I’ve been working on a couple of things. First and foremost is the dissertation which is moving along. I’ve finished the rough draft of chapter 4 as I mentioned. Only one more chapter to go! In-between dissertation work I have been boning up on the idea of the Incarnation, focusing on P.T. Forsyth’s Person and Place of Jesus Christ (see previous post) for the Rhode Island Theological Circle, I have been looking into the nature and implication of relationality in light of poverty as well as the complexity of political involvement for the Rhode Island Council of Churches Faith and Order Committee statement on poverty. In addition to that I have been thinking about the issue of human trafficking to help write a statement of concern for the American Baptist Churches of Rhode Island. For such a small state, there are a lot of statements out there.
For some time I have wrestled with my own call as a minister, specifically with activism. I have gone to the rallies, marches and other events. I have lobbied politicians, written letters and have canvassed neighborhoods. This isn’t my thing. I don’t get excited about yelling, arguing and getting angry. Yet I have been enjoying the theological statement writing. I enjoy taking time to consider the role of Scripture and the theological foundations for action. I suppose some would argue that I am wasting all of my time in the ivory tower, but as one person said, good theology leads to good practice. In my mind, such statements are places where theology begins to be practical and real. It is where we look at how our understanding of the trinity directly effects our response to poverty. Not everyone is called to write such statements nor is everyone called to political activism, yet both are important. For the first time I think I have found my place in progressing the Kingdom of God and it feels good.

Down with Church Autonomy!

I have been writing. Obviously I haven’t been writing for this blog, but I have been writing. I have been mostly working on my Dissertation, which is a good thing. I’m on chapter 4, the social-historical section. So I haven’t been reading much or doing much else – this is the life of a doctoral student, wah, wah, wah.

As I have said before, I have been working on Baptist ordination. I have found an important piece of information in my research: the presence of the denomination (broadly construed) is important. Us freedom loving, independent minded, creedal denying, Bible holding, and autonomous curmudgeonly Baptists would like to say again and again that it is the local church that ordains. We would like to say that all we need is the affirmation of the local congregation and that person is ordained. Yet since 1720 (circa), in the Baptist movement nationally (as best as one could be national in the 1720s) and locally (i.e. FBC Swansea) a council of local ministers was required to affirm the desires of the denomination for ordination. As time continued there was a clear tension in the literature between the authority of the local church and the credentialing power of the ordaining council. So, is it up to the local church? Ultimately, yes. The local church recommends someone and would be the ones who ultimately ordain someone. Yet the council is a gatekeeper. The council is a body that would affirm the individual as someone who would be fitting for other Baptist churches beyond the one ordaining the individual. This brings into question the role and nature of church autonomy. While an Association does not tell a church who to hire (in most cases) it does play a big part in ordination. Perhaps we can’t do it all on our own. Perhaps we don’t want to.


Unrelated Afterthought: While writing this I have been listening to the All Songs Considered Blog list of the most influential songs of the last decade. As an example of the impact American Idol had on the decade they posted a Taylor Hicks song (Do I make you Proud). It is a great example of how a good voice does not make a good artist. It is really an awful, sappy, nauseating, painful and depressing song. No, Hicks, you don't make me proud.

Take your time during the day

I have been bothered into writing a new post (darin), so here it is. In truth, I really should be posting more so the guilt was just what I needed. I'm in the middle of working on a couple of things - chapter 4 of the f**kin dissertation, O'Neil's Long Day's Journey into Night, Incarnation and preaching. This is all in addition to my church work and my endless quest to unpack and clean and organize the house. No wonder I haven't posted in a while.

Right now (Friday, 10-16, 11:45am) I am taking a short break from Chapter four. I have finally started to write chapter four which is good, but it takes a lot of mental energy of which I have little.

So for this short break I thought I would reflect on A Long Day's Journey into Night. Harold Bloom claims that this is the greatest American play written in the 20th century, and I'm not one to argue with Harold Bloom so he must be right. If he said it on NPR than it would be right beyond all certainty, but I'll take what I can get. It is a good play, kinda dark, but good for many reasons. One of the aspects of the play that I enjoy is the tempo of the speech. When the characters are speaking truth and honesty, no matter how difficult to acknowledge, they tend to speak in a slow, cautious way. For example when Jamie (the older son) is talking to his father about his younger brother Edmund's illness he says:

JamieSlowly.
He thinks it's consumption, doesn't he, Papa?

Tyrone
Reluctantly.
He Said it might be.

There is a caution to this speech as it points to the horror of reality that they all may face. Yet when truth is avoided there is a lightness and a quickness to the speech. For example when Mary (the mother) is speaking to Jamie and Tyrone, trying to break the tension between he and his father:

Mary
To Jamie, forcing a smile.
Did I actually hear you suggesting work on the front hedge, Jamie? Wonders will never cease! You must want pocket money badly.

Jamie
Kiddingly.
When don't I?
He winks at her, with a derisive glance at his father.
I expect a salary of at least one large iron man at the end of the week - to carouse on!

Now I said this was a short break, so I need to make my point (do I have a point?). There is something about being slow and careful and honest. So often we rush and cover and ignore the wounds that are very real. O'Neil is capturing this human trait in his play, we do it every day. Yet when we take time with our speech and our thought we tend to open up the wounds of our lives in an honest way. Granted, this is more painful, but it is real. The long journey into night (or at least one view of it) is a long journey of denial as the hurts and pains continue to thrive, grow and overshadow and hope. The fog of suffering rolls in as we try to avoid it. The night of our wounds blankets any false and fast speech we can offer.

Isn't that a nice and happy ending?

digging in the past

It has been a while – but I haven’t heard any complaints. For the last couple of weeks I have been focusing on chapter 4 of my dissertation – the social-historical chapter. For this chapter I have been looking at the history of the pastors of First Baptist, Swansea MA from 1720 to the present (give or take a few). It has been interesting. I have found one issue with Samuel Maxwell, pastor from 1734-1739. All of the history books, and the church records from that time claim that Maxwell was or became a Seventh Day Christian – i.e. he advocated worship on Saturday. Gasp. In the short work, “The Case and Complaint of Mr. Samuel Maxwell” written by the good Rev. Maxwell, he claims that the issue was over his acceptance of infant baptism. Hmmm….. Either one is going to be a problem for a Baptist church in the 18th century, but why the difference in stories? Is it worse to be a Seventh Day Christian than an infant baptizing Christian? Either way, the congregation decided that Maxwell’s change in beliefs was not acceptable and looked to have him removed. Guess I should stay quiet about my beliefs.

Chautauqua 3 - Of Hopes and Dreams

A little late, but with all the conversation over my last post, I don’t think I needed to say much. Yesterday (I took today off from lectures) I heard two lectures – Benjamin Friedman and William Niskanen. I’ll be focusing on Niskanen (former director of the CATO institute).

Niskanen offered a number of ideas about capitalism, relationship, the role of government, greed and self-interest. Of the three types of human interaction (caring, exchange, and threat), caring can only happen with close relations. In other words, only those who are close and known can be cared for by others. This is because according to John Stuart Mill (via Niskanen) the principle soul end of the human is self-interest, making the individual sovereign. So all caring is local.

Capitalism occurs on the exchange level of interaction and is bi-lateral, consensual exchange. That tidbit is just for fun.

Here is the issue with caring. It can only occur on the local level. Niskanen even criticized Benedict XVI’s latest encyclical Caritas in veritate, claiming that a global level of charity (caring) would put the wealth of others at risk and thus be irresponsible. It is to demanding on the human spirit, Niskanen claims. I think he was quoting someone else when he said, “reality cannot compete with dreams, at least not fairly.”

The market, on the global level, should be kept clean of any human emotion so that the bi-lateral, consensual exchange can occur.

Where is the room for hope?

Wordsworth’s great poem, “The Ruined Cottage” paints a picture of a lovely young woman wasting away because she is grasping onto a dream that never becomes a reality. Hope is tragic and dangerous.

Yet Christianity is based on hope. Christianity is based on the idea that we can make some kind of a difference. I would like to think that grace brings us beyond the self-interest that Mill describes to a “other-interest.” The church needs to continue to push and advocate a hope that does go against the reality of the world. We need our

Chautauqua 2 - Goods and Values

Now to business. Today we had the inaugural lecture on “The Ethics of Capitalism,” starring Michael Sandel. But first….

Worship. Wallis again took the pulpit (he is preaching all week) and focused on the story of Lazarus and the rich man. In his interpretation of the story, Wallis considered the lack of relationship between the rich man and Lazarus (the poor man) as a major sin in the story. He read a lengthy quote from Levinas which is always good. Overall, his point was good but kind of basic.

