When we go to the poor embodying the proclamation that, yes, they are forgiven, they are embraced they are beloved by God — even now, already, at this very moment — then perhaps they will find it in their hearts to forgive us for our apathy and for all that we have taken from them.
The problem is that we have been inclined to view ourselves as the forgiven — instead of as those in need of forgiveness — and we have made God's free offer of forgiveness conditional. Instead of proclaiming, “God has forgiven you!” we have said, “God will forgive you if…”. Instead of saying, “Please, forgive us!” we have said, “Clean up your act and we'll put up with you on Sundays.” And in this way we go from being lights to the world to being fires that burn ourselves and those around us.
Lord, forgive us, and help us to know that we cannot ask for forgiveness from a crucified Lord without seeking forgiveness from the crucified people of today.
"Project Civil City"
Recently the Mayor's Office of Vancouver launched a new “major initiative” entitled Project Civil City (cf. http://www.mayorsamsullivan.ca/pdf/project-civil-city.pdf). This initiative, which is a part of Vancouver's gearing up to host the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games, has four major goals. It aims to (and I quote):
(1) Eliminate homelessness, with at least a 50% reduction by 2010.
(2) Eliminate the open drug market on Vancouver's streets, with at least a 50% reduction by 2010.
(3) Eliminate the incidence of aggressive panhandling with at least a 50% reduction by 2010.
(4) Increase the level of public satisfaction with the City's handling of public nuisance and annoyance complaints by 50% by 2010.
In this post, I want to focus on goal (3).
As a part of gathering research for this document the Mayor's Office initiated a public survey (to which 2469 people responded). Question #4 of this survey reads as follows:
Please indicate which of the following public disorder issues are of most concern to you (check all that apply):
Littering
Aggressive panhandling
Sleeping/camping in public parks or on beaches
Noise infractions (e.g. loud motorcycles, stereos, car alarms)
Open drug use in public places
Graffiti and tagging
Cyclists not wearing helmets
Public urination/defecation
Excessive garbage on streets and in alleyways
Jaywalking
Other
The issue that was of the most concern to the most people (2058 people, or 83.35%) was “aggressive panhandling” and of those who then went on to discuss this issue in more open-ended questions (only 17% of those surveyed) only 22% expressed the “sentiment” (yes, that is the word used in the document) that the Mayor's office should look to the “root causes” of this issue. Now, I find this troubling for a number of reasons.
First of all, it baffles me that “aggressive panhandling” is a greater concern for our city than, say, people sleeping in public places (of course, given the past and current approaches taken by City Hall to issues of homelessness, I would be hesitant to check the box beside people sleeping in public, lest City Hall use this as an excuse to start ticketing, or jailing, people who sleep outside — a strategy employed, not that long ago, by New York City cops… and Vancouver seems to be keen to follow in NY's footsteps — so the survey, like most surveys, is a bit of a catch-22). However, the fact that so many people are keen to reduce “aggressive panhandling” while so few are interested in getting to the root of the issue, suggests to me that the motive here is not so much concern for the people panhandling as it is a desire to just get those people out of my face.
Secondly, I am concerned as to what exactly constitutes “aggressive” panhandling. Not that long ago Vancouver followed in the footsteps of Toronto and passed “The Safe Streets Act” (cf. http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20041005/motionb1.htm). Now this act actually has very little to do with making the streets “safe” but it does have a whole lot to do with removing poverty from the public eye and with furthering the distance between the rich and the poor. This Act determines that panhandling is “aggressive” when it occurs too close to a bus stop, a bank machine, a public toilet, a parking lot, or if the person being solicited is in a car. Furthermore, simply asking a person for change can be determined as an act of “aggression,” and having a sign that asks for change can also be considered “aggressive” and those who engage in such acts can be ticketed (I know one youth in Toronto who racked up $850 in tickets at various downtown locations over a three hour period — because he was trying to get together enough money to buy lunch. Not only did he not end up with enough money for lunch, he also ended up with an astronomical bill that he couldn't hope to pay). Thus, by using the rhetoric of “aggression,” the police and “concerned citizens” (like downtown businesses) can effectively target all panhandlers.
