Ok Theologizers, time to delve back into the deep end. We’re starting our next book in four weeks and it’s time to see which one it’ll be. Two selections have been nominated. They are:

Lawrence Wright of the New Yorker recently published an in-depth article covering the gradual break between the Church of Scientology and well-known screenwriter Paul Haggis. For those who don’t know Paul Haggis, he is the creator of the television series ‘Due South’ and has written and adapted numerous screenplays including Million Dollar Baby, Crash, and the two most recent Bond films, Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace. In the New Yorker article, Haggis recounts his 35 year relationship with Scientology from disaffected youth searching for a means of overcoming his demons, to more or less full blooded adherent, to proud father of Scientology Kids, to incredulous elder, to apostasy and public schism. Here’s a snippet:

In previous correspondence with Davis, Haggis had demanded that the church publicly renounce Proposition 8. “I feel strongly about this for a number of reasons,” he wrote. “You and I both know there has been a hidden anti-gay sentiment in the church for a long time. I have been shocked on too many occasions to hear Scientologists make derogatory remarks about gay people, and then quote L.R.H. in their defense.” The initials stand for L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology, whose extensive writings and lectures form the church’s scripture. Haggis related a story about Katy, the youngest of three daughters from his first marriage, who lost the friendship of a fellow-Scientologist after revealing that she was gay. The friend began warning others, “Katy is ‘1.1.’ ” The number refers to a sliding Tone Scale of emotional states that Hubbard published in a 1951 book, “The Science of Survival.” A person classified “1.1” was, Hubbard said, “Covertly Hostile”—“the most dangerous and wicked level”—and he noted that people in this state engaged in such things as casual sex, sadism, and homosexual activity. Hubbard’s Tone Scale, Haggis wrote, equated “homosexuality with being a pervert.” (Such remarks don’t appear in recent editions of the book.)

I would encourage anyone who is interested in the subject to read the full article, which runs to 26 pages, but if you’re looking for a redux, Slacktivist does a good job of pulling some of the salient points with special emphasis on some of the similarities and differences to Christianity. An excerpt:

I don’t really know what to make of this strange scale, but it seems — like so much of Scientology as described to Wright by both current and former adherents — to commend the goal of attaining and amassing power. On this point Scientology and Christianity would seem to be wholly incompatible and in total disagreement. The whole point of our weird story about God giving up God-ness to become human and then allowing Godself to be executed is that power, ultimately, is nowhere near as powerful as its opposite: Love. Scientology’s obsession with Power seems to me, as a Christian, to be at the root of its Confusion and an extreme Liability. I suppose that response might lead the authorities of the Church of Scientology to regard me as an Enemy. And by their standards, that’s probably accurate. By my standards, too. That means, of course, that I am — weirdly — compelled to love these people. I will try to do so. But loving them doesn’t rule out, and may even require, agreeing with Paul Haggis that it would be a Good Thing if the exploitative, cruelly manipulative and deeply dishonest institution described in Wright’s article were “taken down.”

Via Slacktivist, a transcript of President Obama’s speech on the victory of the Egyptian people. An excerpt:

Egypt has played a pivotal role in human history for over 6,000 years.  But over the last few weeks, the wheel of history turned at a blinding pace as the Egyptian people demanded their universal rights.

We saw mothers and fathers carrying their children on their shoulders to show them what true freedom might look like.

We saw a young Egyptian say, “For the first time in my life, I really count.  My voice is heard.  Even though I’m only one person, this is the way real democracy works.”

We saw protesters chant “Selmiyya, selmiyya” — “We are peaceful” — again and again.

We saw a military that would not fire bullets at the people they were sworn to protect.

And we saw doctors and nurses rushing into the streets to care for those who were wounded, volunteers checking protesters to ensure that they were unarmed.

We saw people of faith praying together and chanting – “Muslims, Christians, We are one.”  And though we know that the strains between faiths still divide too many in this world and no single event will close that chasm immediately, these scenes remind us that we need not be defined by our differences.  We can be defined by the common humanity that we share.

And above all, we saw a new generation emerge — a generation that uses their own creativity and talent and technology to call for a government that represented their hopes and not their fears; a government that is responsive to their boundless aspirations.  One Egyptian put it simply:  Most people have discovered in the last few days…that they are worth something, and this cannot be taken away from them anymore, ever.

Via, Christianity Today:

Chuck Colson laments the lack of doctrinal fidelity in Young Evangelicals and suggests that modelling discipleship training after Marine Corps Boot Camp is the answer. While I have no trouble with the notion that we need to instill a certain respect for orthodoxy in new and young Christians, I would prefer to see us model discipleship after the lives of the Disciples rather than after a military organization’s new recruit training programs.

Personally, I think it’s lamentable that Chuck would like to see armies of Evangelicals whose minds are so thoroughly broken that they accept doctrine without reflection and take the teaching of their elders as Gospel. Personally, I’ll be taking Colson’s teaching with a grain of salt.

