"In other words, attempting to open up society and bring it to Christ is not humanly possible. Human beings would have no more success in bringing society to Christ than they would at bringing Christ to society. IN light of this state of affairs, the only possible answer is to let God be God. It is God's help that we need, and we will "deceive" society about this reality "if we set to work building churches and chapels and do not learn to wait upon God in a wholly new way." We must learn to wait because "God alone can save this world." - Barth for Armchair Theologians, 53.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Toward a Political Theology
Here is an excerpt from John Franke's Barth for Armchair Theologians. So far I have found this to be a delightful and stimulating read.
"In other words, attempting to open up society and bring it to Christ is not humanly possible. Human beings would have no more success in bringing society to Christ than they would at bringing Christ to society. IN light of this state of affairs, the only possible answer is to let God be God. It is God's help that we need, and we will "deceive" society about this reality "if we set to work building churches and chapels and do not learn to wait upon God in a wholly new way." We must learn to wait because "God alone can save this world." - Barth for Armchair Theologians, 53.
"In other words, attempting to open up society and bring it to Christ is not humanly possible. Human beings would have no more success in bringing society to Christ than they would at bringing Christ to society. IN light of this state of affairs, the only possible answer is to let God be God. It is God's help that we need, and we will "deceive" society about this reality "if we set to work building churches and chapels and do not learn to wait upon God in a wholly new way." We must learn to wait because "God alone can save this world." - Barth for Armchair Theologians, 53.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Thoughts on Satan, the accuser.
My dad proposed an interesting thought, that has not been fully processed and may not be true, but nevertheless, it is a thought, and a very intriguing one at that. It has probably been thought of before and written extensively on by some genius well beyond my own intelligence. In spite of this, I thought it could contribute well to the theological journey that we are all on. Here it goes…
So, in Isaiah 5:20 among the list of “woe’s,” there is one that calls out “woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness.” This seems to be saying that a particular group of people are deceived into thinking that good is bad and bad is good. Things, in this type of thinking are just plain upside down. A recent example, to go further, would be Hitler. He was able to bring himself to think that massacring a whole race of people is a good thing. Thus, darkness became light.
And it is here that I want to bring in a interesting and intriguing thought. Could it be that Satan follows this type of thinking? Could it be that he thinks God is the evil one and he is the one bringing truth and light to the world? Think about it, we follow the Christ because we believe he is the truth (comments aside as to what “truth” is). Competing religions (Islam, Muslim, Heaven’s Gate) all think that they are the people who actually have the truth. In reality however, they are in darkness. And Isaiah “woe’s” these types of people. If humans are capable of this type of thinking, why can’t angels be as well?
So let’s bring this back to Satan in the Garden of Eden. What did he say to Eve about the tree in the Garden? Basically, he said that God was lying to her and her husband. “Surely, God does not want what is best for you, he is a power-crazy creature bent on getting all the glory and keeping things under his rule. Let me tell you what will really happen. You will actually become like God, knowing good and evil. God does not like this idea.” And what happened after they ate the fruit? Adam and Eve knew good and evil. And so in one sense, Satan was telling Eve the truth. Now, obviously, there were many unwanted consequences that Satan failed to mention and this is traditionally where it has been said that Satan lied. But the text does not reveal that Satan could foresee these consequences. Could it be that he simply wanted “free” humans from the tyrannical power crazy Creator God? Could it be that he has some sort of warped sincerity in this scene? Could it be that he truly believed he knew what was best for the humans and God was lying to them? Now, take this to the scenes in Job 1-2 in the “throne room,” and to Matthew 4 where Satan tempts or tries to convince Jesus to join his side and, at least on the surface, this idea holds up.
In summary, Satan is out trying to rid the world of a god who he sees and evil and awful. This is not intended to be sympathetic towards this evil character, but rather is intended to show the deceitfulness of evil. It is so deceitful that even Satan himself is deceived. As I have thought about this whole thing, it seems to hold some water with just general observations about the nature of evil thinking. “Evilness” seems to never happen with intentionality, but with the thought of trying to do good. It generally seems to start with a wrong view of the character of God (bad theology). They have turned darkness into light and exchanged the truth of God for a lie (and God gave them over). Satan seems to be the ultimate represative of this movement.
So, it is extremely important that we watch our own theology and faithfulness to God as we live this short life. This comments on the incredible difficulty in understanding God and placing faith in him, which we all experience in following him It takes a special type of thinking and a special leap of faith to trust in the sovereign creator of the universe who likes to keep secrets (Is. 55:8-9, Deut. 29:29).
