The Last Week - Marcus Borg & Dominic Crossan

Last year I blogged my way through the book "The Last Week". It was a turning point for my understanding of the passion of Christ which is NOT his ability to endure pain on the cross (sorry Mel Gibson!). The book does a great job of exploring what Jesus was actually passionate about and why he was executed. I thought I would republish the posts here as I'm reading the book again this Easter season. Of all the posts I've made over the last few years, these posts get the most attention and coverage in the search engines. I recommend this book more than any other book I own. I'll be out of town for a few days, but I hope people will feel free to respond and share their thoughts as holy week approaches.

Holy Week - Palm Sunday
Holy Week - Monday
Holy Week - Tuesday
Holy Week - Wednesday
Holy Week - Thursday
Holy Week - Friday
Holy Week - Saturday
Holy Week - Easter Sunday

The Two Levels of Truth

Buddhism observes reality from two perspectives: the absolute and the relative. From the absolute, or ultimate perspective, the "self" is seen as illusory, as a construction that is empty of inherent, independent existence. But from the relative perspective (the ordinary, everyday, conventional perspective) we see a conventional "self" independent of other people and things. The absolute and the relative are called the two truths, or the two levels of truth.

Kim Boykin in "Zen for Christians" offers this analogy...

If we examine a strip of film, we see lots of small, separate, still pictures in a row. This is the "absolute" view of a movie. When we run that film through a projector at the right speed and aim the projector at a screen, we see one large moving picture. This is the "relative" view of the movie. From the relative perspective, calling it a "movie" or a "motion picture" makes sense, even though the motion is ultimately illusory. The movie is both many small still pictures and also one large moving picture...

When we get a glimpse of the world from the absolute perspective, we begin to realize the illusory quality of "self," and we begin to carry our "selfhood" more lightly. The more fully we realize no-self, the more we are freed from our subjugation to ego-centered attachments and aversions. The "self" may keep on making its possessive and aggressive little demands, but instead of groveling in submission, we can smile in amusement and decide how to act. We are freed to live more joyfully and compassionately."

Slvia Boorstein (who is also a practicing Jew) puts it like this: "Pain is inevitable, but suffering is optional." Suffering is the complication that our egoism constructs around simple pain.

This example is a profound explanation of how our view of the world becomes relative to our "self". We have baggage that exists in the frames of our past memories and anxiety we imagine into the frames in our future. When played full speed in our minds all these frames create an illusion of reality that shapes our present experience. A great deal of Zen practice is slowing down or stopping the projector and dealing with life one frame at a time without the emotional baggage of past memories and future expectations.

This is not to be confused with a self indulgent focus on immediate pleasure. That was my initial impression of the term "present moment" and it is wrong. Instead, it is about generating an attitude of compassion and service that comes from redefining our view of ourselves in relation to other people, our past memories, and our future expectations. The introspective nature of Zen is about removing our attachment to the things that clutter our frames and cloud our view of the world.

Truth

I’ve had several conversations lately about this conflict between literal v. metaphorical truth. I remember how difficult this was for me at first. I learned the bible’s stories as a child and they were magical. But too often churches do not nurture us into a mature faith and we experience a clash of worldviews as our minds mature but our understanding of God hinges on a child’s view of scripture. We are forced to establish mental tricks to somehow reconcile the differences or we give up completely. I believe this is the number one problem in Christianity and many other religions. Religious leadership has been afraid that faith will not survive the maturation process. Just like a little bird that had never flown, I was also afraid of what might happen to my faith if I left the nest. Would I fly or would my faith disappear and let me fall to the ground in despair?

The biggest problem of Christian Theology since the enlightenment is this insistence that the bible’s truths are in its historical accuracy. When we do that we miss its real truth. People will always fight about that history and Emergent forms of faith are helping many people with Evangelical backgrounds (me included) get past that surface level truth.

The deeper meanings of scripture are ideals that allow people of different faith traditions to unite. Only when we get stuck on the surface level of our individual mythologies do we have to battle about which myths are more factual which is silly because the truth has nothing to do with the historical facts. The deep issues are always about the value of community, systematic injustice and character development not doctrine and belief. These truths transcend our traditions. Once this mental light comes on and you see scripture through this metaphorical lens you realize you have been looking for truth in the wrong place. I suspect this is similar to the symbolic light that Paul uses to describe his awakening and repentance experience. He had this experience prior to any scripture or any doctrines about Jesus were formed.

