Joke of the Day from a Marxed Man

"Outside of a dog, a good book is man's best friend. Inside a dog, it's too dark to read!"--- Groucho Marx

For Those Lacking a Sense of Deja Vu--BONUS VIDEOS

Monk See, Monk Do-- The Disgrace of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre

There are few places that better demonstrate both the diversity and the divided character of Christianity than the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. So divided are we, that in order for anything to go on in that Church which likely stands over the spot where Jesus was crucified, the keys to the front door have been held by a Muslim family for centuries, because of course the Christians who have staked out turf in this building couldn't decide who should have the keys! The most recent and visible evidence that the church is a 'many-splintered' thing is the fight that broke out yesterday in this historic church between Armenian and Greek Orthodox monks. Here is the link to the story.

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1488655367/bctid1909210367

Notice that Christians couldn't settle matters themselves so the Israeli riot police had to come in and break things up--- a total disgrace. I wish I could say that real Christians don't behave this way, but since I have seen it with my own eyes in my own church, sadly I am unable to say this. It is too easy to write this off as non-born again folks behaving badly.

In fact this sort of thing happens between equally sincere, equally devout Christians. This is the opposite of being the light of the world and the salt of the earth. This is bearing witness to the darkness of human fallenness and the stinking carcass of our sin.

It may be hoped that the parties involved in this disgrace will repent, and then apologize to each other. In the meantime the Jesus who died on the cross on this very spot shakes his head and says--- "I died for this? I died so my followers could behave like this?" I think not.

So lets review: 1) the Muslims opened and shut the doors of this church yesterday; 2) the Israeli Jewish police came and stopped a fracass in the foyer of this church; and what did the Christians do while Jews and Muslims were watching--- 3) THEY PUNCHED EACH OTHERS LIGHTS OUT!!!

Father forgive us, for we know not what we do, nor how terrible our witness to a watching world is.

BW3

INVITATION TO A BOOK-SIGNING

Hi Friends: This is your invitation to a book-signing at Joseph-Beth Booksellers Monday Evening Nov. 10th at 7 p.m. (Come early and get the cookies!). Ann (my wife) and I will be signing the Lazarus Effect, and I will read an excerpt from it; and Julie Hare and I will be signing The Living Legacy, and reading some of the poems. If you are within shoutin' distance come on over to Lexington Green tomorrow evening. A good time will be had by all! Come on down.

BW3

The Gamla Synagogue

(pictures, except the first one, courtesy of Justin Taylor and the folks who produced the ESV Annotated Bible, which certainly has the best illustrations to date in a study Bible)


One of the major debates in NT Studies in the past 50 or so years is when and where synagogues, which is to say purpose built religious buildings, began to crop up in Israel or the Diaspora. At one point there were numerous NT scholars who were emphatic that there were no such purpose built buildings during or before the NT era. This in turn led to the insistence that what we see in the Gospels and Acts, which refers to synagogue buildings with some regularity reflects the later conditions of the author, in some cases from late in the first century outside Israel, and then within Israel. In other words, the NT writers were accused of anachronism at best. Here is a good example of how NT scholarship is sometimes done either blithely ignoring the archaeological evidence, or castigating it as ambiguous or irrelevant, or attempting to explain it away. Dr. Lee Levine came forward in writing and in SBL sessions and elsewhere and made emphatically clear that there were indeed purpose built synagogues even in Jesus' day and thereafter, and that in fact the practice may well pre-date the Herodian era. One of the sites Levine most based his argument on was in the lower Golan Heights, at the village of Gamla, sometimes also called Gamala (from the Hebrew word for camel, because the hill on which the village rests looks like the hump, or perhaps the nose of a camel from a certain angle). As it turns out, Levine was absolutely and positively right. A little of the history of Gamla is in order, since it is not a city mentioned in the Bible.

The village seems to have begun as a Selucid outpost in the 2nd century B.C. where a fort was established as a sort of early warning signal for those living in the Holy Land. It seems to have begun to become a civilian settlement of Jews sometime later in that century. Bible readers may know this site if they have read Josephus' Antiquities, in particular 13.394 which recounts how Josephus himself, as a Jewish commander early in the Jewish war in the A.D. 60s fortified this outpost as one of his main lines of defense of Galilee from Roman attack. According to Josephus, the city was laid seige to by the Romans, and the seige was at first repulsed, but then the Romans, who had built a seige ramp, took the city with huge loss of life (Josephus says as many as 4,000-5,000 Jews died, but he is famous for his exaggerations). One of the questions rightly raised about his grisly account, which even suggests many Jews committed suicide (something forbidden by Jewish Law) is that no human remains have been found (cf. Jews Wars, 4.1-83). In my own analysis of Josephus' work three cautions are in order: 1) the Antiquities, which is the later work tends to be less historically accurate and more an attempt at apologetics to the Roman audience on behalf of Jews; 2) the Jewish Wars account was written earlier, and is often more substantial and probably more accurate; 3) Josephus in both works is doing his best to make himself look good, and we must always bear in mind that he came under the Imperial patronage of Vespasian and his sons after the war, due to his remarkable prophecy, given whilst Vespasian was still a commander in the Holy Land that Vespasian would become Emperor.

Our main interest however in this post is not on the military history of the village, but its religious life, and the excavation of the synagogue at Gamla, which is very substantial indeed, shows that in fact there were indeed synagogue buildings during the NT era, and before. This building can rightly be compared to what has been found at Masada, Sepphoris, Capernaum and elsewhere in the region. Why is this of importance for NT studies?

In the first place, the archaeological evidence removes the necessity for the argument that Acts reflects second century Jewish religious life, not first century conditions. My own observation is that time and again when people have questioned the historical accuracy of the remarks in the NT about buildings and historical locales, the NT has eventually been vindicated by the archaeological evidence. This should give pause to scholars who too hastily want to argue alternate cases, merely dismissing the evidence of the NT about things like: 1) where Jesus was buried, or 2) whether there was a synagogue of Greek speaking Jews in Jerusalem in Jesus' day and the like.

The importance of the Jewish evidence should be evident when we also want to raise the question of what the earliest Christians would have thought about purpose built buildings. All of the earliest followers of Jesus were Jews, many of them were devout, and certainly most of them will have attended worship services in synagogues in Galilee and elsewhere, as the clear evidence suggests that Jesus did as well (see. e.g Lk. 4/ Mk. 6). Jesus, it will be remembered was highly critical of the Herodian Temple, not because it was a building built with human hands, but because God's house had been turned into a den of robbers or bandits or thieves. In other words, Jesus renewed the prophetic critique not about building buildings, but about corrupt practices within them, when they were supposed to be houses of prayer and sacrifice. Similarly, if you read Craig Hill's important book Hebrews and Hellenists
he quite convincingly shows that Stephen is not temple critical or Torah critical, he is critical of God's people, who kept killing the prophets and failing to live by God's Word. In other words, Jesus and his earliest followers did believe that the Herodian Temple might well be the Temple of Doom, destined to be destroyed by God, but not because it was a building, rather because of the corruption within the building and its human administration. Jesus and Stephen were not early examples of anti-edifice preachers, nor were they iconoclasts either. They were rather devout early Jews who did not want the House of the Lord, whether synagogue or Temple, polluted by wicked practices.

If we turn then to the evidence of Acts 1-6 and ask about the views of the earliest Christians about religious buildings, it seems clear they do not have a problem with them in the least. Peter and other Christians continue to hold meetings in Solomon's Portico in the Temple, Paul continues to attend worship in synagogues, indeed starting his evangelistic efforts there where ever he goes, and when he returns to Jerusalem, he gladly participates in support of Nazaritic vows and rituals in the temple at the request of James, despite the danger to his own life. Of course it is also true that Jewish Christians met in homes, as did Gentile Christians later. There became an increasingly good reason legally speaking to do so, as the first century marched along and it became increasingly clear that Christians were not simply Jews, or a sect of Judaism.

