The Long Face

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

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

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

Moral Filth?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Baptists have f--ked up our history, we are a bunch of Enlightenment whores, individualistic bastards who have kicked God out of the the "sacraments", worship, and ecclesical life in general."

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

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

Lazy Christians, Learning Christians

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

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

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

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

Why Can't We All Just be the Same?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The "Future is Bright"?

Today my Green Lake, Ministers Council experience is coming to a close. I weep, my guitar weeps, my ipod weeps, there is much weeping. It is always fun to be the youngest person at these denominational meetings. I get to make the digs about how other folk's children are my age, how I read about their life experiences in history books, and how my body is not falling apart before my eyes. The sad thing is I really shouldn't be saying these things. Not because they are slightly cruel and heartless (never stopped me before), but because I am getting older and older, my body is wearing down, and many of my life experiences are already written about in current history books. Really, I should not be the youngest person here.

I read a posting on my friend's blog this morning that stated in the ABC/USA there are only about 247 clergy under the age of 35 (5.10%). This confirmed my own feelings and experiences.

"The Future is Bright." One of the fun presentations at the glorious meetings was concerning a restructuring of the ABC denomination (I'm going to avoid the "Titanic" reference). The restructuring is introduced as "The Future is Bright." Lets, for a moment, forget that the initials for this is F.I.B., and consider the numbers above. If there are only 247 pastors in the ABC under the age of 35 right not, what will the future be like in 20 years when we are all in our 40s and 50s? Is the future really that bright?

In the midst of all of this, I have been working through another riveting Baptist history book Recycling the Past or Researching History?:Studies in Baptist Historiography and Myths, edited by Philip E. Thompson and Anthony R. Cross (I may have already mentioned this in a previous blog). The authors seem to suggest that the "Past is Bright," or P.I.B. for short. Well, actually the 17th century past is bright, the 18th and especially 19th centuries are kinda dim and dismal due to the enlightenment and modernity. Damn Kant, Hegel, Descartes and all those others who pushed their insipid notions of thought. These authors are looking to a bright past for a hopeful future. Maybe something we should consider?

I would like to think that the future is hopeful. Even if we only have 247 pastors to lean upon for leadership (maybe we can make some trades with other denominations.... one seasoned, 50 year old pastor for 3 younger pastors). I don't know if the future is bright, because it may get worse before it gets better, but Baptists are weird enough that they may actually work through all of this mess. A more religious individual would say that we should trust God. Hmmm...... It might just work, but I'm still going to bitch on the way.

Mystery or Promise?

I'm currently in Green Lake, WI at the American Baptist Ministers Council Senate meeting. It is not as important as it sounds. One would think that at such meeting of leadership one would find brilliant, captivating and engaging conversations about things like the purpose of the church, the role of sacraments or lack thereof in worship, and the like. To a degree this occurs, but not so much. Instead we make a lot of self-deprecating Baptist pastor jokes, talk about the Olympics and pretend things are going well at our churches. Not awful, but not great. It just is what it is.
With all of that said, I have been thinking about some of the "conversation" that has been occurring on this blog in the last two weeks. My first comment - Holy Crap! I actually have readers!
I had to get that out of my system.
Second, it seems that the word, "sacrament" carries a number of negative connotations. So lets consider the history of the word.
A word of caution to the college or seminary student who may be reading this post at 2am trying to find something to finish their paper for a 9am class tomorrow - move on. This is just a recollection of what I have read, but I will not be referencing any of my sources. Consider this a casual, bar side conversation (I'm sure you all have had plenty of bar side conversations about the linguistic meaning of the word "sacrament." Just after the third round of shots, and just before the ritual of puking.).
First, the Greek word capturing the idea of sacrament is (roughly) mysterium. It refers to just what you think, a mystery. The idea of presence, the idea of grace, the idea of a ritual referring to something more than that which it is is a mystery.
Second, the Latin word "sacrament" refers to an oath or a promise. It was an oath of fidelity one made, a promise to a person or idea.
Again, these are from my memory and should not be taken as completely accurate.
So we have a mystery and a promise. Think about this. Ultimately things such as the Lord's Supper, Baptism, or even the awareness of the Holy Spirit are a mystery. We know something is happening, we know something powerful is occurring, but what exactly is a mystery.
Yet at the same time we have a promise. John Cowell writes about this aspect of sacrament extensively in his work Promise and Presence. God has promised to be with us when we gather (Mt. 18). When we participate in the Lord's Supper we remember the promise of salvation. In Baptism we reclaim anew that very promise. The promise of the Lord leads to the presence of the Lord. At the same time we have made a promise to follow the Lord, to be faithful to the Lord, etc... The promise is a two way street.
Mystery and Promise. The mystery keeps the ritual from becoming so route and mechanical that they become a way to force the hand of God. The Promise gives depth to the mystery and makes the presence of God tangible.
When I speak of considering a sacramental presence, I am suggesting (along with others) that there be an awareness of both mystery and promise.
I know it is difficult for us protestants to think past an dialectic, either/or view of anything, but can we, for a moment, suspend our Protestant proclivities and imagine an analogical view of worship, rituals and sacrament? Mystery and promise?

