Well, I’m not sure you can call this day one, since it was a travel day. The “day” started yesterday at about 12:00am (yes, mid-frickin-night) with a lot of bleary-eyed people climbing on a bus and starting the long journey to Newark, NJ. I have not been in a charter bus in a while, and I remember why. It was not very comfortable, it was cold, and it was slow. Eventually, around 4:15am we got to the airport and started the next stage of chaos and craziness. Try to get 42 people checked in when only one person is handling each person, and taking the cash for each extra bag. 42 people at two bags each makes…. 84 bags. This took a while.
The plane was just as you would expect how plane rides to be. Plane goes up. Plane goes down.
Next we had to find our way through customs and all that. Luckily, my experience playing video games made a big difference if jumping through all of the hoops, over all of the gates, and through the ring of fire.
Now for the fun part. I should let you know that when I say “fun” I am being sarcastic – this was not fun. Remember how I haven’t been in a charter bus for some time? It has been even longer since I have been in school bus. A school bus with no AC, with very little power and crammed with people. This was not fun in any manner and lasted at least two hours (maybe more). As we rode through the Dominican Republic (DR), I overheard a number of people making comments about the houses (or lack of), the incomplete projects, the people, etc. I started to think about this, are we projecting on the people of the DR as less than we are? Are we creating an us/them when we look with a disapproving glance at the way things are? Later in the evening I went with a large group of people (and nothing is worse than walking through a foreign country with a large group of people) to the big supermarket/department store/wall mart. I found myself looking down at many of the products offered in the electronics department. I found myself looking down at the food being sold, and I caught myself. Who am I to assume and decide that these things are less in value than what I have? Who am I to cast judgment?
So here is a challenge for the week: how do I work with these people, serve these people without looking down on them? How do I stand by their side and live in their lives without condemning them?
Who am I to say that my life is better?
Saturday, March 06, 2010
Monday, March 01, 2010
Don't be Clear with your Speech
Language is appropriately vague. I say this well aware that I again and again have stressed how important language is in discerning the beliefs of a community. Yes, language has meaning but the meaning cannot be captured in a neat, short phrase. For example, the word, “saved” may meaning something specific when you look it up in the dictionary, but when used in a religious context the meaning can be very different. And even in that context the meaning is still vague. What does it mean to be saved? How is one saved? Are we talking atonement or are we talking a kind of existential understanding? Here again, language is vague and appropriately so. You may ask me if I am saved and I will say that I am, but our understandings of what it means to be saved may be very different.
Now I realize that in the very last post I talked about the functionality of language, and if you read your Austin and your Wittgenstein you will know that meaning exists in the context of a community. Yet I would say to a point. The word “saved” functions in a certain way in a religious context, but even in that context it will still vary in meaning from the individual to the individual. We do need to be careful about language becoming private and individualistic, so I would argue that a basic understanding of the word is shared, but only to that degree.
So what do we do? First, I think we would need to be honest and agree that even if people differ on meanings of words, one’s particular understanding of a word was invariably influenced by some community and is not completely private. Second, I think the vagueness of words, especially in a religious context, is necessary so that conversation can occur without parsing every little word and phrase. Hence I can preach that we are saved through Christ and not have to wonder if everyone agrees with my understanding of salvation.
Perhaps what we need to realize is that certain words have symbolic meanings which connect us with something greater (kinda Platonic). Love, Salvation, God, etc…. If this is the case then we need to continue to be sure that we are vague and thus respect the symbol.
Did that make any sense?
Now I realize that in the very last post I talked about the functionality of language, and if you read your Austin and your Wittgenstein you will know that meaning exists in the context of a community. Yet I would say to a point. The word “saved” functions in a certain way in a religious context, but even in that context it will still vary in meaning from the individual to the individual. We do need to be careful about language becoming private and individualistic, so I would argue that a basic understanding of the word is shared, but only to that degree.
So what do we do? First, I think we would need to be honest and agree that even if people differ on meanings of words, one’s particular understanding of a word was invariably influenced by some community and is not completely private. Second, I think the vagueness of words, especially in a religious context, is necessary so that conversation can occur without parsing every little word and phrase. Hence I can preach that we are saved through Christ and not have to wonder if everyone agrees with my understanding of salvation.