Sandel made a number of interesting points. Before anything, I suppose I should mention his teaching style. Sandel tends to lecture for a while and then engage people in the audience by offering an ethical situation and asking people to comment for or against. He had people with mikes walking around so everyone could hear. It was very well done.

Some basic points that Sandel made:
From the 1980s there was a basic feeling of Market Triumphalism leading to the idea that government was the problem to the issues of the world and the market was the solution. This held to the idea that the market was the primary instrument of the common good (whoops!)

Here is a scary thought: The biggest change in the past twenty or so years was the expansion of the market and the values of the market into areas that are normally governed by other values – i.e. schools, hospitals, prisons, security, etc…. The danger in this shift is that certain values and norms that are higher than market values are lost, i.e. helping a child to score higher in tests because it is the result of the child learning and comprehending information vs. helping a child to score higher in tests because it will result in a monetary bonus. Sandel suggested that perhaps the incentive of the market undermines the values of humanity (the intrinsic good). When goods are bought and sold then they become commodities.

Hold those thoughts…..

The other speaker I heard was E. J. Dionne who suggested that capitalism works only when the wealth is distributed in a fair and just way. Thus the government must regulate in order to keep the market honest and fair to all involved. He didn’t seem to offer much more than some flowery language.

So…… there are goods that are above the goods of economics, and capitalism can help to encourage those goods when regulated. And relationships are important. So what is the church to do? Perhaps start with encouraging relationships. Then the church (broadly construed) should articulate the “goods” that are a part of humanity, higher than the goods of the market and act as a watch-dog on the local level to protect those goods. From there, I’m still thinking…

Chautauqua 1 - Worship

Sunday! Sunday! Sunday! It is Sunday which means lots and lots of worship. Hooray! The day started with worship at the Baptist house. I always enjoy worshipping with my Baptist peeps because they are earnest and honest and the hymns are pretty darn good. Once again the Baptist did not disappoint. The sermon was weak (a grade of C to C-) but the overall worship was good.

Almost immediately after the Baptist worship was the big everyone gets involved worship. Here Jim Wallis was the preacher, who did not do a bad job but was still missing a certain poetic depth to his sermon (B to B+). The service was a kind of watered down Episcopalian worship time with well written and wordy prayers and very high church hymns.

One of the things that Wallis mentioned was Gandhi’s Seven Social Sins (From Gandhi’s “Young India,” 1925). They are as follows:

Politics without principles
Wealth without work
Pleasure without conscience
Knowledge without character
Commerce without morality
Science without humanity
Worship without sacrifice

Some good things to think about.

In Search of God....

I recently received an e-mail from one of the college students I worked with in my previous position. Without giving out all of the details, she asked me about the "epistemology" of the existence of God, i.e. how do we know that God exists. Here is a portion of my reply:

In truth, it is just as difficult to prove the existence of God as it is to disprove the existence of God. This is a basic epistemological problem for everyone - believers and non. When I took my little walk on the AT I struggled with the existence of God, accepting the very real problem that I cannot prove God exists. I ended up at the point where I recognized that I need God to exist and have to settle with that. It is not a comfortable place, but it is where I stand at this point. On the other hand those who do not believe have to decide that God does not exist - it is a choice that must be made and at that point epistemology is moot.
There are some much smarter people who have contributed to this conversation - Kierkegaard is good - try the Philosophical Fragments and Either Or. Fear and Trembling is good, but focuses more on ethics. I would start with that. Ironically, I think Nietzsche is good, but I don't know enough to recommend a book. Bonhoeffer's Sanctorum Communio, especially the first chapter, makes a case for the difference between believing in God and not.
As I stated, the difficultly is that we cannot prove God exists and there will always be a gap which one must jump. Either we could engage in a "reductio ad absurdium" by asking again and again "and then what," or, "what was before that," or we can find a stopping point and name it God. There are proofs for the existence of God: Aquinas - Cosmological Proof, Anselm - Ontological Proof, but they actually demonstrate the existence of God, or the nature of God.
You are asking a good and important question and I encourage you to keep up with the struggle. I am sorry I cannot offer more hope but to encourage you to close your eyes and take the leap.
I'll ask around for more ideas.

Any thoughts or suggestions?

Rejection

Last Sunday's sermon, "Rejection" is now on my church website. We have Feurbach, Hauerwas, Willimon and Freud all taking part in the fun. Text is from Mark.

Additions

I've added two links to my Blogs that I Like (and hopefully like me) - Anglobaptist is a guy I met at the Biennial.... he is real hip and sacramentally astute, what more could you ask. Also, bowing to pressure, Darin, my good friend, has decided to create a whole new blog for his sermons. Check them both out!

Biennial Reflection - The Circus is in Town!

I have already given my bit about the bylaws change, but would like to think a little bit about the meeting at which these bylaws were presented and voted on. The leaders of the denomination did their due diligence, but only just that. They sent out a copy of the bylaws to every church on CD and he them posted on the web. It was up to the pastor to be sure that these changes were given to members of the church. A tutorial was not offered, learning sessions were not offered and this was a dense and complicated document. Many times those who were on the writing team could not answer questions about the bylaws that were asked. Many people just seemed to not know anything about the bylaws. The basic was done and not much more.

At the meeting the motion was presented and then all of the presidents of the various boards, including the president of the denomination said how much they liked and supported the changes. No one said why the changes were needed, no one said anything about struggles or difficulties that were in the proposed changes, just that they were awesome and everyone should just trust the leaders and embrace the change.

As a note, I think this was a at best out of line with Robert’s rules and at worse a cheap way to push an issue. There was to be a debate later on where each person would only get five minutes to speak. The overall time for the debate would be limited and each pro would be balanced with a con. Yet all the mucky-mucks were given ample time to speak in favor of the changes, from positions of authority showing a lack of respect for the process. Poor form!

After we were dazzled with the bulls**t, there was a time for questions of clarification. Did anyone have a copy of the bylaws here for reading? No, they were posted on the web (there was no internet access in the hall). Did anyone have a list of the delegates that were on the voting bloc and was that list available during the biennial? No. Wait, yes The general secretary had one list to pass around the hundreds of people. How will we know if International Ministries and National Ministries would maintain a connection with the denomination after they were made independent? You have to trust them. Do they have new bylaws emphasizing their relationship with the denomination? No, not yet. Can anyone explain in simple language the changes? No, maybe, well I can talk about the mission table.
This went on for some time until the president had to stop the questions so there would be time for debate – four against and one in favor. Over, the whole process was awful.

There are a lot of conclusions one could draw from such a debacle. Pure ineptitude and incompetence could be one. Attempts to push an issue with a happy and vague presentation could be another. Yet here is the larger message that I took away from the process – a lack of trust of the local church. The local church was not a part of the writing process. The local church was not given any opportunity for feedback in the process. We were given a document that could not accept any amendments and told to trust the leaders and just vote for it. The actual document was not even present at the meeting nor was a list of directors we were to vote for. The local church was not told about the dire financial position of the denomination, just told that the change is needed. It almost seemed that the heads of the denomination forgot that they are there to coordinate mission and to serve the local church, not to tell us (the local church) what to do. The denomination begins at the local church and ends at the local church, yet the local church was not in the picture at all.

If they are to do this again (God help us), I would hope that our leaders would learn something from this process and engage the local church from the beginning. The leaders need to trust the church, as risky and difficult as that may be.

Biennial Reflection - Legacy

I had full intentions to post more often about the Biennial, but time got away from me; a common problem at meetings of that nature. Instead I hope to offer a number of reflections about the experience.

The big question at this gathering concerned an adoption of new bylaws for the ABC/USA. I’ll post a blog about the proceedings themselves – it was kind of a mismanaged circus. Due to a poor dissemination of information many were uninformed about the changes. Due to other reasons (which I may ruminate about) the changes did not reflect a sense of Baptist identity or any clinging to tradition. A top-heavy bureaucracy was proposed for the sake of streamlining and efficiency. This bureaucracy would decided who could be placed on boards, would write and usher in policy statements (Statements of public witness) and be the steering group for ABC/USA. The program boards, i.e. National Ministries and International Ministries would be “de-coupled” so that they could be independent for the sake of efficiency. From what was presented, the local church would be engaged on a financial level, and nominally through the region. The new structure would be very, very representational and have very, very little direct engagement from the local church.

