Seeking to escape the two possible "extreme reactions" of either "faith or disbelief" in the resurrection, Vermes argues for a "spiritual resurrection" where Jesus lives on in the hearts and minds of his followers (x). Vermes does a nice job of summarizing the progression of Jewish thought on death, the afterlife, and resurrection. He contends that bodily resurrection was "alien to first-century Hellenistic Jews" (55). After critically rejecting most of the New Testament resurrection texts (and offering the old argument that since the Gospel accounts are not identical, they must be false), he (amazingly) writes, "No New Testament text attempts to describe the actual return to life of the dead Jesus" (139). He argues "that there existed no established tradition among Jews about a dying and risen Christ (128). His conclusion: Jesus did not bodily rise from the dead, but his followers were "moved and inspired by the mesmerizing presence of the teaching and example of the real Jesus alive in their mind" (152). In other words, the memory of Jesus inspires! But a memory of Jesus is not "the real Jesus" as he contends. And a "memorial" is not "resurrection" - no matter how much one strains the word to fit one's metaphysical presuppositions. I guess if "faith" is an extreme reaction, I'm an extremist (along with N. T. Wright who Vermes offers as an extreme right-wing example). I guess I've never found it hard to believe that God could actually do God-like things, like bring life from death! God as mascot or moral coach is not quite as appealing to me as God as the ineffable-yet-knowable, transcendent-yet-immanent, loving-yet-just, infinite source of meaning, purpose, and joy.
Rabbi Hirschfield has penned a courageous and compassionate book that calls people of all religions and faiths to dialogue and mutual understanding. Instead of advising that all religions reduce themselves to their common denominators, he urges religious advocates to maintain their own distinctives, but with great humility, and the awareness that we can always learn from others. He calls us to recognize that our deepest convictions may be partial, or even flawed. He also reminds us that our beliefs and actions have consequences, and we must all be willing to admit that we may be mistaken. He urges us to remain suspicious of "final solutions": "Both sides need to admit this--in all the divisive issues that make up our public life these days, whether we're talking about gay marriage, abortion, or gun control. I would love to hear gay rights activists say, in their push for gay marriage, 'We may be making a colossal mistake.' And I'd like to hear the same admission from the opponents of gay marriage. That admission on both sides is a prescription for the civility and thoughtfulness that is now so conspicuously absent from public life" (145). Nobody is wrong about everything. And we must have the courage to admit that no one - including ourselves - is right about everything. Hirschfield is admittedly an idealist, but he is not naive. He provides great personal examples of his own growth and maturity in regard to a humble, yet confident, faith.
Our everyday work makes a difference, not only now, but for eternity. "Work, and the things that we produce through our work, can be transformed and carried over by God into heaven" (2). Thus, all human work has eternal meaning and value. We long to invest in something we perceive to be lasting - and this is not limited to so-called "religious" or "spiritual" work. Miroslav Volf offers an important axiom: "The significance of secular work depends upon the value of creation, and the value of creation depends upon its final destiny" (31). Creation and humanity will be restored and redeemed through the work of Christ. Through his resurrection, "everything" is placed under his feet - "there is no distinction between the spiritual and what is natural - everything is included in that work of the Lord" (65). The image used to describe the "new heavens and new earth" is that of a city: "Here a city, at best an ambivalent product of human work (Gen. 4:17), represents the future of God's and our new created reality" (75). Clearly, we must see work as a gift of God and the spiritual fruit of our created purpose as co-laborers with God: "For work in itself is a genuine form of life imaging God. It is an ever-open invitation to all to co-operate with God in his purposes" (135).
Moltmann's pneumatology, because it is rooted in Christ, is powerfully incarnational. "People who ask for the Holy Spirit to come to us - into our hearts, into the community we live in, and to our earth - don't want to flee into heaven or to be snatched away into the next world" (11-12). Instead, we desire that God's Spirit transform us into people empowered to do God's work in this world, with the clear hope of resurrection glory forever provoking us to persevere. Moltmann offers a beautiful image of the Holy Spirit as God's shining face upon us (13). Moltmann rejects a theology of the Spirit that calls us to disembodied inwardness. Instead, he calls us to a deeply incarnational experience of the Spirit: "It is not just our hearts that are born again. So are senses. We see the world 'with different eyes'. The enlightened powers of our understanding wake to knowledge of God. The liberated will seeks for conformity with God's Will. The beating heart experiences God's love, and through that love is warmed into love for life" (55). "The whole of bodily and earthly life becomes a spiritual experience when the Spirit of life lays hold of us and we are 'born anew'" (58). Non-sensuous spirituality that is hostile toward the body, removed from the world, and set against structures and organations bears no resemblance to the Jewish and Christian vitality that arises from living out of God's creative Spirit. Great book!
