A Review of Hans Schwarz's "Eschatology"

This is my second assignment for ST503 and Dr. Crisp. Its an early draft so be nice. Its my second paper to ever make it to the graduate level.  Enjoy!

A highly recommended book.

In the multifaceted world we inhabit, eschatology can encompass a multitude of disciplines: philosophy, science and theology. Hans Schwarz has offered the world an exceptionally readable volume that attempts to synthesize the best of all the aforementioned disciplines into a broad survey of the last things. He treads where many systematic theologies do not, especially in exploring various secular and progressive worldviews, seeking the truth in all of them. He largely succeeds and offers the reader his findings in three major parts.

Part one engages with the diversity and unity of both Testaments as they relate to eschatology. The historical background of the Old Testament “…was basically a death-driven culture” (32). As is often the case, existentialism and the knowledge of death are never far from each other where “…the living know that they will die but the dead know nothing” (Eccl. 9:5). Schwarz notes the heightened “emphasis on the this-worldly aspect of life” (36) and because of this reality, to live seventy or even eighty years was desired above all else (Ps. 90:9-10), though these years were still a breath. Though his survey is expansive, Schwarz could have shown that the Old Testament attests to a longing for justice and that punishment of the wicked (Ps. 110:6; 139:18-20) does not happen in this life (Job 21:7; Jer. 12:1). Because of the lack of justice in this earthly existence, YHWH will act in the next life to bring judgment upon Israel’s oppressors, thus suggesting Israel and the world’s need for cosmic justice and the possibility of resurrection of the righteous and the wicked (Dan. 12:2; Isaiah 66:15-24).

Based off Schwarz’s findings in the Old Testament, he moves on to show that the New Testament has a more developed outlook on the question of eschatology with special attention placed on fulfillment in Christ. For example, Matthew “wants to show that the Old Testament promises have found their fulfillment in Jesus” (84). Schwarz then rightly insists upon continuity between the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament as both Testaments testify to Jesus and his mission and exaltation, though this was not as developed because the importance of Second Temple Judaism is left largely unmentioned. In regards to Jesus’ messianic understanding, Schwarz correctly claims that, “[Jesus] never delineated a chronology of life eternal nor a geography of the beyond” (80); this biblical obscurity has resulted in over two thousand years of speculation on the part of the Church, and it is indeed the most troubling aspect of Christian eschatology; especially since it lacks any sort of future details and relies on fragments to paint a broader picture. In sum, the biblical portraits are fractured and leave us to gather up the various portions. However, for Schwarz the biblical tensions are less worrisome because “Christ anticipates the resurrection of the dead through his own resurrection, thus providing us with a foundation for hope” (96). The resurrection of Jesus is paradigmatic of our future experience and this is congruent with Paul and John’s teachings regarding this matter (1 Cor. 15; John 5:29).

The End.

Part two reflects the larger debate between science, secularism and philosophy as they all relate to eschatology. Schwarz covers discussions over various theologies including process, feminist, liberationist and pluralism: the advocates comprise Wolfhart Pannenberg, John Cobb, Jürgen Moltmann and Leonardo Boff among others. Each theologian’s perspective is examined and given a place at the table for a fair exchange, though not without critique. Process theology is specifically singled out and one must ask to what extent Christian doctrine is maintained amongst a pluralistic worldview—a point of view decidedly not shared by the New Testament. Because of this, Schwarz notes “Cobb’s proposal seems more akin to the Hellenistic striving for oneness as demonstrated by Platonic and Aristotelian ontologically grounded philosophy. The Christian faith, however, is characterized by individuality in unity” (169-170). This is a successful critique and could be pressed further to include the imagery of incorporation of human beings into Christ’s body, his Church (1 Cor. 12:12-28), illustrating the necessity of all Christians, American and other, citizen and immigrant, and male and female, to be one in status in Christ (Gal. 3:28). Individuality is maintained and corporatized, allowing personality to thrive within community. It is also worthy to note the claim that Scripture appears soteriologically exclusive rather than pluralistic, as the famous Shema  (Deut. 6:4) proclaims a strict Jewish monotheism. Paul also affirms (and expands) this famous text in 1 Cor. 8:4-6 to include Jesus (see Gordon Fee, Pauline Christology, Hendrickson, 2007, 88-94), making pluralism (and subsequent process thought) difficult to accept on the basis of biblical texts as the exclusive divinity of Christ is attested above all other faiths (John 14:6).

With his mind tuned to environmental concerns, Schwarz adds to the discussion concerning the ecological crisis, where “life is sustained only be exploiting the inanimate world” (195). Life feeds on life, and this appears to be an apocalyptic outcome of consumerist exploitation (196), which compounds the problem of the greenhouse effect (196-199) and overpopulation (201-202). The issue is that “humanity elevated itself into God’s place…and ‘for the glory of God’ was replaced by the glorification and deification of humanity” (205). We live in a seemingly limited creation and this brings up an ominous question: was earth meant to sustain human life forever? Human progress has taken a left turn in the dark and Schwarz thankfully recognizes that without hope, humankind has nothing left for itself: “…what can we, as Christians, actually offer in terms of the content of hope?” (243). Schwarz does not despair, and pushes on with the task of offering hope to a dying world.

In the final part of his work, Schwarz covers four controversial areas of Christian eschatology: setting an actual date for the end of all things, the millennium and its various flavors, universal salvation and purgatory. Schwarz flatly rejects any attempt to place a time to the coming of Christ as “not about outguessing the Lord but being faithful to the call” (321), and like many church fathers (Luther, Augustine) he discards the timetable method and opts for hope. In doing so, his points stands well under scrutiny as the New Testament never set a date to the return of Christ. As regards the millennium, He takes the greatest exception with dispensationalism and concurs with Dale Moody; “we could simply discard these [end times] theories as ‘undue speculation over highly symbolic teachings’” (335). The damage done by this apocalyptic teaching is not glossed over by Schwarz and it has no doubt “been misused for political and religious purposes” (336), especially within the context of modern fundamentalism which misses the purpose of apocalyptic imagery: to bring hope to those who are oppressed, “not…in a triumphalistic manner, but as a pastoral comfort” (337). Schwarz is certainly on point with this admonition, and those of us who have come out of fundamentalism will resonate because of the entrenched emphasis on the rapture and fighting culture wars instead of the necessity of justice for widows and orphans (James 1:27).

