UNDONE

A wonderful comment at F&T

2010-03-12T10:59:00.000-08:00

Faith and Theology: The Global Atheist Convention: a Christian reflection
Sometimes the comments are the best parts of a blog. Ben Meyers wrote a paper for an atheist conference about how atheism has shaped christian thinking; very nicely done -check it out here. The comments have a lot of alpha-male feather fluffing as the internetz tend to inspire, but one commenter remarked something beautiful:

You know, I keep remembering Gustavo Gutierrez saying that Western theology keeps trying to answer atheism and the challenge of unbelief. Liberation Theology, on the other hand, finds the challenge of non-personhood, of the way oppression robs people of their humanity, to be more central than the question of non-belief.

I still think the second challenge is more important. - "Pilgrimpathways" (Michael L. Westmoreland-White)

What a trenchantly insightful illustration of what is wrong with so much theology sometimes. Bonus points for coming from a Baptist :) I'm not a liberation theologian, per se, but I feel something inside me say "yes" when I read that quote.

reading Yoder: some hopes

2010-03-02T13:25:00.000-08:00

I've been pretty motivated to work through Yoder's The Priestly Kingdom again for a number of reasons, not least of which is to reconsider and understand Epic's (ana)Baptist heritage. I'd like to post a quote on each chapter and consider it here to stimulate my thinking and some conversation. In light of our Sunday discussions about the Holy Spirit and spirituality, the following quote form the introduction caught my eye:

"Just as I have denied a polar tension with catholic identity, similarly a disjunction with the Hebrew history must be denied. There was evidently in ancient Israel an ethnic base, and (for a few centuries) there was a royal state structure (or two). Yet that "nation" was a very permeable unity. Provisions were made both formally and informally for the assimilation of the stranger and the sojourner. The function of both priest and prophet was to invite an uncoerced, voluntary response of the "heart" (a very personalistic and voluntaristic term, present already in the ancient texts) to the covenant initiative of Yaweh. The "free-church" dimension of Israel as a confessing community of moral identity is worth dwelling upon here."

Yoder holds two things in tension in his assertions: personal piety and corporate morality, and I would love to see this idea developed more exegetically. Finding in Israel a "confessing community of moral identity" is a wonderful way to take membership in the Body of Christ out of the realm of abstract doctrine and into practical, local ethics. I look forward to seeing how he doesn't mean the church isn't just "voluntary," too. He also opens the door for ethnic concerns to be part of the moral discussion, too. (Not that they ever aren't, it's just not identified).

My other hope in reading Yoder, is to understand how (if) he unifies internal emotional healing and ethics. I end up justifying the interior work - "healing" by its ability to move people forward in obedience, but I've never been totally comfortable with this justification. It is awfully utilitarian and defines healing always in reference to somebody else's identity. Take for example this essay "Jesus and me broke up." In this very good piece, the author explains that he has left the Jesus who is, "an invisible psychological aid" behind and embraced the Jesus who calls him to die. I think the point is powerful and speaks to evangelical narcissism, but is this exactly what Yoder would suggest, too? I worry it is equally as dangerous to live an unexamined life and ignore one's heart, to divide "salvation and help" as the author seems to do.

Here's hoping for Yoderian unification! :)

Church and theology quote

2010-02-12T11:50:00.000-08:00

I stumbled across this quote from Barth at the end of his work, The Church and the Churches, and wondered how this happens:

[I]t is vital that once more in every church, in its own special atmosphere and thus with an ear attentive to Christ, real sober strict genuine theology should become active. Theological work, concrete and unpretentious, may well be the business which men can most readily set about within the churches for the sake of the Church. Here I make an abrupt end; thus leaving it clear that even in this sphere the really decisive work cannot be an achievement of human power.

What creates a theological thirst in people? How do you teach thinking through things? It's not an academic concern, but (and here I get to stand with Barth!) I think it is profoundly important. Any suggestions?

The End of Intelligent Design

2010-02-10T09:19:00.002-08:00

First Things has posted a nice article about intelligent design by S. Barr, professor of physics at U. Delaware. An excerpt:

"What has the intelligent design movement achieved? As science, nothing. The goal of science is to increase our understanding of the natural world, and there is not a single phenomenon that we understand better today or are likely to understand better in the future through the efforts of ID theorists. If we are to look for ID achievements, then, it must be in the realm of natural theology. And there, I think, the movement must be judged not only a failure, but a debacle."

The quote doesn't do justice to the tone of the essay which is conciliatory and importantly, Barr allows wonder to be reason enough for belief without creating a God v. Nature fight. He can marvel at the anthropomorphic "fit" of the universe and believe it is God created without fighting about evolution. I think this is important because so many people experience wonder when they consider nature and it does transport their thoughts to God. Encouraging it without conceding to Intelligent Design's philosophies is important because it doesn't ignore a great many people's experience of God in nature. (I still don't think ID is science). His responses in the comments reinforce how gracious he is. It's an eminently reasonable and gracious essay that I hope makes nice inroads with the ID crowd.

Ellul on Leadership Development

2010-02-09T14:30:00.000-08:00

"What looks like the apex of humanism is in fact the pinnacle of human submission: children are educated to become precisely what society expects of them"
-The Technological Society, p. 348

Guard Labor: How the Rich get Richer

2010-02-09T09:37:00.000-08:00

In the wake of Reagan's trickle-down theory, it seems accepted in our country that a prosperous wealthy class benefits the poor. A correlate is that a completely free market stands to benefit everybody. Samuel Bowles has argued the opposite is the case and is garnering attention for his ideas. It's scary stuff. via boingboing:

Here's a fascinating profile on radical Santa Fe Institute economist Samuel Bowles, an empiricist who says his research doesn't support the Chicago School efficient marketplace hypothesis. Instead, Bowles argues that the wealth inequality created by strict market economics creates inefficiencies because society has to devote so much effort to stopping the poor from expropriating the rich. He calls this "guard labor" and says that one in four Americans is employed to in the sector -- labor that could otherwise be used to increase the nation's wealth and progress.

The greater the inequalities in a society, the more guard labor it requires, Bowles finds. This holds true among US states, with relatively unequal states like New Mexico employing a greater share of guard labor than relatively egalitarian states like Wisconsin. The problem, Bowles argues, is that too much guard labor sustains "illegitimate inequalities," creating a drag on the economy. All of the people in guard labor jobs could be doing something more productive with their time--perhaps starting their own businesses or helping to reduce the US trade deficit with China.
Guard labor supports what one might call the beat-down economy. Community Action's Porter sees it all the time.

"We have based almost everything we have done on the idea that we always need a part of our workforce that is marginalized--that we can call this group into action at any time, pay them nothing and they will do anything that needs to be done," she says.
More discouraging, perhaps, is the statistical fact that a person born into this workforce has little chance of rising beyond it.