Within the bylaw changes was a new thing called “the mission table.” In this process, through the higher up organizations an issue would be chosen and at national meetings all those who attend could engage, discuss and dialogue about the issue “on the table.” Then a small committee, again appointed by the national board, a committee without any local church representation, would be given the charge to follow through with actions that emerged from the Mission Table. During the proceedings one person asked why the bylaws needed to be changed for this to happen – i.e. what is keeping the denomination from doing something like this now? It sounded to me like the sugar to make the medicine go down.

The bylaws changes did not pass, and I think that is a good thing.

On Sunday I attended two worship services, one at the Baptist Peace Fellowship gathering, and one hosted by the Young Adult Caucus. At the Peace Fellowship, Nick Carter (president of Andover Newton Theological School – my alma mater) preached about the legacy of peace makers, and the way in which that legacy informs, motivates and inspires people currently struggling for peace. At the Young Adult dinner, Paul Rauschenbausch (great grandson of the theologian Walter Rauschenbusch) preached about the importance of a legacy in informing and guiding one’s faith. Legacy, history is important.

We were given new bylaws to consider, bylaws that were to take the denomination in a new and exciting direction, yet there was little that seemed to be connected to the past. The only legacy that was mentioned was the legacy of mission work – which is a good one. Yet never was the local church mentioned. Never was the commitment of individuals mentioned. We were to be moving forward, with little connection to the past – or at least that was how it was presented.

I understand that becoming so steeped in the past can be dangerous, it is a tension that I face with church work again and again. Yet I also understand the vital importance of maintaining a connection with one’s past and one’s legacy. In 1813 the Baptists formed the triennial convention for the sake of doing missions together. In 1907 the denomination was formed for the sake of doing mission together. What is the legacy of these moments as well as other moments from the Baptist story? It wasn’t reflected in the proposed change, and for tat reason as well as many others, I am glad they did not pass.

Biennial Day 1 - of images and youth

Day one of the ABC/USA Biennial. I attended a talk by Leonard Sweet and a Young Clergy meal. Leonard Sweet first:

Sweet is big on the popularization of what he is calling postmodernity. A challenge with popularizing something is that it becomes so watered down that it loses its meaning – I think Sweet has fallen into this trap. First he created a word vs. image polarity claiming that those born before 1973 (the year the cell phone was invented) are from a word world (not to be confused with the PBS show – very educational) to an image world. To try to connect, Sweet had what he called a “VJ” flying through Google during his talking, finding images that were connected with his points – that was mostly distracting and at times annoying.

So there is a dichotomy between words and images that Sweet is trying to create. A problem with this polarity is that Sweet never defined “image.” A number of people continued to not that the “image” generation (or the Google generation as Sweet called us) are heavily steeped in text. From texting to IM to Facebook to Twitter to Blogs there are a lot of words being used. So we found confusion.

Sweet did suggest that we should avoid a “versusits” approach to scripture and look to a wholestic view of scripture and everything else we encounter which is good.

Here are the folks I think Sweet should read so he can fine tune his talk and make better points – granted the list is not exhausted.

Clifford Geertz – Geertz takes Ryle’s “thick description” and focuses and deepens it. A think description looks deep into the context, the community, place, setting of an action, person and event. I think this is what Sweet is suggesting with his approach to scripture. Robert Alter would be a very good read as well.

Wittgenstein and Austin – Of course I would list these to, they are heavily on my mind. Yet Wittgenstein and Austin both have a very well articulated approach to language that understands how a speech act or proposition points towards something, shows something which may be meaningful in the community. The image that Sweet is suggesting is a speech act. Thus L8tr is a speech act that now has meaning in the “Google generation” because of the medium of cell phones.

Volf, Fiddes, Hiem, Barth, Hauerwas, and many many others to gain an appreciation for (1) the relationality of the church via the relationality of the trinity; the nature of the community of Christianity vs. the ethos of the world.

I’m supposed to hear Sweet again today and I have set the bar fairly low. He seems like a very sharp individual who is not taking the time he needs to be careful about his message and his points. Thus his points are dull and ineffective.

Ouch.

With all that said a brief word about the Young Clergy dinner. Apparently denominations are experiencing a dearth of young clergy (between 3% and 7% of most mainline clergy are under the age of 35…..I still fall in that category). David Wood, ABC pastor and Lilly Foundation guy made a good and candid presentation about the dire place of the denomination and churches and how much young clergy are needed. Here is the rub – we need to play, imagine and think beyond the institutional boxes if we are to have any hope of vibrancy. There is a tsunami of institutional memory against us. How can we push, guide and lead in a pastoral manner, attuned to the Holy Spirit so that the church can engage in the world in a powerful and authentic way? I know it is not by using a “VJ” (again, ouch).

This is a topic that really should have much more, but I have said enough already and it is only day one.

A Pretty Good Prayer

Once again I avoid the shamless "sermon post" by offering you the link to the website. The sermon for this week was from Psalm 9:9-20 and involved St. John of the Cross, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, and a story about a boy, his brother, orange spots and trust. Enjoy.

Visions

I'm not going to pull the cheap blog posting by just printing one of my sermons to take up space. Instead I'll off this link for anyone who would like to read it. It is on the right hand side titled, "Visons." Rudoulph Otto, Karl Barth and Augustine all make guest appearances. Enjoy?

Baptist Truths

I’ve been reading articles and writing (actually rewriting) chapters for my dissertation. Doing so keeps me thinking about the problems that I have to overcome for the dissertation to be successful. One is the tension between pragmatists and realists that comes out of the use Lindbeck. I don’t want to get into the fine details about Lindbeck – to lazy. Basically the problem is that all truth is relative to the grammar of the community (pragmatists) yet in theological circles many would like to assume that there are some universal truths which transcend the particular communities – like the idea of the existence of God (realists)

With Baptists this is a very real tension. Because of our individualistic emphasis, i.e. our commonly wrong-headed misuse of the ideas of Soul Freedom and Church Autonomy many churches and individuals will scoff at any attempt to proscribe tenets of belief. “Don’t tell me that Christ is divine – you would be infringing on my soul freedom!”
“Don’t tell me that churches need to be concerned for the poor, - you would be infringing on our church autonomy”

Who would have thought that Baptists could be philosophical pragmatists?

Yet many have reacted against such a reliance upon the grammar of the local community for an understanding of faith (like that is what is happening. We all know that people are really lazy, proud and stubborn). The SBC (God bless them) has come out with statements of “Faith and Message” which basically claim truths for the Southern Baptist community. Others will stay things like, “this is the Baptist way,” or, “this is what Baptists believe,” suggesting that there are universal truths.

Here is the rub – are there universal truths which are spoken about but never directly addressed? Ideas like soul freedom and church autonomy are seldom directly spoken of but are often spoken about or referenced. So perhaps there are truths but they are not truths which can be directly spoken of through the grammar of the community. Instead the language and grammar point to the truths as they can be discerned. The realists are happy, the pragmatists are happy. Everyone is happy. Right?

Drawing the Christian Picket Line

I was pleasantly surprised with the article, “The Optimistic Ecclesiology of Walter Rauschenbusch” by Scott E. Bryant in the journal American Baptist Quarterly (vol. 27, Summer 2008, no. 2 pages 117-135). Bryant does a very good job explaining the context of Rauschenbusch as well as Rauschenbusch’s thoughts. There are a lot of things that one could pull out of that article, and I strongly recommend reading it. I especially recommend it to the yellow-bellied, tree hugging liberal Christian activists who seem to have neglected the role of the church community in favor of one more protest for the sake the crab grass. I also recommend it for those who are squeamish about Christians and other political groups working together for the same cause. There was a good reason Rauschenbusch did not join the Socialist Party even if he agreed with most of the views of said party. I won’t spoil it for you – look it up (or ask me in a comment so I know others are actually reading this). It is a good explanatory article.

I want to briefly mention Rauschenbusch’s view of unions. Remember, Rauschenbusch lived 1861-1918; a time when unions were just making ground for workers rights. It was a time when someone was taking a strong and risky stand to join a union and strike for the rights of all. Bryant quotes Rauschenbusch’s favorable view of unions, “Thousands of men and women giving up their job, their slender hold on subsistence, imperiling the bread and butter of their families for the sake of men in another trade with whom they have only a distant economic connection.” Such solidarity is praiseworthy. Churches, on the other hand, are often seen as self-serving, selfish and focused on self-preservation. What would happen if churches were to join in unions (not denominations but unions) to stand up for the rights of the least? What would happen if churches refused to go to state sanctioned prayer breakfasts, political meetings, blessings and anything else that is expected on the civic level until the oppressed with given rights? What would happen if churches refused to officiate funerals and weddings, baptisms and dedications until people began to look at the marginalized with the eye of Christ?