Thirdly, I don't really understand what the big deal is with panhandlers that do end up being more genuinely “aggressive” than others. The most commonly cited case in this regard — and the case that was used to propel Toronto's and Vancouver's “Safe Street” Acts into being — is the case of “squeegie kids” — teens that would wash the windshields of cars stopped at traffic lights in order to earn some change (I know a number of kids who liked to do this because it gave them at least a semblance of dignity — they were working for their money instead of just, in the words of one of my friends, “begging like some bum”). Now it is true that some of these people could get a bit aggressive, they would start washing your windshield before you had a chance to say no. But here's the thing — I don't know a single person in sales who isn't trained to operate “aggressively.” When I worked at a fast food restaurant (ah, those were the days), we were trained to do all sorts of things to make extra money — if the customer asked for a burger, we asked if they wanted cheese on it, or if they wanted a combo. If they wanted a combo we asked if they wanted to biggie size. And then we asked them if they wanted an apple pie for dessert. It's the same in clothing stores. Clerks are encouraged to try and sell more and sell more expensive items. We all know this happens. Yet if a homeless kid acts this way we get a city up in arms, supporting initiatives like Project Civil City. If we're ticketing panhandlers then why aren't we ticketing fast-food chains or retail stores or pretty much anybody else who is trying to make money?
So, all in all, I can't say that I'm that thrilled by this new initiative (I may comment further on the other goals in future posts). Instead of being a step in the trajectory of genuine transformation and care, it is a step that continues the well established routine of City Hall persecuting the poor in order to gain the approval of the wealthy and of corporate business.
Furthermore, that this should be associated with the Olympics comes as no surprise. As noted by a sociologist in Toronto, hosting the Olympics constantly benefits the rich while furthering the oppression of the poor within the host cities (cf. http://mostlywater.org/node/9954). I saw something of this first-hand when Toronto was engaged in bidding for the 2008 Olympics. When the International Olympic Committee (IOC) came to Toronto, the Toronto police went around to all the places where youth were sleeping outside, they gathered up the kids, built a few bonfires, burned all the belongings that were present at the squats (I knew one 16 year old girl who owned only a backpack that contained a picture of her grandparents, a sketchbook, and the teddy bear that she had owned since she was a young girl… and all these things were thrown into the fire), and then packed the kids off to jail. Then, after the IOC left town, the youth were simply kicked back out onto the streets (only this time with no belongings). Thus, as Vancouver gears up to become a more “civil” Olympic host city, I suspect that things will only get worse for those on the margins.
Hard Words from John Wesley: Confronting <i>my</i> Materialism
I remember Wesley's old saying, “If I should die with more than ten pounds, may every man call me a liar and a thief,” for he would have betrayed the gospel.
~ quoted by Shane Claiborne in The Irresistible Revolution.
I've been thinking about materialism a bit these days. No, no, not just the general materialism of our society (who is not thinking about that? Being anti-materialism is hot these days!), but I've been thinking about my materialism — about the number of books I own, about the CDs I just bought, and so on and so forth. I find that this line of thinking is less popular than general critiques of “the materialistic West,” and it's easy to understand why. Because it requires me to start living differently and less “comfortably” (although, perhaps, more freely).
As I have been thinking about my possessions, I have also been thinking about how the Christian life is a life that should be lived along the lines of a certain trajectory. I call this trajectory the road of cruciform love — the road of the cross. Now, this road should impact all areas of our life. Following the road of cruciform love has just as much to do with how I spend my money, as it has to do with how I make my money. However, like any journey, it takes a number of steps along the way to get to the cross. Jesus didn't start on the cross, but he did take concrete steps along the way that anticipated that goal, and ensured that he ended up there. Similarly, we don't have to force ourselves to try and live as we will at the end of the road — but we do need to take steps right now that anticipate that goal, and ensure that we get there.
