Religion and Postmoderism part 1

This past weekend I attended the Religion and Postmodernism conference at Villanova University. The focus of the conference was Athens and Jerusalem – Politics and Religion. It was a very engaging conference with a number of great papers presented. Since I am still a kind of neophyte in the field, I found myself struggling at times to follow the discussion, and at other times I was able to keep up with the discussion. Partly it depended on the topic of discussion – I can only study so much. I was happy to see that my tweed jacket fit in well with other’s tweed jackets.
What I plan to do in the next couple of entries is reflect on the papers presented. I missed the first paper which was presented on behalf of Metz, so I will start with Sharon Welch’s presentation. I do not presume to have the capacity to fully explain, or even partially explain the works, but I hope in reflecting I can engage some further thoughts, and sort some of the cobwebs out that were formed in my own mind.
Paper 1 – Sharon Welch – “Politics after Empire: Dangerous Memories, Cultivated Awareness and Enlivening Engagement”
Welch started with the question of power in American politics, citing Kane’s The Power of Story, claiming that we are stories. For example we have the story of EuroAmerica and the story of Indigenous America, and while the two overlap, they are not necessarily the same. In thinking about story, we are drawn to the question of evil in the story of politics. Welch suggests that destroying evil is insanity, and cannot be accomplished. She also rhetorically wondered if peacekeeping is also helpful with the question of evil in politics.
The story in American politics that engaged evil in a positive way is the Civil Rights movement. In that movement, direct action coerces evil in a way that could be positive or negative. (I think that what was Welch was saying, but I may be getting it wrong). Welch seemed to suggest that a dualist view of evil is not helpful, but a non-dualist approach offer another view. She turned to Buddhism for insight into this approach, specifically “Engaged Buddhism.” In this approach, emptiness and knowing versus non-knowing are emphasized. This is an approach that views knowledge as a gift to share and to receive. The ideal story is to share the emptiness where speech can be heard and shared.
At this point I was nodding off, and I very well may have missed one or two major points Welch was trying to make. I think Welch is trying to find a way for different stories to influence each other in a non-coercive way. Further, for a way for one group of people with one story to name an evil that comes from another group of people’s story. The Buddhist approach offers a way for engagement and sharing of knowledge that does not force or coerce. I do not think one can truly share without “persuading” (that sounds nicer than coercing). What if an Evangelical Christian was sharing with a Jew? It is the story of the Evangelical to try to convince the other (in this case the Jew) to convert. If the Evangelical did not try to do this, then he or she would not be true to his or her story. Further, by suggesting a method of interaction that comes from a specific story (in this case Engaging Buddhism), is in essence forcing one story upon other stories. I admire the idea, but wonder if it would work in reality.
Regardless, one should start with truly knowing one’s own story, otherwise one could be swept up into someone else’s story.
I’m sure I bungled up a lot of the details, but that was the basics of what I took from Welch’s paper.

Roman Catholics in America

Utah Phillips laments the grouping of history in decades (i.e. 80s, 90s, 50s, 60s), because time doesn’t fit that well into neat ten year packages. Patrick Carey avoids the grouping of decades in his book Roman Catholics in America – the recent book that I read. Instead, Carey groups the time by the movements that occurred over the dates through which they occurred. For example, 1776-1815 is “A Free Church in the Republic,” and 1866-1899 is “Towards Americanism.” It is a good way of looking at time that tends to the story of Catholicism rather than the bland meta-narrative of America that tries to force things into decades.
With that said, Carey’s book is good… very good. He is through, organized and focused. What I am trying to figure out is what is Carey’s agenda. What was Carey trying to push, or argue with his book? I would first suppose that Carey is arguing that there IS an American Catholic history. Carey is suggesting that there is a story to tell, but we’ve heard that before. I think Carey is arguing that Catholicism was always a reaction to Protestantism. For example, the Trustee controversies was partially caused by the republican context of the culture. Constantly, Catholics are reacting to American culture. Along with that, I think Carey is pushing a more “progressive” understanding of Catholicism. While Carey goes to great lengths to be fair, there seem to be more emphasis on the left side of Catholicism than the right.
Overall, it was an excellent book that give a great look at the history of the Roman Catholics in America.