Oh Camping.

Considering the doctrine of universal salvation, Schwarz pointedly concludes “we have little biblical ground to go on for a universal homecoming or a restoration of all things to God” (337). In light of the numerous judgment texts in Scripture (Isaiah 66:24; Matt. 10:28; 25:41-46; Jude 7), one would concur that universal salvation is indeed a difficult theological proposition to embrace. However, Schwarz does not engage the strongest Universalist arguments from the basic proof texts (Rom. 5:18, Col. 1:20; Eph. 1:10). This reveals a missed chance to answer lingering questions in the minds of many evangelicals who opt for universalism on the basis of such verses.

Because of his his rejection of universalism, Schwarz is committed to the two-fold outcome of human destiny. Unfortunately, Schwarz leaves himself open to criticism from another side in the Christian debate as Annihilationists (or Conditionalists) would affirm the twofold outcome of eternal judgment and share his views of an eternal punishment. However, Schwarz rejects annihilationism in favor of eternal conscious torment (395-97; 402) by means of a question: “how can there be an annihilation of anybody if there is no escape from God, since God is everywhere, even in death and beyond death?” (396). The question is a non sequitur and one could answer it this way: as it took a divine act of creation to impute life into that which was lifeless (Gen. 2:7), so it is also a divine act of destruction when God destroys both body and soul (Matt. 10:28). Human finitude is evident in that only God is immortal (1 Tim. 6:16) and any life given to us is derived from the Creator, a sentiment that Schwarz explicitly affirms (257). Thus any eternal life, a phrase that seems restricted solely to the elect (e.g. Matt 19:16; 25:46; John 3:15-16, 36; 10:28; Rom. 2:7; 5:21; 6:23; Gal. 6:8), is denied to those not in Christ.

Curiously, while Schwarz mentions Oscar Cullmann several times throughout his book (73n, 119, 140), he betrays no awareness of the annihilationist arguments in Cullmann’s Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Dead? (Wipf & Stock, reprinted 2000). Cullmann’s words are powerful: “For Christian (and Jewish) thinking the death of the body is also destruction of God-created life. No distinction is made: even the life of our body is true life; death is the destruction of all life created by God” (Immortality, 11). Scripture seems to suggest death (Ps. 68:2; Is. 66:24; Luke 13:3,5; John 3:16; Rom. 6:23) and eternal destruction (2 Thess. 1:9) as the end result of the wicked—not their eternal torment.  To suggest the traditional doctrine of eternal torment seems to promote a vision of final eschatological dualism, one that does not seem to fit comfortably into Schwarz’s theological vision of “the completion of the universe” (404).

@thenakedpastor. Wonderful art.

Eschatology must be seen not as despair, but as hope. Proleptic anticipation, which views the resurrection of Jesus Christ as the commencement of the event of new creation, is the operative lens by which Schwarz concludes his volume. We see everything in light of Christ, and we “anticipate proleptically this future along the avenue which the Christ event provides” (407). Schwarz has written a truly magisterial book and there is much to commend. His depth is illustrated by his familiarity of diverse theologians and his ability to faithfully represent their perspectives even though he may passionately disagree is a model of charity. The chapters relating to science, ecology and scientific reason were especially insightful, bringing material to light to readers who otherwise would not have known about external worldly developments. Because of this inclusion, theologians will now be able to further benefit the church, allowing us to both engage and learn more as we progress in mutual respect towards the future. While a reader may dispute his interpretation on certain doctrines (such as his lack of engagement with annihilationism and universalism), his irenic tone epitomizes Saint Paul’s admonition in Rom. 12:9-21, especially since we are called to “love one another with mutual affection” and we “extend hospitality to strangers.” 

It took everything in me to not jump back to old habits by giving this 4.5 stars. 

Grand Theft Auto 5, A Review

I'm not the biggest gamer in the world, at least anymore. I remember when the N64 came out and I spent hours playing it at my friend David's house (while being 'grounded' from Nintendo no less!). From then, I've been hooked on the more old school form of video gaming, at least from a distance. While at my bachelor party, my friends and I broke out the N64 for Mario Kart and SSB. It was a good old time.

I've been familiar with the GTA series since San Andreas. I know this because I played it constantly on my laptop while at Biola, even in class. I think it was New Testament or something. Either way, I made sure to sit in the back to avoid giving other students something to actually do.

So I'm been pretty invested in the GTA series. I've always loved the free-roaming environments, the satire, the essential libertarian freedom to do pretty much whatever you wanted. Usually, the satire was enough to get me through any ethical reservations I would have. Same with the newest incarnation of GTA, which takes us back to where I started.

Los Angeles. Errr San Andreas.

Anyway. As a prelude, this review isn't intended as a comprehensive examination. Its more about what stood out to me in playing this game.

The game moves through three main characters: Franklin, Trevor and Michael. In a sense, the three stooges if they decided to embody a living critique of their own American excessive culture. Through their chasing the American dream (a butt load of money), we are privy to stupidity, immortality and hilarity on a near perfect plane. The heights of government to the sewers, GTAV traverses a literal world. Its compact yet expansive.

Mechanically, the game is as fluid as a maple syrup enema. The land vehicles in GTA4 handled, most often, like there was a rhino attached to the rear fender. Here, the physics are tweaked to the point of being a cartoon. Cars still spin out, but the traction holds well once you gain a bit of speed. The hide and shoot mechanic is solid as usual, so no complaints there. There are a few instances of pop up, but nothing worth mentioning more than once here.

In regards to shooting (c'mon, that's the main reason my wife let me buy this game), everything is ramped up beyond anything GTA4 could've handled. Firing a grenade launcher into a group of cars reveals a series of massive concussive explosions, as each car explodes more than once, pieces flying about like paper in a hurricane.

