Relationships

I am a bit behind which means my thoughts about this book are a little cloudy. When I was in seminary I was introduced to the idea of “relationality” by S. Mark Heim. The relationships of God as seen in the Trinity reflect the nature of humanity, the church and our desire to be in relationship with God (crassly put). The idea seemed so obvious to me that I did not pay it much heed and ran back to Tillich, questions of despair and “being” and looking for my ground. Ah the naïveté of youth. Now, after having read folks such as Heim, Volf, and Fiddes I am realizing that there is much more than just the obvious we need to be nice to each other. The ecclesiological implications of relationship alone is profound. With all of this said, Fiddes does not seem to be offering anything groundbreaking or earth shattering, but is playing in the same sandbox as others and building a decent castle to consider. What Fiddes does consider are the pastoral implications one finds in such a theological approach. No longer is the role of the minister to offer answers to the many theological questions that are on the minds of those sitting in the pews. (I am assuming that those folks in the pews are peculating with theological questions and not thinking about the next sports game, or how the colors of the flowers are all wrong, or anything like that… let me dream, let me dream.) Instead, the minister is to offer to bring the individual into relationship with God, questions and all. This means the minister needs to be in a relationship with the parishioner and then to allow God to flow in the relationship – this is Fiddes understand of an ontology of relationship; God happens in the flow of a relationship (page 281 if you don’t believe me).
On the Baptist level Fiddes had some interesting points. He claims that the pastor has been commissioned to speak for God regularly, specifically the forgiveness that God offers. Seems kinda Catholic. Fiddes covers the hierarchical potential by claiming that ordination is given by Christ and the congregation – whew! One interesting claim that Fiddes (and possibly Ellis – see previous entry on worship) makes is that Baptist are sacramental people due to the free form of their worship. The purpose of worship, Fiddes claims, is for the congregation to find the mind of Christ. Some congregations listen better than others. Interesting thought. Maybe someday I’ll meet Fiddes and talk to him about his ideas, get to know him and his thoughts. Then again, isn’t it much more fun for me to just read what he has offered, spew my thoughts and then walk away? The less relationship, the less the mess.

I'm still here....

Haven’t posted in a while and I’m feeling a bit guilty about that (especially since some of my other good Baptist buddies have been quite active with their blog …). I recently read Fiddes’ Participating in God, and still intend to write about that, but not today. So I give you good intentions, knowing how much that is worth. Currently I am working through McClendon and Smith’s Understanding Religious Convictions. Think Austin, Wittgenstein, Ramsey, and theology – are you getting bored yet? It is fairly technical and dry. While the work gives a great breakdown of McClendon’s methodological approach to theology, it is one of his less captivating works. Yesterday, while reading the book in my favorite coffee shop, Milkboy, a young woman working there (recent high school grad) asked me what I was reading, and what it was about. Hmm….. how does one describe a book on speech acts, utterances, convictions, and happiness in a way that can be understood and does not make you look like a total loser. I don’t think it is possible, and my “rep” went down a number of notches. Sigh.
Anyway, I’ll plan on giving a summary of the entire book when I finish it, but for now I have a thought. McClendon, Smith, and all the language nuts claim that one’s speech must reflect one’s experience or truth (a crass reductions\). This is how one discerns the convictions/truth claims of a religious community. Yet what if their heart is not with their words? What if someone says, “Jesus is Lord,” but doesn’t believe it? What if that person is in a leadership position, knows all the right words to speak, but does not really believe it. Dare I suggest that there might be pastors and even bishops (“what’s a bishop?” says the Baptist) who are speaking without believing? I think all of these language folks are right in claiming that each community has its own grammar. This means that one can be immersed in a community and learn the language of the community. Is it possible to know the language, to know the grammar well enough to be fluent in the community without actually ascribing to the beliefs of the community? Turn on TBN, watch the slimly preachers offering hope and receiving millions and tell me what you think.