Well, I just finished reading and taking the notes on Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. It is a slow read for such a short book (108 pages). Part of the reason why it took so long to read Witt’s work is that he writes in aphorisms (short and compact sentences). It is not something you can glance over, but something that demands a lot of time and attention. It was difficult reading this work because I know that Witt rejected a lot of the content in he later teachings and in the Philosophical Investigations. Yet I still found some interesting and useful ideas.
One idea is that everything must make some kind of consistent sense with everything else. In a church setting this is something that I think we neglect due to laziness. For example, we say it means something to be ordained, but we do not hold onto that meaning unless we find it helpful at the time. That is inconsistent. Or we say that we are called to a certain way of living as Christians, but we do not hold closely to that way of living. When we are inconsistent, we are projecting the true picture of Christianity that we ascribe to. Either we change the picture or we change our “grammar.” We need to be consistent. Witt broke down the parts to the bare examples, but I think we can apply his ideas to church life and beyond.
The other thing I (and other scholars) am interested in is Witt’s idea of the ethical. In 6.421 he claims that “ethics cannot be expressed. Ethics is transcendental” In 6.422 he states “ethics has nothing to do with punishment and reward in the ordinary action.” It seems like Witt is trying to connect with something greater than he can articulate. Why do people do good things? He then moves to the mythical, which he describes as inexpressible. I think this is a good description of God. Yet the problem arises when we still try to talk about God, knowing that we cannot talk about God. How can we talk about God when there is nothing we can say? In other writings, Witt claims that we are showing the nature of God when we talk about God. I wonder if this is true of all religious speech. When we claim that we are to love our enemies, are we showing the nature of God? When we claim that we go to church to praise God, what does that say about the nature of God, and our relationship with God. Finally, what would it mean if we claimed that all religious language falls short and only expresses the divine through a glass dimly? Then do we have any truth we can claim?
Are you lost yet?

Popular Baptists?

I just finished reading Roberto S. Goizueta’s Caminemos Con Jesus: Toward a Hispanic/Latino Theology of Accompaniment. It is a good work with a lot to glean. One of the points that Goizueta makes is the influence of popular Catholicism. The terms itself is interesting because it suggests that there is a different Catholicism then just “popular Catholicism” (PC). PC is what is practiced by the people, it is the rituals and customs that are particular to a group.
I wonder if there is a “Popular Baptists.” Actually, I fear that there is a “popular Baptists.” My impression is that the “popular Baptist” movement consists of a herd of people waving their arms in the air, voting the way that Dobson or Falwell suggests and loving the bible more than they love Jesus. I am a Baptist that believes in soul freedom, in dissent, in church autonomy, in the authority of scripture (but never over the authority of Christ) and so on and so on. I am probably not a “popular Baptist” for a lot of reasons. When I consider Goizueta’s idea of PC I wonder if I should stop calling myself a Baptist. It seems to me that PB have gone to far from the original, basic ideas of the Baptist movement, so either they have stopped being Baptist, or I can no longer be understood as a Baptist. The difference is that Goizueta’s PC still have a connection with the greater tradition of Catholicism. My gut feeling is that part of my role is to call the PB back to the greater tradition of the Baptist movement (which suggests that we do have a tradition). It is a cause that will no doubt end up in martyrdom, but what else do I have to do?

finishing my crazy rant of what I hope to do

Ok, lets try to finish my prospectus and then onto other thoughts. Baptist ordination – it does mean something, it is just that most Baptists haven’t done a good job articulating ordination. So here I am, with all of the answers (hardly). My theory is that Baptist theology is not something that we can particularly say but something that can be shown (see early Wittgenstein). The way Baptist act around the minister, talk about the minister and treat the minister shows the theology of ordination. What I aim to do (if I ever get to that point) is to look at one or two churches, and consider how they have treated the minister over time – always comparing with the “teachings of the tradition” – the manuals and writings of the time. This is really very cursory, but hopefully you get the idea. If not, leave a comment.
My hypothesis is that one changes in ordination via one’s relationship to the church/community. No longer is the individual just a member of the congregation, but is now a leader of the congregation. Yet there we still hold to the idea of Priesthood of the believers, so the change is not one of hierarchy. Instead it is of relationship. The minister now represents something greater, something more profound than him or her self. The Catholic idea of Sacramental Consciousness offers a good way to articulate this change. We just need to change the word from Sacrament to Sacred so people in the pews wont freak out.
That’s it. Make sense?

