Married Life

Update

For the few that follow this blog for its spiritual content I am now writing over at First Things’s Evangel blog. Book reviews will still come, but there is less than a month to the wedding day and reading time has been the first to go in trying to find extra time to do extra things.

Don’t go swimming just yet!

Christianity and Liberalism

I was reading a couple reviews of Brian McLaren’s new book and his response to them, and I had to wonder why McLaren still thought he should have a voice among evangelicals. To him, he is “just asking questions” that make conservative believers “uncomfortable” and “angry” but really it is his answers to those questions that elicit the uneasy conscience of those that see themselves committed to New Testament Christianity.

J. Gresham Machen confronted some of the ways McLaren does theology in the 1920s in a little book entitled Christianity and Liberalism, which made the modest argument that liberal Christianity was simply a different religion than “historic Christianity.” What Machen means by this is what he finds in the pages of the New Testament, the Creeds, and the Reformation. Yes, one might be able to quibble with this or that protestant interpretation of this or that text, but his purpose is to show that even when the great sects disagree they are still far more unified in faith and practice than what emerges out of liberalism. And it is a sad fact to consider Machen’s work is still so remarkably relevant to what is being peddled today.

Machen writes with a clarity and succinctness that is often better expressed than even CS Lewis, who Machen predates by 20 years. The famous “trilemma” of the “liar, lunatic, or Lord” question was used by Machen before Lewis and its enduring strength carried on, though it is now a bit dated. Back then liberal scholars accepted the premise that the Gospels were generally reliable documents of history (even if they considered them errant). Today, after considering the problems posed by trilemma, they don’t accept them anymore.

I have not read McLaren’s book, but it would be interesting for the readers of it to read Machen’s right afterword. They might not find what they are looking for, but at least they would know that there are boundaries to what can be believed and that certain things cannot be discarded without losing the Christian faith altogether.

The Suicide Tourist

The other night Frontline aired a disturbing documentary titled The Suicide Tourist that follows the journey of Craig Ewert to Zurich, Switzerland where he seeks out the services of a company that is in the business of assisting in “death with dignity.” There is little in the documentary that is new in the way of argument for or against Ewert’s actions. What is new is the unprecedented access to the intimate details of the story all the way up to the life-ending act that is unflinchingly captured on film.

As a piece of journalism it does do its best to remain objective, though it is easy to believe that the filmmakers were sympathetic to the autonomy expressed in Ewert’s assertion that he has “the right to die.” Still, it is free from excessive narration and allows the viewer to observe and make his or her own judgments.

I began by saying that the film is disturbing, and it is. Much of the discussion at the PBS website, to my great surprise, has commented on how “courageous” and “brave” Ewert was in making his decision, and how his death was beautifully portrayed. I had the opposite reaction. I thought Ewert came across as a pathetic figure, not because of his suffering or the fact that was deteriorating from ALS, but because he was so utterly hopeless. He had nothing to look forward to except “death or suffering and death” as he despondently remarks. His hope to no longer exist simply does not add up to “courage” or “bravery” in the usual sense, and if one thinks that living well entails dying well I am not sure this is an example anyone would want to look to for guidance.

However, the film has its moments of mercy. Craig and his wife Mary still share laughter, enjoy walks in the park, smelling fresh air, conversing, and have tender moments of physical affection. Throughout the film we are told that Craig felt as though his life was lost when he received his diagnosis. We are left with impression that the road to Zurich is chosen as if it were the next logical step like a drive to a morgue after life expires. But of course, that is false. Shortly after Craig’s death Mary reflects on the fact that though they both believed his life ended when they learned of his terminal condition, she still very much enjoyed his life up until his final moments. The contradiction within this arbitrary blurring of life and death is one that rests uneasily in her words as she fights back tears. She assures us she has already grieved his death (at diagnosis), but quietly manifests a grief that has already begun.

In the end, I am left cold feeling despair over how the story comes to a conclusion. Truly, there is nothing to laugh at when considering living with a degenerative disease like ALS. In a sense, Craig does bravely go through with his act while he is evidently frightened of death. He is not sure what awaits him. He believes that there will be nothing, but he does not know for sure. He hopes that it will be peaceful… but perhaps not.

The issue of assisted suicide is a hot legal issue, but more profoundly it represents the tip of the iceberg of serious worldview issues. Those that are religious and who hold a hope out for the resurrection are less likely to view life and death the way Craig does. Craig’s story is one of those dramas caused by a worldview that calls for the end of life if it is deemed unworthy of life, instead of one that truly redeems a person from suffering by the power of God to raise the dead. And in that there is not much else but the hope to die well.