The "Truth" is Back There

Wow. My last posting got two, count them, two comments! And neither from my mom. This is big time. I am thinking of quiting my job, abandoning my family so I can spend more time on my blog and keep the masses happy. (Imagine my reaction if I received three comments)

Currently I'm working through Recycling the Past or Researching History? Studies in Baptist Historiography and Myths edited by Philip E. Thompson and Anthony R. Cross. It is more of the same trope that I have been spouting and reacting to for a while. Baptists have f--ked up our history, we are a bunch of Enlightenment whores, individualistic bastards who have kicked God out of the the "sacraments", worship, and ecclesical life in general. No doubt you know that song and dance. This book is arguing for a history of primary sources, a ressourcement of Baptist history. I agree with the idea. It is possible that a lot of what Baptists take for granted is due to poor history, sloppy scholarship, and we may be off track. Steve Harmon has a good line in his work Towards Baptist Catholicity, "As in the nouvelle theologie, the task of ressourcement, 'retrieval', is prerequisite for aggiornamento, updating." (pg. 15) I never knew I could find so many Catholic terms written by a Baptist. Maybe we need and inquisition.
Steve's point, and the point of many of the authors in Recycling the Past is that the Baptist movement needs to reform and always be reforming (didn't someone else say that...) and we need to have a good, clear, and I would say a "thick" understanding of our past to truly "update" our present. It is an historical and a ecclesialogical task.

Yesterday I read "Churches and the Church" by Stanley K. Fowler from the aforementioned book. Fowler is arguing for an emphasis upon the association over the emphasis on the individual church. He is claiming that the early Baptists had a sense of the church "Catholic" i.e. universal, thus would have an understanding of Baptists churches connecting with other Baptist churches as a part of something bigger. He does the historical work, showing the language of the early confessions and then traces the emergence of the individual church (and the individual Christian) culminating in the Landmark movement. Fowler ends with looking towards the tension. Clearly he does not want a hierarchy, but does see the need for associations which have some bounds. We've done it before, why can't we do it again?
What I think Fowler is lacking is a deeper theological reason for connectionalism among Baptist churches. Currently we are pragmatic about our association (which Fowler points out). What would be the theological necessity for association? I believe there is one - look at Volf's After Our Likeness, consider the Trinity, and there is something there.

Here is my last question/comment (I need to stop writing this and be productive). As we are trying to uncover the historical "truth," how much are we changing and biasing history for our own ends? Did the early Baptists speak of association because they truly did have an understanding of connectionalism with the larger body of Christ, or was it pragmatic? The "truth" is not back there, there are instead different facets of the story which we can pull out and point out, but we never find the truth. Just a different part of the story that we want to tell.

An historical flashback

The massive blogging crowds which frequent my site have spoken, and I will do all that I can to post more often. I cannot offer anything brilliant, since I am now out of the Chautauqua scene, drinking normal, Philly water and breathing in the same air that all of the common folk are breathing in, but I will endeavor to do my best.

