Josie Gronbach

The term used widely in the Christian community to describe rising from the dead and turning water into wine, would most commonly be, miracle. Yet, this term is never actually used in the Bible. So where did this term come from and what does it mean exactly? Phil Dowe takes on this question in his book, Galileo, Darwin, and Hawking, while making a point about his idea of a corresponding interaction between religion and science. Dowe uses the ideas from several different philosophers that date back to the eighteenth century in forming his argument. He utilizes the works of David Hume and George Schlesinger, among others to give perspectives to his discussion. Even though he pulls ideas from these models of thought, Dowe does not necessarily agree with each idea, which is both a strength and weakness in his argument of a harmonious interaction between religion and science in terms of miracles.

                Dowe has a certain view which he portrays by going through and examining the different perspectives of philosophers. First, Dowe uses the model of thought from Hume, which is an, "analysis of miracles and their significance for religion" (82). In Hume's thought there are two ways in which to undertake the questions of what a miracle is and whether they prove the existence of God. Hume initially goes about defining miracles as a, "very unlikely event" (87). From here Hume explains that the level of belief that a miracle occurred corresponds directly to the amount of evidence there is that the miracle happened. The evidence that Hume states must be met is related to that of law and probability. The laws of nature must be defied in order for a miracle to occur, which Dowe argues that there is simply no way to prove that there is not a law. In every case the laws of nature would win. The evidence then completely relies on the testimony and the probability of the testimony of the person/people that witnessed the miracle. Dowe argues this by pointing out that there is not a constant in which testimonies can be measured against, the reliability of the witnesses and the possibility of conflicting testimonies throws out this option. With Dowe's arguments against these initial thoughts of Hume, the secondary argument which tries to answer if miracles happen and whether these prove the existence of God are no longer relevant. Thus, Hume's attempt to use miracles as evidence for God's existence does nothing other than confuses the discussion of miracles in conjunction to religion.

                With Hume's model ruled out, Dowe then uses the thoughts of George Schlesinger. "Schlesinger defends religion as a rational enterprise by utilizing inference to the best explanation, a kind of argument form found in science" (99). The inference to the best explanation takes a common piece of assumed evidence and pairs that with two separate hypotheses. Then the decision is made as to which set is more probable, the evidence with hypothesis one or the evidence with hypothesis two. Dowe gives several examples using this technique with the concept of miracles known in the Bible. The evidence assumed is the miracle itself and the two hypotheses are explanations to the miracle. Then he examines the possibilities with the assumed evidence and concluded that, in this particular example, that God making something happen is more likely than there being no God at all and that everything is explainable by means of science. In this manner Dowe then states his proof that there is a common ground in which science and religion meet. It is through rational that each of these is proven. Dowe states that, "the method of inference to the best explanation, a method used widely in science, also can be used to justify the rationality of belief in God" (95). He then concludes that science and religion can in fact be held in a harmonious relationship through use of miracles.

                Upon examining Dowe's argument of the relationship between science and religion in the context of miracles, there could be seen several positive aspects as well as a few negative. Dowe does an excellent job with establishing his credibility by taking on different perspectives of the argument, not simply explaining his viewpoint. By analyzing the models of thought from several different philosophers, Dowe was able to rule out all other possibilities. Once he went through the other aspects of the argument, he ended with his idea of the argument with ample explanation. While examining each perspective Dowe did an excellent job of giving examples to allow the reader to understand fully why he was or was not refuting the claims. Along with giving examples in describing the perspectives, he broke down the models and defined terms in a way that allowed a person to see his point even more. In his discussion of Hume's arguments, he does an excellent job of utilizing all of these techniques. Although in his discussion of Schlesinger's use of the inference to the best explanation, Dowe is slightly less effective with presenting his point. The inference to the best explanation is the way in which he connects science and religion, but the practical use of this test seems less than applicable in the scientific world where evidence and processes are a must. Truthfully, this test is based solely on the opinion of the person administering the test. One may argue one way and another person may argue the other. There is not a constant in this test, which slightly undercuts his argument as to the harmonious interaction between science and religion. Thus his conclusion seems to be a weakness in his argument due to the fact that his conclusion is based on opinion.

