Yesterday, we had a panel of three Hmong Concordia students come in to speak to us about their experience as immigrants. They described how they came to the United States, their heritage, and how they view their role in both American and Hmong cultures.

Something that was really reinforced in their discussion was the importance of family and community in the Hmong culture, which we have heard from many sources about the Hmong. Even though all of the students were from families of varying degrees of traditional culture, all three of them espoused the importance of the family. It was evident not only in what they described about their families, but also what they said about their goals in life: to help out the family and other Hmong people.

I thought it was really interesting how different the three students were from one another. Xang seemed much more Americanized, Xia was more in between the two cultures, and Pa Houa seemed the most traditional of all. Not only were their positions different, but their views of their positions were different as well. Even though Xang was the most Americanized, he seemed to be the most eager to become more Americanized (with independence, financial stability, etc.). I saw Xia as in between the two cultures, but she wanted to stick to her Hmong roots because she was brought up that way. Pa Houa was the same way. It was unexpected that the girls wanted to remain close to a culture where they perhaps have less power than men do. However, I can understand if the girls saw that they were brought up well (in not being allowed to go out and having to help the family), then they would want their children to be brought up well also. Of course, as we saw in the discussion, perhaps Hmong women have much more power than we might expect! I ended up seeing the Hmong culture less as one that makes women less powerful, but more as one that gives men and women very different roles with respective powers. Still, it's a little hard for me to break from my Western views of men and women, and because of that, I do think that women have more power in American culture. This, of course, brings back discussion from The Middle of Everywhere about how American culture does not respect women and other cultures do. This is very interesting to think about...we may give women more power in Western culture but not respect, whereas other cultures seem to respect or honor women but not give them as much power.

Today there was convocation, which was an exhibit of immigrant artwork. The artists were from several different backgrounds, from South America to Saudi Arabia to Asia (in the Hmong community). Also, they had a variety of different art media, including photography, sculpture, painting and printing. However, all of the art pieces served to represent the immigrant experience or juxtapose the old and new cultures.  

I really enjoyed seeing more of Seexeng Lee's art after seeing the piece in the Hmong Center. Also, the painting of the family crossing the Mekong River really brought to life the story of crossing the river from The Latehomecomer. I think that actually seeing the image, especially depicted so tragically with a family losing a member, as opposed to reading about it makes a difference. Clearly, both literature and visual art make important contributions to describing refugee/immigrant experiences.

Something interesting was how the Saudi Arabian artist Hend al-Mansour said that most people cannot fully understand what she is saying in her art because they do not have the experience of both cultures. It is interesting to think that even though an immigrant may describe his or her experiences, and we can hear them, we still miss aspects of their experiences with which we have no relation. Hopefully, though, we can do our best to listen and the immigrants will do their best to explain.

Last Monday in class, we had two speakers, Choua Thao and Long Yang, from the generation of Hmong refugees who emigrated as adults. They spoke to us about their experiences in the 1970's and how they came to leave, and then they told us some things about their experiences in the United States. In particular, they spoke about their careers both there and here.

Long Yang described a lot of things that Dr. Hillmer talked about when he was here, since Mr. Yang worked for the CIA. Also, he made an interesting comment that the U.S. officials told him that he should go to the United States to be safer, and that he would get a job cleaning somewhere. That reminded me of The Middle of Everywhere, when Mary Pipher described people who were powerful or well-educated in their former countries but had to do menial work in this new place. I was glad to hear that Mr. Yang was able to earn a degree and eventually do the work he was skilled enough to do.

Choua Thao definitely gave me some new perspectives about the refugee population. She was someone who would fight for both herself and others in need. I hadn't really thought about refugees being able to advocate for themselves, since being in a new environment could take away confidence, but she showed otherwise. However, in that confidence, I thought that she embodied a lot of American values already. For instance, I thought that her urging us to have a dream and pursue what we wanted (and hopefully earn money doing so) reflected a lot of American individualism and innovation. Perhaps because she had an innate confidence, she was able to adjust better to this new environment. This made her a leader and an advocate for those of similar status in the refugee population.

Last Monday in class, we met in the Hmong center and listened to a presentation by Dr. Lee Pao Xiong. He talked about the Hmong center and how it was established, and then he talked about how he came to the United States from Long Cheng. Then, he gave us a tour of the center and explained what some of the artifacts were.