Perhaps what we need to realize is that certain words have symbolic meanings which connect us with something greater (kinda Platonic). Love, Salvation, God, etc…. If this is the case then we need to continue to be sure that we are vague and thus respect the symbol.
Did that make any sense?
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Yes, but Will it Work?
I have recently been reading William James’ The Variety of Religious Experience mostly for kicks and giggles. I am only a couple of chapters in, but I think I am starting to get one of the points that James is trying to make. The podcast Philosophy Bites helped illuminate me on James and pragmatism. Basically, from what I can tell, James is not arguing about the truth of God’s existence, but instead the functionality of religious experience or belief of God for the individual. This is an interesting idea that I can get my head around.
For a Baptist Theological Circle that I am involved in I am prepping for a discussion on religious pluralism. Usually I tend to compare and contrast, looking at the similarities and differences. Perhaps this time it would be prudent to consider the functionality of God and the religious experience. How does a sense of the divine function in a Buddhist community, Hindu, or other communities? Such an approach does not stress so much the correctness of a religion, but considers the functionality of a religion. It is not an argument of ontological truth but one of intrasystematic truth (to borrow from Lindbeck).
I don't care if it is true, I want to know if it works.
For a Baptist Theological Circle that I am involved in I am prepping for a discussion on religious pluralism. Usually I tend to compare and contrast, looking at the similarities and differences. Perhaps this time it would be prudent to consider the functionality of God and the religious experience. How does a sense of the divine function in a Buddhist community, Hindu, or other communities? Such an approach does not stress so much the correctness of a religion, but considers the functionality of a religion. It is not an argument of ontological truth but one of intrasystematic truth (to borrow from Lindbeck).
I don't care if it is true, I want to know if it works.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
How the West Was Won
Remember the movie, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance? Watch that movie and you'll understand why I am restricting who can leave comments on this blog. From now on you need to have an "Open ID," whatever that is. No more ads for pictures, drugs, or false happiness. And sorry, no more snide, nameless comments.
Friday, February 19, 2010
You are Very Special!
Continuing to work at my writing, research, and what have you. I have sent sections of my fourth chapter to some of my professors and have gotten the reply (from one) that I need to condense things a bit. Perhaps I have found myself getting a little to focused on the particulars.
Think about this. We like to think that we are very important, that this time is important (reference the Goonies). We like to think that the particulars we are living in are special. We like to think this and so does everyone who came before us and everyone who will come after. Yet we are only a part of a story. We are a part of something bigger, and sometimes the particular details that we struggle do not matter so much when considering the bigger picture. This is what I have to try to do with my dissertation – not so much bigger picture, but more a look at what is changing over time. I need to consider how small changes are part of bigger changes and so on and so on. There will be historical anomalies, but they need to be named as just that: anomalies.
It is one thing to step back and view history in such a way, but it is another to view ourselves in such a way. It is not easy to look and see how we are changing slowly, how we are a part of a larger trend, and how we may not make a big difference in the long run. Of course I don’t mean you the reader. You are special. You are important. You are my special little guy/gal.
Think about this. We like to think that we are very important, that this time is important (reference the Goonies). We like to think that the particulars we are living in are special. We like to think this and so does everyone who came before us and everyone who will come after. Yet we are only a part of a story. We are a part of something bigger, and sometimes the particular details that we struggle do not matter so much when considering the bigger picture. This is what I have to try to do with my dissertation – not so much bigger picture, but more a look at what is changing over time. I need to consider how small changes are part of bigger changes and so on and so on. There will be historical anomalies, but they need to be named as just that: anomalies.
It is one thing to step back and view history in such a way, but it is another to view ourselves in such a way. It is not easy to look and see how we are changing slowly, how we are a part of a larger trend, and how we may not make a big difference in the long run. Of course I don’t mean you the reader. You are special. You are important. You are my special little guy/gal.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Politics - Now I have a mess on my hands....