I have started working on the third chapter of my dissertation (with much rejoicing). So far, the basic outline of this chapter will look something like this:

1. A question of Baptist sacramentalism, i.e. if there is a place for a sacramental consciousness in Baptist life

2. A consideration of the term "Sacramental Consciousness" - borrowed from the Catholics

3. A consideration of a sacramental understanding of ordination

4. Possible applications of such consideration

This is very basic, but I am just starting the research. I have been combing and rereading some of the chapters from the book Baptist Sacramentalism - I think the title speaks for itself. The authors are all making an argument that one can find a sacramental thread in Baptist life, especially in the beginning of the movement. It is an historical movement. A couple of the authors have mentioned that the current reaction against sacramentalism today is because of changes over time, the influence of the enlightmentment and an anti-catholic rhetoric. I have not seen I good current study of today's Baptists and their view of sacraments, but I would imagine most would be against it (either you're 'fer it or a'gin it). So here is my question. Just because we used to have a place for sacraments in our history, does that mean we should reintroduce historical and possibly anachronistic concepts? Or does it mean that we may still have, embedded within our historical DNA (what does that mean? Hah! I'll never tell!) the possibility for a current understanding or appreciation of the sacraments. Historical flashbacks can be dangerous or they can be liberating.

Chautauqua Day 7 - the final day

I know the weeping will begin with all my two readers (myself included....thanks Mom) to know that this will be the final Chautauqua post. It has been a good and fruitful week with an acceptable amount of productivity and relaxation. All ranting aside, this is a good place to go and think and I recommend if, if you can afford it. My kids won't be going to college because of the week I spent here, but I think the sacrifice was worth it.
I heard two good lectures yesterday. The first was from Michael Gerson, sr. fellow for the Council on Foreign Relations and former speechwriter and advisor to "still" President George W. Bush. I have to admit, just as I approached Richard Land, I approached Gerson (as I think many did here at Chautauqua. Yet Gerson is a speechwriter and knew again how to speak to his audience and how to craft the English language well. I enjoy a good speech, and regardless of the content this was a good speech.
Gerson spoke about the "emerging center," specifically the emergence of a social consciousness among evangelicals. He spoke of a new generation of evangelicals who were still morally conservative but who were concerned for the poor, destitute, etc. This is good, I guess, yet were is the space for the "liberals" in this emerging center. Liberals are known for their social consciousness but not for conservative morals (or any morals at that matter). Yet the idea of an emerging center would suggest that it would not just be evangelicals moving to the left, but that liberal Christians would be moving to the right. Think about it for a moment. What would liberals have to do to be a part of this emerging center. Personally, one thing I am trying to do is reclaim my evangelical roots. As a Baptist, such an argument is not difficult to make - we have an evangelical heritage, theologically speaking, and it is worth claiming. Yet that is not enough. I think we on the left should look at our values and morals and make claims. One attack on liberals is that we tend to walk in a swamp of moral relativity. I would tend to agree. Liberalism has been mired with a bad mix of individualism, situational ethics, and a lack of doctrine. This makes for a sour tasting theology. I do think there are some things we should claim - poverty is wrong, war is wrong, economic inequality is wrong, etc. Yet I would also claim that excessive drinking is wrong, sexual misconduct or a dangerous sexual lifestyle is wrong, indifference is wrong, etc.... If you are breaking relationship with God and with others than it is wrong. Love is a relational concept, not just a social concept. Would the said Liberals of Christianity be willing to consider personal moral boundaries as well as the social boundaries we have so well claimed to join this emerging center? I am not suggesting liberal morals be exactly the same as the evangelicals - there are certain doctrinal issues held by evangelicals that I cannot advocate, but we still need to consider our values and morals. Something to think about. I would like to say some things about his clear conservative leanings, and some of the issues I had, but.... I'm lazy and don't want to write that much.
The other lecture I heard was from the writer in residence and a good friend of mine, Ron MacLean. His lecture was called, "Risk Everything," and it was good. While Ron was speaking about writing, the role of literature in the 21st century and the purpose it serves (or lack thereof), most of what he said could be applied to pastors and sermons. Writing should take risks, make people uncomfortable, stir them and wake them up. So should sermons. As writing continues to evolve and develop, it should be done with excellence. So should sermons. Writing should be visionary, so should sermons. Writing should be an act of nonconformity. So should sermons. And on and on. It was refreshing to hear a lecture not about faith and politics and one that was challenging and inspiring when considering the craft that is so much a part of my profession. Basically, pastors, writers, artists, musicians, visionaries, should grow a set of balls and take risks. It is interesting that I can find a number of instances in scripture where prophets in the Hebrew Scriptures and followers of Christ in the gospels are warned about the difficult life ahead of them and the risks they will have to take. Yet it takes a writer to remind this pastor about the risks he is called to take. Some would say that God was speaking through Ron. Others would say that Ron just gave a damn good speech.

