Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Additions
I've added two links to my Blogs that I Like (and hopefully like me) - Anglobaptist is a guy I met at the Biennial.... he is real hip and sacramentally astute, what more could you ask. Also, bowing to pressure, Darin, my good friend, has decided to create a whole new blog for his sermons. Check them both out!
Biennial Reflection - The Circus is in Town!
I have already given my bit about the bylaws change, but would like to think a little bit about the meeting at which these bylaws were presented and voted on. The leaders of the denomination did their due diligence, but only just that. They sent out a copy of the bylaws to every church on CD and he them posted on the web. It was up to the pastor to be sure that these changes were given to members of the church. A tutorial was not offered, learning sessions were not offered and this was a dense and complicated document. Many times those who were on the writing team could not answer questions about the bylaws that were asked. Many people just seemed to not know anything about the bylaws. The basic was done and not much more.
At the meeting the motion was presented and then all of the presidents of the various boards, including the president of the denomination said how much they liked and supported the changes. No one said why the changes were needed, no one said anything about struggles or difficulties that were in the proposed changes, just that they were awesome and everyone should just trust the leaders and embrace the change.
As a note, I think this was a at best out of line with Robert’s rules and at worse a cheap way to push an issue. There was to be a debate later on where each person would only get five minutes to speak. The overall time for the debate would be limited and each pro would be balanced with a con. Yet all the mucky-mucks were given ample time to speak in favor of the changes, from positions of authority showing a lack of respect for the process. Poor form!
After we were dazzled with the bulls**t, there was a time for questions of clarification. Did anyone have a copy of the bylaws here for reading? No, they were posted on the web (there was no internet access in the hall). Did anyone have a list of the delegates that were on the voting bloc and was that list available during the biennial? No. Wait, yes The general secretary had one list to pass around the hundreds of people. How will we know if International Ministries and National Ministries would maintain a connection with the denomination after they were made independent? You have to trust them. Do they have new bylaws emphasizing their relationship with the denomination? No, not yet. Can anyone explain in simple language the changes? No, maybe, well I can talk about the mission table.
This went on for some time until the president had to stop the questions so there would be time for debate – four against and one in favor. Over, the whole process was awful.
There are a lot of conclusions one could draw from such a debacle. Pure ineptitude and incompetence could be one. Attempts to push an issue with a happy and vague presentation could be another. Yet here is the larger message that I took away from the process – a lack of trust of the local church. The local church was not a part of the writing process. The local church was not given any opportunity for feedback in the process. We were given a document that could not accept any amendments and told to trust the leaders and just vote for it. The actual document was not even present at the meeting nor was a list of directors we were to vote for. The local church was not told about the dire financial position of the denomination, just told that the change is needed. It almost seemed that the heads of the denomination forgot that they are there to coordinate mission and to serve the local church, not to tell us (the local church) what to do. The denomination begins at the local church and ends at the local church, yet the local church was not in the picture at all.
If they are to do this again (God help us), I would hope that our leaders would learn something from this process and engage the local church from the beginning. The leaders need to trust the church, as risky and difficult as that may be.
At the meeting the motion was presented and then all of the presidents of the various boards, including the president of the denomination said how much they liked and supported the changes. No one said why the changes were needed, no one said anything about struggles or difficulties that were in the proposed changes, just that they were awesome and everyone should just trust the leaders and embrace the change.
As a note, I think this was a at best out of line with Robert’s rules and at worse a cheap way to push an issue. There was to be a debate later on where each person would only get five minutes to speak. The overall time for the debate would be limited and each pro would be balanced with a con. Yet all the mucky-mucks were given ample time to speak in favor of the changes, from positions of authority showing a lack of respect for the process. Poor form!
After we were dazzled with the bulls**t, there was a time for questions of clarification. Did anyone have a copy of the bylaws here for reading? No, they were posted on the web (there was no internet access in the hall). Did anyone have a list of the delegates that were on the voting bloc and was that list available during the biennial? No. Wait, yes The general secretary had one list to pass around the hundreds of people. How will we know if International Ministries and National Ministries would maintain a connection with the denomination after they were made independent? You have to trust them. Do they have new bylaws emphasizing their relationship with the denomination? No, not yet. Can anyone explain in simple language the changes? No, maybe, well I can talk about the mission table.
This went on for some time until the president had to stop the questions so there would be time for debate – four against and one in favor. Over, the whole process was awful.
There are a lot of conclusions one could draw from such a debacle. Pure ineptitude and incompetence could be one. Attempts to push an issue with a happy and vague presentation could be another. Yet here is the larger message that I took away from the process – a lack of trust of the local church. The local church was not a part of the writing process. The local church was not given any opportunity for feedback in the process. We were given a document that could not accept any amendments and told to trust the leaders and just vote for it. The actual document was not even present at the meeting nor was a list of directors we were to vote for. The local church was not told about the dire financial position of the denomination, just told that the change is needed. It almost seemed that the heads of the denomination forgot that they are there to coordinate mission and to serve the local church, not to tell us (the local church) what to do. The denomination begins at the local church and ends at the local church, yet the local church was not in the picture at all.
If they are to do this again (God help us), I would hope that our leaders would learn something from this process and engage the local church from the beginning. The leaders need to trust the church, as risky and difficult as that may be.
Biennial Reflection - Legacy
I had full intentions to post more often about the Biennial, but time got away from me; a common problem at meetings of that nature. Instead I hope to offer a number of reflections about the experience.
The big question at this gathering concerned an adoption of new bylaws for the ABC/USA. I’ll post a blog about the proceedings themselves – it was kind of a mismanaged circus. Due to a poor dissemination of information many were uninformed about the changes. Due to other reasons (which I may ruminate about) the changes did not reflect a sense of Baptist identity or any clinging to tradition. A top-heavy bureaucracy was proposed for the sake of streamlining and efficiency. This bureaucracy would decided who could be placed on boards, would write and usher in policy statements (Statements of public witness) and be the steering group for ABC/USA. The program boards, i.e. National Ministries and International Ministries would be “de-coupled” so that they could be independent for the sake of efficiency. From what was presented, the local church would be engaged on a financial level, and nominally through the region. The new structure would be very, very representational and have very, very little direct engagement from the local church.
Within the bylaw changes was a new thing called “the mission table.” In this process, through the higher up organizations an issue would be chosen and at national meetings all those who attend could engage, discuss and dialogue about the issue “on the table.” Then a small committee, again appointed by the national board, a committee without any local church representation, would be given the charge to follow through with actions that emerged from the Mission Table. During the proceedings one person asked why the bylaws needed to be changed for this to happen – i.e. what is keeping the denomination from doing something like this now? It sounded to me like the sugar to make the medicine go down.
The bylaws changes did not pass, and I think that is a good thing.
On Sunday I attended two worship services, one at the Baptist Peace Fellowship gathering, and one hosted by the Young Adult Caucus. At the Peace Fellowship, Nick Carter (president of Andover Newton Theological School – my alma mater) preached about the legacy of peace makers, and the way in which that legacy informs, motivates and inspires people currently struggling for peace. At the Young Adult dinner, Paul Rauschenbausch (great grandson of the theologian Walter Rauschenbusch) preached about the importance of a legacy in informing and guiding one’s faith. Legacy, history is important.
We were given new bylaws to consider, bylaws that were to take the denomination in a new and exciting direction, yet there was little that seemed to be connected to the past. The only legacy that was mentioned was the legacy of mission work – which is a good one. Yet never was the local church mentioned. Never was the commitment of individuals mentioned. We were to be moving forward, with little connection to the past – or at least that was how it was presented.