Is the “truth” which is found in Paul’s conversion story really telling us that the only way to become a follower of Jesus is to fall to the ground in literal blindness? Or is it that we need to change our path and “see the light”?

Is the truth found in the Garden of Eden myth the “facts” that the world was made in 6 days and sin started by a conversation with a talking snake? Or is the real truth about our awe of creation, our reach for explanations, and that we are in a constant battle with selfishness, greed, and pride as a barrier to community?

Is the truth of resurrection the literal facts of an empty tomb? Or is the real truth that we say “yes” to the life and message of Jesus despite the fact that the emperors of this world said “no”. Resurrection stories tell us that a life of sacrifice produces eternal value despite the immediate persecution of the empire. These stories demand hope for something better in the future not belief that something happened in the past. They call for our action to resurrect the values of Jesus in our lives not belief in doctrines about what his death means.

The question is not “are the bible stories true?” Of course they are! The important question is – What are these truth-filled stories really telling us?

The Evolution of Faith

I can't help but think about the effect that the Emerging Conversation/Movement has had on keeping my faith alive. This conversation has taken much criticism mainly because its definition and structure is elusive. Knowing that there are Christians struggling with their faith and having the guts to talk openly about their passion and their doubts has helped me make huge steps in building a more robust faith. I'm grateful for authors like Brian Mclaren and the long list of bloggers that have helped me emerge from my Evangelical background without giving up on the idea of faith completely.

I've noticed that "emergents" come in different flavors. I know categorization is not a very post-modern thing to do, but maybe a modern treatment of this group will help some people understand. This categorization is not mine and has been widely published and usually contains 3 categories. I've added a fourth here that I think is important and often overlooked (mostly because it includes me). I'm aware that many would likely prefer to leave out this 4th category, but I feel certain that those who take the movement serious will realize that it is going to be increasingly important.

Group A - "The Relevants" - These have focused on creating relevant worship styles. It was assumed that to reach post moderns we would have to make church "cool" (e.g. coffee, candles, fine art, hip music, ancient liturgical elements, etc.) I've been a part of a couple of these. Church purpose, structure, and doctrine remain very traditional for these people. The changes they suggest are merely surface level.

Group B - "The Reconstructionists" - These are more concerned with the structures and methods of church as a whole, not just with what we do in worship. The house-church movement falls in this category and includes those people that have grown uneasy with the mega-church trend. Often this group incorporates many of the worship and culture changes found of Group A.

Group C - "The Re-Envisionists" - These people are re-envisioning our faith and what the gospel is really all about. There is openness to diverse viewpoints, and a willingness to question traditional assumptions about theology and blur denominational lines. This is where the main criticism often comes as standard doctrines and scriptural interpretation techniques are deconstructed and reconstructed. Many of these people are very vaugue about the level of their deconstruction because they wish to stay under the umbrella of Evangelicalism are not exactly sure how far they are willing to push for change.

Group D (my addition) - "The Inclusivists" - I've added this category to define those of us who have no problem dropping the boundaries and reach beyond the framework of Christianity for help finding language to explain there experience of faith. I hope this growing segment of our society will bring a fresh spirit of pluralism, harmony and even different forms of non-theism or (a)theism to the conversation.

The point of all this is that human faith is emerging (or evolving) and these are some of the characteristics of the spiritual evolutionary process. This is NOT a linear process from A to D and Group D isn't the goal that needs to replace A, B, and C. Just like with the evolution of species, the church is evolving through the process of increasing variation and complexity. Something more distinct and cohesive may eventually emerge out of this process but more likely the results will be many more diverse and more complex forms of faith. The one thing we can be sure of is that it will keep changing. I think this can be healthy for our faith if we can learn to appreciate the diversity and rest in process of transformation that is the nature of God.

Just as humanity can't be seen as the end result of the evolution of species, no denomination or religion can realistically think of itself as the end result of the evolution of faith.

Why have doubt?

In my last post I mentioned 3 elements of a healthy practice which are faith, doubt, and determination. I wanted to follow up with a little more on that subject becaue it may have been unclear how to incorporate doubt in that mix. It is a misconception that the opposite of doubt is faith. Actually I would argue that the opposite of doubt is certainty. Faith is acting in the face of uncertainty so faith needs doubt and certainty eliminates faith. This is the problem with fundamentalism. It is certain of the answers. When belief in theological theories and doctrines become certainty it can destroy lives (the cursades, slavery, countless wars).