Churches would close. Pastors would lose there jobs. Institutions would lose credibility on the civic stage. To change the world, can we take that risk?

Prayer and Temperament IV - Franciscan Prayer

The class continues...

Class 4 – Franciscan Prayer and Spirituality – the SP Temperament

Characteristics of the SP (Franciscan) Temperament
• Crisis-oriented
• Good at unsnarling messes
• Able to get things moving
• Impulsive
• Dislike rules
• In the present

Franciscan Spirituality
• Acts of loving service can be a most effective form of prayer
• Free-flowing, spontaneous, informal praising and loving dialogue with God
• Creation – sees the beauty and love of God everywhere
• Forgiving toward the past
• Optimistic and hopeful about the future
• Primarily interested in the real and literal

Prayer Life of the Franciscan (SP) Temperament
• Make use of the five senses
• Work is prayer
• Jesus Prayer
o “Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me, a sinner”
• Focus on celebration
• Free flowing

Prayer for next week
• Use the prayer suggestions on pages 75-78
• Read the attached prayers of St. Francis


Prayer of Saint Francis of Assisi
Lord, make me an instrument of your peace.
Where there is hatred, let me sow love;
where there is injury,pardon;
where there is doubt, faith;
where there is despair, hope;
where there is darkness, light;
and where there is sadness, joy.


O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek
to be consoled as to console;
to be understood as to understand;
to be loved as to love.
For it is in giving that we receive;
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned;
and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life. Amen

Canticle of Brother Sun
Most High, all-powerful, all-good Lord,
All praise is Yours, all glory, honor and blessings.
To you alone, Most High, do they belong;
no mortal lips are worthy to pronounce Your Name.
We praise You, Lord, for all Your creatures,
especially for Brother Sun,
who is the day through whom You give us light.
And he is beautiful and radiant with great splendor,
of You Most High, he bears your likeness.
We praise You, Lord, for Sister Moon and the stars,
in the heavens you have made them bright, precious and fair.
We praise You, Lord, for Brothers Wind and Air,
fair and stormy, all weather's moods,
by which You cherish all that You have made.
We praise You, Lord, for Sister Water,
so useful, humble, precious and pure.
We praise You, Lord, for Brother Fire,
through whom You light the night.
He is beautiful, playful, robust, and strong.
We praise You, Lord, for Sister Earth,
who sustains us
with her fruits, colored flowers, and herbs.
We praise You, Lord, for those who pardon,
for love of You bear sickness and trial.
Blessed are those who endure in peace,
by You Most High, they will be crowned.
We praise You, Lord, for Sister Death,
from whom no-one living can escape.
Woe to those who die in their sins!
Blessed are those that She finds doing Your Will.
No second death can do them harm.
We praise and bless You, Lord, and give You thanks,
and serve You in all humility.

Theological Poetry

Today in the short time I had I read a little of The Prelude by Wordsworth. I'm reading him because I had a shoddy college education (the burden of being a music major) and haven't read many of the "greats." Wordsworth is definitely one of the greats. His poetry captures the beauty of nature in a way that isn't overly lush or sweet but is realistic. The beautiful is beautiful. The stark is stark. The horrid is horrid. It is an honest poetry that is in its fullness beautiful.

I know others have made connections about theology and poetry, so I wont belabor the point. The starkness is something that perhaps theology should aspire for. As a preacher I am often painting a lush and moving picture of God and God's actions in the world. I am trying to capture the imagination of the people with flourishes of language. What if we just capture what is happening? Suffering happens, it sucks. Joy happens, it is good. Struggles happen, they are difficult. God is sometimes elusive. Jesus Christ is sometimes overwhelming. The Holy Spirit is often misunderstood. What if we truly captured Wordsworth's approach and not only captured the reality of theology in a stark and honest way, but did it with the romantic depth that is so evident in Wordsworth's poetry. This then would be powerful and profound theology.

Emergent Baptists?

I recently received a question from a young, budding Baptist pastor/theologian-to-be about folks in the Emergent Church movement staying connected to a mainline denomination like ABC/USA. Here is the answer I gave:

B----,
The emergent movement is dead, move on. Only kidding.... sort of.

I haven't read a lot of the emergent church but I understand it is connected to the idea of "Generous Orthodoxy" of McClarin. Here are my thoughts:

I don't think it would be a problem for someone to be a part of the Emergent movement and at the same time to be connected with a mainline denomination, especially ABC/USA for two reasons - liturgical freedom and emphasis on the Holy Spirit.
We do not have a written liturgy that confines and conforms us to one specific type of worship, so there is a lot of freedom to experiment with worship (which is a major part of the Emergent movement. Granted there are those stick in the mud types who say that there is definitely a "Baptist" way of worshipping, but they then to have a narrow view of the purpose and potential of worship. We can adopt some of the rich prayers of the past and create new prayers for today. Our lack of a liturgical center gives us freedom.
Second, historically in the Baptist movement a great emphasis has been placed on an awareness of the Holy Spirit. Christopher Ellis mentions in his work, "Gathering" that historically Baptists would attempt to collectively discern the movement of the Holy Spirit in worship. Our evangelical roots places a great emphasis on the movement of the Holy Spirit. We look for and embrace the spontaneity of the Holy Spirit in our individual prayers and our corporate worship (to a degree).
I write these two point fully knowing that there are those who will disavow the ABC family out of ignorance, or a lack of imagination and historical/ecclesical knowledge of the baptist movement. There are those who will see the ABC as just another denomination and thus it must be bad and should be avoided. These folks are ignorant and that is probably the nicest thing I can say. On the other hand I don't know of many (if any) ABC pastors who are a part of the Emergent movement possibly making this whole consideration moot.

Hope this is helpful.

Prayer and Temperament III - Augustinian Prayer

The class continues...

Class 3 – Augustinian Prayer and Spirituality: The NF Temperament

NF Temperament
• Creative Imagination
o Transpose the words of Scripture to our situation today
o Think of the words of the Bible as though they were a personal letter from God addressed to each one of us.
• Creative, optimistic, verbal, outspoken
• Face to face encounters, good at peacemaking
• Need to make an effort to be logical and correct in their thinking
• Progress and future oriented
o Always in the process of “becoming”

NF Spirituality
• Needs to find meaning in everything
• Experiencing a personal relationship with God is essential
o Daily prayer and quiet time are a “must”
• Fine meaning in life’s experiences
• Keen interest in future possibilities
• Strong awareness of symbols

Augustinian Prayer
• Take time!
• Prayer of Transportation
o Openness to the Holy Spirit
o Dialogue between God and the self
• Steps:
o Listen attentively to what God is telling us in the words of Scripture
 Read between the lines, looking for deeper meaning
o Reflect prayerfully upon their meaning and application for today
o Respond to God’s word with personal feelings and dialogue
o Remain quiet and still to be open to any new insights

Prayer and Temperament II - Ignatian Prayer

Here is no. 2:

Class 2 – Ignatian Prayer and Spirituality (the SJ Temperament)

Part I – The SJ Temperament
• Strong sense of duty – want to feel useful
• Givers
• Strong sense of tradition and continuity with the past
• Tends to pessimism
• James
o Insisted that Christianity should keep faithful t the ancient traditions of the Jews
• Gospel of Matthew
o Emphasis on law and order

Part II – Ignatian Spirituality
• Stress what we believe and practice today with what has been believed and practiced in the past
• Bridge between the past and the present
• The Jewish “Berakah” meal
• Try to make the Gospels and the Scriptures come alive
o Become a part of the original event
o Put yourself in the place of the people involved
• Ten Steps:
o Choice of Topic
o Preparatory Prayer
o Composition of Place
o Petition for Special Grace Needed
o See and Reflect
o Listen and Reflect
o Consider and Reflect
o Draw Some Practical Fruit
o Colloquy with God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the [Holy Spirit]
o Closing with the Lord’s Prayer (Our Father…)

For next week:
1. Use the Ignatian Prayer
a. Acts 8:26-40
b. Read through a Gospel bit by bit
c. Use the suggestion pages 53-57
2. Read Chapter 5 – “Augustinian Prayer and Spirituality – The NF Temperament”

Prayer and Temperament I - Lectio Divina

I've started a book group at church with the book Prayer and Temperament: Different Prayer Forms for Different Personality Types, by Chester P. Michael and Marie C. Norrisey. It is a good book looking at different personality preferences/types and different types of prayers. For all of those who want to read the book on their own and follow along, I'm posting my notes (Hi Fred!).

