Scot McKnight: December 2007 Archives

My own definition of what counts as a "novel" fluctuates. You might say I fudge. If it is a classic, like Homer's stuff, it's not fiction. If it is theological, it's theology. Otherwise, I don't read novels. Unless it's the hilarious humor of Garrison Keillor. I've read all of his books I think, so when I saw Pontoon, I forked over the money and sat down recently and read the thing.

Let's hear from his fans and readers. Which of his books do you like most? Any critical response to his work, especially as it has developed since the early 80s.

What do I like most about his books? It's his ability to start with some odd fact and by the end of the long paragraph, sometimes a page later, we've gotten to where one would never expect. It's like a parenthesis within a parenthesis within a few more and before long you're laughing and cackling and wondering how in the world he does it.

Pontoon combines the funeral of Evelyn Peterson -- cremation with the ashes put in a bowling ball and then dropped from the sky (sort of) into Lake Wobegon by a young kid flying on a parasail but the driver gets all mixed up with some huge ducks on the lake and a pontoon full of Danish pastors who have become all but atheists -- with a wedding, actually a commitment, that falls apart and now you've got the making of all his nonsense.

What do I not like about Keillor? About the time he wrote WLT: A Radio Romance Keillor included too much sex (he doesn't seem to have any Scandinavian reserve in this subject) and he's not let up since. This book has a few episodes that lacked taste.

More seriously, in the last few books he's started juxtaposing sex and the Christian faith in ways that, at times, strike me as cheap and classless. Those scenes sadden me because there are better ways to expose the failure of the Christian faith.

His capacity to spin a yarn, expose the weaknesses of humans, entertain, and carry us all forward a step or two ... and his ability to write and his voice ... well, I'll be in line the next time another Wobegon novel comes out.

Here's the Amazon link to Keillor ... my favorite remains Lake Wobegon Days, but I've read them all.

Almighty God, you have poured upon us the new light of your incarnate Word: Grant that this light, enkindled in our hearts, may shine forth in our lives; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen.

My Weekly Meanderings will be sparse this week with so much of our time spent traveling and with family.

You thinking of blogging? (HT: Henriet)

Dave Dunbar posts a new missional journal on materialism. This might be the best one yet. [I got the link in an e-mail; the new piece is #11.1 so if it is not up on the webpage, check back later.]

New Blog of the Week: Dan deRoulet.

I want to highlight one of my former NPU student blogs about once a month so here is Sarah (Park) Johnson's blog -- check out chubby chew. Drop in and say hello to her from me.

Serious, moving, wise piece by Christine Scheller that reminds us of what Christmas is really all about.

Another new blog -- with Susan Hogan Albach at the Chicago Sun Times.

This should give my friend David Fitch plenty to chew on, and my question is this: How much of a spectacle have been the European Cathedrals and the Eucharist in the same churches? I see these megachurch events as theatrical performances of the Christmas story. Is there a place for such in the Church?

1. Here is a NY Times hatchet job review of There is a God">Antony Flew's conversion from atheism to belief in God.
3. Good interview with J.K. Rowling, including statements about her faith.
4. A bleak piece by Garrison Keillor. An interview with Keillor and some pictures of his home.
5. Bob Smietana, of The Tennessean, writes a fine piece about Mary and Protestants. (Yes, he interviewed yours truly.)

Take a break, take a quiz. (HT: pepy)

6. The Sidneys 2007.
7. Capital punishment divides the Christian community; here is a piece in the NY Times and of all the books I've read, this book by David Clinton Owens and Virginia Stem Owens is my recommendation.
8. McKnight and Mozart brought together for the first time! (Thanks sam i is).
9. Lots of evangelicals jumped up and down for joy when Bauckham argued for the reliability of the Gospels on the basis of eyewitnesses, but his specifics are not without some need for greater clarification and support. See one response to Bauckham by Chris Tuckett. I'm inclined to think Bauckham has much in his favor, but my read of his stuff is that in this oral hypothesis at times he goes beyond what we can really know.
10. HT to Brad Boydston for this link to Terry Mattingly on racial reconciliation in American churches -- where is it found?

Sports:

What about that crazy Bears game!

Good lists.

