I'm settling back into seminary life, a good deal more refreshed now. I actually feel excited about learning again - which is good, because I have a lot of it to do. I signed up at the last minute for the class "Christian Encounters with World Religions," dropping Systematic Theology II. This class will meet M-F from 8 to noon starting next Monday for a week and a half, and I need to have all of the reading done beforehand. It should be interesting; it's focusing on what happens when Christianity is introduced into regions that hold to other religions (hence the title of the course), with different views on what should be done.
I read a book by Shuusaku Endou called Silence which is a novel concerning a 17th century Portuguese missionary in Japan. It was a very good book that brings out the struggles and turmoil of the missionary and the people, though I don't agree with the ideology presented by Endou at the end. Despite this reservation, throughout the book the point was more the struggle that the missionary had rather than what the answer to that struggle was, and even the answer Endou used gave some food for thought.
This is in contrast to Jesus and the Muslim by Kenneth Cragg, which I did not care for too much. (Warning: rant ahead, skip to next paragraph to avoid.) The stated point was to look at Jesus in the Qu'ran and Islamic tradition (which was interesting) and compare this portrait to that of Jesus in the New Testament and Christianity. Unfortunately, I think I recognized this image less than the Islamic one. It wasn't just that Cragg wrote about a "unitarian liberal" Jesus, it was that he implied that this was the historic, orthodox view, fitting with both the New Testament (as intended by the authors) as well as Christian tradition, including the creeds. Now, the study of Jesus in theologically liberal Christianity as compared with Islamic tradition is an interesting study, and if this had been the stated intent I would have probably been much happier with the book. But to say that the authors of the New Testament actually meant that the Resurrection was purely symbolic (without addressing the claims of eyewitnesses to it), as well as engaging in other questionable exegesis to bring out naturalistic views? What particularly boggles me is that Cragg has no problem affirming a God who works in history and can do whatever he wants, but cannot accept the possibility of miracles in any form. It was somewhat comforting, though, to see that I really have as little to fear from theologically liberal Biblical scholarship as I have read in places like Plantinga. I'm also glad that I had already read God Crucified by Richard Bauckham and thus had a grasp on how strongly the New Testament does point to the divinity of Christ. (Good book in New Testament scholarship, btw - I may do a post on it sometime.)
Ok, I have that rant off of my chest now. It needs to be here, because I'll have to be nice on my book review that I turn into class. I'm thinking about building another blog or website to house philosophical arguments with which I am working, as well as a site to place research material I've found and other sources on some topics. Maybe I won't scare away as many people from this blog then? (listens to crickets chirping.) I guess I can't complain too much about perceived lack of readership - I'm horrible about posting on other people's blogs myself, though I still enjoy reading what is happening with them and what they are thinking. Anyhow, it's time to talk to Joy now :-D, so signing out...
Oh, I almost forgot the new "random quote" section. For this blog's quote, said after a bad introduction to a person who had been a potential date, "that was the worst trainwreck since Origen's soteriology."