I thought it was very interesting to have a speaker who had been through some of the things we learned the previous week, such as living in Long Cheng and storming the planes to escape. Also, I think Dr. Xiong is a perfect example showing how we can help recent immigrants succeed. He emphasized how the church sponsor helped his family become established and then how the immigrants would help their own families in the future. Then, I was amazed at his stories of ambition--how he sent his resume out to all of those congress people, and how he listened to the political radio all the time. I think that he was able to have that ambition and take hold of opportunities partly because someone helped his family establish themselves. After reading Mary Pipher's book, I wasn't sure how I could have the opportunity to meet or help any new immigrants, but Dr. Xiong's story reassured me that I could help someone through church, for instance.

Something interesting that was reemphasized was the idea that the Hmong did not want to leave Laos and did not want to come to America. It's interesting because in America, we often think that everyone wants to come here for the opportunities and freedoms we have, and it seems strange to think that some people--like some refugees we have read about--wanted to stay in their own country.  I think that shows a definite difference in values, since these refugees value things about their home countries that are completely different from things in America. This difference in values can make assimilating difficult, but it can also bring interesting new perspectives to America.

Thus, Dowe is able to provide several examples of Christians at the time of Darwin who accepted his theory, which develops the strongest basis for his argument of harmony between creation and evolution. To begin, Dowe argues that Darwin himself did not actually hold a conflict view. Darwin believed that evolution could not rule out the possibility of God, and his own agnosticism came from seeing suffering in the world, not from anything biological (126). Another of Dowe's primary arguments comes from Asa Gray, a Christian friend and defender of Darwin. Gray proposes that evolution falls under the category of secondary cause, being a physical mechanism God uses. Furthermore, he infers that the best explanation of the derivation of species is that species came from God through natural selection, as opposed to without God or with God creating fixity of species (129). Thus, Dowe uses Gray's standpoint of theistic evolution as a major support for a harmonious view of creation and evolution. Dowe has a few more examples of harmonious views other than Gray's.  For instance, he notes some Christians who believe the biological aspect of natural selection, but say that the creation of the soul requires intervention (136). Lastly, Dowe explains that some objections to Darwin do not actually illustrate conflict between creation and evolution. Several Christians at the time of Darwin were not concerned with biblical literalism, but they instead saw flaws in Darwin's reasoning and therefore disagreed with him on a scientific, not religious basis. Even today's creation scientists, while conflicting with evolution, do not completely conflict with science, since they consider creation science as legitimate science (141).

Dowe's argument has several strengths. First of all, it follows the history of the conflict, beginning before Darwin and going up to today. Doing this allows Dowe to establish both sides of the argument with very little dramatics and caricaturing, which ultimately makes the conflict between the two much less pronounced. Going through the history also places both arguments in their appropriate contexts. The chapter showed how the explanation or roots of humanity's purpose progressed from teleological to mechanical to design to evolution. In this progression of explanations, the idea of evolution merely progressed from a series of ideas, so how it arose makes sense in its historical context. This further dissipates the dramatics that often abound about evolution today. Ultimately, this gives Dowe the ability to present various harmonious views of creation and evolution with a greater chance that his readers will take those views seriously. Also, he points out that the views he presents are from strong, otherwise conservative Christians. Readers are therefore much less likely to think of these unexpected views as a compromise of religion, but rather they will see them as carefully thought out. The fact that he shows Darwin himself as holding a harmonious view is also crucial. If Darwin is the representative for evolution, and he does not think it conflicts with religion, then his idea of evolution is not as threatening and science cannot deny religion. Overall, Dowe uses examples of various views to place most Christians and scientists on the side of a harmonious view, making the creation science movement the odd one out. Creation science only finds conflict because of its strictly literal interpretation of the Bible, Dowe argues. That is an additional strength to his argument for harmony: he has already given numerous examples of Christians throughout history who believed the Bible might not be literal in everything it says. Thus, the idea of the problems of strict biblical literalism ties into the rest of the book and gives Dowe's argument in this chapter an even stronger basis.

