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

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 Old Rant Continues

It has been a while, and I know many of you have missed my postings dearly. I did move and start a new job, but that of course should not effect my blogging (is that even a word) I’ll endeavor to post more regularly so as to keep all of my readers happy.

Recently I have been reading Bonheoffer’s Sanctorum Communio, but will not write about that today. I had to take a break from Bonheoffer to spend more time on my "expletive" dissertation. Really, the Bonheoffer was the break from the dissertation, and as much as I enjoyed reading about the problems of 19th century German Idealism, the guilt of not progressing on my dissertation was oppressively calling me back (much like the guilt one gets from an Italian mother… sorry mom).

So back to work, and this time on chapter 4 (I am also working on chapters 2 and 3; they are in different stages). Chapter 4 is my social-historical chapter. I am looking at one church and the ways in which the pastors were perceived, acted, and were involved in that church. For this project I’m studying the 1st Baptist Church of Swansea, MA. Right now I am looking at the plight of the Baptists in the 1720s to the 1760s, circa, and specifically the role of the pastors in FBC Swansea at that time.

Anyway, while doing my research, I came across an interesting treatise by Isaac Backus written in 1754 titled A Discourse Showing the Nature and Necessity of an Internal Call to Preach the Everlasting Gospel. Back then they were paid by the word for the titles. In this work Backus is arguing with the established requirements that one had to undertake to be recognized as an ordained minister, namely (in this case) a proper education. All the Baptist history nuts will remember that Backus was originally a part of the establishment (a Congregationalist… hiss), and then was swept up in the wave of revivalism and became a “Separatists” until becoming a “Separatist-Baptist.” As a Separatist Baptist Backus was struggling to have his ordination recognized by the government, but lacked the proper education.

In response to the denial of his credantals, Backus attacked many of the established clergy as lacking a call from God even though they had a good education. He claimed that to many went into the ministry just because it seemed like a good path to follow, not because they had an undeniable call to preach the “Everlasting Gospel.” The “Internal Call” Backus claimed is essential for one to preach. It is a call that is seen in the prophets, in the disciples and in the great preachers before. This call is discerned by the individual and affirmed by the community (a very Baptist practice that I would like to think is still affirmed today… I would like to think). Backus does not deny the importance of learning, he states, “Le me exhort all Christians in general to improve faithfully what talents God has given them,” but criticized the priority of learning over the call.

I know I have touched on this theme before, but I think it is something that we constantly need to keep in mind. I was discussing the level of learning a minister should have with a good friend of mine and realized that there is a danger in over-emphasizing one’s education. Yet at the same time, as Backus says, we should look to expand and grow the call, gifts, and abilities that God has given us. If God has given me a gift and call to preach, should I not endever to learn and grow in that gift so I can honor God’s blessing?

Finally, the irony is not lost to me that around the time that Backus penned this treatise Morgan Edwards and others were working to establish the College of Rhode Island (what is now Brown University) in order to provide a place for Baptist ministers to learn, grow, and gain an education.

Dichotomies and Dualisms be Damned!

I sent selections of my second chapter to one of my professors for comments, and he replied with a recommendation to read a couple of books, articles and then look to tightening up the chapter. His comments are helpful and good, but at times I wonder if there is a difference between tenacity and tedium (perhaps that is what makes PhD such eggheads – in their tenacity they become tedious). Be that as it may, I have just finished reading Beyond Liberalism & Fundamentalism: How Modern and Postmodern Philosophy Set the Theological Agenda by Nancey Murphy. Murphy is trying to do two things: (1) describe the roots and the reasons for the “liberal / conservative” differences in theology, and (2) advocate for a shift in theology due to the influence of postmodern thought.

Murphy goes well into the differences between the liberal/conservative camps – i.e. empirically, epistemologically and theologically. She does a good job in showing not only the differences, but the common root assumptions that both camps carry leading to the differences. It is the fault of modernism that we have a right wing and a lift wing. It is the fault of the idea that there is a foundation, a reductionism approach to the world that finds the lowest common unit and then builds everything else up upon that root. If one maintains such a view of the world, then one will either assume that what one sees is real (i.e. Common Sense) leading towards a conservative view of God and theology or the assumption that what one experiences is real leading towards a liberal view of God and theology. We have a dichotomy that we cannot escape if we hold to a modernistic view of the world.

