A Critical Look at Inclusivism

"For the LORD your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God who does not show partiality nor take a bribe." (Deuteronomy 10:17)

"Opening his mouth, Peter said: "I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality," (Acts 10:34).

"But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)--well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me." (Galatians 2:6)

Many a thinking Christian has, as one point or another, asked the question, "How does God judge those who, since Christ, have not heard the Gospel?" Though the Bible is far from silent on this matter, it offers what seem to many as irreconcilable viewpoints. Consider the following excerpt from chapter 18 of Moreau, Corwin, and McGee's Introducing World Missions: A Biblical, Historical, and Practical Survey for the basic theology of the judgment of those who have never heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ (305-6).
Paul, in Romans 1-3, also addresses issues of those who adhere to other religions. There he notes that people who have not heard of Christ are judged differently from those who have (2:6-15). However, his blanket condemnation of all people because they fail to live up to the light that they have (1:18-32; 3:19-20) does not leave much 'wiggle room' for tose who teach that non-Christians who are sincere believers in their own religions can be saved (see Kane 1978b, 133-37).

Now this is, without a doubt, an accurate representation of part of the biblical perspective, but unfortunately, it does not resolve the conflict quite so quickly. For the aforementioned scriptures state that "God shows no partiality". But if God does not show partiality, then what do we call it when God chooses the Gospel as the exclusive means of imparting the Holy Spirit, which is the sole means of regeneration, and only allows a certain percentage of people to hear the Gospel?

According to Reformed theology, the impartation of the Holy Spirit is a prerequisite to regeneration. That is, the Holy Spirit is necessary to enable the previously hardened heart and darkened mind to respond in faith to the truth of the Gospel. Likewise, God chooses to impart the Spirit to some, and to withold Him from others. Is this, or is it not showing favoritism, or, partiality? This depends on the biblical definition of partiality. While the lexical constructions in Deut. 10, Acts 10, and Gal. 2 all vary somewhat from one another, each of them is built around the word prosopon ("face"), and as such, showing partiality is literally "accepting face", or "regarding the external circumstances of a man, [as in] his rank, wealth, etc. as opposed to his real intrinsic character" (Lightfoot, 108).

Through this, we can see that the biblical concept of showing partiality is that God does not favor certain individuals or peoples because of anything they have inherited or accomplished in and of themselves. Rather, He chooses sovereignly. His election is based on nothing whatsoever except His "good, pleasing, and perfect will" which is hidden from us. So does God show partiality? Certainly not. Does He play favorites? According to the Reformed perspective, absolutely.

Unfortunately, this does not wrap things up in a neat little bow for those who, like myself at times, in their flesh tend to see this as treacherously unfair. All are condemned because they have not responded flawlessly to the measure of revelation which has been awarded them. Those who do respond are only capable of doing so by means of the Spirit. And the Spirit is given only through the Word of God, the 'preaching' of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Therefore, in all practicality, those who have not received the Word of God have not had opportunity whatsoever to receive the Spirit, and thus to respond in faith to the Gospel unto salvation.

Ultimately, we have to ask ourselves, "So what?" Certainly this sickens some of us due to the fact that we "see through the glass but darkly" and thus cannot reconcile a loving and merciful God who would play favorites at the expense of the eternal torment of billions. But has He not done this throughout history? Does the Old Testament not resound with the truth that God has chosen a particular people for Himself at the demise of all others? Indeed, compared to God's people in OT times, the Christian phenomenon is truly breathtaking. Now, instead of a few hundred thousand chosen ones, through Christ, God's children adopted since Christ number in the billions! The glorious mystery we learn of in Colossians 1:27 is "Christ in you (Gentiles), the hope of glory"! God's favor has spread exponentially to people of all nations, tribes, and tongues. Praise be to God!
__________________________
A. Scott Moreau, Gary R. Corwin, Gary B. McGee. Introducing World Missions: A Biblical, Historical, and Practical Survey. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004.

J. B. Lightfoot. Saint Paul's Epistle to the Galatians. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1962 3rd reprint ed.

Comments

  1. Hey Matt, this is Michael. I just thought that I'd jot down a couple comments, as I've been wrestling somewhat with the issue myself.