This week I am supposed to present to the Rhode Island Council of Churches Faith and Order Commission about relationality and the problems of political involvement for the church. There are volumes and volumes written about such a topic, so I mostly summarized. For now, consider the reasons why the church should be involved in the polis. We believe in a new heaven and a new earth (Revelation 21). If this is the case, then we should be working to live in that new heaven and new earth – we should be living by that ethic and sharing that ethic any way possible. Some, like Hauerwas and H. Richard Niebuhr would argue that we should be a witness to the community for others to observe. Our role is not to be politically involved, but to the counter to the culture, calling culture to the ethos of the church. I like a lot of what Hauerwas and others are suggesting, but in the end I don’t think I can agree. There are moments when the church needs to be more than a witness – a bystander to destruction. There are moments when the church needs to be actively involved when the culture is advocating and legal sin on the societal level. Cliché case in point – the Civil Rights movement.
Of course the church should not get so involved that it becomes complicit in the mess of bill-making and legislating. Perhaps the church is to be a witness, but within the process, if this is possible. Granted, this is a difficult and delicate balance to hold. It is not easy to be in the system and not completely in it, so I am going to be deliberately vague about the details. We do need to be engaged – it is essential, but we need to be cautious as to the how. A witness alongside those who are also working for justice and peace in the world.
Of course the church should not get so involved that it becomes complicit in the mess of bill-making and legislating. Perhaps the church is to be a witness, but within the process, if this is possible. Granted, this is a difficult and delicate balance to hold. It is not easy to be in the system and not completely in it, so I am going to be deliberately vague about the details. We do need to be engaged – it is essential, but we need to be cautious as to the how. A witness alongside those who are also working for justice and peace in the world.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
The Moral Dangers of Chess
As usual I have been involved in more things than I should be. I’m currently reading Kurt Vonnegut’s Welcome to the Monkey House for fun – it is a great collection of short stories and a good, wry sense of humor. One story has been bouncing in my mind is “All the King’s Horses.” This one is not a comedy. It is a story of a group of soldiers who have been captured by a Communist dictatorship in the height of the Cold War. The Colonel of the group has to play the head of the government in game of chess in order for him and his company to be set free. The first twist is that the Colonel’s wife and two children are with them. The second twist is that the prisoners are to be the chess pieces. If a piece is taken than that soldier (or civilian) is killed. Diabolical!
Spoiler Alert! As the game continues the Colonel finds himself in a position to make a difficult decision. If he sacrifices one of his sons then he will ultimately win the game and his wife, other son and the few soldiers left will be allowed to live and gain their freedom. If he doesn’t sacrifice his son then he will most likely lose the game and all with die. The Colonel makes the decision to sacrifice his son and through a bizarre turn of events his son is spared and the Colonel ends up winning the game.
Some may read this and say that everything worked out and it was a happy ending. Yet I wonder what that one boy who was sacrificed will think of his father. That boy and the Colonel’s wife will have the haunting memory that the Colonel was willing to sacrifice one of his children. The Colonel will live always with the guilt of what he was willing to do. If you take all of these things into account, I would say that the Colonel did not win.
I have recently re-read the Niebuhr brothers’ classic argument over the U.S. involvement in war (Christian Century, March 1932 and on). H. Richard argues in his article, "The Grace of Doing Nothing," that the U.S. should not be involved in war but should hold to the higher ground, trust in God, and not be complicit in a sinful act. Reinhold countered that doing nothing would be a greater sin than to get involved and attempt to make something good out of the political and global mess they were facing. Taking a pragmatist stance Reinhold argued that to do nothing would be to allow a greater evil to continue. It is a fallen world and we have to live in it.
Think about this with Vonnegut’s story. What if the Colonel did nothing and all in his company as well as his wife and sons were killed? Would this have been the better action? What if the Colonel did not sacrifice his son, lost the game, and all were sacrificed? Would this have been the better action? Christians are called to a higher ethic, but can we say the Colonel did the wrong thing? Either way the Colonel will lose.
Spoiler Alert! As the game continues the Colonel finds himself in a position to make a difficult decision. If he sacrifices one of his sons then he will ultimately win the game and his wife, other son and the few soldiers left will be allowed to live and gain their freedom. If he doesn’t sacrifice his son then he will most likely lose the game and all with die. The Colonel makes the decision to sacrifice his son and through a bizarre turn of events his son is spared and the Colonel ends up winning the game.