Chautauqua Day 6 - boring dialogue

I have to be honest, I did not attend as many lectures this day. Partly I wanted to give more time to my dissertation (almost done with my chapter 2 rewrite!) and partly I was getting tired of what seemed to be the same lecture given in different ways again and again. It was like the week after Thanksgiving - you can only do so much with turkey, and eventually it gets boring. The bulk of the content yesterday was on Muslim, Jewish and Christian relations. This is something I'm all for, but the presentations are just getting pat and boring. Yes, we need to engage in dialogue. Yes we all have somethings that we can all agree upon. Yes, we are all descendants of Abraham. Love is important. Yawn.

Wouldn't it be interesting instead of talking about what makes us all the same to look at what makes us different. Not just the surface things (Jesus vs. Mohamed) but the deeper values we hold to, the expectations that we ascribe to and the assumptions that we may have about life. For example, do Muslims ascribe to the something similar to the Protestant Work Ethic (thanks, Weber!), specifically one's understanding of grace and providence, or is their a different understanding of work? What is the purpose of the church in the community? What is the role of the family? What about sin, or whatever word you might have for that. I think it would be fun to try to really find those places where people really differ and look at the differences closely.

Some may say that such an approach would only widen the gap between Christians, Muslims and Jew, but I would not be so quick to agree. I don't think we are trying to create one super-religion combined of all three (a religious Voltron of sorts), but are trying to increase the level of understanding. I think if we have a greater understanding and respect for the differences then we have much more to work with. So long live the differences.

Just a plug, J.A. DiNoia writes about religious dialogue in his work, The Diversity of Religions: A Christian Perspective. It has been a while since I have read it, but I believe he advocates dialogue starting with salvation, i.e. what does it mean to be saved. He stresses we should consider the differences and then continue the comparison from there. One's life, DiNoia states, is fueled by one's understanding of salvation.

Chautauqua Day 5 - Know Thy Audience

Richard Land Spoke. The Rev. Dr. Richard Land is the president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, so I am sure you can imagine that the good Reverend was not in a welcome environment. The folks at Chautauqua for the most part lean to the left and the folks in the SBC for the most part lean to the right (actually they tend to be far right, having chased out any who may only be moderately right). I was very interested to hear what Land would have to say on the issue of faith and politics to this leftist crowd. To his credit, Land spoke well. He clearly knew his audience and knew how to speak to his audience. He claimed to be very much against clergy endorsing candidates, he was against denominations supporting one party, and claimed that America was not a Christian nation, but one with a public religion. All good things to say, yet the SBC, as a denomination has all but endorsed candidates, seems to be very pro-republican, and if not in words than through actions seems to be all for a Christian America. Rev. Land clearly has some baggage that he was carrying, but he knew his audience and spoke to his audience. The term that he coined was, "principled pluralism," which seems similar to Saperstein's claims yesterday. There is an arena where pluralistic discourse exists and where the good values of the different religions rise for the sake of all humanity. A pluralism that cares for the poor, the marginalized, etc.... Sounds good, especially to this audience.
The other speaker for the day was R. Gustav Niebuhr, the director of the Religion and Society program as Syracuse University. Niebuhr spoke about tolerance as something we should not advocate over liberty, because tolerance has a condensing nature treating the tolerated groups as less then the one tolerating. This is not new, but something we need to remember. Even in this land where we claim all are free, tolerance is still rampart. For example, I tolerated Rev. Land's speech. What if I were to let go of my assumptions that I am right, that I am superior to him because of the crowd he travels with and really listen? What would I learn then? What would the dialogue be like? Would Land have had to so soften his speech? In the end, tolerance ruled the day, Land knew it, and knew his audience. He left the hollowed grounds of Chautauqua unscathed.