    Putting the Pauline epistles aside for the moment, I find it rather difficult to find a true exclusivism in Scripture. 1 John talks about how everyone that loves is born of God, and doesn't say anything to the effect that only those who are born of God love. In the gospels, Jesus speaks of one who will receive fewer stripes due to lack of knowledge. I can't make any sense of this if the choice is between heaven for those with a special faith and hell for everyone else.

    In addition, the audience of all of Scripture must be noted. Jesus is talking to Jews, who would have been expected to know something of the Messiah. Paul likewise is speaking to churches, rather than expressly to non-churched people (his sermon on Mars Hill is more indicative of his preaching to those outside the church and Judaism, and really only calls the people to repentance). The Old Testament is speaking mainly about the Jewish people; it condemns idolatry, but really doesn't say much about the ultimate fate of other people (it is reluctant to say much about the fate of the Chosen People as it is).

    So this leaves Paul's letters, which at this point I think should be read in light of the rest of Scripture. I have strong suspicions that typical Protestant renderings of Paul attempt to force him through logical categories which have been in place since the Reformation and modernity, and which really skew the issue rather than provide anything of certainty. I'm currently working on a re-reading of Paul, to see whether this thesis can hold up as all.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hey Michael,

    Thanks for "dropping by", and for taking up the discussion.

    I have, at one time, succumb to paralyzing skepticism of modernity, though my interaction with the Reformers (not to mention early church fathers) has really begun only within the last few months. What I do know is that there is a lot more continuity between early Church belief and the Protestant reformers than between the early Church and Catholicism. I don't know enough yet about Orthodoxy to determine whether they'd line up closer to Protestant or Catholic, and I also know very little about the various splinter groups (Nestorians, Coptics, etc) which have remained largely under the radar of Western Christendom until only recently. All I know is that the Reformers took interaction with tota scriptura and early Church writings very seriously. It was FAR from "just them and their Bibles", dreaming up whatever they wished in terms of dogma.

    What concerns me most is what happened between the 4th and 15th centuries. That's over 1000 years. Where was the viable witness for Christ, if not in the heretical paradigm of Catholicism, i.e. salvation by grace and works? If anyone is guilty of rationalism, I certainly do not think it was the Reformers. Calvin's soteriology is as irrational as anything I can imagine. I've written a fairly lengthy essay here (do a search for Calvinism on my blog and you'll find it) detailing its irreconcilability with the human experience. If anyone is guilty of succumbing to enlightenment perversion it is the materialist theologians in the vein of Medieval Lutheran liberalism who leave virtually no room for the supernatural and who have been unable to reconcile an understanding of the place of OT Law within the bounds of Christian life.

    As to the scriptural specifics, my soteriological starting point is certainly not Paul, but the Gospel authors. John, particularly in chapter 3, obliterates not only the notion of universalsim, but by explicating belief in the name of Jesus, nails the coffin shut on inclusivism as well.

    When it comes to a whole Bible soteriology, that's completely beyond my capacity at present. All we know of the eternal salvation of the souls of God's people in OT times is from references to various prophets in heaven (Abraham, Moses, Elijah, etc.). But there are no divine promises recorded in the OT with regard to eternal destiny. The subject wasn't even addressed, so it's hard to speculate. What we do know is that God had a people...a special people, chosen and called out to be a light to the nations. And God's covenant with his people was an earthly one. What that brings to bear on the NT, I have no idea. But if we believe that the NT is God-breathed, then it suffices to interpret the OT in light of the New.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks for the response Matt. Let me do my best to reply as I can see things.

    When I say that Protestantism has taken fit Scripture into philosophical categories, I want to avoid saying two things. First, I don't want to say that the Reformers had a fundamentalist, scriptura nuda approach. Even at the Synod of Dordt, the Council of Orange even was considered to be legitimate against the Arminian position (even if used inaccurately), and so I can acknowledge that tradition still played a major role for the Reformers; they certainly didn't want to be innovaters.

    I also don't mean to say that they were rationalists in the sense of tying everything to the secular world. Philosophy is just concerned with the sorting bins we use for categorizing; everyone has them, and those who don't recognize this fact are those who misuse them. Someone like Calvin therefore has sorted out Scripture according to certain preconceived notions, just like everyone else (in fact, those who don't have a touchstone in human experience are those who are most likely to have problems in this area).