Here is another definition of guard labor , asking some interesting questions about the US as a "low-trust" society. So much for the land of opportunity.

But the story for low-income Americans is quite different; going from rags to riches in a generation is rare. Instead, if you are born poor, you are likely to stay that way. Only 35 percent of children in a family in the bottom fifth of the income scale will achieve middle-class status or better by the time they are adults; in contrast, 76 percent of children from the top fifth will be middle-class or higher as adults.

I wonder, what would it look like for the church, our church to address it nationally and in Fullerton? I also find myself wondering how to help create economic possibilities for people without making the same mistakes of idolizing financial success. It's an age old question; "how much is enough?" Any ideas?

Fight Club for Christians

2010-02-04T09:06:00.000-08:00

MMA, Jesus….It’s all beginning to make sense now. The NY Times published an article yesterday about the use of church MMA fight clubs to reach young men. Here’s a taste:

“The goal, these pastors say, is to inject some machismo into their ministries — and into the image of Jesus — in the hope of making Christianity more appealing. “Compassion and love — we agree with all that stuff, too,” said Brandon Beals, 37, the lead pastor at Canyon Creek Church outside of Seattle. “But what led me to find Christ was that Jesus was a fighter.

The outreach is part of a larger and more longstanding effort on the part of some ministers who fear that their churches have become too feminized, promoting kindness and compassion at the expense of strength and responsibility.”

Really?

Now the Christians are going to the Coliseum?
There is so much wrong here, I don’t know where to begin, but here are a few jabs:

Evangelism: When Paul said he became a Greek to the Greeks, he wasn't embracing temple prostitution. This seems a perfect portrait of the danger when salvation becomes fire insurance and numbers are a the sign of the Spirit. At some point the actual content of the Gospel has to have meaning, too. The pastor's comment, "compassion and love — we agree with all that stuff, too...but what led me to find Christ was that Jesus was a fighter,” is startling. I guess I should be glad he agrees with all the love stuff. To be fair, my own conversion was helped by seeing how radical Jesus was, but it was radicality based on love, aimed at injustice. It wasn't tough for tough's sake.

BONUS POINTS: I was glad to see NY Times interviewed Eugene Cho, of Quest Church for his opinion instead of Mark Driscoll and his uber-macho ridiculousness. Both are there in the NorthWest. Cho is great, and cuts to the chase:

“What you attract people to Christ with is also what you need to get people to stay,” said Eugene Cho, 39, a pastor at Quest Church, an evangelical congregation in Seattle. “I don’t live for the Jesus who eats red meat, drinks beer and beats on other men.”

Exactly. It must be asked if people are attracted to Jesus or gladiatorial honor. Are they mutually compatible?

Race: It bothers me that it is so white, and refreshing to see an Asian American pastor interviewes who so readily identifies the problem. Minority churches on averagel are more aware of the shadow side of majority culture, facing it regularly. Nice to see it in print.

Recruitment efforts at the churches, which are predominantly white, involve fight night television viewing parties and lecture series that use ultimate fighting to explain how Christ fought for what he believed in. Other ministers go further, hosting or participating in live events.

What does this say about white culture? Why is it primarily a white phenomenon? I do worry about judging it too quickly given the history of inner-city boxing clubs, mostly not white, and their contributions in getting people out of tough situations. But they weren't churches. I guess there is an element of barbarism in white, western culture, that the Gospel never really extinguished. It's sad because many of the young men are down and out, needing something to fight for and believe in. Sadly, some vocational education might make further inroads to the gospel than Friday Night Beat-downs.

Gender: Thus far there are no women fight clubs. I don’t imagine Christian ones will sprout up:

“The man should be the overall leader of the household,” said Ryan Dobson, 39, a pastor and fan of mixed martial arts who is the son of James C. Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family, a prominent evangelical group. “We’ve raised a generation of little boys.”

I understand people might interpret scripture differently, and that's fine, but the idea that men who fight are somehow more adult is ludicrous. -As if punching people is more mature than being able to reconcile, share power, submit, to negotiate and to empower others. Nothing like a choke-hold to teach about confession, eh? Frankly, the whole enterprise stinks of justifying male immaturity. Patriarchy does that. Cho hits the nail on the head hinting that perhaps people are not quite getting the real gospel. What happens when they are challenged to be tender, to serve tirelessly in a thankful position with no hope of public martyrdom? I have to question the hermeneutic when Paul's metaphors about fighting are interpreted so literally.

Athletic clubs, martial arts, and sports are all tried and true vehicles for outreach in the US. If it leads to a deeper walk with Jesus, then who am I to judge it? What worries me in this case is the reasoning behind it, paranoid about its own masculinity. Is the real problem with the world that there aren't enough people who fight or not enough people who love? More than an incarnate Gospel, these clubs look like they are just promoting secular values while slapping Christian language on it.* Sadly, in fighting for Jesus, they may have given Him away.
*Insert most church discussions about leadership here.

Pastor's email: about Wild at Heart

2010-02-03T13:46:00.000-08:00

I received the following email, with permission to post & thought it might be a good ongoing article that reflects real concerns in churches. The prompt:

Hi Pastor, I was wondering if you ever read Wild at Heart by John Elderedge or Iron John by Robert Bly. I'm still interested in the societal loss of the father figure and longing to be a warrior and wanted to hear your thoughts on it sometime. I was talking at church on Sunday about MMA and I've been feeling lately that there's a force within the men at church, waiting to be released.

Sounds like a great discussion. Quite simply, I have nothing good to say about Wild at Heart and its popularity worries me. I have some thoughts about the book, but I want to preface them by saying that the things you are sensing at church sound right on, and I love the discussion. As for Wild at Heart, I understand people have found comfort in it, but if you cherish it, it might be best to stop reading my note here. I will say this about Iron John: it doesn’t seek to be Christian and it succeeds.

Wild at Heart is just the kind of Christian pulp that makes me think American Christianity is doomed. It is both biblically and philosophically spurious, rehashing old macho, misogynistic tropes that say more about our culture than the Kingdom of God, yet it purports to be “biblical” work. He even quotes scripture.

My most serious concern about the book is how much he interprets our culture as Christ. (I also worry about the terrible exegesis and hazy reasoning, but I don’t have space for that here… ) What I hear in the pages of Wild at Heart are the cries of male powerlessness and insecurity. Now, those are real feelings and real problems, and I agree that passivity and insecurity are draining our life away, but his solution is the very thing that got us into this mess: wielding worldly power selfishly. Acting on impulse, without accountability is the problem, not the solution. So this is my concern; who has understood power correctly, Jesus or Eldridge?

Because Eldridge has not understood Jesus.

