Nothing much to say. School feels more under control than it did last week.

Oh yeah, Monday night.

Monday night I went to a discussion between Dr. Marcus Borg and Dr. Gary Ferngren.

Borg's a well-known author, professor in the OSU Philosophy department, and Christian liberal ("an emerging paradigm Christian"), while Ferngren is a History prof and an evangelical Christian ("an earlier paradigm Christian"). Their topic was "How Christians Should Read the Bible" or something like that.

The good. It was interesting, Borg was funny. He's a very charismatic speaker.

The bad. I didn't like the way Borg set himself up as a Christian just like Ferngren, just with relatively minor differences. Borg doesn't believe in a literal resurrection, the inspired (or inerrant) word of God, or that Christ is the only way to heaven. He's not a Christian, unless the traditional definition is radically redefined. But he considers himself one, and wanted to emphasize that there the two were on the same side. I was disappointed that Ferngren didn't try to draw the lines a little more distinctly. But I can see where he's coming from on that.

The thought-provoking. Something Borg said. He was talking about how that the different, enduring relations of the world are different peoples' unique response to God and so are equally valid as religions that connect to that same God. He said, I can't believe, not that I don't just choose to believe, I can't believe that God would have revealed himself to only one part of the world, and we just happen to be so lucky that it was ours.

I've thought about this before, and it does trouble me. It's not fair. The 12th century Mongol just did not have the same chance to come to Christ as his British counterpart. He basically had no shot at all. Yeah, there are the standard answers (nature, God will reveal Himself to those that seek), and maybe those are the right ones, but it still doesn't seem like God.

One of those things rolling around in my mind right now.