America’s God

Hauerwas is, I think, the most culturally aware theologian. Most thinkers, especially Protestant ones, could never make this kind of a statement: ” …America is the exemplification of a constructive Protestant social imagination.” Most religious thinkers in our time are either, so consumed in their shaping the ethereal they have lost the physical, or focus on hot button issues. In both cases there is an entire absence of historical grounding. This lack of historical grounding, in my opinion, creates a serious lack of grounding in reality.

Of course, Hauerwas is right. American Protestantism had no instituted and bulwarked Catholicism to guard against compared to Europe. Moreover, the lack of any sacramental influence creates the focus on the ethereal we see so often in American Protestant theology.

American Protestants do not have to believe in God because they believe in belief. That is why we have never been able to produce interesting atheists in America. The god most American say they believe in just is not interesting enough to deny. Thus the only kind of atheism that counts in America is to call into question the proposition that everyone has a right to life, liberty, and happiness.

That is a scathing denouncement of American theologians and churches. As we so often here, they don’t stand up for anything except the right to life, liberty, and happiness. It is strange to hear freedom being talked about in churches. It sounds exactly like how we use freedom in political conversation. I can’t, for the life of me, figure out why. I almost never use the word freedom. I do use the word ‘free’. But, I use it in a much different way, the opposite of being bound – always with an inward referent. Hauerwas’ comment also explains why religious pushback against pro-choicers is so large. Their vitriol is based against the right-to-life, so they must be non-believers, heathens, pagans, backwards, and un-American.

I could go on forever in this essay finding connections. But one more stuck out to me, and it has to do with Larry Lessig’s recent TED presentation:

Tocqueville descriptively confirmed the normative point made in the Massachusetts Constitution: “I do not know if all Americans have faith in their religion — for who can read to the bottom of hearts? — but I am sure that they believe it necessary to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion does not belong only to one class of citizens or to one party, but to the entire nation; one finds it in all ranks” (Noll, 10)

The loss of this maintenance of institutions is bad thing (note: republican there does not mean right-wing Republican, think publican, citizen, not political preference). Society’s loss of citizen institutions will cripple it by creating – even more – vast swarms of individualism with no common ground or experience. Like species on the Galapagos being separated so long they can no longer reproduce: only here we’re talking about the reproduction and mutation of ideas. The lack of common DNA (common experience) stamps out the ability to relate. With no citizen groups to demand their ability to re-use their ideas the only interested groups left are corporations backed with money. And the populace loses their ability to live creatively in the world. If the world, however, is going to throw away their institutions – as it seems they are doing – perhaps the Church has a chance to step up. That is of course if churches don’t blow it. They have to realize what is happening as well. Lessig puts his finger right on all of this when he talks about how republicans understand “church” as a concept where things and rights are given away.

It all depends on if churches remember their God to be the God of the entire world. Not the god of their nation idealized in individualistic democracy.

Presuppositions, Problems in Reading

A fantastic piece by Paul Helm on the discussion of what happens when we read, specifically the presuppositions inherent in reading Scripture as Scripture.

There are various ways of articulating and defending our sensory and intellectual capacities in their role as gatherers of reliable information about the world around us. None of these is ‘biblical’ in any direct sense, of course. We cannot lift an epistemology off the pages of Scripture as we can lift a doctrine of justification off them. The epistemologies that have been used, in the history of Christianity, are at odds with each other, though parts of one are not necessarily at odds with parts of others. What matters is that we have reasons that support our belief in the reliability (though not the infallibility, of course) of our epistemological equipment. This will be sufficient to identify a book as the Bible, and to read and understand some, if not all, of what it contains. And then we are in business

The inherit understanding that the Scriptures, actually the truth contained in them, is available to us wholly, completely, and without mediation, is the primary mistake most people make when arriving. In Paul’s words “It [the Scripture] is not free from the vagaries and perils of sense-experience, something which has immediately descended from heaven and entered immediately into our souls.” It is this sense-experience contained within the Scripture that we must deal with. And we must deal without our own world and all its sense experience. Only by bringing those two pieces together can we actually approach an answer to the question of a Christian life.

As Paul again makes clear it is this experience that must be dealt with: “A person may be a disciple while not knowing even whether there be such a thing as Holy Scripture. Remember the thief on the cross. And the hymn ‘There is life for a look at the Crucified One.’” It’s great that we have a book – but the words in the book is not what this is all about. Don’t get sidetracked by it.

Talking and Listening

Fundamentalism cannot listen. And if you cannot listen you cannot speak. If you cannot listen you only speak about you, you cannot speak to someone else. You only speak at them. You leave no space inside yourself for them to exist and be considered. Fundamentalists derive their enemies of their humanity. So much for fundamentalist “humanists”.