Berlinski is a self-professed "secular Jew" who responds to "new atheism." The new spate of books by authors such as Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris may differ widely in their style but are identical in message: "Because scientific theories are true, religious beliefs must be false" (xii). Thus, the call to secular jihad against religion. Though science has much to contribute, it has nothing of value to say on the great questions of meaning, life, death, love, or God. We do not know with certainty if anything religion says on these matters is true, but we can be certain that the scientific community does not know that these religious assertions are false. No scientific explanation will satisfy our every emotional need. We need both science and religion to address the different questions each discipline raises.
One of my favorite theologians, Douglas John Hall, reflects on his long and fruitful life as a Christian theologian in Bound and Free: A Theologian's Journey. He describes the unique challenge of apprehending and communicating the Christian message: "At best, I could only stand under it, hoping for glimpses and intimations of a Truth that I could neither possess nor skillfully articulate" (xi). Hall reflects on a theologian's courage and foolhardiness, the centrality of the cross, the end of christendom, the need for robust ecumenical dialogue that is hospitable to all but refuses to lose its "scandal of particularity" in Jesus. He argues for a "thinking faith" - a "faith faith seeks understanding." For my extended reflection on Hall's thoughts on each of the topics above, click HERE
This is the second book in Anne Rice's trilogy on the life of Christ. In her first book, Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt, she told the story of Jesus' childhood with an emphasis on Jesus' growing awareness of his unique identity. In this book, she recounts Jesus' story from the end of his carpentry years in Nazareth to the beginning of his public ministry. In the first half of the book, Jesus struggles with his desire to marry (and the public pressure to do so) and his refusal to join his neighbors in public revolt against Rome. One prominent elder in his community chastises him for his passivity. He says, "Samson's birth was foretold ... by an angel ... And we know his mighty deeds and repeat them generation after generation. Where are you mighty deeds? Where are your defeated enemies lying dead in heaps, or where are the ruins of the heathen temples that you've brought down with the strength of your arm?" (95). The story picks up steam when Jesus is baptized by John and led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted. Satan's temptation of Jesus is particularly powerful. In the final temptation, the evil one declares, "Nothing is done here without me. Nothing. Not the simplest victory is accomplished unless I'm part of it" (195). In order to resist compromise to evil in any form, Jesus' path and victory must be unlike any other before him. The suffering servant resolutely sets his heart toward doing all things according to God's will. The book ends with a glimpse into the beginning of Jesus' public ministry. Like all good middle volumes in a trilogy, this book provides a good transition and has me hungry to see where the story will lead. Some may take issue with parts of Rice's story. She has placed the bar unspeakably high by trying to tell the story of Jesus from a first-person perspective. She is thus doomed to get some things wrong. But the parts she gets right - or at least the ones that seem authentic - are powerful and inspirational!
Welcome to the Youniverse. (122) For all its positive aspects, the internet has a dangerous and destructive side. Few people are brave enough to express criticism toward this new technology. Lee Siegel is one such brave individual. In Against the Machine: Being Human in the Age of the Electronic Mob, he argues that "a rhetoric of freedom, democracy, choice, and access has covered up the greed and blind self-interest that lie behind what much of the Internet has developed into today" (3). Because of the convenience of the internet - a value that its advocates tout with great passion - our every "impulse is only seconds away from its gratification" (175). Quoting Al Cooper, "'The Internet provides immediate gratification that affects one's ability to inhibit previously managed drives and desires.' In other words, the Internet creates the ideal consumer" (175). For my extended analysis, click HERE.
