Reformation Day!

I sent this out earlier to the Briercrest community. I thought I’d post it here as well.

P.S. Apparently scholars debate whether in fact Luther actually did post the theses as the story goes. But even if the the story is “apocryphal,” it is still the case that October 31 IS Reformation Day in the Church year.

———————————-

For those who have forgotten what day it is today, let me remind you that it is Reformation Day. It was on this day 491 years ago, on October 31, 1517, that Martin Luther posted his “95 Theses” on the Church door at Wittenberg–an act which Luther surely could not have anticipated would result in what we now call the Protestant Reformation.

Recently, some (such as eminent evangelical historian Mark Noll) have been asking whether the Reformation is over, especially since there is a much greater willingness amongst Catholics and Protestants to work together for the cause of the Gospel, and since many of the old schisms that used to divide us seem to be closing. For example, though not everyone yet buys into all the conclusions of the 1999 “Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification” between the Lutheran World Federation and the Roman Catholic Church, it is nevertheless true that the differences between Catholics and Protestants are not nearly as great as they used to be, even on this fundamental doctrine which was at the centre of the original Protest. Add to this the reality that the last pope (John Paul II) and the current pope (Benedict XVI) have sounded more “evangelical” in our ears than ever, and one wonders whether the Reformation really is over. 

However, major differences still do exist and we are still quite a way from saying that the issues raised by Luther and the reformers which followed him so many years ago are no longer relevant. What we can affirm today, though, is that God by his Spirit is continuing to work to reform and renew his Church, the body of Christ. As outwardly the challenges to being a faithful Christian in our country today seem to be increasing, we can be thankful that Jesus is building his Church and nothing, not even the gates of Hades, can prevail against it, even though it continues to be ever in need of reformation, indeed, transformation, into the image of Christ the Lord and Head of the Church.

Happy Reformation Day!

Who said it? Friendship with Jesus

Came across this today in my reading. I won’t reveal the source. Any guesses who it comes from? And no, it isn’t Barth! If you are one of those people who knows which book I am now reading, please don’t spoil the fun for the rest.

As historical-critical scholarship advanced, it led to finer and finer distinctions between layers of tradition in the Gospels, beneath which the real object of faith–the figure [Gestalt] of Jesus–became increasingly obscured and blurred. At the same time, though, the reconstructions of this Jesus (who could only be discovered by going behind the traditions and sources used by the Evangelists) became more and more incompatible with one another: at one end of the spectrum, Jesus was the anti-Roman revolutionary working–though finally failing–to overthrow the ruling powers; at the other end, he was the meek moral teacher who approves everything and unaccountably comes to grief. If you read a number of these reconstructions one after the other, you see at once that far from uncovering an icon that has become obscured over time, they are much more like photographs of their authors and the ideals they hold. Since then there has been growing skepticism about these portrayals of Jesus, but the figure of Jesus himself has for that very reason receded even further into the distance.
 
All these attempts have produced a common result: the impression that we have very little certain knowledge of Jesus and that only at a later stage did faith in his divinity shape the image we had of him. This impression has by now penetrated deeply into the minds of the Christian people at large. This is a dramatic situaiton for faith, because its point of reference is being placed in doubt: Intimate friendship with Jesus, on which everything depends, is in danger of clutching at thin air.

To be sure, there isn’t anything “ground-shaking” in this brief evaluative analysis of the “quest for the historical Jesus.” It was the source and the last line taken together that struck me the most. Any guesses?

The Shack – A Review

Many have asked me to comment on the self-published best-selling novel called The Shack by William P. Young. So here is my review! 

A disclaimer: Before reading too far, you need to know that The Shack is not the kind of book that naturally appeals to me and I likely wouldn’t have read it if so many hadn’t asked me my opinion. That’s obviously not a judgment on the book at all–I’m sure there’s lots of books that are good even though they do not appeal to me! But to be fair, I wanted you to know that I read the book more out of compulsion to know what everyone is talking about than because of an innate interest. And now that I’m done reading it, my initial feel for it is about the same: I found the book only marginally interesting and probably would have never finished it if I didn’t feel like it was a “task” that I wanted to complete.  But enough pre-qualifications! Here’s my take on the book under three headings: 1) Things I like; 2) Things I think are problematic; 3) An assessment of the book as theological literature.