The postmodern view looks not at reducing everything to the basic unit, but at the networks and organizations which exist (obviously she is referring to a more Anglo-American understanding of Postmodernism rather than the French deconstructionist understanding… obviously). In this approach we consider how things exist within systems or cultures and the ways in which they are connected. Language becomes very important al la Austin and Wittgenstein focusing not on what a word means but rather how a word is used. Thus truth exists within a community as it is discussed by the community. We are not forced into a dichotomy of liberal and conservative but instead exist within the identity of the community as it can be discerned through the context of the community itself. (did that make any sense?)

Yet, says I, what about the reality that within the Christian community we have words like “liberal, conservative, left, right, etc.” What of the reality that we use these words in very specific ways, in very specific contexts that delineate a dichotomy of one kind or another? Even within a local Christian community, like a church, you will find individuals describing themselves as liberal or conservative. You will have churches embracing one descriptor or another, and the labels, at least within the current American religious landscape, point to a dichotomy. Is a holistic view of community a first order speech-act that only occurs at the level of the academy, i.e. theologians in the know, and the dualism is relegated to a second-level speech act? If so, does the dichotomy disappear, or is it put into a different context?

Perhaps the challenge is one of changing our language. With a “nonreductive physicalist” view of reality, an understanding that the whole is greater than the parts, how can we change our language to more honestly reflect such an understanding of reality? I think Murphy is pointing to a dissonance that occurs and exists in the contemporary Christian culture due to the modern assumptions. Her claim is that such a dissonance will not exist when one is considering theology with postmodern assumptions. Right now we are forced into a dualism/dichotomy of either God is intervening in history or is an imminent part of history. Either the Bible is the infallible word telling us exactly what to do, or it is just an inspired history book. Either humanity is only saved through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, or Jesus is just one of many ways to salvation that we can find in the world. If these are our choices, then I am ready for a different way of talking and being Christians.

Obligatory Holiday Greetings/Rant

I'm sitting in a different coffee shop (snif, I miss my old coffee shop) working on my Christmas eve message. Tonight I'm preaching at my childhood church which is surreal, pretty awesome but surreal.
I've always had a thing about Christmas. I'm not a holiday cheer kind of person. I guess I resent the secular world taking over the event. For example, a couple of years ago Target stores said "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas." I was happy with that decision. They aren't a specifically Christian organization and all of their shoppers are not Christian. So they shouldn't assume that all would accept their "Merry Christmas," nor should they be so presumptive to wish it. I don't like it when a stranger who knows nothing about me says "Merry Christmas." What if I'm Jewish or Hindu or Buddhist? What is the appropriate response when someone is wishing you have a good Mass celebrating the birth of Christ and you are not a Christian? Don't presume unless you know me.
I guess the good thing with all of the holiday crap is that the message is getting lost in the world - whenever the message is lost then the church can be truly counter-cultural and reclaim the message. It makes the service this evening seem a little different, like a moment for the rush, hustle and bustle of the world to stop and for God's time to be recognized and embraced.

So for tonight I wish a merry Christmas to all you who claim Christ as savior. To all you who do not, then I wish you a happy holiday - which ever one you may be observing.

I've been sucked in...

I've been sucked into a conversation at my friend's blog (alien nation) concerning the nature and role of sex, abortion and the like. Stupid me. Here is the conversation thus far:
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Dignitas Personae

It may seem strange that an American Baptist pastor would place a link to a Roman Catholic Document. But I have long felt that Catholicism offers the most clear and concise thought available in regards to bio-ethics especially in the area of Abortion. The document 'Dignitas Personae' offers an excellent summation of Catholic thought in regards to these bio-ethical issues. Note especially under the heading 'Faith and human dignity' the statement; 'God has created every human being in his own image, and his Son has made it possible for us to become children of God.' Nothing new I suppose, but profound when compared to a recent post on 'The Nation' which is meant to lend a 'down to earth' approach to thinking about abortion. While in Dignitas Personae the unborn child bears the image of God and is therefore to be highly valued, in the Nation, the unborn child is a 'threat.'