This book works on so many levels. It is a love story, a science fiction tale, and a metaphor for life. And on every level, it succeeds. Henry is unstuck in time. He experiences his life dis-temporally. He cannot control where and when in time he will find himself. The love of his life, Clare, experiences her relationship with Henry in natural sequential course. However, his appearances in her life, beginning at age six, lead her to a life-long commitment to Henry. He doesn't actually meet her until he is 28 - until then, his life is a free-for-all. For her entire life, she is "waiting" on Henry. At one point, she writes, "I won't ever leave you, even though you're always leaving me." In many ways, this book is an extended reflection on life, love, mortality, and fate. Though none of us "jump" from one time period to another, in our memories we relive our past experiences and dream of future possibilities and both of these things shape our lives. This book also captures the general experience that men and women have - the woman waiting on her beloved who is not always "all there" and the man finding an anchor in his woman's love, but tending to drift all over the place in regard to passions and interests. It reminds us of our mortality in that our lives are framed by certain events which define who we are. It is these human boundaries which not only frustrate us, but also allow us to cherish and value our current experiences. Henry must come to love the moment, since the moment is all he really has. Finally, in regard to fate, this book typifies how our free acts are not as free as we think and how we are constantly influencing others. Would Clare love Henry so much if he had not appeared to her at age six and popped into her life repeatedly until the point they actually meet? [Spoiler alert: Read no further if you don't want an idea of the ending.] The last 120 pages had me in tears. Before he dies, Henry tells Clare he has seen her in the future. Thus, even after his death, Clare is still "waiting" on her beloved. Powerful book!
We live in a nation obsessed with celebrities. When the activities of Brad and Angelina, Britney Spears, and Paris Hilton receive more attention than serious news items; when in 2005, eight of the ten most popular search terms on the search engine Yahoo! were the names of celebrities, with Britney Spears at the top of the list; when "the ultimate competition for celebrityhood--American Idol--has more viewers than the nightly news on the three major networks combined" (xv); we can rest assured that we have swallowed the pill of our new addiction. We are, in the words of Jake Halpern, "fame junkies." For my extended summary and reflection, click HERE.
Tolle is a pantheistic monist who blames the ego for all that's wrong in this world. This does not come without repercussions, most notably, his system inhibits true human flourishing. The human person cannot flourish when humanity, personality, and all that this encompasses - thinking, acting, feeling, etc. - are brushed aside as irrelevant, and even worse, a deceptive pathological delusion! Although people generally desire a buffet-style spirituality that is made-to-order - and thus, one reason for this book's great popularity - there is also another reason, and the blame lies with the church. People would not so quickly buy into Tolle's system if their hunger for spirituality had been met in the Christian church. The church's treasure-house of spiritual riches - its profound and mystical union with God in Christ through the Spirit, its sacramental way of viewing creation as a means of revealing God's grace, its call to practice God's presence in all things, etc. - has hardly been mined for all its worth. For my extended analysis of this book, click here.
Christ's ascension is not a footnote to Jesus' death and resurrection. What happened after he rose from the dead? According to Christian tradition, after forty days, Jesus ascended into heaven to sit at the right hand of God the Father. What is the significance of this? Most importantly, the resurrection and ascension are not a reversal or undoing of the incarnation. It is as a human being that Jesus rises. Our humanity is resurrected. Our salvation depends upon our continuing union with Christ through the Holy Spirit. "We cannot be united to him in the Holy Spirit if he is no longer flesh of our flesh and bone of our bone" (6). Thus, one of the greatest blessings of the ascension is Christ's gift of the Holy Spirit who manifests the personal presence of Christ in, to, and through us. Dawson offers important insights on the significance of Christ's glorified humanity, and particularly, how it relates to Christ's present ministry of intercession. Great book!
Heaven is important but it's not the end of the world. Wright's fantastic book "addresses two questions that have often been dealt with entirely separately but that, I passionately believe, belong tightly together. First, what is the ultimate Christian hope? Second, what hope is there for change, rescue, transformation, new possibilities within the world in the present? And the main answer can be put like this. As long as we see Christian hope in terms of "going to heaven," of a salvation that is essentially away from this world, the two questions are bound to appear as unrelated" (5). Wright expands our understanding of salvation to be more incarnational, and in doing so, vastly increases its significance in the present: "the work of salvation, in its full sense, is (1) about whole human beings, not merely souls; (2) about the present, not simply the future; and (3) about what God does through us, not merely what God does in and for us" (200). Jesus' resurrection is the key. Redefining Jesus' resurrection to be merely "spiritual" or "symbolic" empties it of its significance: "if after his death he had gone into some kind of nonbodily existence, death would not be defeated. It would remain intact; it would merely be redescribed" (99). God's salvation results in "the redemption of our bodies" (Romans 8:23) wherein "God's people are promised a new type of bodily existence, the fulfillment and redemption of our present bodily life" (147). According to Jewish expectation, the new earth will be filled with the glory of God. Creation - including our humanity - is not discarded by God, but restored and renewed. This is a desperately needed book in our current gnostic climate. Many Christians have followed the spirit of the age and set the spiritual over against the material. In contrast, Christianity sees the spiritual in and through material. The truth that in Christ, the Word became flesh is God's "yes" to creation and humanity. We need to recover a robust incarnational spirituality. Wright's reflections on the significance of the resurrection in regard to heaven and earth, our present experience, our full humanity, and the relationship of space, time, and matter to the Divine are accessible and outstanding! In order to preserve and perpetuate a distinctly Christian spirituality, every believer should purchase and study this book. This book has my highest recommendation!
