Realism, Pragmatism, Positivism - are you confused yet?

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

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

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

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

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

Are you confused yet?

Why Christians should listen to Zappa

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

all the music is by Frank Zappa

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

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

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

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

Conflic, Torture and the Book of Joshua - the wisdom of Origen

Thus far I have finished my first draft of chapter 3 - it is not great, but at least it is "on paper." I have also announced to my congregation that I have accepted the call to the First Baptist Church of East Greenwich, RI, and have put my house on the market. It has been a pretty full time. With all this in mind, I was pleased when I found the time to read an article this morning, so please that I thought I should write something about it - if nothing else but to show that I did actually read something in the midst of the chaos.

The article was "Torture and Origen's Hermeneutics of Nonviolence" by Paul R. Kolbet. It can be found in the Journal of the American Academy of Religion, September 2008, Vol. 76, No. 3, pp. 545-572. Kolbet (a professor at Boston College) is looking at Origen's view of a Christian's approach to torture and its application to today. Origen is one of those scholars that I have stayed away from because he is so brilliant and I have not the time to fully engage with his thoughts and writings. I have gotten the impression that either you jump into the writings of Origen or you step back and let others engage. He is not the type of scholar you would dabble with.

With all that said, here are some ramblings. Origen is considering how one is supposed to respond and endure with torture in a context when Christians were being tortured on a daily basis. Kolbert reminds the readers of Origen's hermeneutics of Joshua (which is considered one of the more violent books of the bible). Origen claims that the struggle between the Israelites and the Canaanites is representative of an internal struggle we all face with temptations and negative choices. God wants us to conquer our temptations and our inner-demons, so to speak. It is this hermeneutics that Origen then takes to the experience of torture. Not only are we to model and be like Christ in the moment of suffering, but we are also to recognize that the torturer is most likely suffering and struggling with his own inner-conflict. We are not to hate or condemn the torturer but to be a witness to society; a witness of the life and ministry and teachings of Christ (Kolbet uses the thoughts and writings of Foucault around the issue of capital punishment as another voice in the conversation). Such a response is a strong, non-violent response to the evil of a culture that is trying to devalue the human person through torture.

What of today? I do not anticipate the possibility that I will be tortured any time soon (although Origen did stress that we should always be ready). Yet I have found myself and continue to find myself in conflict with others. My initial reaction is to demonize the other, to call the other disparaging words and put the other down. My reaction is that I must win over the other in the conflict. Yet if I consider Origen's hermeneutic of Joshua, the conflict is not primarily with the other, but with myself. I am giving into a narrative of the world that encourages a distancing and dehumanizing of the one I am in conflict with. What if I conquer that inner-narrative, and then look at the other as one who is also struggling with this flawed narrative of the world? This does not mean that I would give into whatever anyone asks. I would still hold strong to those things I would find important, yet not in a way that is looking to win over the other. Instead in a way that looks to witness to the other.

What if we started speaking this way? Instead of "winning souls for Christ" we say we are "witnessing to souls for Christ"? No longer are we trying to manipulate others (which is a purpose of torture), but we are trying to relate with others. There is wisdom in such an approach.

Simple intellengence

Last week I heard Cornel West speak at Palmer Seminary. Any time one has the opportunity to hear Dr. West live, you should take it. He was engaging, tangential, and insightful. West made a number of points that were difficult to keep up with and remember, but one sticks in my mind.

West talked about the difference between "intellect" and "intelligence" in popular America. He spoke about an anti-intellectual aspect of America. This is a movement that pushes for results, for data (pro intelligence) but not caring about the ideals, values and theories behind one's actions.

I cannot say if West is right about such an observation with the general American populous, but I do feel that he is onto something with the folks in the church. Think about the difference between the Dmin and the PhD in church life. A DMin is a "practical" degree that you would expect a pastor to get as he or she continues to serve in the church. It is a degree to help you be a better therapist, a better preacher, a better administrator, planner, organizer, etc... A PhD is something a pastor gets when he or she is considering teaching. It is a degree that leads towards obtuse conversations (case in point: this blog) which have little if anything to do with the folks in the pews.