I understand that becoming so steeped in the past can be dangerous, it is a tension that I face with church work again and again. Yet I also understand the vital importance of maintaining a connection with one’s past and one’s legacy. In 1813 the Baptists formed the triennial convention for the sake of doing missions together. In 1907 the denomination was formed for the sake of doing mission together. What is the legacy of these moments as well as other moments from the Baptist story? It wasn’t reflected in the proposed change, and for tat reason as well as many others, I am glad they did not pass.
The big question at this gathering concerned an adoption of new bylaws for the ABC/USA. I’ll post a blog about the proceedings themselves – it was kind of a mismanaged circus. Due to a poor dissemination of information many were uninformed about the changes. Due to other reasons (which I may ruminate about) the changes did not reflect a sense of Baptist identity or any clinging to tradition. A top-heavy bureaucracy was proposed for the sake of streamlining and efficiency. This bureaucracy would decided who could be placed on boards, would write and usher in policy statements (Statements of public witness) and be the steering group for ABC/USA. The program boards, i.e. National Ministries and International Ministries would be “de-coupled” so that they could be independent for the sake of efficiency. From what was presented, the local church would be engaged on a financial level, and nominally through the region. The new structure would be very, very representational and have very, very little direct engagement from the local church.
Within the bylaw changes was a new thing called “the mission table.” In this process, through the higher up organizations an issue would be chosen and at national meetings all those who attend could engage, discuss and dialogue about the issue “on the table.” Then a small committee, again appointed by the national board, a committee without any local church representation, would be given the charge to follow through with actions that emerged from the Mission Table. During the proceedings one person asked why the bylaws needed to be changed for this to happen – i.e. what is keeping the denomination from doing something like this now? It sounded to me like the sugar to make the medicine go down.
The bylaws changes did not pass, and I think that is a good thing.
On Sunday I attended two worship services, one at the Baptist Peace Fellowship gathering, and one hosted by the Young Adult Caucus. At the Peace Fellowship, Nick Carter (president of Andover Newton Theological School – my alma mater) preached about the legacy of peace makers, and the way in which that legacy informs, motivates and inspires people currently struggling for peace. At the Young Adult dinner, Paul Rauschenbausch (great grandson of the theologian Walter Rauschenbusch) preached about the importance of a legacy in informing and guiding one’s faith. Legacy, history is important.
We were given new bylaws to consider, bylaws that were to take the denomination in a new and exciting direction, yet there was little that seemed to be connected to the past. The only legacy that was mentioned was the legacy of mission work – which is a good one. Yet never was the local church mentioned. Never was the commitment of individuals mentioned. We were to be moving forward, with little connection to the past – or at least that was how it was presented.
I understand that becoming so steeped in the past can be dangerous, it is a tension that I face with church work again and again. Yet I also understand the vital importance of maintaining a connection with one’s past and one’s legacy. In 1813 the Baptists formed the triennial convention for the sake of doing missions together. In 1907 the denomination was formed for the sake of doing mission together. What is the legacy of these moments as well as other moments from the Baptist story? It wasn’t reflected in the proposed change, and for tat reason as well as many others, I am glad they did not pass.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Biennial Day 1 - of images and youth
Day one of the ABC/USA Biennial. I attended a talk by Leonard Sweet and a Young Clergy meal. Leonard Sweet first:
Sweet is big on the popularization of what he is calling postmodernity. A challenge with popularizing something is that it becomes so watered down that it loses its meaning – I think Sweet has fallen into this trap. First he created a word vs. image polarity claiming that those born before 1973 (the year the cell phone was invented) are from a word world (not to be confused with the PBS show – very educational) to an image world. To try to connect, Sweet had what he called a “VJ” flying through Google during his talking, finding images that were connected with his points – that was mostly distracting and at times annoying.
So there is a dichotomy between words and images that Sweet is trying to create. A problem with this polarity is that Sweet never defined “image.” A number of people continued to not that the “image” generation (or the Google generation as Sweet called us) are heavily steeped in text. From texting to IM to Facebook to Twitter to Blogs there are a lot of words being used. So we found confusion.
Sweet did suggest that we should avoid a “versusits” approach to scripture and look to a wholestic view of scripture and everything else we encounter which is good.
Here are the folks I think Sweet should read so he can fine tune his talk and make better points – granted the list is not exhausted.
Clifford Geertz – Geertz takes Ryle’s “thick description” and focuses and deepens it. A think description looks deep into the context, the community, place, setting of an action, person and event. I think this is what Sweet is suggesting with his approach to scripture. Robert Alter would be a very good read as well.
Wittgenstein and Austin – Of course I would list these to, they are heavily on my mind. Yet Wittgenstein and Austin both have a very well articulated approach to language that understands how a speech act or proposition points towards something, shows something which may be meaningful in the community. The image that Sweet is suggesting is a speech act. Thus L8tr is a speech act that now has meaning in the “Google generation” because of the medium of cell phones.
Volf, Fiddes, Hiem, Barth, Hauerwas, and many many others to gain an appreciation for (1) the relationality of the church via the relationality of the trinity; the nature of the community of Christianity vs. the ethos of the world.
I’m supposed to hear Sweet again today and I have set the bar fairly low. He seems like a very sharp individual who is not taking the time he needs to be careful about his message and his points. Thus his points are dull and ineffective.
Ouch.
With all that said a brief word about the Young Clergy dinner. Apparently denominations are experiencing a dearth of young clergy (between 3% and 7% of most mainline clergy are under the age of 35…..I still fall in that category). David Wood, ABC pastor and Lilly Foundation guy made a good and candid presentation about the dire place of the denomination and churches and how much young clergy are needed. Here is the rub – we need to play, imagine and think beyond the institutional boxes if we are to have any hope of vibrancy. There is a tsunami of institutional memory against us. How can we push, guide and lead in a pastoral manner, attuned to the Holy Spirit so that the church can engage in the world in a powerful and authentic way? I know it is not by using a “VJ” (again, ouch).
This is a topic that really should have much more, but I have said enough already and it is only day one.
Sweet is big on the popularization of what he is calling postmodernity. A challenge with popularizing something is that it becomes so watered down that it loses its meaning – I think Sweet has fallen into this trap. First he created a word vs. image polarity claiming that those born before 1973 (the year the cell phone was invented) are from a word world (not to be confused with the PBS show – very educational) to an image world. To try to connect, Sweet had what he called a “VJ” flying through Google during his talking, finding images that were connected with his points – that was mostly distracting and at times annoying.
So there is a dichotomy between words and images that Sweet is trying to create. A problem with this polarity is that Sweet never defined “image.” A number of people continued to not that the “image” generation (or the Google generation as Sweet called us) are heavily steeped in text. From texting to IM to Facebook to Twitter to Blogs there are a lot of words being used. So we found confusion.
Sweet did suggest that we should avoid a “versusits” approach to scripture and look to a wholestic view of scripture and everything else we encounter which is good.
Here are the folks I think Sweet should read so he can fine tune his talk and make better points – granted the list is not exhausted.
Clifford Geertz – Geertz takes Ryle’s “thick description” and focuses and deepens it. A think description looks deep into the context, the community, place, setting of an action, person and event. I think this is what Sweet is suggesting with his approach to scripture. Robert Alter would be a very good read as well.
Wittgenstein and Austin – Of course I would list these to, they are heavily on my mind. Yet Wittgenstein and Austin both have a very well articulated approach to language that understands how a speech act or proposition points towards something, shows something which may be meaningful in the community. The image that Sweet is suggesting is a speech act. Thus L8tr is a speech act that now has meaning in the “Google generation” because of the medium of cell phones.
