Posted on 30. Aug, 2014 by Tim Stoner.
In his book Milestones, Islamist scholar, Sayyid Qutb, a leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood, established the ideological foundation for militant Jihaad which became the charter for Islamic Fundamentalism. Al-Qaeda and now ISIS bases much of their belief about the necessity for the aggressive use of force upon Sayyid’s writings. However, their brutality and extremism are in clear violation of the principles established by the scholar they claim to follow. In addition, their ruthlessness brings shame on the humane decrees of the Qu’ran that prohibits coercion of belief, and insults the God they profess to worship. Why then is it that moderate Muslims, men and women of good will, by their deafening silence allow ISIS to defame the religion they love? Why is it that they refuse to condemn this movement that portrays Islam to the world as a base system of oppression, cruelty and depravity?
A critic of my recent book, “Crucify! Why the crowd killed Jesus,” argued that my conclusion that the crowd welcoming Jesus into Jerusalem was essentially the same one screaming for His blood five days later–was based on indefensible assumptions and “very flimsy” evidence. I think the Gospels provide overwhelming evidence in support of my premise. But the reason the question matters is that if the blame for His murder can be imposed on His intractable opponents, we can avoid asking ourselves hard question. But if those demanding His death were a part of the admiring crowd, if at one point they had actually been His fans, then it suddenly hits much closer to home and forces us to consider something awkward and uncomfortable: if we had been there what makes us think we would not have joined our voices to the vocal, intolerant majority shrieking “crucify!”? Would we not have been accomplices to the murder of the Son of God?
Posted on 07. Apr, 2014 by Tim Stoner.
While it is a simple matter to pinpoint errors, contradictions, and inaccuracies in the movie Noah, these are insufficient grounds to call for a national ban on attendance. By choosing not to attend, Christians will have lost an incredible opportunity to enter into a counter-cultural conversation about one of the Bible’s most challenging, important, and yes, terrible themes: final judgment. Ironic that it took an atheist to highlight this major thread in the biblical narrative that progressives have been seeking to erase from our collective consciousness for decades. Is grace both timeless and endless? Does the patience of the Creator ever run out? And if so, what is the straw that will break the back of His incredible restraint? Questions that Noah makes it impossible to ignore. For boldly addressing them Aronofsky deserves to be thanked not vilified. There is only one who wishes to keep us from taking seriously the theme of God’s wrath and that is not the God with whom we have to do.
Posted on 16. Mar, 2014 by Tim Stoner.
As a recently-minted attorney, learning to write a coherent narrative for appellate Judges and to sympathize with unsympathetic parties, prepared me to tell the story of young David and his many enemies in my historical novel Warrior Poet. Having to summarize the behavior of unattractive characters taught me to recognize the goodness hidden behind the least appealing personalities and enabled me to look honestly at the weaknesses of those we might wish to idolize. It protected me from the penchant to whitewash the sins of those we admire and freed me to reveal the flaws that place our heroes, much more helpfully, on our level, and right next to us.
Critiques of my latest book: Warrior Poet- before David was king have pointed out that it is a work of fiction. But does this imply that it is false? When I began writing this historical novel I had to face some difficult questions: How is one to write creatively about biblical history when the data is a given, the facts are immutable and the narrative arc is fixed? What is the place of imagination? What are the rules of engagement? What license is allowed? Though difficult questions they force the writer and reader to determine what is true and decide whether what is fiction is necessarily untrue.
Posted on 27. Jan, 2014 by Tim Stoner.
For 50-some years I’ve been reading just how I was trained to do in college, seminary and law school: evaluate, dissect, distinguish, contradict, overpower, and then without making too much of a fuss about it—destroy. I was taught to read like a winner, or better–in order to win. So when I read an essay about reading as a loser I was shocked to discover I had been ambushed by a Catholic, happily married, home-school mother of six–who is a lesbian, and, to top it off, is also wicked smart–as Will would say in Good Will Hunting. And I discovered I needed to do something difficult–repent (as in change the way I think about something that really matters).
Eric Metaxa’s brilliant autobiography of Dietrich Bonhoeffer was easily my favorite book of 2011. It introduced me to a teacher, preacher with the unnering and unnerving prophet’s eye. Abraham Heschel describes a prophet as ones who, “said no to to his society, condemning its habits, and assumptions, its complacency, waywardness, and syncretism.” Such a man was Bonhoeffer and for it he paid with his life. This book made me wonder whether I was reading more of a prophesy than a biography. The choice for him was between the German Church and the Confessing Church (which he helped found). Today it might very well be the Accomodated Church one the one side and the Faithful Church on the other. But, what is clear, we desperately need more prophetic preachers like him inside as well as outside the church.
Posted on 15. Apr, 2012 by Tim Stoner.
I have been collecting the best quotes from my readings over the past 25 years–chosen both for content and style. If it is worth saying, is is worth saying well, says I. So I have decided to share the wealth. So these are short quotes (no longer than 40 tweets) for those free-thinkers who reject the notion that if a book is written by an author with bad hair and uncool glasses, it has no significance.
This one comes from The Cruciality of the Cross by P.T. Forsythe, One of the my absolute favorite books (and shortest) on the death of Jesus. In honor of the Easter Season.
Who would have imagined Stephen King was a romantic? Certainly not I. But in 11/22/63 Stephen wears his heart on his sleeve. While the horror is still there–though muted, the joy and the love for things past and things present swings, sways and carries you away in a delirium of delight. It is written out of love and for love. Love for a place, a time, a president, a dance, a car, and most of all a flawed and brilliantly drawn woman. It is a book for dancers. It is a book for lovers and maybe even for haters too. It is about suffering and loss and, ultimately, a great but terrible gain. It is a book to relish.
I wonder why we have such trouble taking the biblical depictions of heaven seriously. It seems to frighten and shame us somehow. Whether conceived as place or state, it is weightier and infinitely more substantial than ours. So we must fold, flatten and reshape it. Do we find it embarrassing because it exposes our smallness and lightness of being? Admittedly, it is too bright and too concentrated by far. After all, it is where saints live, and maybe this is why we dislike the shattering images, because it reminds us that that is precisely what we are not. But, there is hope that we still can be.
A friend asked me a question about my disagreement with Love Wins. I have to admit it kind of rankled me. It implied fear, inadequacy or inferiority. So, yes, it stung my pride. Though it had a bite to it, it forced me to uncover the motivation for my negative response to Rob’s core message. And in doing so I had to confront the masks we wear: misdirected love, reactionary love and, more to the point, a cold and careless apathy hiding behind proclamations of love.