Language is on the mind. I have recently finished J.L. Austin's How to Do Things with Words - a short, dense and complicated book. In this work, Austin is concerned with what he calls "felicitous" statements. These are arguments that make sense on a number of levels: the locutionary (that the thing exists, the inflection of the speakers, etc...), the Illocutionary (that the speaker has a desire or intent, and the prolocutionary (that you can hear and respond to the speaker). Thus the phrase "Eat some cake" is felicitius if there is indeed cake, if I want the other people to have some cake, and if there is any left to eat.
With all of that said, how can we make a "felicitous" statement about ordination. Here is what I am going to try for now.
An ordained minister recognizes a call from God which is also recognized by the community.
In this statement we have the existence of a call, we have the recognition of that call on behalf of the individual (the internal call) and we have the acceptance of that call on behalf of the community (the external call).
Now I just need to find this statements (or variations of it) in the local church community.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Watch this Space for Language
This is a taste for a post yet to come. It is a taste and a distraction from my sermon (which I supposed to be writing right now). I have been thinking a lot about J.L. Austin, Grammar and ordination. We will look for a felicitous statement concerning ordination (if one such exists).
Watch this space.
Watch
keep watching.
Watch this space.
Watch
keep watching.
Friday, March 06, 2009
A Modernist approach to a Post-modern Context or How the West Was Subdued and Forced to Play Nicely
Note: the post is influenced by Mark S. Cladis’ article, “Painting Landscapes of Religion in America: Four Model of Religion in Democracy” in the Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 76, no.4, Dec 2008, 874-904.
Here is the scoop: Cladis is considering four different “models” to think of religion in public. They are –
1. Religion over the Public Landscape
- religion reigns supreme in ruling and controlling and influencing the public. Problem, whose religion and what of others?
2. Religion Banned from the Public Landscape
- Religion has no place in the public and thus cannot muddle things up. Problem, from where will we find the moral voice?
3. Public Landscape as Religious Space
- Religious language occurs in the pubic – a civic religion. Problem, what of the depth found in the traditions of particular religions?
4. Public Landscape as Varied Topography- The public is a place where multiple voices, including religious voices can be heard. Problem, hmmm……
-
Cladis favors the fourth model, claiming that religion should and could be treated as any other voice in civic discourse. He does recognize that religion carries its own nuances, but for the most part should not be treated as special. Religion, for Cladis, has a voice along with environmentalism, oil, special interests, etc. One of the things that I think Cladis is trying to do is to avoid a modernistic approach to religion in a postmodern context. The first three models have an almost myopic view of religion, and Cladis is trying to avoid such a view. His model allows a variety of religious traditions to have a voice along with other moral voices in society. Even claiming that morality, however that is understood, can be found in non-religious contexts is a post-modern view. One challenge concerns who is allowed to give voice to the other. In Cladis’ model, the government allows religion to have voice in the public sphere, or can silence that voice. This is not a free discourse but a controlled one. Someone decided who can and cannot speak – sounds kinda modern. Someone decides what is and what is not appropriate discourse – sounds kinda modern.
Another problem which is related to the first one comes from the perspective of the religious communities. Some faith traditions favor the first model and others the second (I don’t know of many of the top of my head that would favor the third). Some would prefer for religion to be the lingua franca of public discourse, if it is their religion. Some faith traditions have as an end the conversion of society to its proclivities. A civic discourse that only allows religious speech to a certain extent and on the same plane as other religions may very well be difficult and unnatural place to be for many faith traditions. Other (like the Amish) would not want a place at the table at all.
Stark and Finke have made the argument in a number of places that what makes religion unique in America is the free market capitalistic environment in which many movements may thrive or die. If it is a true free market than any of the models may emerge for better or worse depending on the “winner.” If it is a controlled free market, then the fourth model reigns supreme limiting the conversation all the way to the end of our nose. How post-modern do we want to be? How far do we want to go?
Here is the scoop: Cladis is considering four different “models” to think of religion in public. They are –
1. Religion over the Public Landscape
- religion reigns supreme in ruling and controlling and influencing the public. Problem, whose religion and what of others?
2. Religion Banned from the Public Landscape
- Religion has no place in the public and thus cannot muddle things up. Problem, from where will we find the moral voice?
3. Public Landscape as Religious Space
- Religious language occurs in the pubic – a civic religion. Problem, what of the depth found in the traditions of particular religions?
4. Public Landscape as Varied Topography- The public is a place where multiple voices, including religious voices can be heard. Problem, hmmm……
-
Cladis favors the fourth model, claiming that religion should and could be treated as any other voice in civic discourse. He does recognize that religion carries its own nuances, but for the most part should not be treated as special. Religion, for Cladis, has a voice along with environmentalism, oil, special interests, etc. One of the things that I think Cladis is trying to do is to avoid a modernistic approach to religion in a postmodern context. The first three models have an almost myopic view of religion, and Cladis is trying to avoid such a view. His model allows a variety of religious traditions to have a voice along with other moral voices in society. Even claiming that morality, however that is understood, can be found in non-religious contexts is a post-modern view. One challenge concerns who is allowed to give voice to the other. In Cladis’ model, the government allows religion to have voice in the public sphere, or can silence that voice. This is not a free discourse but a controlled one. Someone decided who can and cannot speak – sounds kinda modern. Someone decides what is and what is not appropriate discourse – sounds kinda modern.
