The "Future is Bright"?

Today my Green Lake, Ministers Council experience is coming to a close. I weep, my guitar weeps, my ipod weeps, there is much weeping. It is always fun to be the youngest person at these denominational meetings. I get to make the digs about how other folk's children are my age, how I read about their life experiences in history books, and how my body is not falling apart before my eyes. The sad thing is I really shouldn't be saying these things. Not because they are slightly cruel and heartless (never stopped me before), but because I am getting older and older, my body is wearing down, and many of my life experiences are already written about in current history books. Really, I should not be the youngest person here.

I read a posting on my friend's blog this morning that stated in the ABC/USA there are only about 247 clergy under the age of 35 (5.10%). This confirmed my own feelings and experiences.

"The Future is Bright." One of the fun presentations at the glorious meetings was concerning a restructuring of the ABC denomination (I'm going to avoid the "Titanic" reference). The restructuring is introduced as "The Future is Bright." Lets, for a moment, forget that the initials for this is F.I.B., and consider the numbers above. If there are only 247 pastors in the ABC under the age of 35 right not, what will the future be like in 20 years when we are all in our 40s and 50s? Is the future really that bright?

In the midst of all of this, I have been working through another riveting Baptist history book Recycling the Past or Researching History?:Studies in Baptist Historiography and Myths, edited by Philip E. Thompson and Anthony R. Cross (I may have already mentioned this in a previous blog). The authors seem to suggest that the "Past is Bright," or P.I.B. for short. Well, actually the 17th century past is bright, the 18th and especially 19th centuries are kinda dim and dismal due to the enlightenment and modernity. Damn Kant, Hegel, Descartes and all those others who pushed their insipid notions of thought. These authors are looking to a bright past for a hopeful future. Maybe something we should consider?

I would like to think that the future is hopeful. Even if we only have 247 pastors to lean upon for leadership (maybe we can make some trades with other denominations.... one seasoned, 50 year old pastor for 3 younger pastors). I don't know if the future is bright, because it may get worse before it gets better, but Baptists are weird enough that they may actually work through all of this mess. A more religious individual would say that we should trust God. Hmmm...... It might just work, but I'm still going to bitch on the way.

Mystery or Promise?

I'm currently in Green Lake, WI at the American Baptist Ministers Council Senate meeting. It is not as important as it sounds. One would think that at such meeting of leadership one would find brilliant, captivating and engaging conversations about things like the purpose of the church, the role of sacraments or lack thereof in worship, and the like. To a degree this occurs, but not so much. Instead we make a lot of self-deprecating Baptist pastor jokes, talk about the Olympics and pretend things are going well at our churches. Not awful, but not great. It just is what it is.
With all of that said, I have been thinking about some of the "conversation" that has been occurring on this blog in the last two weeks. My first comment - Holy Crap! I actually have readers!
I had to get that out of my system.
Second, it seems that the word, "sacrament" carries a number of negative connotations. So lets consider the history of the word.
A word of caution to the college or seminary student who may be reading this post at 2am trying to find something to finish their paper for a 9am class tomorrow - move on. This is just a recollection of what I have read, but I will not be referencing any of my sources. Consider this a casual, bar side conversation (I'm sure you all have had plenty of bar side conversations about the linguistic meaning of the word "sacrament." Just after the third round of shots, and just before the ritual of puking.).
First, the Greek word capturing the idea of sacrament is (roughly) mysterium. It refers to just what you think, a mystery. The idea of presence, the idea of grace, the idea of a ritual referring to something more than that which it is is a mystery.
Second, the Latin word "sacrament" refers to an oath or a promise. It was an oath of fidelity one made, a promise to a person or idea.
Again, these are from my memory and should not be taken as completely accurate.
So we have a mystery and a promise. Think about this. Ultimately things such as the Lord's Supper, Baptism, or even the awareness of the Holy Spirit are a mystery. We know something is happening, we know something powerful is occurring, but what exactly is a mystery.
Yet at the same time we have a promise. John Cowell writes about this aspect of sacrament extensively in his work Promise and Presence. God has promised to be with us when we gather (Mt. 18). When we participate in the Lord's Supper we remember the promise of salvation. In Baptism we reclaim anew that very promise. The promise of the Lord leads to the presence of the Lord. At the same time we have made a promise to follow the Lord, to be faithful to the Lord, etc... The promise is a two way street.
Mystery and Promise. The mystery keeps the ritual from becoming so route and mechanical that they become a way to force the hand of God. The Promise gives depth to the mystery and makes the presence of God tangible.
When I speak of considering a sacramental presence, I am suggesting (along with others) that there be an awareness of both mystery and promise.
I know it is difficult for us protestants to think past an dialectic, either/or view of anything, but can we, for a moment, suspend our Protestant proclivities and imagine an analogical view of worship, rituals and sacrament? Mystery and promise?