So, in Isaiah 5:20 among the list of “woe’s,” there is one that calls out “woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness.” This seems to be saying that a particular group of people are deceived into thinking that good is bad and bad is good. Things, in this type of thinking are just plain upside down. A recent example, to go further, would be Hitler. He was able to bring himself to think that massacring a whole race of people is a good thing. Thus, darkness became light.
And it is here that I want to bring in a interesting and intriguing thought. Could it be that Satan follows this type of thinking? Could it be that he thinks God is the evil one and he is the one bringing truth and light to the world? Think about it, we follow the Christ because we believe he is the truth (comments aside as to what “truth” is). Competing religions (Islam, Muslim, Heaven’s Gate) all think that they are the people who actually have the truth. In reality however, they are in darkness. And Isaiah “woe’s” these types of people. If humans are capable of this type of thinking, why can’t angels be as well?
So let’s bring this back to Satan in the Garden of Eden. What did he say to Eve about the tree in the Garden? Basically, he said that God was lying to her and her husband. “Surely, God does not want what is best for you, he is a power-crazy creature bent on getting all the glory and keeping things under his rule. Let me tell you what will really happen. You will actually become like God, knowing good and evil. God does not like this idea.” And what happened after they ate the fruit? Adam and Eve knew good and evil. And so in one sense, Satan was telling Eve the truth. Now, obviously, there were many unwanted consequences that Satan failed to mention and this is traditionally where it has been said that Satan lied. But the text does not reveal that Satan could foresee these consequences. Could it be that he simply wanted “free” humans from the tyrannical power crazy Creator God? Could it be that he has some sort of warped sincerity in this scene? Could it be that he truly believed he knew what was best for the humans and God was lying to them? Now, take this to the scenes in Job 1-2 in the “throne room,” and to Matthew 4 where Satan tempts or tries to convince Jesus to join his side and, at least on the surface, this idea holds up.
In summary, Satan is out trying to rid the world of a god who he sees and evil and awful. This is not intended to be sympathetic towards this evil character, but rather is intended to show the deceitfulness of evil. It is so deceitful that even Satan himself is deceived. As I have thought about this whole thing, it seems to hold some water with just general observations about the nature of evil thinking. “Evilness” seems to never happen with intentionality, but with the thought of trying to do good. It generally seems to start with a wrong view of the character of God (bad theology). They have turned darkness into light and exchanged the truth of God for a lie (and God gave them over). Satan seems to be the ultimate represative of this movement.
So, it is extremely important that we watch our own theology and faithfulness to God as we live this short life. This comments on the incredible difficulty in understanding God and placing faith in him, which we all experience in following him It takes a special type of thinking and a special leap of faith to trust in the sovereign creator of the universe who likes to keep secrets (Is. 55:8-9, Deut. 29:29).
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Gospel and Culture
In light of Ryan putting a link to this blog on the college website and the topic of the College Community's bible study series this summer I am going to be launching a series of blogs on the topic of "Gospel and Culture". My goal will be to put up some of my own thoughts on the subject and also articles that I may find which are relevant to the subject. Hopefully someone out there in the blogosphere would be willing to engage in this dialogue with me lest it simply become a monologue. Hopefully through this discussion we will become a people more and more scripted by the gospel, and will engage in the constant descripting necessary for fidelity.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Big Brueggemann
Below, I posted Walter Brueggemann’s 19 Theses, which he gave at the 2004 Emergent Theological Convention. I have been mulling these over for the past year or so. You can download and listen to the conversation with Brueggemann if these spark your interest at all. I actually highly recommend that you do this. It is quite a thought provoking list, especially for those in the vocation of ministry or looking towards that. I know that these theses, along with the whole of the lectures, plus what I have read of Brueggemann has been formative for my theology.
1. Everybody lives by a script. The script may be implicit or explicit. It may be recognized or unrecognized, but everybody has a script.
2. We get scripted. All of us get scripted through the process of nurture and formation and socialization, and it happens to us without our knowing it.
3. The dominant scripting in our society is a script of technological, therapeutic, consumer militarism that socializes us all, liberal and conservative.
4. That script (technological, therapeutic, consumer militarism) enacted through advertising and propaganda and ideology, especially on the liturgies of television, promises to make us safe and to make us happy.
5. That script has failed. That script of military consumerism cannot make us safe and it cannot make us happy. We may be the unhappiest society in the world.