And so, as I think of these things in light of my materialism, this is what I hope to do. I hope, in conjunction with an intentional Christian community, to map out a road that would see all of the members arrive at a place where they no longer have personal possessions (except, perhaps, the clothes that they wear). Of course, within a community house it is easy to simply give one's possessions to the community house (and thereby not really lose anything). So I would also like to, with that community, map out the ways in which the community can live together simply. Of course, because I am not yet in that type of community, there are still steps I can take to make that transition easier. I can begin to scale back what I already own, and I can read more books from the library, instead of buying them all.
I suppose that that's about where my thinking is at on this subject these days. Suffice to say that I feel a great amount of dis-ease in relation to the amount of things that I own, and I would like to pursue another way of living. I would be curious to hear about steps that any of my readers take to confront their materialism (and not just the materialism of our general culture).
Well, as long as I'm asking "Why?" questions, I might as well ask this one…
I have often wondered about the accolades that go to actors in Hollywood for playing certain roles. Two examples come to immediately to mind: Felicity Huffman was recently widely applauded for her portrayal of a pre-op male-to-female (MTF) transgendered person in the movie Transamerica and, not so long ago, Tom Hanks won an Oscar for his portrayal of a man with a mental disability in Forest Gump. Thus, in the first instance, we have a woman portraying a person born male who is transitioning to being a female, and in the second case who have a person with a normal intelligence, portraying a person with a “low IQ.”*
This then is my question: why wouldn't the movie studies hire an actual pre-op MTF person to play the first role, and an actual person with a mental disability to play the second role? There are, after all, aspiring actors who possess these characteristics. I wonder what this says about Hollywood's (and, by extension, popular culture's) attitude to people with these characteristics. Is it possible that, even as we produce movies that are intended to increase audience sensitivity to certain issues, we are actually promoting the marginalization of said individuals?
Now I realize that acting is about entering into the role of a fictional character and thereby becoming somebody or something that you are not. I mean, I don't expect Hollywood to only film soldiers as soldiers, or doctors as doctors, or whatever. However, there is something about the first two examples that irks me. Perhaps another example might help explain this. Imagine, if you will, a white actor being hired to portray a black hero — say Brad Pitt is hired to play Martin Luther King Jr. Now, do we think that Pitt would be widely applauded for playing this role? I suspect not. Indeed, I suspect that there would be a rather large outcry from the black community. I suspect that hiring Pitt to play that role would be seen as (at best) highly insensitive, and (at worst) as blatantly racist. Heck, I suspect that Pitt, and any other white actor, wouldn't touch that role with a ten foot pole.
Thus, when we read our first two (real) examples in light of this (fictional) example, my suspicion is that similar complaints have been voiced by the transgendered community, and by the community of people with disabilities — but I suspect that they, by and large, lack media attention and lobbying power in Hollywood and so those complaints have gone unheard.
I suppose I will have to ask my friends who are involved in those communities what they think about these things. I would, however, be curious to hear what any readers think about this (if y'all even care).
_________
* I also wonder a little bit about the way in which Hollywood seems to be enamoured by “beautiful” people playing “ugly” roles. After all, both Hillary Swank (in Boys Don't Cry) and Charlize Theron (in Monster) were awarded Oscars for playing characters that required them to disguise their beauty. Would more “ugly” women have received such accolades if they had portrayed these characters convincingly?
Why Feminism (and not other elements of liberation theology)?
It has sometimes been remarked that feminist theology and exegesis has had a more lasting and widespread impact upon the Western Church and Christian Academy than other expressions of liberation theology. For example, most theological journals now require that submissions consistently employ gender-inclusive language, and professors generally make a point of requiring the same in the writing of their students.