It has become apparent to me over the last few years of writing this blog that the critical conversation is between the fundamentalists and the rest. It is the fundamentalist mindset that presents the greatest challenge, in my opinion, to open dialog between all parties
Naked Pastor

The preceding quote mentions polarization. Groups that only talk to themselves become further polarized. This is a sociological fact. Fundamentalists often define themselves by a small number of essential truths. The ultimate question is not whether these truths are “correct” or “true” – but rather to discover why it is these truths and not others which orient the group.

If someone cannot tell you why they have not performed the necessary self-reflection that is required. Such reflection is required in order to actually positively participate in a dialogue.

Re-Negotiation

Dear Pat Robertson,

I know that you know that all press is good press, so I appreciate the shout-out. And you make God look like a big mean bully who kicks people when they are down, so I’m all over that action.

But when you say that Haiti has made a pact with me, it is totally humiliating. I may be evil incarnate, but I’m no welcher. The way you put it, making a deal with me leaves folks desperate and impoverished.

Sure, in the afterlife, but when I strike bargains with people, they first get something here on earth — glamour, beauty, talent, wealth, fame, glory, a golden fiddle. Those Haitians have nothing, and I mean nothing. And that was before the earthquake. Haven’t you seen “Crossroads”? Or “Damn Yankees”?

If I had a thing going with Haiti, there’d be lots of banks, skyscrapers, SUVs, exclusive night clubs, Botox — that kind of thing. An 80 percent poverty rate is so not my style. Nothing against it — I’m just saying: Not how I roll.

You’re doing great work, Pat, and I don’t want to clip your wings — just, come on, you’re making me look bad. And not the good kind of bad. Keep blaming God. That’s working. But leave me out of it, please. Or we may need to renegotiate your own contract.

Best, Satan

LILY COYLE, MINNEAPOLIS
NPR

---

Fundamentalism and The Bible

Based on my last post and some conversations I am having with friends, I want to try and attempt to think through approaching the biblical text. In one sense I am trying to re-trace my own path leaving fundamentalist territory. In another sense, I am trying to clear a path for others to find their own way out as well.

We have to admit where we are coming from. Inspiration means, on a most basic level, that God is responsible for each word in the holy Scripture. It originated from God, and was not the work of men primarily. Of course, some fully deny that men had anything to do with it whatsoever. As the text has come from God directly it is therefore authoritative and inerrant.

To put it at a more practical level, the Scriptures are perceived according to a story that runs something like this:

God delivered this book to his people so they would know him. It is delievered by God for the Church to tell them what to believe and how to live. God has given it to me so I can read it and know he loves me, and what he expects of me.

I am no spinner of tales but that is close. If you have got a better way to put it please let me know. The three terms working within that storyline frame the entire issue. There is no objective reason that inspiration, inerrant, or authoritative mean precisely what fundamentalists want them to mean. However, without dislodging the story you are fighting uphill to redefine the terms, and thus the battle.

That story is flawed. Those definitions are flawed. They are not supported by the Scripture itself, nor the variagated tradition of Christianity. That tends to become the battleground on which the war is fought. To peel back the layers and understanding of the Scriptures themselves is to use critical study. And to peel back the layers of history is to use historical study. From a fundamentalist point of view this is to concede the war before you’ve even started the battle, a Catch-22. How then have I found my way out of the fundamentlist mess I was previously in?

For starters, the group I came out of has some unorthodox beliefs. And if fundamentalists are always right, someone has got to be terribly wrong and we have got to tell them about it. Scholarly sources that agreed with our positions were studied, and thus critical methods were smuggled in the back door. The methods changed slowly, while the underlying narrative in which I placed the Scripture for the Christian life never changed.

I read about the stories that the Jewish people told about the Exodus. I understood that the prophets retold Israel’s history with their own perspectives and motives. The same goes with the gospels, and particularly Paul. Is it so foreign to think that we are telling our own stories about how we got here, and what we ought to do? Of course not! That is exactly what humanity has always done to understand their purpose. And this is why the very concept of narratives and story is so intriguing to me. It contains so much power.

Mark and Luke are telling their own stories about who Jesus is. It doesn’t matter that certain details aren’t congruous. It doesn’t matter that the stories depict Jesus differently. If I were to tell a story about my parents I am certain it would be different than the stories either of my sisters tell. And if you were to put us together in a room we would recognize we are still talking about our parents. We might disagree when it comes down to our perceptions about their intentions or what have you. That is to be expected. Isn’t it?

The Bible was ultimately and remains the anchor of my faith. What changed is the narrative I believe about the Bible. And that new narrative gives much richer rewards. I am at the very beginning of understanding what goes into narratives. What makes them compelling, and ultimately more attractive than other stories. Certainly resonance with one’s own experience is paramount. How then to tell a story which undoes fundamentalism’s own story. Any ideas?