Judaism in the first century was a licit religion. Jews were allowed to have their own temple and sacrifices and they were not required to sacrifice to the Emperor, rather the distinction was made that they could offer prayers and sacrifices on behalf of the Emperor. Even though there was anti-Semitism rife throughout the Empire, the official Roman policy was to allow indigenous groups to continue to practice their religions, as long as it was an ancient, respected, identifiable religion, recognized by the Roman senate. Judaism was such a religion. However, as the first century went along and more and more Gentiles became followers of Jesus, even becoming the majority of such followers in various places in the Empire, it became increasingly clear that the 'Christianoi' the partisans of Christ, or those who belonged to Christ (a name first given to them by outsiders in Antioch) were not simply Jews. This in turn made them practitioners of what Romans called a 'superstitio', an illicit religion. Now this was a difficult thing for Christians not least because unlike Judaism, early Christianity was a highly evangelistic religion, even recruiting from the highest eschelons of society, something that Luke in Acts draws repeated attention to. But if they were thrust out of the synagogue, and not allowed to meet in the open by pagan officials because of being a 'superstition' where would they meet? Of course they would continue to meet in homes. This was not made a religious principle, rather they had to make a virtue out of a necessity. The movement had to continue to grow and expand without constantly being subject to the watchful eye of governing officials who increasingly wanted to promote an alternative new religion--- the Emperor cult. Of necessity then, Christians, when the parting of the ways with the synagogue came, met increasingly in homes. The fact that this was not a theological issue or principle but rather a practical one is shown so very clearly already when: 1) Christians began to turn homes into churches in the last third of the first century in places like the house of Peter in Capernaum, and 2) when they began already in the second century to build underground church structures in places like Turkey. At the very top of this post is an image from Turkey of a very early example of this practice.

Now what is notable about the underground churches in Turkey built between the late first and 4th centuries, which is to say, between the time when Nero began persecutions of Christians, and when that stopped when Constantine became Emperor and declared Christianity a licit or legal religion, is that clearly this practice was engaged in to protect Christianity and allow it to grow and thrive. The church literally met underground. What is interesting to me about the actual structures of these churches is they have adopted some of the things from the synagogue, for example in their niches in the back of the structure for their holy scrolls, and some things from the home, such as the little tricliniums you find with benches so a meal could be shared including the Lord's Supper. What I need to stress is that Christians did not build underground homes, they built underground church structures in these places. They continued to live above ground, but they would meet either in well walled houses, or underground during these centuries. They had no problems with building purpose built structures with synagogue features, and increasingly with their own architectural and Christian designs. They did not hold to theological principles that suggested religious edifices were inherently bad, and body life in houses was theologically better. The notion that there was some enormous sea change in attitude about buildings between the time of earliest Jewish Christianity and later when Gentiles were in the majority of Christians is a myth, a myth of pristine origins followed by later pagan corruption. No, in fact there was a continuum from earliest Christianity onward in which Christians were happy to meet in synagogues, temples, or homes, where ever they were welcome and could worship in spirit and truth. But once Christians had been branded as practitioners of a false superstition by Nero and later Emperors, this increasingly removed them from worship in synagogues, and drove them to adopt and adapt, turning houses into purpose built religious meeting places, and later in areas where it was possible as in Turkey, building often enormous and elaborate underground churches. The earliest Christians neither had an 'edifice' complex insisting on religious buildings, nor did they have an anti-edifice complex. They were flexible and practical and went with what was possible in a given place, always bearing in mind that once they had emerged from the Jewish womb and were no longer seen as a part of Judaism, they were an illicit religion and had to be careful where, and how, and when they met. Open, above ground meetings in urban areas became increasingly impossible because they would be noticed. Here below is the famous letter of Pliny to Trajan written in about 111-12 A.D. from Bithynia, asking for advice about what to do with Christians and whether they should be forced to renounce their faith. Christianity was a faith under fire.
Here is the text of the most famous of these letters....

XCVII Pliny to Trajan:
It is my constant method to apply myself to you for the resolution of all my doubts; for who can better govern my dilatory way of proceeding or instruct my ignorance? I have never been present at the examination of the Christians [by others], on which account I am unacquainted with what uses to be inquired into, and what, and how far they used to be punished; nor are my doubts small, whether there be not a distinction to be made between the ages [of the accused]? and whether tender youth ought to have the same punishment with strong men? Whether there be not room for pardon upon repentance?" or whether it may not be an advantage to one that had been a Christian, that he has forsaken Christianity? Whether the bare name, without any crimes besides, or the crimes adhering to that name, be to be punished?
In the meantime, I have taken this course about those who have been brought before me as Christians. I asked them whether they were Christians or not? If they confessed that they were Christians, I asked them again, and a third time, intermixing threatenings with the questions. If they persevered in their confession, I ordered them to be executed; for I did not doubt but, let their confession be of any sort whatsoever, this positiveness and inflexible obstinacy deserved to be punished. There have been some of this mad sect whom I took notice of in particular as Roman citizens, that they might be sent to that city. After some time, as is usual in such examinations, the crime spread itself and many more cases came before me.
A libel was sent to me, though without an author, containing many names [of persons accused]. These denied that they were Christians now, or ever had been. They called upon the gods, and supplicated to your image, which I caused to be brought to me for that purpose, with frankincense and wine; they also cursed Christ; none of which things, it is said, can any of those that are ready Christians be compelled to do; so I thought fit to let them go. Others of them that were named in the libel, said they were Christians, but presently denied it again; that indeed they had been Christians, but had ceased to be so, some three years, some many more; and one there was that said he had not been so these twenty years. All these worshipped your image, and the images of our gods; these also cursed Christ.
However, they assured me that the main of their fault, or of their mistake was this:-That they were wont, on a stated day, to meet together before it was light, and to sing a hymn to Christ, as to a god, alternately; and to oblige themselves by a sacrament [or oath], not to do anything that was ill: but that they would commit no theft, or pilfering, or adultery; that they would not break their promises, or deny what was deposited with them, when it was required back again; after which it was their custom to depart, and to meet again at a common but innocent meal, which they had left off upon that edict which I published at your command, and wherein I had forbidden any such conventicles. These examinations made me think it necessary to inquire by torments what the truth was; which I did of two servant maids, who were called Deaconesses: but still I discovered no more than that they were addicted to a bad and to an extravagant superstition. Hereupon I have put off any further examinations, and have recourse to you, for the affair seems to be well worth consultation, especially on account of the number of those that are in danger; for there are many of every age, of every rank, and of both sexes, who are now and hereafter likely to be called to account, and to be in danger; for this superstition is spread like a contagion, not only into cities and towns, but into country villages also, which yet there is reason to hope may be stopped and corrected. To be sure, the temples, which were almost forsaken, begin already to be frequented; and the holy solemnities, which were long intermitted, begin to be revived. The sacrifices begin to sell well everywhere, of which very few purchasers had of late appeared; whereby it is easy to suppose how great a multitude of men may be amended, if place for repentance be admitted.
[Footnote 3: It was one of the privileges of a Roman citizen, secured by the Sempronian law, that he could not be capitally convicted but by the suffrage of the people; which seems to have been still so far in force as to make it necessary to send the persons here mentioned to Rome. M.]
[Footnote 4: These women, it is supposed, exercised the same office as Phoebe, mentioned by St. Paul, whom he styles deaconess of the church of Cenchrea. Their business was to tend the poor and sick, and other charitable offices; as also to assist at the ceremony of female baptism, for the more decent performance of that rite: as Vossius observes upon this passage. M.]
XCVIII
Trajan to Pliny
You have adopted the right course, my dearest Secundus, in investigating the charges against the Christians who were brought before you. It is not possible to lay down any general rule for all such cases. Do not go out of your way to look for them. If indeed they should be brought before you, and the crime is proved, they must be punished;1 with the restriction, however, that where the party denies he is a Christian, and shall make it evident that he is not, by invoking our gods, let him (notwithstanding any former suspicion) be pardoned upon his repentance. Anonymous informations ought not to be received in any sort of prosecution. It is introducing a very dangerous precedent, and is quite foreign to the spirit of our age.
[Footnote 1: If we impartially examine this prosecution of the Christians, we shall find it to have been grounded on the ancient constitution of the state, and not to have proceeded from a cruel or arbitrary temper in Trajan. The Roman legislature appears to have been early jealous of any innovation in point of public worship; and we find the magistrates, during the old republic, frequently interposing in cases of that nature. Valerius Maximus has collected some instances to that purpose (L. i., c. 3), and Livy mentions it as an established principle of the earlier ages of the commonwealth, to guard against the introduction of foreign ceremonies of religion. It was an old and fixed maxim likewise of the Roman government not to suffer any unlicensed assemblies of the people. From hence it seems evident that the Christians had rendered themselves obnoxious not so much to Trajan as to the ancient and settled laws of the state, by introducing a foreign worship, and assembling themselves without authority. M.]

The notes above in brackets are from William Melmoth, a classics scholar of an earlier age.


In his recent important Cambridge monograph, James Tunstead Burtchaell, From Synagogue to Church demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt the indebtedness of early Christians to the synagogue in three ways: 1) in terms of their worship practices; 2) in terms of their leadership structures, particularly in regard to the roles of elders, and 3) in terms of their thinking and adaptation of what religious buildings should look like, and how they should be constructed. Here is not the place to do a lengthy review of this fine study, but the essential point made should be stressed--- IT WAS NOT PAGANISM OR EVEN THE INFLUX OF GENTILES INTO THE EARLY CHURCH THAT LED TO ITS HAVING PURPOSE BUILT BUILDINGS, HIERARCHIAL LEADERSHIP STRUCTURES, OR STRUCTURED WORSHIP PRACTICES. NO, THESE THINGS EXISTED FROM THE BEGINNING IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY BECAUSE OF ITS DEEP INDEBTEDNESS TO EARLY JUDAISM AND ITS ATTITUDES, THEOLOGY, AND PRACTICE IN REGARD TO SUCH THINGS.