1) Things I liked

• Anything that gets so many people thinking about what it means to have a triune God has to be at least partially commended. I’m writing a book on trinitarian theology right now and I’m glad to see that maybe the “renaissance” of trinitarian theology is starting to filter beyond the scholars and theologians and bit more into the popular mind. If the book pushes people to learn more about this central aspect of Christian belief about God, great! More power to it!
   
• It’s true–Young has a knack of making you think outside the box about things you might otherwise take for granted. Though several examples could suffice here, I thought that chapter 14 entited, “Verbs and other Freedoms” was very thoughtful and actually fits theologically well with much of the “actualistic” interpretations coming out of the Barthian theological stream of trinitarian interpretation. As Jungel puts it, “God’s being is in his becoming,” or in more everyday language,  ”God is what he does.” In this regard, I think the following line spoken from Sarayu’s (a.ka. the Holy Spirit) mouth is really insightful: 

…My very essence is a verb . . . I am more attuned to verbs than nouns. Verbs such as confessing, repenting, living, loving, responding, growing, reaping, changing, sowing, running, dancing, singing, and on and on. Humans, on the other hand, have a knack for taking a verb that is alive and full of grace and turning it into a dead noun or principle that reeks of rules: something growing and alive dies. Nouns exists because there is a created universe and physical reality, but if the universe is only a mass of nouns, it is dead. Unless ‘I am,’ there are no verbs, and verbs are what makes the universe alive. (206-7)

2) Things I think are problematic

• I realize that Young intends this story to be an extended parable. But as a parable–which is usually understood to be an everyday story intended to illustrate a profound truth–the story-line is simply too unbelievable and fantastic. Unbelievability could be fine if the genre demanded it (e.g., fantasy). But if The Shack is supposed to be a parable that relates something of the truth of God to us, then the very way in which the triune God is brought into the narrative actually violates the integrity of the story as parable. Rather than illustrating the truth indirectly, the book ends up with God telling us directly and from his own mouth in an unusual, isolated experience. Unfortunately, that’s not how most of us experience God in our day to day lives, not to mention in the midst of unspeakable tragedy.
   
  To illustrate what I mean, consider the biblical parable of the prodigal son. This story succeeds as a parable precisely because it does not bring God directly into the story as an actor or character.  Imagine how the prodigal son parable would break down if in its telling, the son came into direct contact with the Triune God who converses with him and through which the son finally comes to his senses. The conclusion of the story (reconciliation with the father) might be the same, but what otherwise could have been a believable, everday scenario that virtually anyone personally identify, suddenly becomes unbelievable and fantastic because, well, how many can claim to have had such vivid “experiences” (or even dreams, if that is what it was) of the triune God as Mack did in the novel?But the parable of the prodigal son succeeds precisely because it is so believable–that a son could squander what he has and still come to his senses and return to his father, and that the father would welcome him upon his return. That is something we can all potentially relate to, and which illustrates indirectly, parabolically and profoundly the love that the Father has for his creatures.  
   
