The Long Face

I just finished reading Why the Long Face? written by a friend of mine, Ron Maclean. It is a good collection of short stories, provocative, and passing between reality and fantasy in a way that captures the truth of life without forcing it. I highly recommend it. I found almost an absurd aspect to Ron's writing that seemed very real in various ways, but instead of considering the entire book, two stories in particular jumped out at me because of religious tones: "South of Why" and "Over the Falls"

In both of these stories scripture is quoted but in very different ways. In "South of Why" scripture is used as a tool of moral righteousness, a missile to bring down an unfaithful husband. In "Over the Falls," scripture becomes almost a participant in conversation, leading and guiding the narrator's questions and thoughts. In the first, the use of scripture becomes absurd, aiding in the picture of one character as beyond reason. In the other, scripture is a place to find reason with the absurd, considering questions of faith and mental illness.

Consider these two pictures. Scripture used in an absurd way, and scripture used in a reasoning dialogue. Hmm... maybe Ron is onto something.

Moral Filth?

Yesterday (9-13-08) "anonymous" left the following comment on my posting The "Truth" is Back There

Why the foul and crude langauge. Paul says to get rid of all moral filth from your lips. Come on dude.

Where should we start. First, where did Paul "say" (I am assuming you mean "write") "get rid of all moral filth from your lips"? We find in James 1:21

Therefore rid yourselves of all sordidness and rank growth of wickedness, and welcome with meekness the implanted word that has the power to save your souls. (btw, all scripture quotes, unless otherwise noted are taken from the NRSV)

"Sordidness and rank growth..." can be also read as "filth" but James certainly wasn't written by Paul, so we can count that scripture out.

Colossians 3:8 states:
But now you must get rid of all such things—anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive language from your mouth.

Here, "abusive" can also me "filthy" so maybe this is what my anonymous friend was referring to. This is a problem. The authorship of Colossians is up for grabs (remember, just because the letter states it was written by someone, doesn't mean it actually was). Colossians has language that doesn't occur in any other of Paul's letter and missing language that does occur in Paul's letters. Colossians speaks of a realized eschatology, which one would not find in Ephesians or Corthinians. I could go on. The point is, if this is indeed the text that my anonymous friend is referring to, we can't say with certainty that Paul "said" it. Next time cite the whole Bible, or at least the New Testament to be safe.

Second, if you are going to quote scripture, get it right. "get rid of all moral filth from your lips" is not the same as "abusive language" or even "filthy communication" (found in the KJV). In fact the term "moral filth" seems to be puzzling. What exactly is moral filth. Is this what people mean when someone says his or her excrement does not emit a displeasing smell? Speaking in terms of language, can a word be moral and filthy at the same time? The mis-quote is confusing at best. If you are going to be a scripture quoting Christian, take the time to learn the scripture. Or at least take the time to look up what you are saying. If you have the time time leave a judgmental comment on my blog, then you should have the time to go to one of the many online Bibles and make sure you know what you are saying.

Third, whats wrong with the language? After looking at the posting, I think I can find maybe two examples that may have offended my anonymous friend.

"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."

Maybe the use of the censored "f--ked" is what my anonymous friend finds so offensive, he or she didn't say. Or perhaps it is the entire sentence that is off-putting. Yet consider what I am saying. I am suggesting (along with a number of other scholars) that Baptists have sold out to the world, have bought the teachings of the world to the detriment of the church. This is not something that you yawn about, or you say nicely. Luther referred to the Catholic church as Babylon, and used much harsher language than I did (See the Babylonian Captivity of the Church). He was not only writing a point, but expressing a sentiment. I could have said that Baptists have "messed up our history," but that does not capture the same emotional power as my choice of words. I could have softened up the language, but would lose something. If my anonymous friend thinks the Bible is free of bawdy, harsh, scatological and crude language then he or she should put down the "Precious Moments" children's scripture and really read the scriptures... preferably in the original language to capture the true power of the words.