- We should have faith in our goals. I would see these goals as the message presented by Jesus which is the kingdom of God. We should have faith that these goals are worth following and not waver in our support.

- We should have determination in our actions so that we follow through to make these goals a reality.

- We should also incorporate a healthy dose of doubt (uncertainty) in our understanding of God (theology). Not doubt in God but doubt in our understanding. This yields a humble accepting "generous orthodoxy" that never becomes boastful or exclusive and always welcomes questions and different perspectives. Doubting your theology means realizing that you may not have all the answers and someone else may have something to offer to the conversation.

It is very telling when fundamentalist balk at the idea of doubt. It proves that they have misplaced their faith in thier own ability to be certain instead of having faith in God which is undefinable and naturally creates a great deal of uncertainty. Certainty is not a good measure of faith and I think you can find that grain of truth in several of Jesus' parables.

Faith, Doubt, and Determination

"We need all three. Great faith, great doubt, and great determination are the legs of the tripod on which our Zen practice stands. Our practice will topple if we're missing one of those legs. The dynamic tension between faith and doubt - between the "already" and the 'not yet' - gives us a reason to practice. Then we just need the determination to practice." Kim Boykin - "Zen for Christians"

I guess most of our problems with religion come from this embalance. Fundamentalists have great faith and great determination but they lack a healthy sense of doubt to foster humility and openness to other possibilities. If you have faith and doubt but lack determination then your faith can become empty intellectualism. If you have doubt and determination but lack faith then you easily fall into Nihilism. I've probably fallen into all three categories at one time or another as I swing from one extreme to another. Balance is something that I'm looking to develop from my journey of faith.

Got Soul?

This week, at the suggestion of fellow blogger and peace enthusiast Michael L. Westmoreland-White, I just finished reading "Bodies and Souls, or Spirited Bodies" by Nancey Murphy. Murphey is professor of Christian Theology at Fuller Theological Seminary. Overall I enjoyed the book. It gives a comprehensive but yet readable summary of the history of human philosophy as it relates to our struggle to understand our "souls" and how that understanding has molded our interpretation of the Gospel.

Murphy makes a very compelling argument for a more modern physicalist approach as opposed to a more traditional dualist philosophy. I echo her understanding and felt comfortable with her reasoning of this approach.

Now, at great risk of oversimplification, I am suggesting that the adoption of a dualist anthropology in the early centuries of the church was largely responsible for changing Christians' conception of what Christianity is basically all about. I am suggesting that original Christianity is better understood in socio-political terms than in terms of what is currently thought of as religious or metaphysical. The adoption of a dualistic anthropology provided something differnt - different from socio-political and ethical concerns - with which Christians became primarily concerned.

Murphy convincingly shows that there is no such thing as "the" anthropology of the Bible or of the Christian tradition and argues the fact that though the Bible seems to teach dualism it is largely a result of poor translations. Once the translations are repaired, "it is hard to find any clear teaching on the metaphysical make-up of the person" in the Bible at all. The Bible has been intepreted in Christian tradition through the lens of dualism, but the Bible is not intended as a defense of dualism but rather an expression how each of the authors and thier communities were searching for God through their own particular paradigm. We should read the Bible in a way that allows us to understand the message without having to adopt their particular ancient world-views.

The only part of the book that I found issue with is that in her conclusion she seemed to take a huge leap about after-life without any explanation for how she arrived there. My guess is that it is something she brings as a "given" based on her religious background or maybe it is just what you have to do to keep a job at a seminary. She allows herself to argue for a modern physicalist view of body/mind but she doesn't allow for the possibility that there is no literal after-life even though her own words hint that the concept may distract our theological and social development. It is interesting to me that she would take so much time and research to deconstruct ancient understanding of our souls but not also look to deconstruct the ideas of after-life that would seem to go hand in hand. It would seem that a critical look at our traditional view of our concept of humanity would also bring a critial look at our traditional view of God.