Here are the following notes:

Class 1 – Intro and Lectio Divina –

Part I - Temperment• Temperament:
o The division of human personalities into four basic temperaments (Jung, Briggs, Myers)
• Four Pairs of Preferences
o E-I (attitude)
 Relationship with the world
 E – relies primarily on the outer world of people and things to receive the needed psychic energy and enthusiasm for living
 I – relies primarily upon the inner world of ideas, concepts, and spirit in order to find the needed energy to live
o S-N (function)
 Perceiving function
 S – makes use of the five bodily senses of seeing, hearing, touching, tasting, and smelling – gathering data of the physical world
• By means of symbols can make contact with the “inner world”
 I – perceives the great potential and new possibilities in both the external physical world and the inner world of spirit and ideas
• Creative, visionary function
• Primarily concerned with the inner world and only secondarily concerned with the outer world.
o T-F (function)
 Judging functions
 T – uses the mind and intellect to arrive at a judgment or decision by following a logical, methodical method
• Objective and impersonal
 F – uses the heart and inner experiences of personal relationship and love to arrive at its judgment and decision
• Subjective and personal
o J-P (attitude)
 J – give their main attention and concern to making judgments and decisions about how things and persons in the world should act.
• Structured and decisive
 P – primarily concerned with getting more data and information without coming to closure
• Flexible and open-ended
• Types of prayer:
o SJ – Ignatian
o SP – Franciscan
o NT – Thomistic
o NF – Augustinian
• Dominate and Auxiliary Functions
o We tend to favor our dominate functions in prayer, but still use our auxiliary functions
o “By practicing all five of the methods of prayer described, one will discover the particular method or methods that best fit one’s temperament and personality.”
• Temperament and Spirituality in Christianity
o Paul – NF
 Continually peeking around the corner to envision new insights about the Kingdom of God
o James – SJ
 Exhorted the Christians to the duty of implementing their faith into action in every part of their lives
o John – NT
 Gave a fresh synthesis of existing ideas which formed Christian theology during the first century
o Peter – SP
 A man of action, had the responsibility for maintaining peace among the opposing theological schools
• In the Gospels
o Matthew – SJ
 Emphasizes continuity with the past
o Mark – SP
 Action-oriented, giving only a minimum of the teachings of Jesus
o Luke – NF
 Person-oriented, shows Jesus’ great compassion for sinners
o John – NT
 Emphasis on the importance of truth and knowledge and is the most mystical and contemplative
• Prayer –
o Find the time that works the best for you
o Find a place that is comfortable
o Try to avoid distractions
o Journal

Part II – Benedictine Prayer – Lectio Divina

• Prayer that is suitable to all four basic temperaments
• Goes back to the fourth and fifth centuries (sacred reading)
• Lectio
o The eager seeking after the Word of God and divine truth
o The way by which God’s truth is imparted to us
o Read the text a number of times, aloud at times.
o Do study beforehand of the text if possible
• Meditatio
o Welcome the Word of God into our lives and name it as the living word and presence of God.
o Reflect on the text – take notes
• Oratio
o Our response – decide whether we will incorporate the Word of God into our heart, our life, and our work
o Dialogue
o Adoration, Contrition, Thanksgiving and Supplication
o Listen, listen, listen
• Contemplatio
o Seek to effect the union of love that should result from our dialogue with God
o Give God ample opportunity for revelation

For next week –
1. Reflect on your “temperament” and how that may influence your prayers
2. Pray the Lectio Divna daily, using either the texts suggested on pages 38-45 or use John 10:11-18 (the sermon text for 5-3-09) or a text(s) of your choosing.
3. Keep a journal of your prayers, experiences and discoveries
4. Read chapter 4, Ignatian Prayer and Spirituality, the SJ Temperament; review the previous chapters in your spare time

"Sacramental" Preaching or... boy did I nail the sermon yesterday!

Yesterday was Easter and naturally I preached. The Easter sermon is one of those difficult sermons that many pastors would love to avoid if they could, but it is a big one so we don’t. As I worked on the sermon I had a good amount of time thinking about it. Some sermons are exegetical – they really engage the text of the scripture, go deep into words, social-historical context and the like. Some sermons are moral, they take an issue that the text seems to be dancing around and consider the current, modern day implications. Some are narrative, considering the journey of the characters in the Bible and the journey we currently find ourselves in. I think every sermon has a combination of these aspects, but tend to focus on one aspect or another. Of course homiletics is not my area of expertise (like I have an area of expertise), so I may be missing something (let the comments fly).
The Easter sermon seemed to move towards something different, something theological, but more. I could preach on the theological implications of the resurrection but that wouldn’t quite cover what Easter is about. I could focus on the narrative, and for the most I did, but not completely. What I did was more of an experiential sermon. Granted this is based on the narrative, but focusing on the experience of the narrative, an experience that goes beyond Mary at the tomb to the essence of life. Schleiermacher would be proud.
Here is what I mean. There is power in the resurrection, power that I do not believe can be captured with just the spoken word but needs the depth of the arts. Poetry, fine arts, music, these things can connect with the depth of the despair and the power of the resurrection. Yesterday I employed a deep symbolisms in the narrative (it was more storytelling then preaching with) interwoven with music. “Were you there,” “Amazing Grace” and “Victory in Jesus” were key illustrations to the sermon. Some may say that the use of such “tricks” is a cheap way to get out of preaching, yet I would argue that they connected people with the experience of the cross and the empty grave. In reality, the Easter story is not something that can be preached but something that should be experienced.
Here is a theory behind the madness – Sacramental Consciousness. I’m sure I’ve blogged about this before so I wont get into the details, but through the experiential focus of the sermon people became in touch with the deeper experience of the despair and hope. They connected with the experience of the crucifixion in their own lives and in the lives of others as well as the experience of the resurrection in their lives and in the world. The sermon was a sacramental moment because the grace of God transcended the preacher and the congregation.
You may be looking for a copy of the sermon I preached, but I won’t post it here – that is just a cheap trick to fill up space on the blog. Go find it on the church website.

If you can understand this then you should question your sobriety; i.e. more language stuff

Still working on language, grammar and everything else. I’ve read Monk’s book How to read Wittgenstein, which was very informative and have looked again at Lindbeck. I was hoping I could bounce some more thoughts off of you to make sure I am still on the right track.
McClendon speaks of “convictions” and Lindbeck speaks of doctrines. So far it is clear that the two are not the same; doctrines are second order rules and convictions are felicitous statements. I am wondering if Lindbeck’s understanding of doctrine is similar to Wittgenstein’s description of “language games,” specifically that a language game points towards “übersicht” (the understanding which consists in “seeing connections”). If this is the case, than perhaps Lindbeck’s regulative principles is the übersicht towards which all Christian doctrines point. Yet on further reflection it seems to me that this is not what Lindbeck is doing. Instead it seems that Lindbeck is diverging from Wittgenstien’s leading with his articulation of regulative principles and second-order rules. From Monk I was given the impression that Wittgentsein’s description of language games are more amorphous then Lindbeck’s approach. Lindbeck seems to agree with Wittgenstien’s understanding that language shows, and yet Lindbeck still seems to want to explain what language is showing rather than describe what language is showing (hence the regulative principles and the following taximony of doctrines) Yet on the other hand this may be an in-depth (or “thick) description of language within a religious community. Hence a doctrine shows the way in which a community is holding meaning, and the regulative principles are the understandings which consists in seeing the connections.
Lindbeck’s understanding of doctrine seem to have an interconnectivity within the community. Does McClendon’s convictions also have an interconnectivity, or do they stand on their own? Is there a “rule-order” of convictions? Perhaps based upon deeper felicitous statements.
With all of this, what am I trying to say? Within the Baptist community one can find statements with point to something deeper be it a conviction or a doctrine. Doctrines are rules while convictions are agreed upon statements in the community. This is a big difference. A conviction does not need to have an ontological or an intrasystematic truth, they more need to have agreed upon realities. I think the idea of convictions make more sense then doctrines. Yet a doctrine seems to show more how the conviction exists/acts in the community than a conviction. The conviction should have implications. If this is the case then perhaps the conviction is similar to the übersicht and the doctrines are the language games that point to the conviction. This makes sense to me so far.

Language and Ordination

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.

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.

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?