Some may read this and say that everything worked out and it was a happy ending. Yet I wonder what that one boy who was sacrificed will think of his father. That boy and the Colonel’s wife will have the haunting memory that the Colonel was willing to sacrifice one of his children. The Colonel will live always with the guilt of what he was willing to do. If you take all of these things into account, I would say that the Colonel did not win.
I have recently re-read the Niebuhr brothers’ classic argument over the U.S. involvement in war (Christian Century, March 1932 and on). H. Richard argues in his article, "The Grace of Doing Nothing," that the U.S. should not be involved in war but should hold to the higher ground, trust in God, and not be complicit in a sinful act. Reinhold countered that doing nothing would be a greater sin than to get involved and attempt to make something good out of the political and global mess they were facing. Taking a pragmatist stance Reinhold argued that to do nothing would be to allow a greater evil to continue. It is a fallen world and we have to live in it.
Think about this with Vonnegut’s story. What if the Colonel did nothing and all in his company as well as his wife and sons were killed? Would this have been the better action? What if the Colonel did not sacrifice his son, lost the game, and all were sacrificed? Would this have been the better action? Christians are called to a higher ethic, but can we say the Colonel did the wrong thing? Either way the Colonel will lose.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Varieties of Projects
I’ve had my irons in a couple of fires. Obviously I continue to work on the dissertation. This week I finished the fifth and final chapter – felt good. Now I just have to make it presentable and readable. In the meantime I have been reading William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience. Good stuff. I have also been thinking about theology and immigration, as well as relationality in the church and the necessity and dangers of political involvement. Is that enough?
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Trafficking our Language
It seems that I am getting a number of comments from people selling different things. I'm thrilled that they think this blog has such a large readership that it is a good place to hock their cheap S--t (or sell their images).
Yesterday was Human Trafficking Awareness Day. I encourage all of my readers (the lot of you) to find out as much as you can about Human Trafficking and how you can be involved in ending it across the world.
Apropos, (points for SAT word!) I am working with the ABCORI Social Justice Committee (or something like that…. I don’t quiet remember the actual name of the comittee, my good friend roped me into the task) to draft a statement on Human Trafficking for the Rhode Island American Baptists. In preparation I have been reviewing Joerg Rieger’s Remember the Poor; specifically his chapter Authority, Power and the role of the text.
Reiger is using Lucan’s analysis of language as a launching pad for his own work (which is pretty good). I have turned to Reiger’s summary of Lucan partly because I am to lazy to read Lucan for myself, and because Reiger offers an application of Lucan’s work that is germane to my own (why re-invent the wheel?).
Here is the geist of what I found. The idea of the authority of the self is an illusion even though it was an idea embraced by 19th and 20th century liberalism. Through language, an order is created that cannot be controlled. The self is defined by the language used to name and describe the self. Language is in control of the self.
Example: If I call someone a “freak” again and again, even if he is not a “freak,” and doesn’t believe he is a “freak,” the label will have power and control over other’s view of the individual and even over the individual’s view of himself. Think of this in broader terms. We call ourselves Americans, we call ourselves New Englanders, or we call ourselves Christians. Those words have meaning which will vary from context to context and we cannot control those meanings. Others will call us things that we may or may not accept, or may understand differently, but we cannot control the label or the meaning that a specific community attributes to that label. Here we see a later Wittgenstein rearing his head.
Why does this matter in writing a statement on Human Trafficking? It matters because we need to be careful and deliberate in the language we use when talking about the victims, the perpetrators, and our own role (or lack thereof). Rieger suggests that we embrace Biblical language; he may be onto something.
What if we refer to the victims as Rehab, as Rachael, or as Mary? What if we read the passages of Jesus reaching out to the prostitute in this current context?
We need to be careful and deliberate in choosing the words we use. We also need to be aware of the words others use in this issue of Human Trafficking.
Yesterday was Human Trafficking Awareness Day. I encourage all of my readers (the lot of you) to find out as much as you can about Human Trafficking and how you can be involved in ending it across the world.
