trailer.

2) The style was definitely rockin', but the film seems more interested in creating a mood instead of interesting characters. Silence in regards to actors standing around doesn't build anything except, well, silence.

3) The brief car chase in Drive was indeed pretty badass. Refn's technique is incredible in this sequence.

4) The chemistry between Mulligan and Gosling felt forced. For man capable of great violence, his shift in tone is jarring and seems unwarranted. We're given reasons to care, but no implementation.

5) Albert Brooks exhibits a profoundly radical shift in acting persona, and steals the show. Ron Perlman has a nice little nasty turn. Brian Cranston is nice as a ferret-like agent.

6) All of the supporting characters are more interesting than the two leads.

7) The climax is patently unsatisfying. I do not expect an epic showdown, but the methods used to showcase the fight were confusing and -- frankly -- uninteresting. However, the final shot leaves the film open and provided a rush of emotion.

3 stars out of 5.

--Nick

Divided by Race? part I

My lady wrote this for a paper at Trinity. You should read it.

DIVIDED BY RACE?

My early childhood was characterized by idealism concerning the question of race. This was informed by my immediate family as well as what I was taught in school about our nation’s history. It was also informed by what I learned in my Bible classes about how Christians treat other people. Only later would I slowly realize that the country I cherished and even my own Christian subculture was biased against, and divided according to race.  When I was a small child, I lived in a color-blind world. Minorities were my family and close friends and racism was something that existed mostly in history books.

Understandably, my family and church was my childhood world and so I had a limited perspective. My grandmother was an immigrant from Italy who married my grandpa who was a Spanish Mexican descended from a relative adopted by his aunt and a Chinese immigrant who had to get married out at sea since it was illegal (Rethinking the Color Line, 21). One of my aunts is Korean and one of my favorite uncles growing up (Uncle Mike) is African American (he was a close friend of my dad’s). My church (Marina Cathedral) was primarily African American and the church I would attend later in my elementary school years was extremely diverse. Close friends of our family were Mexican, Czechoslovakian, or Jamaican. My friends were Swedish, African American, Mexican, Japanese or Korean. I recognized we were different in some ways since sometimes we spoke differently, liked different foods and had different outlooks, but it never occurred to me that our country was not all that I thought it was or that American Evangelicals were not as united as I had grown up thinking. My immediate family and church experiences were often the exception and not the rule. It was also possible stuff was happening behind the scenes that I was not aware of.

My first conscious exposures to racism occurred in my elementary school years. My family lived on a street that was primarily, Mexican and Mexican American with one or two “white” tenants. One day, I heard my parents talking about how upset people where about an African American family moving in across the street from us. I didn’t understand why and so they explained to me that it was because they had darker skin. This confused me. It seemed crazy, ridiculous and arbitrary—and yet, people felt so strongly about it. Later, I also heard about some of the problems my dad and Uncle Mike had when visiting other states and how Uncle Mike was expected to open doors for my dad and how their initial refusal to participate made things worse for Uncle Mike. Also, when my parents were trying to buy a house, the person selling it started assuring them there were no “niggers” in the area. In high school, one of my peers was talking about how stupid Hispanic women were, and how they were only good for one thing. I was offended since this directly related to my friends and I questioned him about it, but my color-blind world was collapsing. The world was a lot sicker and more sinister than my earlier experience conceived. Differences became infused with another, darker meaning.  Having dark skin was no longer just like having red or blond hair, and being Chinese no longer meant merely having a different culture, perhaps taste in food, or language—there was a whole profile of expectation of how they acted and who they were. They were now “racialized” and this was the product of a historical process that was not merely confined to the past (19-21). Uncle Mike and our friend Robert could somehow be dangerous? Undesirable? Subservient? I understood now that many individuals were racist or racially biased. Racism and racialization were not merely part of history. Still, my understanding was confined to an individual outlook...

For the entire piece, Allison Quient/Divided by Race

--Nick

Linus, Snoopy & the GOP

"There are three things I have learned never to discuss with people: religion, politics, and the Great Pumpkin." **

--Linus van Pelt.

** -- Sound advice I should take at some point.

--Nick

Hopped and Bothered; Landshark Lager

Margaritaville -- Landshark Lager

Alcohol content 4.7%. No alcohol taste. No flavor on the nose. A hint of cane. Possibly sweet corn. Thin and dissipating head. A slightly sweet beginning taste. Corn is a tad light. No bitterness on the end. Very crisp finish, lacking any true taste. I squeezed a lime into it. Helped a little. Nicely carbonated. Doesn't leave any aftertaste. I will grant that it is refreshing, but I prefer a beer with flavor. 

Buy if: it's very hot out and you can't find a Pacifico. Or anything good. 

Overall verdict: A mild and mediocre summer brew that is fleeting and depressing in a lackluster Summer way. School is around the corner and there is nothing else to grab, check again. Then grab this.

2.25 out of 5. 

--Nick

Lewis Black, "The Art of Writing"

“All you had to say was, 'I am a writer,' and you became one. You didn't even have to write anything. You could just sit in a coffee shop with a notebook and stare into space, with a slightly bemused look on your face, judging the weight of the world with a jaundiced eye. As you can see, you can be completely full of shit and still be a writer...I also thought it was going to be a great way to meet girls, but it wasn't--probably because as I was staring into space, I no doubt looked mildly retarded. You see, I wanted to write plays, which in retrospect is a lot harder than learning Mandarin, I think. How I ended up in this delusional state shall be saved for another time.” 

--Lewis Black

Right-Wing Cafeteria?

I looked at this photo for five minutes, and it took me a while to consider my choice of words. I guess there are several points:

1) I can name approximately three people off the top of my head that actually believe this. I guess those three people are pretty loud to justify this type of photo.

2) For all it's bluster, the entire photo is legislating in intolerant and simplistic rhetoric. I expect tolerance of other views coming from the Left. It sounds like Michael Savage has left a large carbon footprint on this photo.

3) I'm frankly sick of this type of dialogue, because there isn't any. The photo is not offering a rational critique, it is beating the stuffing out of a scarecrow and declaring a unanimous victory.

4) Granted, some folks actually believe in the stereotypes put forth in this photo. That's nothing really, as we can trace this type of thinking back to Fred Phelps, and well . . . he's a democrat.

5) This photo epitomizes why many conservative Christians ignore liberal Christians, and visa versa. Its very easy to stand on the shoulders of those you don't respect, but I think it takes true courage to actually listen.

In short: stupid photo, unrealistic rhetoric drenched in a side of hypocrisy. And, for the vinyl, I don't consider myself politically conservative. Fnarr fnarr.

--Nick

Daily Dose of Humor; Horrible Church Sign

Ohh myyy.

--Nick