This, then, leads me to this question: why has feminism had a more widespread and lasting impact than the other forms of liberation theology? To (almost comically) pick up on our prior example, I know of no major theological journals that list “solidarity with the poor” as a requirement, and I know of few professors who require this of their students (although, to be fair, I have encountered a few profs who have strongly encouraged [to put it mildly] their students to live in that way). Why is it that the more economic elements of liberation never achieved any major influence over the Christian Academy? Why does Latin American liberation theology feel so passe?
Surely it is not because the quality of scholarship is any different. Far from it. The writings of Gutierrez, Sobrino, Arias and the Boff brothers is just as rigourous (and sometimes significantly more so), than the writings of Ruether, Schussler-Fiorenza, Daly, and Trible.
Perhaps an argument could be made that the difference is that other streams of liberation theology are just too contextual. Thus, this argument would suggest, feminist theology achieves a broader influence because women are everywhere, whereas Dalit Theology has trouble spreading beyond India because the caste system doesn’t exist in America, and Latin American liberation theology has trouble spreading north because we live in a very different world. However, I think that this argument must also be rejected. Why? Because the essential elements of liberation theology — solidarity with the poor, God’s preferential option, etc. — easily apply in any cultural situation. Gregory Baum has done a fine job of applying those principles in Canada, Jim Wallis used to do a fine job of applying those principles in the United States, and Jurgen Moltmann has done a fine job of applying those principles in Europe.
So why feminism and not these other expressions? Well, there are two major reasons why I believe feminism achieved a wider influence upon the Christian Academy.
The first is that feminism was already achieving success as a broader cultural movement within the West. In this regard, the Church and the Christian Academy, simply did what they have done so many times before — followed on the coat-tails of cultural change. A book recently published by one of my professor’s is a fine example of this. It is entitled Finally Feminist and it argues that, although God does not desire feminism at all times and in all places, God now desires feminism within the cultural milieu of the West (now I find this approach to feminism to be hugely problematical… but I am torn. Given the influence that this prof has upon Canadian Evangelicals, I’d rather see him “finally feminist” than not feminist at all). Although the Church’s tendency to follow the trends of whatever culture is dominant has generally had an, IMHO, negative impact upon the Church, this could be viewed as one of those times when the Spirit moved within the culture in order to speak prophetically to the Church (and the Christian Academy).
However, the second reason why I believe that other elements of liberation theology have not had as significant an impact as feminism is because, quite simply, they seem to require a more costly transformation in the way in which we live. To write with gender-inclusive language doesn’t cost me anything. To be taught by a female prof doesn’t cost me any more than being taught by a male prof. Heck, even if women get paid the same amount as I do, I’m still making the same amount of money that I made before. The average Christian in the Academy can, by and large, embrace feminism through a shift in rhetoric — and not a very large shift in the way in which he or she lives.
To embrace other forms of liberation theology would be far more costly. If I take liberation theology seriously I may have to move out of my comfortable home and into a far less comfortable neighbourhood. To embrace liberation theology means that I may have to study, teach, and write, with the objectives of reconciliation and shalom in mind — and those lie outside of the realm of my “expertise.” And it may force me to enter into relationships with people who don’t even speak the same language as the Academy, and people who don’t give a rip about defining an “inaugurated eschatology,” or an “Ausgustinian ecclesiology.” These people might not even care that I have a PhD in Theology, and they might even jeopardize the safety of my person and my family. No, no. Gender-inclusive language, well, I can handle that. Solidarity with those on the margins? No way, man, that’s not my calling or my gifting.
However, the surprising lack of impact that liberation theology, in general, has made upon the Western Church and the Christian Academy, should also cause us to reconsider the so-called advances of feminism. You see, my suspicion is that, just as with the rest of Western society, most people have adopted the rhetoric of feminism, without adopting the praxis thereof. This then leads to a situation where it is that much more difficult to attain to the feminist goals, because everybody thinks we’re already there!