    My main beef isn't with Calvin or Luther. I haven't read much of them, and I don't necessarily like what I've heard, but they had a right to struggle through Scripture like anyone else. My problem is that later Protestantism has seen fit to keep the same sorting bins without really questioning them. Any discussion of grace, faith, works, etc. automatically assumes that the Bible parses nicely into these Reformation terms, influenced as they are by a nominalism which cannot fit any sort of cooperation between God and man. Passages where Paul talks about exerting effort in salvation are dismissed readily as the "obscure" passages, or given a lame interpretation, while the "grace" and "faith" passages (which automatically mean that God does absolutely everything and man does absolutely nothing except maybe accepting God's gift) are considered to be the "clear" passages.

    As could probably be inferred, I'm extremely hesitant to call the Catholic view "heretical," considering that they can find some support within Scripture too; just not in our "clear" passages. Orthodoxy is the same way. I'm not saying that they are right, but that we need to be careful to make sure that we come back to Scripture and not just how our relatively recent forbears have conceived it. For instance, with the New Perspective on Paul, the first criticisms I here are that it does not line up with our notions from our Reformed heritage. But why does this matter, if there is a good reading which supports the New Perspective? The fact that "sola fide" is invoked instead of solid exegesis in so many cases demonstrates the problem which I see.

    Which comes down to the next topic: tradition. Yes, the reformers and modern Protestants want to see themselves as the heirs of the early church. The problem is, for every one of those, you could probably find someone (or two) who has converted to RC or EO precisely through reading the fathers. Everyone finds something different in the Fathers which supports her own view. So, I'm hesitant to support that the Reformers can claim the greatest continuity with the early church. A case could be made, but not an airtight one.

    Finally, John 3. I'm still struggling with what this passage actually means, but it is relevant that 3:36 splits people up into those who believe in Christ and those who reject him. I don't think that this really covers those who have done neither, and so there is a question about the scope of the passage. 3:18 is a little more difficult, but I think that it has a similar idea: those who have not believed in the Son already must have been given the chance and turned it down. Otherwise, I have an awfully hard time saying that God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, as this would be what God in fact has done.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It sounds to me as if your real struggle is with whether the discipline of Systematic Theology is legitimate. I am certainly aware of my "bins" as I confessed Sunday night. :-) I've spent quite a bit of time and energy deconstructing and reconstructing them, and I'm fully ready for them to continue to evolve as the years go by, albeit preferably less and less so.

    Like I said, I get serious qualms about the fact that "Protestant Orthodoxy" as we have it today only arrived on the theological scene--as far as we know--in the 15th/16th century. Certainly the Reformers interpreted some of the early Church fathers correctly, and probably got some things wrong. And who's to say that the fathers are infallible? Certainly no evangelical would... which is why it is OK to draw from certain teachings that were broadly confessed and leave ambiguous those ideas that were apparently 'experimental'.

    Despite my qualms with the 1000 years of heresy (in my view), I believe God may well have had a sovereign purpose for it. In fact, I'm almost certain he did, though I have no clue what it would be! I do believe the Reformers were 'prophets' chosen by God to institute a corrective, at a particular time for a particular purpose. But I also remain skeptical that they have an indisputable oligopoly on theology. Even still, I think that, after the early Church fathers, they ought to be the launching pad for contemporary theological inquiry, whatever direction you go with it.

    I share your disdain for the insistence that God rules the world like a chess board or a puppet show. I do believe that he intervenes at times, hardening hearts and softening them, and that his ultimate, 'big picture' plans--which extend into eternity future--are known and determined and impossible to thwart. But that is a far cry from claiming that he maintains absolute control over every minute detail of history. His sovereignty--which I affirm with absolute vigor--is not dependent upon whether he holds absolute sway over every act in history, or even over every conversion to Christ. He is just as sovereign if he chooses, in his infinite wisdom, to give humans the power to choose good and evil.

    Though I am not a Calvinist, I do believe in original sin. As such, I believe that human beings are not capable of living perfect lives... they are not able to keep from sinning to some extent (even after salvation!). But I do not believe that it necessitates that we are unable to make wise or even morally upright choices, including the choice to receive the Gospel in faith. "There is none righteous, not even one" means that no one is able to achieve a state of righteousness.

    On the other hand, I am still left wrestling with a number of passages (which I dealt with in an earlier post) that don't seem to leave much, if any, wiggle room. So things are still up in the air for me. The most promising idea to me is that God predestines based on foreknowledge. I know that idea is viciously slandered by those of the Reformed persuasion, but I have yet to see a genuine rebuttal.

