Changing my tune....

So, today I have spent the day doing something that many of you (if there is still a "you") may find odd -- I canvassed my town for a candidate in the Democratic primary being voted on tomorrow. Not only did I do this, but I have actually already voted (in Indiana we have "early voting") ahead of the primary tomorrow.

Many of you will find this incredibly odd since I have previously posted that I did not vote. If you read why I said I would not vote, you'll see that I took this view because I thought the political system in the U.S. was fundamentally flawed -- that certain people were excluded from conversation just because they did not fit the right profile. (Contrary to what some respondents to the post said, it was not for theological reasons that I said this). Now, I still think that the system is flawed, but I think that with the current election we can see a fundamental difference in the campaign. This is most obvious with the fact that two of the candidates are from traditionally oppressed groups - women and African-Americans, not to mention that the African-American has a name that rhymes with "Osama".

Now, I voted for Barack Obama. I have canvassed for him. I have done this because in what I have read about him, what I have heard from his lips, and from what my wife told me in meeting him (yes, my wife met him at an invitation only event - I was invited but was unfortunately out of town when I got the invite), he actually stands for change. I can also say this because I have paid attention to him since his time in the Senate when I was an Illinois citizen. He has not taken money from lobbyists, has pushed for being ethical, and hasn't capitulated to some of the "crap" that necessarily comes with politics -- primarily, right now being his stand against doing away with the gas tax.

So, I voted for Obama. I didn't do it because I'm a Christian (although I'd argue that he is the candidate that falls "most" in line with my Christianity), but because I actually want to see something change in America. Other candidates have not actually looked for this. So, not only do I hope Obama wins, I actually voted for him and worked to ensure he wins.

Peace.

Evangelicals and the Israel-Palestine Crisis

For those of you who may not know, evangelicals have recently embraced a call for lasting peace in Israel/Palestine by calling for a two-state solution. Essentially, they are saying that it is about time that the two were able to split and be two separate nations, able to elect whom they want, to govern the way they want (at long as it is democratic), and to be two separate nations. Let me just say that this is great and it is about time.

However, I have a few problems with the drawing up of this statement. The first major problem I have is that 4 of the 5 Wesleyan schools did not have a representative; Houghton was the lone exception. Now, the GS’s for my denomination did sign the statement, but we were missing the signatures from the presidents of four of our schools. To me, this is incredibly disappointing. However, I am also ecstatic that we got all three of our GS’s to sign. This is fantastic and real progress for my denomination.

Second, I have an issue with the reasons given in the statement for the adopting of this statement. The first reason is for the safety of Israel. Now, I do not disagree with this, but it begs the question of the safety of Palestinians as well. I understand that evangelicals have traditionally “kissed up” to Israel and favored Israel. However, in this crisis, Israel (and the creation of Israel) is the real culprit for much of the violence and many of the problems in the area. This comes about through many Israeli policies, not the least of which is to erect a wall around Palestinian territories so as not to allow Palestinians out (this is a similar tactic to that of the Berlin Wall, always a symbol of evil in the West). And so, where is the call for Israel to be actively engaged in creating a peace-full place where Palestinians are allowed to thrive, to have economic success, and to not be treated like second-class citizens. It seems that to me, it is time for evangelicals to stop bowing at the feet of Israel – and giving them a free pass – and to start holding them to the same standards.

The second reason given for the statement is the safety of America and Americans abroad. I find this to be completely narcissistic and naïve. A statement is made to the effect that many people in the Middle East view America through the Israel-Palestine conflict. And, while this is true, people in the Middle East also view America through the Soviet-Afghanistan war (and America’s involvement therein), the first Gulf War, and continuing to label various countries as terrorist states. America is not popular because of America’s policies in the Middle East. And, so now, evangelicals call for peace between Israel and Palestine to keep America safe. Perhaps the next call should be to America to attempt to repent and right wrongs to keep itself safe? This should be strictly about Israel and Palestine, not about America.

I want to end this by saying that I am incredibly encouraged by this statement. It seems that evangelical leaders are starting to understand that they have more of a role to play in the world than has traditionally been supposed. This is a good thing. It is also very encouraging that the people signing this are educators in evangelical schools, meaning that hopefully these schools are raising socially-conscious evangelical leaders.

Personal Update

So, it's been about 10 months since I have published on this blog. I'll get to why in my next post, but in this one I just wanted to give a quick update on my life and some current things I am thinking about.

First, my wife and I and our son moved from Chicago about a year ago. We moved to Plymouth, IN into an old farmhouse - our nearest neighbor is about 1/4 mile away. This is a drastic change from our place in Chicago. We moved to be closer to family, as this greatly helps with doing my doctoral work.

