Greg Boyd, "Prayer and God Changing His Mind?

Kinda funny.

As primer for diving into open theism, this is a question I've often asked of myself. Greg's response is intriguing.

READER:  You’ve argued that since God is all-good, he’s always doing the most he can do in every situation to bring about good. But you have also argued that prayer can change God’s mind. How are these two beliefs compatible?

GREG: The beliefs aren’t incompatible if you believe, as I do, that God wants humans to have significant “say-so” in affecting what comes to pass. As such he created a world in which we have “say-so” on a physical level, making decisions that affect what comes to pass through our physical activity. We also have “say-so” on a spiritual level, affecting what comes to pass through prayer. By God’s own sovereign will, he bound himself to be affected by whether or not humans engage with him in prayer.

For the rest of Greg's answer, go to ReKnew and enjoy.

--Nick

The Open Future, The 1000 Year Reign & The Inclusive Nature of Book Reading

Well, several topics have come up on my radar, and I finally have the preliminary resources to research them. I'm more or less done discussing women in ministry (though I have a year long discussion with a friend that I hope ends with one of us converting) and I'm simply weary of the debate.

So, I've decided to hop onto a train that has already set sail. Open theism. I'm currently staring at a copy of The Openness of God by Richard Rice, Clark Pinnock, John Sanders and others. I'm told, as far as anthologies go, this is the best (maybe only?) one. This also includes Greg Boyd's The Openness of God, which I'm excited for.

I'm also working through Allah by Miroslav Volf and finding it quite compelling. I'm also planning a review of Matt Chandler's The Explicit Gospel. The "gospel" as a nebulous term is something I'm interested in. I want to grab Scot McKnight's The King Jesus Gospel as another perspective.

So, expect wrestling over open theism, gospel and perhaps universalism. I wish I could afford Tom Greggs' book Origen, Barth and Universal Salvation, All Shall be Well by Robin Parry and Eric Reitan's God's Final Victory. But, I shall make do. I have Robin Parry's The Evangelical Universalist 2nd Edition and The One Purpose of God by Jan Bonda.

I'm also curious about the debate amongst amillenialists and others. Any (cheapish) books anyone can recommend would be cool. I lean amil, but not in any strong sense.

Open Theism. Universalism. Gospel. Amillenialism. In this is included the perennial debate amongst restrictivists, exclusivists, inclusivists, pluralists and universalists.

So it should be fun. And that is rooibus tea with a base of carved whole limes and chamomile. I wish it was beer. Almost.

--Nick

Daily Dose of Humor; Tess Tickles?

This is a real product on our shelf.

--Nick

Total Recall, a review

The difficulty in reviewing a remake involve feelings of guilt, in that I feel inadequate since I haven't seen the original Total Recall. Thus, I am forced (not really) to view the film on it's own terms.

Well, shouldn't be too difficult.

Doug Quaid is unhappy with his life, living in a futuristic ghetto on the other edge of the world, unable to move up in the world. When he decides to go out and visit a mysterious corporation to enjoy some "active dreaming" he is implanted with memories and has to go on the run from the global government.

TECHNICAL

Based on the trailer, the strength of the film would be in this particular department. There are indeed some noteworthy technical aspects, and one of them is that the film avoids the shaky-cam effect, and ignores rapid-fire editing. This is actually a plus, and the action sequences (though not particularly outstanding) are coherent and easy to follow.

However, the overall design of the film reflects it's source in Blade Runner, Minority Report, and I, Robot. The evil synthetic robots look incredibly similar to I, Robot and even move like them. The floating cars and overall way they move feels pulled from Minority Report and the design of the city, like floating lego blocks built upon each other like Jerusalem, reflect Blade Runner. Including the invasive and blinding lens flare of Star Trek and you have yourself several technically sound flicks all wrapped up in one.

The action scenes are alternatively well done, but never rise to the level of memorable. Right now, I'm struggling to remember anything remotely cool besides some of the weapon design and a scene where Colin Farrell cuts a phone out of his hand.