The "Truth" is Back There

Wow. My last posting got two, count them, two comments! And neither from my mom. This is big time. I am thinking of quiting my job, abandoning my family so I can spend more time on my blog and keep the masses happy. (Imagine my reaction if I received three comments)

Currently I'm working through Recycling the Past or Researching History? Studies in Baptist Historiography and Myths edited by Philip E. Thompson and Anthony R. Cross. It is more of the same trope that I have been spouting and reacting to for a while. Baptists have f--ked up our history, we are a bunch of Enlightenment whores, individualistic bastards who have kicked God out of the the "sacraments", worship, and ecclesical life in general. No doubt you know that song and dance. This book is arguing for a history of primary sources, a ressourcement of Baptist history. I agree with the idea. It is possible that a lot of what Baptists take for granted is due to poor history, sloppy scholarship, and we may be off track. Steve Harmon has a good line in his work Towards Baptist Catholicity, "As in the nouvelle theologie, the task of ressourcement, 'retrieval', is prerequisite for aggiornamento, updating." (pg. 15) I never knew I could find so many Catholic terms written by a Baptist. Maybe we need and inquisition.
Steve's point, and the point of many of the authors in Recycling the Past is that the Baptist movement needs to reform and always be reforming (didn't someone else say that...) and we need to have a good, clear, and I would say a "thick" understanding of our past to truly "update" our present. It is an historical and a ecclesialogical task.

Yesterday I read "Churches and the Church" by Stanley K. Fowler from the aforementioned book. Fowler is arguing for an emphasis upon the association over the emphasis on the individual church. He is claiming that the early Baptists had a sense of the church "Catholic" i.e. universal, thus would have an understanding of Baptists churches connecting with other Baptist churches as a part of something bigger. He does the historical work, showing the language of the early confessions and then traces the emergence of the individual church (and the individual Christian) culminating in the Landmark movement. Fowler ends with looking towards the tension. Clearly he does not want a hierarchy, but does see the need for associations which have some bounds. We've done it before, why can't we do it again?
What I think Fowler is lacking is a deeper theological reason for connectionalism among Baptist churches. Currently we are pragmatic about our association (which Fowler points out). What would be the theological necessity for association? I believe there is one - look at Volf's After Our Likeness, consider the Trinity, and there is something there.

Here is my last question/comment (I need to stop writing this and be productive). As we are trying to uncover the historical "truth," how much are we changing and biasing history for our own ends? Did the early Baptists speak of association because they truly did have an understanding of connectionalism with the larger body of Christ, or was it pragmatic? The "truth" is not back there, there are instead different facets of the story which we can pull out and point out, but we never find the truth. Just a different part of the story that we want to tell.

An historical flashback

The massive blogging crowds which frequent my site have spoken, and I will do all that I can to post more often. I cannot offer anything brilliant, since I am now out of the Chautauqua scene, drinking normal, Philly water and breathing in the same air that all of the common folk are breathing in, but I will endeavor to do my best.