One of the best Batman's I've ever read. It focuses on the major turning points in Batman's career - particularly in regard to his relationship with Commissioner Gordon. From their first uneasy moments of partnership to Gordon's distrust of Azrael - Batman's secret and murderous replacement while Bruce Wayne recovers from a broken back. The stress of this relationship causes both men to nearly resign themselves to despair, that is, until they see the fruits of their labor in the form of a little girl. All five stories are great! Batman at his best!
A collection of Detective Comics from #827-834. Good stories overall. I especially liked the one about the mad bomber Vox and his attempt to destroy Wayne Tower and also Batman's teamup with Zatanna in order to combat the evil magician who is more than a magician.
With playful enthusiasm, Garrison takes on the so-called New Atheists. Who are the New Atheists? The "New Atheists aren't resurrecting the old atheist argument that belief in God is wrong. Rather, they're advocating that belief in God is dangerous and destructive" (18). The New Atheists have divided the world into two camps: "enlightened atheists and faith-talking neanderthals" (49). Strangely enough, the New Atheists reject religious metanarratives as narrow and constrictive, but have no problem touting their scientific metanarratives as demanding universal recognition and acceptance. They regularly use religious extremists to make religion seem violent and foolish, but never interact with serious religious thinkers like Karl Barth, Jurgen Moltmann, and Walter Brueggemann (to name just a few). She writes, "Trust me, we can both find fringe fanatics to prove the other side is nutso. So let's stop with this stereotypical silliness" (55). The New Atheists claim to desire dialogue, but the publisher of Christopher Hitchens book, God is Not Great would not allow Becky to excerpt any material from his book. So much for reasoned debate! For the most part, the New Atheist argument consists of a good measure of trash-talking: "New Atheists have gotta do better than trash-talking their opponents" (34). What the New Atheists desire is the complete elimination of religion. Forget tolerance. The New Atheists have no room for this. In The End of Faith, Sam Harris writes, "The very ideal of religious tolerance - born of the notion that every human being should be free to believe whatever he wants about God - is one of the principal forces driving us toward the abyss" (15). You think that's crazy. Check out another Sam Harris quote, "If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion" (65). 'Nuf said.
King's newest is a mammoth 600-page story. Edgar Freemantle loses his right arm in a construction accident. His life falls apart. Seeking escape he hides away at a rented house on Duma Key, an undeveloped splinter of the Florida coast. He begins painting pictures that possess powers beyond his control. This leads to a confrontation against ghosts of the past and an ancient evil power. I enjoyed the character development, but found the ancient evil a little less than terrifying - a small china doll stopped by fresh rather than salt water is hardly a foreboding enemy.
David's Roche shares the lessons on life, self-acceptance, and unconditional love he has learned from the severe facial deformity he has had from birth. In his early adult years, he purposefully shrank into the background. In his middle age, he finally found his voice. He realized that real humans are more important than ideals. He stopped pretending to be normal and accepted himself the way he was. He tells stories of how others have mistreated him: "I have been called Jughead and El Monstro. I have been told that I was too ugly to be a priest and that I was the ugliest thing that a man had ever seen" (43). Eventually, he came to discover that those who said such things were "ugly in their heart" and that beauty is more than skin deep. He shares some principles he has learned. For example: "you cannot understand what is going on while it is going on" (50). It is after the fact that we come up with the best responses - that we see things clearly. Also, he argues that "the basic motivating factor for all human beings is not self-preservation or sex or love. It is the desire to not be embarassed" (61). In regard to unconditional love: "Before we learn about love, we usually do not know what it is when we receive it. I did not know how much my father loved me until well after he died. Or how much I loved him. I did not know what Jon was giving me. Or Sister Frieda. Or my mother. We build channels and dikes and levees to keep love from flooding us, because it is so unbelievable that we could be so loved. But it is still unconditional love, it is still there--we have to open ourselves to make it real" (124). This is a short, sweet book.