It is of course also true, that early Jewish Christians add important things to the mix when it came to leadership and religious structures, worship patterns and the like. Early on it began to have its own religious symbols such as the IXTHUS symbol. But innovation is only what one would expect from a pneumatic or charismatic movement like early Christianity. But since the Gospel was to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile as even the apostle to the Gentiles insisted (cf. Rom. 1.1-4 to his practice in Acts)in every place that Paul went he began by evangelizing Jews, Jews who brought into the church their own religious ethos and practices, including of course their beliefs and praxis in regard to worship, buildings, and leadership.
It is always a delicate thing to understand and represent the balance between the continuity in these matters that Judaism and Christianity shared, and the discontinuity. The point is, that early Christian worship, leadership, and attitudes about religious structures was not simply what the Romans would call a NOVUM, something totally new. This is precisely why outsiders, when they attended Christian worship in homes and elsewhere, often remarked on the Jewishness of what they experienced. It was unlike paganism and polytheism in many ways. Read sometime Robert Wilken's classic book The Christians as the Romans Saw Them and you will see what I mean.

Think on these things. BW3

The Morning After, the Election

Here is a commentary by my friend James Howell on the election-- written well before Election Day. See what you think. BW3
------------


The election is over. For the Oval Office, one winner, one loser. But neither is a loser. Both are people who offered themselves for public service, and have lived under a microscope, under intense scrutiny, with a schedule that would exhaust the most energetic of us.

Winning voters are tempted to strut, to gloat; losing voters are tempted to sigh, to rage, to shudder with disgust. This is fine, and serves as an index into the fact that we care, we are invested as citizens, we hold deep beliefs. We have excellent cause to rejoice over high voter turnout, and intensity of feeling on both sides; what greater sign of hope could there be?

But the election is over, and we have a new President, and a coterie of other public servants. Do we remain stuck in our giddy delight? Or in our exasperated disappointment? Not as the people of God, not for those who believe we might in some way be “one nation under God.”

It is time to be one nation, one people, to throw all our support and hopes behind the democratically elected officials who will lead. The alternative is forever to oppose, to subvert, to grouse… but is the Spirit in us when we do? Partisan politics is our great gift, and yet the ruin of the country. A good idea is trashed, just because the other guy had it.

Gloating and disgust are tabled. Only prayer is in order. The Episcopal Book of Common Prayer prescribes daily prayer for the President, by name, and the Governor, and other elected officials. Imagine if all the people in America who claim to believe in God actually prayed for their leaders? Or spent one-tenth as much time in seeking the heart of God as they do in griping?

If you believe that the election of Candidate X will be catastrophic, if you think Candidate Y’s policies are faulty, then you would be wise to begin to pray, today, that you turn out to be wrong. The morning after an election – and every morning for the believer, prayer is in order.

And citizenship. We have these “celebrity” elections nowadays, and a foolish belief that just one person can change everything. We thought if we just got rid of one person – the Ayatollah Khomeini, or Saddam Hussein, or Osama bin Laden – then all would be well in the world. But these individuals are mere symptoms of much larger problems that require far more thorough, diligent, long-term attention.

In America, leadership really matters. But leadership requires active following, not passive spectatorship. If there has been energy and passion around this year’s election, it will have been wasted unless we translate that into consistent citizenship, involvement, each person doing his or her part to work at the problems and hopes before us, every organization – and especially the Church (our Church!) – getting engaged with what’s going on with compassion, justice, an optimistic spirit, a dogged zeal that says “Life matters, life can be extraordinarily good, and just as my vote matters, my involvement matters.”

So let us conclude by recalling the immortal words of Lincoln, trying to lead a divided nation, and make them our hope, our prayer, our marching orders: “The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes… With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds.”

Dr. James Howell
Myers Park UMC
Charlotte N.C.

ELECTION DAY QUICK QUIZ

This is a two part quiz, and there is no extra credit.

PART ONE
Where was John McCain born?

Where was Barack Obama born?

PART TWO
What is the rule in regard to where someone has to be born in order to run for the Presidency of the United States, or is there a birthplace rule?

Have Fun.

BW3

The Architecture of the Post-Modern Mind, Part IV (Guest Reflections)

I am very pleased to be able to conclude this series of posts with an insightful analysis by Dr. Steven Mizrach, a professor of Cultural Anthropology at Florida International University, used with his permission. This post helps us see some of the social and political implications of post-modernism, an appropriate subject the day before an election. I would suggest you also pay particular attention to what he says about tradition and religion in this post, as well as his suggestions about post-modernity and the future.

BW3

---------

Talking pomo: An analysis of the postmodern movement
by Dr. Steve Mizrach (aka Seeker1) of Florida International University

Postmodernism according to friends, foes, and spectators

When people talk about postmodernism, the problem is that they are referring to something very elusive and slippery. In the academic world, it is best understood as a new Weltanschaung - a new organizing principle in thought, action, and reflection, connected to many changing factors in modern society. The term postmodern was first applied, around 1971, to a new architectural style which combined old, classical forms with modern pragmatism and scientific engineering. Since then, the postmodernist advocates have used the term to describe their movement as a reaction to the wholesale failure of modernity - the betrayals of the modernist movement in the arts, primarily, but also modernity understood as a social process - industrialization, urbanization, centralization, and 'progress' and 'civilization' as those terms are often used popularly. This movement is not called 'antimodernism' because it is not a rejection of modernity in toto , but as its advocates claim, an effort to combine the best of the modern world with the best elements of the traditions of the past, in an organic way that eliminates the worst parts of both.

Critics of postmodernism come mainly from the Marxist camp. They feel that postmodernism is a diversionary tactic, the last ditch of a late capitalism in the process of dying. They dislike fervently the way that postmodern aesthetics rejects socialist realism - and, for that matter, epistemological realism. They often point out how semiotics and the postmodern idea that everything is image and nothing is substance are used cynically by advertising agencies - which, unable to sell us real goods of real production, can now only sell us images of satisfaction and packaged happiness. Marxists also dislike postmodernism's relativist treatment of science, since as they see 'criticism' (the critical method) and science as being identical. And they are not all too pleased by postmodernism's rejection of the proletariat and industrialism as liberators, nor its insistence (dating from the Situationists) that liberation of leisure may be more important than liberation of work... the way postmodernism intertwines with Nietzschean thought, deep ecology, mysticism, and libertarian individualism makes many Marxists view it as right-wing, reactionary, perhaps even fascist!

Non-Marxist critics of postmodernism abound, too. The right wing foams at the mouth at the way it dovetails with multiculturalism, feminism, 'direct democracy,' the "communitarian" movement, and some concerns they see as left-wing. The right-wingers feel that postmodernism is the last-ditch effort of a dying left wing... that left-wing academics, disappointed with Papa Joe Stalin and Pol Pot, have found a new weapon with which to smash Western civilization and rationalism. Other critics of postmodernism feel it is trying to have its cake and eat it too. From the modern world, it wants to take McLuhan's electronic technology and the 'global village' it allows while ditching other parts of modernity; without acknowledging that, sans modernity, such communication would not be possible. From the premodern world, it wants to recover the 'religious sensibility' and 'traditional values' of the past while jettisoning the intolerance and fundamentalism of religion or the "crushing weight" of tradition upon free thought. The postmodernists, their critics claim, do not see that both tradition and religion can be both liberating and stultifying, but you cannot "pick and choose" from both and claim to be doing anything but generating fictions.

Sociologists see postmodernism at work everywhere. Take scientology or radionics, for example - which combine sophisticated technology and scientific-sounding concepts with some very, very old, perhaps antiquated ideas. If postmodernism is anything, I think, it is perhaps a rejection of linear narrative, and our central linear narrative is History. Associated with that constellation are ideas like Progress, whether one views it as the Hegelian spirit of consciousness or the inevitable progression of the factors and relations of economic production. Scientists hate postmodernism because it suggests there is no such thing as "superstition." In the discourse-world of Foucaultian geneaology, there can be no ideas which are consigned to the "dustbin" of history. They can lose meaning as new discourses are adopted, perhaps even be abandoned as parts of discourses, but that does not mean they are "gone," for humanity never to reconsider. In the postmodern world, all things are subject to reconsideration . And that is how one can look at postmodernism: a reconsideration of the central constellation of ideas in the arts, economics, politics, philosophy, and sociology.