Apropos, (points for SAT word!) I am working with the ABCORI Social Justice Committee (or something like that…. I don’t quiet remember the actual name of the comittee, my good friend roped me into the task) to draft a statement on Human Trafficking for the Rhode Island American Baptists. In preparation I have been reviewing Joerg Rieger’s Remember the Poor; specifically his chapter Authority, Power and the role of the text.
Reiger is using Lucan’s analysis of language as a launching pad for his own work (which is pretty good). I have turned to Reiger’s summary of Lucan partly because I am to lazy to read Lucan for myself, and because Reiger offers an application of Lucan’s work that is germane to my own (why re-invent the wheel?).
Here is the geist of what I found. The idea of the authority of the self is an illusion even though it was an idea embraced by 19th and 20th century liberalism. Through language, an order is created that cannot be controlled. The self is defined by the language used to name and describe the self. Language is in control of the self.
Example: If I call someone a “freak” again and again, even if he is not a “freak,” and doesn’t believe he is a “freak,” the label will have power and control over other’s view of the individual and even over the individual’s view of himself. Think of this in broader terms. We call ourselves Americans, we call ourselves New Englanders, or we call ourselves Christians. Those words have meaning which will vary from context to context and we cannot control those meanings. Others will call us things that we may or may not accept, or may understand differently, but we cannot control the label or the meaning that a specific community attributes to that label. Here we see a later Wittgenstein rearing his head.
Why does this matter in writing a statement on Human Trafficking? It matters because we need to be careful and deliberate in the language we use when talking about the victims, the perpetrators, and our own role (or lack thereof). Rieger suggests that we embrace Biblical language; he may be onto something.
What if we refer to the victims as Rehab, as Rachael, or as Mary? What if we read the passages of Jesus reaching out to the prostitute in this current context?
We need to be careful and deliberate in choosing the words we use. We also need to be aware of the words others use in this issue of Human Trafficking.
Friday, January 01, 2010
The Goal of Theology
Happy New Year Everyone!
Ellen T. Charry writes in her article, “Educating for Wisdom: Theological Studies as a Spiritual Exercise,” (in Theology Today, Vol. 66, no. 3, Oct., 2009, 295-308) that the goal of theology is to gain wisdom of God. A great deal of this work is based on Augustine’s De Trinitate.
Basically, in studying theology we gain knowledge that leads to a wisdom of God. I think this is an important point to make and remember that should keep me and all other theological snobs humble. What we are doing is engaging in a spiritual exercise that will hopefully bring us closer to God. This is no small thing and should not be taken lightly. We need to remember that any time we engage in theological pursuits we should do it with fear (awe/respect) and trembling.
Ellen T. Charry writes in her article, “Educating for Wisdom: Theological Studies as a Spiritual Exercise,” (in Theology Today, Vol. 66, no. 3, Oct., 2009, 295-308) that the goal of theology is to gain wisdom of God. A great deal of this work is based on Augustine’s De Trinitate.
Basically, in studying theology we gain knowledge that leads to a wisdom of God. I think this is an important point to make and remember that should keep me and all other theological snobs humble. What we are doing is engaging in a spiritual exercise that will hopefully bring us closer to God. This is no small thing and should not be taken lightly. We need to remember that any time we engage in theological pursuits we should do it with fear (awe/respect) and trembling.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Make a Decision! How?
Every day I wake up and say, “today is the first day of a writing and posting on the blog on a regular basis.” Every day I say this, my wife tells me to be quiet and my children ask me, “what is a blog?” Well maybe today is the first day. Probably not.
I’ve recently read the article, “Restricting the Scope of the Ethics of Belief: Haack’s Alternative to Clifford and James,” by Rose Ann Christian from the AAR (Sept. 2009, vol. 77, no. 3, pp. 461-493). It has a very sexy and eye-catching title!