I have started working on the third chapter of my dissertation (with much rejoicing). So far, the basic outline of this chapter will look something like this:

1. A question of Baptist sacramentalism, i.e. if there is a place for a sacramental consciousness in Baptist life

2. A consideration of the term "Sacramental Consciousness" - borrowed from the Catholics

3. A consideration of a sacramental understanding of ordination

4. Possible applications of such consideration

This is very basic, but I am just starting the research. I have been combing and rereading some of the chapters from the book Baptist Sacramentalism - I think the title speaks for itself. The authors are all making an argument that one can find a sacramental thread in Baptist life, especially in the beginning of the movement. It is an historical movement. A couple of the authors have mentioned that the current reaction against sacramentalism today is because of changes over time, the influence of the enlightmentment and an anti-catholic rhetoric. I have not seen I good current study of today's Baptists and their view of sacraments, but I would imagine most would be against it (either you're 'fer it or a'gin it). So here is my question. Just because we used to have a place for sacraments in our history, does that mean we should reintroduce historical and possibly anachronistic concepts? Or does it mean that we may still have, embedded within our historical DNA (what does that mean? Hah! I'll never tell!) the possibility for a current understanding or appreciation of the sacraments. Historical flashbacks can be dangerous or they can be liberating.

Chautauqua Day 7 - the final day

I know the weeping will begin with all my two readers (myself included....thanks Mom) to know that this will be the final Chautauqua post. It has been a good and fruitful week with an acceptable amount of productivity and relaxation. All ranting aside, this is a good place to go and think and I recommend if, if you can afford it. My kids won't be going to college because of the week I spent here, but I think the sacrifice was worth it.
I heard two good lectures yesterday. The first was from Michael Gerson, sr. fellow for the Council on Foreign Relations and former speechwriter and advisor to "still" President George W. Bush. I have to admit, just as I approached Richard Land, I approached Gerson (as I think many did here at Chautauqua. Yet Gerson is a speechwriter and knew again how to speak to his audience and how to craft the English language well. I enjoy a good speech, and regardless of the content this was a good speech.
Gerson spoke about the "emerging center," specifically the emergence of a social consciousness among evangelicals. He spoke of a new generation of evangelicals who were still morally conservative but who were concerned for the poor, destitute, etc. This is good, I guess, yet were is the space for the "liberals" in this emerging center. Liberals are known for their social consciousness but not for conservative morals (or any morals at that matter). Yet the idea of an emerging center would suggest that it would not just be evangelicals moving to the left, but that liberal Christians would be moving to the right. Think about it for a moment. What would liberals have to do to be a part of this emerging center. Personally, one thing I am trying to do is reclaim my evangelical roots. As a Baptist, such an argument is not difficult to make - we have an evangelical heritage, theologically speaking, and it is worth claiming. Yet that is not enough. I think we on the left should look at our values and morals and make claims. One attack on liberals is that we tend to walk in a swamp of moral relativity. I would tend to agree. Liberalism has been mired with a bad mix of individualism, situational ethics, and a lack of doctrine. This makes for a sour tasting theology. I do think there are some things we should claim - poverty is wrong, war is wrong, economic inequality is wrong, etc. Yet I would also claim that excessive drinking is wrong, sexual misconduct or a dangerous sexual lifestyle is wrong, indifference is wrong, etc.... If you are breaking relationship with God and with others than it is wrong. Love is a relational concept, not just a social concept. Would the said Liberals of Christianity be willing to consider personal moral boundaries as well as the social boundaries we have so well claimed to join this emerging center? I am not suggesting liberal morals be exactly the same as the evangelicals - there are certain doctrinal issues held by evangelicals that I cannot advocate, but we still need to consider our values and morals. Something to think about. I would like to say some things about his clear conservative leanings, and some of the issues I had, but.... I'm lazy and don't want to write that much.
The other lecture I heard was from the writer in residence and a good friend of mine, Ron MacLean. His lecture was called, "Risk Everything," and it was good. While Ron was speaking about writing, the role of literature in the 21st century and the purpose it serves (or lack thereof), most of what he said could be applied to pastors and sermons. Writing should take risks, make people uncomfortable, stir them and wake them up. So should sermons. As writing continues to evolve and develop, it should be done with excellence. So should sermons. Writing should be visionary, so should sermons. Writing should be an act of nonconformity. So should sermons. And on and on. It was refreshing to hear a lecture not about faith and politics and one that was challenging and inspiring when considering the craft that is so much a part of my profession. Basically, pastors, writers, artists, musicians, visionaries, should grow a set of balls and take risks. It is interesting that I can find a number of instances in scripture where prophets in the Hebrew Scriptures and followers of Christ in the gospels are warned about the difficult life ahead of them and the risks they will have to take. Yet it takes a writer to remind this pastor about the risks he is called to take. Some would say that God was speaking through Ron. Others would say that Ron just gave a damn good speech.