Bullocks I say.

We need folks who, instead of offering a new method and approach to church growth, will consider the theological reasons, implications and underpinnings (or lack of) for church growth. I'm told again and again that the church (universal) is changing. I'm told again and again that the old paradigms do not work. So shouldn't I have a good understanding of what makes the church work rather than how to keep it going. I could learn how to be a better preacher, but it is within the parameters of an older paradigm of preaching. Rather, I should look at the liturgical, theological, and historical stuff that is involved with preaching, especially within a Baptist context.

What is my point? I think West is right with his analysis, and his critique. I think we need the DMin folks (the intelligence) in the pulpits, but we also need the PhD folks (intellect) in the pulpits as well. We need people who can work within the parameters of the church today, and people who can consider what changes need to occur for the church tomorrow.

Finally, this separation of knowledge between the pastor and the people is abhorrent. We need to give the intellect to the people. Lets spurn our anti-intellectual stance (I speaking now specifically to the Baptists) and embrace our history, our theology, our ecclesiology, our movement and be better church-makin' (as opposed to church-goin') Christians. Bah to simple intelligence! And again I say, Bah!

Remember the Trinity or Why We Need to do all our Theology in Greek

I'm hip. I'm hip because I'm sitting in Milkboy Cafe listening to live music and looking smart because I am writing on my laptop while other are playing. Me, in the coffee shop, live music, and writing - it exudes hipness.

That is beside the point.

I just finished reading, "The Love Commandments: An Opening for Christian-Muslim Dialogue?" by Daniel L. Migliore, an article in the most current issue of Theology Today. In this article Migliore is considering the Muslim document A Common Word which is calling Christians, Jews and Muslims to have a serious theological dialogue (not a pansy dialogue where we all just agree to disagree, to tolerate each other and to say that we are all nice, but exactly the kind of dialogue that Hauerwas was speaking about - see my previous post). Migliore makes some very good points about dialogue, and the consideration of the love commandments (a la' Barth) and I recommend the article, but what struck my theological imagination was the Trinitarian bog that often mires the conversation between Christians and Muslims.

Apparently, the Trinity is a big issue between Muslims (who are strong believers of the oneness of God) and Christians (who also are strong believers of the oneness of God). It is no big surprise that many Muslims see the Trinity as a move away from the oneness of God. Migliore briefly reviews Kung, Rahner and Rowen Williams consideration of the Trinity for the sake of pluralistic dialogue. When reading through the three, my memory returned to my Church history class when we wrestled with the early Christian understanding of the Trinity. I was thinking of Athanasius, of Tertullian, of the Alexandrian and of the school of Antioch. I was thinking of the Cappadocian understanding of the Trinity (eastern) and an Augustistian understanding of the Trinity (western). I was specifically thinking of the Greek terms of ousia, homoiousios and homoousios - look them up.

Here is my point. I have accepted the mystery of the Trinity as a central point of my Christian faith (sorry Kung) and often fall into the mystery when folks ask me about it. "Pastor, what is the Trinity?" Shrugging shoulders, "I donno, a mystery I guess." Pastor then slinks away.
Yet for the sake of dialogue (and for the sake of self understanding) we should be able to at least attempt an articulation of the mystery of the Trinity. Hence our return to the patristics, and especially to the Greek language. They seem to have a good mystery of the language that makes possible a clear explanation. So, lets learn our Greek, practice our Greek and do our theology in Greek as often as possible. Except, of course, for blogs - those are exempt.

I Speak therefore I Am (in my own language, context, and syntaxt)

Last Thursday I went to Eastern University to hear the good Dr. Stanely Hauerwas speak on "The Dignity of Difference." It is always a treat to hear Hauerwas. Sometimes he is like Tony Campolo and gives the same old speech you have heard again and again. We all have our soapboxes. Other times (most of the time)he has something engaging and challenging to offer. The premises that Hauerwas works off of tend to stay the same, and the conclusions are not that shocking if you have read him and understand where he is going, but the meat of the talk is still gratifying and enriching. This was a good talk with good meat to chew on (sorry to all the vegan theologians...)