    I think your last paragraph hits the nail on the head. I mentioned in the original post how God treats those who "have not heard", that he judges them according to what they have "heard" of him through creation and through their consciences... with the unfortunate reality that none in history, save Christ, have responded to even that perfectly, thus warranting their condemnation.

    Thanks for the dialogue. Let me know what you think after mulling over the passages in the post cited above.

    Grace,

    ReplyDelete
  5. That post reads like it could have been written by myself. I'm not going to bother trying to work with all of those passages; to do so would only be artificial and clunky. I'll make an attempt to touch on a couple issues, though. But first, to respond to your response.

    1) I don't think that I'm as concerned that Systematic Theology is illegitimate, as that any type of theology is a house of cards within the Protestant setup. This calls into question the claim of any particular Protestant doctrine as an issue of dogma, from which dissent could be considered heretical. I think that there are more or less 3 options for the Protestant: postmodernism, orthopraxy, or a tension between Scripture, our own interpretation of it through reason, and the Tradition's interpretation of it (as in Anglicanism, though the Lutheran church and to a lesser extent the Presbyterian could probably do likewise). For the latter, I think that most contemporary churches try to stick mainly with their own interpretation of Scripture with a nod, if that, toward Tradition; what happens is that they end up with their own illegitimate tradition that frames all discussion.

    2) One issue that comes up in talking about other cultures is what it means to reject or believe the message of Christ given to them. If they can reject general revelation in the way required by John 3, it seems like they should also be able to accept it in the same way that believers do. We don't have to be perfect, we have to live lives of faith in Christ. The equivalent for a pagan who has never heard of Christ would not be to live a sinless life. I have no idea what it would be. I prefer inclusivism, but I can only argue that it is a possibility, as I don't believe that the Bible talks enough about "everyone else" to settle the issue on way or another.

    The OT can also enter in here: David was a man after God's own heart, despite being sinful; and while one verse in the Psalms talks of all being sinners, other verses proclaim the Psalmist's righteousness.

    Romans in particular I take to be an extended argument for the inclusion of Gentiles in the church, rather than a systematic theology as the Reformed tradition seems to consider it, in which case it ought to be read within its particular context. Romans 9-10 then, as a prelude to Romans 11 (this being the important point), form an argument for why God can do with groups of people as he likes. By itself, 9-10 can be read as election of individuals for salvation, but I think that within context the election of groups for a purpose is more satisfying. But if this is what is in mind for most of Romans, then it says less concerning exclusivism and the way of salvation than is commonly presupposed. I think that Ephesians 1 (especially verse 11) is a good deal more troubling for an Arminian. However, I'm committed to finding a non-Calvinist solution, because I'm at the point where I'm more convinced that Calvinism is false than that Christianity is true, and I'd really hate to find that the Calvinist reading of Scripture (or one like it) is the correct one.

    3) I feel that I should be more specific on what I meant by the Reformed categories, so that this doesn't remain some mere abstraction. I think that Arminians have realized some of this, but that the modern conservative church still struggles in this area.

    I mean that at the time of the Reformation, people separated things which had before been less distinct (and which I think are not separated in such a fashion in the Bible). Catholicism fell prey to the same problem I think at the Council of Trent, solving problems in the opposite way that the Reformers did. It becomes faith vs. works; if we want to talk about the works of the believer, we can either talk about faith in God's grace along with our works contributing to salvation, or have works be at best a consequence following after faith. What we have trouble talking about in both cases are works as an expression of faith, which are the particulars which constitute faith. I've jotted down a couple notes about this on my own blog. Similarly with the will of God and our will; Arminians have realized this one clearly, though sadly there has been a dearth of good Arminian theology (you may want to check out 19th century Methodist theologians; I can try to hunt them down if you're interested).

    I realize that there are many things which I didn't touch on relating to the topic, but I've already been long-winded, so I think I'll stop for the time being.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well, there's theology, and then there's orthodoxy. Theology is just the study of God. It's something virtually every human is engaged in, regardless of creed. Then you have Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology as coherent, purposeful, in a sense defined, manifestations of this. Theology has no rules; the others do. And I would argue that the rules adopted by BT and ST are grounded, ironically, not in scripture itself, but in philosophy. But that's another issue for another time (and one I have already taken up in my earlier, lengthy critique of Calvinism).