Chautauqua Day 6 - boring dialogue

I have to be honest, I did not attend as many lectures this day. Partly I wanted to give more time to my dissertation (almost done with my chapter 2 rewrite!) and partly I was getting tired of what seemed to be the same lecture given in different ways again and again. It was like the week after Thanksgiving - you can only do so much with turkey, and eventually it gets boring. The bulk of the content yesterday was on Muslim, Jewish and Christian relations. This is something I'm all for, but the presentations are just getting pat and boring. Yes, we need to engage in dialogue. Yes we all have somethings that we can all agree upon. Yes, we are all descendants of Abraham. Love is important. Yawn.

Wouldn't it be interesting instead of talking about what makes us all the same to look at what makes us different. Not just the surface things (Jesus vs. Mohamed) but the deeper values we hold to, the expectations that we ascribe to and the assumptions that we may have about life. For example, do Muslims ascribe to the something similar to the Protestant Work Ethic (thanks, Weber!), specifically one's understanding of grace and providence, or is their a different understanding of work? What is the purpose of the church in the community? What is the role of the family? What about sin, or whatever word you might have for that. I think it would be fun to try to really find those places where people really differ and look at the differences closely.

Some may say that such an approach would only widen the gap between Christians, Muslims and Jew, but I would not be so quick to agree. I don't think we are trying to create one super-religion combined of all three (a religious Voltron of sorts), but are trying to increase the level of understanding. I think if we have a greater understanding and respect for the differences then we have much more to work with. So long live the differences.

Just a plug, J.A. DiNoia writes about religious dialogue in his work, The Diversity of Religions: A Christian Perspective. It has been a while since I have read it, but I believe he advocates dialogue starting with salvation, i.e. what does it mean to be saved. He stresses we should consider the differences and then continue the comparison from there. One's life, DiNoia states, is fueled by one's understanding of salvation.

Chautauqua Day 5 - Know Thy Audience

Richard Land Spoke. The Rev. Dr. Richard Land is the president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, so I am sure you can imagine that the good Reverend was not in a welcome environment. The folks at Chautauqua for the most part lean to the left and the folks in the SBC for the most part lean to the right (actually they tend to be far right, having chased out any who may only be moderately right). I was very interested to hear what Land would have to say on the issue of faith and politics to this leftist crowd. To his credit, Land spoke well. He clearly knew his audience and knew how to speak to his audience. He claimed to be very much against clergy endorsing candidates, he was against denominations supporting one party, and claimed that America was not a Christian nation, but one with a public religion. All good things to say, yet the SBC, as a denomination has all but endorsed candidates, seems to be very pro-republican, and if not in words than through actions seems to be all for a Christian America. Rev. Land clearly has some baggage that he was carrying, but he knew his audience and spoke to his audience. The term that he coined was, "principled pluralism," which seems similar to Saperstein's claims yesterday. There is an arena where pluralistic discourse exists and where the good values of the different religions rise for the sake of all humanity. A pluralism that cares for the poor, the marginalized, etc.... Sounds good, especially to this audience.
The other speaker for the day was R. Gustav Niebuhr, the director of the Religion and Society program as Syracuse University. Niebuhr spoke about tolerance as something we should not advocate over liberty, because tolerance has a condensing nature treating the tolerated groups as less then the one tolerating. This is not new, but something we need to remember. Even in this land where we claim all are free, tolerance is still rampart. For example, I tolerated Rev. Land's speech. What if I were to let go of my assumptions that I am right, that I am superior to him because of the crowd he travels with and really listen? What would I learn then? What would the dialogue be like? Would Land have had to so soften his speech? In the end, tolerance ruled the day, Land knew it, and knew his audience. He left the hollowed grounds of Chautauqua unscathed.