He suggests battles, adventures, and pursuing women are what’s truest about men, and I tend to agree. They are also some of the truest things about apes. Sadly, most men do not grow into fully functioning adults capable of mastering their biological impulses and offering love instead, and in his quest to reclaim a male voice, he ends up infantilizing it, dehumanizing us. He writes, “Hopefully by now you see the deep and holy goodness of masculine aggression and that will help you understand what Christ is saying." (177) Masculine aggression? Is that different from feminine aggression? Has he ever been hit by a parent?

I am gobsmacked he interprets what Christ did as “masculine aggression.” That reeks of white privilege to me, assuming that cleansing the temple and challenging authority stemmed from masculine aggression and not a holy passion for justice, an abhorrence of injustice or a hope for a better tomorrow. -Nope, its just good ‘ole ___ whoopin'. He interprets Christ’s love as aggression, but Jesus seems to interpret his own actions as love. Never mind all that not bruising a reed, or “come all who are weary” stuff. In fairness, perhaps Eldridge himself would advocate for turning the other cheek, and that the warrior idea can motivate this. Sometimes you have to be strong, be a warrior, to love under duress. If this were his point, I would be pleasantly surprised, as it does take profound strength to love one’s enemies. But that’s not the feel I get from the book. Wild at Heart succumbs to a subtle belief in redemptive violence, not turning the other cheek. It makes the same mistake as Peter, egging on the pride of men with "I'll never quit on you Jesus" sentiments of a warrior, but it does not teach how to be in Gethsemane, how to be weak and crucified.

I also find these discussions are often centered on notions of masculinity which is a notoriously fluid, slippery concept that differs from age to age and place to place. Which culture’s definition of “masculine” is in mind? Take a look at this list of "male" qualities. Wild at Heart says stuff like,

"‘this is the man you ought to be. This is what a good husband/father/Christian/churchgoer ought to do.' Fill in the blanks from there. He is responsible, sensitive, disciplined, faithful, diligent, dutiful, etc. Many of these are good qualities. That these messengers are well-intentioned I have no doubt. But the road to hell, as we remember, is paved with good intentions...”

It's ridiculous. “Many are good”? Sorry, which one wasn’t -faithful or sensitive? Where do his assumptions come from?

Eldridge writes as if these virtues get in the way of our true nature. I believe the whole goal is to redeem nature, not be enslaved by returning to it. A man’s real passions? - Should we just give into our megalomaniac dreams? More Internet porn? I thought the whole point of the Bible’s ethical instruction is that those virtues, “responsible, sensitive, disciplined, faithful, diligent, dutiful,” are actually good for us. Wild at Heart casts them as obstacles to being who God desires. God desires us to be like Jesus. All of us. Men and women. I also think our truest holy desires, the deepest ones, are not for dominance, but to be loved and connected. I understand the book is not advocating pornography or a completely willful life, but he robs men of the God ordained tools to ever grow in Chrsitlikeness when he describes them as obstacles.

Ikea-decorated house. They retell the Aurthurian legends without any of subtlety or the unhappy ending. Worse yet, he obliterates scripture to do so. It saddens me how much he wants women to “use” their beauty. Brains- not so much. Or at least in submission…

If there is something positive here, it is that Eldridge helps men get in touch with their own internal, emotional world. The problem is that it’s stuck at age 12 and he mistakenly thinks this is a good thing. Likewise with the MMA stuff. We romanticize male immaturity and in the process justify some pretty ugly stuff, losing sight of God’s expectations for a mature believer. It is very ironic to me that despite the emphasis on masculinity, his main point is, “get your heart back.” -Then he cries watching Gladiator like Maximus is God’s word to us. It is a profound picture of the problem with the book: Wild at Heart doesn’t distinguish between Jesus on the Cross and Maximus in the Coliseum, and this is an insight into the feelings of powerlessness that motivate the book. I agree with him that the “shoulds” and “oughts” screw life up and sap it of the joy. Instead of compelling us into the arms of a loving God, they distance us from him. The answer, though, cannot be to abandon truth and moral standards to keep from feeling burdened, but to ask for strength to hope that God will teach us, kindly, how to love better.

As for a societal loss of a father figure: I’m not so sure it is happening the way we think it is. People, especially Christians, bemoan the loss of clear authority and patriarchal systems that we can trust, but I don’t know if they ever existed like we think. It is scary when the answers aren’t black and white but that is reality, and I think mature men can navigate this ambiguity. The real brave thinking to be done is to consider and examine how the power of love can change things and seek God’s Spirit to do so. Real courage comes from dealing with the actual feelings we have so that we can know people and be fully known by them, to give and receive love, and that is hard. I mean really hard. There's no challenge to get a guy to fight, or to woo a woman Real strength comes from confronting injustice diligently in a way that doesn’t dehumanize your oppressor.

Sociologically it makes me shake my head because, while it is true many fathers don’t stick around or provide their children what they need, it seems that Eldridge’s virtues are part of the problem- too many men run off for a sense of adventure or another woman, or become obsessed with winning the battles at work, or the adrenaline of drugs. In the process, children are raised without fathers because they do not grow out of Eldridge’s 12-year-old heart. It’s a message perfectly pitched to American values of independence and selfishness.

I really do believe that many people have been helped by this book, if only to find courage to be honest and seek their own voice. That is a testimony to God’s Spirit at work, because the content of the book is spurious. I also think a lot of people have been led astray. Hope that’s not too harsh. I think discussing how to heal men and women to live full lives of joyful obedience is always a great topic!

Niebuhr,Obama,Stassen & Afghanistan

2010-01-29T14:39:00.000-08:00

There's a provocative post about Obama, Niebuhr and Afghanistan that Kim Fabricius wrote for Reform magazine in response to a piece by Ron Buford. It's full of Sr. Fabricius' witty writing:

Jesus said, “Love your Niebuhr.” Or so Ron Buford would have us believe in his standing ovation for Obama’s decision to escalate the war in Vietnam – oops, I mean Afghanistan. (Sorry about that: we Americans have a lousy sense of world geography, not to mention an inexhaustible ignorance about regional cultures and histories. Which is why wherever our expeditionary forces go, even as they blow away one demon, there are always plenty more to take its place). Certainly, as Mr Buford notes, Obama loves his Niebuhr – his Reinhold Niebuhr (1892-1971). In his Nobel Prize acceptance speech, the president liberally deployed the language of the influential American theologian.

In the comments, Glen Stassen, posted a link to an article examining Just War Theory and Afghanistan that is worth a read, written by David Cortright. I remember taking Prof. Stassen's class and being shocked at how abused the phrase "Just War" has become . Although sufficiently decomposed by now, Augustine must be turning over in his grave. But that's another theological mess. For now, do check out the article on Stassen's web page. In fact check them all out.

*UPDATE: Just as I posted this, Ben posted a follow up piece by Stassen! Take a look.

