Thus far I have finished my first draft of chapter 3 - it is not great, but at least it is "on paper." I have also announced to my congregation that I have accepted the call to the First Baptist Church of East Greenwich, RI, and have put my house on the market. It has been a pretty full time. With all this in mind, I was pleased when I found the time to read an article this morning, so please that I thought I should write something about it - if nothing else but to show that I did actually read something in the midst of the chaos.
The article was "Torture and Origen's Hermeneutics of Nonviolence" by Paul R. Kolbet. It can be found in the Journal of the American Academy of Religion, September 2008, Vol. 76, No. 3, pp. 545-572. Kolbet (a professor at Boston College) is looking at Origen's view of a Christian's approach to torture and its application to today. Origen is one of those scholars that I have stayed away from because he is so brilliant and I have not the time to fully engage with his thoughts and writings. I have gotten the impression that either you jump into the writings of Origen or you step back and let others engage. He is not the type of scholar you would dabble with.
With all that said, here are some ramblings. Origen is considering how one is supposed to respond and endure with torture in a context when Christians were being tortured on a daily basis. Kolbert reminds the readers of Origen's hermeneutics of Joshua (which is considered one of the more violent books of the bible). Origen claims that the struggle between the Israelites and the Canaanites is representative of an internal struggle we all face with temptations and negative choices. God wants us to conquer our temptations and our inner-demons, so to speak. It is this hermeneutics that Origen then takes to the experience of torture. Not only are we to model and be like Christ in the moment of suffering, but we are also to recognize that the torturer is most likely suffering and struggling with his own inner-conflict. We are not to hate or condemn the torturer but to be a witness to society; a witness of the life and ministry and teachings of Christ (Kolbet uses the thoughts and writings of Foucault around the issue of capital punishment as another voice in the conversation). Such a response is a strong, non-violent response to the evil of a culture that is trying to devalue the human person through torture.
What of today? I do not anticipate the possibility that I will be tortured any time soon (although Origen did stress that we should always be ready). Yet I have found myself and continue to find myself in conflict with others. My initial reaction is to demonize the other, to call the other disparaging words and put the other down. My reaction is that I must win over the other in the conflict. Yet if I consider Origen's hermeneutic of Joshua, the conflict is not primarily with the other, but with myself. I am giving into a narrative of the world that encourages a distancing and dehumanizing of the one I am in conflict with. What if I conquer that inner-narrative, and then look at the other as one who is also struggling with this flawed narrative of the world? This does not mean that I would give into whatever anyone asks. I would still hold strong to those things I would find important, yet not in a way that is looking to win over the other. Instead in a way that looks to witness to the other.
What if we started speaking this way? Instead of "winning souls for Christ" we say we are "witnessing to souls for Christ"? No longer are we trying to manipulate others (which is a purpose of torture), but we are trying to relate with others. There is wisdom in such an approach.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Simple intellengence
Last week I heard Cornel West speak at Palmer Seminary. Any time one has the opportunity to hear Dr. West live, you should take it. He was engaging, tangential, and insightful. West made a number of points that were difficult to keep up with and remember, but one sticks in my mind.
West talked about the difference between "intellect" and "intelligence" in popular America. He spoke about an anti-intellectual aspect of America. This is a movement that pushes for results, for data (pro intelligence) but not caring about the ideals, values and theories behind one's actions.
I cannot say if West is right about such an observation with the general American populous, but I do feel that he is onto something with the folks in the church. Think about the difference between the Dmin and the PhD in church life. A DMin is a "practical" degree that you would expect a pastor to get as he or she continues to serve in the church. It is a degree to help you be a better therapist, a better preacher, a better administrator, planner, organizer, etc... A PhD is something a pastor gets when he or she is considering teaching. It is a degree that leads towards obtuse conversations (case in point: this blog) which have little if anything to do with the folks in the pews.
Bullocks I say.
We need folks who, instead of offering a new method and approach to church growth, will consider the theological reasons, implications and underpinnings (or lack of) for church growth. I'm told again and again that the church (universal) is changing. I'm told again and again that the old paradigms do not work. So shouldn't I have a good understanding of what makes the church work rather than how to keep it going. I could learn how to be a better preacher, but it is within the parameters of an older paradigm of preaching. Rather, I should look at the liturgical, theological, and historical stuff that is involved with preaching, especially within a Baptist context.
What is my point? I think West is right with his analysis, and his critique. I think we need the DMin folks (the intelligence) in the pulpits, but we also need the PhD folks (intellect) in the pulpits as well. We need people who can work within the parameters of the church today, and people who can consider what changes need to occur for the church tomorrow.
Finally, this separation of knowledge between the pastor and the people is abhorrent. We need to give the intellect to the people. Lets spurn our anti-intellectual stance (I speaking now specifically to the Baptists) and embrace our history, our theology, our ecclesiology, our movement and be better church-makin' (as opposed to church-goin') Christians. Bah to simple intelligence! And again I say, Bah!