With Dante as his template, Barlowe crafts a tale of a demon seeking redemption. Haunted by his remembrance of Above, the glory of God's face, and the beauty of heaven, a demon attempts to leave a place with little light but that cast by flames, a city built on suffering souls in the form of soul bricks, in order to "reach for the light." His motto: "When we unsheathe our weapons let us remember the angels we once were but fight like the demons we are" (218).
This is an outstanding resource on the seven last words of Christ. Deep, profound, and moving reflections!
Another short, sweet, and profound reflection on the seven sayings from the cross.
"No miracles. No mercy. Above all, no redemption." This is a fantastic story concerning Batman's blindness because of his own obsession. In the story, it is obvious that a person he is pursuing has turned a new leaf and found redemption. However, Batman refuses to view her as any more than a liar. He can't possibly imagine that she could change. His inability to see this almost leads to disaster for truly innocent others. A great story!
Gaiman reboots Jack Kirby's Eternals. The Eternals are Immortals who live among humans doing the work of the Celestials. This was a very well-told and engaging reboot to the series. Great art and good story.
My first book of 2008 is a profound series of reflections on the cross guided by the seven last sayings of Christ. The commentary on these sayings is brilliant, but even more, the path Neuhaus takes allows for many insightful diversions. He speaks powerfully on the hope for universal salvation. He also includes challenging comments concerning our therapeutic society which reduces everything to the psychological. There is so much good and various material in this book that I highly recommend it. I include this one quote for those Protestants suspicious of Neuhaus's Catholicism: "The last point is pertinent to those Christians who make so much of being saved, or justified, by faith alone. What should one say in response? I can only give my testimony. When I come before the judgment throne, I will plead the promise of God in the shed blood of Jesus Christ. I will not plead any work that I have done, although I will thank God that he has enabled me to do some good. I will plead no merits other than the merits of Christ, knowing that the merits of Mary and the saints are all from him; and for their company, their example, and their prayers throughout my earthly life I will give everlasting thanks. I will not plead that I had faith, for sometimes I was unsure my faith, and in any event that would be to turn faith into a meritorious work of my own. I will not plead that I held the correct understanding of "justification by faith alone," although I will thank God that he led me to know ever more fully the great truth that much misunderstood formulation was intended to protect. Whatever little growth in holiness I have experienced, whatever strength I have received from the company of the saints, whatever understanding I have attained of God and his ways--these and all other gifts received I will bring the throne. But in seeking entry to that heavenly kingdom, I will, with Dysmas [the thief on the cross], look to Christ and Christ alone" (70)
In 1945, Muhammad Ali al-Samman, unearthed a red earthenware jar in Upper Egypt, and hoping to find gold, smashed it, and discovered thirteen papyrus books, bound in leather. The Nag Hammadi texts consists of some fifty-two texts from the early centuries of the Christian era, including the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip, the Gospel of Truth, the Gospel to the Egyptians, the Secret Book of James, the Apocalypse of Paul, the Apocalypse of Peter. These gnostic writings were rejected by the early church because they fundamentally undermined the unique event of the incarnation of God in Christ and its significance for humanity. Gnosticism held that matter was impure and only spirit pure, that the self and the divine are identical, and thus self-knowledge is knowledge of God, and that humanity's problem is illusion and the need is for enlightenment rather than the problem being sin and the consequent need for repentance. Pagels argues that orthodox Christianity proposes stranger ideas than gnosticism - strange ideas about God's goodness, the virgin birth, and resurrection. She suggests that orthodoxy only survived because of its social and political implications. She also suggests that gnosticism preceded orthodoxy, and thus should be considered as a viable alternative to orthodoxy. In other words, orthodoxy only exists because it aligned itself with dogmatism, patriarchalism, and political powers. For her, the orthodox doctrine of bodily resurrection exists because "it legitimized a hierarchy of persons through whose authority all others must approach God" (27). Obviously, it could not exist because Jesus actually rose from the dead! Gnosticism denies the full humanity of Jesus, and thus any real suffering - any real passion. Pagels argues that orthodoxy emphasized the passion of Christ in order to comfort and encourage people during physical persecution. Here as with resurrection, the truth is not in the event, but in social and/or political structures that privilege a certain interpretation. But must everything be reduced to the social and political? Is it a real stretch of