the problem with the argument that Katha Pollit offers is two-fold, the first of which is the subject for today. First of all she vastly over-simplifies the perspective of those who are 'anti-choice'. Notice how she describes the perspectives of those who disagree with her in negative terms. The perspective of those of us who feel that abortion is the ultimate violation of the image of God that the unborn infant is created in, do NOT think that this child is 'one of life's little challenges.' As a matter of fact Dignitas Personae takes the conception and birth of a child in the most serious of terms. Under the heading 'The two fundamental principles' we read' 'The origin of human life has its authentic context in marriage and in the family, where it is generated through an act which expresses the reciprocal love between a man and a woman. Procreation which is truly responsible vis-a-vis the child to be born must be the fruit of marriage.' The child is not a slight inconvenience, but a gift that is to be treated with the utmost respect, care and responsibility. Under 'Faith and married life' we read; 'God, who is love and life, has inscribed in man and woman the vocation to share in a special way in his mystery of personal communion and in his work as Creator and Father...' Nothing could be taken more serious than the birth of a child for it is a mysterious cooperation between humanity and God in the process of creation.



I think that protestants could learn a thing or two from this Catholic document. That a man and woman are cooperating with God's creativity through conception may not be very romantic, but it does lend theological clarity to the sexual act, a necessary corrective to the 'purely recreational' view of sexuality that is rampant in our culture. And it reminds us that there is something sacred in every child. Every child bears the mark of the Creator, whether its life is viable outside the womb or not.

If you read Pollit's article carefully you find the second problem with her thought process. There a young woman, pregnant, who stands the very real risk of physical abuse from family, should she return home as an unwed mother. Pollit is admittedly a 'pro-choice' thinker. Being 'pro-choice' means assuming that sexuality is the choice of the individual, as is procreation and giving birth. Pollit hopes that we will support this womans personal choice to have an abortion. But her argument for abortion shows the weakness of the whole idea that ther is anything personal about sex, conception and birth. It requires the concent of a community, whether that is the community of father and mother in the act of conception, or the concent of the family is helping to raise the child. A child is not the choice of the individual, but the responsibility of a community, parents, family and yes, God. The family does not consent to this child, and so Pollit offers us an illustration of the weakness of her perspective. having a child is NOT an idividual choice.

Pollit offers the support of a community in her article... a community that will pay for an abortion. This is where the church must be more active in my opinion. It is not enough for us to be simply against abortion, but to be for the family, even the mother and unborn child that has no supportive family. We have to offer our consent to life by offering support, safety, home, and help to this mother who is in such danger. I am particularly reminded of Mary. We do not know exactly how her own parents felt about her pregnancy. We do know that her husband, despite some doubts and fear, consented to the child in her womb... and then the Holy Spirit created a supportive community around her; her cousin Elizabeth, the shepherds, the Magi. I see in the gospels the creation of an alternative family for the Holy Family that would support them in birthing and raising an unexpected child.

Here is my first response:

Darin,
I'm assuming that you are agreeing with the Catholic Church that the main purpose of sex and of marriage is to have children. This is the end towards which the acts point. Just want to be clear on that point. If that is the case then you should read Humanae Vitae, which explains why one should not use contraceptives because they get in the way of the natural end of sex and marriage. Not just get in the way, but obstruct God's desire - thus is sinful. Just want to make sure you are clear on this when getting in bed with the Catholics.

On another point, and this is where I struggle, ideally the community should come together and help the single mom (or dad) to raise the child. Somone once said, "it takes a village..." but as Ian remarked above, the reality is that churches do not have their sh-- together enough to provide that community and some people are left in a no-win choice. Remember the debate between the Niebuhr brothers about going to war. One was an idealist (H. Richard) saying that we must stay out of war, while the other (Reinhold) claimed that the reality of the situtation calls for us to be involved recognizing that the greater sin would be to stay out if the war.
You can take the idealist approach and say that all abortions are wrong in every case, but how does that minister to the mother in the impossible situtation? The danger with such an idealism is that it leads to a critical legalism of categorical oughts and shoulds. I don't think you want to head down that ecclesiological road. On the other hand, you don't want to ascribe to a pansy postion of saying that all we need is love and to work off of a "love ethic" (a'la' Fletcher). This puts a good Christian like yourself in a tough situtation. Fun, fun!


Here is his response to my comment:

Saturday, December 20, 2008
Dignitas Personae Cont
It is with great pleasure that I share a couple of comments from my good friend 'Theological Snob' regarding my posting on Dignitas Personae.