West talked about the difference between "intellect" and "intelligence" in popular America. He spoke about an anti-intellectual aspect of America. This is a movement that pushes for results, for data (pro intelligence) but not caring about the ideals, values and theories behind one's actions.
I cannot say if West is right about such an observation with the general American populous, but I do feel that he is onto something with the folks in the church. Think about the difference between the Dmin and the PhD in church life. A DMin is a "practical" degree that you would expect a pastor to get as he or she continues to serve in the church. It is a degree to help you be a better therapist, a better preacher, a better administrator, planner, organizer, etc... A PhD is something a pastor gets when he or she is considering teaching. It is a degree that leads towards obtuse conversations (case in point: this blog) which have little if anything to do with the folks in the pews.
Bullocks I say.
We need folks who, instead of offering a new method and approach to church growth, will consider the theological reasons, implications and underpinnings (or lack of) for church growth. I'm told again and again that the church (universal) is changing. I'm told again and again that the old paradigms do not work. So shouldn't I have a good understanding of what makes the church work rather than how to keep it going. I could learn how to be a better preacher, but it is within the parameters of an older paradigm of preaching. Rather, I should look at the liturgical, theological, and historical stuff that is involved with preaching, especially within a Baptist context.
What is my point? I think West is right with his analysis, and his critique. I think we need the DMin folks (the intelligence) in the pulpits, but we also need the PhD folks (intellect) in the pulpits as well. We need people who can work within the parameters of the church today, and people who can consider what changes need to occur for the church tomorrow.
Finally, this separation of knowledge between the pastor and the people is abhorrent. We need to give the intellect to the people. Lets spurn our anti-intellectual stance (I speaking now specifically to the Baptists) and embrace our history, our theology, our ecclesiology, our movement and be better church-makin' (as opposed to church-goin') Christians. Bah to simple intelligence! And again I say, Bah!
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Remember the Trinity or Why We Need to do all our Theology in Greek
I'm hip. I'm hip because I'm sitting in Milkboy Cafe listening to live music and looking smart because I am writing on my laptop while other are playing. Me, in the coffee shop, live music, and writing - it exudes hipness.
That is beside the point.
I just finished reading, "The Love Commandments: An Opening for Christian-Muslim Dialogue?" by Daniel L. Migliore, an article in the most current issue of Theology Today. In this article Migliore is considering the Muslim document A Common Word which is calling Christians, Jews and Muslims to have a serious theological dialogue (not a pansy dialogue where we all just agree to disagree, to tolerate each other and to say that we are all nice, but exactly the kind of dialogue that Hauerwas was speaking about - see my previous post). Migliore makes some very good points about dialogue, and the consideration of the love commandments (a la' Barth) and I recommend the article, but what struck my theological imagination was the Trinitarian bog that often mires the conversation between Christians and Muslims.
Apparently, the Trinity is a big issue between Muslims (who are strong believers of the oneness of God) and Christians (who also are strong believers of the oneness of God). It is no big surprise that many Muslims see the Trinity as a move away from the oneness of God. Migliore briefly reviews Kung, Rahner and Rowen Williams consideration of the Trinity for the sake of pluralistic dialogue. When reading through the three, my memory returned to my Church history class when we wrestled with the early Christian understanding of the Trinity. I was thinking of Athanasius, of Tertullian, of the Alexandrian and of the school of Antioch. I was thinking of the Cappadocian understanding of the Trinity (eastern) and an Augustistian understanding of the Trinity (western). I was specifically thinking of the Greek terms of ousia, homoiousios and homoousios - look them up.
Here is my point. I have accepted the mystery of the Trinity as a central point of my Christian faith (sorry Kung) and often fall into the mystery when folks ask me about it. "Pastor, what is the Trinity?" Shrugging shoulders, "I donno, a mystery I guess." Pastor then slinks away.
Yet for the sake of dialogue (and for the sake of self understanding) we should be able to at least attempt an articulation of the mystery of the Trinity. Hence our return to the patristics, and especially to the Greek language. They seem to have a good mystery of the language that makes possible a clear explanation. So, lets learn our Greek, practice our Greek and do our theology in Greek as often as possible. Except, of course, for blogs - those are exempt.
That is beside the point.
I just finished reading, "The Love Commandments: An Opening for Christian-Muslim Dialogue?" by Daniel L. Migliore, an article in the most current issue of Theology Today. In this article Migliore is considering the Muslim document A Common Word which is calling Christians, Jews and Muslims to have a serious theological dialogue (not a pansy dialogue where we all just agree to disagree, to tolerate each other and to say that we are all nice, but exactly the kind of dialogue that Hauerwas was speaking about - see my previous post). Migliore makes some very good points about dialogue, and the consideration of the love commandments (a la' Barth) and I recommend the article, but what struck my theological imagination was the Trinitarian bog that often mires the conversation between Christians and Muslims.