Chautauqua Day 4 - The Source of our Rage

Yesterday, Rabbi David Saperstein, the director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism spoke about the way in which one's faith informs one's values. He was specifically speaking about those values which effect one's interaction with the public discourse. As a Jew, he claimed that specific values emanate from his faith and inform his actions. He used the Catholics as another example - their faith and understanding of theology informed their interaction and intervention into public discourse. It think the distinction that Saperstein is making is important. One is not trying to impose one's set of values upon the public discourse (i.e. public life/politics), instead one is using one's set of values to inform the way one is a part of that discourse. There is a level to which one will try to bend the moral standings of the polis, but bending and influencing is different from imposing. His big point was that the covenant of Sinai, a covenant to which Jews tend to align with is a covenant between the Jews and God, not the world and God. Thus it is improper to impose the agreement of such a covenant upon the greater population.
This made me think on two points. 1) what are the values of my faith which inform my actions in the public? I think this is an important question because it is easy to allow someone, or a group to tell you what your values are supposed to be. It is easy to be sucked into a "Christendom" mentality assuming that might and empire are a part of the Christian values we are all to ascribe to. I believe such a question needs to be done in prayer, in community, and ultimately through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
2) What aspects of Christianity are specifically for Christians? Or in other words, what separates me from the world because of my faith? What should I not assume the rest of the world will ascribe to?
These are good questions that I think we all should consider before walking into the public discourse, armed with our faith. Instead we should be guided by our faith.

afterthought: Saperstein suggested that all religions will agree with common moral values uniting all people. I wonder if we can accept such an assumption.

Chautauqua Day 3 - Apparently Religious Liberity is Important

Today was the first "real" day of Chautauqua in that there was a morning lecture and an afternoon lecture. Saturday and Sunday don't count as much for content - just fluff to ease us all into the Chautauqua experience. It would neat to have a Chautauqua boot camp where we have to do push ups every time a speaker says, "ummm...." or every time the current Administration is criticized (if the criticism draws applause then we have to clap between each push up). So Monday we had morning worship, and another speech by the Bishop of D.C. I am no longer expecting a sermon and hope my soul will still be ok. Then we heard from John Meacham, editor at Newsweek, who spoke at length about the importance of religious liberty and made it very clear that the United States is not a "Christian nation." C. Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance also spoke with much passion about the importance of the no-establishment clause in the Constitution urging us all to hold closely and dearly to such a freedom that we all enjoy.
I get it, I really do. I get that we need to be aware of the importance of religious liberty in the United States. I have even blogged about this very idea. I agree with the speakers, with the content (for the most part - as a pretentious doctoral student I could never fully agree with someone on anything), and with the importance for our own vigilance with this issue. Yet I left the speakers yawning (metaphorically) because if was nothing new. There was, for me, very little that made me stop and think, little that challenged me and provoked me to a new plane of understanding. I imagine this is the same for the majority of the folks here at Chautauqua. This is not a crowd that questions the necessity and the importance of the establishment clause, so could we go a little deeper, please? Maybe talk about the theological complexities one faces when on the one hand most religions has a call for evangelizing and on the other hand we strive to make room for other religions to exist. What do we do with that. What about the times when religious liberty hurts - like when a child is refused a blood transfusion because of religious beliefs. Or what about people who refuse to fight in a war because of religious reasons and are persecuted by our government for such reasons (see the peace movement of WWI and WWII)? Religious liberty is important, I get it, but it is not a simple, easy stand to support. Lets roll up our sleeves and get into the nitty gritty of Religious Liberty. Maybe then I wouldn't yawn. Maybe I just need to get more sleep.

I ended the day by watching La Traviata; enjoying my freedom to attend an opera in shorts and a ratty shirt. I think I even heard someone mutter, "I may not agree with the way you are dressed, but I will defend to the death your right to wear those clothes." What a lovely, tolerant place.