• As insightful as many of the conversations that Mack has with the Trinity, and even though Young is trying to picture God in ways “outside the box,” the portrayal of the Trinity is, at least for me, quite distracting, mainly because it flirts with theological error in order to make it “work” in the story. And no, I’m not even talking about Young’s portrayal of God the Father (“Papa”) as a female. Indeed, as far as errors go, portraying the Father as a female is no more problematic than portraying the Father as a male, especially since it is only Jesus Christ who has taken on a human gender. But even that distracting detail aside, I think portraying the Trinity as three human persons will actually serve to confuse people even more than they already are when it comes to the doctrine of the Trinity. Whatever Young intends to portray, the Trinity in The Shack finally ends up leaning dangerously close to tritheism. And that is the problem with any attempt to try to “picture” the Trinity: the analogy always breaks down simply because, in Karl Barth’s way of putting it, there is no analogy for the Trinity but the Trinity itself. Now, I have no doubt that God is able to manifest himself even today in miraculous ways and I do believe he has the perogative to do this at times. But if and when he does, there is virtually no evidence biblically that he would appear as three individual human forms of mixed genders. Jesus is the only one who has taken on (male) flesh, and yet ironically he appears to play only a limited role in The Shack. (I could say lots more here about how little of Christ’s atoning work seems to come into play here, but I will reserve comment here realizing that not everything of theological significance can be mentioned…but this element does seem to be an aspect oddly neglected!). Of course, one would necessarily have to portray all three trinitarian persons in human form in order to make it work in a fictional novel. But that is a theo-fictional license that I think actually detracts from the potential of the story. Had Young told a story about Mack stumbling across a group of three human persons living in a form of genuine Christian community with one another, despite their brokenness and sin, the parabolic insight into the perfection of the triune relationships might have worked. But again, the full parabolic potential was lost when Young introduced the trinitarian characters directly into the story. 

•  As for Young’s portrayal of God as being beyond hierarchy (pp. 120ff.), this is theologically the most problematic, both biblically and from the perspective of the history of trinitarian theology. While there have been and continue to be theologians who want to do away with any and all forms of “order” in the Trinity and make the Three exist in a non-hierarchial “circle” of relationships with no one in “charge” (e.g., Leonardo Boff), orthodox trinitarian theology has always recognized that biblically, there is a primacy to the role of the Father relative to the Son and the Spirit, even if at the level of “divinity” all three are “equally divine.” In short, orthodox trinitarian theology has always recognized that the Son and the Spirit are sent and do God the Father’s will. Conversely, the Father is not sent, but only he is the Sender. However one finally ends up interpreting the meaning of Jesus’ saying “The Father is greater than I” (John 14:28), we must not explain it away as something other than a permanent “ordering” in the Trinity, even while maintaining the orthodox consensus that all Three are equally divine.  So, in short, The Shack depends upon a fictionalized rendering of the Trinity to make it fit into the story, but it has to take a level of theological license in order to do so. Thus, in the end The Shack portrays a Trinity that looks more like an ideal form of democratic socialism rather than the Sovereign Father in Heaven who sends his Son and his Spirit to enact his Kingdom of love and judgement on earth. 
    

3) Assessment of the book as theological literature

• I’ll just come out and say it: The Shack, in my opinion, is not great literature, not even great Christian literature. Sure, the story line is initially compelling, but about a third of the way through, the narrative gets bogged down and taken over by a wholly different story of the “quadra-logue” between the “Trinity” and “Mack.” Without giving away too much to those who still want to read it, I think the ambiguous ending actually works against the whole story when everything that one was once led to be believe was “real” may or may not have been. My criticism here isn’t because I want everything to be clear-cut in the end–I happen to enjoy an element of ambiguity in stories and film. But in this case, the ambiguity seems damaging to the integrity of what Young seems to be trying to communicate.  
   