However, at least on a cultural level, the stats suggest otherwise. Look up the stats re: violence against women in the home, the sexual trafficking and enslavement of women, and the sexual assault of women. Furthermore, look at the ways in which the police, the courts, and even the hospitals treat women. These things come together to paint a very bleak picture indeed. Most of the stats have gone up, not down (note: some have suggested that this is so because women now feel more empowered to report offences; however, although I don’t really want to get into a technical discussion here, I find that argument quite unconvincing).
Within Christian circles the same tends to hold true. Granted, my school affirms the equality of men and women — but women are a striking minority in the teaching and leadership positions. Further, to simply adopt the rhetoric of feminism, without also moving in the role of advocacy, seems especially hollow. While the Christian Academy has done a good job of changing its language, it has, generally, done hardly anything in terms of advocacy. Likewise, on another level, it seems that the most significant thing that has changed in the area of Evangelical Christianity is that the language of “complementarianism” has replaced that of patriarchy — and the end result is the same in both cases.
Thus, by beginning by asking why elements of liberation theology apart from feminism have not had a significant impact upon the Western Church and the Christian Academy, I have ended up with the conclusion that even feminism has not had much of an impact. This is so, I suspect, because we in the West do a fine job of developing theologies that serve our own ends. Christ tells us to love our neighbours as ourselves, but we have ended up thinking that we are loving our neighbours by loving ourselves.
What sort of neighbour am I?
About two weeks ago I was walking to work in the rain and I passed by a homeless man. He was an older fellow (probably in his fifties), standing next to a suitcase and a rolled up sleeping bag. As I went by he asked me for change, but I didn’t have any. I told him so and kept walking. However, he called after me: “Do you have an extra smoke?” I did, so I gave him one. And then he broke down.
He began to cry, and told me about how he had been living in one of the cheap hotels in my neighbourhood, but it was all just too, well, scary. He was heading to the bus station to try and get out of town. But he was so terrified that he didn’t know if he would make it.
It’s hard for me to describe what I saw. Every now and again I have seen, on the faces of people I have encountered, absolute naked despair. I still remember the first time I saw that sort of despair (on the face of a fellow who had just relapsed — again — who came to stay at the shelter I worked at in Toronto). It is a hard thing to behold. It sort of hits you in the chest. Furthermore, I don’t think this man knew the first thing about street life, I think he was just one of those seniors who doesn’t have anybody and ends up falling through the gaps in society (it’s amazing how easily that happens).
Anyway, this grandfather looked at me, his voice cracking, and pleaded: “I’m going to make it right? Right? I can make it?” And so I put my hand on his shoulder, I looked him in the eye, and I told him, “Yes. Yes, you’re gonna make it. The station is just up the straight. You can do this.” And he was so grateful, we seemed to connect, and he seemed to gain some hope from my words. “Okay,” he said with relief. “Okay, I’m gonna make it.”
So then I walked away. I needed to get to work on time and I was feeling pretty good about myself. It was all so… sentimental. But then, later that night, I got to thinking, and I remembered the story Jesus told about the good Samaritan. And I remembered how the religious leaders walked by the dying man because they had places to go, people to see, and deadlines to meet. And I remembered that the one who truly loved his neighbour was the man who stopped and tended to the dying man and took him to a place where he would be safe. And I thought about how I had acted. And I realized that I was not a very good lover of my neighbour. I realized that I pride myself on journeying alongside of those in exile and yet, in this situation, I had completely failed to love my neighbour.
You see, I should have walked with that grandfather to the bus station. I should have bought him a ticket and put him on a bus and called to say I was going to be a few minutes late for work. No ifs, ands, or buts. Of course, by saying this, I don’t mean to suggest that there is no power in speaking affectionate timely words, but Christian love never stops with words alone. Those words must be embodied in actions — and sometimes giving out free cigarettes isn’t nearly action enough.
Since moving into the downtown eastside, I can remember at least two other situations where I realized, after the fact, how I had completely dropped the ball (oddly enough, both of those other situations also occurred when I was walking to work). I have realized that I still have much to learn about what it means to journey alongside of those who are in exile, and much to learn about what it means to love my neighbour in both mundane and unexpected situations.