Apparently, the Trinity is a big issue between Muslims (who are strong believers of the oneness of God) and Christians (who also are strong believers of the oneness of God). It is no big surprise that many Muslims see the Trinity as a move away from the oneness of God. Migliore briefly reviews Kung, Rahner and Rowen Williams consideration of the Trinity for the sake of pluralistic dialogue. When reading through the three, my memory returned to my Church history class when we wrestled with the early Christian understanding of the Trinity. I was thinking of Athanasius, of Tertullian, of the Alexandrian and of the school of Antioch. I was thinking of the Cappadocian understanding of the Trinity (eastern) and an Augustistian understanding of the Trinity (western). I was specifically thinking of the Greek terms of ousia, homoiousios and homoousios - look them up.
Here is my point. I have accepted the mystery of the Trinity as a central point of my Christian faith (sorry Kung) and often fall into the mystery when folks ask me about it. "Pastor, what is the Trinity?" Shrugging shoulders, "I donno, a mystery I guess." Pastor then slinks away.
Yet for the sake of dialogue (and for the sake of self understanding) we should be able to at least attempt an articulation of the mystery of the Trinity. Hence our return to the patristics, and especially to the Greek language. They seem to have a good mystery of the language that makes possible a clear explanation. So, lets learn our Greek, practice our Greek and do our theology in Greek as often as possible. Except, of course, for blogs - those are exempt.
Saturday, October 04, 2008
I Speak therefore I Am (in my own language, context, and syntaxt)
Last Thursday I went to Eastern University to hear the good Dr. Stanely Hauerwas speak on "The Dignity of Difference." It is always a treat to hear Hauerwas. Sometimes he is like Tony Campolo and gives the same old speech you have heard again and again. We all have our soapboxes. Other times (most of the time)he has something engaging and challenging to offer. The premises that Hauerwas works off of tend to stay the same, and the conclusions are not that shocking if you have read him and understand where he is going, but the meat of the talk is still gratifying and enriching. This was a good talk with good meat to chew on (sorry to all the vegan theologians...)
Hauerwas was using Rabbi Jonathan Sacks The Dignity of Difference as a launching off point, and relying heavily upon Herbert McCabe's work Law, Love and Language. McCabe was a Catholic moral theologian out of the Oxford school. After getting through his expected rant about liberalism Hauerwas considered McCabe's premise and suggestions. McCabe is basically suggesting that what makes one human is the ability to communicate. Language distinguishes us from other animals and from each other. The ability to communicate depends on our being a part of a particular community, and ethics is the study of what can or cannot be said in human language. This smells of early Wittgenstein and the end of his Tractatus - the idea that there are some things (ethics, ascetics, God...) that cannot be fully articulated through language.
I admit that I have not read McCabe's work and am only working with what I heard from Hauerwas, so my Wittgensteinian analysis may not be accurate. Regardless, Hauerwas then considered the language of Christianity, specifically that through the coming of Jesus one finds the coming of a new language - the Word is incarnate. This language unites us and fulfills us. In Pentecost we are born as a people living into God's future - our language is understood by all. At this point Hauerwas made the great point:
"The business of the church is to remember the future" and to make the future present.
This future that we are living into (the unity of language, the Kingdom of God) gives the church a hope that is unreasonable by many standards, but is the hope that we are to embrace. In that hope we (the church) are free and we are to transform the media of domination (world) into a media of communication, i.e. expressing love for one another without fear.
In a world that calls for conformity, in movements that look to uniformity Hauerwas (and Sacks) claims that we need difference for the sake of self recognition. The language of the church must be different from the language of the world, it must be a language of patience, understanding and a willingness to listen. We are to speak a language of peace within our own tradition.
Take a breath, for here ends the summary. Okay. Overall I like what Hauerwas is saying... like it a lot. But since I'm an arrogant bastard I should not just gush and gush without offering one thought to work with. It feels as if Hauerwas is speaking on behalf of Christianity catholic (universal) and suggesting that we have a shared/common language. I can see Christians agreeing on a language just as soon as they would agree on a flag (the current "Christian Flag" that many Constantinian Christians hang in their churches next to the state flag doesn't count... that was just a brilliant money maker). The church I currently serve in Bryn Mawr has a very different language than another Baptist church less then a mile away. We are both Christians, we are both Baptists, but our language is not uniform. Perhaps Hauerwas would respond that on the basic issues we would be of one voice, yet even there I would disagree. Hauerwas is a pacifist and claims that it is a basic, fundamental stance for Christianity. As much as I agree with him, I know there are other Christians who would disagree. Who is right?