I think every Christian is always afraid that if they go one more step or ask one more difficult theological question the whole paradigm might crash to the ground and we will be left with no reason for faith. Are we afraid that if we question our understanding of Metaphysical things that God might disappear? I guess at some level is does feel like maybe God is being pushed out of our paradigm, but I tend to view it as a welcome revelation of a much larger picture of God. In my journey (you might call it deconstruction or a critical search) I don't feel that God is being pushed out but that God is being ushered in to replace the narrow idols and misgivings which I have always used to represent the wonder of the universe. I personally don't fear asking that next question. Actually I find it good to let those ideas crash, not for the purpose of destroying faith, but for the purpose of rebuilding a more robust faith on a more solid footing.

Zen for Christians - Clearing the Snow

A snow globe like this is a great analogy for understaing the effects of meditation on our minds. The world keeps shaking up our globes and our minds are constantly cluttered with thoughts. Meditation is the pratice of putting down the globe and letting it settle. Imagine how much more effective our lives (not to mention our prayer and worship experiences) would be if we could settle the snow a little more often.

Critics

I've had many comments here and in person over the last year since I've been more open about sharing my affinity for Buddhism and my very Generous Orthodoxy. Most critics are Christians that have a misconception about what Buddhism really is about. I once thought that Buddhism was "something that could carry people away from Christ". Maybe even something demonic or evil. That seems so silly now that I understand. Since I've studied it in more detail and also studied the Bible in much more detail (not the literalistic approach I was taught as a child), I've realized that Buddhism is NOT something counter to Christ. It uses different language, metaphors, and cultural references but it isn't another way. It is the same way. It isn't a different path leading to the same point. It is a different set of metaphors describing the same path.

Jesus and Paul used different metaphors to describe the same path. Jesus used the metaphor of birth (being born again). Paul used the metaphor of death (dying to self). The Gospel authors often used the metaphor of resurrection. All of those metaphors are pointing to the same thing which is transformation out of selfishness toward otherness/Godness/Christness - moving from a life of pride and individualism to a life of sacrifice and community.

The key in Emergent Christianity is to stop worshiping the particular metaphors which feel like home and start living out the transformation. That is how we learn to see each other as valuable in our own traditions. One thing I've learned in my journey is that you shouldn't let the critics of a group define that group. For example, I wouldn't ask Rush Limbaugh to define liberalism and expect him to capture its essence because the very reason he isn't a liberal is because he doesn't understand liberalism. If he could somehow understand liberalism then he would likely become a liberal.

If you are concerned with my exploration of faith, then please don't express your concern by trying to define something you don't know. If you are really concerned, then dig deep enough to have a conversation by doing some research on your own. But most importantly, don't expect a Baptist Preacher to give you a good summary of Buddhism or Progressive Christianity and I'll try to return the same type of respect for a healthy dialogue.

Republicans in '08

Does anyone find it interesting that the only Republican candidate committed to a single mate for life is the Mormon?

I've never been this excited about watching the political process in America. The primaries are usually boring and uneventful. It will be fun to watch both sides.

Zen and Orthopraxy

Orthopraxy is becoming more of a buzz word in emergent Christianity. We can learn much about shifting our focus away from right beliefs (Orthodoxy) to right practice (Orthopraxy) by looking at Zen philosophy. It is interesting to realize that Buddhists figured this out long ago and cut right through supernatural beliefs to a practical way to practice their faith. I feel like 99% of my time in Christianity has been focused on establishing the correct beliefs about unbelievable things and absorbing misguided interpretations of scripture.

"Zen is not a way to liberation but a way of liberation that manifests our inherent liberation...

...The essence of the Zen way of liberation is not learning or understanding or believing but practice and experience." Kim Boykin - Zen for Christians

The more I incorporate Zen practice into my Christian life, the more I feel liberated to experience the true nature of Christ outside the walls of a church and the confines of systematic doctrines.

(Picture courtesy of my Wife's recent trip to Japan. Thanks Veronica!)

Rev. Bono

Ok, I've never liked U2 and I get tired of preachers that mention Bono so they can boost their cool factor, but this is a great speech that transcends his hollywood rock star ultra-fashion conscience image. If he ever hangs up his designer sunglasses, cuts ties with the fashion/music business and gives up pop music to do more preaching I'll be a big fan. He definately has the chops for it. I hope he also learns that one of the biggest barriers to large scale social justice is the large scale celebration of vanity and materialism.