Volf, Fiddes, Hiem, Barth, Hauerwas, and many many others to gain an appreciation for (1) the relationality of the church via the relationality of the trinity; the nature of the community of Christianity vs. the ethos of the world.
I’m supposed to hear Sweet again today and I have set the bar fairly low. He seems like a very sharp individual who is not taking the time he needs to be careful about his message and his points. Thus his points are dull and ineffective.
Ouch.
With all that said a brief word about the Young Clergy dinner. Apparently denominations are experiencing a dearth of young clergy (between 3% and 7% of most mainline clergy are under the age of 35…..I still fall in that category). David Wood, ABC pastor and Lilly Foundation guy made a good and candid presentation about the dire place of the denomination and churches and how much young clergy are needed. Here is the rub – we need to play, imagine and think beyond the institutional boxes if we are to have any hope of vibrancy. There is a tsunami of institutional memory against us. How can we push, guide and lead in a pastoral manner, attuned to the Holy Spirit so that the church can engage in the world in a powerful and authentic way? I know it is not by using a “VJ” (again, ouch).
This is a topic that really should have much more, but I have said enough already and it is only day one.
Monday, June 22, 2009
A Pretty Good Prayer
Once again I avoid the shamless "sermon post" by offering you the link to the website. The sermon for this week was from Psalm 9:9-20 and involved St. John of the Cross, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, and a story about a boy, his brother, orange spots and trust. Enjoy.
Monday, June 08, 2009
Saturday, June 06, 2009
Baptist Truths
I’ve been reading articles and writing (actually rewriting) chapters for my dissertation. Doing so keeps me thinking about the problems that I have to overcome for the dissertation to be successful. One is the tension between pragmatists and realists that comes out of the use Lindbeck. I don’t want to get into the fine details about Lindbeck – to lazy. Basically the problem is that all truth is relative to the grammar of the community (pragmatists) yet in theological circles many would like to assume that there are some universal truths which transcend the particular communities – like the idea of the existence of God (realists)
With Baptists this is a very real tension. Because of our individualistic emphasis, i.e. our commonly wrong-headed misuse of the ideas of Soul Freedom and Church Autonomy many churches and individuals will scoff at any attempt to proscribe tenets of belief. “Don’t tell me that Christ is divine – you would be infringing on my soul freedom!”
“Don’t tell me that churches need to be concerned for the poor, - you would be infringing on our church autonomy”
Who would have thought that Baptists could be philosophical pragmatists?
Yet many have reacted against such a reliance upon the grammar of the local community for an understanding of faith (like that is what is happening. We all know that people are really lazy, proud and stubborn). The SBC (God bless them) has come out with statements of “Faith and Message” which basically claim truths for the Southern Baptist community. Others will stay things like, “this is the Baptist way,” or, “this is what Baptists believe,” suggesting that there are universal truths.
Here is the rub – are there universal truths which are spoken about but never directly addressed? Ideas like soul freedom and church autonomy are seldom directly spoken of but are often spoken about or referenced. So perhaps there are truths but they are not truths which can be directly spoken of through the grammar of the community. Instead the language and grammar point to the truths as they can be discerned. The realists are happy, the pragmatists are happy. Everyone is happy. Right?
With Baptists this is a very real tension. Because of our individualistic emphasis, i.e. our commonly wrong-headed misuse of the ideas of Soul Freedom and Church Autonomy many churches and individuals will scoff at any attempt to proscribe tenets of belief. “Don’t tell me that Christ is divine – you would be infringing on my soul freedom!”
“Don’t tell me that churches need to be concerned for the poor, - you would be infringing on our church autonomy”
Who would have thought that Baptists could be philosophical pragmatists?
Yet many have reacted against such a reliance upon the grammar of the local community for an understanding of faith (like that is what is happening. We all know that people are really lazy, proud and stubborn). The SBC (God bless them) has come out with statements of “Faith and Message” which basically claim truths for the Southern Baptist community. Others will stay things like, “this is the Baptist way,” or, “this is what Baptists believe,” suggesting that there are universal truths.
Here is the rub – are there universal truths which are spoken about but never directly addressed? Ideas like soul freedom and church autonomy are seldom directly spoken of but are often spoken about or referenced. So perhaps there are truths but they are not truths which can be directly spoken of through the grammar of the community. Instead the language and grammar point to the truths as they can be discerned. The realists are happy, the pragmatists are happy. Everyone is happy. Right?
Monday, May 25, 2009
Drawing the Christian Picket Line
I was pleasantly surprised with the article, “The Optimistic Ecclesiology of Walter Rauschenbusch” by Scott E. Bryant in the journal American Baptist Quarterly (vol. 27, Summer 2008, no. 2 pages 117-135). Bryant does a very good job explaining the context of Rauschenbusch as well as Rauschenbusch’s thoughts. There are a lot of things that one could pull out of that article, and I strongly recommend reading it. I especially recommend it to the yellow-bellied, tree hugging liberal Christian activists who seem to have neglected the role of the church community in favor of one more protest for the sake the crab grass. I also recommend it for those who are squeamish about Christians and other political groups working together for the same cause. There was a good reason Rauschenbusch did not join the Socialist Party even if he agreed with most of the views of said party. I won’t spoil it for you – look it up (or ask me in a comment so I know others are actually reading this). It is a good explanatory article.
I want to briefly mention Rauschenbusch’s view of unions. Remember, Rauschenbusch lived 1861-1918; a time when unions were just making ground for workers rights. It was a time when someone was taking a strong and risky stand to join a union and strike for the rights of all. Bryant quotes Rauschenbusch’s favorable view of unions, “Thousands of men and women giving up their job, their slender hold on subsistence, imperiling the bread and butter of their families for the sake of men in another trade with whom they have only a distant economic connection.” Such solidarity is praiseworthy. Churches, on the other hand, are often seen as self-serving, selfish and focused on self-preservation. What would happen if churches were to join in unions (not denominations but unions) to stand up for the rights of the least? What would happen if churches refused to go to state sanctioned prayer breakfasts, political meetings, blessings and anything else that is expected on the civic level until the oppressed with given rights? What would happen if churches refused to officiate funerals and weddings, baptisms and dedications until people began to look at the marginalized with the eye of Christ?
Churches would close. Pastors would lose there jobs. Institutions would lose credibility on the civic stage. To change the world, can we take that risk?
I want to briefly mention Rauschenbusch’s view of unions. Remember, Rauschenbusch lived 1861-1918; a time when unions were just making ground for workers rights. It was a time when someone was taking a strong and risky stand to join a union and strike for the rights of all. Bryant quotes Rauschenbusch’s favorable view of unions, “Thousands of men and women giving up their job, their slender hold on subsistence, imperiling the bread and butter of their families for the sake of men in another trade with whom they have only a distant economic connection.” Such solidarity is praiseworthy. Churches, on the other hand, are often seen as self-serving, selfish and focused on self-preservation. What would happen if churches were to join in unions (not denominations but unions) to stand up for the rights of the least? What would happen if churches refused to go to state sanctioned prayer breakfasts, political meetings, blessings and anything else that is expected on the civic level until the oppressed with given rights? What would happen if churches refused to officiate funerals and weddings, baptisms and dedications until people began to look at the marginalized with the eye of Christ?
Churches would close. Pastors would lose there jobs. Institutions would lose credibility on the civic stage. To change the world, can we take that risk?
Prayer and Temperament IV - Franciscan Prayer
The class continues...