Second, over the last year I have been studying for and taking my comprehensive examinations for my doctorate at Loyola University of Chicago. This was fantastic to finally get through. And now I have a good story about getting ripped in part of my oral exam by Adriaan Peperzak over some stuff I said about Heidegger and language. I'm just happy I did not cry.

With my exams finished, I am now beginning to think about my dissertation more fully. I've worked to narrow it down, so that this is not my life project. And, basically, I am going to work with deconstruction and theology. I'll make an initial claim that deconstruction is less about taking apart of destroying a tradition/text and more about a right attunement to be able to listen to the entire history of a tradition/text, including the internal differences. I then want to take that structure and look at how Christian theologians have a similar method of attunement in their theological thinking; specifically I'll be looking at some by texts by Nicholas of Cusa. I may also look at Augustine and Simone Weil, but we'll see.

I have also spent the last semester teaching Introduction to Philosophy at Indiana Wesleyan University. It was a great experience - I love to teach. I had a good group of students and I feel like we all learned a lot.

Lastly, I'm working on a few papers for conferences and for submission to some journals. At the Wesleyan Theological Society this year I am presenting on Emergence theories of Consciousness and Entire Sanctification - looking at how some new emergence theories of consciousness inform our understanding of entire sanctification, specifically a more Maddox/process view. Sorry Collins! Second, I'm presenting at the Society for Pentecostal Studies on the role of experience in the religion/science dialogue. I'm looking at more "pop" level books (Dawkins, Collins, and McGrath). I've learned more about biology than I ever cared to. Lastly, I'm presenting a paper at the Interdisciplinary Nineteenth Century Studies Society: it is a conference on human rights and I am presenting on Luther Lee and how he puts forward a natural theology based upon the humanness of all humans. I'm going to specifically look at what he says about women and slavery.

On the submission end, I'm tinkering with an Eastern (specifically, Kyoto School of Buddhism) reading of the Sermon on the Mount. I'm also working on the idea of prayer as a political practice, specifically if viewed through contemporary phenomenology.

Well, I'll post more regularly and hope to see people around.

peace.

Theology Today

I'm concerned. That should not be surprising to you if you read this blog much. If you don't, scroll down and you'll see I'm a concerned person - I think.

Anyway, I am concerned with the state of theology today - these are thoughts that have been ruminating for a few months. I feel theology falling into two general camps today. One would be an inward theology and the other an outward theology. Let me briefly explain.

I see inward theology as a "closed" theology. It is becoming more and more prevalent in theology today. It is typified by a couple of groups - narrative theologians, Barthians, Balthasarians, and Radical Orthodox theologians. Essentially, I am talking about anti-modern theologians. These theologians all take aim at modernity and the thinking of modernity, specifically the turn to the subject and the subsequent subject/object distinction that is made. They feel as though the goal of theology is not to "play the games" of modernity or "secular" thinking, but to articulate what it is that the church believes and has always believed. The audience is usually the church or believers or sympathizers.

This theology is beneficial at times, but it takes few if any pains to articulate the beliefs of the church to people outside the church. The goal is not communication, but belief and dogmatics (for a good discussion of these terms, see Bernard Lonergan's Method in Theology). And I find this theology detrimental - and ironic - in that I do not think it is true to the Christian tradition. If one looks at what this theology does, it articulates the Christian position strictly from what it finds in the Christian tradition. It says that it's only source is the Christian tradition (even though many are based upon secular philosophies and thinking, specifically that of Wittgentstein and Geertz). In Christian tradition, though, theology finds much inspiration from that which is not specifically Christian - think everyone from Justin Martyr, Origen, the Cappadocians, Augustine, Pseudo-Dionysius, John Scotus Eriugena, Thomas Aquinas, Nicholas of Cusa, etc.

So, if you can't tell, this theology concerns me because it seems to have lost that specifically theological function of communicating the Christian to the secular - and seeing that the secular may contain elements of the sacred.

On the other end of the spectrum is an outward theology, or a theology that only looks outward for its sources. This theology is typified by the fact that it tries to make the secular sacred. Many times, this theology is more concerned with legitimating that which is outside of it. These theologies are usually focused around social issues, although much of the theology and science debate is shaped by these types of concerns. The concern of theology is always set by those outside of theology.

This theology is becoming more and more prevalent the more that theology becomes in dialogue with other disciplines. I find the dialogue great, but become fearful when the agenda is set for theology by those outside of the discipline. For example, in current discussions of what makes a person, science has said certain things and set the criteria for what makes a person. Theology then is required to capitulate to this for the dialogue to take place.