                Overall Dowe's approach to his discussion and argument was laid out well. The answers to the questions of miracles still seem to be up in the air, but with the knowledge that Dowe gives, each individual is more equipped to make an adequate decision based on what they believe. It is helpful that Dowe used information from several different philosophers, allowing for several different perspectives to be taken. This not only will aid people in their own thoughts on this matter, but it strengthened Dowe's argument. Even though he did seem to have a minor flaw in the final portion of his perspective argument, his attempt to prove the possibility of a harmonious relationship between science and religion was well done.

One of the most significant documents in the history of the United States is the Declaration of Independence. This document was the breaking point of the American colonies; they were ready to build a new society with freedom and liberty at its core. In order for this desire of freedom to become a reality, a written document was devised to make official, the severed relations between the colonies and Great Britain. The author to which this poetic piece is primarily contributed is Thomas Jefferson. According to the Dictionary of Christianity in America, Thomas Jefferson was, "the most forceful deist of the period, (he) wed Enlightenment religion with ideals of American democracy." With Jefferson as the major writer of the Declaration of Independence, it could thus be assumed that his ideals of Enlightenment and deism were worked into the document. Jefferson was born in the Age of Enlightenment and clung tightly to his deist beliefs, which were common to that age. The Declaration of Independence itself greatly reflects the ideas of Enlightenment and deism, with Jefferson's roots in these thoughts, some phrases and portions of the document greatly parallel that of the Enlightenment and deist way of thinking.

            The Age of Enlightenment was a period in the eighteenth century in which three principles were key in the shifting of thoughts from faith or more specifically, Christian based, to a more innovative and reason based thought. These three principles are reason, nature, and change and progress. It was through reason that people would know truths, which would comply with the unchangeable basic laws of nature. It was thought that change was a positive step or progression that came when individuals used their own reason, but also making sure that it did not interfere with the simple laws of nature. These three core ideas were inspiration for the religion common to this time, deism. The World Union of Deists website defines deism as a, "belief in God based on reason and nature...it is a natural religion as opposed to a revealed religion such as Christianity, Judaism, or Islam." Once understanding the basis of the deist belief, it is easy to see that this religion is stemmed in thoughts of Enlightenment. The thoughts from the Enlightenment and beliefs of deism together are illustrated in many ways, not only throughout the Declaration of Independence, but also the idea of the document itself.

            The Declaration of Independence was a document stating the reasons why the thirteen colonies wanted and felt they deserved freedom from the rule of the king of Great Britain. The idea of these colonies of people was to start anew, as a free country, changing the traditional way of government and forming a new government based on the reason and natural laws of nature. In the opening paragraphs there are numerous phrases that parallel the Enlightenment thoughts as well as the deist beliefs. The next portion is the grievances, these listing the accusations of the king of Britain which through the reason of the people desiring freedom, were not abiding by the basic laws of nature and reason given to each individual. The conclusion then states the colonies feel that through the list of grievances, which were based on reason, there was evidence supporting their desire for freedom and liberty.

            Jefferson felt this deep desire for freedom and liberty which reflect Enlightenment and deist thoughts, as seen through the actual writing of the Declaration of Independence. In the first paragraph it states, "among the Powers of the Earth..." This statement could be seen as being deeply rooted in deist belief, as stated in a dictionary, "deism assumes a correspondence between the rational structure of the physical universe and the rational capacity of the human mind" (Reid "deism"). This correspondence involves the structure of the physical universe or otherwise stated, "the Powers of the Earth." Along with this thought the Declaration of Independence states, "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God..." The correspondence mentioned above assumes that there is a natural thought process of reason that complies with the natural world in which they lived. "God revealed himself in nature and through reason...deism focused on the glories of nature, especially human nature with its rational capacity," this illustrates how the use of the words of the laws of nature, are rooted in deist thought (Reid "deism"). Even though these examples were both in the first paragraph, there are several other places where similar word patterns and phrases are used throughout the whole document.