Thinking About Suffering with David Bentley Hart

David Bentley Hart is a name I first encountered in an article I read that was critiquing the theology of John Piper. Being persuaded by the arguments contained in that article I wanted to further investigate the name that was cited who had put into words the feelings I have had about Piper’s theodicy for some time. But I soon forgot about that name after I put his book on my Amazon Wish List and moved on to more important things.

As news of the death and destruction resulting from the earthquake in Haiti reached American shores, and bloody images of young children, half-naked and already starving, flickered across the television screen I once again became familiar with Mr. Hart. A blogger had linked to his 2005 article in First Things that was more or less a precursor to his book The Doors of the Sea: Where Was God in the Tsunami? A line caught my attention:

Simply said, there is no more liberating knowledge given us by the gospel — and none in which we should find more comfort — than the knowledge that suffering and death, considered in themselves, have no ultimate meaning at all.

It is a striking proposition, is it? Could it really be that we do not have to find redemptive meaning in the deathly sting of the suffering and death we see and experience? That it has no ultimate value and that God does not have some ambiguous relationship with it where he both loathes it and yet deems it necessary for some beatitude of greater good?

Cornel West: The 2009 Preposterous Statement of the Year

There you have it folks. The most preposterous statement uttered in the year 2009 was by Dr. Cornel West of Princeton University who said at the untimely death of Michael Jackson:

It’s almost like a crucifixion, in terms of the cross you have to bear. We reap the fruits of the resurrection, in terms of the power that emanates from his sacrifice. He sacrificed his childhood because he loved us so. He didn’t just entertain us, he sustained us. [source]

You can see the full context of the statement here. The discussion was between two African American scholars who were trying to assess the influence of Michael Jackson on the culture at large. Much of it was related to the coverage of the media, and both thinkers seemed to be trying to outdo one another in coming up with superlatives to describe the ubiquitous pop star.

West’s journey through the tournament was easy and never in doubt. Against the seemingly unbeatable Katherine Ragsdale he lead the way from the beginning and earned a commanding victory 71% to 29%. His toughest match up came up against the absurd Evan Thomas (who thought Obama was like God…) 63% to 38%. West took out the trash with Joan Z. Shore (93% to 7%), Jennifer Weiss (75% to 25%), and Maureen Dowd (85% to 15%). Surprisingly, his closest game was in the first round against Newsweek’s Joe Klein where he was actually behind for most of the time. But like all champions he found a way to win (60% to 40%).

So hats off Cornel West! You have the most preposterous statement of the year 2009!

Round Six – Chapionship West v. Ragsdale

Time now for the 2009 preposterous statement tournament (not to be confused with the Common Man Dan Cole’s Preposterous Statement Tournament). You can follow the tournament by using the 20 Times Around the Block Preposterous Statement bracket. Make your pick for a winner! A complete list of the statements can be found here.

We have come to the end. This one will decide the most preposterous statement of 2009.

Which statement is more preposterous?

It’s almost like a crucifixion, in terms of the cross you have to bear. We reap the fruits of the resurrection, in terms of the power that emanates from [Michael Jackson's] sacrifice. He sacrificed his childhood because he loved us so. He didn’t just entertain us, he sustained us.–Cornel West

Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done.–The Rev. Dr. Katherine Ragsdale

Vote now!

Round Five – Semifinals Thomas v. West

Time now for the 2009 preposterous statement tournament (not to be confused with the Common Man Dan Cole’s Preposterous Statement Tournament). You can follow the tournament by using the 20 Times Around the Block Preposterous Statement bracket. Make your pick for a winner! A complete list of the statements can be found here.

It’s the final four!

Which statement is more preposterous?

In a way Obama is standing above the country, above the world. He’s sort of GOD. He’s going to bring all different sides together.–Evan Thomas

It’s almost like a crucifixion, in terms of the cross you have to bear. We reap the fruits of the resurrection, in terms of the power that emanates from [Michael Jackson's] sacrifice. He sacrificed his childhood because he loved us so. He didn’t just entertain us, he sustained us.–Cornel West

Vote now!

Round Five – Semifinals Clawson v. Ragsdale

Time now for the 2009 preposterous statement tournament (not to be confused with the Common Man Dan Cole’s Preposterous Statement Tournament). You can follow the tournament by using the 20 Times Around the Block Preposterous Statement bracket. Make your pick for a winner! A complete list of the statements can be found here.

It’s the final four!

Which statement is more preposterous?

Ignoring Facebook friends and promoting terrorism might seem like a strange connection, but hear me out. Both attitudes are based on the same self-centered attitude.–Julie Clawson

Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done.–The Rev. Dr. Katherine Ragsdale

Vote now!