From prehistory to posthistory

The postmodernists point to various reasons for the end of history. Most disagree with the Fukuyama/Whig version, which is that with liberal democracy we called an end to the game in 1789. But most agree with the Joycean version, which is that "history is a nightmare from which we are all trying to awaken." Some think that our postliterate civilization simply will no longer wish to preserve history - at least, not in the oral or written way it has been done in the past. But most feel that the year1945 (when the apocalypse became a historical possibility, in the camps at Aushwitz and in the second sun of Hiroshima) or 1968 (when the world was turned upside down by a bunch of French students) marked the true signpost of the end of history, and the search for the way out. We have moved from anonymous prehistory to postnominal posthistory, to "history from below," where human actions continue to generate history, even if no one really knows where it is going or can honestly claim to control it. The task of the posthistorian is no longer charting the "lines" of history, but instead geneaology - a process that branches and bifurcates, dead-ends at some points and leapfrogs at others.

Our posthistorical age is marked by several features, we are told. Its various Zeitgeists go by various academic-sounding names: poststructuralism, postindustrialism, postliberalism, postrationalism, and postpatriarchy. In each of these cases, the "post" is there for the same reason. The previous state of affairs has neither been overthrown nor dissolved. Rather, it has been co-opted, supplanted, reformulated, enantiodromized (made into its opposite), or transcended. Postmodernism is a parasite within the body of modernity, digesting it with its enzymes; it is not a conqueror or a destroyer. No discontinuity is noticeable: which is why some people still feel this is a 'modern' age, unable to see the thousand simultaneous, invisible paradigm shifts which annulled modernity, fraying it at its edges, rather than attacking its core. Some postmodernists deny that some of the core values of modernity - such as humanism - are being attacked by their movement. Nor do they feel they are nostalgiacs, reactionaries, or part of the continual "retro" fads of society. What is going on, they say, is a reconsideration, a return to reflection, a reappraisal. Can that be so bad?

Poststructuralism in aesthetic appreciation and creation

The postmodernist movement in the arts has resulted in a new standard of aesthetic appreciation, and new forms of aesthetic creation - 'performance art' - etc. It is not entirely clear whether the new modes of criticism generated the new forms of creation, or if it was the other way around, but as with everything in postmodernity, it is likely that it was an organic, mutual process. The key concept of modern aesthetic appreciation was that intentionality did not matter and that representation had nothing to do with resemblance. In literature, this meant the "New Criticism" and "the Death of the Author," where critics would deal strictly with what was on the page, as an autonomous structure of schemas, devices, and tropes. Modernist poets eagerly experimented with various schemes of abandoning canonical schemes of rhyme, meter, and metaphor and metonymy. In the plastic arts, it meant "art for its own sake," and each painting or piece of sculpture was to be appreciated for its purely aesthetic features (curves, lines) and its geometric structure and not for "resemblance" to anything else. Hence cubism, abstraction, Action Painting, expressionism, futurism, surrealism, and Mondrianism.

Postmodern art takes the daring experimentation of modernism, but passes over its hesitant boundaries. It questions the boundaries between the process of creation and the completed act, between the creator/presenter/provider and the audience/appreciator/receiver, and between the private museum or gallery and the place of 'public exhibition.'. Postmodern art is about appropriation, about the Dadaists taking their urinals and putting them on display, about Warhol taking a Campbell soup can or Marilyn Monroe's lips, about Man Ray borrowing eyelashes and fingers from other photographs, about rap artists 'sampling' 1940s show tunes and turning them into bass rhythms, or Klein taking anything and making it his art by painting it with International Klein Blue. It is about John Cage sitting down at his piano for roughly five minutes, without touching a key, and receiving applause. Not because he has played a single sound, but because he is John Cage. For the postmodernists, intention is everything, and reception is everything, but content is nothing. For most modern artists, this makes postmodern art one big fraud.

If postmodernity means the abandonment of structure and content in the plastic arts, many anti-deconstructionists feel it is the abandonment of meaning and theme altogether in literature. Utilizing the ideas of Piercean semiotics, Sassurian linguistics, and Heidegger's philosophy, Derrida delivered the crushing blow to literary structuralism at Johns Hopkins in 1968. Henceforth, in the wake of poststructuralism, many literary critics have turned to other theories, such as Fish's reader-response criticism, Searle's speech-act theory, or Derrida's own offering, deconstruction. The key concept in postmodern literary criticism seems to be that any text contains additional meanings beyond what the author could have 'structured' into it, and that literary criticism is a process of creating meaning, not discovering it. As postmodernism is about breaking down boundaries, many critics feel that Derridean criticism will destroy the 'literary canon' and put Tom Clancy and the great works of Western civilization on the same level, and destroy the critical differentiation between 'high' art (which endures) and 'low' art (which does not.)

In other art areas - music, architecture (where it all started), sculpture, etc. - aestheticism is being challenged by postmodern critics. "Great" art's greatness, they say, does not adhere entirely within the work of art autonomously: it has something to do with the relation that exists between artist and art appreciator, a relation that exists within the field that we call "culture." For this reason, much of the new postmodern academic criticism is going on in 'cultural studies' departments, which do not agree with the modernist dictum that art is a mirror that dimly reflects society. The cultural studies profs feel that art - broadly defined - is strongly patterned by culture, and can and must shape it in turn. Poststructuralism, some modernist critics feel, has resulted in a proliferation of subjectivist positions, and hence an abdandonment of objective standards and universal criteria in artistic appreciation. This, they also argue, allows postmodern art creators to "get away with anything" - including canning shit and putting it in on display. But some postmodernist critics feel modern art was a betrayal because it did not admit its own dependence on context and situation.

Postindustrialism in economic organization

Marxist sociologists, always keen to see the economic transformations that precede (and, as they see it, generate) changes in ideology, feel that the true basis of postmodern thought is the shift to a post-industrial economy. Many postmodernists would agree, suggesting that in the new economy, service and information will be more important commodities than goods or labor power in the new "information society". Both would agree that biotechnology, robotics, communications, and other technologies may well eliminate the need for human labor power, at least in assembly-line mass production, where the industrial proletariat has been trapped since the industrial revolution. Marxists might see this as a form of liberation, since alienated and menial work will cease to be, and all will be freed to do the work of the mind rather than the work of the hands, if they choose. But, their reaction instead is to see post-industrialism as a tactic of class warfare gone genocidal - in late capitalism, the bourgeouis have decided that liquidation of an increasingly racially stratified (i.e., in the U.S., African-American or Third World) and unemployable (i.e., unexploitable) working class has become necessary.

As they see it, these economic historians feel that the wave of factory closings in the 1970s is part of the collapse of capitalism. As capitalists are finding it increasingly difficult to compete in a global market, they are more and more attempting to find their wealth through speculation (the 'junk bonds' and 'merger mania' of the 80s) rather than production. As more and more 'real' goods are made in Third World sweatshops, the capitalists are deindustrializing in the Western countries so as to escape union protection of workers, government regulation, and progressive taxation. "Post-industrialism" really means the internationalization of the capitalist class, who are de-industrializing so as to crush the 'advanced' (First World) proletariat and moving their factories so as to exploit the Third World peasantry. These economic changes - less and less real goods produced, more and more promises made through increasingly sophisticated advertising - and the dying gasps of capitalism are the 'real' roots of postmodernism and its attendant ideas, suggest the Marxist econohistorians.

Unfortunately, there is more to postindustrialism than just that. Key ideas in the postindustrial constellation are 'workplace democracy,' 'etherialization,' 'Green economics,' and 'reconceptualizing vocation.' In the postmodern/postindustrialism's furthest vision, economics itself- the existence of scarcity and the need for calculi of allocation - may cease to exist. 'Workplace democracy' doesn't mean that the State controls the factories - rather, that workers' councils meet to coordinate with management production, labor conditions, and wages, and that these councils have the same decision-making power as management. 'Etherialization' is an extrapolation from the history of miniaturization, but the key idea is that with technology, more and more will be accomplished with less and less, so that the material side of production will continue to diminish. 'Green economics' is a burgeoning field that seeks to rethink concepts of prosperity, wealth, risks & benefits, property, and prices in ecological terms. 'Reconceptualizing vocation' is an idea from Marilyn Ferguson - that vocation be made less of a label and a trap and more of a growth experience, by increasing the flexibility, diversity, and autonomy of work.