            Moving into the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, one is immediately shown the illustration of the thoughts of reason and nature. The phrase, "we hold these Truths to be self-evident...," assumes that there must be a common thought process of every individual, seen in the use of the word "self-evident." Jefferson in his Enlightenment way of thinking presupposes that every person has natural reasoning which complies with the laws of nature. In the fourth paragraph of this document, Jefferson writes how he believes the reasons for which the colonies feel they should depart from the British rule, have not been single occurrences, but reoccurring instances which are then subject to question. Then through reason Jefferson states that there is a right for the people to separate from the corrupt government. In a reference of the Enlightenment, it was stated that, "traditional institutions or customs should not be accepted because they have been long-lasting, but rather should be examined critically and held up to the standard of reason" (Harrison 469). This greatly parallels the Enlightenment thoughts of reason, nature, and progress and change, in that it was through reason by way of the basic laws of nature that the supporting evidence was derived to seek the change in society and overall progress in the world of thought. This could also be seen in the closing paragraphs, speaking in terms of freedom and liberty in search for a progression in civilization.

            Even though the Declaration of Independence is a common document in the United States, the terms and phrases used by the prominent author, Thomas Jefferson, are often overlooked in terms of Enlightenment and deist beliefs. Not only does the idea and overall document reflect these thoughts, there are also specific instances where the word phrases directly reflect the beliefs that Jefferson had. As Jefferson was well known in his time to be a deist and later seen as one of the most dynamic deists of his time, along with being born in the Age of Enlightenment. The three principles, reason, nature, and change and progress, together make up this idea of Enlightenment which became the origin from which the deist religion arose. These thoughts and beliefs greatly influenced Jefferson which in return influenced how the Declaration of Independence was written, as one of the most important documents in the history of the United States.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

 

Daniel G. Reid, ed. Dictionary of Christianity in America. Dowers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990.

 

J. Harrison, R. Sullivan, and D. Sherman. A Short History of Western Civilization, 6^th ed. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1985.

 

Johnson, Robert L.. "The Deist roots of the United States of America." America's Forgotten Religion: Deism. World Union of Deists. 31 Oct 2008 <http://www.deism.com/deistamerica.htm>.

It is commonly stated among children, "liar, liar, pants on fire!" This statement of accusation, generally assumes that there have been false statements or actions done against another person. There is a standard set in the minds of even young children, that certain concepts are held as true or right and others not. It is the thought of truth verses that which is not true, which is the basis for what humans know. There are three primary truths or assumptions in this world that are used as this basis. It is through two of these assumptions, non-contradiction and the ability to know truth, that the 13^th century philosopher and theologian Thomas Aquinas used in his, Summa contra Gentiles chapter seven to connect the thoughts of reason and faith.

The three primary truths or assumptions that are used as a basis of knowing, are labeled the first fact, first principle, and first condition. The first fact simply states that humans exist. The first principle is that of non-contradiction, stating that if there is contradicting evidence or facts against a truth; it is not a true at all. The first condition is the ability of the mind to know or grasp truth. Thomas Aquinas, in his genius used the assumptions of the first principle and first condition in explaining the greater connections between faith and reason. Aquinas's broad message stated that God instilled into the human mind a certain degree of natural reason, ultimately limiting what the mind is able to comprehend. This degree of intellect then leaving a whole realm of concepts that cannot possibly be understood in the limited power of the human mind. God often resorted to metaphor when speaking to His people, in order that the message He was trying to convey could be understood in the human's simple mind.

            It is under the principle of the simple mind that faith comes into play. The concepts in which the human mind cannot possibly understand then lead into the need to trust the basis of which is naturally given by God and formulate beliefs on that logic. Aquinas stated, "Truth of the Christian faith surpasses the ability of human reason, nevertheless those things which are naturally instilled in human reason cannot be opposed to this natural truth." Thus he pulls from the thought of the first condition of the ability to know truth, in that which is beyond comprehension lay the greater definition of faith. Also, Aquinas pulls from the first principle of non-contradiction, in which this faith cannot challenge the natural reason that each human has. This connection between faith and reason portrayed by Aquinas gives the impression that there is an individual dependence on both reason and faith, in order for this thought to work.