• I know that this isn’t something directly about the novel itself, but I get a little nervous when I read comments like the following in the some of the reviews. One reader says, “I plan to read this book several more times, taking notes and highlighting passages that speak to me. Such intimacy with God seems so much more tangible since I’ve read this book – I couldn’t ask for a better gift.” (customer review from Amazon.com). I have no doubt that Young’s book has and is ministering to people, but I hope even Young would be a little more than uncomfortable if he knew that people were starting to study the story the way one might study scripture. Of course, Young can’t control what his readers do, and I don’t hold him responsible for the theological naivete of many readers who read the book in this manner. But I think that this is exactly why a cautionary note must be sounded for those who read the book, especially if they have limited theological discernment or training.  If Young could have resisted bringing the Triune character into the story directly, people may not feel the need to “study” it in quite the same way, looking for insights into the nature of the Trinity.  (Incidentally, I think this was the same problem with the Left Behind series of novels, and Peretti’s Piercing the Darkness which so many people took to be near to “Gospel truth” about the end-times and angels/demons respectively–they took these stories far too seriously as the bearer of detailed theological truth). Yes, The Shack could be edifying, but it is unfortunate that so many want more than encouragement or edification out of such a book. The dangerous thing is that too many people may think that the Triune God actually is the way he is portrayed in the story. But I, for one, am wholly unconvinced in this regard. And so you know that I am trying to be fair, I also think the same standard applies for even the great Christian works of fiction such as The Chronicles of Narnia. These works are meant to inspire and edify Christians, but they certainly are not meant to provide wholly biblically accurate insights into the nature of God, salvation, sin, etc. Indeed, one can imagine that Lewis and Tolkien would be horrified if they discovered that people studied their works to find out theological truth rather than to be moved and inspired by the triumph of good over evil that their works consistently sought to portray.
   
• The Shack stands as an example of what we call in literature, a Deus ex machina. You will recall from your High School English classes that a Deus ex machina (literally “a god from a machine”) is literary device that originated in the Greek and Roman plays where in the course of a story, a character finds himself in an impossible situation which is resolved by “dropping a god in from above” to save the day. (See more on deus ex machina from this Wikipedia entry). In short, The Shack is a grand deus ex machina all the way through. Let me explain. Mack and his family face an impossibly tragic situation with the loss of their dearly beloved little girl. But rather than having to deal with this terrible state of affairs like so many millions of other people of Christian faith in similar situations, Mack has an extended (visionary?) dialogue with the Trinity which helps him to make sense of it all and makes it possible for him to go on. But I ask: What about the millions of us who have had to endure tragic loss without such a grand deus ex machina? I’m sorry to say, but this is simply too convenient and unsatisfying way to tell the story. I’d rather hear a story about someone who faces a tragedy such as Mack faces but who manages through belief in God and by God’s grace experienced in the Christian community of sinning saints manages nevertheless to keep believing God despite all reasons to lose faith.  
   
• I noted above my wariness about someone reading this book as if it were something to be studied as one might study Scripture. Granted, I do not deny that Young brings up some very thought provoking reflection that requires you to pause and think. This is, after all, the sign of a good novel. But when great novels require us to read them over and over again (i.e., classics), it is not because they need to be “studied” as a theological treatise, but because they are thought provoking and profound as they remain faithful to their genre as extended metaphors, parables or even allegories. The Lord of the Rings and The Chronicles of Narnia (extended parables) or even Pilgrim’s Progress (extended allegory) are profound literarily and theologically precisely because they remain consistent to their literary function. The problem with The Shack  is that it starts out as a potentially provocative novel with implications for theological discourse, but ends up abandoning its character as a novel in favour of a theological discourse, indeed a discourse thinly disguised as a novel. But even that wouldn’t have been so bad had the theological discourse itself been a discourse between human interlocutors (such as what Dostoevsky sometimes does) rather than a discourse between a human and the divine interlocutors themselves. Even in the book of Job, or in Chesterton’s The Man who was Thursday, the human/divine discourse is rather short and actually tends to heighten the mystery of God, not resolve it. The main theo-literary problem with The Shack is that it tends to try to resolve the mystery of the Trinity to make sense of life rather than than to preserve the mystery of the Trinity to show how problematic our reductionistic explanations of life tend to be. 

