{"id":16132,"date":"2018-01-25T18:44:12","date_gmt":"2018-01-26T02:44:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dminlgp\/?p=16132"},"modified":"2018-01-25T18:44:12","modified_gmt":"2018-01-26T02:44:12","slug":"just-play-with-us","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/just-play-with-us\/","title":{"rendered":"“JUST PLAY WITH US!”"},"content":{"rendered":"

I feel a little star struck.\u00a0 It was a joy to interact with the author himself, Dominic Erdozain, on our Cape Town advance. It\u2019s even more intimidating to prepare for a synchronous discussion where I need to sound informed.\u00a0 Just as Dominic\u2019s children pleaded after his time intensive writing efforts (\u201cJUST PLAY WITH US!) I, too, was ready for a cognitive break after applying reading techniques included in How to Read a Book, The Classic Guide to Intelligent Reading<\/em>\u201d by Mortimer Adler and Charles Van Doren.\u00a0 Dominic Erdozain\u2019s text, The Soul of Doubt: The Religious Roots of Unbelief from Luther to Marx<\/em> was a challenging read.\u00a0 The content for this non-Theologian (yes, I claimed to be a Theologian after reading Grenz and Olson Who Needs Theology <\/em>but now I\u2019m not so sure) was difficult to process and synthesize since I don\u2019t have extensive theology background.\u00a0 I was inspired to learn that David Bebbington (author of Evangelicalism In Modern Britain <\/em>and renowned expert on evangelicalism) commented on some of Erdozain\u2019s individual chapters.\u00a0 Nevertheless, here\u2019s my attempt at an educated response to what some reviewers deemed as \u201chelpful,\u201d \u201celectrifying and potent,\u201d and \u201ca real gift\u201d.<\/p>\n

\u201cModernity is a war of religious ideas, not a war on them.\u00a0 Like almost every figure quoted in this study, Marx criticized Christian cultures for not being Christian enough.\u00a0 Secularization was an accusation before it was an aspiration.\u201d[1]<\/a> Dissecting secularization and its impact on morality is a theme throughout Erdozain\u2019s text.\u00a0 According to dictionary.com, secularization is defined as \u201cto make secular; separate from spiritual connection or influences; make worldly or unspiritual.\u201d In my search for a gem of wisdom, this statement written by a reviewer resonated \u201cModernity, it is argued, is therefore not primarily concerned with the disintegration of religious ideals; rather, it is characterized by the internalization and practical value of those very ideals. In the end, religion is not a detached intellectual concern; rather, it is a matter of how love is directed or misdirected.\u201d[2]<\/a> I think most would agree that the application<\/em> of love is an ever-present concern today, especially with regards to refugees.\u00a0 Clearly the refugee dissidence is leaning towards a secular paradigm rather than a paradigm of love.<\/p>\n

The scale of the perceived and\/or real economic, social, and cultural problems regarding refugees coming to or living in the United States seems overwhelming. Christians are often at the core of this debate in regards to their belief in the value (or lack thereof) of globalization and the fear of integration of persons of different culture and religious faiths to this country.\u00a0 What, then, can biblical theology and Christ\u2019s teachings hope to contribute to these complex debates? The question is a challenging one for faith communities, even with the separation of church and state.\u00a0 Conservative Christians are guilty of leaning on the secular arguments of \u201ceconomics\u201d, \u201cit\u2019s not our responsibility\u201d or \u201cthey (the refugee) could be dangerous\u201d while left leaning (and even some agnostics or atheists) may have better expression of love through a justice paradigm.\u00a0 The most fundamental ethical issues turn on human dignity, regardless of race, religion or any other identity markers of those who are seeking asylum.[3]<\/a> One thing is certain, there will be a day of reckoning\u2026and we (as individuals and as a country), will need to speak to our beliefs and actions on the care and concern extended to refugees.<\/p>\n