the imagination to believe that the Christ events may be situated in reality and that the church preserved the truth by approaching everything with the central affirmation of the incarnation as the touchstone for truth? Interestly, Pagels demonstrates how the full humanity of Jesus actually provides greater confort and encouragement to real human suffering than the gnostic message: "Here again, as we have seen, orthodox tradition implicitly affirms bodily experience as the central fact of human life. What one does physically--one eats and drinks, engages in sexual life or avoids it, saves one's life or gives it up--all are vital elements in one's religious development. But those gnostics who regarded the essential part of every person as the 'inner spirit' dismissed such physical experience, pleasurable or painful, as a distraction from spiritual reality--indeed, as an illusion. No wonder, then, that far more people identified with the orthodox portrait than with the 'bodiless spirit' of gnostic tradition. Not only the martyrs, but all Christians who have suffered for 2,000 years, who have feared and faced death, have found their experience validated in the story of the human Jesus" (101). In Pagel's opinion, orthodoxy survives, not because it is true, but because of its social, political, and organizational compromises. She believes that the Christian tradition has been impoverished because "the process of establishing orthodoxy ruled out every other option" (149). However, the only other alternative is to have no orthodoxy whatsoever. Orthodoxy and gnosticism are so completely at odds that both cannot be true.
Classic Christian creedal statements such as "We believe in God the Father, maker of heaven and earth" "sound strange" and "barely intelligible" to Princeton's Professor of Religion, Elaine Pagels (5). During a difficult time in her life, this historian of religion visited a church after decades of absence, and experienced the power of ritual: "I had grown up nominally Protestant, and thought of ritual as empty form, but now I saw how it could join people of diverse cultures and viewpoints into a single community, and focus and renew their energies" (14). A bad experience of narrow religion in her youth turned her off to religion, but learning Greek and reading the New Testament in its original language renewed her interest. However, her frustration with Christian doctrine compelled her to look for "real Christianity" (31). She believes she has found this in the Gnostic tradition. Thus, the villains of her interpretation of history are Irenaeus, Athanasius, the organized church and its creeds. She prizes the "secret writings" that, in her opinion, the Christian church "suppressed." An alternative perspective is that the church did not suppress as much as reject these writings insofar as they undermined the uniqueness and reality of the incarnation of God in Christ. Unlike classic Christianity which finds salvation outside of oneself in the grace and redemption of God in Christ, Gnosticism's salvation is oriented in the self. Pagels admits this is the reason for her embrace of Gnosticism: "The strength of this saying [from the gnostic Gospel of Thomas] is that it does not tell us what to believe but challenges us to discover what lies hidden within ourselves; and, with a shock of recognition, I realized that this perspective seemed to me self-evidently true" (32). Pagels has no interest in doctrinal religion or revelation of an event. She does not want to have to believe anything, but is content to believe whatever supports her own "self-evident" biases. This is the reason gnosticism holds such great appeal, even to this day. It demands nothing and is focused on self-discovery. There is no "incarnate" God, or physical church (with all its obvious weaknesses) to deal with. To Pagels, the only reason the Gospel of John is in the Christian canon and the gnostic Gospel of Thomas is not is because John's Gospel provides a foundation for a unified church and Thomas' does not. Pagels rejects the Christian mystics like Saint Teresa and Saint John of the Cross who retain an incarnational theology but emphasize personal experience. She does not like that they "are careful to speak of relationship with God but not of identification. They can say "I and Thou" but not "I am Thou." In other words, union with God is not enough - we must be God! The uniqueness of Jesus is lost and the monotheism of Judaism is abandoned. Is it any wonder the early church rejected the gnostic gospels? Yet, Pagels maligns all Christians who reject the gnostic gospels: "To this day, many traditionally minded Christians continue to believe that whatever trespasses canonical guidelines must be 'lies and wickedness' that come either from the evil of the human heart or from the devil" (113). Not necessarily. The gnostic gospels reject monotheism and incarnation. Though the language could get heated, it is simply for this reason that they were rejected. And it must be noted that the gnostics were also heated in their language against orthodox Christianity. In the Gospel of Philip, Philip denounces "the apostles and the apostolic ones" as ignorant and "in error" (132). Pagels villifies Irenaeus for calling people to remember their baptismal vows, the apostolic witness, and incarnational faith. Yet, some foundation for unity was necessary.