Its technically and narratively dynamic. The world is filled with plenty of side missions. A standout for me was helping a group of white racists track down 'illegal immigrants' and ship them back to Mexico. Not because I really enjoy the prospect of shipping pixelized people around imaginary borders, but because the characters are so simply absurd.

That is where GTAV shines and simmers. The satire is absolutely brutal, flaying everyone from high top religious leaders to the FBI. Some missions revolve around two agencies fighting each other over budgets, pettiness that one hopes isn't indicative of reality. Other missions are controversial and, frankly, some of the most jarringly shocking material to drop in my lap in some time.

I defended the controversial mission in Modern Warfare 2 on the grounds that it was narratively consistent, and realistic in the sense that it placed the gamer in the shoes of someone genuinely moral who was required to act out in an immoral way. It simply plops someone down in a bad situation and says "go."

*SPOILERS*

Here, we have an extended sequence involving the torture of a man of Middle-Eastern descent, though clearly a native San Andreas citizen. In order to extract 'necessary' information, Trevor engages in some well-known torture techniques. What makes the scene difficult is not merely the physical torture. Trevor tears out teeth and shocks the man with a car battery in the same way one would make breakfast for a lover.

In doing this, the scene can come across as 'enjoying' the man's pained experience, though I sincerely doubt that was the writers' intent.

Instead, I think the writers expected the gamer to behave in the same way as Trevor: detached, slightly demented, even enjoying the scene to some extent. They believe that the America they are subtly criticizing would happily indulge in some freely chosen torture. As long as it doesn't happen in real life. After all, we've heard plenty about waterboarding in the "War on Terror." Many reviewers have decried the sequence, and it seems that gamers and critics are split on the necessity and effectiveness of this particular piece of the game.

For me, maybe that is the point. The satire boils down to what the writer's expect American's to do when handed a pixelated pair of pliers. Was the scene necessary? Not really. It doesn't particularly stand out as needing to exist, though it is consistent with the satirical elements already established. It does, however, emphasize pain in a way the game hasn't up to that point. Particularly emotional pain. So, is the scene necessary again? Maybe. Most likely not. I also wonder to what extent the writers believe in the im/maturity of the gamer. Since they don't let you opt out of the mistreatment, maybe that's my answer. Was the scene effective?

Absolutely. I'm talking about it with you right now.

*END SPOILERS*

Certainly GTAV gave me plenty to consider, on top of being a technically flawless experience. I still hop in a customized bike and ride around to the top of the Vinewood sign just to observe some deer running across the road.

To say the game isn't narratively gripping and genuinely fun to play is to be dishonest. What matters more is how mature a gamer is in regards to negative content. Anyone can have a good time, but it takes reflection to truly recognize the limitations of fun.

GTAV a bruising, darkly funny satire of the country that would encourage much of the world to spend over 1 billion dollars on it in three days. Its that good. Its that funny. Its that desperate.

--Nick

Pulse: Myths in Pre-Mature Resolution (A Guest Post by Jordan Nakamura)

Before all else, I’d like to respond to the prompt at face value: hands down, the “topic our generation will deal with the most” is homosexuality and LGBTQ rights. It is what has been elected as the cultural question of the age, in the United States at least. I have a lot of thoughts on the issue myself, I think it’s important to talk about it, and i’m glad that we are. I especially hope that people who identify as Christians will continue to begin a healthy discourse. We have handled it horribly for a long time, one response among many inexcusable ones being the whole “if you just don’t talk about it, it’ll go away” charade. It’s often painfully obvious that there is still a long way for Christian communities to go. But for the most part, I’d much rather see people making some mistakes in the same room trying to reconcile than to see them staying comfortably worlds apart, safe in their festering assumptions.

But as for what I think is the most important, other issues come to mind as better candidates. To clarify, I mean better candidates than legalizing gay marriage, not evasive action and advocacy against homophobic violence, which is about as important as anything else I can think of. Basically I’m going to attest that any “third world issue” is more important than “first world issues.” A large number of these third world issues stem from racism, and while racism to some might sound like a simple pitfall to avoid, even black toddlers in the States will pick a white doll over a black one. In light of this, it becomes important to investigate who our white leaders are picking to assist and understand before aiding or bombing, because the results get to be as serious as life and death. At the end of the day, it’s still important in this age to investigate exactly why it was Japan and Asians that were bombed, and not Germany and white people. It is our generation that needs to look at these things to grapple with present issues: why black unarmed teens are still being shot and why nobody covers the story, and why I have seen white co-workers walk in completely blazed on pot and not get a second look for it. In this way, these third world issues of racism and even sexism become the issues of our generation in the first world, but go unacknowledged as relevant or even existent, let alone our onus. This is why I’d argue that issues of racism and sexism in any “world” is a priority. It is more important that people not die because of preventable causes than it is that gay marriage is legalized. That might piss people off, but I stand by it, as do I stand by my belief that gay marriage should be allowed. But people who compare movements of LGBTQ rights to the Black Civil Rights movement simply have not looked at history with clarity or respect. I’m not trying to pit one issue against the other. Disproportionate death by AIDS in the LGBTQ community is a tragedy, and like anyone, I hope a cure is found. but I also hope that we work towards remedying the effects and occurrence of disproportionate murder and captivity of black skinned human beings, which has been going on a lot longer than AIDS existed. Again though, the problem is when people start pretending like this ancient issue is covered, and in the current “Age of Obama,” the post-racial narrative is rampant and sets the stage for the marginalization of these issues.