While there were extensive positive reviews of Erdozain\u2019s writing, two critics (Dr Charlotte Methuen and Vincent P. Pecora) were harsh: \u201cOnce again, Erdozain\u2019s insistence that doubt must be rooted exclusively in conscience seems as overly simplistic as the suggestion that doubt arose from a clash between science and religion.\u201d[4]<\/a> and \u201cThere are some deeper problems here as well. Erdozain\u2019s notion of \u201cconscience\u201d depends on a crypto-normativity. In general, as in the young mystical Luther, a cast of mind that leads to an assertion of the rights of the individual in the face of repressive religious hierarchies is celebrated by Erdozain as a beneficial expression of conscience.\u201d[5]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 Erdozain eloquently defends his text to Dr. Methuen and speaks to his intentions in this rebuttal \u201cBut I am suggesting that, within such a confluence, we can distinguish currents of moral and theological dissent and it is these that fall most destructively upon some central Christian doctrines.\u201d [6]<\/a><\/p>\n

How do I most significantly connect with this text?\u00a0 Unlike Methuen who states \u201cErdozain has made a fascinating contribution to understanding the religious and theological context of the rise of secularism, but conscience too is not the whole story,\u201d[7]<\/sup><\/a> I see the intrinsic and extrinsic value in exploring the moral and theological dissent regarding conscious, Christian doctrine, and the matter of how love is directed or misdirected.\u00a0 I think the relevance of this discussion is timely \u2013 Refugee tension manifests in many forms including public policy, program funding, laws, individual and societal attitudes, political party, and at the core – people\u2019s hearts to love others.\u00a0 What\u2019s fascinating and sad about this tension is that Christian Americans can be found leading the dissention\u2026a dissention that has been present for thousands of years.\u00a0 Today\u2019s churches have taken the comfortable path to love (and some will argue that it\u2019s not even comfortable) \u2013 feed the homeless at the food pantry, mentor a low-income child at the school, love your fellow church members (even if they are difficult).\u00a0 But God discusses a far more radical love that would require us to step outside of our comfort zone and take great risk.[8]\u00a0<\/a>\u00a0He said, \u201cCome.\u201d So Peter got out of the boat and walked on the water and came to Jesus. <\/em>Matthew 14:29<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> Erdozain, Dominic. The Sould of Doubt: The Religious Roots of Unbelieve from Luther to Marx. <\/em>loc5642<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Soul-Doubt-Religious-Unbelief-Luther\/dp\/0199844615<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> http:\/\/www.abc.net.au\/religion\/articles\/2015\/10\/02\/4323707.htm<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> Dr Charlotte Methuen, review of\u00a0The Soul of Doubt: the Religious Roots of Unbelief from Luther to Marx<\/em>, (review no. 2031). DOI: 10.14296\/RiH\/2014\/2031<\/p>\n

[5]<\/a> Vincent P. Pecora; DOMINIC\u00a0ERDOZAIN.\u00a0The Soul of Doubt: The Religious Roots of Unbelief from Luther to Marx<\/em>.,\u00a0The American Historical Review<\/em>, Volume 122, Issue 4, 1 October 2017, Pages 1300\u20131301,\u00a0https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/ahr\/122.4.1300<\/a><\/p>\n

[6]<\/a> http:\/\/www.history.ac.uk\/reviews\/review\/2031<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> Dr Charlotte Methuen, review of\u00a0The Soul of Doubt: the Religious Roots of Unbelief from Luther to Marx<\/em>, (review no. 2031). DOI: 10.14296\/RiH\/2014\/2031<\/p>\n

[8]<\/a> Bass, Diana Butler, A People\u2019s<\/em> History of Christianity: The Other Side of the Story\u00a0<\/em>(NewYork: HarperOne, 2009)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I feel a little star struck.\u00a0 It was a joy to interact with the author himself, Dominic Erdozain, on our Cape Town advance. It\u2019s even more intimidating to prepare for a synchronous discussion where I need to sound informed.\u00a0 Just as Dominic\u2019s children pleaded after his time intensive writing efforts (\u201cJUST PLAY WITH US!) I, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":99,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[1111],"class_list":["post-16132","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-erdozain","cohort-lgp8"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16132","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/99"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=16132"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16132\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":16133,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16132\/revisions\/16133"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16132"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16132"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16132"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}