This concerns me in that theology's criteria and concern is set by those outside of theology. Theology becomes a sub-discipline. It's methods and criteria for meaning, meaningfulness and truth is not really taken seriously.

What I propose is a theology that mediates these two. It has to be a theology thoroughly informed by the Christian tradition and with the intention of communicating this tradition, but it cannot close itself off to the outside world. It must communicate the message to those outside of itself - and this means attempting to articulate this in the language and worldview of the people with whom the conversation is taking place. However, theology must not allow the outside to dictate what it is that it should be saying, talking about, or seeing as adequate information.

I'm Back...Kind of

Well, I decided to post again. I'll probably be more erratic now than I was before. I am a new father (my four month old boy is a blast and I love being a dad) (I also wonder at what point I stop being a new father and just am a father - does the newness every wear off?). I am also taking a doctoral seminar on the Trinity with Mark McIntosh (if you have not read his stuff, you should - especially his book Mystical Theology....Fantastic stuff) - this means that I have lots of reading to do. I am also studying for my comprehensive exams (which means I have 90-100 books that I need to know inside and out by October). And, I am presenting papers at both the Wesleyan Philosophical Society and the Wesleyan Theological Society (which reminds me, if anyone wants to share a room, let me know).

I just wanted to put up a few quick thoughts.

First, I watched a documentary on Howard Zinn (professor emeritus of political science at Boston University) yesterday. He is a major person in the promulgation of nonviolent resistance in the U.S. and of giving a voice to those who have traditionally not had one. It was a very good portrait of the man (the movie could be much better). It showed all the work he has done and how he has continued to stand up for those and with those who have had no voice or could not stand up for themselves - from the Civil Rights movement to the current Iraq War. In watching it, I wondered what it would be like if Christians had been inthe midst of standing up with Howard Zinn against oppressors? What would a Christian who took the actions of Christ seriously act? Like Howard Zinn?

Second, my beloved Bears are in the Super Bowl. This utterly excites me. However, it is also exciting that this Super Bowl will have two black head coaches. This is the first time that one black coach has coached in the Super Bowl (and we have two). To me, this is significant. Oftentimes there is still a certain amount of racial profiling that happens, where people assume that blacks play while whites coach/run the team/etc. And generally, this is how it goes (for wrong in my opinion) - just look at college football, where there are nearly no black coaches. However, these two men show that black coaches are just as capable. It also allows people who normally do not, black people in positions of leadership and authority - which is positive. Whether we like to admit it or not, the U.S. still has much racism to overcome (see Bonilla-Silva's book Racism without Racists).

One more note on the Super Bowl - I hope the Bears destroy the Colts...I really do. However, I hope that someone, some media person covers the story of the year that Tony Dungy has had. About a year ago, his son committed suicide. He almost quit coaching because it devastated him so much. Now he is in the Super Bowl. It could never replace his son, but Dungy has overcome a lot.

Peace.

I'm Back...Kind of

Well, I decided to post again. I'll probably be more erratic now than I was before. I am a new father (my four month old boy is a blast and I love being a dad) (I also wonder at what point I stop being a new father and just am a father - does the newness every wear off?). I am also taking a doctoral seminar on the Trinity with Mark McIntosh (if you have not read his stuff, you should - especially his book Mystical Theology....Fantastic stuff) - this means that I have lots of reading to do. I am also studying for my comprehensive exams (which means I have 90-100 books that I need to know inside and out by October). And, I am presenting papers at both the Wesleyan Philosophical Society and the Wesleyan Theological Society (which reminds me, if anyone wants to share a room, let me know).

I just wanted to put up a few quick thoughts.

First, I watched a documentary on Howard Zinn (professor emeritus of political science at Boston University) yesterday. He is a major person in the promulgation of nonviolent resistance in the U.S. and of giving a voice to those who have traditionally not had one. It was a very good portrait of the man (the movie could be much better). It showed all the work he has done and how he has continued to stand up for those and with those who have had no voice or could not stand up for themselves - from the Civil Rights movement to the current Iraq War. In watching it, I wondered what it would be like if Christians had been inthe midst of standing up with Howard Zinn against oppressors? What would a Christian who took the actions of Christ seriously act? Like Howard Zinn?