Intermission

Life happens, and posting on a blog becomes difficult. Hopefully, life will happen differently, and posting on a blog will no longer be difficult. Regardless, I will finish the earlier post about my prospectus soon (I hope). In the meantime, I'll tease you with some one-word statements about my work:

Baptist
Wittgenstein
Social-Historical
Catholic
sacramental Consciousness
McClendon
Theology

Let's see if you can make any sense out of that!

I just finished reading Jonathan Edwards: A Life by George Marsden, and a biography of Wittgenstein.

Language is key!

writing

Today I haven’t done much reading for two reasons. (1) I have to preach tomorrow, so I spent a good amount of time working on a sermon. (2) I have been reworking my prospectus draft. I suppose I should now discuss my prospectus. My large focus is Baptist ecclesiology. My feeling is that many, if not most Baptist theologians are not willing to claim that as Baptists we do indeed have an ecclesiology. Because that topic is to big, I am going to narrow it down specifically to ordination. So I am going to look into the Baptist theology of ordination. Now it is late, and I am tired, so part two will have more on the prospectus.

picture context

Today I made some notes from the first six chapters of the Wittgenstein bio. A couple of things stood out for me. One is the level of intensity that Wittgenstein holds in his work. It seems as if he is truly trying to embody his philosophy. It might be interesting to compare this to the idea of theoisis (spelling). The other is the picture theory of language. So far, I understand picture theory as something representing something else that cannot be parsed down to the single atom - word - symbol. Thus we have ways of speaking about God, but we do not have a set combination of words that will completely describe God in a total holistic way. We can only paint a picture. A danger is that when two people look at a picture, they can see two different things, and one cannot control the other. Thus we have the picture of the bible, but two people can see very different things in the same Bible. Hmm….
Finally I enjoyed the difference between saying and showing. I can say I am a Christian or I can show that I am a Christian. I wonder if the showing is painting the picture. If one could never fully say what it means to be a Christian, than it may be more appropriate to show and let the picture speak for itself.
I have read these ideas before, but to read them in a bio is very informative. Context, context, context.

I just got to the part where Wittgenstein is going to the front lines. What drives a person to look for such danger?

a Suffering God?

Finally finished reading and the notes for Fox’s God and Communion. If nothing else, it is an excellent example of comparing Eastern and Western theologies - except that Johnson’s theology is not a typical Western Theology. Regardless, it is an excellent work. I am struck by Johnson’s understanding of the suffering of God. It is a place of power when God suffers, according to Johnson. When one is in perfect relationship, one will suffer just because others suffer. I wonder if God desires a time when suffering is not. That would be an interesting way to understand the eschatological bent of Zizioulas. Johnson’s understanding of suffering is the best one I have read thus far that is not from a blatant process theology position. It also has an interesting impact upon Ecological issues. The earth suffers and so God suffers. I think one weakness is that “suffering” was not adequately defined. It is talked about as a power and relation, and then written off as a “female emotion,” which I think is bunk. I wonder if we ought to read Foucault’s understanding of power and authority and then apply that to suffering.
Now I get to read more about Wittgenstein.