This is LeLoup's translation of this gnostic gospel. This contains the infamous saying, "The companion [koinonos] of the Son is Miriam of Magdala. The Teacher loved her more than all the disciples; he often kissed her on the mouth" (83). Although twice the union of God with humanity is expressed in "bridal chamber" terms, there is nothing at all depicting Mary and Jesus in any such bridal chamber or union. There is an interesting passage uniting the four elements with four religious aspects: "What is harvested in the world is composed of four elements: water, earth, wind, and light. What God harvests is also composed of four elements: faith [pistis], hope [elpis], love [agape], and contemplation [gnosis]. Our earth is faith, for she gives us roots. Water is our hope, for it slakes our thirst. Wind [pneuma] is the love [agape] through which we grow; and light is the contemplation [gnosis] through which we ripen.
This is simply a translation of four gnostic writings: The Secret Book of James, The Gospel of Thomas, The Book of Thomas, and The Secret Book of John. The last has some profound thoughts on negative theology (see Chapter 2), but it is perhaps the most gnostic, teaching that Yahweh is a misguided, wicked, mindless creator and thus, our need is to escape through secret knowledge into a spiritual (disembodied) existence.
This is a nice overview of Gnosticism and early Christianity. Though repetitive in parts, it makes for a helpful reference tool.
This is a collection of quotes from Irenaeus' work against gnosticism. In this he speaks of the centrality of the incarnation and recapitulation in Christ. An important book, and perhaps the first real theological treatise of the early church.
Comte-Sponville is not out to convert people to atheism. In his own words, he is a "nondogmatic atheist--that is, I do not claim to know that God does not exist, but I believe he does not exist" (69). He realizes that human conflict arises from theists and atheists alike. He finds some believers admirable and "most worthy of respect. Their faith in no way offends me" (11). Comte-Sponville rejects faith but not fidelity. He believes society can do without religion but not without communion or fidelity. Ethics continues whether or not one has religion. He believes strongly in preserving the past, including religious traditions and teachings: "only by being culturally conservative can we be politically progressive" (27). Though rejecting Jesus, he embraces "the spirit of Christ" - justice and charity, the wisdom of love, the virtue of doing good and living in joy (32). He believes a commitment to truth is necessary in order to possess knowledge. Though he believes all truth and values are relative, "[i]t is not true that anything goes." He calls us to "fidelity to humanity and to our own duty to be human. ... Our primary duty, the one which which all the others follow, is that of living and behaving humanly (49). Though he admits that the Christian faith offers a great hope and atheism is prone to nihilism ("There is no way for a lucid atheist to avoid despair" 51), he rejects Christian hope as impossibly idealistic, and rejects nihilism as an extreme and dangerous response. He calls for a "tragic wisdom," a "wisdom of despair" similar to the first Epicurians, Stoics or Buddhism. Consequently, hope plays no role in his philosophy: "To wish for what does not depend on us (to hope) is to condemn ourselves to powerlessness and resentment" (53). The comfort he offers: "People who hope for nothing... cannot be disappointed" (53). He invites us to yearn for a kingdom such as the one Christ preached, arguing that atheists share this same kingdom in their desire for love and knowledge and part ways in regard to hope and faith (59). He also invites us to imitate Jesus' life - not his faith or hope, but his love. He accepts a large part of the Gospels, but feels separated from belivers "by only three days," namely, Good Friday through Easter Sunday (63). In the end, Comte-Sponville embraces a secular sort of transcendence. Contemplating the immensity of the universe puts the ego in its place. This dying to oneself is "opening oneself up to life, to reality, to everything. What could be more boring, more restricted and more vain than my self?" (200). Comte-Sponville's lack of condescension and contempt characteristic of many popular atheist authors who speak with the certainty of fundamentalists and fanatics is refreshing. Though he may reject theism, he is not out to destroy all theists. If faith helps people live better lives, he is content: "Humanity is far too weak and life far too difficult for people to go around spitting on each other's faiths. I loathe fanaticisms of all kinds, including atheistic fanaticism" (100).
Willimon offers powerful messages on the seven last words. Marva Dawn, who introduces the book, summarizes well: "If we hear these seven words truly... We will not reduce the Trinity either to happy ditties or to merely dogmatic recitations. We will discover that the triune God loves us arduously, torturously, to the end beyond our wildest imaginings, and we will want to respond with humble reverence, passionate ardor, and steadfast commitment to honor the true God genuinely." Willimon provides just what we need to provoke the right response.