There have been many schemes associated with the 'third force' movement to have an economy of relative equality that does not restrict freedom, opportunity, or diversity. In the early 20th century, there were the schemes of Social Credit, and Henry George's plan to eliminate building taxes and tax only land, which Karl Marx called "the last stand of the capitalists," but the landlords and rent collectors hated George more than Marx. And there was the Owenite 'communitarian' movement, which focused on creating voluntary collective ventures. The most recent effort has been Schumacher and Hazel Henderson's New Economics, based on the principle of 'small is beautiful.' Schumacher's economics - "as if people mattered" - is based on the idea that the scale of production may be more important than who owns it. As Schumacher saw it, the diminishing quality of production and labor autonomy was in direct relation to the scale of production. Fordism and mass-assembly-line production was the problem, but Schumacher's critics saw his solution as romantic or even reactionary - returning to small-scale ventures like the old craft guilds where workers once had control over their own labor. Such things might work in the Third World, they said, but in the West, that meant an abandonment of industrial 'progress'.

Postliberalism in politics: the radical 'center'

Postmodernist politicians (more properly, politically conscious postmoderns) claim they hold the coveted Third Way of politics - a way out of the conventional divisions of Left and Right that polarize political thinking. The key terms for postmodern politics are 'participatory democracy,' (grassroots/electronic), 'decentralization,' and 'communitarian individualism.' Its key slogan - familiar to most advocates - is 'think globally, act locally.' Many of the 'postmodernists' in politics describe themselves as 'postliberals,' meaning that they often came to the movement from 60s modernist liberalism after seeing some of its inherent limitations. Others describe this as 'postliberalism' because it is a transcendence (not a rejection) of liberal democracy itself and its limitations. As they see it, it is the 'radical center' position because it is neither Left nor Right, but threatening to the powers that be on both sides, commisars & bureaucrats and capitalists & fat cats.

The advocates of 'participatory democracy' see it as a step beyond pale representative democracy - as a return to the old town meetings of New England where everybody could have their say. Skeptics scoff at this, declaring it impossible to do in a country of 200 million people, but the postmodernists say it could be done through an 'electronic plebiscite.' Many of the mainstream politicians are turning on to this idea, especially former computer man Ross Perot, who wanted to stage 'electronic town hall meetings' on issues all over the country through sattelite hookups. The postmodernists say that what we have now is 'spectacle democracy' - we elect people and then watch passively for four years the dreadful result. 'Participatory democracy' means grassroots citizen activism - that every citizen take an active involvement in the direction of governance - and the making of decisions by consensus (mutual agreement) rather than voting, where the people in the minority feel bullied and overpowered by the majority. Consensus means compromise, but it creates workable solutions.

"Decentralization" just means that power should be dispersed as far and wide as possible - that the less power is held in the center, the more people on the periphery are empowered to change their lives. Decentralists suggest that an important part of this is the growth of NGOs (Non-governmental organizations) which hold governments accountable for their actions, like Amnesty International. Also important are strategies of civil disobedience, as described by Gene Sharp in his Politics of Nonviolent Action , to keep governments responsible and responsive. Decentralists feel that centralized governments of either stripe - Left or Right - rely too much on coercive power, whether that be brute force (military, torture, etc.) or more subtle means (propaganda, imprisonment, etc.) To have a truly nonviolent, participatory society, the power of the centralized government must be reduced and shared with governance at all levels. The centralized government cannot be 'seized' and used for beneficial ends - the centralized State, as Max Weber understood, is primarily an instrument for the monopolization of violence and coercion, and can be nothing but that.

Being the libertarian socialists that they are, most postmodernists support 'communitarian individualism' - the creation of communes or schemes whereby people who want to live cooperatively can, sort of like the kibbutzim of Israel. They support various ways of encouraging community and collective action and concern, as long as they are on a voluntary basis. But many feel taking wealth and redistributing it without asking merely creates resentment against the poor. Many feel the answer to poverty is a full-employment economy, which in their revisionary economics they say is quite possible, and can pay everybody good wages to boot! In any case, they support various forms of rotationary governance, so that everybody in the community gets a shot at running things, for a short while, at the local level. This 'rethinking' of politics by the postmoderns is often seen as idealistic by their critics, 'wooly-headed' at best but 'foolish' at worst, because "it denies human nature..."

Postlogocentrism in philosophy

Most postmodern philosophers entered this terrain through speculations about language, truth, and logic. That is certainly how Derrida, Foucault, and Rorty arrived there. But the roots of postmodern philosophy lie in Nietzsche, Heidegger, the Existentialists, the Situationists, Wittgenstein, and perhaps the theological "Death of G-d" school which created so much attention in 1968. The central project of postmodern philosophy is to challenge the notion of philosophy itself - i.e. the rationalistic ideal of discovering truth through pure reason. Deconstruction, for Derrida, is a radical challenge to the three thousand year history of Western metaphysics and ontology; a gauntlet thrown at the 'logocentrism' which Lacan sees identical with 'phallocentrism' and the 'symbolic order' itself. Most importantly, the postmodernists challenge any philosophy of totalization - one that creates a closure around itself and claims a preeminence in access to universal principles and timeless truths. This is the basis of their critique of Marxism, which they feel contains an (erroneous) metaphysics, eschatology, anthropology (description of man), and notion of reason.

Many philosophers feel uneasy about postlogocentric philosophy because it questions reason and logic itself. Some are put off by its relativism and its willingness to question the notion of truth or meaning itself. As Rorty sees it, in direct defiance of the analytic philosphers, there are no statements which make purely abstract truth-claims, only statements which make references to a type of truth, whether that be scientific truth, metaphoric truth, mythic truth, or humanistic truth. Many postmodern philosophers lean to an epistemology of constructivism - that reality is created through our categories of understanding and our modes of organizing perception- and to a denial of ontology itself, that there are somehow things 'out there' which 'exist'. Others see the root of the problem in Aristotelian logical binarism, as Korzybski did, which could not see that there might be things which are partially true or partially false, and that in every case to say that X 'is' Y 'is' a partial lie.

Mainly, the key element of postmodern philosophy is the 'linguistic turn.' Like Wittgenstein, the postmodernists see the root of many philosophical problems in the use (and misuse) of language. Derrida sees the root of much of philosophical binarism in the (arbitrary) division and prioritization of writing and speech. Many take the insight of Whorf and Sapir and the sociolinguists - that how we speak about the world shapes our experience of it. If one understands fully Derrida's explorations of 'play' in language and the 'referent problem,' then they may realize that any statement may contain an inexhuastible number of meanings. Like this one. Or this one. And based on that fact, there are therefore a multiple number of ways of viewing the world and experiencing it. Some cultural relativists take this understanding to mean that the ontologies of other cultures are no less valid than that of Western society, even if Westerners cannot experience them or understand them. In any case, as postmodernists see it, any semiotic system can have the 'reference' problem, because the signifier is always 'slipping' toward another signified.

Some in this school of thought, like Jakobson or Lacan, see the origins of consciousness and human identity in language itself. Many postmodernists feel that this is taking things too far, that subjectivity has deeper origins than just in the use of interchangeable pronouns or terms of possession. Lacan himself borrows from many of Freud's early writings on the "Freudian slip" to suggest that the origins of the unconscious are in language itself - that the unconscious precisely is the inability of the mind to grasp unintended meanings in language. In any case, the postmodernists who are followers of Foucault believe that the key factor in shaping human experience is 'discourse' - the setting of boundaries for which statements are meaningful and which are not. As Foucault sees it, discourses are not wholly arbitrary, but they can have a 'geneaology' which is often quite unexpected and not according to some rationalistic evolution. Foucault looks at the geneaology of 'justice,' for example, and he takes to task rationalist philosophers who see nothing but increasing precision, logic, and civility in its evolution of the concept and its usage.

Postpatriarchalism in society

Feminist postmodernists feel that postmodernity, most importantly, represents an end to patriarchy and to the masculine hierarchical/vertical principle. For Kristeva and some other postmoderns, that means an end as well to history, to gender, and perhaps even to the subject (i.e. the Self, itself.) Some feminist postmoderns are less extreme, but they do feel that the divisions of gender binarism - like other metaphysical dualities in Western thought - may be put under 'erasure' once problems of language are grasped: such as why the gender-neutral pronouns are all really masculine. For others, it is the dominance of 'logocentrism' - which is really the reign of the phallus - that has cut us off from authentic existence. The 'phallocentric' world we inhabit denies and represses somatic experience, emphasizes the distance of vision over the closeness of other senses, attaches to the universal/general/abstract rather than the particular/singular/concrete, and as a result represses femininity and opresses women. In particular, they resent the 'modernist' feminists who felt that all that was needed for female equality was the vote, corporate careers, and the ERA.

There are other femininists who balk at this type of talk, because it sounds a lot like the 'essentialism' that patriarchy used to enslave women - they are too 'emotional', 'passive', 'dependent', etc. to succeed in a man's world. But the postmodern feminists insist: why make wom(y)n fit into a man's world? Rather to remake the world! Some feel that science, business, and governance would have been vastly different enterprises if women has been present and had a greater voice at their inception. Other more extreme postmodern feminists see all three as hierarchical, and that in a postpatriarchal society there would be entirely new forms of knowledge generation, economic organization, etc, which will not resemble at all what we have now. Riane Eisler describes this alternative model as a 'partnership society,' which she contrasts with our existing 'dominator society.'