Define: Fundies

Often times I’ve struggled at defining fundamentalism to other Christians (whom I consider to be fundamentalists, or close to that line). To non-Christians, it is rather easy. I can say Pat Robertson, or Rick Warren, or some such figure that comes close enough. It conjures the necessary image in their mind. But to another Christian the same image is not conjured just by saying these names. They soften edges, make compromises, and what have you to understand these figures.

By comparison, it is becoming more difficult to define what a “fundamentalist” Christian is, potentially because the ground under his feet is more prone to cultural shift. But if we think of biblical literalism, an intolerance of “soft” forms of Christianity (often equated to a kind of mainstream heresy), the importance of conversion (in this case, evangelism), and prophetic fulfillment as the non-negotiables of fundamentalism, the following statistic is, you should pardon the expression, revealing:

Pentecostal and charismatic denominations have grown by 37% since 2001; the Churches of Christ by 48%; the Assemblies of God by 68%. (United) Methodists and Northern Baptist by 0%, Jews, -10% and Catholics, through a healthy infusion of Hispanic and Latino votaries, a mere 11%. The undeniable appeal of taking God’s word seriously is unslaked by contemporary life. A definition

And of course when I tell someone they are a fundamentalist it always makes them think I am slighting them.

HT [Eric]

Preferable

We must remind ourselves that the Catholic righteousness by good works is vastly preferable to a protestant righteousness by good doctrine. At least righteousness by good works benefits one’s neighbor, whereas righteousness by good doctrine only produces lovelessness and pride. Furthermore, we must not blind ourselves to the tremendous faith, genuine repentence, complete surrender and the fervent love for God and neighbor evident in the lives and work of many Catholic Christians. The Christian life is so rich that it develops its full glory not just in a single form or within the walls of one church. HT [The Bird Man]

Just one more reason why the approach of orthopraxy is just as important, if not more, than orthodoxy. I cannot count the number of comments from newcomers I’ve seen “I don’t know if your doctrine is quite right. I need to leave now”. So sad.

Voice of the Church

The unrest that the modern situation poses to the church is decidedly secondary — at best — to the unrest that lies at the heart of the church itself. The church is unsettled, unstable precisely because it bears witness to the triune God present through Christ in the Spirit. The crucified Christ is not a stable center, but a transcendent voice that cannot be domesticated by the church into their own possessed message.
Inhabitio Dei

What implications might this have for an understanding that the Spirit works with the Church, giving her authority? Does this qualify, permanently that authority? To what extant must one find oneself in continuity with the Church, and to what extant can one break fellowship with the Church? All these questions are on my mind, as today I sat down to hear progress on ecumenical Christian dialogue between the United Methodists and Catholic Church.

I would agree that the Church cannot domesticate this message, but the tone of the writing (at least to me) implies that each and every church has domesticated this message. Thus failing to live up to their calling. And again, what implications does this have for the statements of the previous paragraph? Apparently I’m falling behind in theology. Too much historical studies for me.

All of these questions aren’t meant at all to detract from the ridiculous, and truthful, statement that the present evangelical woe has entirely taken hold.

Recent Thoughts

Lately I’ve been reading a bit of Luther, and plenty of well written articles about conversations between Catholics and Protestants. Yea, it is quite a bit to read.

To be sure, both approaches to ecclesiology and Scripture aren’t congruent with one another. Coming from a theological ghetto, this is a compass by which I may judge the night sky that is Christendom. Cross’s comments concerning the liturgy match my own thoughts. It is almost scary. I find much of the Anglo-Catholic praxis, ecclesiology, and liturgy persuasive. That said, I still have reservations I am working through.

My largest reservation is, what I perceive to be, a massive redefinition of power by Jesus in his passion and crucifixion. That said, the papacy throughout history has seemed to work according to the ways of the worldly institutions. I am supremely impressed with Rowan William’s refusal to wield any power he might have as a worldly leader might. I will be the first to agree that most leaders will abuse power, and that is a shame and should be resisted. However, it is another thing to create such an inappropriate power through canon law.

Secondly, I have no way to determine what the line between an acceptable and unacceptable accretion is. There doesn’t appear to be a defining line within Catholicism either. It appears to an outsider that whatever opinion gains sway in the magisterium will become canon law. Were these new opinions (it doesn’t appear that much new in the way of law or councils has occurred) considered in terms of ecclesiastical unity? It doesn’t appear so to an outsider. Protestantism, perhaps narrowly, has defined that line. Anglican’s seem to hold to two principles regarding the question of orthodox; “always, everywhere, everyone”, and “all may, none must, some should”. That puts both questions of additions to the definition of orthodox belief, and giving ecumenical thought on the table. Though it does not solve them conclusively – and even that might be a good thing. And I am aware that the first principle was first uttered against Augustine’s theology.