Book Review: The Next Evangelicalism

2010-01-28T00:10:00.000-08:00

I was quite excited to finally read, “The Next Evangelicalism” with its tagline of “Freeing the Church from Western Captivity.” The Author, Soong-Chan Rah, has been quite active in important discussions about ethnicity and the church. Furthermore, I am delighted to see IVP promote a book that seems like it will be widely read written by an Asian American author.

    The book explores three themes; individualism, materialism and racism, and each is defined, examined in the wild, and contrasted with what freedom might look like. In the process, he assays the state of the American Evangelical church and points out the things it neglects to consider, perhaps cannot consider, that voices from outside see clearly. In this way the book is a success, and I anticipate it stirring up great discussion. His call for white leaders to displace themselves and yield power and position to others is prophetic. The real punch of the book is its restatement of just how ignored minority and immigrant churches are in evangelicalism.

    Of particular interest to me are the chapters detailing the church growth movement and primary/secondary cultures. In an interesting genealogy, Rah outlines how founder Donald MacGavran was “seeking to scientifically quantify the factors of church growth through a social scientific approach,” deriving principles from 19c missionary work in overcoming language and caste barriers together with Peter Wagner (p.94). These principles were later grasped, marketed and believed by evangelicals as scientific absolutes. Rah paints the commoditization and marketing of growth principles outside of their original context as the real problem and not their original use. It is an interesting history, but it seems like a missed opportunity. He doesn’t then examine evangelical belief systems and consider the powerful ways the scientific metanarrative obscures the Gospel in the west, assuming as evangelicals do, that that religious truth is dictated by an empirical worldview (Historical criticism, intelligent design, etc.).

     It’s this missed opportunity to examine evangelical assumptions more closely that makes for a philosophically muddled book. He knocks the “science” of church growth but professes an evangelical commitment to recapturing “biblical” community, never considering how evangelical confidence in scientific exegesis might lead to the very problems he is speaking against. The scientific, empirical assumptions he inherits as an evangelical are not questioned. Similarly, he contrasts (presumably) white mega churches with small Korean congregations that connect more deeply with one another, but I was left scratching my head thinking of the huge Asian American churches I see every day from the freeways of Orange County, in contrast to the many white congregations of less than 150 people nearby. Of course, we have plenty of white mega churches, too, but it is not clear enough which model is better in Rah’s mind and his point is lost.   On the one hand, it is the growth of the non-white church in the US that is a positive example, but on the other, his main point seems to denounce the materialism of church growth. So which is it? I know what the evangelical opinion is…

     This is a snapshot of the problem with the book: in challenging whiteness but clinging to evangelicalism, Rah inadvertently supports western theological values without posing any real alternative. He can denounce white church growth but present immigrant growth as the answer, but either way, growth is still the issue. Again, the book denounces the materialism of the US, but doesn’t offer an alternative to address the number of Korean adults that arrive for a seminary class, each in a nice Mercedes, BMW, or the odd Lexus near my desk. Rah admits this, but because everyone’s materialism is not critiqued in quite the same way, it’s hard to suss out precisely where he lands on the issue. Is the materialism of these Asian American churches a western feature? Is it different from the materialism of the west? It is confusing that the book at once offers minority and immigrant churches as an ostensibly more biblical vision of Christianity but lauds how they “win” at the same church game as white evangelicals.

     Similarly, the book exhibits an evangelical tendency to ignore denomination and difference all together, as if the Evangelical description of faith is the assumed way to live in the Kingdom of God. This is particularly problematic if Rah is indeed trying to speak against this same tendency of the western evangelical church with respect to minorities. Perhaps a simple appeal to scripture would be more effective and consonant with the church worldview he is espousing. Ironically, in an attempt to address the ills of the evangelical world with a “new” evangelicalism, Rah demonstrates how captive his own thinking is to it. If In appealing to evangelical commitments, he limits the answers available to him. I wonder if he might be better served simply expounding how immigrant and minority churches have too long been ignored in popular white Christian culture and denied influence and resource? The one cursory and potentially incorrect citation of Barth’s Imago Dei does nothing to shake this impression.

    These flaws are philosophical though, and I suspect they will go largely unnoticed by the target audience. It’s a book written by evangelicals for evangelicals, and its value lies chiefly in its ability to make the discussion visible. It’s a difficult book to review: I agree wholeheartedly with his basic theses, but not at all with his theological framework as an evangelical. I pray it provides professor Rah with a platform to increase the talking points between minority churches and the enfranchised white. I am glad IVP and Rah had the fortitude to print such a challenging book and look forward to further development of the critiques begun, especially if it means reconsidering the nature of the evangelical project.

Intervarsity's Slippery Slope

2010-01-21T14:28:00.000-08:00

Oh come on.
They are clearly part of the solution, not the problem. But they have had quite a moment in the electronic media recently, so I thought I would try and digest some of the discussion. (Let the reader beware: I was on staff with Intervarsity for 8 years!)

First off, Christianity Today published an article questioning Intervarsity's commitment to justification by faith alone (...see what I did there). Apparently some students at GWU were concerned they were being made Catholic after attending a mass as a part of a mission. Next their campus staff workers, “pushed back when the student-led executive team unanimously declined to select a student for a leadership position because she was a Catholic.” Well, we all know Catholics don’t follow Jesus. My goodness.

–Look, I’m not saying the differences aren’t profound; they are, but I like the fact that there is such diversity under the one cross,let alone in scripture, but it seems disingenious to run bylines of "Protestant debate on justification is reigniting questions about Rome," about college students learning to value all sorts of Christian faiths. Besides displaying a kind of historical amnesia, it ignores the fact IV isn't a church. And concerns about their liberal press? N.T. Wright hardly warrants a book burning.

So the president of Intervarsity, Alec Hill, responded affirming justification is by grace alone soon after. I served for 2-3 years under Hill, and he seemed like a nice enough guy, but beyond that, it was hard for us outside of the upper management to know him, but His response to the article was gracious enough when he could have lampooned the concern.The best line:

Which brings me back to N.T. Wright. The article seems to imply that his views are leading some away from a proper view of justification. Having read both his book and that by John Piper, I find each to be solidly grounded in Scripture. At times, I am more comfortable with Wright; at times more with Piper. Such is the nature of robust theological debate.”

Makes me wonder if his audience thinks Piper blaming tornadoes on gays is robust theological debate? Probably just being polite. But wait! There’s more.