Chautauqua Day 2 - Of Sermons and Speeches

Day 2 was a slow, acclimating kind of day. It started with good ole' Baptist worship at the Baptist house. There is something about Baptists and music - when they sing the walls shake. While the preaching was not stellar, it was solid enough and I enjoy worshiping with my folks. Then Chautauqua has its big Sunday worship. It is a service full of pomp, ritual and not much theological focus. The liturgy is nice enough and far from offensive. Sometimes I feel that when we try so hard not to offend anyone we end up not offering anything of substance. That was kind of what the service was like - a bowl of oatmeal. No spice and no flavor, but it wont hurt you. The music is great, polished, well rehearsed, but great. My biggest issue was with the sermon. The Right Rev. John Bryson Chane, Bishop of Washington D.C. was "preaching." He used a gospel text, but he really didn't speak from it. Instead he spoke about the importance of the separation of church and state, the necessary of the church having a voice in the polis and how we need to make sure the separation is ensured and churches continue to have a voice. For the most part I agree with his sentiment and ideas, but I was hoping for a sermon, not a speech. What Chane offered was a speech about religious liberty with a little flourish with scripture at the end. I would hope a sermon would be wrapped with the text, weaving the congregation in and out of the text until the text becomes our story. One could preach about separation of church and state, but in a worship setting (as much as that was a worship setting) is not a place for a speech or a soapbox. When we preach our concerns, our agenda and our ideals we are no longer allowing God to lead us, instead it is as if we are just telling God what to do, where to be and when.
Chane is going to be preaching all week, so maybe I'll still hear a sermon... maybe.

afterthought: There is a lot of emphasis on interfaith stuff this week, of which I am skeptical - not because I am a close minded ass, but because I wonder how deep can one go theologically when one is trying not to offend everyone. I wonder if the interfaith conversations will end us with us all holding a bowl of oatmeal

Chautauqua - Day 1.... Garbage and Road Rage

I'm going to try to chronicle my experiences at Chautauqua this week - the lectures and the studying that I accomplish (or don't accomplish). Today I arrived at the lovely hour of 10:30pm - long story, I'll just share the high-lights. I had to pick up my Chautauqua partner, Pastor Doug, at Binghamton NY and arrived at 5:00pm. Apparently everything closes between 3:00 and 5:00 on Binghamton on a Saturday, and I was left wandering around for two hours with nothing to do. That was not good, but it got better. Having finally left Binghamton, two hours later than we hoped we started making good time, just kinda breaking the speed limit.
We were cruising, not causing trouble, when another car, which had been behind us pulled in front of us, and defenestrated their garbage towards our car. I was a little shocked, and then confused when an arm stretched out the window and planted a certain hand sign towards our direction. This occurred for about a minuet, and we were speechless - expect for the "What the ----" that we kept saying. About a mile later, the car began to slow down to exit and while we left we saw the passenger, the garbage thrower and hand waver leaning over the driver showing us the same middle sign with a great amount of energy and passion. I don't believe I did anything to provoke him, but something must have happened. It was indeed interesting.
With all of that said, we are here now, trying to settle in and getting ready for the Chautauqua experience. Hopefully it will not involve any garbage throwing or finger waving.

What Does it Mean?

I am not an anthropologist, nor do I aspire to be one. So when I even mention the name, “Geertz” remember that I really know very little of what I am talking about. I’m outside of my element just as an anthropologist would be if talking about Lindbeck or Barth. Yet I have finished Geertz’s The Interpretation of Cultures, and The Fate of “Culture”: Geertz and Beyond (essays in response to Geertz and continuing the work of Geertz) and feel like I should say something.
I understand that Geertz is trying to say something, to push a certain approach of anthropology. It was not until I read the last essay in The Fate of Culture that I started to get what it is that makes Geertz so different. In this essay, “Thick Resistance: Death and the Cultural Construction of Agency in Himalayan Mountaineering,” Sherry Ortner discusses Geertz’ aversion to positivist functionalism in cultural analysis and prefers to look to meaning in cultures rather than function. Thus Geertz does not so much ask what the function of an individual is in a culture, but what the underlying meaning may be for that culture. Geertz offers a fun and fantastic description of the Balinese Cockfight and rather than looking for the function of such an event in Bali he looks at the symbolic meaning found within that event for the participants, onlookers, etc.
I have been thinking about this with my own work. I am concerned with the understanding of ordination in the Baptist context. I could look at the function of the minister in the local church. I could use that as the focus and claim that ordination labels one’s function within a community. Or I could look at the meaning of ordination, the meaning the minister points to via presence and relationality. I am leaning towards the later. It is not so much function as it is presence that holds significant depth. I believe that the minister represents something, sometimes despite the minister himself. If one were to hold to such an approach, then ministry becomes much less about doing and more about being. It is not a ministry of function then a ministry of presence. Granted, one does do things, but that is not the essence of ordination. One could say this goes for all Christians. When one becomes a Christian, one should not focus on the function, on what you do but instead on who you are; your presence.
With all of this said, Geertz offers a good methodological foundation for discerning meaning within a community (via “thick description”). So, this novice will attempt to use Geertz in his meager theological work. May all anthropologists have mercy on his soul.