Class 4 – Franciscan Prayer and Spirituality – the SP Temperament
Characteristics of the SP (Franciscan) Temperament
• Crisis-oriented
• Good at unsnarling messes
• Able to get things moving
• Impulsive
• Dislike rules
• In the present
Franciscan Spirituality
• Acts of loving service can be a most effective form of prayer
• Free-flowing, spontaneous, informal praising and loving dialogue with God
• Creation – sees the beauty and love of God everywhere
• Forgiving toward the past
• Optimistic and hopeful about the future
• Primarily interested in the real and literal
Prayer Life of the Franciscan (SP) Temperament
• Make use of the five senses
• Work is prayer
• Jesus Prayer
o “Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me, a sinner”
• Focus on celebration
• Free flowing
Prayer for next week
• Use the prayer suggestions on pages 75-78
• Read the attached prayers of St. Francis
Prayer of Saint Francis of Assisi
Lord, make me an instrument of your peace.
Where there is hatred, let me sow love;
where there is injury,pardon;
where there is doubt, faith;
where there is despair, hope;
where there is darkness, light;
and where there is sadness, joy.
O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek
to be consoled as to console;
to be understood as to understand;
to be loved as to love.
For it is in giving that we receive;
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned;
and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life. Amen
Canticle of Brother Sun
Most High, all-powerful, all-good Lord,
All praise is Yours, all glory, honor and blessings.
To you alone, Most High, do they belong;
no mortal lips are worthy to pronounce Your Name.
We praise You, Lord, for all Your creatures,
especially for Brother Sun,
who is the day through whom You give us light.
And he is beautiful and radiant with great splendor,
of You Most High, he bears your likeness.
We praise You, Lord, for Sister Moon and the stars,
in the heavens you have made them bright, precious and fair.
We praise You, Lord, for Brothers Wind and Air,
fair and stormy, all weather's moods,
by which You cherish all that You have made.
We praise You, Lord, for Sister Water,
so useful, humble, precious and pure.
We praise You, Lord, for Brother Fire,
through whom You light the night.
He is beautiful, playful, robust, and strong.
We praise You, Lord, for Sister Earth,
who sustains us
with her fruits, colored flowers, and herbs.
We praise You, Lord, for those who pardon,
for love of You bear sickness and trial.
Blessed are those who endure in peace,
by You Most High, they will be crowned.
We praise You, Lord, for Sister Death,
from whom no-one living can escape.
Woe to those who die in their sins!
Blessed are those that She finds doing Your Will.
No second death can do them harm.
We praise and bless You, Lord, and give You thanks,
and serve You in all humility.
Class 4 – Franciscan Prayer and Spirituality – the SP Temperament
Characteristics of the SP (Franciscan) Temperament
• Crisis-oriented
• Good at unsnarling messes
• Able to get things moving
• Impulsive
• Dislike rules
• In the present
Franciscan Spirituality
• Acts of loving service can be a most effective form of prayer
• Free-flowing, spontaneous, informal praising and loving dialogue with God
• Creation – sees the beauty and love of God everywhere
• Forgiving toward the past
• Optimistic and hopeful about the future
• Primarily interested in the real and literal
Prayer Life of the Franciscan (SP) Temperament
• Make use of the five senses
• Work is prayer
• Jesus Prayer
o “Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me, a sinner”
• Focus on celebration
• Free flowing
Prayer for next week
• Use the prayer suggestions on pages 75-78
• Read the attached prayers of St. Francis
Prayer of Saint Francis of Assisi
Lord, make me an instrument of your peace.
Where there is hatred, let me sow love;
where there is injury,pardon;
where there is doubt, faith;
where there is despair, hope;
where there is darkness, light;
and where there is sadness, joy.
O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek
to be consoled as to console;
to be understood as to understand;
to be loved as to love.
For it is in giving that we receive;
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned;
and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life. Amen
Canticle of Brother Sun
Most High, all-powerful, all-good Lord,
All praise is Yours, all glory, honor and blessings.
To you alone, Most High, do they belong;
no mortal lips are worthy to pronounce Your Name.
We praise You, Lord, for all Your creatures,
especially for Brother Sun,
who is the day through whom You give us light.
And he is beautiful and radiant with great splendor,
of You Most High, he bears your likeness.
We praise You, Lord, for Sister Moon and the stars,
in the heavens you have made them bright, precious and fair.
We praise You, Lord, for Brothers Wind and Air,
fair and stormy, all weather's moods,
by which You cherish all that You have made.
We praise You, Lord, for Sister Water,
so useful, humble, precious and pure.
We praise You, Lord, for Brother Fire,
through whom You light the night.
He is beautiful, playful, robust, and strong.
We praise You, Lord, for Sister Earth,
who sustains us
with her fruits, colored flowers, and herbs.
We praise You, Lord, for those who pardon,
for love of You bear sickness and trial.
Blessed are those who endure in peace,
by You Most High, they will be crowned.
We praise You, Lord, for Sister Death,
from whom no-one living can escape.
Woe to those who die in their sins!
Blessed are those that She finds doing Your Will.
No second death can do them harm.
We praise and bless You, Lord, and give You thanks,
and serve You in all humility.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Theological Poetry
Today in the short time I had I read a little of The Prelude by Wordsworth. I'm reading him because I had a shoddy college education (the burden of being a music major) and haven't read many of the "greats." Wordsworth is definitely one of the greats. His poetry captures the beauty of nature in a way that isn't overly lush or sweet but is realistic. The beautiful is beautiful. The stark is stark. The horrid is horrid. It is an honest poetry that is in its fullness beautiful.
I know others have made connections about theology and poetry, so I wont belabor the point. The starkness is something that perhaps theology should aspire for. As a preacher I am often painting a lush and moving picture of God and God's actions in the world. I am trying to capture the imagination of the people with flourishes of language. What if we just capture what is happening? Suffering happens, it sucks. Joy happens, it is good. Struggles happen, they are difficult. God is sometimes elusive. Jesus Christ is sometimes overwhelming. The Holy Spirit is often misunderstood. What if we truly captured Wordsworth's approach and not only captured the reality of theology in a stark and honest way, but did it with the romantic depth that is so evident in Wordsworth's poetry. This then would be powerful and profound theology.
I know others have made connections about theology and poetry, so I wont belabor the point. The starkness is something that perhaps theology should aspire for. As a preacher I am often painting a lush and moving picture of God and God's actions in the world. I am trying to capture the imagination of the people with flourishes of language. What if we just capture what is happening? Suffering happens, it sucks. Joy happens, it is good. Struggles happen, they are difficult. God is sometimes elusive. Jesus Christ is sometimes overwhelming. The Holy Spirit is often misunderstood. What if we truly captured Wordsworth's approach and not only captured the reality of theology in a stark and honest way, but did it with the romantic depth that is so evident in Wordsworth's poetry. This then would be powerful and profound theology.
Emergent Baptists?
I recently received a question from a young, budding Baptist pastor/theologian-to-be about folks in the Emergent Church movement staying connected to a mainline denomination like ABC/USA. Here is the answer I gave:
B----,
The emergent movement is dead, move on. Only kidding.... sort of.
I haven't read a lot of the emergent church but I understand it is connected to the idea of "Generous Orthodoxy" of McClarin. Here are my thoughts:
I don't think it would be a problem for someone to be a part of the Emergent movement and at the same time to be connected with a mainline denomination, especially ABC/USA for two reasons - liturgical freedom and emphasis on the Holy Spirit.
We do not have a written liturgy that confines and conforms us to one specific type of worship, so there is a lot of freedom to experiment with worship (which is a major part of the Emergent movement. Granted there are those stick in the mud types who say that there is definitely a "Baptist" way of worshipping, but they then to have a narrow view of the purpose and potential of worship. We can adopt some of the rich prayers of the past and create new prayers for today. Our lack of a liturgical center gives us freedom.