So J. Mack Stiles blogged about what is wrong with IV. It was at the scary 9 marks website which defends against the creeping liberalism in churches. It's funny because they mention the historic creeds in their articles, but that is neither what is at stake in Stile's Intervarsity discussion, nor do they come across as a group particularly connected to the creeds. Most of the historic creeds are Catholic, afterall. It’s interesting because it is a poignant snapshot of evangelical values particularly in the assumption of a disembodied, ahistorical “correctness” about its position. His concern is that “what’s at stake is orthodox Biblical theology,” and, “the very authority of the Bible,” but his commitment to scripture is undefined and doesn't stem from any church or credal source- it just is. As if the creeds and the Bible wrote themselves. Best quote:

“Not only that, but Intervarsity seems more and more willing to partner with churches that do not hold to the gospel, from liberal protestant churches to the Roman Catholic church. At the same time, IV is breaking fellowship with people who are solidly evangelical: John Piper, for example, is a persona non grata because of his view of women in ministry. Yet N.T. Wright, who's book Justification opens the door for a quasi-Catholic view of justification, speaks regularly at IV conferences.”

That’s right; Catholics do not hold the Gospel. Heaven only knows what he thinks about Eastern Orthodoxy. Or the number of the beast. But when he explains things like, "When some move to make the words of Jesus in the gospels greater than the words of Paul, the very authority of the Bible is at stake, " it gets confusing about whether he's committed first to the Gospel or the NIV, if you catch my drift. I'm no papist, but let's at least remember evangelical history didn't descend from the sky in a vision by the river. We've been at this a while.

Well, wouldn’t you know it, more responses appeared on the Internet? In particular, Michael F. Bird at Euangelion posted an interesting response to Stiles, in 9 points, definitely worth a read. Bird does a number of things I appreciate, distinguishing between the printing and the campus work, noting that while complementarians don’t feel welcomed in IV, egalitarians aren’t welcomed most other places and that perhaps Schweitzer wasn’t all lunacy, etc. Best quote:

"The mention of the word "Catholic" activates feelings of Romophobia and its usage against N.T. Wright can only be rhetorical rather than factual."

My thoughts?

Intervarsity isn’t a church. ‘Never was. I agree with Bird that if a student can agree with the IV Statement of faith, what’s the problem? Stiles seems concerned that IV is not evangelical enough, as if evangelicalism were a denomination or creed to adhere to. Shouldn’t that be left to students and their churches to decide? Formally, it is something that Inter Varsity has never decided beyond their statements of faith. They are non-denominational, etc. The assumptions that Stiles has about how the organization should believe says more about his view of evangelical authority, as if evangelicalism were the historical church, and I think his understanding of orthodoxy is not as thorough as it should be here. When he hearkens to the protestant reformation and solas in his appeal, one wonders if he would include Zwingli or us Anabaptist types in his evangelical gospel truth. Still, I appreciate his concerns that IV “confront the organizational fear of man,” and “resist the pull of pragmatism.” I agree, though not in the ways he is thinking.

More troubling to me than Milbank being read or students visiting Catholic masses is that the president, Alec Hill, appeals to numbers to prove authenticity,

“Intervarsity is in the midst of the greatest evangelistic harvest in our history. Four years ago, the number of students and faculty who became Christians jumped by 22 percent. And that figure has continued to rise. Thanks be to God. One hundred new chapters are being planted to reach entire new campus groups. Nearly 3,000 students serve on short-term mission trips each year. And, we continue our deep commitment to biblical multiethnicity—40 percent of our students are people of color.”

I wish it were just a rhetorical stroke of genius, an appeal to evangelical values to soften his detractors, but alas, my experience is it is deeply held value in IV now, one of the reasons I chose to move on. The emphasis on “growth” and production too closely mirror those of our culture. Evangelism numbers sell, and I suppose it’s inevitable for a non-profit organization, but resisting and returning to Intervarsity’s rich history of discipleship would be a step to confront a fear of man (or woman) and resist a pragmatic pull.

Similarly, it's difficult to really engage campus beliefs. We did not try to challenge worldviews so much as fill Bible studies, and it was the practical emphasis on service projects that did the challenging, not academic debate. Students are met as friends but the exchange of ideas is awfully romanticized. Evangelism campaigns, rallies, etc., are relied upon to get the real work done and the way students “engage the campus,” looks more like a retreat to evangelical practices, platitudes and slogans. (This is true of most campus Christian groups, btw.) Increasingly, I think IVCF has begun to understand that how they devote themselves to issues of justice and truth is a better witness to a secular campus than pamphlets and preaching, which is good, but a value for numerical, growth and production remain. I think it’s the commitment to engaging minority students and their academic press that have kept them honest as an organization, promoting growth.

Still, I don’t want to dismiss Stiles out of hand as he has put his money where his mouth is and lived a life of great service to the poor. Nor do I wish to do the same to Hill. Friends working in IV report he has brought organizational stability and opened lines of communication, and I rejoice with them at the new found diversity. In fact, I daresay I’m proud to have been part of building it. I just hope they will continue to be a place where Christians who are not beholden to evangelicalism can follow Jesus and ask questions, too.

Mark 10: a theological Interpretation

2010-01-20T13:10:00.000-08:00

We’ve been practicing entering and meditating on a text over the last few weeks, and despite moving on, I have been wrestling (again) with Mark 10 and the story of the Rich Young Ruler, trying to do justice to it both exegetically and theologically. In particular, I have appreciated Halden's consideration of the text on his blog. While in campus ministry, I was always bemused how quickly people turned to, “Well, his heart was too set on the riches,” as if ours here and now are not, -never mind the camel/eye of needle bit. It’s a stout piece of scripture.

The way Jesus navigates the conversation is particularly fascinating. He only offers the man 5 of 10 commandments, and the easy ones at that. If we put aside for a moment the trajectory of the Sermon on the Mount, I, along with pew upon pew of church people can say with sincerity, that we have followed the second tablet of Moses accidentally if not devoutly. I have never murdered, defrauded or sought to dishonor my parents, and though they run deep they aren’t impressively difficult to follow. In fact, they represent some pretty basic standards for societies, and I wonder if Jesus plays a game of cat-and-mouse here to probe where the man's head is at. Quoting the 10 Commandments is too obvious and seems to ask, “How much do you want to know the answer?”

“Jesus, how can I have eternal life?”
“Oh, you know, read your Bible, pray.”
“…No really Jesus, how?”

In Mark 10, Jesus’ response seems all out of proportion to the question. He goes from easy to bone crushingly scary in one sentence. Elsewhere, he agrees with the scribe who sees one must love God and neighbor. He has compassion on crowds without a shepherd and he invites the disciples to follow him, but this man of substance has an awfully high wall to hurdle. Living in the wealth of the west, it is alarming to read rich people entering the Kingdom of God is an impossibility. Seriously. This one has always scared me.

We see Jesus powerfully illustrate for this fine young man that salvation is not something under his control, or ours. Here he stands, a compelling portrait of religious success; successful, obedient, and seeking wisdom from the Good Teacher. He is teachable and reverent, dispensing with the “good teacher” bit when questioned, the son every Christian parent hopes to raise. And yet despite his circumstance and station he does not know where eternal life lies. Here, Jesus says, “Not with you.”