            In this overarching theme of the interconnection between faith and reason, Aquinas takes advantage of the assumptions of truth of non-contradiction and ability to know truth to further relay this message. First Aquinas states the way in which God created humans, having a natural thought process that detects what is merely true or false. Therefore if there is any concept that does not abide by the logic infused into the human mind, it cannot be thought to be something of truth. This is the basis of what the assumption of the first principle refers to, that which does not comply with the natural thought of the mind cannot be held as truthful. Stating, "Those things which are implanted in reason by nature, are most true, so much so that it is impossible to think them to be false." Thus Aquinas is stating that God allowed for humans to have a certain amount of reason which is to be used in differentiating between that which is right and that which is incorrect thought or reason.

This duty of differentiating then leads to the realm of thought in which the human mind cannot understand. Faith then intercedes at this point. Although, with this whole realm of thought comes an area with boundaries unable to be reached. The mind is challenged to formulate what is truthful enough to be believed, but Aquinas states that, "God does not instill into man any opinion or belief contrary to natural knowledge." In our ability to comprehend truth as fact, God did not allow for beliefs other than that of the Christian faith to be complete in the mind. God, being aware of the limits of the human mind, spoke and acted according. As previously stated, He used metaphor and other means to speak to His people in biblical times, as well as the communicating through ways such as song, in the present. In some cases our natural ability to know truth is stunted, but it is also necessary to allow for time, "because this truth is so profound, that it is only after long practice that the human intellect is enabled to grasp it by means of reason" (Summa contra Gentiles IV). The first condition of the ability of the mind to know truth then is not always timely in the thoughts of the human mind, but relying on patience and the natural reason will allow for faith to blossom.

Faith can be said then, to rely on the reason in which God instilled into the human mind. The mere ability to know truths and the distinguishing between concepts of fact and non-truth then are the substance in which reason and faith arrive. This is the connection that Aquinas made that between natural reason instilled by God and the non-contradictory beliefs of faith in the Christian world. Although this way of thought may be foreign to the mind at this point, allowing for the mind to sort out the finer details and concepts over time will thus permit for comprehension and an understanding of this thought. Even if in the human mind the seemingly natural reaction would be to claim someone's pants are on fire, it would be wise to be reminded that it was God's will that the mind is limited and one must be patient and be aware that not every concept proposed will be able to be understood at a moment's notice.

When approaching the analysis of a poem such as this, I usually find it difficult to fully capture the meaning of what the author is trying to portray without a deeper personal reflection. Maya Angelou though, hits on several points that I feel are key to the world of art, as well as the world in which live. Her use of the statement, "startling truth" seems to me to be somewhat ironic in some ways and also seems rather forthright in her beliefs. At this point I lean toward a neutral status, that to be in agreement or disagreement of her personal beliefs is not the point of this message that she is portraying. Angelou simply seems to have a longing to release the feelings within her mind and reach this through use of words.

            The statement "startling truth" in this poem is slightly ironic to me because the meaning of this seems to be death or life after death when Jesus returns. This being ironic because death is in fact a universal, a basic truth, that every human being will have to face some day. It is through the universals or basic truths that Angelou is able to relate her message, that there will be life after death where everything is right, just as God originally planned. Not only is there use of the basic truths in the sense of death, but also through the words describing the beauty and wonders of this world. There is also use of universals in relating to nearly every human being, "when we release our fingers from fists of hostility." This statement connects the human race in the feelings of frustration, fear, and anger that is so common to life in every sense. When using universals to relate these feelings though, Angelou does not simply state these feelings, but conveys them through use of metaphor. This can be seen throughout the whole poem, which brings even a deeper feeling of relation to what Angelou is saying. Someday, the world will be at peace.