Finally, come on, dude. Is this how you want to spread the love and grace of Christ, but claiming moral high ground and then judging others from your place on high? Is the language of one sentence (censored language) worth your pious preaching and positioning? One of the reasons why many people will not come to know Christ is because of the fake posturing and the moral demands that are not that important. Yes, if one is cursing in an extreme manner, than perhaps we should consider self-image, but to criticize the careful choices of a sentence is akin to moral fascism. This approach of Christianity, walking through the world with an arsenal of scriptures at your disposal to throw at people whom you judge as morally unworthy makes me want to reconsider my claim as a Christian. We are to call the world to the Gospel, but not with such "adiaphra". Such an approach of moral piety and perfection passed onto others with a sense of superiority is probably the best example I have found of "moral filth"

Lazy Christians, Learning Christians

"What are you reading?" One would think this would be a welcome question, a great conversation starter. If I were reading a book on the migratory patterns of birds then maybe. Or if I were reading the latest political smut trashing one side or the other, perhaps. If I were even reading a cheap novel I imagine one would still find something to talk about. Yet in front of me was Christian Theology by Alister McGrath. Not a very exciting book. The inquisitor, knowing my vocation, was not surprised that I was reading this book, and then made an interesting statement. "I imagine not many folks in your congregation spend time reading and thinking about theology."

This statement did make me think. Should the work that I do, the thinking I do be kept out of the hands of the folks in the pews? Of course not. But it is. So often I find myself falling into the practice of spoon feeding theology, pureed and mashed so as not to risk hurting or choking the "lay folk." Yet the faith of one in the pew is not less than my own. The relationship a lay member has with God is no less intense then my own relationship with God. They should be thinking about Christ, incarnation, eschatology, etc...

How then do I cultivate and encourage the congregation to read and think about theology in a deep and provocative way? How do I cultivate a congregating of Biblical the theological scholars?

Here is the vision - a coffee shop full of folks who are all reading, Christian Theology. Sounds scary. Sounds exciting.

Why Can't We All Just be the Same?

I've been away for the past week - for an actual, honest to God vacation. I went to Maine where the Internet still runs through a series of tubes and was unplugged. I know there was a great longing for my wit and deep insights, but my family needed some of my thoughts and attention as well. After a week they were more than happy to plug me back into the techno-world and let me share my great thoughts with others.

Recently I read an article from the Journal of the American Academy of Religion (religious eggheads of the world unite!); "De Facto Congregationalism and the Religious Organizations of Post-1965 Immigrants to the United States: The Revised Approach" by Wendy Cadge (vol 76, no. 2 June 08' p. 344-374). Once you get past the spiffy title, it is a good article making some interesting points.

Basically, Cadge seems to be arguing that one cannot make broad based assumptions about the formation and function of immigrant congregations in the US. There are points of similarity depending on the larger context (i.e. the U.S.) but there are also points of difference depending of the local context, the leaders, the particular members, etc. It seems to me that Cadge is picking a fight with folks from the world of Sociology, and that is not my 'hood, so I wont enter into that fray. What got me thinking was the level of applicability to the Baptist movement.
Within the Baptist movement we have similarities - things we all tend to share. Cadge listed the following similarities (note - Cadge's article is responding to a number of other articles and books. Her similarities and variations come out of that conversation. In other words... read the damn article!):

1. voluntary membership
2. identity defined more by the people who form it than by the territory they inhabit
3. systematic fund raising
4. a tendency for these families to be brought together under the roof of the institution on Sunday

Immigrant or not, I think we could agree that Baptists churches share these similarities.

The differences, or variations, Cadge lists are as follows:

1. Because of its lay leadership and voluntary function, there is a tendency for clergy to be professionals hired as employees
2. the congregation has a tendency to ethnic exclusivity
3. a tendency for [the congregation] to be multifunctional (featuring more than religious 'worship' including education, cultural, political, and social service actives)

Again, I think we could say that these variations exist among Baptists.
So here is the rub. Often I hear folks describe what the church is "supposed" to do, or be. We are often pushed into a box for how the pastor is supposed to act, what kinds of services the church is supposed to provide, and even how worship is supposed to occur. Yes, there are similarities, and probably more than listed above. Yet at the same time there will always be contextual variations, and more than the ones listed. How can we be true to a greater movement and at the same time flexible to the contextual variations we encounter. Or perhaps to put it another way, how do we be true to Christ, and at the same time allow Christ to be heard and incarnated in a way that is true to the here and now. Hmmm.....