This is not to brush away any teaching about wealth, but to highlight how much power and proficiency keep us from our neediness, of which wealth and religious status are chief examples. It shouldn’t surprise us to remember Jesus welcomes the children immediately before this, explaining the Kingdom of God is something to be received. Both wealth and religion hid our neediness, our finitude, and our impotence. Jesus asks the man something powerfully difficult, to get reacquainted with his humanity and incompleteness. Renouncing the world and loving the powerless will do that to you.

This is the kind of passage that corrodes our religious sensibilities and ends up explained away by other things in church. Nobody really wants to preach that their riches keep them from God or that they don’t need their religious identity. It disrupts our plans and theologies because it reminds us that our salvation is God’s decision, not ours. We cannot establish it from our own power or achieve it or control it. We just, “receive it like a child,” a verse so quaint, even banal as often as it’s repeated, that we do not perceive the utter sovereignty and dominion of God accreted therein. No wonder religious communities become so fixed on determining inclusion and exclusion. Like the rich man’s wealth, our religious currencies both mask our need for God’s salvation and bar the way. Our achievements and strengths and competencies are barriers to the Kingdom; our wealth a snuffing out of the kind of spirit that the Gospel is good news for. Becoming a child looks severe in the face of all the scaffolding we erect to grow up into angels.

T.F. Torrance writes,

"We sinful human beings are trapped by our sin within the circle of our hearts which are turned in upon themselves, so that we cannot even repent of our faith or repent of our repentance, but are cast wholly and unreservedly upon the unconditional forgiveness of Christ Jesus. Indeed it is because the judgment inherent in his forgiveness falls upon the innermost self in all our acts of faith and repentance that we are thrown upon Chris alone and saved by grace alone." -Preaching Christ Today, p.36

Who can be saved?
"For mortals it is impossible, but not for God; for God all things are possible."

The Best Book I Never Read

2010-01-14T09:40:00.000-08:00

Good literature expands the theological imagination, some say, but to be honest, I have been avoiding it for quite a while. With only a little time at the end of the day to read for pleasure, “real” literature is sometimes too dull to prop my eyelids up. So here is my scandalous confession:

I am the worst read English-degree holding person in the world.

In my defense, my concentration was in critical theory, not literature, and I can only recount a novel or two that ever moved me. I once took a class about the American novel, 10 novels in one quarter, and I can’t remember a single book.

But this Christmas I was given The Master and Margarita and I resigned myself to reading it. My reasons were as follows:
1. honor my cousin who is so dear and generous with his gifts
2. have something to blog about after the holidays
3. fall asleep easily despite drinking too much coffee.
4. assuage my guilt in preferring theology and automotive books to literature.
-In that order. There’s a lot riding on Bulgakov.

And the result?
The Master and Margarita is quite simply one of the greatest novels I have ever read. It is genius and delight from beginning to middle, a laminated work that says many things at once to great effect. I haven’t finished it yet, but am already in love. Seriously. It may be my favorite book ever.

In The Master and Margarita, the Devil comes to Moscow as professor Woland and interjects himself in the midst of a conversation between a literary critic and a poet discussing the historical impossibility of Christ’s life. They of course do not realize they are speaking with the Devil. The novel then picks up the thread of Pilate’s personal anguish, narrating the trial of Jesus, finally pulling in Margarita’s love story, in which a deal is struck with the devil, Pilate is assuaged and the three narratives are brought together.

It is a story about the truth of things that the “system” cannot allow or account for. Bulgakov steeps the pages in a kind of humorous paranoia borne from a world where people disappear regularly, strangers are threats, and words are chosen very carefully for fear of the wrong people hearing. Sadly, it’s the same world I live in inside my own head, so perhaps it spoke to me too easily! It is witty and liberating satire in which freedom and truth enter from points outside allowable “truth.” The critic’s atheism is confronted by the seventh proof of God– experience- as he is run over by a train. The Master’s forsaken art leads to Pilate’s release, and Margarita’s illicit affections bring freedom through passion.

This is what is so compelling about the book. It is a story about what is true despite our inability to systematize and regulate it. Our present situation in the West today is not that of Communist Russia, but the authority of materialism and science in our thinking still reigns supreme despite its inability to account for all of life and truth. Reading this is a chance to experience the kind liberation Bulgakov points to, experiencing truth outside of spreadsheets and policies, enjoying the truth art and experience declare. This, I presume is the seventh proof.

I am taken with this book and just can’t recommend it enough. One note: avoid the Classic House version – it has so many typos and oddly phrased translations it reads like a Burroughs novel sometimes. Fortunately there are a lot of online resources to consult. Stick with known versions like Penguin’s. It is absolutely worth it, a true masterpiece.

Now back to Car & Driver.

Home Again

2009-12-25T13:36:00.000-08:00

Christmas Morning, home in the country.
You never quite get the sea out of your bones, not that you'd want to.

Home

2009-12-25T13:28:00.000-08:00

Christmas Eve.
Home.

St Jerome at the Christmas Party

2009-12-18T10:00:00.000-08:00

O monks, the Lord is born on earth, and He does not have even a cell in which to be born! There was no room for him in the inn.The entire human race had a place, and the Lord about to be born on earth had none. He found no room among men. He found no room in Plato, none in Aristotle, but in a manger, among beasts of burden and brute animals, and among the simple, too, and the innocent. For that reason, the Lord says in the Gospel: "The foxes have dens, and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head."
Jerome, Homilies on the Psalms, Ps. 131

I really like this picture because it kind of conveys the "What the hell do you want now?!" of Jerome. He was a fun guy, spending Sundays in his youth exploring catacombs to discover the graves of martyrs and interpret their inscriptions. The reference to Plato and Aristotle are wonderful and really tell you where his head was at: not a fan of Greek philosophy... :He cuts through so much and affirms the lowliness, the humanity, of Christ. As a pastoral exercise, I wonder how we should write it today?

stories from the pulpit

2009-12-08T09:14:00.000-08:00

Well, actually we don't have a pulpit, but this past Sunday I had a great time speaking about our value for multicultural church with pastor Kevin. It was a genuinely warm time, but you may have noticed as we served communion to one another I kind of gagged mine down, laughing a bit. Here's the inside scoop: I tore a decent size piece off, one large enough for my claws to grasp, bit into the soft bread and pulled a cap off a tooth! It was singular effort of willpower to keep from spitting the whole thing out. Not pretty, but true. We have no official theology for bodily expulsion of the elements in our denomination that I know of.

learning from orphans

2009-12-03T09:02:00.000-08:00

There is a fantastic article by Arthur Jones at the Duke Call & Response blog about Rwandans refugee AIDS orphans. <-see, it reads like a tear jerker. Not-so. It will put a smile on your face as it firmly plants a foot dead in your rectum:

We underestimated the heart of these orphans. We did not expect them to reach out to other orphans. We foolishly thought that these African orphans would act “responsibly” (that is, like we wanted) and slowly save their money, ensuring that they will have food to eat for many years to come. This is not how Davis acted.