Many postmodernists do not resist the charge of 'essentialism,' as long as it is understood from a nominalist perspective! As they see it, women are fundamentally less violent, power-hungry, and - as Carol Gilligan argues - amoral - than men. This has nothing to do with biology or evolution as the sociobiologists explain it. Rather, this is a consequence of their position in the symbolic and social order and thousands of years of socialization. Instead of denying this fact or accepting it as a weakness, the postmodernist feminists want to begin with it as a cornerstone of bringing feminine values (nurturance, etc.) to overthrow masculinist values (violence, etc.) Some postmodern feminists feel the beginning point for postpatriarchy is undoing the symbolic order itself. Whether this means an end to language, or simply its complete remaking, is not clear. What is clear is that postmodern feminists do not want to replace patriarchy with matriarchy - taking the same hierarchical model and putting women at the top. Rather, the whole social order will have to be undone to ensure true female equality.

Many of the postmodern feminists take Eisler's theory to be true - that at some point in the past, men and women did live as equals, and that patriarchy and history began at the agricultural revolution, with its attendant division of labor. Marija Gimbutas argues that in Europe's prehistory, its settled Chthonic societies were Earth goddess-worshipping and mostly egalitarian. Then the Kurgan nomads of the Asian steppes brought warfare, the horse, and a series of male sky, thunder, and sun-gods. That was the beginning of patriarchy and all the known historical civilizations - Greece, Rome, Babylon, etc. Some postmodern feminists feel that patriarchy is a rude 7000 year intrusion into aeons of equality. By overthrowing patriarchy, then, the human race can get back into where it should be going. Of course, the critics of this belief do point out that those 7000 years of oppression followed aeons of very slow social and technological change and even stagnation... and feel that the feminists want to return us to that round-of-being cosmology where nothing moves forward because nothing can.

Conclusions: problems of postmodernity

There are many problems in postmodernism. At various turns, it has been accused of being romantic, idealistic, unrealistic, wooly-headed, and so forth. But there are those who feel it is truly dangerous. Do the postmoderns mean to put an end to progress itself, to consign us all to a steady-state Utopia where all needs may be provided for but there is no room for growth, change, or movement? Some buckle at such an existence. Is it merely a step backwards, to chucking all our agricultural, scientific, and industrial revolutions aside, and going back to swinging in the trees? The postmoderns say no, they want to move forward in a way that utilizes the insights of the past but is not identical to it. Their struggle is to fight the vast totalizing schemes, like Comtean positivist history, which have been imposed on our historical existence and command our destiny. Postmodernism is at once a rejection of teleology, yet it contains in itself some teleological notions of "where things are going." A bundle of contradictions, an enigma within an enigma, it may be impossible to ever grasp Lyotard's "postmodern mood" and hold it up to the light.

Is it really possible to see the origins of the postmodern ideology in the changing social and economic structures of our time? Is it all basically the ruling idea of a new ruling class - the information czars and advertising moguls of America's Sunbelt overthrowing the industrial barons of the North, as some have argued? Why is it, then, that the key ideas of postmodernism seem to be coming from Europe and being imported to America wholesale, via Baudrillard, Lyotard, Derrida, and Foucault, et al.? Is it because modernism - especially Levi-Straussian structuralism, artistic modernism (a la Picasso, Mondrian, etc.), and architectural modernism (the Eiffel Tower: need one say more) - started there also? If liberal progress is at an end, is postmodernism at the root of racial reaction, religious fundamentalism, ethnic and nationalistic retrenchment, feminist 'backlash', and other "backward strides of history" as some critics have suggested? Was the New Left the last grasp for modernist/Enlightenment optimism, or the first wave of postmodern/post-Marxist pessimism?

Postmodernists have often accused Marxists of having a critique of society but no real way of changing it because they ignore the 'superstructure' of society. The same could be said of postmodernism: while the world has had some Marxist states, no one so far has even suggested what a postmodern state would look like, if it was a state at all. The postmodernists seem to be giving hints that all societies on the planet are moving postmodernally - that is to say, toward not moving at all, in terms of 'progress' - with or without any "postmodernists" in charge. The problem with trying to figure out what the postmodernists would do if they were 'running the show' is nobody knows who they are. There are people pointing to trends, shifts, and changes, but nobody claims to be making them, let alone seeking the 'revolution' to bring them about. Are they merely the prophets of postmodernity or its priests? Derrida won't say what his role is: to lead us out of history or to merely point the way out. It is a role befitting a master magician.

The Living Legacy-- the Soul in Paraphrase

I am very pleased to be able to announce that a project which has taken a lifetime of thought and meditation and writing has finally seen the light of day. Most of you know I have been a published poet since I was very young indeed, but there has never been a collection of my poems--- until now.

The Living Legacy is in fact a companion volume to my volume of sermons, Incandescence, and like the latter it is arranged according to the Christian year, beginning with poems for Advent, then Christmas, then Epiphany, then Lent, and so on. Also like that volume Julie Noelle Hare (ne Robertson) has provided the spiritual formation and lectio divina materials which are reflections on my poems. There is also with each of the 50 some poems, my own theological reflections on them, and to cap matters off, three other Asburians have helped out. Ellsworth Kalas, Asbury's President has written a personal introduction and the Dean of our Chapel, J.D. Walt, has written a splendid introduction on the nature and importance of Christian poets and their poetry. The piece d' resistance is however the beautiful freehand drawings of Rick Danielson, another Asburyian who was a D. Min. student of ours and now pastors in upstate N.Y.

Aesthetically and personally this is the most beautiful and intimate of all my books, where I hang out to dry some of the deeper reflections of my soul or heart. As Emily Dickinson said... "judge tenderly of me." I believe you will find this an excellent spiritual formation tool, useful to be used for daily or periodic devotions and meditations.

Here is the link to the book at the publisher's website, where it is offered most cheaply and without tax. Let me know what you think. Be blessed and may your soul be fed, your mind challenged, your spirit uplifted by this book. BW3

http://wipfandstock.com/store/The_Living_Legacy_The_Soul_in_Paraphrase_The_Heart_in_Pilgrimage

'Changeling'-- a True Story of Courage and Persistence

I must confess, I am not the world's biggest Angelina Jolie fan. Yes she can act, but until this movie, I had not really found a film that showed her scope and full abilities. John Malkovich on the other hand is an amazing actor of huge range and scope in abilities. He could play the Pope one day, and the Devil the next, and be convincing in both roles. Here he is really stretching out in playing a crusading Presbyterian minister by the name of Gustav Briegleb, and doing it well. His crusade is against the L.A.P.D., which was full of graft, corruption and scandal in 1928ff.

Clint Eastwood has made this film with meticulous attention to period detail, and methodical development of the story line, which, not coincidentally is an absolutely true story. I say methodical because it takes 141 minutes for him to tell the tale at the pace he chooses. It would have been best had he edited it down a tad, but still this is first rate film making of the highest order.

The story being told is an absolutely true one of a mother's quest to find her missing child, no matter what the cost. The mother in question is a single mother (the father skipped when he discovered he was going to have to be a responsible father) whose name is Christine Collins. She is, seemingly, an ordinary person who works as a supervisor of telephone operators, in the good old days when you would dial the operator who would place your call for you. If you remember those days, and the days of 'party lines' raise your hand. Christine, interestingly enough, does her job on roller skaters, but this is about the only humorous element in the entire movie. For me, the story was immediately personal because the house in L.A. in which Christine lived was very much like my grandparents house (and of the same vintage) and when I saw that Christine's son Walter had the very same cowboy bedspread I grew up with as a child--- well, this movie became both real and personal for me.

All seems normal in March 1928, when Christine is called into work on a Saturday when there were not enough workers at the phone exchange, but it required that she leave Walter her young son at home. Walter is not a gadabout, but when Christine comes home late in the afternoon, Walter has gone missing.

Her call to the L.A.P.D. is met with a technical rebuff.... "wait until morning, we have a 24 hour rule, and see if he turns up." No amber alert here. Walter in fact has been snatched, snatched by a deranged child kidnapper and killer from Vancouver Canada who has a ranch in nearby Wineville.

