Plato, the gospel and Batman?

Awhile ago I was taught that one of the grave dangers of modernity was its tendency to dichotomize the human person. Following Plato’s idealism, layering it with Kant and America’s rugged individualism creates an anthropology that produces humanity as essentially “thinking things.” When we throw Protestant (particularly) theology into that already potent mix, we develop notions of salvation and doctrine that make almost know sense of the entire person. We find ourselves saying things like this:
“What comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us.” AW Tozer
When we are radically consistent, we eventually produce a gospel message that sounds like the one I recently heard at a Tenth Avenue North concert, in which the lead singer (inspired by John Piper) talks about this clip from Batman Begins:

After doing a spot on impression of the movie the singer reminds the crowd that the problem with Batman is that he can’t be saved, and here’s the kicker- “He can’t be saved because he things that what he does matters. But its not what he does that’s important about him, its who he is.” Wow. The complete separation of deeds and self. If we take away our actions, how would we even know who we are? Are we only our actions, like Batman seems to imply? No, of course not, but we are way more than just our minds. Compare the earlier Tozer quote with this one,
“We have no idea how to live until we first know who God is. So when we say that God's name is holy, that tells us how we ought to live. Knowing the creator tells us where the creation is meant to move.” Hauerwas and Willimon, Lord, Teach Us. 46-47.
The differences are subtle, but enormous and crucial. For more on some of these connections, check out Jams KA Smith’s latest book Desiring the Kingdom.

Duke, Debates and Denial

Duke is out. I am a little surprised at how many people are excited about this. I know that it is standard to hate Duke, but now that they are not elite, everyone is coming out of the wood works. It has gotten so bad that even my own Father, who is a lifelong hater of Duke, was pulling for them because so many people picked them to lose. Well, its over, and its sad. It does not destroy my bracket, but does make me unhappy.
It looks like Wallis vs. Dobson may be a go. Dobson has agreed to let his VP take part in the debate, and Wallis has balked, saying he wants Dobson. Wallis also says he has several Christian Universities who would be happy to host the event (maybe they could raise some money for poor people-if poor people really exist). Dobson's reason for not accepting the debate himself? He is taking the next two years to write a book on child rearing. If this book comes out and its just a revised edition of Dare to Discipline or Raising a Strongwilled Child, I am going to shoot someone.
Earlier this week Abby and I put an offer in on a house. That offer was rejected outright, which apparently is a bit uncommon. Anyway, we have chosen not change our offer, so we are once again on the outside of the house buying industry. It feels pretty good.

Wallis vs. Dobson

According to "Life on the Edge" (one of the two Dobson books my parents forced me to read and yes you can guess the other) Dobson was once quite a good tennis player, so if this turns into ultimate death match I think advantage Dobson. Having said that, Wallis has a beard so he's probably fiesty. Likewise, if the debate is attempting to get a handle on the demands of Christ on our culture than Wallis wins hands down. There are two points to make, at least, about why there doesn't need to be a debate: 1. Dobson is flat out wrong. In terms of what "we" generally mean when "we" say moral (I think something close to what people ought to do in a given situation) then Wallis is 1000% correct and its a ridiculous boring debate. 2. What "we" mean when "we" say moral is so suspect, nebulous and devoid of purpose that it really makes a debate trivial at best and a pompous waste of time at most. For a brilliant survey of what how this comes to be, read Alistair MacIntyre's seminal "After Virture" If you do not have the next two months, Here is a concise outline of the book.
I suspect thought that if you got Dobson in a room, and Wallis in a room, and asked them tell you what they mean by "moral" they may be able to come some sort of definition they "agreed" to. I also suspect, however, that these definitions would be so tainted by their American, modernist, accomadationist (less so Wallis) selves that any definition they decided on either wouldn't exist in reality, or if it happened to exist, wouldn't be particularly Christian. I side with Wallis in this discussion, particularly because his words sound more like Jesus to me. Wallis wants to make doing things Jesus said to do important. On that level I vote for Wallis. Both of them want to make America a great place to live in and really believe the Christian's role is to transform American culture. On this level I cry foul. All in all, while both have a dangerous ecclessiology, Wallis picture of the kingdom looks more faithfu; to Scriptures to me.

Letter from Jim Wallis

Part of this makes me really happy, and the other part makes me really sad.
Why in the hell do we need to debate this?  So ridiculous.


Hearts & Minds by Jim Wallis


Jim Wallis: Dr. Dobson, Let's Have a Real Debate

Last week, James Dobson and a number of other Religious Right
leaders wrote a letter to the National Association of
Evangelicals, claiming that work on climate change was a
distraction from "the great moral issues of our time." I
responded on our God's Politics blog on Friday, with the piece
"Dobson and Friends, Outside the Mainstream." So far this week,
we've had several other good responses from Brian McLaren, Bill
McKibben, and Lyndsay Moseley. And, I've invited James Dobson to
a debate on the question, "What are the great moral issues of
our time for evangelical Christians?"

James Dobson's letter attacking Rich Cizik of the National
Association of Evangelicals has caused a firestorm, and maybe
the beginning of a really good dialogue. Brian McLaren's post
yesterday pointed out that the letter from Dobson and friends
actually acknowledged that there is a real debate among
evangelicals about the seriousness of climate change and the
reasons for it. So instead of calling for Cizik's resignation
for saying global warming should be a moral issue for
evangelical Christians, why don't Dobson and his friends accept
a real debate on whether climate change is, indeed, one of the
great moral issues of our time? A major evangelical Christian
university should host just such a debate.

But I want to focus on the following very clear statement from
Dobson's letter:

"More importantly, we have observed that Cizik and others are
using the global warming controversy to shift the emphasis away
from the great moral issues of our time, notably the sanctity of
human life, the integrity of marriage and the teaching of sexual
abstinence and morality to our children."

That is indeed the key criticism, and the foundation for the
real debate. Is the fact that 30,000 children will die globally
today, and everyday, from needless hunger and disease a great
moral issue for evangelical Christians? How about the reality of
3 billion of God's children living on less than $2 per day? And
isn't the still-widespread and needless poverty in our own
country, the richest nation in the world, a moral scandal? What
about pandemics like HIV/AIDS that wipe out whole generations
and countries, or the sex trafficking of massive numbers of
women and children? Should genocide in Darfur be a moral issue
for Christians? And what about disastrous wars like Iraq? And
then there is, of course, the issue that got Dobson and his
allies so agitated. If the scientific consensus is right -
climate change is real, is caused substantially by human
activity, and could result in hundreds of thousands of deaths -
then isn't that also a great moral issue? Could global warming
actually be alarming evidence of human tinkering with God's
creation?

Or, are the only really "great moral issues" those concerning
abortion, gay marriage, and the teaching of sexual abstinence? I
happen to believe that the sanctity of life, the health of
marriages, and teaching sexual morality to our children are,
indeed, among the great moral issues of our time. But I believe
they are not the only great moral issues, and Dobson says they
are.

So Jim, let's have that debate - the big debate. What are the
great moral issues of our time for evangelical Christians?
You're right, a new generation is embracing a wider and deeper
agenda than you want them to. I think that is a very good thing.
You think it is a bad thing, and want to get people fired for
raising broader issues than those connected to sexual morality.
So, today, I am inviting you to have that debate about what the
great moral issues of our time really are. Again, let's ask a
leading evangelical university to invite us both and host a
public debate, and perhaps ask a major evangelical publication
to co-sponsor it. Let's have that debate, Jim, and see what
America's evangelicals think the great moral issues of our time
really are. How about it?