Davis had an orphan friend named Sqberio (pronounced skw-ah-berry-oh) who was left to take care of his two younger siblings. They were hungry. So Davis gave Sqberio half of his salary every day to train him to be the second baker of Blessings Bakery. In churches in the US, we struggle to convince our church members to give 3%. Davis gave 50%.

When we asked Davis why he had done this, he did not seem to understand the question. Evidently, giving what you have is the only thing to do when your friend is hungry. Not only did Davis give up half of his salary, but he opened up a bank account and they go and deposit the money together every week. On their way to the bank and back, Davis teaches him about Jesus. Now the bakery employs both orphans at full salary.

It was good for my soul, and seems like an important read. Check it out.

Fearless Speech & the Manhattan Declaration

2009-12-02T14:38:00.000-08:00

Perhaps you are aware of the Manhattan confession, a document drafted and signed by 148 people, what Halden has labeled, “a sort of ecumenical conservative manifesto with 148 signatories from Roman, Eastern, and Evangelical denominations.” The document primarily defends against abortion, gay marriage, and the right for the church to do what it wants: three issues that everybody knew were already at the top of the agenda for churches in the US. To me, it reads like nails on chalkboards, and my emotional reaction might best be painted in this savage send-up of the document found here. Thanks, Halden. He has a couple of interesting posts, especially in the comments, here and here.

I have been thinking about the nature of the document itself and why I dislike it. I don’t think it is parrehesia, true truth-telling as regards Foucault’s analysis or biblically, either. Foucault demonstrates in his lectures, Fearless Speech, that the parrhesiast is a person permitted by the state/assembly/group to speak because he possesses the moral character to speak about truth, and does so in such a way to benefit the entire society and he speaks the truth at his own peril. (The parrhesiast was a “he” in this historical analysis, a clue perhaps to the problems of discerning parrehesia…)

By this definition, the declaration reads as false to me. It misses the point trying to look like a defender of morality and the innocent while neglecting bigger issues inherent to the very concerns it addresses. To worry about gay marriage and abortion without addressing other clearly connected gospel issues like financial injustice, militarization, orphans, and homelessness makes it smell like a conservative American political agenda drives the statement, not a Gospel one. There is a brief nod to injustice in the introduction, followed by a whole lot of self-righteous church-washing. Barely admitting historical injustice, the document is eager to note how deeply they “stand” with fallen people, but it's not really a statement of solidarity or repentance, and instead comes across as a critique that ignores the bigger picture, a document of privilege masquerading as oppressed people speaking out. It saddened me to see Ron Sider swept up in it.

The real problem with the “declaration” is that it is not a confession. It points to the justice and valor of the church without bearing witness to its own sin which is implicated in the very issues the document is opposing. For American Christians to get behind a document noting the Christian opposition to slavery as proof of its moral high ground without confessing its complicity seems disingenuous. How can we discuss the sanctity of marriage if we will not confess how slavery made the family unit impossible? How can we speak of the sanctity of life if we will not recognize Christian complicity in the genocide of indigenous Americans. We must remember that in popular opinion, especially of policy makers, the US is a Christian nation. I know it is not a US document, but that is even more concerning if evangelicalism is what emerges as a greater trans-national Church body that governments "can’t push around." They give the powers that be a good talking to, ignoring that they are the powers that be around here.

The statement further fails a test of parrhesia in that the signatories have little to lose by putting forth such a document. It is not a bold statement at all, but rather a polite recitation of the evangelical rules of belonging. Foucault explains:

“If, in a political debate, an orator risks losing his popularity because his opinions are contrary to the majority’s opinion, or his opinions may usher in a political scandal, he uses parrehesia. Parrehesia, then, is linked to courage in the face of danger: it demands the courage to speak the truth in spite of some danger. And in its extreme form, telling the truth takes place in the ‘game’ of life or death” (p.16 in the Semiotext(e) edition)

So what will happen to people who put their name to the document? Um, not much. I imagine talk show wags will laud the “courage” to produce such a document, but it took no courage at all. I could get out and read the document as a sermon in almost every church in California and people would nod their heads in approval. -and we’re a liberal state. It only retrenches the opinion of the empowered; meanwhile the poor continue to go hungry without health care and opportunity. So what is this document? Another evangelical line in the sand that’s really a mirror of self righteousness instead of speaking truth to power. I wish churches would speak out against wealth more. A critique of abortion that confessed and addressed the systemic injustices behind it would be much more trenchant, with real teeth. A critique that repented of it bigotry, materialism and self-interest would be getting somewhere.

It’s too bad, as I wish there were more effort put into ending abortion practically instead of politically. More adoption, more foster homes, more opportunity for poor and oppressed, more just ecenomic practices. The discussion in these ways seems like a whole lot of self righteous grandstanding while people go hungry and kill one another. Really guys? (Oh, mostly men signing by the way - only 9 of 139 are women from my count). The intonations that present this to us as a Barmen declaration worry me, too. How has the evangelical world come to see itself so clearly as the squashed? It might be good to take a note from African American traditions and confess that more often than not, when we read scripture, we are not the Israelites in Exodus, but rather Pharoah.

Well, there are also some things I have been thinking about the problems of parrhesia as a critique that Foucault gets at, but more on that later. Probably enough for a first pass - What do you think?

Rethinking Christian Community,

2009-12-01T09:02:00.000-08:00

because something may be amiss:

Swine flu, Thimerasol& Apocalyptic Thoughts

2009-11-20T01:22:00.000-08:00

Some thoughts I wrote recovering from Swine Flu:

This past week has provided me with a little bit of time to reflect on things, lying in bed waiting for my lungs to empty. I got Swine flu before the vaccines were here, which wouldn’t have mattered anyways, since there isn’t enough and I’m not medically indicated. My first epidemic! So I took up residence in the spare room and bathed in enough Lysol to peel my corneas. (For what it’s worth, being sick has only reinforced my view that “rip-N-dip” is the best way to do the Eucharist) One thing to note, though I hesitate to mention it, is that many flu vaccinations contain a slight organic mercury containing compound, thimerosal. And thimerosal, as you might recall, is at the center of a fierce argument about autism. Many parents are convinced that child vaccinations are the cause of autism though there is no scientific evidence for it. Sadly, as thimerosal has been removed from vaccinations, autism diagnoses have continued to increase.

I learned this lying on my side, reading the the lead story in Wired magazine this month, “An Epidemic of Fear.’ The article is critical of the anti-vaccination movement claiming it that puts children in the way of harmful diseases with no scientific evidence. The dynamics of the debate are intense, and my intent is not to rehash the story here: there really are important ethical questions about whether or not people should have the freedom to choose vaccinations or not. What was interesting to me as I read, phlegm gurgling, is how religious the anti-vaccination camp is about their objective. Without scientific rational, their arguments are based on intuition, emotion, and a deep suspicion of the powers that be. It's a archetypal story: gut instincts vs. hard data, humanity vs. science, and both sides have their opinions about the other's motivation. One is superstitious and not thinking clearly, while the other is deviously hiding a money trail...