6. Health for our society depends upon disengagement from and relinquishment of that script of military consumerism. This is a disengagement and relinquishment that we mostly resist and about which we are profoundly ambiguous.
7. It is the task of ministry to de-script that script among us. That is, too enable persons to relinquish a world that no longer exists and indeed never did exist.
8. The task of descripting, relinquishment and disengagement is accomplished by a steady, patient, intentional articulation of an alternative script that we say can make us happy and make us safe.
9. The alternative script is rooted in the Bible and is enacted through the tradition of the Church. It is an offer of a counter-narrative, counter to the script of technological, therapeutic, consumer militarism.
10. That alternative script has as its most distinctive feature, its key character – the God of the Bible whom we name as Father, Son, and Spirit.
11. That script is not monolithic, one dimensional or seamless. It is ragged and disjunctive and incoherent. Partly it is ragged and disjunctive and incoherent because it has been crafted over time by many committees. But it is also ragged and disjunctive and incoherent because the key character is illusive and irascible in freedom and in sovereignty and in hiddenness, and, I’m embarrassed to say, in violence – [a] huge problem for us.
12. The ragged, disjunctive, and incoherent quality of the counter-script to which we testify cannot be smoothed or made seamless. [I think the writer of Psalm 119 would probably like too try, to make it seamless]. Because when we do that the script gets flattened and domesticated. [This is my polemic against systematic theology]. The script gets flattened and domesticated and it becomes a weak echo of the dominant script of technological, consumer militarism. Whereas the dominant script of technological, consumer militarism is all about certitude, privilege, and entitlement this counter-script is not about certitude, privilege, and entitlement. Thus care must betaken to let this script be what it is, which entails letting God be God’s irascible self.
13. The ragged, disjunctive character of the counter-script to which we testify invites its adherents to quarrel among themselves – liberals and conservatives – in ways that detract from the main claims of the script and so too debilitate the focus of the script.
14. The entry point into the counter-script is baptism. Whereby we say in the old liturgies, “do you renounce the dominant script?”
15. The nurture, formation, and socialization into the counter-script with this illusive, irascible character is the work of ministry. We do that work of nurture, formation, and socialization by the practices of preaching, liturgy, education, social action, spirituality, and neighboring of all kinds.
16. Most of us are ambiguous about the script; those with whom we minister and I dare say, those of us who minister. Most of us are not at the deepest places wanting to choose between the dominant script and the counter-script. Most of us in the deep places are vacillating and mumbling in ambivalence.
17. This ambivalence between scripts is precisely the primary venue for the Spirit. So that ministry is to name and enhance the ambivalence that liberals and conservatives have in common that puts people in crisis and consequently that invokes resistance and hostility.
18. Ministry is to manage that ambivalence that is crucially present among liberals and conservatives in generative faithful ways in order to permit relinquishment of [the] old script and embrace of the new script.
19. The work of ministry is crucial and pivotal and indispensable in our society precisely because there is no one [see if that’s an overstatement]; there is no one except the church and the synagogue to name and evoke the ambivalence and too manage a way through it. I think often; I see the mundane day-to-day stuff ministers have to do and I think, my God, what would happen if you talk all the ministers out. The role of ministry then is as urgent as it is wondrous and difficult.
1. Everybody lives by a script. The script may be implicit or explicit. It may be recognized or unrecognized, but everybody has a script.
2. We get scripted. All of us get scripted through the process of nurture and formation and socialization, and it happens to us without our knowing it.
3. The dominant scripting in our society is a script of technological, therapeutic, consumer militarism that socializes us all, liberal and conservative.
4. That script (technological, therapeutic, consumer militarism) enacted through advertising and propaganda and ideology, especially on the liturgies of television, promises to make us safe and to make us happy.
5. That script has failed. That script of military consumerism cannot make us safe and it cannot make us happy. We may be the unhappiest society in the world.
6. Health for our society depends upon disengagement from and relinquishment of that script of military consumerism. This is a disengagement and relinquishment that we mostly resist and about which we are profoundly ambiguous.
7. It is the task of ministry to de-script that script among us. That is, too enable persons to relinquish a world that no longer exists and indeed never did exist.
8. The task of descripting, relinquishment and disengagement is accomplished by a steady, patient, intentional articulation of an alternative script that we say can make us happy and make us safe.
9. The alternative script is rooted in the Bible and is enacted through the tradition of the Church. It is an offer of a counter-narrative, counter to the script of technological, therapeutic, consumer militarism.