    Correct me if I'm misreading you... but I think the notion that Protestants are the only ones with dogma (shorthand for ST) is absurd (no offense). Every denomination or sect has an orthodoxy of sorts, including the Catholics and the liberal churches--albeit different ones. Branding heretics is a practice that extends all the way to the apostles, not to mention the early Church in general. It's the farthest thing from a 'modern' development, much less a Protestant one.

    As to your comment about the role of tradition, I would agree that in some Protestant circles, tradition is given little more than a nod, and this is a matter of concern. Thanks to the emerging church conversation, the tides are just beginning to turn within the broader evangelical community.

    On the surface, you have a good point about the response criterion being applied universally. I'm not knowledgeable enough yet to critique it off the top of my head. All I could say is that it will be impossible to arrive at such a conclusion unless we adopt an Origenesque "allegorical approach" to scripture, which sees the words of the text as merely a means of getting to some "deeper", hidden truth (an approach that no doubt heavily influenced the gnostics of the 1st & 2nd c.). The emphasis on believing in the name of Jesus (John 3:18, Rom. 10:9-10, 13ff) is so heavy that we can't simply set it aside as fiat in order to pursue the dialogue as if it weren't true.

    From a philosophical standpoint, the notion of inclusivism is just as problematic for evangelism and missions as is Calvinism. In the first view, if people don't need the Gospel preached to them by faithful witnesses in order to be saved (to the contrary, see Rom. 10:14-15,17), then missions and evangelism are pointless, outside the hedonistic satisfaction of the evangelist. In the second, if people's souls are predestined for heaven or hell, then anything you or I or anyone else does is not going to stand in the way of that. Again, hedonism or "because God said so" are the only motivations for doing so. And the former argument has been adopted by the WCC as well as several mainline denominations, because of this very issue. As a result, evangelism has all but ceased.

    I have given significant consideration to the idea of 'corporate election', though I have not actually studied it. Most of this, in fact, is fresh territory for me. I know what I read in Scripture, and I have a vague grasp of church history (after taking Dr. Manetsch's class this past summer). To be completely transparent, at the very foundation of my point of view in this discussion is what I call "intuitive conviction" (Jn 16:13-15, Rom. 8:15-16, 1 Jn 3:24, 4:2). Throughout my life, since being born again by God's Spirit, there are certain things I have known to be true. Despite theological speculation, the Spirit brings me back to these truths over and over again. When a need arises for me to offer an apologia for my convictions, I do the best I can. But the real truth for me is "in here", and it has remained virtually in tact throughout my years of "Christian adulthood". My submission to God's call to attend seminary was in response to my need to be a better apologist for the faith, for holding fast to my own convictions is virtually useless unless I am able to help others toward a greater understanding of the "truth that sets them free" (Jn 8:31-32).

    What I'm saying is that, in essence, no matter who or what I read in seminary, no matter how persuasive the arguments, I will steadfastly affirm the full deity and humanity of Christ, the substitutionary atonement of his death on the cross, his physical resurrection and ascension, justification by grace through faith (even if that faith must be expressed via works for it to truly be counted as faith), and offered only to those who believe in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth for salvation. My thoughts on female eldership, on election, and on various ecclesiastical matters remain up for debate. But I'm an evangelical to the core. I very deliberately chose TEDS over Fuller because of doctrinal convictions. Fortunately, at TEDS there is diversity on "secondary issues", though I would like there to be more diversity with regard to the doctrine of election. :-)

    If you don't mind my probing a little bit (you don't seem like you would), might I make a suggestion to help you in your own spiritual journey? First off, I want to say that this type of context is perfect for wrestling with our vulnerabilities. If you read much of what I've written on this blog, you'll see an inordinate amount of vulnerability. It's the only way people change, and God knows I need change until the day I die. With reciprocity in mind, you communicated a "soft spot" toward the end of your last comment that I think is worth prayerful consideration. You're dreadful of the possibility that Calvinism is true, and as such, you have admittedly steered essentially clear of Reformed writers. I share your fear to an extent. "It can't be true," I tell myself. The prospect of its truth has, in fact, cast me into periods of depression. So believe me when I say that I empathize. But it's healthy to realize that we're equally as guilty as the most ardent fundamentalist of burying our heads in the sand if we choose to ignore such a significant voice in the post-Catholic era which has persisted (and flourished) to this day.