Let’s examine some of our culture for a minute, the culture that predicates this very post as almost certainly being read from a glowing computer screen: Due to highly accelerated networking, information has completely changed in nature and shape. Capitalism and consumerism have been altered. Young people like myself are not good at imagining a world before this new order, let alone how something like commerce used to run. What most people in our generation will acknowledge is that images are everywhere, at a constant inundating rate. Given this, we might conclude that issues of race and gender are perhaps more relevant today than ever before, because never have our ideas of them been so easily malleable, the icons of these ideas so easily created and spread, nor their effects so easily covered up. By nature, race and gender are sort of airy. For example, even at the genetic level, I have no more chance of being more genetically similar to another Japanese person than I do to a Norwegian person. Despite this, race is a phenomenon that has been called into being. It is real because the effects are real, but there is no locus in object. Sex and ethnicity, of course, are very real in the sense that they’re biologically measurable, and are objective. The mechanics of how images and narratives work in the modern world have mutated, and these changes need to be addressed in addition to inherited systemic problems. 

The idea that we are living in a “post-racial age” is also a major factor. This idea is widely accepted as common sense: the notion that we no longer need to deal with issues of race because it is a solved or moot issue. Race being removed from public consciousness contributes to the emphasis on gender. Therefore, any sociological energy that the public has is given to LGBTQ concerns. Race, once again is marginalized, due to the myth that racial marginalization is a checked off item on the humanitarian To-Do list of history. Some of this has to do with an institutionalized historical slant towards a version of history that sterilizes the Black Civil Rights movement, making it out to be a safe topic that never reaches the present. Some of it has to do with the fact that a man named Barack Hussein Obama is the President of the United States. Again, I want to stress that I don’t want to eclipse one cause with another. It’s precisely that motivation that I re-emphasize race which I think has certainly been eclipsed by other issues. My definition of more important reads as “more important to reassess the importance of.” The effects of racism in America are rampant, widespread, and too often fatal, and few people realize that it is even an issue anymore, whereas legalizing gay marriage is important in the public eye to the point of it being hip. It’s a lot harder to make a mass-profile picture icon about generations of unintentional but destructive microaggressions, and so it doesn’t happen. The quote about white privilege isn’t going to get several thousand shares on tumblr, like the one on gay marriage will. Understandable I suppose, but what isn’t okay is how the issue then drops off the map because it isn’t recognized in pop culture, politics, and daily interactions.

Hopefully, the church will realize that followers of Christ should be running with the vanguard in any true societal brokenness, yearning and fighting for justice and entering into the pain. I do not have the time here to elaborate on why I have become convinced that race and marginalized issues are at the forefront of cultural battles to be stationed within, but I trust readers can continue to investigate for themselves. But I must address the prompt which asks what issue is the most important for our “Christian generation.” Obviously, anyone can fight for racial justice or women’s rights or anything else, believing in God is not a requirement. Sadly, the bulk of the Western Christian population has more or less been content to leave most of these fights to people who do not identify as Christians. But I want to talk a bit about something that is a big question for many in “the church” which probably isn’t for others outside of it. I’m going to refer to this as the “weird supernatural” spiritual gifts, or “miracle work” in the Holy Spirit. 

Jordan Nakamura can be found via the Twittersphere, and on the rest of the Interwebs.

Zero Dark Thirty, a review

I watched Zero Dark Thirty a few months ago, albeit in scraps and pieces. Having been somewhat removed from the controversy that the film generated, I was able to reflect a bit last night when I bought the flick and enjoyed it with my girlfriend.

So, what did I think of the "greatest manhunt in history?"

TECHNICAL

The film's chilling opening set the tone for the rest of the film; much like The Hurt Locker, Zero Dark Thirty revels in quiet terror and the unknown. Technically, this is achieved b y superbly dragging out sequences waiting for the unexpected. In light of a potential terrorist bombing, my girlfriend kept mutter, "something is going to happen." Neither of us anticipated what that something would be, but needless to say i didn't notice the 150 plus minutes of cinematic tension pass.

Cinematically, the film is stellar. The style and cinematography is a blend of Tony Scott (rest in peace) and The Hurt Locker with a dash of Bourne. Though handheld, it maintains a sense of urgency that doesn't bring forth headaches. Which is a positive thing in my estimation.

The editing is surprisingly crisp, keeping the pace moving and it rarely lags. Even in character moments (there are few but they are potent) the film reveals little by little so that the horrific journey pays off in increments. In some ways, we learn as much (or less) than Maya, who is the one supposed to be the active one.

We question everything with her, second guess the abnormal techniques and sigh when it finally ends.

NARRATIVE

Some have criticized the film on the grounds that there isn't much story. I would strongly disagree, because this itself is a story we lived and maybe that's why we are missing the mark. This story is fragmented and scattered simply because that is the awful reality of this journey. Jessica Chastain plays this perfectly, giving us hints of loneliness in between coffee breaks and interrogation sequences that would curl the toes of even the most die-hard Saw fans.

The acting is uniformly superb, with Mark Strong adding gravity simply by showing up. Jason Clarke of Brotherhood fame is a revelation. I haven't seen him in much, but what he did with an already complex character was nothing besides stellar. His little moments while feeding a monkey and enjoying himself makes one wonder about the link between biology and the effects of sticking pins and waterlogged rags into the faces of those that bleed the same color as him.

The final 40 minutes are the siege of Bin Laden's fortress, and it is the most toned down non-Michael Bay action sequences I've ever witnessed. The screams of pedestrians and the lack of pyrotechnics added to the grave reality that "justice" was being served. More on that below.

THEMES

It is difficult to evaluate the film in light of it's controversy, as I feel compelled to to people they've gotten it wrong. But, in sitting here at my laptop and thinking about the human effects that this war was wrought, its difficult to see how this couldn't be anything less than controversial.

But, in sitting here, I didn't get any sense of it. The claims about "torture" struck me as odd, not in that torture is unethical, but that nothing came from it. Given time, I'm certain Jason Clarke could convince me to change genders and banter about in a yellow sun dress. I simply don't think we are in any position to think about whether or not the film is correct to suggest that we gained anything from torture.

What, instead, the film asks is how does the summation of all things effect us, as detached and personal? I remember where I was on the morning of September 11, and I remember where I was when Bin Laden was announced dead. The parallel couldn't be sharper:

We were weeping and enraged on September 11, and our enemies were cheering and firing guns into the air. On May 2, 2011, we were cheering and setting off bottle rockets while our enemies were infuriated. I'm simply not sure what to make of the ethical dilemmas the audience was put into. The human tendency to ignore empathy is clearly present, but the revulsion one feels at the expense of humanity is justified.