This is a part of the reason why it’s so important that the Church be rooted on the margins of society. It is our day-to-day involvement in such places that reveals our blind-spots to us. We need to have these encounters in the midst of our mundane routines so that we can learn, more and more, how to move into ever deeper intimacy with God and with his beloved (yet broken) creation. And we need to learn this as a community. Because I can be a slow learner at times, and others will have learned something before me. When we go it alone then who knows how many people will suffer because we are slow to learn what love means in this or that situation. Because I don’t know if that grandfather made it to the bus station or not.
Holy Spirit, teach me to love. Teach your Church to love. And, even though it seems like you often do not, please care for those we fail to love. Amen.
Blog of the Month
Well, apparently my blog has been nominated as the December “blog of the month” over at Theology Blogs (cf. http://theologyblogs.blogspot.com/). I am, of course, delighted (and a wee bit surprised) to find myself in such good company, and I now expect all of my readers to accept everything that I say as gospel truth.
Found
All who have been praying, and all who have emailed me to inquire about the status of Jane Doe (cf. my last post), will be delighted to know that I found her down at her regular spot yesterday. She is healthy and well and will be coming to dinner this week.
Thanks be to God.
A Prayer for the Lost Sheep and a Plea for Help
Since we moved into the downtown eastside at the end of August, my housemates and I have been hosting an “open meal” every Friday. Basically, we invite pretty much anybody and everybody — be they people from school, from church, or from the street corner — over for a big meal and we count on the holy Spirit to show up and bond us together in love, just as we count on Jesus to show up and host the meal (in this way we hope to — at least a little bit — recover something of the sacramental nature of the meals Jesus shared during his ministry, and we also hope, in these meals, to embody the proclamation of the forgiveness of sins and the reconciliation of people with God and with one another). Over this time we have always had one woman (let’s call her Jane Doe) come every week. Time after time, Jane was sure to be there. It became, she told us, the highlight of her week. Over the last few months we fell in love with Jane and, marvelously, she also fell in love with us — no small feat for a woman who has been continually rejected and wounded by Christians because she is a prostitute who happens to be gay and who also happens to be Wiccan.
Jane’s life has not been easy and yet, all things considered, she has accomplished some amazing things. Like working in the sex trade for 25 years (ages 18-43 and counting) and not becoming addicted to any drug whatsoever. Like living past the age of 40 when that is the average age of death for female prostitutes in Vancouver. Like valuing herself enough that she refuses to drop her price — even though the addicts that she has seen overtake the neighbourhood have driven prices down to amounts that cannot sustain a life, amounts that can only sustain a life-destroying addiction. Like maintaining her own place — even if it is a single room in a shitty hotel. Like working for herself and not for a pimp. Like teaching us some of the joys and wonders of opening our home to people that are usually rejected by Christians.
But then, last Friday, Jane never showed up for dinner. And so, over the week, my housemates and I would walk down to the corner she works to look for her, to try and find her and make sure that she was alright — because prostitutes tend to “disappear” all too often and all too easily in this neighbourhood (cf.: http://www.missingpeople.net/vancouver_missing_women.htm. See also this page for what tends to happen to “disappeared” women: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Pickton — is there any way to view these pages without weeping?). We were hoping that maybe she had just forgotten dinner, maybe she had been sick that night, but we never found her. Maybe, we thought, she was staying inside because of the snow and the cold weather. But, once again, last night at dinner, Jane wasn’t there. And all the ways in which we had been reassuring ourselves, ended up sounding pretty hollow.
Jesus tells us to go out and find the lost sheep but sometimes it’s damn hard to find them. I guess this week we’ll be putting up posters, checking the hospitals, and trying to track down her neighbours to see if they’ve seen her. I think we’re all more than a little scared that all these efforts will be futile. Those who get lost here, often stay lost, and those of us who should be out searching, don’t know how to find them.