Afterthought: Ortner and others point out that Geertz fails to address issues of power (a la Foucault) in his approach. She offers a way to maintain a Geertzian focus and to open the door for discussions of power and relationships. As I continue to look at the minister, Ortner’s suggestions (as well as Foucault’s concerning power) are helpful.

Relationships

I am a bit behind which means my thoughts about this book are a little cloudy. When I was in seminary I was introduced to the idea of “relationality” by S. Mark Heim. The relationships of God as seen in the Trinity reflect the nature of humanity, the church and our desire to be in relationship with God (crassly put). The idea seemed so obvious to me that I did not pay it much heed and ran back to Tillich, questions of despair and “being” and looking for my ground. Ah the naïveté of youth. Now, after having read folks such as Heim, Volf, and Fiddes I am realizing that there is much more than just the obvious we need to be nice to each other. The ecclesiological implications of relationship alone is profound. With all of this said, Fiddes does not seem to be offering anything groundbreaking or earth shattering, but is playing in the same sandbox as others and building a decent castle to consider. What Fiddes does consider are the pastoral implications one finds in such a theological approach. No longer is the role of the minister to offer answers to the many theological questions that are on the minds of those sitting in the pews. (I am assuming that those folks in the pews are peculating with theological questions and not thinking about the next sports game, or how the colors of the flowers are all wrong, or anything like that… let me dream, let me dream.) Instead, the minister is to offer to bring the individual into relationship with God, questions and all. This means the minister needs to be in a relationship with the parishioner and then to allow God to flow in the relationship – this is Fiddes understand of an ontology of relationship; God happens in the flow of a relationship (page 281 if you don’t believe me).
On the Baptist level Fiddes had some interesting points. He claims that the pastor has been commissioned to speak for God regularly, specifically the forgiveness that God offers. Seems kinda Catholic. Fiddes covers the hierarchical potential by claiming that ordination is given by Christ and the congregation – whew! One interesting claim that Fiddes (and possibly Ellis – see previous entry on worship) makes is that Baptist are sacramental people due to the free form of their worship. The purpose of worship, Fiddes claims, is for the congregation to find the mind of Christ. Some congregations listen better than others. Interesting thought. Maybe someday I’ll meet Fiddes and talk to him about his ideas, get to know him and his thoughts. Then again, isn’t it much more fun for me to just read what he has offered, spew my thoughts and then walk away? The less relationship, the less the mess.

I'm still here....

Haven’t posted in a while and I’m feeling a bit guilty about that (especially since some of my other good Baptist buddies have been quite active with their blog …). I recently read Fiddes’ Participating in God, and still intend to write about that, but not today. So I give you good intentions, knowing how much that is worth. Currently I am working through McClendon and Smith’s Understanding Religious Convictions. Think Austin, Wittgenstein, Ramsey, and theology – are you getting bored yet? It is fairly technical and dry. While the work gives a great breakdown of McClendon’s methodological approach to theology, it is one of his less captivating works. Yesterday, while reading the book in my favorite coffee shop, Milkboy, a young woman working there (recent high school grad) asked me what I was reading, and what it was about. Hmm….. how does one describe a book on speech acts, utterances, convictions, and happiness in a way that can be understood and does not make you look like a total loser. I don’t think it is possible, and my “rep” went down a number of notches. Sigh.
Anyway, I’ll plan on giving a summary of the entire book when I finish it, but for now I have a thought. McClendon, Smith, and all the language nuts claim that one’s speech must reflect one’s experience or truth (a crass reductions\). This is how one discerns the convictions/truth claims of a religious community. Yet what if their heart is not with their words? What if someone says, “Jesus is Lord,” but doesn’t believe it? What if that person is in a leadership position, knows all the right words to speak, but does not really believe it. Dare I suggest that there might be pastors and even bishops (“what’s a bishop?” says the Baptist) who are speaking without believing? I think all of these language folks are right in claiming that each community has its own grammar. This means that one can be immersed in a community and learn the language of the community. Is it possible to know the language, to know the grammar well enough to be fluent in the community without actually ascribing to the beliefs of the community? Turn on TBN, watch the slimly preachers offering hope and receiving millions and tell me what you think.