In an age before DNA evidence and proper forensics, the L.A.P.D. goes about its work with certain limitations, and when they call Christine to tell her that her son has been found--- of course she is euphoric. But when the police and Christine and the media go to meet the boy coming on the train from Illinois, it turns out not to be Walter, her son. He is too short, his teeth aren't right, and he is circumcised, unlike Walter. Never mind, the boy claims to be Walter, and the police suggest that she has just forgotten or is too emotional to remember what her son looked like, or that he had changed dramatically in the intervening months since he had disappeared. But that is not the end of the police's face saving duplicity. This movie does a good job of showing how chauvinists have always tended to belittle the intelligence, veracity, and courage of women in a male-dominated world.

In a move that would seem impossible to today, when Christine Collins continues to insist this boy is not her son, the police have her locked up in the local psychopaths ward rather than trying to actually find Walter! Clearly their public and phony reputation of solving crimes mattered more than the life of the boy. But Gustav Briegleb tirelessly works to expose the L.A.P.D. and vindicate Christine, eventually springing her from her cell in psycho lock-up.

So persistent is Christine Collins in wanting to know the truth of what had happened to her son, that she even goes to San Quentin prison shortly before the convicted murderer of numerous boys is about to be executed, in order to hear from his own mouth that he killed Walter. Alas, though he had telegrammed her to come and hear his confession, he refuses to give it when she arrives.

This story puts on full display the messiness and often unresolved character of life in a fallen world. There is both good and evil in this world, and some measure of justice is possible in the world, but it provides neither comfort nor adequate compensation to a mother who has lost her son forever, and whose son was surely brutally murdered.

For me, I was very pleased with the portrayal of Rev. Briegleb who reveals indeed just how important the social part of the full Gospel is to God's Good News. "For what does the Lord demand of you but to do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with your God..." This story gives the lie to any sort of disembodied proclamation of the Gospel that deals only with things spiritual and does not involve compassionate acts to rescue the innocent, the abused, the at risk, the violated, the widow or orphan in distress to mention but a few examples.

If you go to see this movie, prepare to see a large, and often unpleasant dose of reality in a wicked world--- and also see how despite the darkness some measure of goodness and the milk of human kindness and justice can be found in this world.

BW3

A Treat without a Trick on All Hallow's Eve-- the James Ossuary Rises from the Dead

Perhaps you will remember a little box called the James ossuary I've been talking about for a while now. It's been embroiled in a trial now for years. I was thinking of printing up bumper stickers reading FREE THE JAMES OSSUARY. Well, that may soon happen, as you will be able to deduce below from the BAR story written by my co-author of the book The Brother of Jesus, Hershel Shanks.

It seems the case of the prosecution against Golan and Deutsch has unraveled, not least because Yuval Goren was forced under oath to testify that there was genuine patina in the word Jesus on the ossuary. You may remember as well that one of the more touted theories was that whilst the first part of the inscription might be genuine the last part, saying 'brother of Jesus' was forged. So much for that theory. We are now on the Eve of All Saints Day, or All Hallow's Eve (from which we get the word Halloween) and James, being one of those celebrated saints, and his ossuary seems to have risen from the dead! Stay tuned for more fun updates. Maybe its the Lazarus Effect!

BW3



Supporters of James Ossuary Inscription’s Authenticity Vindicated
by Hershel Shanks
Updated October 30, 2008


The “forgery trial of the century” has all but blown up. The trial judge who will decide the case—there are no juries in Israel—has told the prosecution to consider dropping the case. “Not every case ends in the way that you think it will when you start,” Judge Aharon Farkash told prosecutor Adi Damti in open court. “Maybe we can save ourselves the rest,” the judge told her.

In the most recent embarrassment for the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA), the government’s star witness, Yuval Goren, former chairman of Tel Aviv University’s institute of archaeology, was forced to admit on cross-examination that there is original ancient patina in the word “Jesus,” the last word in the inscription that reads “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.”

Recent events have also proved humiliating for the IAA in connection with the committee it appointed that supposedly came to a unanimous decision that the inscription is a forgery. In fact, several members of the committee expressed no opinion—but the IAA counted them as “yes” votes. Several other members of the committee based their vote not on their own expertise, but on Yuval Goren’s supposed expertise, which they were in no position to evaluate. One member of the committee who would have found the inscription authentic said he was “forced” to change his mind based on Goren’s scientific arguments.

No paleographer expert in the script of this period has found any paleographical problem with the inscription. And several scientists at the trial have undermined Goren’s scientific arguments. No other scientist has supported Goren’s arguments.

BAR has consistently supported the authenticity of the inscription, as have leading paleographers André Lemaire of the Sorbonne and Ada Yardeni of Hebrew University. All appear now to be vindicated.

The Architecture of the Post-Modern Mind, Part III

If you visit a Borders or Barnes and Nobles bookstore these days, you are more likely than not to find a new section called Spirituality. This is a catchall category for all sorts of things, most of which are not directly connected with traditional religions of any sort, much less with what Christians call ‘spiritual formation’. In a post-modern situation you find any number of people saying, “I’m not religious, but I am spiritual”, though what one or another of them means by that will vary. So much has post-modernity infected and affected even Christian discourse it is seen as a good thing when someone says “I’ve learned how to be Christian without being religious.” In modernity, statements like that would simply have been viewed as either: 1) non sequiturs or 2) oxymorons; or 3) just sheer nonsense. No more. Many Christian today would gladly wear a button that says “I’m Christian, but not religious.” This is a signpost pointing to an intellectual and a cultural shift having various dimensions. And of course one of the other signs which most clearly points to a definite paradigm shift is the over-reaction or even allergic reaction many ultra-conservatives have to post-modernity, especially when it shows up on their church doorstep, or even (God forbid) in their sanctuaries and pulpits).

Post-modern spirituality is many things (indeed it can be called a many splintered thing) including the following at various times and to various degrees:

1) it is anti-traditional. It likes to see itself as something new, avant guarde, cutting edge, different, although in fact it is retreading a lot of stuff that is traditional;

2) it is synthetic and syncretistic.
For example, I once had a girl call me up on a radio talk show that was stuck in traffic on the Santa Monica freeway. She asked via cellphone “I’m sitting here stuck in traffic and holding my crystals and just wondered what is the connection between these crystals and Jesus” (the radio show had been about the historical Jesus). My reply? “There’s no connection between those crystals and Jesus, except Jesus is the solid Rock, and they so are not the solid rock, nor are they means to get in touch with Jesus.”

One of the reasons post-moderns are more prone to the sort of historical nonsense churned up in the movie Zeitgeist is because they are inclined to accept the premise that one religion evolved from earlier religions, or cannibalized ideas from previous religions in order to build its own. In other words, the evolutionary paradigm is applied not to the development of sentient beings, but to the development of intellectual ideas, including religious ideas. Alas for this history of religions (or religionsgeschichtliche approach, to use the German term), both history and human ideas are messy. They don’t usually develop in that sort of evolutionary or linear way.

3) there is a strong anti-historical bent in much of post-modernism. The way this affects the discussion about Christianity can easily be seen in the recent strong interest in Gnostic Christianity. There indeed we have a disembodied form of Christianity, not interested in the historical basis and foundations of the Christian faith in the life, death, resurrection, miracles of Jesus, but only interested in Jesus the conveyor of gnosis, insider spiritual knowledge, Jesus the talking head. In that system of things, it’s not who you know, but what you know that saves you, and if you do not have sufficient wattage to be in the know, you can’t be saved. It’s an early form of self-help religion. Post-modern spirituality treds lightly on the notion that history and historical events matter, when it is not busy trampling on such ideas altogether.

It is no surprise to me that the very same Gnostic Gospels which were studied, debated, over-analyzed and dismissed in the 70s as being of no relevance to the discussion of the historical Jesus, Mary, Mary Magdalene, Philip, Thomas or Judas, are today touted as new revelations of the new and true Christianity—Gnosticism. This is not just because the culture is more Biblically illiterate now than then, or because we are more open to various revisionist ideas about the past than then, though both of these things are sadly true. It is because the modernist deconstruction of disembodied spirituality is no longer seen as compelling and people are more open to a religious or spiritual smorgasbord of their own creation. In other words, to paraphrase the words of the Doobie Brothers--- ‘what once were (viewed as) vices are now seen as (favored) habits’. In other words, there is a strong narcissistic and self-centered element in post-modernity. You can also see post-modernity’s finger prints in the loss of allegiance to one or another denominational form of Christianity.

Now, not all of post-modernity is a bad thing. As I said in my last post, in a global world, we need to become closer to being global Christians. The rabid re-pristinizing of one or another sort of blind nationalism should not be allowed to supplant this growth towards every Christian having a more all encompassing world vision, a vision that actually puts teeth in the belief that Jesus died for everyone in the world, and he loves them all—red and yellow, black and white. There is a wonderful Christmas song, on the James Taylor Christmas CD. It has a beautiful poignant lyric by a gentleman named Alfred Burt. It’s lyrics are as follows:

Some Children See Him
By Alfred Burt

Some children see Him lily white
the infant Jesus born this night
Some children see Him lily white
with tresses soft and fair

Some children see Him bronzed and brown
the Lord of heav'n to earth come down
Some children see Him bronzed and brown
with dark and heavy hair (with dark and heavy hair!)