                However, Dowe's argument is weak in some respects. Most importantly, he does not deal with current ideas about creation and evolution other than those of the creation science movement. Otherwise, the only ideas he presents are those from the time of Darwin, whereas many Christians today may not subscribe to those ideas but also may not be inclined to believe in theistic evolution. Thus, though Dowe's arguments are clear and harmonious, they may not be satisfying to many Christians today. Another weakness in Dowe's argument is his focus on the views of Christians who are scientists. Most of the examples he gave of historical people who held the harmonious view were not only Christians or scientists, but both. Using these people as a basis for harmony between the two is weak, since those people are naturally inclined to hold a harmonious view. Instead, the people who need convincing of the harmonious view are those who are either Christians or scientists. At most, Dowe's argument might show those people that they could accept the other side of the argument, but it does not give them a strong motivation to do so.

                Overall, Dowe's argument for the harmonious interaction of creation and evolution is strong. He does not appear to make wide stretches to make the harmonious view make sense, but rather gives several clear examples of people who held reasonable, harmonious views. This argument may not be convincing for people who are strictly creationist or evolutionist, but it is important in that it takes today's dramatics away from the issue and shows that a harmonious view is not completely out of the question for either Christians or scientists.

            As a whole, the Declaration of Independence is firmly structured around a reason-based argument, which provides clarity and shows that serious thought went into its creation. Its structure has three parts: the beginning, which describes how government should be, the middle, a list of grievances against King George III, and the end, which concludes that independence is justified. Interestingly, its structure resembles a scientific experiment. The beginning is like a hypothesis, making a conjecture that the colonies have the right to independence. Then, the middle is like data, since it is all evidence that could help prove the hypothesis. Lastly, the end draws the conclusion that the evidence supports the hypothesis. Furthermore, the end eliminates sources of error in the decision to be independent in that it describes the countless measures to which the colonies had gone for support to no avail (Jefferson). This structure makes independence a provable, reasoned conclusion, reached through nothing other than empiricism. Because it is set up as proved, scientific fact, the case for independence is credible and hard to refute, despite the fact that it opposes history and tradition.

In fact, opposing tradition with reasoned argument was one of the hallmarks of Enlightenment thought (Harrison et al 469). This was because challenging traditional ideas could help bring about change and progress. Jefferson reflects the spirit of change in the Declaration of Independence, explaining that the change of independence is the only way to protect the peoples' happiness. Essentially, Jefferson holds that the purpose of government should be to ensure the rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," and when a government does not uphold those rights, then it must be changed (Jefferson). Still, he says that change should not come from "light and transient Causes," but only when grievances have become too great to bear (Jefferson). By doing this, Jefferson negates any accusation that declaring independence was a hasty or irrational decision and instead gives it the credibility of prudence. He also describes change as not just a desire, but as a necessity. The first line of the Declaration calls independence for the colonies "necessary" and later calls it the "Right of the People" (Jefferson). Describing independence in these terms, where it is the only possibility for progress, further halts arguments against it. Overall, Jefferson defines government's purpose and says that if that purpose is not upheld, then people have the right to change the government to secure their personal freedoms.

That recurring idea of freedoms in the Declaration demonstrates the Enlightenment concept of perfection in natural human existence. Jefferson uses the natural ideal combined with Deism to give the argument for independence one more source of credibility, that of divine right. For Deists, God "revealed himself in nature and through reason" (Reid). In particular, human nature was considered good; societal structures made people bad. Thus, even though God was far away in the Deists' view, God was still beneficent and would show his goodness when things existed in their natural states. This view turns the attempt to create a more natural state of government into a God-ordained privilege. As expected, this view seen in the Declaration, where Jefferson says that the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them" to break political bands that do not serve and promote the natural existence of humanity (Jefferson). However, even though Jefferson invokes divine right to support the case for independence, he makes the intention of the new government very clear: to serve people, not God. Though people are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," the point of government is not to recognize the Creator's goodness but rather to uphold and protect those rights for the people (Jefferson). Furthermore, though Jefferson and his compatriots rely on the "Protection of the divine Providence," they pledge not to the divine, but "pledge to each other" in a very human-centered way (Jefferson). Essentially, Jefferson uses God to give the argument for independence credibility by authority, but his Deist, naturalistic way of thinking allows him to turn the focus away from God and direct it instead toward human nature and goodness.