This is not to suggest that the film doesn't look good, because it certainly does. The floating cities are well-rendered and the cinematography is general solid. But, the film feels slap-dash and remind me of better films.

NARRATIVE

This is where the film falters, but I offer grace because I didn't come to see a narratively strong film. The dialogue is often clunky and on the nose, adopting the principle of "stating the obvious" instead of letting actions speak for themselves. Colin Farrell is a great choice, avoiding the muscular hero and instead opting for more the Jason Bourne form of action hero: hidden lethality and enough everyman swagger.

The acting is uniformly adequate if bland. The villain is the real disappointment. After watching Breaking Bad, Brian Cranston needs to be in more films with bigger roles. He is criminally underused here, and his effect is unimpressive.

In fact, something interesting struck me as I was walking out of the theater. I realized that The Island is a far superior film, and Total Recall seems to follow the same pattern. Amnesia of sorts, chased by shadowy government agents, car chases, return to enemy stronghold, fight the underdeveloped villain. Add in beautiful women and a futuristic synthesis and you have The Island.

THEMES

Memory and the value we place on it is inherently a fascinating concept. Sadly it really isn't pursued in this film, and in fact, much of it really isn't done so either. The meaning of life and how it relates to us struck me as quite compelling, and I wished the film had continued along that route. There are indeed instances of it, as mentions about the virtue ethics of the past are commented on, and who they affect our future.

But, robots are cooler.

CONCLUSION

Total Recall is indeed a fun film. I do not deny that. I did not go in expecting anything particularly involving, though I did anticipate that Len Wiseman would massage my eyes for two hours, and he barely pulled it off. The acting doesn't distract, the editing is crisp and the environment, though similar to other films, does indeed work. Sadly, poor writing and lackluster character development ruin an otherwise potentially fun film.

I did enjoy it more than The Dark Knight Rises.

2.5 out of 5 stars

--Nick

Hopped and Bothered; Belhaven Scottish Stout

Belhaven -- Scottish Stout

Alcohol content 7%. Deep darkness when poured. Almost beige head, fluffy and spherical. Like bread rising in the oven. Aroma is roasted coffee and a hint of wood and barley. The taste is exquisitely malty, hints of chocolate and a kiss of smokey cream. The finish is solid, if a bit hoppy. Though the body is thick, the finish is quite light, adding nicely together.

Buy if: you want a slightly above average stout.

Overall: I love stouts, so the roasted coffee bean and chocolate notes are well done, though I wish there was a smoother and creamier finish.

3.5 out of 5.

--Nick

Tony Jones & the Progressive Christian Blog Challenge

Jones:

I’ve been writing recently about the problems with liberal Christianity, and I had a thought this morning. It was prompted by a recent phone conversation I had with the managing editor of a major publishing house, combined with my faithful listening to the Theology Nerd Throwdown podcast, and the silliness of all the hand-wringing about Chik-fil-A.

These have prompted me to think that progressives have a God-talk problem. That is, progressives write lots of books and blog posts about social issues, the church, culture, and society. But we don’t write that much about God. That is, we don’t say substantive things about who God is, what God does, etc.

You might say the same thing about conservative Protestants (i.e., “evangelicals”). But the thing is, their people pretty much know what they think of God. It’s well-known and on the record.
Progressive/liberal/mainline theology, on the other hand, has a PR problem. We might think that people know what we think about God, but they don’t. It’s clear in the comments on this blog and elsewhere.

It really struck me yesterday, when listening to a recent edition of the TNT podcast, in which Tripp repeatedly and forcefully said things about who God is and how God acts. He didn’t relativize those statements with qualifiers, and he didn’t cowtow to political correctness or academic jargon. That was jarring to me because it so rarely happens.

Thus, I have a challenge:

I challenge all progressive theo-bloggers to write one post about God between now and August 15.