            Now to agree or disagree would comply with that of the modern day of thought, implying that there is such a thing as truth which in itself is to be universally accepted. If I were to take the postmodern ways of thought, there could be several arguments made discrediting or possibly boosting that of the central message of this work, especially the statement, "startling truth." In this respect I would have to remain neutral to the fact that there is truth at all, yet as a Christian believer, raised in the modern ways of thought, my mind forces me to dig back into my mind and rely once again on the knowledge previously learned. I have been taught, with endless documents of historical background, that when I die, I will be going to heaven as a baptized believer in Christ. So, in this respect, I am led to agree with the message of this poem, with absolute conviction because it was once sung that Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so.

 "These Boots Were Made for Walking," a song title commonly associated with Nancy Sinatra, could very well sum up the modern way of thinking. In general, the majority of our society wears boots, footwear in general, for protection and safety, being told to do so by some authoritative figure. These standards are also accompanied by being told where to go and the quickest or best way to get there. This may seem like a childish, possibly even ridiculous concept to write about, but this describes how in the modern way of thinking there is no choice or decision when approaching what is right or wrong, true or untrue. When approaching a topic such as postmodernism though, possibilities are practically endless. One can feel free to wear footwear or none at all, and will decide for one's self what the best route would be to get from point A to point B. If anyone would like to argue this point, well, postmodernism would invite any and all opinions or insights. For the time being though the focus is that of the statement, "This sentence serves no logical purpose." Upon approaching this sentence with a postmodern objective, a whole new world of thinking is opened up for individuals to stroll, roam, or parade around in whatever shoes desired. The perspectives that can be taken are greatly varied, depending on the shoes that one cares to place on their feet. Each individual deciding for them what is true or possibly deciding there is not truth at all. There are three main pairs of shoe perspectives, which will be walked in throughout this paper. These points correlate with the arising postmodernism movement in relation to the previous statement of focus, these points being, attention to the other, skepticism about truth, and advanced consumer capitalism.

            The first of these points is attention to the other, which can be compared to simply strolling through life taking in the details and paying close attention to the infrastructures. While strolling, one is not told what to do, and often finds comfort in knowing there is not a set path, as each individual decides what path is right. When considering the statement of focus, the mind is allowed to stroll around the sentence and realize that each individual word has a meaning, each space has purpose, and the grammatical markings and sentence structure meet a standard. Each of these individual aspects are recognized and given more focus. This is similar to the postmodern thoughts that every person has a voice, and no matter what group, tribe, or clan the person is from, the voice is to be heard. Doing this allows for contradiction in opinions with general concept.

            With each person being allowed a voice, there are certain to be the ones that merely roam about to find the truth that is no longer expected to be hardwired into the brains of society. This roaming does not have much direction, as it is a search for truth, assuming there is truth, in the shoes that could lead to any where, with endless possibilities. The concept of questioning truth as a way of knowing is foreign to the modern way of thought, but to the postmodern thought, it is simply another way to enhance individuality. These shoes then lead to the questions, concerning that of the statement of focus, "what is logic anyway?" and "what makes or why does something have purpose?" This is simply a matter of opinion and perspective. From one standpoint, this sentence can aggravate the very mind and frustrate the ways in which a person thinks, not able to accept or comprehend the reasoning for the sentence. This momentarily blocks cognition, while being taken aback by the simplistically complex statement. Yet, in other ways this sentence is like being handed the key to the door of individualistic thinking and knowing. It is then a matter of taking the opportunity and embracing the freedom to choose what is true or deciding there is no truth at all.

            This freedom however has also given way to the parading around of consumers in this changing society. The advanced consumer capitalism is beginning to walk all over freedom, giving way for the compulsive self-satisfactory buyer. In part, this is due to the advancement of marketing and essentially manipulating the buyers. Therefore, in a sense, "This sentence serves no logical purpose," could be patented, mass produced, and put out for sale at a ridiculous price, as nearly everything is seen as property and having value. Then, due to the creative and scheming ways of the marketing world, there would be a somewhat habitual, yet irrational need, to purchase this sentence as property. Once purchased or possibly not, one has the decision to make whether the sentence has purpose or logic. Regardless of the decision, the parading in the eager shoes continues, always in the search for something new to purchase, forgetting or allowing the manipulative schemes used in marketing.