Second, historically in the Baptist movement a great emphasis has been placed on an awareness of the Holy Spirit. Christopher Ellis mentions in his work, "Gathering" that historically Baptists would attempt to collectively discern the movement of the Holy Spirit in worship. Our evangelical roots places a great emphasis on the movement of the Holy Spirit. We look for and embrace the spontaneity of the Holy Spirit in our individual prayers and our corporate worship (to a degree).
I write these two point fully knowing that there are those who will disavow the ABC family out of ignorance, or a lack of imagination and historical/ecclesical knowledge of the baptist movement. There are those who will see the ABC as just another denomination and thus it must be bad and should be avoided. These folks are ignorant and that is probably the nicest thing I can say. On the other hand I don't know of many (if any) ABC pastors who are a part of the Emergent movement possibly making this whole consideration moot.
Hope this is helpful.
B----,
The emergent movement is dead, move on. Only kidding.... sort of.
I haven't read a lot of the emergent church but I understand it is connected to the idea of "Generous Orthodoxy" of McClarin. Here are my thoughts:
I don't think it would be a problem for someone to be a part of the Emergent movement and at the same time to be connected with a mainline denomination, especially ABC/USA for two reasons - liturgical freedom and emphasis on the Holy Spirit.
We do not have a written liturgy that confines and conforms us to one specific type of worship, so there is a lot of freedom to experiment with worship (which is a major part of the Emergent movement. Granted there are those stick in the mud types who say that there is definitely a "Baptist" way of worshipping, but they then to have a narrow view of the purpose and potential of worship. We can adopt some of the rich prayers of the past and create new prayers for today. Our lack of a liturgical center gives us freedom.
Second, historically in the Baptist movement a great emphasis has been placed on an awareness of the Holy Spirit. Christopher Ellis mentions in his work, "Gathering" that historically Baptists would attempt to collectively discern the movement of the Holy Spirit in worship. Our evangelical roots places a great emphasis on the movement of the Holy Spirit. We look for and embrace the spontaneity of the Holy Spirit in our individual prayers and our corporate worship (to a degree).
I write these two point fully knowing that there are those who will disavow the ABC family out of ignorance, or a lack of imagination and historical/ecclesical knowledge of the baptist movement. There are those who will see the ABC as just another denomination and thus it must be bad and should be avoided. These folks are ignorant and that is probably the nicest thing I can say. On the other hand I don't know of many (if any) ABC pastors who are a part of the Emergent movement possibly making this whole consideration moot.
Hope this is helpful.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Prayer and Temperament III - Augustinian Prayer
The class continues...
Class 3 – Augustinian Prayer and Spirituality: The NF Temperament
NF Temperament
• Creative Imagination
o Transpose the words of Scripture to our situation today
o Think of the words of the Bible as though they were a personal letter from God addressed to each one of us.
• Creative, optimistic, verbal, outspoken
• Face to face encounters, good at peacemaking
• Need to make an effort to be logical and correct in their thinking
• Progress and future oriented
o Always in the process of “becoming”
NF Spirituality
• Needs to find meaning in everything
• Experiencing a personal relationship with God is essential
o Daily prayer and quiet time are a “must”
• Fine meaning in life’s experiences
• Keen interest in future possibilities
• Strong awareness of symbols
Augustinian Prayer
• Take time!
• Prayer of Transportation
o Openness to the Holy Spirit
o Dialogue between God and the self
• Steps:
o Listen attentively to what God is telling us in the words of Scripture
Read between the lines, looking for deeper meaning
o Reflect prayerfully upon their meaning and application for today
o Respond to God’s word with personal feelings and dialogue
o Remain quiet and still to be open to any new insights
Class 3 – Augustinian Prayer and Spirituality: The NF Temperament
NF Temperament
• Creative Imagination
o Transpose the words of Scripture to our situation today
o Think of the words of the Bible as though they were a personal letter from God addressed to each one of us.
• Creative, optimistic, verbal, outspoken
• Face to face encounters, good at peacemaking
• Need to make an effort to be logical and correct in their thinking
• Progress and future oriented
o Always in the process of “becoming”
NF Spirituality
• Needs to find meaning in everything
• Experiencing a personal relationship with God is essential
o Daily prayer and quiet time are a “must”
• Fine meaning in life’s experiences
• Keen interest in future possibilities
• Strong awareness of symbols
Augustinian Prayer
• Take time!
• Prayer of Transportation
o Openness to the Holy Spirit
o Dialogue between God and the self
• Steps:
o Listen attentively to what God is telling us in the words of Scripture
Read between the lines, looking for deeper meaning
o Reflect prayerfully upon their meaning and application for today
o Respond to God’s word with personal feelings and dialogue
o Remain quiet and still to be open to any new insights
Monday, May 04, 2009
Prayer and Temperament II - Ignatian Prayer
Here is no. 2:
Class 2 – Ignatian Prayer and Spirituality (the SJ Temperament)
Part I – The SJ Temperament
• Strong sense of duty – want to feel useful
• Givers
• Strong sense of tradition and continuity with the past
• Tends to pessimism
• James
o Insisted that Christianity should keep faithful t the ancient traditions of the Jews
• Gospel of Matthew
o Emphasis on law and order
Part II – Ignatian Spirituality
• Stress what we believe and practice today with what has been believed and practiced in the past
• Bridge between the past and the present
• The Jewish “Berakah” meal
• Try to make the Gospels and the Scriptures come alive
o Become a part of the original event
o Put yourself in the place of the people involved
• Ten Steps:
o Choice of Topic
o Preparatory Prayer
o Composition of Place
o Petition for Special Grace Needed
o See and Reflect
o Listen and Reflect
o Consider and Reflect
o Draw Some Practical Fruit
o Colloquy with God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the [Holy Spirit]
o Closing with the Lord’s Prayer (Our Father…)
For next week:
1. Use the Ignatian Prayer
a. Acts 8:26-40
b. Read through a Gospel bit by bit
c. Use the suggestion pages 53-57
2. Read Chapter 5 – “Augustinian Prayer and Spirituality – The NF Temperament”
Class 2 – Ignatian Prayer and Spirituality (the SJ Temperament)
Part I – The SJ Temperament
• Strong sense of duty – want to feel useful
• Givers
• Strong sense of tradition and continuity with the past
• Tends to pessimism
• James
o Insisted that Christianity should keep faithful t the ancient traditions of the Jews
• Gospel of Matthew
o Emphasis on law and order
Part II – Ignatian Spirituality
• Stress what we believe and practice today with what has been believed and practiced in the past
• Bridge between the past and the present
• The Jewish “Berakah” meal
• Try to make the Gospels and the Scriptures come alive
o Become a part of the original event
o Put yourself in the place of the people involved
• Ten Steps:
o Choice of Topic
o Preparatory Prayer
o Composition of Place
o Petition for Special Grace Needed
o See and Reflect
o Listen and Reflect
o Consider and Reflect
o Draw Some Practical Fruit
o Colloquy with God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the [Holy Spirit]
o Closing with the Lord’s Prayer (Our Father…)
For next week:
1. Use the Ignatian Prayer
a. Acts 8:26-40
b. Read through a Gospel bit by bit
c. Use the suggestion pages 53-57
2. Read Chapter 5 – “Augustinian Prayer and Spirituality – The NF Temperament”
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Prayer and Temperament I - Lectio Divina
I've started a book group at church with the book Prayer and Temperament: Different Prayer Forms for Different Personality Types, by Chester P. Michael and Marie C. Norrisey. It is a good book looking at different personality preferences/types and different types of prayers. For all of those who want to read the book on their own and follow along, I'm posting my notes (Hi Fred!).