CONCLUSION

All in all, Zero Dark Thirty is an accomplishment. The narrative is brisk and compact, the technical dimensions are strongly covered and the themes are deeply moral and designed to elicit conversation and debate. Simply put, I think the film was seriously overlooked during awards season.

Funny thing, the film begins and ends with weeping. Maybe taking a moment to reflect on that is what one really needs.

4.5 stars out of 5.

--Nick

A Brother in the Flesh; Christianity and Slavery

I have a close friend, who has become an atheist, recently ask me about slavery and why Christians don't promote such things today. I told him, on an experiential note, that I would have trouble being a Christian if indeed I thought Scripture actively promoted the keeping of slaves.

However, I came across Paul's little digression written to Philemon, and was struck by multiple themes throughout the letter. There are multiple strands in this tapestry that indicate that Paul had a low view of slavery in regards to anything other than Christ Jesus, as we shall see in the end of this post.

Paul wrote numerous times about the abstract theme of liberation. You have him mentioning that the Church of Galatia should "stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery" (5:10) and announced the Magna Carta of humanity in Christ "there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (3:28). I could go to list instances where Jesus engaged with gender and social barriers but that should suffice.

What we have here are a multitude of rhetorical devices and clever ploys. Paul softens Philemon up by giving him a (culturally standard) thanksgiving, but I think Paul is using far stronger means here than a standard greeting. He is establishing a form of equality with Philemon hence the term "partnership" which can also be rendered as "fellowship" which had religious significance as one of the uses is in relation to the Logos in John 1:3. This is emphasized in Paul calling Philemon "brother."

Consequently, we have Paul using the conjunction "therefore" or "for this reason" to continue his train of thought. Having established his equality with Philemon, he then pulls the social pressure card. "Old man" is a nice way of saying "I've been doing this ministry thing longer than you." Paul states that Philemon must take Onesimus back  "forever" (anion) and to call him "brother" in the Lord and a "fellow man."

Paul, however, strips away the dichotomy [of slavery being of social value] in the same sentence by stating that Onesimus is a beloved brother of Philemon both in the material and the spiritual realms(1).

The entire letter is quite awkward to think about, as Philemon simultaneously has been rhetorically tickled and sucker punched. Since Paul intends to come and stay with Philemon in v22, Onesimus can hardly be expected to have his slave greet Paul at the door. Instead, I think Paul recognizes the practical implications of his words in Galatians and works through the conventional means of his day to free a slave. Not only is he risking capital(2) but also his reputation. The parallel passage in Galatians 4:7 indicates that "no longer a slave" should carry more than just "spiritual" equality.

Also, I just discovered the possibility that Ignatius Eph. 1:3 speaks highly of "Onesimus, a man of inexpressible love and your bishop."(3). Though Onesimus was a fairly common slave name, the fact that one with a slave name could become a bishop is of worthy consideration. Contrast this with the Apostle Junia in Romans 16:7, with the possibility that the name Junia carries nobility but could be of slave origin(4).

Just thinking out loud.

--Nick

1. Payne, "Paul Applies Maximum Social Pressure for Philemon to Free Onesimus" pg1-2.
2. Ibid. pg3.
3. Ibid. pg4.
4. Peter Lampe, "The Roman Christians of Romans 16" pg226.

President Obama, Republicans and a Wonderful Cartoon Pun

This made me laugh. A bit because I know some folk like this, but mostly because I love puns.

--Nick

Republicans, Gallup and Young Earth Creationists

According to Charles Johnson:

That’s right — according to Gallup, 46% of the American public are hard core young Earth creationists who believe the Earth was poofed into existence in its present form about 10,000 years ago.

And for Republicans, of course, the numbers are even worse; 58% of Republicans are young Earth creationists.

America, we have a problem.

Most Americans are not scientists, of course, and cannot be expected to understand all of the latest evidence and competing viewpoints on the development of the human species. Still, it would be hard to dispute that most scientists who study humans agree that the species evolved over millions of years, and that relatively few scientists believe that humans began in their current form only 10,000 years ago without the benefit of evolution. Thus, almost half of Americans today hold a belief, at least as measured by this question wording, that is at odds with the preponderance of the scientific literature.

The picture is awesome. Half the reason I posted this. 

--Nick

Potential Theological Trends within Evangelicalism circa 2013

Brandan Robertson wrote a post, and I hate to say it but I had been pondering the same thing. I think there will be three things approaching.

1. Annihilationism will increase, as will support for universalism.
With the rise of ReThinking Hell and the increasing atmosphere of openness (given the Rob Bell fiasco awhile ago), we will see more open support for annihilationism. Given that Preston Sprinkle of Erasing Hell fame now leans towards annihilationism or conditional immortali, this trend is indeed a hot one. Bad pun intended. You have other scholars like David Instone-Brewer, John Stackhouse and even Justin Brierley throwing their hats in the ring. Within the near future, the traditional view will die down and the debate will shift between annihilationism and universalism, with annihilationism becoming the dominant view.

2. Egalitarianism.
Due in large part to the scholarship of varying egalitarian heavyweights (Philip B. Payne being one), I believe that the equality of women and men in ministry will begin to be sorted out in my generation. Thanks to the continuous remarks of many Complementarians such as Mark Driscoll and John Piper (both whom don't speak for many of my Complementarian brothers and sisters), the trend within evangelicalism is to reassess the traditional standing. Simply put, Christians are beginning to stop and stare and think about this issue. Many who are involved in justice are sensing something amiss, as well as many seminaries doing the same. The tides are changing, both at Talbot and at seminaries across the United States.