Trinity and Wittgenstein

Been a while since my last entry, but that is to be expected. Today I touched upon two works. God as Communion by Patricia A. Fox, and The Duty of Genius by Ray Monk.
Fox’s work is comparing the theologies of Zizioulas and Elizabeth Johnson - specifically the Trinity. A couple of things caught my attention thus far. Zizioulas considers the eschaton as a unifying aspect of the trinity - we are all leading toward the end where our relationship with God is perfected. If Zizioulas did not emphasis the diversity and the essential nature of the person, I would fear that he was heading toward a Hegelian understanding of God and time (not to mention that his Eastern context frees him from the Hegelian influence). Johnson reminds us that God is unknowable, and that we can never truly name God. Yet she then proceeds to name God - I guess it is necessary to offer any kind of work. She then lambastes the patriarchal dominance of God’s name, claiming that God cannot have a gender. Yet she proceeds to name God “she” claiming a kind of retribution from centuries of male dominance. I am sure that I am missing some of the nuance of her argument, but this is an initial impression. As I finish the work, no doubt my position will shift.
Monk’s work is a biography of Wittgenstein, and very well done thus far. I have been impressed with the emphasis upon Wittgenstein’s passion to follow philosophy/logic. He almost seems neurotic in his vocational pursuits. I wonder if I could even match a fraction of that passion. I wonder if I want to.

Which came first - culture or individual?

Today I took notes on chapters in From the Heart of Our People, ed. by Orlando O. Espin and Miguel H. Diaz. The book is a collection of essays on Latino/a Catholic Systematic Theology; specifically U.S. Hispanic theology. I think one of the premises of the book is that there is a difference between U.S. Hispanic theology and Central American theology. One of the essays I particularly enjoyed was “Fiesta - life in the subjunctive” The author spoke about praising God for that which is going to happen. Another author spoke of the nuance of time and agency. In that essay, the historical presence of Christ makes the sad and the happy more holy - it is a very incarnational theology. I wonder about the heavy reliance upon the experience of the people. I wonder if one could fall into the Tillician correlational trap of being led by culture in our theological queries. Yet on the other hand, I think these authors would argue that one cannot escape the impact culture has on theology, and it is the job of the theologian to be aware of that effect. Hence the essay about hermunatics from a Western or an indigenous point of view. I have not yet finished the work.
The other work I read today was Ordination: Celebrating the Gift of Ministry by Stephen Sprinkle. I have only read the introduction. The author speaks of the “oddness” of Christianity and of ordination. The Free Church approach (I.e. priesthood of all believers) does not make sense from the eyes of the world, yet works with the Holy Spirit. I am interested to see what Sprinkle offers, and assume that it will have a hierarchal edge to it.

making snail-like progress

I have been working, but not as quickly as I would like. So far I have finished Hartshorne’s book, I’ve read Dominus iesus, and am almost finished with Doyle’s Communion Ecclesiology. Hopefully later today I can offer some thoughts on those readings.

Taskmaster

I am trying to prepare for my doctoral exams so I can write a book that no one will leave. Unfortunately, my diligence is less then I would hope, and my reading wanes from time to time. So I'm going to try to use this blog as an academic journal of sorts. To the best of my ability, I will summarize the day(s) readings/research. So all you who are reading this can keep up on the edge-of-the-seat work I am engaged in. Hopefully this will help me keep to task.

With that said, yesterday I read a chapter from Hartshorne's book "Omnipotence and other theological mistakes" about creation ex nihili. Hartshorne thinks it is a "magic" idea that emphasizes the transcendence of God to much. I don't think I can completely agree. I think is polemic is based upon an exaggerated anthropomorphic notion of God.
I also read a section from Doyle's book, "Communion Ecclesiology," looking at views appropriation of Communion Ecclesiology language in things like Lumen Gentium and Gaudium et Spes. The Sacramental notion of the church caught my eye - it is through the Eucharist that the local church is connected with the universal. So how is that different from the Orthodox? Volf's "After Our Likeness" offers some decent insight.

Hopefully today I'll finish the chapter from Doyle, and finish Hartshorne's book. Yet it is my anniversary, so I may not get to read today.

Hartshorne - another arrogant

I’m reading, along with everything else, Hartshorne’s “Omnipotence and other theological mistakes.” He is arrogant, but good. The jury is still out if I agree with all of his critiques and proposals.

Narcissistic blogging

So I haven't told anyone about this blog. I haven shared with anyone. I haven't even updated my proflie. So am I engaging in a self-serving, narcissistic blogging? Is that a question I can even ask when no one is going to read this, or is question still valid because there is the potential for someone to read this?

suckind in by another blog

I only created this blog to respond to another blog - but since I'm here I'll share the occasional rant.