Chautauqua Day 4 - The Source of our Rage

Yesterday, Rabbi David Saperstein, the director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism spoke about the way in which one's faith informs one's values. He was specifically speaking about those values which effect one's interaction with the public discourse. As a Jew, he claimed that specific values emanate from his faith and inform his actions. He used the Catholics as another example - their faith and understanding of theology informed their interaction and intervention into public discourse. It think the distinction that Saperstein is making is important. One is not trying to impose one's set of values upon the public discourse (i.e. public life/politics), instead one is using one's set of values to inform the way one is a part of that discourse. There is a level to which one will try to bend the moral standings of the polis, but bending and influencing is different from imposing. His big point was that the covenant of Sinai, a covenant to which Jews tend to align with is a covenant between the Jews and God, not the world and God. Thus it is improper to impose the agreement of such a covenant upon the greater population.
This made me think on two points. 1) what are the values of my faith which inform my actions in the public? I think this is an important question because it is easy to allow someone, or a group to tell you what your values are supposed to be. It is easy to be sucked into a "Christendom" mentality assuming that might and empire are a part of the Christian values we are all to ascribe to. I believe such a question needs to be done in prayer, in community, and ultimately through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
2) What aspects of Christianity are specifically for Christians? Or in other words, what separates me from the world because of my faith? What should I not assume the rest of the world will ascribe to?
These are good questions that I think we all should consider before walking into the public discourse, armed with our faith. Instead we should be guided by our faith.

afterthought: Saperstein suggested that all religions will agree with common moral values uniting all people. I wonder if we can accept such an assumption.

Chautauqua Day 3 - Apparently Religious Liberity is Important

Today was the first "real" day of Chautauqua in that there was a morning lecture and an afternoon lecture. Saturday and Sunday don't count as much for content - just fluff to ease us all into the Chautauqua experience. It would neat to have a Chautauqua boot camp where we have to do push ups every time a speaker says, "ummm...." or every time the current Administration is criticized (if the criticism draws applause then we have to clap between each push up). So Monday we had morning worship, and another speech by the Bishop of D.C. I am no longer expecting a sermon and hope my soul will still be ok. Then we heard from John Meacham, editor at Newsweek, who spoke at length about the importance of religious liberty and made it very clear that the United States is not a "Christian nation." C. Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance also spoke with much passion about the importance of the no-establishment clause in the Constitution urging us all to hold closely and dearly to such a freedom that we all enjoy.
I get it, I really do. I get that we need to be aware of the importance of religious liberty in the United States. I have even blogged about this very idea. I agree with the speakers, with the content (for the most part - as a pretentious doctoral student I could never fully agree with someone on anything), and with the importance for our own vigilance with this issue. Yet I left the speakers yawning (metaphorically) because if was nothing new. There was, for me, very little that made me stop and think, little that challenged me and provoked me to a new plane of understanding. I imagine this is the same for the majority of the folks here at Chautauqua. This is not a crowd that questions the necessity and the importance of the establishment clause, so could we go a little deeper, please? Maybe talk about the theological complexities one faces when on the one hand most religions has a call for evangelizing and on the other hand we strive to make room for other religions to exist. What do we do with that. What about the times when religious liberty hurts - like when a child is refused a blood transfusion because of religious beliefs. Or what about people who refuse to fight in a war because of religious reasons and are persecuted by our government for such reasons (see the peace movement of WWI and WWII)? Religious liberty is important, I get it, but it is not a simple, easy stand to support. Lets roll up our sleeves and get into the nitty gritty of Religious Liberty. Maybe then I wouldn't yawn. Maybe I just need to get more sleep.