Here is a thought. Jacques Ellul I believe speaks of the reliance of the Spirit in the institution of the church (or at least a friend of mine who loves Ellul speaks of the reliance of the Spirit). Perhaps when we consider the church universal we rely on the Spirit. This would mean calling each community to speak in a way that is authentic as possible to their understanding and interaction with the revelation of Jesus Christ. We should communicate with each other, critique each other (with Christian charity) call each other to question when necessary, but then come to the scary place of trust and hope that when a group of Christians interact with the world, the language used (even if it is not what we would use) would be true to the Word incarnate. Thus we would uphold the particularities of Christianity and avoid yet another council telling us how to speak.
This is a scary place to be, but may be the place where God can work, change and reach the world.
I speak, therefore I am. I speak the Word of Christ and therefore I am a Christian.
Hauerwas was using Rabbi Jonathan Sacks The Dignity of Difference as a launching off point, and relying heavily upon Herbert McCabe's work Law, Love and Language. McCabe was a Catholic moral theologian out of the Oxford school. After getting through his expected rant about liberalism Hauerwas considered McCabe's premise and suggestions. McCabe is basically suggesting that what makes one human is the ability to communicate. Language distinguishes us from other animals and from each other. The ability to communicate depends on our being a part of a particular community, and ethics is the study of what can or cannot be said in human language. This smells of early Wittgenstein and the end of his Tractatus - the idea that there are some things (ethics, ascetics, God...) that cannot be fully articulated through language.
I admit that I have not read McCabe's work and am only working with what I heard from Hauerwas, so my Wittgensteinian analysis may not be accurate. Regardless, Hauerwas then considered the language of Christianity, specifically that through the coming of Jesus one finds the coming of a new language - the Word is incarnate. This language unites us and fulfills us. In Pentecost we are born as a people living into God's future - our language is understood by all. At this point Hauerwas made the great point:
"The business of the church is to remember the future" and to make the future present.
This future that we are living into (the unity of language, the Kingdom of God) gives the church a hope that is unreasonable by many standards, but is the hope that we are to embrace. In that hope we (the church) are free and we are to transform the media of domination (world) into a media of communication, i.e. expressing love for one another without fear.
In a world that calls for conformity, in movements that look to uniformity Hauerwas (and Sacks) claims that we need difference for the sake of self recognition. The language of the church must be different from the language of the world, it must be a language of patience, understanding and a willingness to listen. We are to speak a language of peace within our own tradition.
Take a breath, for here ends the summary. Okay. Overall I like what Hauerwas is saying... like it a lot. But since I'm an arrogant bastard I should not just gush and gush without offering one thought to work with. It feels as if Hauerwas is speaking on behalf of Christianity catholic (universal) and suggesting that we have a shared/common language. I can see Christians agreeing on a language just as soon as they would agree on a flag (the current "Christian Flag" that many Constantinian Christians hang in their churches next to the state flag doesn't count... that was just a brilliant money maker). The church I currently serve in Bryn Mawr has a very different language than another Baptist church less then a mile away. We are both Christians, we are both Baptists, but our language is not uniform. Perhaps Hauerwas would respond that on the basic issues we would be of one voice, yet even there I would disagree. Hauerwas is a pacifist and claims that it is a basic, fundamental stance for Christianity. As much as I agree with him, I know there are other Christians who would disagree. Who is right?
Here is a thought. Jacques Ellul I believe speaks of the reliance of the Spirit in the institution of the church (or at least a friend of mine who loves Ellul speaks of the reliance of the Spirit). Perhaps when we consider the church universal we rely on the Spirit. This would mean calling each community to speak in a way that is authentic as possible to their understanding and interaction with the revelation of Jesus Christ. We should communicate with each other, critique each other (with Christian charity) call each other to question when necessary, but then come to the scary place of trust and hope that when a group of Christians interact with the world, the language used (even if it is not what we would use) would be true to the Word incarnate. Thus we would uphold the particularities of Christianity and avoid yet another council telling us how to speak.
This is a scary place to be, but may be the place where God can work, change and reach the world.
I speak, therefore I am. I speak the Word of Christ and therefore I am a Christian.
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
new post coming soon
I have been working on Chapter 3 of my "expletive" (so as not to offend anyone) dissertation, and have written a lengthy selection on Sacramental Consciousness. The basic idea is that we have an awareness of God's presence through our interactions with symbols (those symbols may be things, or actions, or rituals). It is an awareness of the "already/not yet" of God's presence. Hence when one is ordained, one is already a leader of the church and representative of the Gospel, but at the same time is not yet fully a leader and a representative. This is still a little rough and needs to be fleshed out a little more, which I intend on doing in a future post. Until then, read David Tracy's Analogical Imagination.... that should keep you busy for a while.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)