Concluding Remarks

So what is my overall assessment of The Shack? While I know there are some Christian commentators who have praised the book, on one hand, or soundly condemned it on the other, I do neither. I happen to think that the book is mediocre at a literary level, and at least partially theologically problematic, even slightly dangerous at times. Consequently, it isn’t a book that I intend to recommend. But on the other hand, neither do I think that it will do great harm to the Christians who choose to read it, providing the book is read as a piece of fiction–and as a piece of fiction only. I fully acknowledge that many might in fact be touched spiritually by this book and in that regard, I have no reason to denounce it. But I also say, if you are going to read this book, by all means, remember it is supposed to be a parable, not a theological treatise. As such, read it,  and enjoy it as you can. But do not expect it to clarify your doctrinal understanding of the nature of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, because if that is what you expect The Shack to do, I regret to inform you that 1) there are many better books to learn about such things; and 2) you will go astray theologically if that is your expectation.

Blumhardt on “Jesus is Victor”

I ran across this today in my reading. It comes from a series of cleverly titled collected lectures by Klaus Bockmuehl in A Modest Program for Self-Improvement: The Story of Modern Protestant Liberal Theology (Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, 2007).  

Johann Christoph Blumhart (1805-1880) was a remarkable pastor in Württemberg in the Black Forest. Like Johann Tobias Beck at the university of Tübingen, he was something of a solitary figure in the landscape of the nineteenth century. He was far too original to be counted with the school of evangelical pietism. He was his own man. Beginning as a liberal in his pastorate, he experienced a complete change of view. From then onwards he was the very solitary representative of a realism concerning the kingdom of God.

The phrase ‘Jesus is Victor,’ which was later picked up by Karl Barth, and later still was used by Donald Bloesch. . . originated with Blumhart. There’s an interesting story behind it. A young women in his parish, Gottliebin Dittus, was clearly demon-possessed. She would shout and scream whenever the name of Jesus was mentioned. According to theological liberalism, such things are not supposed to happen: there are no such things as demons. Blumhardt was perplexed and intrigued. Why did she shout at the mention of that name? For a couple of years he ignored the situation. If I don’t believe it, he thought, it will go away;  it is not real. But it didn’t go away. There was a struggle over a period of two years. One time, when he was visiting the house, the girl underwent another beastly attack by the demons. Impatiently, he shouted, “Jesus is Victor,” and immediately she was delivered. She became healthy, and, later, when he had his own retreat centre, . . . she worked there with him. Blumhardt’s personal experience of exorcism created this conviction of the realism of the kingdom of God. Blumhardt began to emphasize theocentric thinking emphasizing the power of God. And this was important for Barth’s later thinking. (112-113)

If my last post on the abortion situation in North Amercia was a bit discouraging, perhaps this is the “evangelical word” that needs to be heard once again. Do we believe today that “Jesus is Victor”? Appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, this nevertheless must be our confession: Jesus is Victor!

Robert George on “Obama’s Abortion Extremism”…etc.

I couldn’t possibly say anything more illuminating or informed than what Professor Robert George has to say about Obama’s stance on abortion. Dr. George is Princeton University’s McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence.  Warning: Reading this article very much troubled my soul–I have no doubt that those of you who are worried about the ramped up “culture of death” will also have similar feelings. May God help us.

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.php?selectedarticle=2008.10.14_George_Robert_Obama’s%20Abortion%20Extremism_.xml

This also leads me to wonder just how things are going to change here in Canada. We have NO legislation currently regulating abortion in Canada, and none of the major political parties seem to want to get involved in producing any, including the Conservatives. Prime Minister Harper was quoted in the Globe and Mail in September 2008, saying, 

We have a lot of challenges in front of the country. . . We have a difficult world economy, as we all know. That has to be the focus of the government and I simply have no intention of ever making the abortion question a focus of my political career. [Emphasis mine]

I like many things about Prime Minister Harper, and I know that he has some kind of Christian faith stance. But I wonder how long he can expect to avoid dealing with the abortion issue until the moral imperative regarding the abortion laws (or more accurately, lack thereof) pushes itself involuntarily upon he and his cabinet. Given a minority government–again–I’m not hopeful that the pressure will ever be sufficient. 

