In Chapter 5 of Gary Black’s The Theology of Dallas Willard, Black talks about the irony of Willard being brought up in discussion of modern and postmodern theology when he was neither.  Although Willard was initially interested in realism from the work of Edmund Husserl, he expanded significantly on the philosophy.  Black includes a quote from Willard where he describes the “God’s eye view” in realist philosophy, as a way of perceiving our actions.  Going further, Willard argues that we are meant to construct the words of God from within our circle of ideas.  He notes that the prospects for revelation of divine truth are gloomy, and so construction and reconstruction are the only possibilities. 

            This is an interesting thought.  I am not sure I completely understand what Willard is arguing here, but it seems he is saying that we can interpret God in light of our own experiences.  Direct experiences like revelations are not to be expected, but rather we use our daily experiences to understand God.  I agree that it is good to strive to understand God in light of our experiences, after all, our experiences shape who we are as people.  However, we cannot forget the impact of our imperfection in understanding God.  Many life experiences are negative, and it can be easy to blame God for these happenings.  If we take this too lightly, our perception of God can be vastly off the mark.  I think that this is a major reason that many people lose their faith in God and leave the faith.  They have traumatic events happen in their life and, because maybe they had an incorrect perception of God in their lives, they blame Him for their losses instead of looking towards their own actions and what they can do to move on in faith.  It is imperative that we look to the bible for guidance in our understanding of God.  

In Chapter 3 of Gary Black’s The Theology of Dallas Willard, Black talks about the “Essentia Dei” of Willard’s theology.  Basically, Essentia Dei is the notion of constantly pursuing the nature or essence of God, which is a central theme of Willard’s beliefs.  This viewpoint is reinforced by the words of Jesus.  In His teachings, Jesus explained the nature of God Himself, not just His kingdom.  I agree that this way of thinking is essential to understanding and believing in God.  Heaven is the place that all Christians aspire to reach, but understanding Heaven is pointless without first understanding God. 

            Black quotes Adam Clark in his description of God.  I really like what Clark has to say.  He speaks of God as “eternal, independent and self-existent… whose purpose springs from himself, without foreign motive or influence”.  I definitely appreciate Clark’s quote on God.  The simplicity in his speech gives all the more contrast to the notion that understanding God is not possible with the limits of our humanity.  Clark’s words seem to mirror what everyone already believes.  No Christian would argue that God is not completely omnipotent or that He makes decisions based off of factors not inherent to Himself.  Yet, I think that we often associate God with lesser beings.  Maybe because of His son’s humanity, we believe that God also is affected by mankind in a way that Jesus was.  We must remember though, that God is above all things; the choices He makes are solely His, they are far beyond us.  Sometimes the things He lets happen do not make sense to us, they can even seem cruel or unfair.  We need to remember though, that He is in control of everything, and it is completely understandable for his actions not to make sense to us because our understanding cannot hope to relate to God’s omniscience.  

In Gary Black’s The Theology of Dallas Willard, Black talks about anthropology and the nature of humanity according to Willard.  He includes two quotes from John Wesley and C.S. Lewis.  Wesley’s quote talks about the immortality of the human soul, and how so often we define a person by their body, without even considering the worth of one’s soul.  Wesley notes that the soul is everlasting, and therefore of more worth than any material thing.  The quote from Lewis really interested me.  He eloquently spoke of how each and everyone one of us will someday be living for eternity, either in heaven or hell.  It is not something one speaks of, but the image of viewing each person in their second life after death would be awe inspiring.  Lewis also notes how every action we take in regards to other human beings affects their eternity.  We could be urging them closer to God, or perhaps causing them to stumble and lead them towards sin.  This is a terrifying thought indeed.  I like to think that each person is responsible for themselves; no one else is to blame if a soul does not accept Jesus.  However, Lewis’ ascribes much responsibility to each and every Christian, it is our duty to model Jesus and lead others to Him as much as we can.

            I do find it interesting how there are two very separate schools of thought in this area.  The duality of mind and body insist that the soul and the physical form exist separately.  It seems that this belief gets a lot of flak from Christians, I am not sure why as it seems to make sense.  Maybe there is an underlying negativity in the theory that insists that the body is useless and the soul is the only measure of human worth.  There is also the school of thought that soul and body are intertwined.  I am not certain how connected mind and body are, though I do respect Wesley’s quote in that one cannot deny the importance of the soul.

In Chapter Two of The Theology of Dallas Willard, written by Gary Black Jr., Black writes about a phenomenon which I think is quite intriguing.  He talks of how the creation of scripture must have been based on the human and the divine working in tandem.  Willard believes that the bible contains no evidence to suggest that he writers of the bible were not wholly human, who were merely writing God’s will through their experiences.  Alongside this, Willard does not propose that the bible is without error.  I agree that the bible could contain error, but not in such a way as to derail the purpose of God.  I think that part of what makes the bible beautiful is the harmony of God’s divinity and human capability.  We are not perfect, and the bible reflects this.  An author may have made a mistake but this is just the nature of our being. 