3. The battle for the Bible.
Inerrancy has been a hot topic since the 50s, but I suspect that the liberal/fundamentalist divide will begin to widen with more moderate scholarship and attitudes prevailing. Given the aforementioned emphasis on justice, I see many within my generation being repulsed by both the right and the left. This is a tendency to be sure, but I think one could mine for the best of both sides and create something new. We are currently within a giant hole left by the emergent church and the collapsing nature of fundamentalism.

I see multiple topics seething in the background but they are less likely to be explosive; atonement, evolution and maybe even a little something call gay rights.

Thoughts?

--Nick

An Unrelated Election Note, Or A Blast from the Past

Heh.

--Nick

30 Days of Thanks: Day 6

After a rough couple of days, I got to witness something quite happy. At least to me, as an older brother.

I am thankful my sister stepped up, made her decisions and voted. As an older brother who is as cynical as your dead aunt, I couldn't be more happy for her. Congrats lil sis. Quite proud.

You?

--Nick

Inebriated Musings before Election Day, Or Why Idiocracy is a Possible Reality

What happens in 48 hours? I'm hoping planet earth still exists.

As I was driving home and listening to talk radio, I instantly realized why I stopped: everything that happens counter to a preconceived ideal of how the world should operate results in hysteria.

Universal healthcare, the world is on fire.

A casual glance at facebook reveals memes and idiotic pictures about "Elect Barack Obama, Sincerely the world." Coupled with pithy quotes designed to denigrate an opponent in 15 second bite size chunks, entirely intended to make you laugh and instantly look down at the opposing view.

What substance is there really? Everyone calls Mitt Romney a "lying sack of shit" and when I asked, all I got was something akin to proof texting Jon Stewart. Or, on the flip side of that, folks claiming Barack Obama feels "entitled" to be president, whatever that truly means.

Frankly, I plan on voting but I'm tired. Truly tired. Listening to the debates and reading my twitter feed can result in a severe case of head achery. Politicians know their plans are too complex for your average caterpillar, and so they *have* to dumb it down. Calling out Paul Ryan in the debate about "not answering the question" misses the point in that he really *can't* answer the question. This also includes Uncle Joe.

The current state of affairs requires a dumbing down of complex and obtuse political schemes and schisms in order to placate the ego and nether regions of the voter. Idiocracy never looked for fearsome or looming.

So what do we do? Play in the mud? Batten the hatches? Turn off the tv? Jump kick the microwave?

Who knows.

American individualism versus a corporate national body equals a bastardized blob of three legs, seven arms, two heads and a mouth like Gilbert Gottfried.

I say vote. Why not. You are already going to be paying for it anyway.

--Nick

The Simpsons Make a Political Funny

Still makes me chuckle.

--Nick

Odd Theology: The Politics of Pokemon

Because I feel like it, I'm going to annoy some people about their favorite childhood game. A modest proposal, if you will.

UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE

Think about it. Free care for your Pokemon who have been shuffled off to fight your own battles. And I don't think Ash has ever needed free healthcare, because blacking out and waking up in a completely different location is normal.

ANIMAL CRUELTY

I think PETA might be onto something here. Despite some variations, most Pokemon seem to be relatively harmless unless provoked. Or stunned. Or hit with rocks. Seriously, is our ego that conflated to believe that helpless animals fighting on our behalf does anything besides wreck the integrity of the sanctity of life?

He said while sitting on a sheepskin rug.

DRUG LEGALIZATION

X Factor drugs to be used on Pokemon.

Given how Ash treats his Pokemon (that is, with reckless abandon regardless of their personal abilities; like sending an electric Pokemon to fry a rock), I doubt he seriously has any issue imbibing the drugs he stuffs into his mutant little Mickey Mouse rat.

In case you were wondering, Pikachu inhaled.

SCHOOL SYSTEM

Apparently, this is the failure of homeschooling. Utterly delusional. If there were a nationalized school system, there would be far less fat neck beard Pokemon trainers running around. The movement must be stopped.

And while we're at it

GAY RIGHTS

Rainbow badge. Think of the children.

CONCLUSION

Pokemon teaches our children that animals have the right to be beaten, captured and tortured into fighting. This assures us that the end result is that they can be healed and leveled up for us to further exploit. Like surfing on them. It teaches our children that healthcare is an inalienable right (scoff), violence is justifiable and evolution is an animated scientific fact.

Like gravity. Or the screams of lobsters in hot pots.

Pokemon is nothing more than a leftist liberal looney bin libertarian screed against all that is statist and strict. And for that, it must be burned at the stake.

--Nick

*paid for by Team Rocket*

Sarah Palin & Batman?

Titter titter.

--Nick

Paul Ryan and Joe Biden: (Don't) Believe the Hype

I'll confess I'm quite honestly out of the loop on this one. So, take this as a former hard core now casual political observer who is interested more in the absurdities of how the process of election.

Joe Biden:

Joe Biden is more or less the Dan Quayle of the Democratic Party. And that is why I love him. Things I predict will happen:

1. A crack or ten about Paul Ryan's age or good looks as contrasted with his own.

2. A racial reference about white people to compensate for previous tongue trippers. Game over if he confuses genders or political parties. 

3. Shuddering/spasms when cornered. Fatality if he says Paul Ryan "is well-spoken."

Paul Ryan:

I don't know much about Paul Ryan, except that he garners as much bipartisan respect as . . . well, Dan Quayle. I'm expecting three different things from Ryan in this debate:

1. References to God and/or his Christian faith. Respect points if he talks about Romney's faith. Or snickers about the President's lack thereof. A tip of the glass if he wears a Rosary.

2. An attempted joke about Jon Stewart in order to be relevant. Snark about media bias equals double points.

3.  Begins a statement by including "Let's talk straight" or "raw talk" or "straight shooter." This goes well with point #2. 

I will be live tweeting the entire debate. While drinking. Let's hope that this debate is anything but ordinary.

--Nick

The Radical Nature of Not Voting

In protest, my (worthless) vote will not be cast this election. As someone who was already hesitant to vote in the last election (but ultimately caved), I want to answer a few common objections to my resolution.

"It is your civic duty to vote."