Some children see Him almond-eyed
This Saviour whom we kneel beside
Some children see Him almond-eyed
With skin of yellow hue!

Some children see Him dark as they
Sweet Mary's Son to whom we pray
Some children see Him dark as they
And, ah! they love Him so!

The children in each different place
Will see the Baby Jesus' face
Like theirs but bright with heav'nly grace
And filled with holy light!

O lay aside each earthly thing
and with thy heart as offering
Come worship now the infant King
'tis love that's born tonight!
'tis love that's born tonight!

We all have a tendency to see Jesus as being like us. It’s normal and natural. And actually there is something divine about that, because Jesus is for us all. There is something deep within us that says we ought to be living in a world where we are all one in Christ, a world where what unites us in Christ is more significant than what culturally divides us.

Post-modern Christian spirituality involves a variety of diverse elements including: 1) a love of praising God at length, hence the rise of a whole praise music movement; 2) a love of liturgy, mystery, candles, and in general things that create a sense of wonder akin to that which one finds in Tolkien’s trilogy or the Chronicles of Narnia. It is no accident that these books have been made into movies in the last ten years; 3) a flexibility in regard to some doctrinal matters (see e.g. Rob Bell’s definition that doctrine is like a trampoline which has clear parameters or boundaries, but some flexibility in the middle), and some ethical matters as well (notice the changed attitudes of various post-moderns about homosexuality); and 4) interestingly enough, rather than a pure retreat into fantasy or narcissism, a concern for the poor and for other social issues has emerged. This reflects the flexibility of post-modernism, which tends to adapt to circumstances and shows signs of real concern for neighbor, enemy, and the least, last and the lost.

Post-modernity, with all its faults and at its best, does allow room for a new sort of Christian spirituality. Not one which denies the past or its importance, but which builds on that past and focuses on the future, our shared eschatological future in Christ. I am not talking about naïve optimism based on human ability or possibilities. I am talking about an optimism based on and in the grace of God which can actually change human beings, and the course of human history. I actually believe that “if anyone is in Christ, there is a whole new creation, the old has passed away.” How about you?

The Architecture of the Post-Modern Mind, Part II

Pedagogy is by definition the art of teaching, and of course its master principles. I call it an art rather than a science because there are a plethora of factors that make it a moving target: 1) the cultural context in which it is done; 2) the previous education of the audience (and the learning and unlearning required of that audience); 3) the epistemic principles in play in that culture (that is the assumptions about how we know what we know in that setting); and 4) the actual way the brain of that setting, era, culture is wired to learn, the habits of the heart and mind that affect this matter.

The setting in which the teacher in the 21rst century finds herself or himself is one in which increasingly the audience is composed of persons primarily geared to and triggered by visual stimuli. This is not a matter of heredity but rather cultural patterning and conditioning. The computer generation, by which I mean most persons glued to a screen since about the mid 80s, present different challenges to the teacher than most of the pre-80s learners they face, and even with the latter, many of them have spent so many years now learning the computer that they too are hard-wired for visual stimuli. Without DVD clips and powerpoints, even the most dynamic lecturers have a hard time reaching these post-modern learners.

And sadly they are all too often lazy learners anyway—“just give me the powerpoints (instead of taking notes)” they say. Or “point me to a website” instead of send me to the library to do original source research on my own. It is a challenging environment for learners and teachers alike. This is especially evident when one is dealing with an online course.

For a visual learner who cannot see the teacher and pick up his or her vibes, signals, body language, or tone of voice nor be able to see how other learners are responding to a class, and when they are taking notes and when nodding off, taking an online course, while it has various advantages, is scary because it is like flying blind, especially if the online classroom does not involve web-cams.

As a result, online courses are far more labor intensive, involve far more explanation, require far more hand-holding because each learner feels alone, off on an island, and largely without viable support and resources, especially if online ones are largely disallowed.

In ever so many ways then the computer generation conditions persons to be very unlike the people Jesus and Paul confronted in the first century A.D. That culture was an oral culture, with only about 15% literacy rate at most. People actually preferred hearing things than seeing them on a page. Documents were secondary to the living voice. This in turn means the Bible is addressed to a radically different sort of audience than we face now, and it presented very different pedagogical challenges. Jesus’ “let those with two good ears” might be replaced by “let those with two good eyes….” today. But there is a further and deeper issue.

Many analysts have pin-pointed the Matrix movies as inaugural and quintessential expressions of post-modernism, not least because virtual reality is portrayed as the real and deeper reality that matters in those movies. And herein lies the problem. For many of the computer generation, there is a preference for virtual reality, to the really real. In other words, in post-modernity there is a tendency to retreat into a mental world of our own making, whether it be “World of War Craft’ or ‘Dungeons and Dragons’ or something else.

This is one reason why the remaining modernists amongst us find people who spend so much time playing video or X box games so annoying. Things are said like “they need to come back to reality” or “they need to get a life” or “they need to go out and play a real game and get some exercise”. Hand maneuvers and increased hand-eye coordination in itself is after all not a very potent form of physical exercise. From the modernist point of view, those glued to computer screens and immersed in computer games are attempting to escape from reality, whether the charge is fair or not.

One of the problems youth ministers have had in reaching youth who are immersed in the computer and gaming and texting culture is that it is hard to get them away from their electronic devices, so often youth ministers go the "if you can't beat them join them route" sponsoring gaming parties. It is hard to get the gamers to relate to people directly, rather than through the buffer of a game or a computer screen.

And unfortunately for Evangelical Christian apologists, most of their apologetical training is geared to dealing with rationalist and modern arguments against God and faith, but in fact the discussion has largely moved on. The post-modern person is less concerned with whether something is logically consistent, and more concerned with whether it is captivating, whether it moves them, whether it interests and entertains them, whether it presents them with an alternative vision of reality.

Virtual reality is seen as more interesting and engaging than reality, and plausible and provocative truthiness is often seen as more engaging than the actual truth about something. In the post-modern age the clear and analytical documentary is replaced by the docu-drama, for what matters is the engaging and moving story. In the post-modern age shock jocks replace NPR dialogue and discourse, and the airwaves are seen as avenues for venting rather than inventing, for pooling one’s ignorance and feelings, rather than pooling one’s knowledge. Or so it seems.

The good news about post-modernity and its educational schemes, is that at least with online courses you largely have disembodied minds interacting, not whole persons. This is a plus in the sense that when one is online bodies, racial features, gender, shyness, matter less, and if all are required to contribute to the class all are able to do so if they can type. I have found that people who would never say ‘boo’ in a traditional class are often barricudas online. It helps those who are challenged or disadvantaged in a normal classroom setting. It levels the playing field, so to speak. Its hard to snow, smooze, or suck up to the teacher when they are miles away and not subject to a certain glance, or certain kinds of flattery. The ethos factors that tend to turn certain students into teachers pets largely disappear online.

If I were to sum up what post-modernity has thus far done to education and pedagogy I would have to say it is a mixed blessing at best. There are times when virtual reality is in fact unreality, and it leads to unreal expectations on the part of those used to learning, gaming, living in a virtual environment.

The cost of accessibility without mobility (i.e. without leaving one’s home, town, state and traveling to get an education) is that one does not really become part of a worshipping community at the locale where the education is delivered, or only in a derived sense does one do so.

I once did an experiment with an on campus class. The class was taped in the TV studio on campus at Asbury, and the students were given the choice to attend the class live in the studio, or in a classroom on campus via Vtel hookup. Many of them chose the latter, particularly the younger members of the class. They liked virtual Ben more than real Ben, not least because he was much bigger up on the screen--- MORE VISIBLE FOR VISUAL LEARNERS. It was a nice humbling experience for me.

Whether we like it or not, education and so pedagogy is changing because our audience and delivery modes have to change to reach them. And when the philosophical underpinnings of post-modernity come with the changes, the teacher finds himself having to adapt and adopt new ways of doing things, virtually all the time.
One has to explain why buying books is required (for the life of me I can't figure out why anyone would prefer a book on Kindle, rather than a real book with cover illustration, actual pages etc.). One has to explain why note taking is important. One has to explain why visual stimuli whilst important are not the be all and end all of education. One has to work to build community in a diverse environment where the class may be meeting in more than one place, or all online virtually, but in reality in 30 different places.

And the ultimate elephant in the room problem is disembodiment of the education. But then disembodiment is one of the spiritual features of post-modernity--- the Gnostic severing of the spiritual from the religious, of the spiritual from the historical, of the spiritual from the traditional. This is what we must discuss in the next post.