Baptist Worship, Praise, Praise, Ugh

Worship. Many would argue that worship is the center of the life of the religious community. It is the apex of all that the community gathers around. It also tends to be one of the more controversial – over style of music, preaching and even the decorum of the room. One of the fun things about being Baptist is that we do not have a set liturgy, or a specific way that we collectively have agreed to worship. The idea of Baptists collectively agreeing on anything is a thought that strikes terror into my very soul…. but that is neither here nor there.
Baptists have tended to be free form having prayers, scripture and a sermon interspersed with hymns. Yet even our worship should say something. Even our worship should have a theological statement that can be articulated and embraced. Christopher Ellis believes this is so, and he attempts to demonstrate Baptist liturgical theology in his book: Gathering: A Theology and Spirituality of Worship in Free Church Tradition. Ellis looks at Baptist worship in England historically and currently and pulls out trends and patters suggesting a liturgical theology that is implicit. He suggests that all Baptist worship contains four things:

Scripture
A sense of devotion to God/Christ on behalf of those gathered
An openness to the actions of the Holy Spirit (via pray, singing…)
An eschatological orientation
A fanatical devotion to the pope (this one is my suggestion)

Ellis suggests that one should not look at the order of worship, nor even the particulars of the content, but be open to the four principles occurring in worship.
I think Ellis is making a great point and one that is needed for Baptists to take the idea of worship seriously (beyond falling into the liturgical trap of changing the music and calling that “worship” – liturgical crap). When one plans worship, all four aspect can and should be considered, and more importantly, when one is engaged in worship all four aspects should be sought. Ellis is not allowing worship to become a spectator sport – he even considers White’s distinctives between active and passive worship. Specifically the sense of devotion to God/Christ. If the gathered body of the congregation is only observing without a sense of devotion, then even the best sermon cannot “make worship happen.” This is different from a liturgy that believes the sacrament will happen no matter what the participants believe – which occurs in the higher liturgical, sacramental traditions. This is stating that the power of worship rests, to some degree, in the hands and hearts of those involved in worship.
Now does this happen? I am sure that on any given Sunday about 10 – 15% of the congregation is not really there. I am sure that on any given Sunday about 10-15% of the congregation is really involved. What about the rest?
On another note, what does this say about God? Is God’s presence contingent on the beliefs and attitudes of the congregation? Now we get into theological questions of God that have been answered by Cupato, Hartshorne, (see previous reference) and Fiddes (whom I am reading right now) as well as others.
Worship; I could say more, pointing out the difference between Baptists in America and Baptists in England, but I don’t want to lose the reader (all two of them) in this hyper-byte culture (write to much and you will be lost). It is good to see Ellis suggesting something concrete for Baptists to grasp and embrace – maybe it will help. Probably not.

Be Careful What You Say

I’ve just finished reviewing a number of articles and chapters concerning James Wm. McClendon, Jr. His theology is based largely on speech, specifically the thoughts of Austin and Ayer. Speech carries meaning which can vary depending upon the context and the culture of the speaker/listener. McClendon tries to pull out what he calls the “narrative” of the local community in his own work. Some may claim that such an approach is non-foundational (foundationalism being a theory of knowledge which claims that how one knows can be justified and the claims of justification must stop somewhere). McClendon comes from the school of thought which claims that language is a mirror of reality, and that community/reality will vary with context.
Why would I use such a theologian? Because Baptists are low church folk. Baptists are folk who look to the local church and the individual as the source of theology. Some may claim they look to the Bible, but they approach the Bible out of a specific context and within a specific community. Thus the scriptural interpretations one arrives at are influenced by that community. So we need to find out what Baptist are saying and have been saying to discern the reality of a Baptist theology.
This is still a little bit vague, but that is because I am still mulling over what I have read. Today I am going to start to work on an outline – the process of doing this will help to focus my thoughts.