Zen for Christians

This is a gem of a book by Kim Boykin. At first I thought it would be an attempt to water-down Buddhist philosophy for consumption by Christians. I was wrong. Boykin (a Christian practitioner of Buddhism) does a wonderful job presenting a very solid comprehensive view of Zen philosophy that is crafted through the lens and language of Christianity but does not sacrifice the heart and soul of Zen practice. Many books have been written that compare and contrast the religions, but this book does so much more. It helps Christians feel at ease with incorporating Zen practice into their lives and it also gives very clear simple instructions to begin practicing.

In addition, Boykin provides several of the most articulate explanations of some Buddhist teachings that I've struggled to put in words. I'll be posting more about this book over the coming weeks. I've struggled to find words to explain my attraction to Buddhism over the last year and this book has helped me find the words I need. I highly recommend it to any Christian that may be curious about Buddhism.

Mr. Deity Episode 2: Mr. Deity and the Really Big Favor

This is an incredible Video series. You can view them all on YouTube here.

Religion - Practice not Belief

This morning I was reminded by Velveteen Rabbi about a great book I read last year - "The Spiral Staircase" by Karen Armstrong. It was a deviation for Armstrong as she wrote about her own spiritual journey. Two quotes were striking and both express her encounters with Judaism while she was in Israel preparing a documentary on Paul.

Her encounter with a Jew named Hyam Maccoby:

"No official theology?" I repeated stupidly. "None at all? How can you be religious without a set of ideas -- about God, salvation, and so on -- as a basis?"
"We have orthopraxy instead of orthodoxy," Hyam replied calmly, wiping his mouth and brushing a few crumbs off the table. "'Right practice' rather than 'right belief.' That's all. You Christians make such a fuss about theology, but it's not important in the way you think. It's just poetry, really, ways of talking about the inexpressible."

In Her summary of what she began to understand about Religion:

"You must first live in a certain way, and then you would encounter within a sacred presence that which monotheists call God, but which others have called the Tao, Brahman, or Nirvana...[and] the one and only test of a valid religious idea, doctrinal statement, spiritual experience, or devotional practice was that it must lead directly to practical compassion."

I've always appreciated this approach to spirituality and lately I've come to realize it is rooted in so many of the worlds religions including Judaism.

The Lost Tomb of Jesus...

The discovery channel has just aired an interesting documentary by film maker Simcha Jacobovici about the possible discovery of Jesus' family tomb. In the tomb are the burial chests (small boxes just big enough for the bones of a person) with markings for Jesus the son of Joseph, Mary (possibly his mother), his brothers Matthew and Jose (2 of the Biblical Jesus' brothers), and another box labeled Mary with DNA that does not match Jesus providing a reasonably possibility that it might be his wife.

I began watching this movie with the expectation that it would be bad science looking to cash in on the Easter season. I was surprised to find that the movie was well made and I thought they did a good job of presenting the material as merely hypothetical but in the end, the archaeological, statistical, and DNA evidence was very compelling.

After the movie Ted Koppel aired a horrible follow-up with some lame attempts to paint the film makers in a bad light. He ended up making himself look like an idiot. I found the criticisms to be distasteful. Koppel and a panel of experts felt that adding dramatizations to the film might mislead people and interfere with their ability to make a judgement about the facts. I thought this was a stupid criticism. If film makers are not allowed to make movies that include reenactments of un-provable stories then Charelston Heston could never have parted the red sea and Mel Gibson could never have made his most recent Biblical reenactment of the Crucifixion. I'm sure if you turn on the history channel right now somebody is dramatizing a historical event in a way that can't be 100% certified via DNA or archaeological evidence. Give me a break! If you don't like their hypothesis then prove it wrong or state why you disagree, but don't claim that these people have no right to make their movie. I may not believe this story, but the fact is that there is more scientific evidence to support this theory than either the red sea incident or the actual Crucifixion of Jesus and both those stories have been reenacted thousands of times.

Many times throughout the film it was made clear that the hypothesis may not be correct but they have yet to find any evidence to dis prove the theory. The film makers seemed to be sincerely seeking more research and discussion. What more can you ask of them?

The funniest part of the Koppel analysis was when two of the Christian experts (one a Catholic priest and another a Conservative Christian theologian) both claimed that the film maker's had to have more CRITICAL EVIDENCE before making claims about something being true. Hang on a minute! Doesn't that mean everything they themselves say about Christianity shouldn't be said since it can't be proven to be true? I almost fell off the sofa! What is a bigger stretch for people to believe; A man in the 1st century being married and then buried in a simple tomb or a virgin giving birth and a man being raised from the dead?