Another problem which is related to the first one comes from the perspective of the religious communities. Some faith traditions favor the first model and others the second (I don’t know of many of the top of my head that would favor the third). Some would prefer for religion to be the lingua franca of public discourse, if it is their religion. Some faith traditions have as an end the conversion of society to its proclivities. A civic discourse that only allows religious speech to a certain extent and on the same plane as other religions may very well be difficult and unnatural place to be for many faith traditions. Other (like the Amish) would not want a place at the table at all.
Stark and Finke have made the argument in a number of places that what makes religion unique in America is the free market capitalistic environment in which many movements may thrive or die. If it is a true free market than any of the models may emerge for better or worse depending on the “winner.” If it is a controlled free market, then the fourth model reigns supreme limiting the conversation all the way to the end of our nose. How post-modern do we want to be? How far do we want to go?
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
History is not a monster!
One of the annoying things about Baptists is the myopic view of scripture and doctrine – i.e. unless it is in the “word” it does not have any bearing. For example, some of the early Baptists refrained from the use of instruments in worship because the Bible never “said” if instruments could be used. Most have moved away from such a practice because you can’t attract the young folk without music, and what is the church really about but attracting the young folk (even if it is at the expense of a literal interpretation of scripture). Others have based their entire dress code on the writings of scripture, etc. If the Bible says so then it is so. Baptists, and other evangelical have often taken Luther’s protestant battle cry of sola scriptura to the extreme point relying only and solely upon scripture in an a-historical manner.
The penultimate word in that last sentence is important (penultimate – second to last, look it up). A-historical. Historically (and the irony is not lost on me) the myopic, literal view of scripture is a reaction to what is seen as the “bastardization of Christianity” through history specifically in the Roman Catholic corner. The evolution of dogma and doctrine cannot be trusted because it is a variation and at times a deviation of scripture. This was part of Luther’s argument and is many Baptist’s polemical claim about our Catholic brothers and sisters. Hence if it was historically adopted it must be flawed, but if it came out of scripture then it must be accurate. (We will look the other way when considering the doctrine of the Trinity)
Enter Bonhoeffer. I have recently read Sanctorum Communio – a brilliant dissertation on the church. In no way will I attempt to summarize Bonhoeffer’s work, but touch upon one point. In talking about authority, Bonhoeffer considers the authority of the Word (like every good Protestant should), but then considers the “relative authority” of the church. This is the authority of councils, synods, and decisions made which have held through history. It may seem authoritative, but as Bonhoeffer says, “it is precisely acknowledging a theological necessity for the idea… that draws a line between the Reformation gospel and all kinds of unrestrained religious enthusiasm.” Yet Bonhoeffer is careful to avoid the heavy authoritative stance of the church that many perceive as possible. He suggests that it is the responsibility of each person to maintain intellect and emotion and experience in relation to the “relative authority” of the church. If it doesn’t seem right, than it might not be right. Case in point Luther’s claim, “Here I stand, I can do no other” in response to the abuses of Catholicism.
So what can Baptists do with this? First, recognize that we are a historically mitigated community. Our practice of baptism, Lord’s Supper, preaching, etc all come out of a historical context. Our history has an authority over our religious practice and identity. Second, stay sharp. If something is going on that doesn’t seem right, even if it does seem scripturally founded (like beating a child with a stick), it might not be right. Pray, think, discuss and act. We use scripture, but in a historically influenced way whether we like it or not. Let’s be smart about it.
The penultimate word in that last sentence is important (penultimate – second to last, look it up). A-historical. Historically (and the irony is not lost on me) the myopic, literal view of scripture is a reaction to what is seen as the “bastardization of Christianity” through history specifically in the Roman Catholic corner. The evolution of dogma and doctrine cannot be trusted because it is a variation and at times a deviation of scripture. This was part of Luther’s argument and is many Baptist’s polemical claim about our Catholic brothers and sisters. Hence if it was historically adopted it must be flawed, but if it came out of scripture then it must be accurate. (We will look the other way when considering the doctrine of the Trinity)
Enter Bonhoeffer. I have recently read Sanctorum Communio – a brilliant dissertation on the church. In no way will I attempt to summarize Bonhoeffer’s work, but touch upon one point. In talking about authority, Bonhoeffer considers the authority of the Word (like every good Protestant should), but then considers the “relative authority” of the church. This is the authority of councils, synods, and decisions made which have held through history. It may seem authoritative, but as Bonhoeffer says, “it is precisely acknowledging a theological necessity for the idea… that draws a line between the Reformation gospel and all kinds of unrestrained religious enthusiasm.” Yet Bonhoeffer is careful to avoid the heavy authoritative stance of the church that many perceive as possible. He suggests that it is the responsibility of each person to maintain intellect and emotion and experience in relation to the “relative authority” of the church. If it doesn’t seem right, than it might not be right. Case in point Luther’s claim, “Here I stand, I can do no other” in response to the abuses of Catholicism.
So what can Baptists do with this? First, recognize that we are a historically mitigated community. Our practice of baptism, Lord’s Supper, preaching, etc all come out of a historical context. Our history has an authority over our religious practice and identity. Second, stay sharp. If something is going on that doesn’t seem right, even if it does seem scripturally founded (like beating a child with a stick), it might not be right. Pray, think, discuss and act. We use scripture, but in a historically influenced way whether we like it or not. Let’s be smart about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)