No it isn't. If the colonized political process will not yield positive benefits in *either* direction from *either* candidate, then it is my civic duty to maintain my principles and resist such a colossal waste of my time.

"If you don't vote, you have no right to complain."

Two things. One, I don't plan on complaining. I haven't done much political complaining since Obama was elected, I don't plan on doing much of that now.

Second, if I were to complain, I would have every right to complain under the guise of the first Amendment. Free speech can be exercised however one so chooses, and if one wants to be a loud mouth and a hypocrite, well this is America and we elect those kinds of people all the time.

Boosh.

"You are not an American if you don't vote!"

I've never ridden a bull, shot a gun, beaten my wife, or driven a monster truck. I don't like MacDonalds, Budweiser or the NRA.

Wait, how does this help me vote?

--Nick

An Inerrant Constitution, or the Ordination of Patriotism

PRELUDE

In essence, I doubt it. I do not doubt the sincerity of evangelicals who view the constitution in such "biblicist" terms. I do, however, doubt the necessity of thinking the constitution is binding and universal.

GOVERNMENTAL OPENNESS

A problem with this is that it holds back change. I don't think it does so in regards to caving into post-modernism or liberalism, as some conservatives (like myself) have little reason to maintain a tradition is the tradition is indeed incorrect. Instead, I think the truly Christian thing to do (and I'm not trying to colonize the word) is to constantly be open. An example would be Genesis, and how we interpret such a mythic book.

THE ORDINATION OF PATRIOTISM

Though the fervor is dwindling, many evangelicals have made the allegiance one has to the bible on par with one's politics. Many modern thinkers such as Greg Boyd and Kurt Willem have provocatively made points about violence, atonement and the pursuit of the Kingdom of God. Though some have gone too far in the opposite direction (see The Christian Left on facebook), the equalization of God and political parties leaves much to be desired.

We have, essentially, colonized the Bible in our pursuit of staying true to the Bible. Not only that, we have the Patriot's Bible coming out, a truly remarkable entity in America. This leads to something that has been bothering me for a long time:

What are we allowed to "change?" Or, less provocatively, what are we allowed to reconsider? I know many evangelicals are quick to cry foul when the President wants to institute a constitutional amendment for universal healthcare, but are very quick to jump on board supporting the marriage amendment act. My thought is that if something is wrong, then adding an amendment such as Amendment 13 is not only justified but is also biblical. This is something that should be pursued.

But do we do it through the constitution, or through loving actions in slums and soup kitchens?

I'll confess, I don't know the answer.

REDEMPTIVE-POLITICAL HERMENEUTICS

Simply put, can we move beyond the constitution of the United States? Do we re-evaluate the constitution in light of modern times and modern evidence?

This section requires more brainpower, but in a nutshell, the constitution has planted the seedlings we need to allow for slow and respectful progress towards a universal goal, and that is bringing about the Kingdom of God.

Still thinking.

--Nick

A Place for Christian Moderates, a Rejoinder to Matthew Paul Turner

I read Matthew's piece several times. You should give it a good read, as there is much value in Matthew's writings, here and elsewhere. However, I want to push back a little bit.

I won't be saying a whole lot on areas of agreement, because where I don't push back, I agree with Matthew entirely. And there is plenty to agree with. I also apologize if there is overlap between myself and other commentators, I didn't read through their thoughts. ;)

A BRIEF SELF-CENTERED NOTE

I do claim to be a political moderate. I think the label I've used is "Liberal Republican." As with many people, I'm liberal on many things (immigration, welfare) and conservative on many things (taxes, abortion). I am slow to take sides unless I think I'm fully informed, and I get very discomforted when I see instances of group think. I've been accused of resorting to a "middle of the road" fallacy, and that may be true.

The truth isn't always found in the middle, but starting in the middle and keeping a sure footing has often given me much room to wiggle in the realm of contentious issues.

So, just something to provide a bit of where I am coming from.

THE NECESSITY OF MODERATES

However, I do think Matthew has too narrow a view of moderates. The negative side of moderates can very well includes those who simply avoid extremes or are spineless. The positive side, which I think far outweighs the negative, is that moderates can have a tempering effect on extremism.

Let me explain. In a room where a fundamentalist christian and a stuffy atheist are duking it out, having someone where to pump the breaks and affirm areas of agreement will more than like save the lives of the atheist or theist. Also, having the moderate around to remove sharp objects is a plus, as they are unusually sensitive to their surroundings.

But one a more serious note, when I've debated religious/political liberals, I've been very quick to point out what I think. I think most moderates that I know (save for that one I won't talk about) are very quick to state their views, and with passion.

But, the tempering effect is needed, especially in polarizing times.

EVERYTHING IN MODERATION

I do think Matthew has put some form of the cart before the horse. Certainly, "moderate" can be used as a "get out of awkward conversation" card. I did that once, and it worked like a charm. And I agree with Matthew that if you don't have convictions about the issue then "stay out of political debates."

That is an entirely fair statement. 

But I do think Matthew stretches himself a little thin on this. The personal element is missing. Simply put, people like me are very slow to dive into a bloodied arena where opinions are being used like machetes to hack apart such things as universal healthcare. It is not that we do not have opinions, but that depending on the company, we are very slow to give them.

An example may help frame this:

I have had several people (some friends, some strangers) bring up the topic of hell to me. Depending on who they are, I had various answers, all version of what I currently believe (and if you want to know, buy a ticket). It purely depends on who I am talking to. If one is antagonistic, I am very slow to respond. If one shows signs of interest, I'm more open to giving my thoughts.

It is a defense mechanism.

Sociology and psychology are necessary, and cannot be stressed enough. Some people, depending on their personality types, are slow to respond, or may lack certain nuances to their arguments. Thus, coming across as firing blanks is something that doesn't result from a lack of conviction, but of a thwarted attempting at explaining them. Its like a kid who stutters when asked for her thoughts.

All of this said, some moderates do need to get thick skin. Never be afraid to explain what truth is. But always be ready to give an answer for your opinion. But liberals and conservatives need to realize that there is a place at the table for those that are slow to respond.