10. That alternative script has as its most distinctive feature, its key character – the God of the Bible whom we name as Father, Son, and Spirit.
11. That script is not monolithic, one dimensional or seamless. It is ragged and disjunctive and incoherent. Partly it is ragged and disjunctive and incoherent because it has been crafted over time by many committees. But it is also ragged and disjunctive and incoherent because the key character is illusive and irascible in freedom and in sovereignty and in hiddenness, and, I’m embarrassed to say, in violence – [a] huge problem for us.
12. The ragged, disjunctive, and incoherent quality of the counter-script to which we testify cannot be smoothed or made seamless. [I think the writer of Psalm 119 would probably like too try, to make it seamless]. Because when we do that the script gets flattened and domesticated. [This is my polemic against systematic theology]. The script gets flattened and domesticated and it becomes a weak echo of the dominant script of technological, consumer militarism. Whereas the dominant script of technological, consumer militarism is all about certitude, privilege, and entitlement this counter-script is not about certitude, privilege, and entitlement. Thus care must betaken to let this script be what it is, which entails letting God be God’s irascible self.
13. The ragged, disjunctive character of the counter-script to which we testify invites its adherents to quarrel among themselves – liberals and conservatives – in ways that detract from the main claims of the script and so too debilitate the focus of the script.
14. The entry point into the counter-script is baptism. Whereby we say in the old liturgies, “do you renounce the dominant script?”
15. The nurture, formation, and socialization into the counter-script with this illusive, irascible character is the work of ministry. We do that work of nurture, formation, and socialization by the practices of preaching, liturgy, education, social action, spirituality, and neighboring of all kinds.
16. Most of us are ambiguous about the script; those with whom we minister and I dare say, those of us who minister. Most of us are not at the deepest places wanting to choose between the dominant script and the counter-script. Most of us in the deep places are vacillating and mumbling in ambivalence.
17. This ambivalence between scripts is precisely the primary venue for the Spirit. So that ministry is to name and enhance the ambivalence that liberals and conservatives have in common that puts people in crisis and consequently that invokes resistance and hostility.
18. Ministry is to manage that ambivalence that is crucially present among liberals and conservatives in generative faithful ways in order to permit relinquishment of [the] old script and embrace of the new script.
19. The work of ministry is crucial and pivotal and indispensable in our society precisely because there is no one [see if that’s an overstatement]; there is no one except the church and the synagogue to name and evoke the ambivalence and too manage a way through it. I think often; I see the mundane day-to-day stuff ministers have to do and I think, my God, what would happen if you talk all the ministers out. The role of ministry then is as urgent as it is wondrous and difficult.
Supertones and Derek Webb
You are probably wondering to yourself after reading the title of this blog, what in the world do the Supertones and Derek Webb have in common? For most people they probably have hardly anything in common, maybe the label of being Christian music that is about it. Supertones are a ska band and Derek Webb is a folk artist. Ska and folk are just about as far apart as you can get on the spectrum of musical genres. I think only rap and country might be a little further apart on the spectrum. To highlight the contrast even more, when I was at a Derek Webb concert he shared the story of the second worst show of his life and it was with none other than the Supertones. Apparently for the entire half hour set that Caedmons Call (Derek’s former band) played there were hundreds of middle school kids standing up front pounding on the stage and chanting “Get off the stage, get off the stage!”
While the Supertones and Derek Webb may be quite different for many apparent reasons, they both share a similar place in my story. Both the Supertones and Derek Webb have played instrumental roles in my spiritual development. In middle school and all throughout high school, and even every now and again today, the Supertones served to reorient myself to the gospel. During the hard times, and life often seems like a string of hard times all strung together, the Supertones were a constant source of encouragement. During the past year or so Derek Webb has sort of taken up where the Supertones left off. But there is certainly plenty of discontinuity between the two so taken up might not be the right way to put it. Derek Webb has been formative for me in the sense of introducing and putting a different spin on a number of different issues for me. Both have stimulated my spiritual and theological growth in different and yet similar ways.
The main similarity between the Supertones and Derek Webb for myself has been that when I listen to both they both challenge me spiritually. I cannot listen to either the Supertones or Derek Webb and continue living my life in the same manner as I had been living it before listening to the album. They both have been instrumental in the stirring of my moral imagination. I wish that more Christian artists were seeking to create music which stirs God’s people’s moral imagination. I have not fully fleshed this out so if anyone would like to engage in dialogue feel free, then maybe I can clear up what might be foggy.