I ended the day by watching La Traviata; enjoying my freedom to attend an opera in shorts and a ratty shirt. I think I even heard someone mutter, "I may not agree with the way you are dressed, but I will defend to the death your right to wear those clothes." What a lovely, tolerant place.

Chautauqua Day 2 - Of Sermons and Speeches

Day 2 was a slow, acclimating kind of day. It started with good ole' Baptist worship at the Baptist house. There is something about Baptists and music - when they sing the walls shake. While the preaching was not stellar, it was solid enough and I enjoy worshiping with my folks. Then Chautauqua has its big Sunday worship. It is a service full of pomp, ritual and not much theological focus. The liturgy is nice enough and far from offensive. Sometimes I feel that when we try so hard not to offend anyone we end up not offering anything of substance. That was kind of what the service was like - a bowl of oatmeal. No spice and no flavor, but it wont hurt you. The music is great, polished, well rehearsed, but great. My biggest issue was with the sermon. The Right Rev. John Bryson Chane, Bishop of Washington D.C. was "preaching." He used a gospel text, but he really didn't speak from it. Instead he spoke about the importance of the separation of church and state, the necessary of the church having a voice in the polis and how we need to make sure the separation is ensured and churches continue to have a voice. For the most part I agree with his sentiment and ideas, but I was hoping for a sermon, not a speech. What Chane offered was a speech about religious liberty with a little flourish with scripture at the end. I would hope a sermon would be wrapped with the text, weaving the congregation in and out of the text until the text becomes our story. One could preach about separation of church and state, but in a worship setting (as much as that was a worship setting) is not a place for a speech or a soapbox. When we preach our concerns, our agenda and our ideals we are no longer allowing God to lead us, instead it is as if we are just telling God what to do, where to be and when.
Chane is going to be preaching all week, so maybe I'll still hear a sermon... maybe.

afterthought: There is a lot of emphasis on interfaith stuff this week, of which I am skeptical - not because I am a close minded ass, but because I wonder how deep can one go theologically when one is trying not to offend everyone. I wonder if the interfaith conversations will end us with us all holding a bowl of oatmeal

Chautauqua - Day 1.... Garbage and Road Rage

I'm going to try to chronicle my experiences at Chautauqua this week - the lectures and the studying that I accomplish (or don't accomplish). Today I arrived at the lovely hour of 10:30pm - long story, I'll just share the high-lights. I had to pick up my Chautauqua partner, Pastor Doug, at Binghamton NY and arrived at 5:00pm. Apparently everything closes between 3:00 and 5:00 on Binghamton on a Saturday, and I was left wandering around for two hours with nothing to do. That was not good, but it got better. Having finally left Binghamton, two hours later than we hoped we started making good time, just kinda breaking the speed limit.
We were cruising, not causing trouble, when another car, which had been behind us pulled in front of us, and defenestrated their garbage towards our car. I was a little shocked, and then confused when an arm stretched out the window and planted a certain hand sign towards our direction. This occurred for about a minuet, and we were speechless - expect for the "What the ----" that we kept saying. About a mile later, the car began to slow down to exit and while we left we saw the passenger, the garbage thrower and hand waver leaning over the driver showing us the same middle sign with a great amount of energy and passion. I don't believe I did anything to provoke him, but something must have happened. It was indeed interesting.
With all of that said, we are here now, trying to settle in and getting ready for the Chautauqua experience. Hopefully it will not involve any garbage throwing or finger waving.