Darin,I'm assuming that you are agreeing with the Catholic Church that the main purpose of sex and of marriage is to have children.

No, I am not saying I agree with the Catholic Church that the main purpose of sex is to have children. I think that sex is meant to deepen and strengthen the emotional ties in marriage and be a catalyst for the emotional grouth of the two partners. Sex has a vital and important role in marriage regardless of procreation. So while I would not agree that the main 'purpose' of sex is children, I do think that the Catholic Church offers an important and necessary alternative to the purely recreational view of sex that is predominant in our culture. In my humble opinion this 'recreational view' leave sex devoid of any meaning or purpose but pleasure itself. 'Recreational Sex' is not primarily interested in a deep and intimate experience with another, but in personal happiness and satisfaction, which, in my opinion, leads to a culture which makes the sex partner, an object for the self's pleasure and which leads to the commodification of sex. In everyday life this looks like unwanted pregnancy, disease, marital infidelity and divorce in my experience (not personal experience, by the way) So while I do not necessarily agree with every conclusion the Catholic Church draws as a result of calling procreation a mystery in which humanity co-creates with God, I do think it is the best alternative to 'recreational' ethic of popular culture.



On another point, and this is where I struggle, ideally the community should come together and help the single mom (or dad) to raise the child. Somone once said, "it takes a village..." but as Ian remarked above, the reality is that churches do not have their sh-- together enough to provide that community and some people are left in a no-win choice...You can take the idealist approach and say that all abortions are wrong in every case, but how does that minister to the mother in the impossible situtation? The danger with such an idealism is that it leads to a critical legalism of categorical oughts and shoulds.

Theological Snob raises an important critique of the idea that the church should be the alternative family for single mothers who feel ill-prepared and unready to raise a child. First, the practical application of that idea, that the church becomes a global adoption agency, is unrealistic. I'm not sure I want to go that far and this is where I ready admit I 'punk out' on my own ideas. I am not suggesting that the church becomes a social service agency. I am suggesting that the churches stance should be clear. We are a community for which abortion is not a viable option. In this way we stand as a prophetic voice to culture, offering a critique to the practice of abortion and showing an alternative way to deal with the 'no-win' situations that Theological Snob mentions. (in this area I am admitedly very influenced by Hauerwas).

As for Theological Snobs concern, that such a view becomes critical legalism, I think that is an excellent point. The alternative, however, leaves us no ground upon which to do pastoral care, which TS is concerned about. If the church does not have a clear and concise theological understanding of what marriage is, sex and procreation... if we do not clearly state that procreation is participation in the creativity of God, that children are such a high value that they should be created in the state of marriage and that abortion is a violation of who God is and how God acts in the world (which by the way the church is meant to be, the ebodiment of a Creative and Grace-full God) than what how do we determine our pastoral counsel? My fear is that if we refuse to have a clear statement about abortion, we have no ground for our pastoral care. If our pastoral care is not grounded on theology, than I fear we end up sliding towards the view expressed in the Nation, where the best way we can serve an un-wed mother ill-prepared and frightened, is to take up a collection for her abortion. Haven't we then ceased to be the church? In other words, how do we do pastoral care if we don't take a definite theological stand for life? If we do not offer a theological or spiritual view of the matter we are nothing but very poorly trained social workers.

While some may use a clear and concise theological statement regarding marriage, sex, procreation, and abortion in a legalistic manner, to throw away a uniquely biblical and theological view of a complex situation simply because some misuse it, is to throw the baby out with the bathwater (in a what is not an attempt at a clever pun). So while there is danger to 'idealism' I think the Liberal Christian church has discovered the danger of 'pragmatism' which is silence and apathy in regards to the issue of life, abortion and human sexuality.

My main concern (I think, because this is all just a theological thought experiment right now) is that the liberal church has failed to be a witness to its faith in regards to this issue. I am not trying to find a way to set social policy, but to return the church to its calling, which is to bear witness to the powerful presence of a living God. How can we do that if we remain so wishy-washy about a topic like Life?