Whether it is strolling, roaming, or parading around, all of these new thoughts are traveling on the very grounds of modernism. The foundation is being worn away, making room for the postmodernism movement. With all of these individual pairs of shoes or perspective taking over, society is reshaping the ways of knowing as well as untying or releasing the authoritative way of thinking. The attention to the other, skepticism about truth, and advanced consumer capitalism, can even be considered with this statement, "This sentence serves no logical purpose." This illustrating that there are the infrastructures in life which focuses on the marginalized. As well as questions being raised, either frustrating or allowing for opportunity considering truths. Finally, illustrating that there are ways in which a person can be manipulated into buying anything, as all is seen as personal property. These ideas no longer allow for a person to be told what and where to go. Nor does this allow for choices when considering what choice of shoe to sport, the perspective, when considering any thought. These boots and shoes may be made for walking in the modern world, but in the postmodern thought, the choice of shoes and what you do with them is completely undecided.

Directed Writing 1

            Nearly every child has been told at one time or another to not stare directly into the sun. At the time that a child is told this, there is not really a complete understanding of the reason or reasons why staring directly at the sun is quite simply a bad idea. Through the years, hopefully, and perhaps through one blinding experience, each child discovers at least one reason why fully opening one's eyelids while facing the direction of the sun is not a particularly good idea. The most obvious reason is because it hurts. Asking questions and absorbing the answers are a trait that most children are very familiar with, thus in time the very reason for not staring into the sun is described through technical and scientific terms. With this comes understanding, but it still does not quite satisfy the temptation to look directly into the attractive, majestic light. Much like this scenario, the scholars and theologians try to unravel the words of the Bible in a manner that makes sense and answers all the questions of life. Leading to the question as to whether these people find it useful to look directly at the source or find more meaning surrounding the actual words themselves. In light of this, the book, Simply Christian, written by N.T. Wright, challenges readers to explore the possibilities of there being more depth to what has been studied relentlessly for centuries. Though Wright's mind is twirling with unceasing thoughts of this matter, understanding theology in a deeper sense than most humans, there is still room for critiquing and analyzing his metaphor, "Staring at the Sun" as a parallel to studying theology, as well as his invitation to studying Christian theology in a deeper sense.

            As previously discussed, in a literal sense, staring at the sun is not such a grand idea, for the sake of eyesight if anything else, but this metaphor can be used with the purpose of discussing the act of theology. In one sense this metaphor is helpful in that it gives an initial structure or base of what studying theology or specific doctrine can be like. There are many non-Christians under the assumption that the bible is cut and dry, but Wright addresses this matter by stating, "It would be a mistake to give the impression that Christian doctrine of God is a matter of clever intellectual word games or mind games. For Christians it's always a love game..." (139). Defining the stories and general text of the biblical documents as anything but complex and multidimensional would be a mistake, taking the direct approach of simply reading the words on the page could be discouraging and confusing. This is like looking directly into the light of the sun; a person cannot expect to find meaning when looking directly and only at the words written on the page. It is almost dangerous, as the whole life of Christianity is formed by the hidden meaning and promises discovered for each individual. Wright uses this metaphor to enable the readers to try and comprehend that when "doing" theology, there is a tendency to be naïve and look directly at the source. Yet, just like the sun, it's the reflections and light that comes from the source that are worth the time of examination. It is too easy to miss the big picture when concerning theology. There is too much nit-picking at the fine details, and not enough placing the details back into the puzzle and examining the whole of things.

            Although this metaphor may be helpful when discussing the acts of theology and the fine puzzle piece details, there is also a grey area that causes problems to arise. In one sense it is important to look at the big picture and not stare at the source, the sun, but the details that make up the greater part of the source also need to be examined. This raises the question of what the source or central focus is in the first place. Wright tells the story of Jesus:

 ...when Jesus, with his disciples and a growing crowd, arrived in Jerusalem for one last Passover. The choice of festival was no accident. Jesus was alive...the next few hours were tragic and brutal. Jesus wrestled in prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane...while he waited for arrest...Jesus went to his death on a charge of which he was innocent...on the third day after he was executed...Jesus of Nazareth was bodily raised from the dead, leaving an empty tomb behind him. (108, 110-111)