THE NASTY POLITICAL DISCORDANT DISAGREEMENTS

Politics is a nasty game. It ruins friendships, compromises marriages and makes for awesome satire. A modest proposal, if you may. Do not be afraid of being a Democrat or a Republican. Do not ruin a conversation by being lukewarm. Stay out fo it.

But, liberals and conservatives need to keep in mind that discussion involving controversial issues that effect our lives need to be slow to anger and realize that not every is as passionate as they are. Moderation is key. But always be prepared to stop, drop and roll when a conversation gets heated.

But if you don't feel a part of either party, there is always the House Party.

--Nick

Who would Jesus Execute?

Usually I hate bumper sticker theology and politics. Well, not usually. I still do. But on my drive home I saw this bad boy:

"Who would JESUS execute?"

That got me thinking. Always a bad sign. I thought about Romans 13 and the words of Jesus, and compared the two. My initial thought was that some lines of communication had gotten crossed, and Paul simply hadn't gotten the memo.

Or Jesus was thinking only in a particular context in regards the death penalty, which I'm not certain he ever seemed to mention. I don't want go down the road of claiming "well since Jesus didn't say nothing...", so I'll make a few observations.

First, Jesus didn't seem to say anything about the death penalty, but Jesus didn't say a lot about a lot of things. I don't think it would be wise to really extrapolate such words from Jesus as to promote a political cause.

Based off this, does Jesus become our "trump Paul" card? We don't find much in the Sermon on the Mount about capital punishment, but we do find principles for social justice. Indeed, many Christian pacifists have used the Sermon on the Mount to adhere to their principles. For good reason. I don't find much in that Sermon about the death penalty.

Second, I'm not so sure that Paul's intent in Romans 13 was to convince us about the legality of governments and the death penalty. The principle behind this is verse 4, but it seems to be speaking about earthly authorities. But, Paul brings up "overcoming evil with good" in chapter 12 of Romans,
and "overcoming evil with good." I'm also not convinced that chapters 12 and 13 in Romans are to be read in isolation, as memory seems to indicate that they are all in one paragraph. But, that's not a hill I'm willing to stand on today.

In the words of Karl Barth:

“God does not yield before our encroachments—and when do we not encroach upon His rights? The encroachments of revolution He meets with the sword of government; the encroachments of government with the sword of revolution. And in the fate of both we behold our own destiny—in fear and in pity. The wrath of God falls upon all of us. Upon each one in some way or other the sword is drawn; and it is not drawn in vain. Whether we attempt to build up some positive human thing or demolish what others have erected, all our endeavours to justify ourselves are in one way or another shattered to pieces. We must now assert that all these endeavours of ours not merely cannot be successful, but ought not to be so." (p. 490 of Epistle to the Romans).

There seems to be room for Christians to draw a parallel in Paul's writings in that submission is to bring about peace or healing, or to showcase our lifestyle to be wholly without blame. This would include attempting perfection, and not repaying vengeance. That's up to God. I doubt the myth of redemptive violence, but only because we are the one's who seem very quick to carry it out; especially since God is notoriously patient with us.

At this point, I'm not convinced that the Bible whole-heartedly endorses the death penalty. However, the question of acting in violence to save another life is in question. Part of me wants an evil person to suffer for his crimes. Part of me would probably rejoice in the fact that evil has been extinguished. But what troubles me is that Christ did indeed die for him as well as me. So I will leave that last sentence on the table to temper the finale of this post.

Just because Jesus didn't speak on something doesn't negate whether or not that thing is true or false. We must try to take Scripture as much into account, and thus far, I'm still not inclined to accept the death penalty. But, I haven't taken the option off the table as extreme circumstances and various other passages would suggest it's legitimacy. But everything in me wishes we lived in a world where we didn't need the death penalty. Or pop music. Or hello kitty.

To thinking it through.

 --Nick

Odd Theology: Pokemon, Dominionism & Appositional Musings

I might just do this every Sunday. Play some Pokemon and muse about the relationship between Pokemon and theology or philosophy. Y'know, nerd stuff.

Beginning with the naming of the villain:

Of course he does.

I did name my Bulbasaur "Origen." Yes. Yes I did. And I got my ass kicked by the little flamer.

This is actually kinda fun. Won't lie.

And the final results of my foray into the Pokemon realm:

Most of my favorite theologians, or at least one's I tolerate. Augustine being one. The next one's on my list are KIERKEGAARD, DANTE, PINNOCK, HITCHENS (yes, that guy) and TALBOTT.

In thinking and playing this, I do wonder why Pensacola and others reacted so strongly to the creatures "evolving." I probably learned more about biological evolution and science from the two weeks I was allowed to play Pokemon than I did in the several years of A Beka book material. Though Pensacola did allow me to play with corrosive chemicals.

Anyway.

I just got a Pikachu and named him CLEMENT. I tried naming him GAIMAN, but I think I'll wait for a psychic Pokemon to be caught.

As for theology, I do find interesting parallels between Genesis, Christian dominion-ism and the Pokemon world. Not really, but run with me.

I don't really consider Genesis 1-11 to be historical. Sure, historical things may have happened, but I see too many parallels with near-eastern creation myths and don't find the hermeneutical methods of interpreting Genesis in a young earth way very persuasive. In regards to Pokemon, I see some sort of De/Theistic Evolution at work, given the near mythological creatures and that some of the townspeople have a near "religious" fascination with them.

Gotta catch em' all never sounded so fanatical.

But, considering that Genesis 1:28 is often the central proof text for Christian Re-constructionists to support literally "ruling" the earth ( as well as "Christian" rule but I won't get into that), it came to mind when I realized I was capturing and subduing the entire nation of creatures known as Pokemon. Was it "good?" Not "good?" Or very "good?" It begged the question, "should I have dominion over this world, and subdue each creature for my own personal gain?"

Then I realized that I was debating this over brightly colored pixels when I could be eating tacos and playing basketball.

Til next Sunday!

Gonna catch em' all.

--Nick