- SMD

I am beginning to believe that addressing the injustices, both ecological and human, in our food system is the most pressing moral issue of our generation. A selection of recent news on the topic:

http://www.euronews.net/2011/01/25/food-crisis-warning-from-fao/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-walker/a-global-food-fight_b_815050.htmlhttp://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/10/the_great_food_crisis_of_2011http://ca.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idCATRE70R3EY20110128http://www.edmontonjournal.com/opinion/Canada+must+take+lead+solving+food+crisis/4182907/story.html

I’ve been reading a lot of the Slacktivist blog lately and came across this recent post on paths to God. An excerpt:

I want to address a question I’m asked quite a bit by catechists here in comments or, occasionally, via e-mail. I call them catechists because it doesn’t seem that they’re asking the question because they want to learn the answer, but because they already know the correct answer and they’re quizzing me to see if I know it, too.

I don’t. I don’t even understand the question. I can’t make sense of it.

The question is this: “Do you believe that all paths lead to God?”

I have a hard time figuring out what this could possibly mean given what I know about paths and what I think I know about God.

We Christians believe that one of the attributes of God is omnipresence. It’s hard to know what to make of a question about paths leading or not leading to someone who is, by definition, everywhere.

“You hem me in, behind and before,” the Psalmist says:

Where can I go from your spirit?
Or where can I flee from your presence?
If I ascend to heaven, you are there;
if I make my bed in Sheol, you are there …

That whole omnipresence thing really wreaks havoc with spatial metaphors like “all paths lead to God.” But even apart from that, the question makes no sense not just because of the nature of God, but because of the nature of paths.

It could not be true that all paths lead to X even if there were only one single path, because the same path that leads to X would also, by virtue of being a path, lead away from X. That is how paths work.

Via Out of Ur. Check it out. Except below.

When I became a Christian, I learned I didn’t have to stop buying stuff – I just had to start buying Christian stuff. An entire world of retail spending possibilities lay before me: the Christian industrial complex. There were Christian t-shirts, bumper stickers, even Christian candy (“Testa-Mints”—peppermints wrapped in a bible verse). We were taught “secular” was bad, and supplied with charts that countered popular mainstream bands with a Christian alternative. We burned our old tapes (which is what we listened to back in those days) and went with the Christian albums. We were often sadly disappointed. It just didn’t sound like Metallica. As a friend of mine quipped, “All these Christian artists say, ‘God gave me this song,’ and then you listen to it and understand why God gave it away.”

Via Out Of Ur:

I. You shall not make for yourself an idol out of Scripture.

This is a particular temptation among evangelicals who hold a very high view of Scripture. We forget that our highest calling is not to have a relationship with the Bible but with Jesus Christ about whom the Bible testifies. (John 5:39)

II. You shall honor the Scriptures as sufficient.

We have a common temptation to get “behind the text” or discover what “really happened.” While archeology and other disciplines are incredibly important, we must not forget that what God has given in the Scriptures is enough for life and faith.

III. You shall remember the metanarrative and keep it wholly.

In my experience more Christians can recap the meta-narrative of the Star Wars saga than can recap the biblical meta-narrative. It’s not enough to know the stories and events in the Bible. We must know how they fit together to tell a single story.

Check out the whole list on the blog. Skye also continues the discussion in the comments thread.

Ten years ago, Anne Rice publicly declared that she had returned to faith. This meant the end of her Vampire Chronicles and new beginnings in her literary career. But many of Anne’s disputes with the church and its dogma remained, and in August she announced that she was leaving the Christian church and spurning the label ‘Christian’ while still remaining a follower of Jesus.

This makes her one of the latest high profile members of a long line of believers who, while they affirm Jesus’ life and ministry, can’t reconcile themselves to the Body of Christ. From Anne’s  Facebook page, via Christianity Today:

For those who care, and I understand if you don’t: Today I quit being a Christian. I’m out. I remain committed to Christ as always but not to being ‘Christian’ or to being part of Christianity. It’s simply impossible for me to ‘belong’ to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. For ten years, I’ve tried. I’ve failed. I’m an outsider. My conscience will allow nothing else.

What I would like to hear from you is: Do you think this is a total cop-out? Totally necessary? Is this a message of criticism from wise disciples that needs to be heard by the church, or is it the folly of anti-social personalities who refuse to become peace makers in their own hearts? Speak out.

In August, systematic theologian Clark Pinnock died. From Christianity Today:

Clark H. Pinnock’s life journey is over. The influential and often controversial evangelical theologian died unexpectedly August 15 of a heart attack. He was 73. In March, the long-time professor of systematic theology at McMaster Divinity College in Hamilton, Ontario, had announced he was withdrawing from public life and revealed that he was battling Alzheimer’s disease.

It was a difficult admission for a man whose mercurial mind and openness to the Holy Spirit led him to stake out theological positions that challenged evangelical orthodoxies. Renowned for exploring the frontiers of biblical truth, he was reputed to study carefully, think precisely, argue forcefully, and shift his positions willingly if he discovered a more fruitful pathway of understanding. He said he preferred to be known, “not as one who has the courage of his convictions, but one who has the courage to question them and to change old opinions which need changing.”