Another interesting and helpful book on the seven sayings from the cross. Great reflections on placing blame, on attempting to controll our own lives, and trusting God. Some of Judith's poems and prayers scattered throughout the book are especially inspiring.
The boy with the ray-gun on the cover sold me on this book. I thought it would be interesting to read about growing up in the 50s. Bryson's playful and humorous memoir takes place in post-war prosperity. He speaks of the importance of baseball as a national pastime, boasting in new products - toasters, tvs, etc., - the fear of the atom bomb, and the optimistic prospects of the future - underwater cities, personal jet packs, dome-roofed automobiles, automatic sidewalks, and more. After pages of delighting in the uniqueness of Des Moines, Iowa, he laments the inundation of franchises and the loss of mom-and-pop shops.
Captain Marvel must face three robots set out to destroy all humankind. This was a cute, fun, old-fashioned comic story that anyone of any age could appreciate.
"With great power there must also come great psychoanalysis" (27). This is a hilarious look at the possible dysfunctions of the F.O.O.J. - the Fantastic Order of Justice (patterned loosely after the Justice League of America). Sure, superheroes save others - but can they save themselves? Do they pay a price for their just and noble actions? Do their actions arise even from pure motives? What would happen if they were all subject to pyschoanalysis? Faust's writing style is absolutely a blast. For any comic book fan, the story is littered with inside jokes. Some of the best fun comes from the Batman-like "The Flying Squirrel" who mistrusts everyone and makes his displeasure known with his constant stream of cut-downs. Of Omnipotent Man (the Superman-clone), he says, "He's a fraud, Miss brain. Earth's greatest superhero, my colon. He's a panty-willed, 'aw-shucks, ma'am,' unmitigated ultraninny" (195). When someone touches his cape, the Flying Squirrel responds, "This is my cape, for God's sake! You don't touch a hero's cape! My life depends on this thing operating properly" (197). Though it ends rather abruptedly, it is well worth the ride. This was as fun as Soon I Will Be Invincible.
This book chronicles every attempt to bring Superman beyond the pages of his native format - the comic book. The book covers the whole gamut - from the early radio serials to Bryan Singer's Superman Returns. After reading this book, I find it amazing that anything of any substance was ever really produced - especially in regard to the movies. The radio serials are actually responsible for many of standard elements of the Superman myth - Clark Kent's job at The Daily Planet, the characters of Perry White, Lois Lane, and Jimmy Olson, the introduction of Kryponite in order to make the nearly-indestructible Superman vulnerable, and Superman's ability to fly. The early movie serials produced for the theaters suffered from all that was involved in portraying a flying omnipotent man - in other words, the technology simply didn't allow for much creativity. This wasn't true for the early Fleischer cartoons. The longest and most compelling part of the book deals with the four Superman movies produced by Ilya and Alexander Salkind. They purchased the rights when no one thought a superhero would be worth much on the silver screen. Unfortunately, the Salkinds never really knew what to do with their rights. It is a wonder that Superman I and II are as good as they are. There seems to be no end to the infighting among producers, directors, and stars. Rossen also covers the television series, The Adventures of Superman with George Reeves, the many incarnations of Superfriends,, Lois & Clark, The Adventures of Superboy, Bruce Timm's outstanding Superman: The Animated Series and, my personal favorite, Smallville. Rossen calls Smallville "the most well-constructed, faithful, and competent take on the character to date" (264). He also writes of the so-called Superman curse - George Reeve's suicide (or possible murder) and Christopher Reeve's paralyzing fall. Finally, he goes into detail about the nightmare years of possible relaunches of the Superman movie franchise. Some of the ideas that producers, directors, and celebrities have had about Superman are positively absurd! Thank God that comic book fans - often ignored since the vast majority of the movie-going public knows superheroes through movies rather than their native format, comic books - are finally heard through fan-based websites. And, thank God Bryan Singer was finally chosen to make the new Superman movie. Of all the possible choices, he is the one who held the source material in the highest respect, which shows (perhaps a little overmuch) in the newest Superman movie. It's hard telling where the franchise will go from here. Before the first frame of Superman Returns was even shot, the studio had spent an estimated $65 million in development hell. As successful as Superman Returns was, it could not possibly recoup the losses. But, wherever it goes, one thing remains sure - Superman lives!
Leave a comment