Because declaring independence was such a bold thing to do, Jefferson provided plenty of reasons why he and the rest of the Founding Fathers were doing so. Those reasons reflected their Enlightenment views, since they focused on concepts such as reason, change and progress, nature, and Deism. Of course, no matter how carefully crafted or tight the arguments of the Declaration were, it still brought about a war. When people today look back on Jefferson's words, though, they can still see evidence of the hope that reason and knowledge would be the true purveyors of change, not military action. The ideas of independence took just as much courage to declare as to fight for. Truly, the Founding Fathers lived out the dare to know.

Works Cited

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

            York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1985.

Jefferson, Thomas. Declaration of Independence. Retrieved 10/28/08 from

http://webct.csp.edu/SCRIPT/HON11001f08/scripts/serve_home

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

 1990.

                Aquinas begins his argument in chapter VII by establishing that the truths of reason and the truths of revelation are indeed true. In the former chapters, Aquinas had already established that faith from revelation is true. Also, what the human mind knows through reason must be true, since according to the first condition, the mind has the capability to grasp truth. If the mind reasoned things that were not true, then the first condition would not hold. Even for those who doubt the truth of human reason and instead believe in the authority of God, Aquinas has an answer. Because God created the human mind, he also gave it the capability to reason and know truth. The first condition supports that idea. This means that human reason is a subset of divine knowledge, which could not possibly err. Furthermore, if humans could not reason truth, then God would have created faulty minds, which no one believing in the authority of God would accept. Hence, what the mind figures out from reason must be true, and the faith God gives people though revelation also must be true. With this use of primary truths in an argument, Aquinas corners his opponents into agreeing with his position. No one in Aquinas' time would doubt any of the primary truths, so Aquinas uses the solid foundation of the primary truths to create an undeniable argument that the mind's reasoning and faith are both true.

                Since Aquinas establishes that both reason and faith are true and that they both come from God, he can use the first principle of non-contradiction. If both are true, then they cannot possibly contradict according to the first principle. Therefore, none of the truths that come from faith can possibly contradict the truths that come from reason. Instead, Aquinas puts reason and faith in a hierarchy, saying that humans can reason truth, but faith fills in even more truth that they could not possibly reach solely through reason. This defines the validity of each type of truth. People can use reason to learn about the natural world, but when they attempt to use reason to learn about God, their minds fall short. The mind falls short not because it cannot understand truth, but because it cannot use reason to grasp or deduce things about God. When this happens, then revelation provides truths of faith. Accordingly, the two types of truth do not contradict one another, but work together in harmony.

                To end his argument, Aquinas states that any arguments against the truths of faith are invalid. This is because an argument undermining faith would go against the primary truths: it would be saying that two truths contradict, when that cannot be. In conclusion, Aquinas gives people the right and the duty to embrace both reason and faith truths. For many people today, Aquinas' argument can be of comfort. Instead of having to choose one truth and deny the evidence present for the other, people can see that both types of truth come from God. Of course, for the extreme people described previously, Aquinas' arguments may be seen as a compromise of religion or a weakening of science. Neither of those was in Aquinas' intentions. Instead, Aquinas wanted to harmonize two disciplines that each held evidence of their truth, and he did so using incontrovertible primary truths. Overall, his argument is one that provides an intelligent and broad view of the world and the supernatural.

            The poem "A Brave and Startling Truth" by Maya Angelou focuses on exploring the possibility and necessity of peace on earth. Thus, the truth indicated in the title is the idea that humanity possesses the ability to live peacefully and make the world a good place for everyone to live. That truth is "brave" because it boldly goes against previous human history, filled with war and conflict. In this way, the truth does not correspond with reality and may therefore be considered false. It is also "startling" because many people easily give up on the idea that peace can be achieved; they say that human nature makes people selfish, making conflict impossible to cure. Human history would demonstrate that peace does not work out, making it pragmatically untrue to state that it could. Essentially, the truth about which Angelou writes is one that can be disproven using different theories or tests of truth.

            Because I am an idealist, I am inclined to agree with Angelou's audacious declaration of truth. I have always believed in the ability for humanity to improve itself, which perhaps indicates that I am still a modernist living in a postmodern world. When I hear about people working for peace and to end conflict, I feel hopeful for the fate of humanity. Still, I always have to recognize how fleeting peace can be in this world--peace consistently disappears where it once existed--which is why I cannot put my faith in the capabilities of humanity.