Still working on all this. It is fun, and tough.

LTJ on Authority

This is one of the better articles that I have read on the issue of Authority as it pertains to the issue of homosexuality. Thank you Luke Timothy Johnson for writing it. It quickly cuts through the red tape and puts the issue that few people seem to actually be discussing.

So we can—and should—understand the mix of fear and anger that fuels the passionate defense of such positions. For those who hold them, something sacred is at stake. And something sacred is at stake. The authority of Scripture and of the church’s tradition is scarcely trivial.

LTJ writes from the perspective that homosexual unions should be an allowed practice within Christianity. And he knows what that entails.

The exegetical situation is straightforward: we know what the text says. But what are we to do with what the text says? We must state our grounds for standing in tension with the clear commands of Scripture, and include in those grounds some basis in Scripture itself…

I think it important to state clearly that we do, in fact, reject the straightforward commands of Scripture, and appeal instead to another authority when we declare that same-sex unions can be holy and good. And what exactly is that authority? We appeal explicitly to the weight of our own experience and the experience thousands of others have witnessed to, which tells us that to claim our own sexual orientation is in fact to accept the way in which God has created us. By so doing, we explicitly reject as well the premises of the scriptural statements condemning homosexuality—namely, that it is a vice freely chosen, a symptom of human corruption, and disobedience to God’s created order.

Of course, anyone coming from a Protestant tradition (mind you that LTJ does as well), will have an issue with this approach, he defends it:

The answer is that over time the human experience of slavery and its horror came home to the popular conscience—through personal testimony and direct personal contact, through fiction like Uncle Tom’s Cabin, and, of course, through a great Civil War in which ghastly numbers of people gave their lives so that slaves could be seen not as property but as persons. As persons, they could be treated by the same law of love that governed relations among all Christians, and could therefore eventually also realize full civil rights within society. And once that experience of their full humanity and the evil of their bondage reached a stage of critical consciousness, this nation could neither turn back to the practice of slavery nor ever read the Bible in the same way again.

Many of us who stand for the full recognition of gay and lesbian persons within the Christian communion find ourselves in a position similar to that of the early abolitionists—and of the early advocates for women’s full and equal roles in church and society. We are fully aware of the weight of scriptural evidence pointing away from our position, yet place our trust in the power of the living God to reveal as powerfully through personal experience and testimony as through written texts. To justify this trust, we invoke the basic Pauline principle that the Spirit gives life but the letter kills (2 Corinthians 3:6). And if the letter of Scripture cannot find room for the activity of the living God in the transformation of human lives, then trust and obedience must be paid to the living God rather than to the words of Scripture.

His key to ‘experience’ is precisely something one needs to be aware of: the transformation of a human life. After all that is what the gospel is all about, a transformation. There was no Scriptural reason for either the ordination of woman, or the removal of slavery. Yet, both Scripture and transformative experiences, were used to justify both advances.

By “experience” we do not mean every idiosyncratic or impulsive expression of human desire. We refer rather to those profound stories of bondage and freedom, longing and love, shared by thousands of persons over many centuries and across many cultures, that help define them as human. The church cannot say “yes” to what the New Testament calls porneia (“sexual immorality”); but the church must say yes to the witness of lives that build the holiness of the church.

Before I get called for blasphemy and out-and-out revisionism let LTJ remind us of something:

Such discernment is difficult, but it is necessary. I believe there is the deepest sort of consonance between such an approach to God’s revelation and the witness of the New Testament. Indeed, the New Testament compositions owe their existence to the struggle to resolve the cognitive dissonance between a set of sacred texts that appeared to exclude a crucified messiah as God’s chosen one (“cursed be everyone who hangs on a tree,” Deuteronomy 21:23) and the powerful experience of Jesus’ new and exalted life as Lord through the Holy Spirit—an experience that empowered the first believers.

If you study the NT you have to realize this very basic fact. The Christian faith was developed in contradiction to many Jewish claims. And it was done against a Jewish canon, by Jews. Why? Besides being the largest question of Christian origins, the answer includes “because they believed it to be true”. No element of precedent could be found, no plain meaning of Scripture to grasp at, only the re-reading of their cherished texts in light of their experience got them on their way.

In short, we would not have the New Testament as Scripture if the first believers had not been willing to obey the living God disclosed in their own bodies more than the precedents provided by the writings—writings they also, by the way, considered holy and inspired by God.

I encourage everyone to read LTJ’s article. It is worth the time. Having said all this, the matter is still far from settled. This line of argumentation allows the debate to take place. This validates that the debate is open, and needs to be heard. What is lacking, and something I’ve never seen yet, is an actual theology of homosexuality that is life giving. The love of another can transform how one feels about oneself. But is that the extent of it?