            While the bible is not perfect with respect to historical fact, this is simply because humanity had a major hand in the writing of it.  Indeed, I find it strange when people denounce the bible or even the faith as a whole due to the understanding that God’s book was written by people less than divine.  God would not allow His book to stand for anything other than His intended purpose.  The errors that may be contained in Scripture have not slipped by God’s eyes; He has allowed these errors to occur possibly as a test of faith, but perhaps also as a means to show the divine authority of God and the feebleness of human understanding coexisting in His word.

            I deeply respect Willard’s acceptance that the bible is not without error, but that this does not take away from its authority.  I think that too many people, even Christians, get hung up on this debate and try to convince themselves and others that the bible is less than perfect in a theological sense.

In Chapter 2 of Fortress Introduction to Contemporary Theologies, the author introduces the concept of Christian Realism and Neo-Orthodoxy.  Two brothers, Reinhold and H. Richard Niebuhr were the sons of a German immigrant, and were crucial in the development of American Neo-Orthodoxy.  A major feature of Christian Realism is the understanding that sin is both inevitable and universal.  This thought process transcends Christianity.  Just as Reinhold preferred to be called a social critic or moralist rather than a theologian, so too does Christian Realism strive to apply itself to everyday life rather than just theology. 

            Another son of a German immigrant, Walter Rauschenbusch, took this belief to a deeper level.  He recognized the problem of sin, but dove to uncover the roots of these problems on the social and economic level.  Always an advocate for the poor, Rauschenbusch advocated for labor unions and the socialization of big industry.  While I can see how Rauschenbusch viewed institutions such as unions as a way to help the impoverished, I think that the issue goes deeper than that.  It seems in his theology that Rauschenbusch strove to minimize sin by radically changing the facets of society.  However, I do not think that Rauschenbusch’s philosophy would be effective in the long term.  Sin is always going to present in the secular world.  Reducing poverty may reduce the sins of prostitution or gambling, for example, but sin would find a way to creep into the affluent man’s life nonetheless.  Few would be able to find an example of a man who has amassed earthly riches yet who is also far from sin.  It helps to look to the root of the problem as Rauschenbusch did, but sin is not something that can be eliminated by manmade institutions, unions, or social structures.  Only by living like Christ can sin be conquered.

In Chapter 13 of Fortress Introduction to Contemporary Christian Thought, the author questions the nature of the idea of “post-liberalism”.  He talks of conventional “liberal” ideas such as the willingness to cast away traditions in favor of encouraging more open thought.  Although it is true that many often think of the terms “liberal” and “conservative” in a polarizing manner, the true meaning of liberalism is much different.  Liberalism is merely the idea of interpreting Christian theology in the context of the advancing modern thought.  So much of Christianity is tied up with tradition and culture.  I believe it is very important that we keep our minds open and apply the changing times to our interpretation of scripture.  Though it is imperative to remember and respect the past, it is just as important to look to the future.  With the rapid pace of advancement in technology and science, Christians need to keep up and present theology in a similar light so as to reach and be applicable to the greatest number of people.

            The author writes of how liberal thinkers often put less faith in taking scripture at face value.  Instead, they read between the lines and strive to pull out the timeless truths embedded in the passage, disregarding content that may no longer apply.  I am not sure how I feel about this.  While I do think that there is great value in uncovering the true meaning behind certain passages, I think that when the bible is analyzed in this way, the reader will often begin to treat the bible as any other historical document.  We need to remember that the bible is the word of God, and though it was written many years ago, God would not allow His book to be written in a way that loses its purpose, no matter how old it is.  Times may indeed be changing, but the value of scripture is always present regardless of how closely or in what manner it is analyzed.

In Chapter Eleven of Fortress Introduction to Contemporary Theologies, the writers introduce a female theologian, who states that “the more one becomes a feminist the more difficult it becomes to go to church”.  I can see why.  Much like other institutions such as governments, the church is largely dominated by males, and in the past, the church had many grave missteps that alienated women from participating.  The author talks about “women church”, where women gather in living rooms and exorcise texts that are patriarchal to the extreme.  Rosemary Radforth Ruether is one theologian from whom women church has been greatly influenced by.  Ruether’s father died when she was twelve, and so her mother became her sole influence.  Ruether became caught up in the civil rights movements in the 1960s.  In 1965 she went down to Mississippi and worked at a child development group.  She then moved to Washington D.C. and taught at the School of Religion at Howard University, all the while embracing feminism, civil rights, and environmentalism. 

            Ruether writes that all women share one thing in common, their oppression by male dominated society.  She points to the history of the Christian church as a prime example of man’s subjugation of women.  It is impossible to deny that throughout history, society has taken advantage of women in innumerable ways.  It is especially shameful that the Church has done the same.  The earthly institution that houses Christianity should be a place where everyone is equal in God’s eyes.  Unfortunately, the Church is an institution, full of human error, prejudice, and cruelty.  I think that society as a whole has definitely grown better throughout the ages.  In America, on paper women and men are equal.  Unfortunately there is still a gap in income and other problems, but as a nation we have made great strides.  I hope that the Church can separate itself from secular institutions and become a place where equality truly exists.