On steroids: nothing good will come until the players and the players union willingly say "It's time to be open and honest. Test us for what you want; we are honest." As long as the union protects the players, the players can appeal to the union to protect them from transparency. For the good of the game, which assumes a level playing field, tell the truth.

Telford Work closes this book,Ain't Too Proud to Beg, a series of ruminations leading to themes in the Lord's Prayer, with three sermons under the chp title "Amen."

Each is in some sense a response to 9/11, each in a different way.

#1: Work ties the story of Jonah to John 3:16. An insightful angle informs the whole: We are temtped to think, perhaps, that God is the strict one and that we are the kind ones. John 3:16's famous "God so loved" opens up an angle on Jonah. For in this story God is the one who has compassion and Jonah, who represents the exclusivist people of God, is the strict one.

Any thoughts on this angle?

#2: In August of 2004 he preached about generosity and how to win in the election no matter what. His point: that hope can breed generosity in the midst of evil. Why? Because God is our Father and our lives are different. He captures the message of Revelation for the time of election. We need this. I will turn to this little sermon during the next year as we listen (endlessly) to the promises and hopes and apocalyptic warnings.

#3: Joy challenges a culture where sadder is cooler, wiser, deeper, and greater. Paul, Work sketches, is a joy machine. The Transfiguration sounds the note of joy in a world of gloom. Joy is reasonable, it is varied but not artificial, it is obvious but not forced, it is enouraged and disciplined -- and it is central to the Christian's identity.

Again, next week, we begin Edith Humphrey, Ecstasy and Intimacy.

Our day needs its best theologians, historians, biblical scholars, missiologists and pastors to sit down at table to discuss world religions. The issues pressing for answers are enormous in significance, and that is why I'd like to open a series on why God has allowed different religions? And, of course, the very question assumes the truth of Christianity. A fine book introducing us to this question is by Gerald McDermott, professor at Roanoke College in Virginia, and author of God's Rivals. Here is his question:

If the true God is the Father of Jesus Christ, why did this God permit the rise and flourishing of other religions? The two options that have shaped much of the conversation are not nuanced enough: the fundamentalist view that equates the religions with the demonic and the religious relativist view that sees religions are equally true and false, each only approximating the divine.

What we are in need of is competent studies and clear studies. Some want to address these topics but don't realize how complex the issues are and how important it is to write with utter clarity. Gerry McDermott does just this.

Today we look at chp 1, "The Scandal of Particularity": Why has the true God come to only some people at some times?

Good stories to introduce the chp. The "scandal" simply put: "the Christian God did not reveal himself fully in all times and places, but has restricted that revelation to certain particular times and peoples and places" (21). For 1000 years the Church basically argued that those who were outside the church were not saved (extra ecclesiam nulla salus). But a string of important theologians thought differently: Abelard, Pope Gregory VII, St. Francis, Thomas Aquinas, Dante, some Anabaptists, Richard Baxter and then Pius IX said that "no salvation outside the church" referred only to those "culpably" outside of the church.

McDermott dismantles the typical taxonomy: exclusivism (Jesus is the only Savior), pluralists (many saviors), and inclusivism (Christ is sole means but knowledge of him may/is not required). McDermott shows that many scholars today believe inclusivism captures other religions by (1) one religion -- say Christians contending that righteous non-Christians will find union with the Christian God -- or (2) annihilates the fabric of other religions -- many don't want to be united with God since they don't think there is such a God (say a classic Buddhist) or the view advocates a kind of religious dynamic that advocates of one particular faith don't believe. Furthermore, religions each are inherently exclusivist.

Some today are arguing, not for a pluralist capturing of other religions but for different salvations. Some Buddhists find nirvana, some Muslims Paradise, and some Christians find union with the Triune God.

McDermott argues that the theologians who advocate for different salvations, which strikes me ultimately as a modified pluralism, don't cite Scripture to support their view and, in fact, find too much in Scripture against such a view.

McDermott shows that the Bible itself began to struggle with the scandal of particularity and that some major early theologians had diverse and profound answers for the scandal. Next post ... Surprising knowledge of God among Bible people outside Israel and the church.

Because we are visiting with family this week and early next, I will be here sporadically so some comments could take a little longer to approve.