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 Old Rant Continues

It has been a while, and I know many of you have missed my postings dearly. I did move and start a new job, but that of course should not effect my blogging (is that even a word) I’ll endeavor to post more regularly so as to keep all of my readers happy.

Recently I have been reading Bonheoffer’s Sanctorum Communio, but will not write about that today. I had to take a break from Bonheoffer to spend more time on my "expletive" dissertation. Really, the Bonheoffer was the break from the dissertation, and as much as I enjoyed reading about the problems of 19th century German Idealism, the guilt of not progressing on my dissertation was oppressively calling me back (much like the guilt one gets from an Italian mother… sorry mom).

So back to work, and this time on chapter 4 (I am also working on chapters 2 and 3; they are in different stages). Chapter 4 is my social-historical chapter. I am looking at one church and the ways in which the pastors were perceived, acted, and were involved in that church. For this project I’m studying the 1st Baptist Church of Swansea, MA. Right now I am looking at the plight of the Baptists in the 1720s to the 1760s, circa, and specifically the role of the pastors in FBC Swansea at that time.

Anyway, while doing my research, I came across an interesting treatise by Isaac Backus written in 1754 titled A Discourse Showing the Nature and Necessity of an Internal Call to Preach the Everlasting Gospel. Back then they were paid by the word for the titles. In this work Backus is arguing with the established requirements that one had to undertake to be recognized as an ordained minister, namely (in this case) a proper education. All the Baptist history nuts will remember that Backus was originally a part of the establishment (a Congregationalist… hiss), and then was swept up in the wave of revivalism and became a “Separatists” until becoming a “Separatist-Baptist.” As a Separatist Baptist Backus was struggling to have his ordination recognized by the government, but lacked the proper education.

In response to the denial of his credantals, Backus attacked many of the established clergy as lacking a call from God even though they had a good education. He claimed that to many went into the ministry just because it seemed like a good path to follow, not because they had an undeniable call to preach the “Everlasting Gospel.” The “Internal Call” Backus claimed is essential for one to preach. It is a call that is seen in the prophets, in the disciples and in the great preachers before. This call is discerned by the individual and affirmed by the community (a very Baptist practice that I would like to think is still affirmed today… I would like to think). Backus does not deny the importance of learning, he states, “Le me exhort all Christians in general to improve faithfully what talents God has given them,” but criticized the priority of learning over the call.

I know I have touched on this theme before, but I think it is something that we constantly need to keep in mind. I was discussing the level of learning a minister should have with a good friend of mine and realized that there is a danger in over-emphasizing one’s education. Yet at the same time, as Backus says, we should look to expand and grow the call, gifts, and abilities that God has given us. If God has given me a gift and call to preach, should I not endever to learn and grow in that gift so I can honor God’s blessing?

Finally, the irony is not lost to me that around the time that Backus penned this treatise Morgan Edwards and others were working to establish the College of Rhode Island (what is now Brown University) in order to provide a place for Baptist ministers to learn, grow, and gain an education.

Dichotomies and Dualisms be Damned!

I sent selections of my second chapter to one of my professors for comments, and he replied with a recommendation to read a couple of books, articles and then look to tightening up the chapter. His comments are helpful and good, but at times I wonder if there is a difference between tenacity and tedium (perhaps that is what makes PhD such eggheads – in their tenacity they become tedious). Be that as it may, I have just finished reading Beyond Liberalism & Fundamentalism: How Modern and Postmodern Philosophy Set the Theological Agenda by Nancey Murphy. Murphy is trying to do two things: (1) describe the roots and the reasons for the “liberal / conservative” differences in theology, and (2) advocate for a shift in theology due to the influence of postmodern thought.

Murphy goes well into the differences between the liberal/conservative camps – i.e. empirically, epistemologically and theologically. She does a good job in showing not only the differences, but the common root assumptions that both camps carry leading to the differences. It is the fault of modernism that we have a right wing and a lift wing. It is the fault of the idea that there is a foundation, a reductionism approach to the world that finds the lowest common unit and then builds everything else up upon that root. If one maintains such a view of the world, then one will either assume that what one sees is real (i.e. Common Sense) leading towards a conservative view of God and theology or the assumption that what one experiences is real leading towards a liberal view of God and theology. We have a dichotomy that we cannot escape if we hold to a modernistic view of the world.

The postmodern view looks not at reducing everything to the basic unit, but at the networks and organizations which exist (obviously she is referring to a more Anglo-American understanding of Postmodernism rather than the French deconstructionist understanding… obviously). In this approach we consider how things exist within systems or cultures and the ways in which they are connected. Language becomes very important al la Austin and Wittgenstein focusing not on what a word means but rather how a word is used. Thus truth exists within a community as it is discussed by the community. We are not forced into a dichotomy of liberal and conservative but instead exist within the identity of the community as it can be discerned through the context of the community itself. (did that make any sense?)

Yet, says I, what about the reality that within the Christian community we have words like “liberal, conservative, left, right, etc.” What of the reality that we use these words in very specific ways, in very specific contexts that delineate a dichotomy of one kind or another? Even within a local Christian community, like a church, you will find individuals describing themselves as liberal or conservative. You will have churches embracing one descriptor or another, and the labels, at least within the current American religious landscape, point to a dichotomy. Is a holistic view of community a first order speech-act that only occurs at the level of the academy, i.e. theologians in the know, and the dualism is relegated to a second-level speech act? If so, does the dichotomy disappear, or is it put into a different context?

Perhaps the challenge is one of changing our language. With a “nonreductive physicalist” view of reality, an understanding that the whole is greater than the parts, how can we change our language to more honestly reflect such an understanding of reality? I think Murphy is pointing to a dissonance that occurs and exists in the contemporary Christian culture due to the modern assumptions. Her claim is that such a dissonance will not exist when one is considering theology with postmodern assumptions. Right now we are forced into a dualism/dichotomy of either God is intervening in history or is an imminent part of history. Either the Bible is the infallible word telling us exactly what to do, or it is just an inspired history book. Either humanity is only saved through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, or Jesus is just one of many ways to salvation that we can find in the world. If these are our choices, then I am ready for a different way of talking and being Christians.

Obligatory Holiday Greetings/Rant

I'm sitting in a different coffee shop (snif, I miss my old coffee shop) working on my Christmas eve message. Tonight I'm preaching at my childhood church which is surreal, pretty awesome but surreal.
I've always had a thing about Christmas. I'm not a holiday cheer kind of person. I guess I resent the secular world taking over the event. For example, a couple of years ago Target stores said "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas." I was happy with that decision. They aren't a specifically Christian organization and all of their shoppers are not Christian. So they shouldn't assume that all would accept their "Merry Christmas," nor should they be so presumptive to wish it. I don't like it when a stranger who knows nothing about me says "Merry Christmas." What if I'm Jewish or Hindu or Buddhist? What is the appropriate response when someone is wishing you have a good Mass celebrating the birth of Christ and you are not a Christian? Don't presume unless you know me.
I guess the good thing with all of the holiday crap is that the message is getting lost in the world - whenever the message is lost then the church can be truly counter-cultural and reclaim the message. It makes the service this evening seem a little different, like a moment for the rush, hustle and bustle of the world to stop and for God's time to be recognized and embraced.

So for tonight I wish a merry Christmas to all you who claim Christ as savior. To all you who do not, then I wish you a happy holiday - which ever one you may be observing.

I've been sucked in...

I've been sucked into a conversation at my friend's blog (alien nation) concerning the nature and role of sex, abortion and the like. Stupid me. Here is the conversation thus far:
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Dignitas Personae

It may seem strange that an American Baptist pastor would place a link to a Roman Catholic Document. But I have long felt that Catholicism offers the most clear and concise thought available in regards to bio-ethics especially in the area of Abortion. The document 'Dignitas Personae' offers an excellent summation of Catholic thought in regards to these bio-ethical issues. Note especially under the heading 'Faith and human dignity' the statement; 'God has created every human being in his own image, and his Son has made it possible for us to become children of God.' Nothing new I suppose, but profound when compared to a recent post on 'The Nation' which is meant to lend a 'down to earth' approach to thinking about abortion. While in Dignitas Personae the unborn child bears the image of God and is therefore to be highly valued, in the Nation, the unborn child is a 'threat.'



the problem with the argument that Katha Pollit offers is two-fold, the first of which is the subject for today. First of all she vastly over-simplifies the perspective of those who are 'anti-choice'. Notice how she describes the perspectives of those who disagree with her in negative terms. The perspective of those of us who feel that abortion is the ultimate violation of the image of God that the unborn infant is created in, do NOT think that this child is 'one of life's little challenges.' As a matter of fact Dignitas Personae takes the conception and birth of a child in the most serious of terms. Under the heading 'The two fundamental principles' we read' 'The origin of human life has its authentic context in marriage and in the family, where it is generated through an act which expresses the reciprocal love between a man and a woman. Procreation which is truly responsible vis-a-vis the child to be born must be the fruit of marriage.' The child is not a slight inconvenience, but a gift that is to be treated with the utmost respect, care and responsibility. Under 'Faith and married life' we read; 'God, who is love and life, has inscribed in man and woman the vocation to share in a special way in his mystery of personal communion and in his work as Creator and Father...' Nothing could be taken more serious than the birth of a child for it is a mysterious cooperation between humanity and God in the process of creation.