    You also seemed to suggest that you aren't 100% convinced that the Biblical metanarrative is fully trustworthy and true. If you won't take too much offense to it, I will try to help increase your certainty that it is true. With another friend of mine who has been wrestling with the authoritativeness of Scripture, I shared this (ver batim):

    The main thing I could think to contribute to the discussion is that I believe by faith that it is God's infallible word to us, for our benefit. I realize this is almost ridiculously simple, but that is what we are doing when we put our trust in Jesus Christ. We are doing nothing more and nothing less than trusting that the Gospel that has been handed down to us through the ages is absolutely, unequivocally, completely true. Believing in Jesus literally means believing that what someone told you about Jesus (or what you read about Him) is trustworthy and true! You and I believe this by faith, my friend! Not only are the written words of the Bible God's word, but so are the spoken words of the Bible by those who testify to its truth! God's word is true not because we say it is or because we can prove that it is, but because it is. The only way it is even possible to recognize that it is true is by the impartation of God's very Spirit into our being. God's Spirit testifies that what is contained in the Bible is true. What is up to you, then, is to find out whether His Spirit is truly testifying to you that the Bible is truly His word.

    On that note, I've got to back my bag, put my shoes and coat on, and head off to school. It's been great conversing with you, brother. Have a great day!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks again for your responding. I feel that I should probably make a couple points of clarification:

    1) I was rather sloppy with my use of the term "theology." I was referring to some sort of semi-systematic approach to understanding God and his revelation which results in knowledge. So, more or less Biblical, Systematic, and Philosophical Theology, rather than just any discussion concerning God.

    2) I'm sorry if I misspoke concerning dogma and heresy; I most certainly didn't mean that Protestants are the only ones with it. In fact, I almost meant the opposite, that Protestants seem least entitled to make claims on either side.

    3) I probably should clarify where I'm coming from, and my current existential crises in the faith. More or less, I'm beset with questions regarding the basis of our faith, and legitimate authority. I've been finding Protestantism lacking, and while I can't quite agree with RC or EO, I am sympathetic with them and pulled in their direction. I appreciate your statements concerning religious experience and intuitive convictions; while I'm readily willing to admit that God uses those with other people, I myself do too much work with religious studies to really trust them (I see pretty much identical examples in every other world religion, and if they are so certain about their experience even when conflicting with mine, why would I be correct?).

    Other than that, this topic has become pretty huge. Maybe we should get together for coffee or something sometime?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Your clarifications are helpful indeed! And I can understand the tensions. I experienced them much more dramatically toward the end of my undergraduate studies in communication... very immersed in "liberal" academia... and in the year following. And I still wrestle with how to approach the Bible at times, though the Spirit (I believe) keeps pulling me back to "the center".

    I find it intriguing (though not necessarily surprising) that while Protestantism seems to offer a paradigm of relative flexibility when compared to either RC or EO, you seem to be drawn to the latter. The fact that you aren't yet settled highlights the tension. Definitely the kind of stuff to explore over coffee. I have lamented the woeful lack of places available for spontaneous, non-consumption expectational, yet nightlife-esque community out here in the burbs. Coffee shops prove to be ideal places for this, but the homogeneity of chain franchises like Starbucks detracts from the atmosphere. Are there any good, locally owned coffee shops around? I suppose Starbucks isn't an awful last resort.

    "Huge"... that's even an understatement perhaps. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  9. I've been trying to think of any other coffee houses in the area, but to no avail. There's always Caribou as well; still big chain, but they have a bit more interesting atmosphere.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Never had Caribou. I'll have to give it a try. Does Einstein Bros have good coffee? ...or good bagels? LOL.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hmm, I have no idea about Einstein. However, I did manage to find a place through Yelp! which has been getting good reviews, located on Dundee between Arlington Heights Rd. and Buffalo Grove Rd. It's an Asian place, specializing in bubble tea and smoothies, but also with coffee evidently. The name I guess is now "Very Berry," it used to be "Red Mango Cafe."

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'm good for tomorrow (Friday) after 10, 10:30, or next week Tuesday before 5; if you want to meet somewhere in the vicinity of Trinity, I'll be there all day Monday (I'm teaching classes from 8-10 in the morning, and about 6-10 at night).

    ReplyDelete
  13. Michael,

    Email me at the address linked on my profile page, with your cell #. You're more than welcome to stop by this afternoon and I can brew up a pot of our own. I'm home with my daughter today, but would be happy to chat.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular Posts