Hauerwas was using Rabbi Jonathan Sacks The Dignity of Difference as a launching off point, and relying heavily upon Herbert McCabe's work Law, Love and Language. McCabe was a Catholic moral theologian out of the Oxford school. After getting through his expected rant about liberalism Hauerwas considered McCabe's premise and suggestions. McCabe is basically suggesting that what makes one human is the ability to communicate. Language distinguishes us from other animals and from each other. The ability to communicate depends on our being a part of a particular community, and ethics is the study of what can or cannot be said in human language. This smells of early Wittgenstein and the end of his Tractatus - the idea that there are some things (ethics, ascetics, God...) that cannot be fully articulated through language.

I admit that I have not read McCabe's work and am only working with what I heard from Hauerwas, so my Wittgensteinian analysis may not be accurate. Regardless, Hauerwas then considered the language of Christianity, specifically that through the coming of Jesus one finds the coming of a new language - the Word is incarnate. This language unites us and fulfills us. In Pentecost we are born as a people living into God's future - our language is understood by all. At this point Hauerwas made the great point:

"The business of the church is to remember the future" and to make the future present.

This future that we are living into (the unity of language, the Kingdom of God) gives the church a hope that is unreasonable by many standards, but is the hope that we are to embrace. In that hope we (the church) are free and we are to transform the media of domination (world) into a media of communication, i.e. expressing love for one another without fear.

In a world that calls for conformity, in movements that look to uniformity Hauerwas (and Sacks) claims that we need difference for the sake of self recognition. The language of the church must be different from the language of the world, it must be a language of patience, understanding and a willingness to listen. We are to speak a language of peace within our own tradition.

Take a breath, for here ends the summary. Okay. Overall I like what Hauerwas is saying... like it a lot. But since I'm an arrogant bastard I should not just gush and gush without offering one thought to work with. It feels as if Hauerwas is speaking on behalf of Christianity catholic (universal) and suggesting that we have a shared/common language. I can see Christians agreeing on a language just as soon as they would agree on a flag (the current "Christian Flag" that many Constantinian Christians hang in their churches next to the state flag doesn't count... that was just a brilliant money maker). The church I currently serve in Bryn Mawr has a very different language than another Baptist church less then a mile away. We are both Christians, we are both Baptists, but our language is not uniform. Perhaps Hauerwas would respond that on the basic issues we would be of one voice, yet even there I would disagree. Hauerwas is a pacifist and claims that it is a basic, fundamental stance for Christianity. As much as I agree with him, I know there are other Christians who would disagree. Who is right?

Here is a thought. Jacques Ellul I believe speaks of the reliance of the Spirit in the institution of the church (or at least a friend of mine who loves Ellul speaks of the reliance of the Spirit). Perhaps when we consider the church universal we rely on the Spirit. This would mean calling each community to speak in a way that is authentic as possible to their understanding and interaction with the revelation of Jesus Christ. We should communicate with each other, critique each other (with Christian charity) call each other to question when necessary, but then come to the scary place of trust and hope that when a group of Christians interact with the world, the language used (even if it is not what we would use) would be true to the Word incarnate. Thus we would uphold the particularities of Christianity and avoid yet another council telling us how to speak.

This is a scary place to be, but may be the place where God can work, change and reach the world.

I speak, therefore I am. I speak the Word of Christ and therefore I am a Christian.

new post coming soon

I have been working on Chapter 3 of my "expletive" (so as not to offend anyone) dissertation, and have written a lengthy selection on Sacramental Consciousness. The basic idea is that we have an awareness of God's presence through our interactions with symbols (those symbols may be things, or actions, or rituals). It is an awareness of the "already/not yet" of God's presence. Hence when one is ordained, one is already a leader of the church and representative of the Gospel, but at the same time is not yet fully a leader and a representative. This is still a little rough and needs to be fleshed out a little more, which I intend on doing in a future post. Until then, read David Tracy's Analogical Imagination.... that should keep you busy for a while.

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.