I think that protestants could learn a thing or two from this Catholic document. That a man and woman are cooperating with God's creativity through conception may not be very romantic, but it does lend theological clarity to the sexual act, a necessary corrective to the 'purely recreational' view of sexuality that is rampant in our culture. And it reminds us that there is something sacred in every child. Every child bears the mark of the Creator, whether its life is viable outside the womb or not.

If you read Pollit's article carefully you find the second problem with her thought process. There a young woman, pregnant, who stands the very real risk of physical abuse from family, should she return home as an unwed mother. Pollit is admittedly a 'pro-choice' thinker. Being 'pro-choice' means assuming that sexuality is the choice of the individual, as is procreation and giving birth. Pollit hopes that we will support this womans personal choice to have an abortion. But her argument for abortion shows the weakness of the whole idea that ther is anything personal about sex, conception and birth. It requires the concent of a community, whether that is the community of father and mother in the act of conception, or the concent of the family is helping to raise the child. A child is not the choice of the individual, but the responsibility of a community, parents, family and yes, God. The family does not consent to this child, and so Pollit offers us an illustration of the weakness of her perspective. having a child is NOT an idividual choice.

Pollit offers the support of a community in her article... a community that will pay for an abortion. This is where the church must be more active in my opinion. It is not enough for us to be simply against abortion, but to be for the family, even the mother and unborn child that has no supportive family. We have to offer our consent to life by offering support, safety, home, and help to this mother who is in such danger. I am particularly reminded of Mary. We do not know exactly how her own parents felt about her pregnancy. We do know that her husband, despite some doubts and fear, consented to the child in her womb... and then the Holy Spirit created a supportive community around her; her cousin Elizabeth, the shepherds, the Magi. I see in the gospels the creation of an alternative family for the Holy Family that would support them in birthing and raising an unexpected child.

Here is my first response:

Darin,
I'm assuming that you are agreeing with the Catholic Church that the main purpose of sex and of marriage is to have children. This is the end towards which the acts point. Just want to be clear on that point. If that is the case then you should read Humanae Vitae, which explains why one should not use contraceptives because they get in the way of the natural end of sex and marriage. Not just get in the way, but obstruct God's desire - thus is sinful. Just want to make sure you are clear on this when getting in bed with the Catholics.

On another point, and this is where I struggle, ideally the community should come together and help the single mom (or dad) to raise the child. Somone once said, "it takes a village..." but as Ian remarked above, the reality is that churches do not have their sh-- together enough to provide that community and some people are left in a no-win choice. Remember the debate between the Niebuhr brothers about going to war. One was an idealist (H. Richard) saying that we must stay out of war, while the other (Reinhold) claimed that the reality of the situtation calls for us to be involved recognizing that the greater sin would be to stay out if the war.
You can take the idealist approach and say that all abortions are wrong in every case, but how does that minister to the mother in the impossible situtation? The danger with such an idealism is that it leads to a critical legalism of categorical oughts and shoulds. I don't think you want to head down that ecclesiological road. On the other hand, you don't want to ascribe to a pansy postion of saying that all we need is love and to work off of a "love ethic" (a'la' Fletcher). This puts a good Christian like yourself in a tough situtation. Fun, fun!


Here is his response to my comment:

Saturday, December 20, 2008
Dignitas Personae Cont
It is with great pleasure that I share a couple of comments from my good friend 'Theological Snob' regarding my posting on Dignitas Personae.


Darin,I'm assuming that you are agreeing with the Catholic Church that the main purpose of sex and of marriage is to have children.

No, I am not saying I agree with the Catholic Church that the main purpose of sex is to have children. I think that sex is meant to deepen and strengthen the emotional ties in marriage and be a catalyst for the emotional grouth of the two partners. Sex has a vital and important role in marriage regardless of procreation. So while I would not agree that the main 'purpose' of sex is children, I do think that the Catholic Church offers an important and necessary alternative to the purely recreational view of sex that is predominant in our culture. In my humble opinion this 'recreational view' leave sex devoid of any meaning or purpose but pleasure itself. 'Recreational Sex' is not primarily interested in a deep and intimate experience with another, but in personal happiness and satisfaction, which, in my opinion, leads to a culture which makes the sex partner, an object for the self's pleasure and which leads to the commodification of sex. In everyday life this looks like unwanted pregnancy, disease, marital infidelity and divorce in my experience (not personal experience, by the way) So while I do not necessarily agree with every conclusion the Catholic Church draws as a result of calling procreation a mystery in which humanity co-creates with God, I do think it is the best alternative to 'recreational' ethic of popular culture.



On another point, and this is where I struggle, ideally the community should come together and help the single mom (or dad) to raise the child. Somone once said, "it takes a village..." but as Ian remarked above, the reality is that churches do not have their sh-- together enough to provide that community and some people are left in a no-win choice...You can take the idealist approach and say that all abortions are wrong in every case, but how does that minister to the mother in the impossible situtation? The danger with such an idealism is that it leads to a critical legalism of categorical oughts and shoulds.

Theological Snob raises an important critique of the idea that the church should be the alternative family for single mothers who feel ill-prepared and unready to raise a child. First, the practical application of that idea, that the church becomes a global adoption agency, is unrealistic. I'm not sure I want to go that far and this is where I ready admit I 'punk out' on my own ideas. I am not suggesting that the church becomes a social service agency. I am suggesting that the churches stance should be clear. We are a community for which abortion is not a viable option. In this way we stand as a prophetic voice to culture, offering a critique to the practice of abortion and showing an alternative way to deal with the 'no-win' situations that Theological Snob mentions. (in this area I am admitedly very influenced by Hauerwas).

As for Theological Snobs concern, that such a view becomes critical legalism, I think that is an excellent point. The alternative, however, leaves us no ground upon which to do pastoral care, which TS is concerned about. If the church does not have a clear and concise theological understanding of what marriage is, sex and procreation... if we do not clearly state that procreation is participation in the creativity of God, that children are such a high value that they should be created in the state of marriage and that abortion is a violation of who God is and how God acts in the world (which by the way the church is meant to be, the ebodiment of a Creative and Grace-full God) than what how do we determine our pastoral counsel? My fear is that if we refuse to have a clear statement about abortion, we have no ground for our pastoral care. If our pastoral care is not grounded on theology, than I fear we end up sliding towards the view expressed in the Nation, where the best way we can serve an un-wed mother ill-prepared and frightened, is to take up a collection for her abortion. Haven't we then ceased to be the church? In other words, how do we do pastoral care if we don't take a definite theological stand for life? If we do not offer a theological or spiritual view of the matter we are nothing but very poorly trained social workers.

While some may use a clear and concise theological statement regarding marriage, sex, procreation, and abortion in a legalistic manner, to throw away a uniquely biblical and theological view of a complex situation simply because some misuse it, is to throw the baby out with the bathwater (in a what is not an attempt at a clever pun). So while there is danger to 'idealism' I think the Liberal Christian church has discovered the danger of 'pragmatism' which is silence and apathy in regards to the issue of life, abortion and human sexuality.

My main concern (I think, because this is all just a theological thought experiment right now) is that the liberal church has failed to be a witness to its faith in regards to this issue. I am not trying to find a way to set social policy, but to return the church to its calling, which is to bear witness to the powerful presence of a living God. How can we do that if we remain so wishy-washy about a topic like Life?