Second, my beloved Bears are in the Super Bowl. This utterly excites me. However, it is also exciting that this Super Bowl will have two black head coaches. This is the first time that one black coach has coached in the Super Bowl (and we have two). To me, this is significant. Oftentimes there is still a certain amount of racial profiling that happens, where people assume that blacks play while whites coach/run the team/etc. And generally, this is how it goes (for wrong in my opinion) - just look at college football, where there are nearly no black coaches. However, these two men show that black coaches are just as capable. It also allows people who normally do not, black people in positions of leadership and authority - which is positive. Whether we like to admit it or not, the U.S. still has much racism to overcome (see Bonilla-Silva's book Racism without Racists).

One more note on the Super Bowl - I hope the Bears destroy the Colts...I really do. However, I hope that someone, some media person covers the story of the year that Tony Dungy has had. About a year ago, his son committed suicide. He almost quit coaching because it devastated him so much. Now he is in the Super Bowl. It could never replace his son, but Dungy has overcome a lot.

Peace.

Why I Don't Vote

Yes, you read the title correctly. I don't vote. At least, I don't vote right now. I won't vote on November 7. I'd like to give you the reasons why I don't vote. This should be fun.

When I got the right to vote in 1998, my pastor, youth leaders, teachers told me that I had to vote. It was a necessity. That the fate of the world depended on my slip of paper. I took that seriously. I really did. I voted. I cast my ballot, even when I didn't know who I was casting a ballot for. I voted because that was what I had to do.

Then, in 2000 something happened to me. I saw that my vote did not really count. No, really, my vote did not count. I, surprisingly enough, voted for Ralph Nader. (Or, at least, I tried to vote for Ralph Nader - but in Indiana, Nader was not allowed on the ticket for whatever reason. So, to vote for Ralph Nader required me filling out a write-in vote. This was a large hassle.) The only two people that anyone else knew was running was George W. Bush and Al Gore. Surprisingly enough, Al Gore won the election - he got the most votes. But then there was that whole debacle with Florida and it ended up that while Al Gore got the most votes, George W. Bush got the most electoral college votes. So, it did not matter who voted for Gore - GW got the most electoral college (the most of the right kind of votes) and therefore, he's the winner.

My vote did not count. And if you voted, neither did yours.

In 2004, I was faced with a different dilemna. I realized that my vote did not count. However, I still saw it as imperative to participate in this structure by voting. So, I started to do my research and try and figure out who to vote for. When I did this, I realized something. Our democracy necessarily cuts off conversation in elections. Leading up to election time, pollsters and government officials and candidates tell the general public what they should find important. These things then become important and it works out nicely. Also, the only people that are really given a voice are Republicans and Democrats - the people with the most money. Anyone else that may have an opinion or an answer or a voice is disregarded. They are not allowed in the debates, they do not get TV adds or newspaper ads. I began to realize that our democracy is set up to elect the rich and keep the rich in power.

Then I looked at the two candidates being touted. One was a white guy from Texas with lots of oil money and who used to own the Texas Rangers. The other was a guy who married a rich woman who owns Heinz Ketchup. Yes, it was the battle of the white, Ivy league rich guys. And the answers being proposed by these guys were answers and solutions to problems that only mattered to them. They were only talking about those things that they thought could get them elected. And, they were not allowing other people to participate.

Then I got it. Our democracy necessarily shuts people out. People are excluded just because they are not the right kind of people or do not belong to the right party.

(People will argue that this is not really a democracy, but a republic. Ok, fine. But, it still operates under the notion that people are democratically elected).

At this point I started to think about what I should do. I mean, I had to vote. Then I realized that in a true democracy people should willfully choose not to vote. I realized that everyone refused to participate in the system, the system would have to reform, right? It's obviously corrupt and going nowhere, doing very little good, so I don't participate.

I have made a democratic choice to cast a (non)vote in favor of reform and dialogue. I refuse to continue to allow the system to exclude people and ideas and to not count my vote.

Something I found ironic after the 2004 election was that media outlets touted the great American way of going to the polls for the highest voter turnout in decades. The turnout was right around 60% of registered voters. That means 40% did not participate for whatever reason. No one said this. But there is a real problem here. When 40% of American voters do not want to participate in the system, shouldn't the system begin asking why. Not ours - we applaud ourselves for getting 60% out to the polls - in record numbers.

New Life

I would like to announce that on September 21, 2006 at 7:46pm, my wife gave birth to Broderick Mark Neidig Crawford (nickname of Brody). He was 8lbs, 9oz. and 20 1/2 inches long. He is absolutely beautiful.

I would love to go into a long discourse on how amazing new life is, but it would be useless. Until you experience it, there's no explaining it. He's beautiful, the process was beautiful, new life is beautiful. I offer that.