Lord, have mercy. Teach us, we pray, how to find your lost sheep. We are not very good shepherds and we don’t know how to search out your little ones. Lord, make your Church a true shepherd, a true seeker and finder of lost sheep, because we need all the help we can get out here, and I don’t think our hearts can handle seeing another face added to the “missing women” sheet. Honestly, we don’t know how your heart can handle it. How long will you allow this to continue? This God-damned situation is more than we can bear.
Please, reader, if you pray, take a moment to pray for Jane.
November Books
Well, most of my reading time in November was dedicated to researching a paper that I ended up calling “Christians: neither Pagans, nor Jews. ‘Badges of Membership’ in Paul’s Epistles”. I was considering posting that paper on this blog but I have been encouraged to submit that paper for publication and so I won’t be posting it here (unless it is thoroughly rejected by the journals). So, here are the few books I managed to read this month:
1. The Theology of Paul the Apostle by James D. G. Dunn.
This is an exceptional book, easily the best one I read this month, and quite possibly the best book I have read this year. Using the epistle to the Romans as his outline, Dunn traces the major elements of Paul’s theology. Thus, he moves from exploring God, to humanity (and its indictment), to Jesus, to salvation (both the beginning and the process thereof), to the Church, to ethics. There is so much good material in this book that it is really impossible to do any sort of justice to it in a brief “review” (if you can even call this a “review”). It’s not a book for the faint of heart (weighing in at 700+ pages) but I highly recommend it to any reader interested in NT or Pauline studies. This is the sort of book that is essential to developing a biblical paradigm from within which a person can think and live Christianly.
2. Jesus Before Christianity by Albert Nolan.
I decided to pick this book up because I noticed that Sister Helen Prejean (author of “Dead Man Walking” and, more recently, “The Death of Innocents”) spoke very highly of it on her blog. While Nolan does have some important things to say, and while I appreciated his stress upon the socio-political implications of following Jesus, I can’t say I was altogether that impressed with the book. The problem is that Nolan (like many who were beginning to engage in a a more liberating hermeneutic in the 1970s) tends to minimize the more “religious,” “mystical” or “miraculous” elements of Jesus and his ministry in order to make his point. Exegesis since then (and, to a certain degree, before then) has suggested that there is no need to posit an either-or about these things. Jesus as the religious figure goes hand-in-hand with Jesus as the social radical, and to divide the two (as Nolan and those both before and after him have often done) is not very helpful or very faithful to Jesus and Jesus’ context. Of course, maybe I’ve just been spoiled because I had already read Jimmy Dunn’s Jesus Remembered and Tom Wright’s Jesus and the Victory of God (I still maintain that Wright’s book is the book to read about Jesus).
3. Ludwig Wittgenstein: A Memoir by Norman Malcolm.
Malcolm was a student and lifelong friend of Wittgenstein. This is his reflections upon his time with Wittgenstein, it records some of his personal conversations with Wittgenstein and this edition contains the complete collection of letters that Malcolm received from Wittgenstein (some of which are quite insightful and even humourous). This book is useful for gathering biographical information on Wittgenstein, placing him within his context, and getting a glimpse of his personality.
4. Death in Venice and Seven Other Stories by Thomas Mann.
I really want to like short stories. However, for some reason, I have a heckuva time getting into this genre of literature. It doesn’t matter who I read (for example, I spent some time last year working through Flannery O’Connor’s short stories), I just can’t seem to get all that excited about short stories. Thus, I can’t say I really enjoyed this collection by Thomas Mann. What I need to do is pick up one of his larger works (like Dr. Faustus).
5. My Secret: A Postsecret Book compiled by Frank Warren.
Well, this book isn’t really much of a reading book. It’s more of a picture book — and it’s a great picture book. For those of you who are unfamiliar with postsecret, go here — http://www.postsecret.blogspot.com. I would love to hear your thoughts on what you find there.