I agree that one side of this argument is looking for hard evidence and rational debate while the other side is asking its audience to make huge assumptions about grand theories with no evidence. Ted Koppel and the panel of Christian experts gave Christianity a black eye tonight.

The Future of our Souls...

I recently stumbled across this amazing blog by Richard Beck, Associate Professor and Chair of Psychology at Abilene Christian University. His site is a wealth of knowledge.

Here is just one small portion of a post he has written about the conflict of traditional Christian theology with neuroscience as we seek to understand faith in an error of post-Cartesian Dualism...

1. This is the growing view in the modern world. Neuroscience is making Cartesian dualism untenable. In short, in the coming decades Christian reference to the "soul" will seem quaint and charming. Like speaking about the tooth fairy or Santa Claus.

2. We are currently training ministers to go out into a post-modern and post-Christian world. Well, that's great. But let me make clear a challenge that bible professors are wholly overlooking. We are sending ministers out into a POST-CARTESIAN world. And, I ask, are these ministers being prepared for THAT? How quaint that we are training people to go out to reason in the world with notions as charming, to the listeners, as the Easter bunny.

3. Neuroscience, like evolution before it, is setting up up for a titanic struggle between faith and reason. And this one will be much, much worse. The soul itself is at stake. But what if Christianity looses this battle as it has with evolution? What if the soul is removed as a legitimate category of discourse? How will theology need to adjust?

(Finish reading the entire series of articles here)

We have seen Christianity struggle in our lifetime with the conflict between the Biblical myths of Genesis as more and more "average" lay-people are educated in the areas of science. Centuries ago scientists had to struggle with these choices as they clashed (often violently) with the church, but in the last century the same struggles have been thrust on all of us as this knowledge became more widely available. Imagine the impact as more of us are made wise by the discoveries of neuroscience. What sort of stickers will Christian parents place on science text books when they more blatantly teach that the "soul" is a product of brain function not a divine "ghost in the machine"? This is more reason for Christianity to look for a purpose beyond belief in unbelievable things and return to the roots of our faith which are a more meaningful and lasting purpose in community (liberation from captivity), peace (return from exhile), justice (forgiveness) and transformation (rebirth/resurrection).

A Heretic's Guide to Eternity

There is a great deal to like about this book and the first thing is the title. I love provocative titles and this title definitely grabs your attention. The overall point of the book is to take a different (you might say heretical) look at the word salvation. I found it to be a great companion or supplemental reading to Brian Mclaren’s book “The Last Word and The Word After That” which is one of the best emerging church books I’ve read as well as “If Grace is True” by Gulley and Mulholland.

Burk and Taylor do a great job of presenting a more inclusive notation of grace and salvation than their more conservative evangelical counterparts but they are not willing to go so far as fully embracing the universalistic notion of ultimate inclusion. I think this brand of theology is sort of a “softer” Evangelical brand of universalism. C.S. Lewis toyed with this notion in some of his later writings so it isn’t the first time Evangelicals have taken this view. The main thrust of the book is that grace is a concept which we are born into and may only choose to “opt-out” rather than the traditional orthodox view that we have to “opt-in” (i.e. be saved) in order to go to heaven.

The biggest problem I have with theological notion is that it is still focused on afterlife as the meaning of salvation. I think they make the same mistake as harder forms of Evangelicalism because they too see salvation as a state of existence after death. In either the older Evangelical view or this newer more inclusive Evangelical view, the problem is a potentially bad status in life after death and the solution is found in something Jesus did (softer version) or something we must believe about what he did (harder version). For me, both versions miss the point of the Bible entirely. Both of these versions of theology reject the view that the Bible points us to a new way to live our lives NOT a better status in afterlife.

The only thing heretical about these self proclaimed heretics is that they are willing to allow more people in the ark but they still see a storm brewing on the horizon. I don’t see the big problem as an inevitable monsoon, but instead the current drought is what concerns me the most. It seems to me that until Evangelical Christianity stops looking for rain and being consumed with building shelter it will continue to fail as a viable religious option in the civilized world.

I still think this book is a big help since it opens doors and invites conversation in places where conversation has been limited. This book is a sign of hope for traditionl Christianity.