I guess I feel a strange sense of connection with both sides, lying here sick. Everybody wants answers, everybody wants the suffering alleviated. I am tired of my little sick, too, even though it really can't compare in the least. But I feel more than just sick: feel knocked off my horse just as I was about to embark on some new, exciting ministry plans for me. But even my doctor can't help me now. (Though he did charge me...)

Thinking about medicine, I'm struck that as long as science describes suffering, but does not explain it, it actually might remain more faithful to a Christian vision of suffering and evil: it attaches no meaning to it, a vagary that cannot be explained. It cannot presume to explain my feeling, my story. Of course, that's not how I use it. I like the illusion of control, of explanation, -as if success and happiness in life were all attainable through a rigorous moral calculus. In this mode, the (pseudo)scientific community at times can only act like Job’s friends in the face of suffering: “it’s your fault,” “it’s part of something bigger, more profound.” As I lay here on my sick mat, I experience it as, “If you pay more attention to whom you shake hands with; if you wash your hands longer, in hotter water; if you get more sleep to be fully rested – then you can defeat your viral nemesis.” But that’s just not true. There’s stuff out there bigger than me.

What does this all tell us about ourselves? The scientific explanation is that people have a deep seated need for control we express through explanations of evil. This is undoubtedly the case. And it seems that out of our need for control through explanation, we have to make someone or something guilty so that our pain becomes intelligible. I'm quick to guess that, “it was that parent who let their sick kid come to school,” or “my fault for not protecting against the flu better. Next time we’ll wear gas masks in public places!” But there are great horrors inflicted on humanity that are not directly our fault, too. No one earns hurricanes and disease.

Trying to explain evil always makes a villain. Someone is always the bad guy when evil becomes a necessary character in our stories. I think the harder thing to do is admit the meaninglessness of evil, the absurdity of something that renders us so small and suggests we, too are meaningless fodder for the history of atoms. But surely I am ready to crap myself for a reason! Surely there is a profound cosmic meaning in my nausea? What if there isn't? What if evil, pain, sickness really is just the lack of life. To do this, I have to admit my need for a savior, and I wonder of the value of theodicies. I think I am beginning to make the turn from, “Why me?” to “Now what?” and I wonder if that's grace is really about. Still working on it.

To many, religion functions as a mechanism to control and organize the world, Christianity included. It's just another control mechanism, a different way to assign blame and take sides in order to make sense of the chaos. That's a fair assessment of religion as a human science, but it does not explain Christ himself. In Christ, evil is revealed as absurd, having no place. Our faith humanizes us, not in providing an explanation for all the "whys" of suffering, but because of the future redemption it points to. perhaps it's just the fever, but this is what I'm wondering:

Maybe the power of the Christian story is not that it tells us where all this chaos and suffering came from, but instead, where it is going. Perhaps this is what it means to understand history as apocalyptic: it makes us open to a future in which God acts. Can I say then, that the value of a religion lies not in its explanatory powers but its predictive ones?

open table fellowship

2009-11-13T11:08:00.000-08:00

Not The SAME from Recycle Your Faith on Vimeo.

This struck me as a beautiful example of open table fellowship in our world. I immediately thought of Kevin and his desires to take part in our city. In many ways it's like a good dream; grounded in mundane reality yet full of love and creativity. I think we could do this...

MLK on Foolishness

2009-11-10T14:26:00.000-08:00

MLK on Luke 12:20

...The rich man was a fool because he permitted the ends for which he lived to become confused with the means by which he lived. The economic structure of his life absorbed his destiny. Each of us lives in two realms, the internal and the external. The internal is that realm of spiritual ends expressed in art, literature, morals and religion. The external is that complex of devices, techniques, mechanisms and intrumentalities by means of which we live. These include the house we live in, the car we drive, the clothes we wear, the economic sources we acquires- the material stuff we must have to exist. There is always a danger that we permit the means by which we live to replace the ends for which we live, the internal to become lost in the external. The rich man was a fool because he failed to keep a line of distinction between means and ends, between structure and destiny. His life was submerged in the rolling waters of his livelihood.

There is a lot here that gives me pause; is "2 realms" a false distinction? Did Jesus really think money was neutral?

But the line, "He failed to keep a line of distinction between means and ends, between structure and destiny," slays me every time. Particularly here in the OC, I think people have a hard time distinguishing between the structure of their lives and their destiny because until recently, in the seat of privilege, we believed that we could control our means, that is was our end. Anyways, it just seems liek there's a lot here to mine and mull over.

Bonus: A nice little article on how the media presents MLK.

James Cone on success.

2009-10-30T18:31:00.001-07:00

A great clip, short, (7min) by James Cone on Tavis Smiley's "State of the Black Church." It would be a gross injustice to not hear this message for the whole church in the US.

Church Dogmatics online

2009-10-23T10:55:00.000-07:00

Glen at The Hiddenness of Blog has either done us all a tremendous favor or terrible evil. He has located and arranged the Google Books versions of Barth's Church Dogmatics for your reading pleasure. I don't think each instance is from the same publishing run or house, but there is a lot of text available. It's a pretty cool find.
He explains though, that :

Google books is great. Wonderful. But when it comes to Barth, there were two bummers: One. The books were incomplete. I don’t know if there were copyright issues, or they wanted you to buy the book, but you couldn’t get it all on there. In fact, a pivotal part I was in need of was missing. Blerg. And two, they were difficult to figure out how to get to the actual volume you needed. The layout was funky. So I took the liberty of just throwing them all down here:

And here is the fruit of his labor:
The Doctrine of the World of God: Vol. I/1 – Vol. I/2
The Doctrine of God: Vol. II/1 – Vol. II/2
The Doctrine of Creation: Vol. III/1 – Vol. III/2 – Vol. III/3 – Vol. III/4
The Doctrine of Reconciliation: Vol. IV/1 – Vol. IV/2 – Vol. IV/3.2 – Vol. IV/3.1 – Index.
Clearly, this is a resource only a student with a too-near deadline could love, but I do, too. Ultimately, I guess I'm waiting for the Blogger Church Dogmatics widget. I did find some Moltmann at my local library. Anyways, Glen also mentioned a free 30 day trial, too:

Alexander Street Press. Maybe the publisher? Anyways, they claim to have the whole library online. However, like everything, there’s a catch. You have to pay. But, I guess you can get a free 30-day pass here, so if you just need it once, or are just testing it out, this would probably be a good option.

So there you have it. "Free": sometimes a great argument for "purchase".