Strategically, I realize that a minority government of any political stripe these days is unlikely to make many changes on the abortion laws in Canada. In fact, I wonder how long it will be until we get another majority government, given the way the vote is being split up these days. Perhaps Harper is simply a realist who realizes that change in this realm is next to impossible and he doesn’t even want to be hassled with what he knows what would certainly fail. And if Obama gets in (which it looks like he will) and some of his hoped-for changes to the laws come into effect in the United States, no one can predict what kind of influence that will have on us in Canada.

Let me be clear on something here. I don’t expect any government to be able to enact sweeping changes in the abortion laws overnight, let alone within a term of office. I think it is a huge mistake for some Christians to have taken an “all or nothing” approach to the abortion issue. Small changes–even infinitesimal changes–are at least a first step. (In this regard, it is very sad that the Unborn Victims of Crime Act died when the election was called. Even though having nothing to do with abortion, it could have been a starting point). 

But surely there has to be some kind of starting point, even if just in a small incremental way? It is here that I do not envy the extremely difficult challenges that our pro-life MPs have, whatever party they serve. It is all so terribly hopeless that it must be despairing at times. Let’s not fail to pray for these folks, maybe even write your pro-life MP a letter of encouragement. (I was once at a gathering where Bill Blaikie, now a retired long time serving Christian MP, was speaking. He said Christian MPs almost NEVER get letters of encouragement from Christians, but get some of the worst hate mail from those claiming to be Christians. What a shame that is!  I know, just because they are Christian doesn’t necessarily make them a good politician, but surely as a brother or sister in Christ we at least owe them some word of encouragement for their public service…Again, all I can say is, “God help us.”)

It is here that I go back to my previous ponderings on “public reading of Scripture,” particularly my proposal that perhaps it is high time for the church to rediscover the genre of the theological confession. Until the Church in Canada can begin to muster the courage (hopefully a courage led and infused by the Holy Spirit) to not only confess Christ in a unified way again, but also have the courage to reject that which we find to be against Christ–until then, at least a major part of the pro-life voice will continue to be silenced.

Again, may God help us.

DG

Some Montreal scenes…

I don’t have time to write anything today, but I thought I’d post a few shots I took in Montreal the last couple of days.

I took this one as “proof” that I really did finish a thesis at McGill. There it is, nestled beside other great theological works on graphic design, metal accumulation, and East Asian miracles!

 

 

 

 

 

I call this one “The Dissertation Graveyard.” This is 1 row of about 5 at McLennan library where MA and PhD dissertations are kept. Let’s just say that the dust on most of these indicate that few people come to visit…

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is the view looking out the window from the sixth floor of McLennan library. I’ve picked the desk right next to this one to do much of my work this week.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I had no clue this would happen, but it turned out pretty cool, didn’t it? A shot at about 10:00 pm from McLennan, looking down Union Ave. Notice the disheveled hair…proof of a long day at the library!

Troubling Election Stats…

Warning: These are far from completed thoughts, but here are some dashed off comments (before I get to work) on what I see as some troubling stats from the election. 

Stat #1: Popular vote

I realize that various groups have been saying this for years, but isn’t there a problem with our electoral system when one party (the Bloc) gets 10% of the popular vote and gains some 48 seats, while another party (Green) gets 7% of the vote and gets zero seats? 

Stat #2: Voter turnout

Apparently, it may be the lowest turnout for a Canadian federal election ever (something like 59% of the eligible voters showed up).

 Stat #3: Media coverage

Ok, it’s not an official stat, but as I watched the CTV election coverage, I couldn’t help but get a sense of why Westerners and Atlanticers do feel somewhat alienated at election time. 80-90% of the air-time was about Ontario and Quebec. I realize that’s where the population is, but still…

So what does the Theommentator have to say about all these “stats”?

1) Popular vote – Frankly, I’m stuck on this. I can’t think of much of theological significance to say  about this. Maybe its a stretch (I’m sure it is), but maybe this election shows that popularity isn’t all it’s cracked up to be…That’s awful, I know…Anyone else have an insight?