In this case, the previously stated metaphor becomes somewhat problematic because the main source, the reason for Christianity, the true light of the world, is all that should be stared at and meditated on throughout life. The whole purpose for studying and "doing" Christian theology is the life of Jesus. Without that main source, one would not be reflecting and meditating on the connection between one's self and the greater purpose of life. Wright further expands on this point: "This is not to deny that Jesus, and some of his first followers, gave some wonderfully bracing and intelligent moral teaching. It is merely to insist that we find teaching like that within a larger framework: the story of things that happened through which the world was changed" (91). Basically stating, Jesus' life story is the infrastructure of the study of Christianity as a whole. For this reason, the metaphor does not make sense to use in light of Jesus being the central point of Christianity, thus the only source to look at.

            It is through this metaphor, seemingly helpful or problematic, that Wright gives the effort to invite others to further explore the world of Christianity. This is not to say that there is a formal invitation, but more so that there are many open-ended questions that could be either a frustration or a yearning to dig deeper and find the answers. In addition to asking questions and leaving them unanswered, Wright also explores how, "he (Jesus) haunts the memory and imagination of Western culture like few (if any) other figures of either past or present. We still date our lives in reference to his supposed birth...even those who know little or nothing about Jesus still use his name as a swearword, which is kind of backhanded compliment to his ongoing cultural impact" (93). Wright touches on how Jesus is still a current relevancy in today's culture and cites, The Da Vinci Code, by Dan Brown, as an example. With these statements comes a yearning for further exploration, raising questions such as, why is this man still talked about today, and why is His name used in reference to so many events, good or bad, concerning today's world when He lived so long ago. It is the strong opinion of this particular author, that with this evidence, Wright is probing at the minds of nonbelievers to explore the possibilities of deeper meanings in theology. He does so by bringing up controversial topics that are personal to that of some readers. He sparks further interest and self analysis of these complex topics. In one case, Wright discourages reader's theological convictions by questioning whether or not the Gospels are trustworthy (95). In one sense this may discourage, but in another sense, this may be a challenge for a reader to find a rebuttal.

             It can thus be said, individual readers of this book are the only ones who can decide for themselves whether they possess a deeper yearning to study the Christian doctrine or not. Based on the quotes from the book as previously written though, there seems to be a somewhat defined invitation to peel away the layers of theology. Even if there are different aspects of the actual act of "doing" theology, as illustrated by the metaphor, "Staring into the Sun," this merely presents more of an opportunity to make the study and act of theology personalized. Depending on the route that an individual cares to take, the metaphor may be helpful in the unraveling of the scriptures or for some may fog the area even more. Yet, it should be stated again, that staring directly into the sun--in a literal sense--is a particularly bad idea. If done repeatedly there may be damage.

 

           

 

 

Hello everyone, I am Josie from Dakota City, IA. I am not sure what all I am to write about myself, but here are a few highlights. I am the fourth and last child in my family, I have four older sisters, Jackie, 30, Jill, 27, Jadie, 20. My parents are Jim and Judy, there is a pattern there if you did not catch that, all  "j's." I also have a niece and nephew, Kayden, 6, and Carter, 3. These two have taught me more than I can say! My family is very important to me, being that my best friends are my sisters and cousins. I am currently working full time at Pioneer seed plant for the summer, where I have learned the great skill of moving and stacking 330 lb. seed boxes with a forklift that my sister, Jadie, and I have named Harold. I know I have this not so fun job for a reason, but God has not yet relayed that to me. :) I have been very busy trying to do life along with this job, and the list of things to do seems to be getting even higher. I am very much a perfectionist which I am trying to tone down a smidgen so I don't drive myself crazy next year at college!
I plan to major in parish ed and administration to become a DCE. I am so excited to enter this field as I know God is calling me in this direction. My oldest sister Jackie is a DCE and also went to CSP so I know I will have a great experience. I really look forward to meeting all of you and digging into some great classes!
In His Hands,
Josie G