For me, I'm quite curious to see what my progressive brothers and sisters come up with. As someone who doesn't really consider himself progressive, I'd love to see how this would unfold. What attributes of God are de/emphasized, etc. Should make for an amazing discussion.

Oh course, why should progressive bloggers have all the fun? ;)

For the rest, click HERE.

--Nick

Female Pastors: Nature or Nuture?

Allison:

Generally, I have found little awareness among men (and sometimes women) when it comes to the lack of female involvement in leadership positions in the church. One of my male friends actually asked me why, if Egalitarianism were true, that there are not many good female pastors. He had not actually heard any female pastors preach and when I asked him what would be an example of a “good” female pastor his answer essentially came down to one that was in his denomination and held to its doctrines. However, his denomination did not allow women to be pastors in the first place. More than that, they were discouraged. What I wonder is why it comes as a surprise to us that there are not many good female pastors when we discourage women who are drawn to theology, Scripture, counseling (pastoral counseling) and teaching from going to seminary in the first place. Beyond this, they are taught in their churches and often their homes that this is a negative thing and to rely on men for leadership. Nature or nurture?

What fascinates me about this dynamic is that it is self perpetuating. Not allowing or supporting women in seminary means there will be no examples to give any indication that maybe this is not how things naturally are. Interestingly, many who become convinced of Egalitarianism have had examples of gifted women in their lives that challenged them to take a second look at their presupposed theology.

What are some other indications that maybe nurture rather than nature is responsible for the lack of female initiative when it comes to going to seminary and becoming pastors? Well, to begin with, we have examples where secular professions used to be male dominated, but were later associated as being female at different times in different cultures  (nursing and psychology/counseling). In the church women often drastically outnumber men and it is not unusual to find many women serving as pastors abroad. If women are by nature not prone to these things (and many Complementarians today would agree many are gifted in these areas), then why are they doing this in large numbers abroad? And this is not confined to ministering to unbelievers.

For the rest, enjoy it HERE.

--Nick

Greg Boyd, "The Deadly Nature of Religious Idolatry"

Boyd:

I’m in the process of fleshing out the core convictions of ReKnew as I laid them out in the “ReKnew Manifesto.” Our first core conviction concerns where we are to get our LIFE from, so in my previous post on this topic I addressed “The One True Source.” Before moving on to the second core conviction of ReKnew, I thought it might be good to share an experience I had that illustrates what happens when Christ isn’t our source. It’s the moment when I first experienced the religious idolatry that kills.

I was attending the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society several years ago when I was approached by an angry-looking, heavy-set man dressed in a suit and tie. His face was red and he had beads of sweat on his brow. I remember thinking to myself that this dude looked as if he was about to keel over from high blood pressure. “Mr. Boyd?” he asked with a thick southern drawl and a slight quiver in his voice, the kind you sometimes hear when people are struggling to hold back a strong emotion. I glanced at his conference nametag. His name was Karl, and he was an instructor at a Bible school in Tennessee that I’d never heard of.

Sensing this was likely to be an unpleasant encounter, I mustered as much friendliness in my voice as possible and replied, “How’s it going Karl?” We were now standing face to face in the middle of this hotel lobby, and I could clearly see rage in Karl’s eyes. As I’ve trained myself to instinctively do whenever facing aggressors, I began to pray a silent blessing over Karl. Whatever else it may do for the aggressors, I’ve learned it’s the best way to keep my heart in the right place and not allow my amygdala to take over when I find myself in conflict.

Folding his arms and lifting his chin slighting so that he was almost looking down at me, Karl said, “I’m curious Mr. Boyd.” The quiver in his voice was now more pronounced. “I’m curious about the depth of evil that resides in your heart, because I frankly can’t imagine the depth of darkness it would take to compel someone to so arrogantly assail the sovereignty of my God the way you have.” Whenever people say “my God,” I know I’m in trouble.

For the rest, click HERE.

--Nick