2) Voter turn-out – I thank God that I live in a country where political freedom is real– –where I can cast a vote and not have to risk my life to do it. Amazingly, in Afganistan voters took real risks to vote in their first democratic election, yet there was an 85% turn-out rate. Perhaps our national apathy and cyncism to elections is due to nothing more than–ingratitude. Ingratitude to God for the real peace, prosperity and freedom that we enjoy each and every day. Most of us can’t imagine what it would be like not to live in a democratic country. Not that I think that democracy is God’s chosen politic, but frankly, it’s better than lots of other systems…

3) Media coverage – Interestingly, I’ve watched 2 of the last 3 elections while here in Montreal. (I was in Montreal for the 2004 election). My hosts are very gracious Christians, but their political preferences were clearly different than mine. We joked a bit about the differences between West and East, but I didn’t say anything about how even the media coverage seems to exacerbate the feelings of Western alienation from the “real” political centres in Canada. And that is all said even when the Prime Minister is from Western Canada!

It’s a sad thing to report that I personal felt tinges of alienation while sitting in the home of my Christian brother and sister. It demonstrates to me, at least, that even things like “media coverage” are not theologically neutral, but may be perhaps an example of the “powers and principalities” (cf. Eph 6:12; Col 1:16) at work even against the most important spiritual bonds that we have with our fellow Christians.

Working at McGill

For the next week, I am back on some old stomping grounds, doing some research at McGill University. I’ll likely spend most of my time at the Birks Reading Room (located in the Birks Building where the Faculty of Religious Studies is located). Here’s a couple of pictures of the Birks building and the Reading Room respectively. Let’s just say that I’m excited to be back! 

“Crazy Talk”: A Serious Review of a Zany Book

I mentioned yesterday about my strange relationship with dictionaries–having read them as a kid, having been recruited to co-write one, and now actually recommending that others read one–cover to cover!–for themselves. Crazy Talk: A Not-So-Stuffy Dictionary of Theological Terms isn’t like any other theological dictionary I’ve (or likely you’ve) seen. It is humourous, sometimes sarcastic, and often manifests flashes of profundity. It takes its inspiration from the creative writer/theologian Frederich Buechner (it’s pronounced “Beek-ner”—-even that’s funny, isn’t it?) who wrote a book entitled, Whistling in the Dark: An ABC Theologized. As one of the blurbs on the back of the book put it, “Crazy Talk reads like Frederick Buechner on steroids…” 

In 183 pages, the authors define about 100 theological terms ranging from “absolution” to “dogma” to “means of grace” to “YHWH” (apparently they couldn’t think of any “Z” terms). Each term is given a “one-liner” (think of a stand up comic’s punch line) definition, some of which are quite insightful, others of which are less so, others of which are actually quite cynical, and still others which are just plain zany. Each one-liner is usually followed by a couple of paragraphs in which the significance of the term is fleshed out, often with the help of a fictional character named “Duh” who dialogues “duh-like” with God, or with references to popular culture. While some of the explanations come off sounding like they were spoken with the straight-face of a theological lecturer, others reach out and slap you in the face with a mixture of sarcasm, slapstick, and some serious dry wit.

The six-author team wear their Lutheranism on their sleeve and the book is edited by a Lutheran Old Testament scholar. Their Lutheranism comes out especially with the overarching emphasis on the forgiveness of sin (it seems to be mentioned in about every third entry) and shows up plainly in entries like “sacraments,” “two kingdoms,” and of course “simultaneously saint and sinner.” 

Now whatever you might think about mixing theology and humour, I have to admit that I couldn’t put the book down. In fact I was reading it walking home yesterday and  (as humour columnist Dave Barry is apt to say, “I’m not making this up!!”) I nearly bumped into a stop sign. Needless to say, I snorted out loud more than a few times–but oddly enough,  I also found myself often thinking,  ”Hmmmm….I’d never thought of it that way before!” 

So, yeah, there were times I howled while reading it. Like when I read the one-liner on “ecclesiology“: “The ultimate form of spiritual group navel gazing.”