And my response:

Darin,
I’m ever so humbled to find my pithy comments published on your distinguished blog. A thought getting at one of the deeper aspects of the conversation, i.e. the purpose of sex. Perhaps we need to think about sex in a relational context. This is not strictly recreational nor is it strictly for procreation but a way in which the relationship that exists in marriage is expressed in a physical and intimate way. Children, which tend to be an outcome of marriage, add and at times (most of the times) enhance the relationship of the marriage. If God is relational, and I believe that the Trinitarian nature of God does suggest a relationality, then marriage, sex, children, and the rest is a way of living into the will/nature of God. Thus sex is not primarily for procreation (and I think you are still leaning towards that conclusion), but is for the sake of relationality.
With this in mind, the church should be advocating for stronger marriages. It is only up to that point where I agree with the conservatives. In my humble, theological view, a healthy marriage is one of equality, not submission, one of respect, commitment and devotion, while maintaining one’s individuality (perichoresis). I am not willing to say that marriage is the foundation/bedrock of society, but it is a holy and sacred way in which we can continue to live into the relationships portrayed by the Trinity. Obviously, in an ideal world with healthy marriages (straight and gay), where sex is something celebrated within a marriage abortions would be less of an issue. Yet we are not living in an ideal world. Our views of sex, relationships, commitment and marriage are skewed at best leading to the impossible situations individuals find themselves in where abortion is considered an option.

That is the conversation thus far.

Beware the Crushing Oppressive PhD Program

I don't really like this time of year. Last night we took the four boys to have their picture taken and the waiting room was filled with "cute" (read - snot dripping, yelling and demanding) little people of which my boys were a part. To much green and red, way to many dripping sweet Christmas songs and more smiles than I could handle. Bah says I. Bah!

In order to clean the system of the Christmas crap that I had visually and aurally ingested last night while putting two of the boys to sleep I read some of the Ramblings of Samuel Johnson, a sensible chap, and this morning I read an essay by William James of which I will comment. After this time of blogging I will read a nice surprise article in the AAR, "What Cultural Theorists of Religion Have to Learn from Wittgenstein; Or, How to Read Geertz as a Practice Theorist" by Jason Springs. If that doesn't get the grime of the time off of me I don't know what will.

William James wrote a tight little essay in the March 1903 Harvard Monthly titled "The PhD Octopus." In this article he bemoans the emergance of a desire for smaller institutions of higher learning to be sure that all of its professors have a PhD James is observing how the PhD is becoming a flashy title that people seem to earn in order to garner respect, a degree program with considerable hoops to jump through (examins and the like) in order to cut people down, and a requirement for teaching even if the individual is not teaching in the area that his or her PhD is in. The original purpose of a PhD, James claims was:
"instituted for the laudable purpose of stimulating scholarship, especially in the form of 'original research.'"
James' worry was that the PhD would become a badge or a trophy that all ambitious individual would try to obtain and others would expect regardless if the individual had the skills, the passion or the drive.

Whenever I meet with someone who is considering the ministry (God help them) I tell them, very openly that if they can do anything else with their lives, then they should. If they can go down any other vocational path, then they should. The ministry, while rewarding at times, is also very demanding and is not the place for someone who is not fully called and committed. When I was considering PhD work I asked myself the same question, "can I do anything else?" Do I have to engage in this level and depth of study? I admit that I have not been as vigilant in posing the same question to others. If some have an itch for higher learning I have been encouraging them to enter into the hellish world of the PhD student. Perhaps I should listen to James, and my own advice. The level of study, the exams, the work is all important and necessary for "original research," but it is not for everyone. One may have a sharp mind and an inquisitive nature, but may not need to do the original research. The PhD is not for everyone.

Perhaps we should not place the degree on a pedestal. We should respect the work that the degree demands and the knowledge the individual has obtained, but perhaps we should not elevate an individual because he or she has earned a specific degree. As James says, "They ought to guard against contributing to the increase of officialism and snobbery and insincerity as against a pestilence; they ought to keep truth and disinterested labor always in the foreground, treat degrees as secondary incidents, and in season and out of season make it plain that what they live for is to help men's souls, and not to decorate their persons with diplomas."

The irony that my blog is titled "Theological Snob" is not lost on me.

Realism, Pragmatism, Positivism - are you confused yet?

At the suggestion of one of my professors, I have just read the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy entries on Realism, Pragmatism and Positivism (actually Logical Positivism). Considering I am working with the ideas and writings of Lindbeck and McClendon who are both influenced by Wittgenstein it makes sense for me to read up on these entries. I'm going to see if I can summarize the concepts briefly for my own edification. Maybe for yours as well?

Realism - Realism has an arch nemesis - Antirealism. Realism stands for that which we can see, the truth that is independent of us. Realism will fight for the belief that truth corresponds with facts and that our knowledge is based upon things that are outside and beyond us. Realism is trying to rescue the idea of truth, justice and the American Way, because they must be objectively out there to be rescued. Yet, lurking in the shadows is the arch nemesis Anti realism. If you tell a joke that you know is funny, beyond the shadow of a doubt and no one else laughs, that is antirealism at work. There is no such thing as objective humor, only the agreed upon ideas at that moment - it is subjective. Antirealism has captured the damsels of truth, justice and the American way and have replaced them with a truth, a justice, and an American way, depending on the individual or the community. Antirealism is constantly working to sabotage ideas of verification and universal values.
Ah, but here is the question - which one is the villain? Antirealism would argue that we are freed from the tyranny of modernism claiming for universals. The dasmal of truth, justice and the American way have been freed from the oppressive grips of realism. Yet Realism would say that we must have some norms and foundations upon which we can stand. The damsels must be freed. Which one is the villain and which one is the hero?

Pragmatism and Logical Positivism - Watch with me the soap opera of the day. Watch with me as a young, handsome doctor enters into a hospital room where a pretty young woman is just waking up after a car accident. The two do not know each other yet, but you can sense the sparks emerging. As the doctor looks over her chart and tells her about her medical options the young woman starts to cry (note, isn't it amazing that the woman, in the hospital, has well groomed hair, is made up and presentable... just like real life?). The doctor, stops and asks what is wrong. The young woman then begins to blubber and gush like old faithful a plot synopsis of the past three weeks of the soap. This person is the father of this person who is sleeping with another person and on and on, and now she ruined her car and everything is crashing down around her. At this point the doctor looks her in the eyes, the music swells, we get a closeup of his face and he says, "I'm going to do everything I can to help you with all of your troubles."
Now, turn off the tv and ask a question. Is the doctor a good person, or is the doctor participating in a good act? If we were logical positivists we would say that we can observe the speech of the doctor, we can deem that this speech is good, and thus the doctor is a good person. Kinda like realism, but focused not on the dashing good looks of the doctor, but on the speech-act of the doctor. Ah but the pragmatists steps in and says we know nothing about the doctor except that he did a good act. All we can look at is the act which is good. It is one that is expected in our society and the doctor nicely fell into it. Is the doctor good? We don't know and do not need to know all we can judge is the speech act.
In other words, positivists would claim that we can judge the doctor based upon the actions of the doctor. Pragmatists claim that we can judge the actions only and can say nothing about the person.

Put all of these clever narrative tricks aside for a moment and ask, what has this to do with theology? What is real or universal? What is good? Is it subjective, can we say for sure or can we only judge the context or the action?

With all of this said, I cannot say for sure that I have all of these concepts right. I may very well be missing a nuance here or there and welcome corrections and suggestions.

Are you confused yet?

Why Christians should listen to Zappa

This is not an election related posting! I'm sitting in my favorite coffee shop, working on my dissertation, and realizing...

all the music is by Frank Zappa

This got me thinking. I am a fan of Zappa. I think is music is clever at times and brilliant at other times. His lyrics are a bit lewd (but then again, so is this blog), but musically he is doing things that are just ...... awesome. Zappa pushes the boundaries, he takes an older style and manipulates it in a way that reveals the beauty of that older style. He mixes style together to create something new and wonderful. From a-tonal music to do-wop to rock to fusion to jazz and on and on, Zappa is constantly pushing and demanding music.

Isn't this how we (Christians) should be with the church? Shouldn't we always be pushing the status quo? Shouldn't we take chances, reach back to forms and ideas of old, and use them today in a way that is new and fresh? Shouldn't we look for that synthesis of ideas and styles that brings out a way of worshipping and being a Christian that is empowering. Shouldn't we expect the most from ourselves and others just as Zappa expected the most out of his musicians. Finally, shouldn't we make sure we never take ourselves to seriously? We can have a high quality of absurdity, and it will remain absurd.

Christians should listen to Zappa, this modern day prophet, and learn from his approach and attitude to life. Just as Zappa pushed music we can push the community, the church.

afterthought: there are other musicians who fall in a similar category, for example, Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Charles Ives, Beethoven to name a few