Christian faith gives me a much more solid reason to believe that peace will one day come to this earth. I believe that Christ will come again to restore the earth and make it God's domain, as N.T. Wright described in Simply Christian. Angelou does not flat out state that the second coming of Christ will be the reason for peace; in fact, she seems to say that humanity in itself has the power to make peace with phrases like "we are the possible." Still, much of her language hints at a religious or even Christian subtext. Near the beginning of the poem, she says that "all signs tell us" about the inevitable coming of peace and truth to the world. This describes a truth of revelation. Then, she speaks of how we were created on this earth, but makes the distinction that we are "neither devils nor divines." Rather, this language seems to describe how humanity is full of sin, but that even though we are not perfect, God still loves and cares for us. Furthermore, she scorns "sanctimonious piety," which might create a tone of hostility against religion, but rather it could say that the religious traditions of the world now have become hypocritical and that people have lost sight of the true nature of God. I think she is saying that when Christ comes again, then everyone will be in God's domain, and people will know God without having to appear pious.

            Most of all, Angelou places humanity above all else on the earth, and I think this shows how we were created and favored by God. Because of this favor and the promise God made through Jesus, the "brave and startling truth" will in fact arrive.

                Many people find grasping postmodernism difficult because of its defiance of definition and demand for subjectivity. In this way, the sentence "This sentence serves no logical purpose" may illustrate postmodernism purely because it is difficult to understand; attempting to make sense of this sentence sends the mind in circles. To clarify, postmodernism formed as a response to modernism. Modernism centered on scientific knowledge, stability, progress, and functionality. In response, postmodernism looks past the façade of progress and sense that modernism built up, attempting to question whether or not things need to make sense at all. Postmodern ideas thus take modern ideas and turn them upside-down. The sentence "This sentence serves no logical purpose" demonstrates several of those postmodern ideas including personal reflection, deconstruction of modern rationality and functionality, and subjective truth.

                Postmodernism thrives on exploring the unknown and the undefined. Often, the unknown in question is the personal identity, and those who embrace a postmodern worldview constantly reflect on themselves. The sentence illustrates this postmodern characteristic of personal reflection. It refers to itself, giving it a sense of self-awareness; it knows that it is a sentence. Knowing itself allows it to make judgments about its identity, and it does so. At the same time, when it refers to itself as a sentence, it connects itself to the typical idea of what a sentence should be. However, what it does about that definition illustrates another characteristic of postmodernism.

                The sentence takes that definition and deconstructs it, which shows the postmodern rejection of modern functionality and rationality. A sentence is typically thought of as a grouping of words that makes sense and altogether has some purpose or meaning. In modern thought, the functionality and rationality of language was an especially important idea. Logically speaking, if a group of words was a sentence, then it had a purpose. To start, this sentence defines itself as a sentence, and one can see that it is in fact a grouping of words that make sense when read. However, the sentence then uses its self-awareness and consequent power to make judgments about itself and declares that it has no purpose. This is a contradiction of the modern definition of functional, rational language. That contradiction leads to two different postmodern branches of thought. First of all, one might say that because it is a sentence yet does not match the typical definition of a sentence, then the typical definition is not absolutely true; postmodernism always questions absolute truth and works to find exceptions to rules. On the other hand, one could say that because the sentence does not fit the typical definition of a sentence, then it is actually not a sentence at all. A branch of thought like this follows the postmodern love of the undefined. It leaves one needing to explore to find a possible definition. Furthermore, if it is not actually a sentence, then that means the sentence told a lie.

                Exploring whether or not the sentence is deceitful or truthful leads to the postmodern idea of subjective truth. As mentioned previously, one can doubt whether or not the sentence actually is a sentence. In addition, one can question the truth of its content--whether or not the sentence has no logical purpose as it says. The sentence itself says that it has no logical purpose, and that may be true. It stands alone, and therefore it lacks a context that would give it a clear purpose. Overall, its only purpose is for some to examine it, so for those who are not examining it, the sentence serves no logical purpose and has no reason to exist. However, for those reading and thinking about it, the sentence is the center of thought and therefore does have a purpose. This creates a subjective truth: what it says is true for some but not true for others. Because the sentence creates a relative truth, it undermines the possibility of absolute truth, which is precisely what postmodernism attempts to do. Lastly, the truth of the sentence cannot be tested scientifically. No experiment could show that the sentence's content is true, since its truth is subjective. Therefore, the sentence does not conform to modernism's scientific method of determining truth.