Or the definition for “creed“:  ”Not to be confused with the boxer who pummelled Rocky Balboa, a personal statement of belief, written by someone else, for use in pummeling heretics.” 

Did you know that inclusive language is “the arrangement of the grammatical furniture in such a way that no one sits comfortably?” 

And one of my favourites: “Council“: “A huddle of the entire church’s bishops for the sake of clarifying some puzzle that was probably caused by one or more bishops.”

At other times, I was actually startled by the simple but profund way that a term was defined. Thus, Crazy Talk defines “kingdom of God” as ”A time that hasn’t happened yet but already has begun; a place that doesn’t exist yet but where you already live.” Does that not simply but profoundly capture the dialectic of the “already/not yet”, or what? And what else is”theodicy” but “the attempt to explain why the one who created everything and saved everyone doesn’t live up to our expectations.” Yes, I know these definitions don’t capture nearly everything that needs to be said about these important concepts; if you think they should, well, you just don’t get it. But in certain respects, these are just some samples of some of  the best short and thought provoking definitions I’ve ever heard.

At other times, it seems like Crazy Talk is even trying to provoke an argument or take a shot at giving a virtual bloody nose. Take their definition of ”atheism”: “The personal choice to be at the whim of earthly powers because you can’t handle being at the whim of God.” Now them’s fightin’ words! Oh, and if you are a committed dispensationalist with a temper, you probably should skip the page where they define “rapture.” (Of course I’m not going to tell you what they say about the rapture—-find out for yourself!) 

So why did I like the book so much? Well, it’s certainly not because the book is a definitive piece of theological insight and information. Sure, it presents itself as a dictionary, but I wouldn’t suggest using it as an authoritative source in a research paper–necessarily. But in a sermon–without a doubt, go for it! 

But what appeals to me is that this is such a good example of how it is actually possible to enjoy the study of theology. Karl Barth often said that theology, more than any other discipline, should be a “happy science.” Now for those who have actually talked with a professional theologian, or participated in conferences where the room was full of professional theologians, you might think Barth’s idea of theology as a happy science might sound—-crazy. That’s because professional theologians have a tendency to take absolutely everything they talk about as if it were a matter of life and death, and in such situations, humour appears to have taken a permanent vacation. (And you can see why this is so because in reality, theology IS about life and death and serious theologians are proof that they actually believe it!) This isn’t to say that the authors of Crazy Talk don’t think theology is serious business. On the contrary, they take theology seriously precisely by not taking themselves too seriously. Theology is, after all, a task undertaken by fallen, often foolish, humans who are trying to say something meaningful about God and the world. And, well, when you think about it…what are mere humans that they think they can do this? That’s just crazy!

But paradoxically, when we remember that theology is the happy science (with the help of an important reminder from a book like Crazy Talk), we can joyfully enjoy the experience of thinking deeply–and happily and even with a good laugh from the gut–about the God who shows up in a feeding trough in first century Palestine. Now that’s crazy! Now read the book–and enjoy!

“Good works”

I just finished over my lunch hour this enjoyable little book called Crazy Talk: A Not-So-Stuffy Dictionary of Theological Terms. (My family will never let me live this down–as a kid I used to read the dictionary; then I was co-author of one; now I’m still reading ‘em…anyways…) I’ll do a little review of the book later, but for now, here’s a sampler of a great entry that says so much by saying so little.

Works, Good \gud wuhrks\ n.

What you do because you don’t have to do anything.

Your friend invites you to dinner. You ask, “What can I bring?”
Your friend answers, “Nothing; there is nothing you can bring. I’ve got it all covered.”
Out of gratitude, you bring something anyway.

Now read this article again. But . . . 

For “friend” substitute “Lord.”
For “invites you to dinner” substitute “saves you from your sins.”
For “bring” substitute “do.”

Rolf A Jacobson, ed. Crazy Talk: A Not-So-Stuffy Dictionary of Theological Terms,  p. 181.