The article looks at Susan Haack’s work, “The Ethics of Belief Reconsidered,” which offers a critique of W.K. Clifford’s “morally demanding” ethical position and William James’ “epistemically over permissive” ethical position. (Wondering what epistemology is? Me to). I am not an ethicist, so this area is not something I have specifically studied, but I do understand the general concepts. We have two sides of ethics: Clifford’s which is data based and James which is experientially and intuitively based. With Clifford one makes a decision based on what would do the least amount of empirically discernable harm. Facts and research are highly valued in this area. With James, decisions are made based on the faith/moral stance of the individual. What one believes is important. Granted, this is a simplistic summary, but hopefully gets the point across.
Christian (the author) and Haack are claiming that an good ethical decision should take into account both sides. One should look for the basic empirical data and at the same time one should be aware of one’s religious beliefs which would inform one’s beliefs. Christian considered the debate of Intelligent Design and Jerry Falwell’s outrageous comments after 9/11 as examples.
Here is one small thing I have gathered from this article: a third way…. sorta. This is a trend I have encountered in the past. Lindbeck tries to carve a middle way (cultural-linguistic) between the cognitive and the experiential-expressivity. Murphy tries to offer a third way in theology, following to a degree, Lindbeck’s path and focusing on language.
One’s beliefs will always be tied to one’s reality. The empirical data is not objective, nor are one’s moral foundations. The two will always be intertwined and this is something we need to be honest about. The view that one must earn money to survive in the world is based on a belief that a capitalist economic system exists, that one is deciding to participate in that system and that such a system can offer a good. One could go into the wild and live in a different system.
Before judging someone’s actions and decisions, we need to consider how the individual views reality and what religious/moral system influences such a system. This is a little rough, but I think gets something of a point across.
Afterthought: it may boil down to this - what you know and what you believe are both very important. So remember what your mother told you:
"You should know better!"
"That isn't the way I raised you!"
I’ve recently read the article, “Restricting the Scope of the Ethics of Belief: Haack’s Alternative to Clifford and James,” by Rose Ann Christian from the AAR (Sept. 2009, vol. 77, no. 3, pp. 461-493). It has a very sexy and eye-catching title!
The article looks at Susan Haack’s work, “The Ethics of Belief Reconsidered,” which offers a critique of W.K. Clifford’s “morally demanding” ethical position and William James’ “epistemically over permissive” ethical position. (Wondering what epistemology is? Me to). I am not an ethicist, so this area is not something I have specifically studied, but I do understand the general concepts. We have two sides of ethics: Clifford’s which is data based and James which is experientially and intuitively based. With Clifford one makes a decision based on what would do the least amount of empirically discernable harm. Facts and research are highly valued in this area. With James, decisions are made based on the faith/moral stance of the individual. What one believes is important. Granted, this is a simplistic summary, but hopefully gets the point across.
Christian (the author) and Haack are claiming that an good ethical decision should take into account both sides. One should look for the basic empirical data and at the same time one should be aware of one’s religious beliefs which would inform one’s beliefs. Christian considered the debate of Intelligent Design and Jerry Falwell’s outrageous comments after 9/11 as examples.
Here is one small thing I have gathered from this article: a third way…. sorta. This is a trend I have encountered in the past. Lindbeck tries to carve a middle way (cultural-linguistic) between the cognitive and the experiential-expressivity. Murphy tries to offer a third way in theology, following to a degree, Lindbeck’s path and focusing on language.
One’s beliefs will always be tied to one’s reality. The empirical data is not objective, nor are one’s moral foundations. The two will always be intertwined and this is something we need to be honest about. The view that one must earn money to survive in the world is based on a belief that a capitalist economic system exists, that one is deciding to participate in that system and that such a system can offer a good. One could go into the wild and live in a different system.
Before judging someone’s actions and decisions, we need to consider how the individual views reality and what religious/moral system influences such a system. This is a little rough, but I think gets something of a point across.
Afterthought: it may boil down to this - what you know and what you believe are both very important. So remember what your mother told you:
"You should know better!"
"That isn't the way I raised you!"
Saturday, November 21, 2009
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.
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.
Friday, November 13, 2009
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.
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.
Friday, October 16, 2009
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?
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?
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
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.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
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
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
Monday, July 20, 2009
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…
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.
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.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
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?
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?
Monday, July 06, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)