                Overall, the sentence "This sentence serves no logical purpose" demonstrates several key ideas of postmodernism. Most importantly, it takes something that should be straightforward, the idea of a sentence, and makes it unclear and unresolved. In doing so, it opens up several new avenues of thought and alternative ways of viewing something that formerly did not even require a second glance. Postmodernism leads to new ways of thinking, which can be quite exciting. Still, the exhaustive array of thoughts it produces may leave one mildly nostalgic for the relatively clear thinking of modernity.

                First of all, the metaphor of staring at the sun helps Wright win over his post-modern audience, since it alludes that no one has the ability to fully understand God. No one can stare at the sun, so no single person's image of God is objective. As Wright describes, "no human argument could ever...force [God] to submit to human inspection" (57). For a post-modern audience accustomed to subjectivity, this is a welcome idea. Still, this idea does not cave into post-modernism and diminish the power of God, saying that everyone's subjective image of God is true for him or her, but rather it contends that God will always have a degree of mystery that humbles individual views.

                However, certain equipment can aid in understanding that mystery. Scientists have learned to examine the sun with powerful telescopes, and sunglasses can allow people to look at the sun every day. For Wright, the equipment used to stare at the sun by doing theology is knowledge of the history of Christianity. He describes how understanding Jesus' story in its historical and culture context is essential to understanding who Jesus was (Wright 71-72). If people do not look at history, then their image of Jesus "slides away into fantasy" (Wright 95). Also, knowledge of the Bible in its entirety aids in doing theology. Not only does help with setting a historical context, but it contains numerous recurring themes and images. Wright says that these themes and images are like lenses that allow people to understand Jesus' story in greater depth (108). Ultimately, growing in understanding of Jesus leads to a better understanding of God. Thus, because of Jesus' presence on earth, people have equipment to use for doing theology. 

                Jesus' presence on earth is also pivotal in Wright's idea of the overlap of heaven and earth. However, thinking of heaven as God's domain and not as a far-off place may be a new idea to many readers, which is where the sun metaphor helps once again. If doing theology is likened to staring at the sun, then God can accordingly be compared to the sun. The sun is in a physical domain other than earth's, yet the earth feels the sun's presence with warm rays and bright light. To some degree, those two domains overlap. Similarly, God is in heaven, a domain (or state of being) other than the earth's. Then, when Jesus came to earth, people saw evidence of God's presence and power. As Wright says, God was "present on earth without having to leave heaven" (65). Jesus provided the definitive overlap of heaven and earth, and because of that, people do not need to stare at the sun to see the light already around them.

                Unfortunately, the metaphor of "staring at the sun" runs into trouble if people take the metaphor of God in connection with the sun too seriously. True, the comparison gives a sense of the power of God, but it also places God in a specific place distant from the earth. This is precisely what Wright argues against. He says specifically that when he says heaven, he is "not referring to a place or location within our world of space, time and matter" (Wright 59). Then again, because Wright does take care to explain this shortcoming of the metaphor, it is only mildly problematic.

                A larger problem arises because, when compared to staring at the sun, doing theology is presented as harmful. It does not allow people to make a lifestyle of understanding and getting to know God, but rather seems to say that trying to understand God is alright only in extremely brief, superficial interactions. Furthermore, if staring at the sun is alright with special, expensive telescopes, then this metaphor hints that only a very select few can work to understand God personally. From the common Christian viewpoint that a personal relationship with God is important, this metaphor is difficult to accept.

                Despite these glitches in Wright's metaphor, his book does invite this writer to consider Christian theology more deeply. In particular, his idea of the overlap of heaven and earth opened a new, creative view of Christianity that was quite exciting to read. As this writer read Wright's book, she was in Israel on the Sea of Galilee, where she could nearly sense the remaining holiness of that past overlap of heaven and earth. Then, Wright presented an even more exciting idea: that "the whole world is now God's holy land" (125-126). This simple statement brought that overlap of the past into the present for this writer, which was a wonderful new way of looking at Jesus' life and work on earth. Thus, because of both Wright's new angles on familiar ideas and personal experiences, this writer does wish to explore Christian theology in greater detail.

Works Cited

Wright, N.T. Simply Christian. New York: HarperOne, 2006.