Here are the following notes:
Class 1 – Intro and Lectio Divina –
Part I - Temperment• Temperament:
o The division of human personalities into four basic temperaments (Jung, Briggs, Myers)
• Four Pairs of Preferences
o E-I (attitude)
Relationship with the world
E – relies primarily on the outer world of people and things to receive the needed psychic energy and enthusiasm for living
I – relies primarily upon the inner world of ideas, concepts, and spirit in order to find the needed energy to live
o S-N (function)
Perceiving function
S – makes use of the five bodily senses of seeing, hearing, touching, tasting, and smelling – gathering data of the physical world
• By means of symbols can make contact with the “inner world”
I – perceives the great potential and new possibilities in both the external physical world and the inner world of spirit and ideas
• Creative, visionary function
• Primarily concerned with the inner world and only secondarily concerned with the outer world.
o T-F (function)
Judging functions
T – uses the mind and intellect to arrive at a judgment or decision by following a logical, methodical method
• Objective and impersonal
F – uses the heart and inner experiences of personal relationship and love to arrive at its judgment and decision
• Subjective and personal
o J-P (attitude)
J – give their main attention and concern to making judgments and decisions about how things and persons in the world should act.
• Structured and decisive
P – primarily concerned with getting more data and information without coming to closure
• Flexible and open-ended
• Types of prayer:
o SJ – Ignatian
o SP – Franciscan
o NT – Thomistic
o NF – Augustinian
• Dominate and Auxiliary Functions
o We tend to favor our dominate functions in prayer, but still use our auxiliary functions
o “By practicing all five of the methods of prayer described, one will discover the particular method or methods that best fit one’s temperament and personality.”
• Temperament and Spirituality in Christianity
o Paul – NF
Continually peeking around the corner to envision new insights about the Kingdom of God
o James – SJ
Exhorted the Christians to the duty of implementing their faith into action in every part of their lives
o John – NT
Gave a fresh synthesis of existing ideas which formed Christian theology during the first century
o Peter – SP
A man of action, had the responsibility for maintaining peace among the opposing theological schools
• In the Gospels
o Matthew – SJ
Emphasizes continuity with the past
o Mark – SP
Action-oriented, giving only a minimum of the teachings of Jesus
o Luke – NF
Person-oriented, shows Jesus’ great compassion for sinners
o John – NT
Emphasis on the importance of truth and knowledge and is the most mystical and contemplative
• Prayer –
o Find the time that works the best for you
o Find a place that is comfortable
o Try to avoid distractions
o Journal
Part II – Benedictine Prayer – Lectio Divina
• Prayer that is suitable to all four basic temperaments
• Goes back to the fourth and fifth centuries (sacred reading)
• Lectio
o The eager seeking after the Word of God and divine truth
o The way by which God’s truth is imparted to us
o Read the text a number of times, aloud at times.
o Do study beforehand of the text if possible
• Meditatio
o Welcome the Word of God into our lives and name it as the living word and presence of God.
o Reflect on the text – take notes
• Oratio
o Our response – decide whether we will incorporate the Word of God into our heart, our life, and our work
o Dialogue
o Adoration, Contrition, Thanksgiving and Supplication
o Listen, listen, listen
• Contemplatio
o Seek to effect the union of love that should result from our dialogue with God
o Give God ample opportunity for revelation
For next week –
1. Reflect on your “temperament” and how that may influence your prayers
2. Pray the Lectio Divna daily, using either the texts suggested on pages 38-45 or use John 10:11-18 (the sermon text for 5-3-09) or a text(s) of your choosing.
3. Keep a journal of your prayers, experiences and discoveries
4. Read chapter 4, Ignatian Prayer and Spirituality, the SJ Temperament; review the previous chapters in your spare time
Monday, April 13, 2009
"Sacramental" Preaching or... boy did I nail the sermon yesterday!
Yesterday was Easter and naturally I preached. The Easter sermon is one of those difficult sermons that many pastors would love to avoid if they could, but it is a big one so we don’t. As I worked on the sermon I had a good amount of time thinking about it. Some sermons are exegetical – they really engage the text of the scripture, go deep into words, social-historical context and the like. Some sermons are moral, they take an issue that the text seems to be dancing around and consider the current, modern day implications. Some are narrative, considering the journey of the characters in the Bible and the journey we currently find ourselves in. I think every sermon has a combination of these aspects, but tend to focus on one aspect or another. Of course homiletics is not my area of expertise (like I have an area of expertise), so I may be missing something (let the comments fly).
The Easter sermon seemed to move towards something different, something theological, but more. I could preach on the theological implications of the resurrection but that wouldn’t quite cover what Easter is about. I could focus on the narrative, and for the most I did, but not completely. What I did was more of an experiential sermon. Granted this is based on the narrative, but focusing on the experience of the narrative, an experience that goes beyond Mary at the tomb to the essence of life. Schleiermacher would be proud.
Here is what I mean. There is power in the resurrection, power that I do not believe can be captured with just the spoken word but needs the depth of the arts. Poetry, fine arts, music, these things can connect with the depth of the despair and the power of the resurrection. Yesterday I employed a deep symbolisms in the narrative (it was more storytelling then preaching with) interwoven with music. “Were you there,” “Amazing Grace” and “Victory in Jesus” were key illustrations to the sermon. Some may say that the use of such “tricks” is a cheap way to get out of preaching, yet I would argue that they connected people with the experience of the cross and the empty grave. In reality, the Easter story is not something that can be preached but something that should be experienced.
Here is a theory behind the madness – Sacramental Consciousness. I’m sure I’ve blogged about this before so I wont get into the details, but through the experiential focus of the sermon people became in touch with the deeper experience of the despair and hope. They connected with the experience of the crucifixion in their own lives and in the lives of others as well as the experience of the resurrection in their lives and in the world. The sermon was a sacramental moment because the grace of God transcended the preacher and the congregation.
You may be looking for a copy of the sermon I preached, but I won’t post it here – that is just a cheap trick to fill up space on the blog. Go find it on the church website.
The Easter sermon seemed to move towards something different, something theological, but more. I could preach on the theological implications of the resurrection but that wouldn’t quite cover what Easter is about. I could focus on the narrative, and for the most I did, but not completely. What I did was more of an experiential sermon. Granted this is based on the narrative, but focusing on the experience of the narrative, an experience that goes beyond Mary at the tomb to the essence of life. Schleiermacher would be proud.
Here is what I mean. There is power in the resurrection, power that I do not believe can be captured with just the spoken word but needs the depth of the arts. Poetry, fine arts, music, these things can connect with the depth of the despair and the power of the resurrection. Yesterday I employed a deep symbolisms in the narrative (it was more storytelling then preaching with) interwoven with music. “Were you there,” “Amazing Grace” and “Victory in Jesus” were key illustrations to the sermon. Some may say that the use of such “tricks” is a cheap way to get out of preaching, yet I would argue that they connected people with the experience of the cross and the empty grave. In reality, the Easter story is not something that can be preached but something that should be experienced.
Here is a theory behind the madness – Sacramental Consciousness. I’m sure I’ve blogged about this before so I wont get into the details, but through the experiential focus of the sermon people became in touch with the deeper experience of the despair and hope. They connected with the experience of the crucifixion in their own lives and in the lives of others as well as the experience of the resurrection in their lives and in the world. The sermon was a sacramental moment because the grace of God transcended the preacher and the congregation.
You may be looking for a copy of the sermon I preached, but I won’t post it here – that is just a cheap trick to fill up space on the blog. Go find it on the church website.