And my response:

Darin,
I’m ever so humbled to find my pithy comments published on your distinguished blog. A thought getting at one of the deeper aspects of the conversation, i.e. the purpose of sex. Perhaps we need to think about sex in a relational context. This is not strictly recreational nor is it strictly for procreation but a way in which the relationship that exists in marriage is expressed in a physical and intimate way. Children, which tend to be an outcome of marriage, add and at times (most of the times) enhance the relationship of the marriage. If God is relational, and I believe that the Trinitarian nature of God does suggest a relationality, then marriage, sex, children, and the rest is a way of living into the will/nature of God. Thus sex is not primarily for procreation (and I think you are still leaning towards that conclusion), but is for the sake of relationality.
With this in mind, the church should be advocating for stronger marriages. It is only up to that point where I agree with the conservatives. In my humble, theological view, a healthy marriage is one of equality, not submission, one of respect, commitment and devotion, while maintaining one’s individuality (perichoresis). I am not willing to say that marriage is the foundation/bedrock of society, but it is a holy and sacred way in which we can continue to live into the relationships portrayed by the Trinity. Obviously, in an ideal world with healthy marriages (straight and gay), where sex is something celebrated within a marriage abortions would be less of an issue. Yet we are not living in an ideal world. Our views of sex, relationships, commitment and marriage are skewed at best leading to the impossible situations individuals find themselves in where abortion is considered an option.

That is the conversation thus far.

Beware the Crushing Oppressive PhD Program

I don't really like this time of year. Last night we took the four boys to have their picture taken and the waiting room was filled with "cute" (read - snot dripping, yelling and demanding) little people of which my boys were a part. To much green and red, way to many dripping sweet Christmas songs and more smiles than I could handle. Bah says I. Bah!

In order to clean the system of the Christmas crap that I had visually and aurally ingested last night while putting two of the boys to sleep I read some of the Ramblings of Samuel Johnson, a sensible chap, and this morning I read an essay by William James of which I will comment. After this time of blogging I will read a nice surprise article in the AAR, "What Cultural Theorists of Religion Have to Learn from Wittgenstein; Or, How to Read Geertz as a Practice Theorist" by Jason Springs. If that doesn't get the grime of the time off of me I don't know what will.

William James wrote a tight little essay in the March 1903 Harvard Monthly titled "The PhD Octopus." In this article he bemoans the emergance of a desire for smaller institutions of higher learning to be sure that all of its professors have a PhD James is observing how the PhD is becoming a flashy title that people seem to earn in order to garner respect, a degree program with considerable hoops to jump through (examins and the like) in order to cut people down, and a requirement for teaching even if the individual is not teaching in the area that his or her PhD is in. The original purpose of a PhD, James claims was:
"instituted for the laudable purpose of stimulating scholarship, especially in the form of 'original research.'"
James' worry was that the PhD would become a badge or a trophy that all ambitious individual would try to obtain and others would expect regardless if the individual had the skills, the passion or the drive.

Whenever I meet with someone who is considering the ministry (God help them) I tell them, very openly that if they can do anything else with their lives, then they should. If they can go down any other vocational path, then they should. The ministry, while rewarding at times, is also very demanding and is not the place for someone who is not fully called and committed. When I was considering PhD work I asked myself the same question, "can I do anything else?" Do I have to engage in this level and depth of study? I admit that I have not been as vigilant in posing the same question to others. If some have an itch for higher learning I have been encouraging them to enter into the hellish world of the PhD student. Perhaps I should listen to James, and my own advice. The level of study, the exams, the work is all important and necessary for "original research," but it is not for everyone. One may have a sharp mind and an inquisitive nature, but may not need to do the original research. The PhD is not for everyone.

Perhaps we should not place the degree on a pedestal. We should respect the work that the degree demands and the knowledge the individual has obtained, but perhaps we should not elevate an individual because he or she has earned a specific degree. As James says, "They ought to guard against contributing to the increase of officialism and snobbery and insincerity as against a pestilence; they ought to keep truth and disinterested labor always in the foreground, treat degrees as secondary incidents, and in season and out of season make it plain that what they live for is to help men's souls, and not to decorate their persons with diplomas."

The irony that my blog is titled "Theological Snob" is not lost on me.

Realism, Pragmatism, Positivism - are you confused yet?

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

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

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

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

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

Are you confused yet?

Why Christians should listen to Zappa

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

all the music is by Frank Zappa

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Simple intellengence

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

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

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

Bullocks I say.

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

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

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

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

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

That is beside the point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

new post coming soon

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

The Long Face

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

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

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