Saturday, April 04, 2009
If you can understand this then you should question your sobriety; i.e. more language stuff
Still working on language, grammar and everything else. I’ve read Monk’s book How to read Wittgenstein, which was very informative and have looked again at Lindbeck. I was hoping I could bounce some more thoughts off of you to make sure I am still on the right track.
McClendon speaks of “convictions” and Lindbeck speaks of doctrines. So far it is clear that the two are not the same; doctrines are second order rules and convictions are felicitous statements. I am wondering if Lindbeck’s understanding of doctrine is similar to Wittgenstein’s description of “language games,” specifically that a language game points towards “übersicht” (the understanding which consists in “seeing connections”). If this is the case, than perhaps Lindbeck’s regulative principles is the übersicht towards which all Christian doctrines point. Yet on further reflection it seems to me that this is not what Lindbeck is doing. Instead it seems that Lindbeck is diverging from Wittgenstien’s leading with his articulation of regulative principles and second-order rules. From Monk I was given the impression that Wittgentsein’s description of language games are more amorphous then Lindbeck’s approach. Lindbeck seems to agree with Wittgenstien’s understanding that language shows, and yet Lindbeck still seems to want to explain what language is showing rather than describe what language is showing (hence the regulative principles and the following taximony of doctrines) Yet on the other hand this may be an in-depth (or “thick) description of language within a religious community. Hence a doctrine shows the way in which a community is holding meaning, and the regulative principles are the understandings which consists in seeing the connections.
Lindbeck’s understanding of doctrine seem to have an interconnectivity within the community. Does McClendon’s convictions also have an interconnectivity, or do they stand on their own? Is there a “rule-order” of convictions? Perhaps based upon deeper felicitous statements.
With all of this, what am I trying to say? Within the Baptist community one can find statements with point to something deeper be it a conviction or a doctrine. Doctrines are rules while convictions are agreed upon statements in the community. This is a big difference. A conviction does not need to have an ontological or an intrasystematic truth, they more need to have agreed upon realities. I think the idea of convictions make more sense then doctrines. Yet a doctrine seems to show more how the conviction exists/acts in the community than a conviction. The conviction should have implications. If this is the case then perhaps the conviction is similar to the übersicht and the doctrines are the language games that point to the conviction. This makes sense to me so far.
McClendon speaks of “convictions” and Lindbeck speaks of doctrines. So far it is clear that the two are not the same; doctrines are second order rules and convictions are felicitous statements. I am wondering if Lindbeck’s understanding of doctrine is similar to Wittgenstein’s description of “language games,” specifically that a language game points towards “übersicht” (the understanding which consists in “seeing connections”). If this is the case, than perhaps Lindbeck’s regulative principles is the übersicht towards which all Christian doctrines point. Yet on further reflection it seems to me that this is not what Lindbeck is doing. Instead it seems that Lindbeck is diverging from Wittgenstien’s leading with his articulation of regulative principles and second-order rules. From Monk I was given the impression that Wittgentsein’s description of language games are more amorphous then Lindbeck’s approach. Lindbeck seems to agree with Wittgenstien’s understanding that language shows, and yet Lindbeck still seems to want to explain what language is showing rather than describe what language is showing (hence the regulative principles and the following taximony of doctrines) Yet on the other hand this may be an in-depth (or “thick) description of language within a religious community. Hence a doctrine shows the way in which a community is holding meaning, and the regulative principles are the understandings which consists in seeing the connections.
Lindbeck’s understanding of doctrine seem to have an interconnectivity within the community. Does McClendon’s convictions also have an interconnectivity, or do they stand on their own? Is there a “rule-order” of convictions? Perhaps based upon deeper felicitous statements.
With all of this, what am I trying to say? Within the Baptist community one can find statements with point to something deeper be it a conviction or a doctrine. Doctrines are rules while convictions are agreed upon statements in the community. This is a big difference. A conviction does not need to have an ontological or an intrasystematic truth, they more need to have agreed upon realities. I think the idea of convictions make more sense then doctrines. Yet a doctrine seems to show more how the conviction exists/acts in the community than a conviction. The conviction should have implications. If this is the case then perhaps the conviction is similar to the übersicht and the doctrines are the language games that point to the conviction. This makes sense to me so far.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Language and Ordination
Language is on the mind. I have recently finished J.L. Austin's How to Do Things with Words - a short, dense and complicated book. In this work, Austin is concerned with what he calls "felicitous" statements. These are arguments that make sense on a number of levels: the locutionary (that the thing exists, the inflection of the speakers, etc...), the Illocutionary (that the speaker has a desire or intent, and the prolocutionary (that you can hear and respond to the speaker). Thus the phrase "Eat some cake" is felicitius if there is indeed cake, if I want the other people to have some cake, and if there is any left to eat.
With all of that said, how can we make a "felicitous" statement about ordination. Here is what I am going to try for now.
An ordained minister recognizes a call from God which is also recognized by the community.
In this statement we have the existence of a call, we have the recognition of that call on behalf of the individual (the internal call) and we have the acceptance of that call on behalf of the community (the external call).
Now I just need to find this statements (or variations of it) in the local church community.
With all of that said, how can we make a "felicitous" statement about ordination. Here is what I am going to try for now.
An ordained minister recognizes a call from God which is also recognized by the community.
In this statement we have the existence of a call, we have the recognition of that call on behalf of the individual (the internal call) and we have the acceptance of that call on behalf of the community (the external call).
Now I just need to find this statements (or variations of it) in the local church community.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Watch this Space for Language
This is a taste for a post yet to come. It is a taste and a distraction from my sermon (which I supposed to be writing right now). I have been thinking a lot about J.L. Austin, Grammar and ordination. We will look for a felicitous statement concerning ordination (if one such exists).
Watch this space.
Watch
keep watching.
Watch this space.
Watch
keep watching.
Friday, March 06, 2009
A Modernist approach to a Post-modern Context or How the West Was Subdued and Forced to Play Nicely
Note: the post is influenced by Mark S. Cladis’ article, “Painting Landscapes of Religion in America: Four Model of Religion in Democracy” in the Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 76, no.4, Dec 2008, 874-904.
Here is the scoop: Cladis is considering four different “models” to think of religion in public. They are –
1. Religion over the Public Landscape
- religion reigns supreme in ruling and controlling and influencing the public. Problem, whose religion and what of others?
2. Religion Banned from the Public Landscape
- Religion has no place in the public and thus cannot muddle things up. Problem, from where will we find the moral voice?
3. Public Landscape as Religious Space
- Religious language occurs in the pubic – a civic religion. Problem, what of the depth found in the traditions of particular religions?
4. Public Landscape as Varied Topography- The public is a place where multiple voices, including religious voices can be heard. Problem, hmmm……
-
Cladis favors the fourth model, claiming that religion should and could be treated as any other voice in civic discourse. He does recognize that religion carries its own nuances, but for the most part should not be treated as special. Religion, for Cladis, has a voice along with environmentalism, oil, special interests, etc. One of the things that I think Cladis is trying to do is to avoid a modernistic approach to religion in a postmodern context. The first three models have an almost myopic view of religion, and Cladis is trying to avoid such a view. His model allows a variety of religious traditions to have a voice along with other moral voices in society. Even claiming that morality, however that is understood, can be found in non-religious contexts is a post-modern view. One challenge concerns who is allowed to give voice to the other. In Cladis’ model, the government allows religion to have voice in the public sphere, or can silence that voice. This is not a free discourse but a controlled one. Someone decided who can and cannot speak – sounds kinda modern. Someone decides what is and what is not appropriate discourse – sounds kinda modern.
Another problem which is related to the first one comes from the perspective of the religious communities. Some faith traditions favor the first model and others the second (I don’t know of many of the top of my head that would favor the third). Some would prefer for religion to be the lingua franca of public discourse, if it is their religion. Some faith traditions have as an end the conversion of society to its proclivities. A civic discourse that only allows religious speech to a certain extent and on the same plane as other religions may very well be difficult and unnatural place to be for many faith traditions. Other (like the Amish) would not want a place at the table at all.
Stark and Finke have made the argument in a number of places that what makes religion unique in America is the free market capitalistic environment in which many movements may thrive or die. If it is a true free market than any of the models may emerge for better or worse depending on the “winner.” If it is a controlled free market, then the fourth model reigns supreme limiting the conversation all the way to the end of our nose. How post-modern do we want to be? How far do we want to go?
Here is the scoop: Cladis is considering four different “models” to think of religion in public. They are –
1. Religion over the Public Landscape
- religion reigns supreme in ruling and controlling and influencing the public. Problem, whose religion and what of others?
2. Religion Banned from the Public Landscape
- Religion has no place in the public and thus cannot muddle things up. Problem, from where will we find the moral voice?
3. Public Landscape as Religious Space
- Religious language occurs in the pubic – a civic religion. Problem, what of the depth found in the traditions of particular religions?
4. Public Landscape as Varied Topography- The public is a place where multiple voices, including religious voices can be heard. Problem, hmmm……
-
Cladis favors the fourth model, claiming that religion should and could be treated as any other voice in civic discourse. He does recognize that religion carries its own nuances, but for the most part should not be treated as special. Religion, for Cladis, has a voice along with environmentalism, oil, special interests, etc. One of the things that I think Cladis is trying to do is to avoid a modernistic approach to religion in a postmodern context. The first three models have an almost myopic view of religion, and Cladis is trying to avoid such a view. His model allows a variety of religious traditions to have a voice along with other moral voices in society. Even claiming that morality, however that is understood, can be found in non-religious contexts is a post-modern view. One challenge concerns who is allowed to give voice to the other. In Cladis’ model, the government allows religion to have voice in the public sphere, or can silence that voice. This is not a free discourse but a controlled one. Someone decided who can and cannot speak – sounds kinda modern. Someone decides what is and what is not appropriate discourse – sounds kinda modern.
Another problem which is related to the first one comes from the perspective of the religious communities. Some faith traditions favor the first model and others the second (I don’t know of many of the top of my head that would favor the third). Some would prefer for religion to be the lingua franca of public discourse, if it is their religion. Some faith traditions have as an end the conversion of society to its proclivities. A civic discourse that only allows religious speech to a certain extent and on the same plane as other religions may very well be difficult and unnatural place to be for many faith traditions. Other (like the Amish) would not want a place at the table at all.
Stark and Finke have made the argument in a number of places that what makes religion unique in America is the free market capitalistic environment in which many movements may thrive or die. If it is a true free market than any of the models may emerge for better or worse depending on the “winner.” If it is a controlled free market, then the fourth model reigns supreme limiting the conversation all the way to the end of our nose. How post-modern do we want to be? How far do we want to go?
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
History is not a monster!
One of the annoying things about Baptists is the myopic view of scripture and doctrine – i.e. unless it is in the “word” it does not have any bearing. For example, some of the early Baptists refrained from the use of instruments in worship because the Bible never “said” if instruments could be used. Most have moved away from such a practice because you can’t attract the young folk without music, and what is the church really about but attracting the young folk (even if it is at the expense of a literal interpretation of scripture). Others have based their entire dress code on the writings of scripture, etc. If the Bible says so then it is so. Baptists, and other evangelical have often taken Luther’s protestant battle cry of sola scriptura to the extreme point relying only and solely upon scripture in an a-historical manner.
The penultimate word in that last sentence is important (penultimate – second to last, look it up). A-historical. Historically (and the irony is not lost on me) the myopic, literal view of scripture is a reaction to what is seen as the “bastardization of Christianity” through history specifically in the Roman Catholic corner. The evolution of dogma and doctrine cannot be trusted because it is a variation and at times a deviation of scripture. This was part of Luther’s argument and is many Baptist’s polemical claim about our Catholic brothers and sisters. Hence if it was historically adopted it must be flawed, but if it came out of scripture then it must be accurate. (We will look the other way when considering the doctrine of the Trinity)
Enter Bonhoeffer. I have recently read Sanctorum Communio – a brilliant dissertation on the church. In no way will I attempt to summarize Bonhoeffer’s work, but touch upon one point. In talking about authority, Bonhoeffer considers the authority of the Word (like every good Protestant should), but then considers the “relative authority” of the church. This is the authority of councils, synods, and decisions made which have held through history. It may seem authoritative, but as Bonhoeffer says, “it is precisely acknowledging a theological necessity for the idea… that draws a line between the Reformation gospel and all kinds of unrestrained religious enthusiasm.” Yet Bonhoeffer is careful to avoid the heavy authoritative stance of the church that many perceive as possible. He suggests that it is the responsibility of each person to maintain intellect and emotion and experience in relation to the “relative authority” of the church. If it doesn’t seem right, than it might not be right. Case in point Luther’s claim, “Here I stand, I can do no other” in response to the abuses of Catholicism.
So what can Baptists do with this? First, recognize that we are a historically mitigated community. Our practice of baptism, Lord’s Supper, preaching, etc all come out of a historical context. Our history has an authority over our religious practice and identity. Second, stay sharp. If something is going on that doesn’t seem right, even if it does seem scripturally founded (like beating a child with a stick), it might not be right. Pray, think, discuss and act. We use scripture, but in a historically influenced way whether we like it or not. Let’s be smart about it.
The penultimate word in that last sentence is important (penultimate – second to last, look it up). A-historical. Historically (and the irony is not lost on me) the myopic, literal view of scripture is a reaction to what is seen as the “bastardization of Christianity” through history specifically in the Roman Catholic corner. The evolution of dogma and doctrine cannot be trusted because it is a variation and at times a deviation of scripture. This was part of Luther’s argument and is many Baptist’s polemical claim about our Catholic brothers and sisters. Hence if it was historically adopted it must be flawed, but if it came out of scripture then it must be accurate. (We will look the other way when considering the doctrine of the Trinity)
Enter Bonhoeffer. I have recently read Sanctorum Communio – a brilliant dissertation on the church. In no way will I attempt to summarize Bonhoeffer’s work, but touch upon one point. In talking about authority, Bonhoeffer considers the authority of the Word (like every good Protestant should), but then considers the “relative authority” of the church. This is the authority of councils, synods, and decisions made which have held through history. It may seem authoritative, but as Bonhoeffer says, “it is precisely acknowledging a theological necessity for the idea… that draws a line between the Reformation gospel and all kinds of unrestrained religious enthusiasm.” Yet Bonhoeffer is careful to avoid the heavy authoritative stance of the church that many perceive as possible. He suggests that it is the responsibility of each person to maintain intellect and emotion and experience in relation to the “relative authority” of the church. If it doesn’t seem right, than it might not be right. Case in point Luther’s claim, “Here I stand, I can do no other” in response to the abuses of Catholicism.
So what can Baptists do with this? First, recognize that we are a historically mitigated community. Our practice of baptism, Lord’s Supper, preaching, etc all come out of a historical context. Our history has an authority over our religious practice and identity. Second, stay sharp. If something is going on that doesn’t seem right, even if it does seem scripturally founded (like beating a child with a stick), it might not be right. Pray, think, discuss and act. We use scripture, but in a historically influenced way whether we like it or not. Let’s be smart about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)