While the Supertones and Derek Webb may be quite different for many apparent reasons, they both share a similar place in my story. Both the Supertones and Derek Webb have played instrumental roles in my spiritual development. In middle school and all throughout high school, and even every now and again today, the Supertones served to reorient myself to the gospel. During the hard times, and life often seems like a string of hard times all strung together, the Supertones were a constant source of encouragement. During the past year or so Derek Webb has sort of taken up where the Supertones left off. But there is certainly plenty of discontinuity between the two so taken up might not be the right way to put it. Derek Webb has been formative for me in the sense of introducing and putting a different spin on a number of different issues for me. Both have stimulated my spiritual and theological growth in different and yet similar ways.
The main similarity between the Supertones and Derek Webb for myself has been that when I listen to both they both challenge me spiritually. I cannot listen to either the Supertones or Derek Webb and continue living my life in the same manner as I had been living it before listening to the album. They both have been instrumental in the stirring of my moral imagination. I wish that more Christian artists were seeking to create music which stirs God’s people’s moral imagination. I have not fully fleshed this out so if anyone would like to engage in dialogue feel free, then maybe I can clear up what might be foggy.
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Hope Against Hope
I am taking sometime each morning to read through a chapter of Hope Against Hope: Christian Eschatology at the Turn of the Millennium by Richard Bauckham and Trevor Hart. So far it has been an interesting read, granted I have only just finished Chapter 3. I am going to try and post something interesting I read each day or thoughts that my reading might have stimulated.
Here is a quote from the book, which is actually a paraphrase of a Jesuit writer William Lynch:
“…hope as a constant decision to move into the future, a bid to transcend the present with its perceived limits and difficulties, to imagine a way out of that which constrains and threatens to engulf or imprison us into a brighter and better alternative. Thus hope is that which insists on expanding our perceived horizons of possibility, broadening the landscape of reality in such a way as to set our present circumstance in a wider perspective and thereby to rob it of its absoluteness.”
Talk about a robust and powerful understanding of hope? Theology that sits at the margins of life as systems and theories, I would contend is not theology at all. To everyone who has been led to believe that theology is abstract and does not impinge upon or enter into life, I apologize.
In the face of a present that is characterized by evil and despair, hope refuses to sit as a moot theological concept. Hope does not serve to pacify people against injustice, but instead serves to enable and invigorate us to act.
Here is a quote from the book, which is actually a paraphrase of a Jesuit writer William Lynch:
“…hope as a constant decision to move into the future, a bid to transcend the present with its perceived limits and difficulties, to imagine a way out of that which constrains and threatens to engulf or imprison us into a brighter and better alternative. Thus hope is that which insists on expanding our perceived horizons of possibility, broadening the landscape of reality in such a way as to set our present circumstance in a wider perspective and thereby to rob it of its absoluteness.”
Talk about a robust and powerful understanding of hope? Theology that sits at the margins of life as systems and theories, I would contend is not theology at all. To everyone who has been led to believe that theology is abstract and does not impinge upon or enter into life, I apologize.
In the face of a present that is characterized by evil and despair, hope refuses to sit as a moot theological concept. Hope does not serve to pacify people against injustice, but instead serves to enable and invigorate us to act.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Critique and Embrace- Thoughts on Gospel and Government
This blog is the product of a muddled lunch conversation…hopefully it stimulates some thinking and fresh dialogue:
All this political conversation, which as of late we have not been engaging with nearly as much as we have in the past, caused us to consider the notion of politics and the gospel. How might the gospel inform the people of God’s response to the geopolitical situation of our world today?
The modern political situation is complicated, complex, and messy. The war in Iraq, the 15 British sailors being held by the Iranian government, the genocide in Darfur, domestic issues of gang violence, homelessness and poverty, these are but a minute sampling of socio-political issues facing our world today. To navigate politics is difficult enough to do as it is, but then add into the mix Christian convictions in light of the gospel, and things become even more complicated. These issues are much too large to address in the time and space we have. Therefore we still want to narrow our discussion even more and simply suggest a few thoughts on the topic of Christian response to government in America.
One discouraging thing about this whole issue is the fact that government never will be “pure” or “the best.” There is much talk, especially in America, about how democracy is the best form of government, or the Republic is the right way to govern.
Within this discussion, ignorant comments arise such as “communism, in theory, is the purest form of government,” (comments aside as to what this actually means). In spite of all of this, we as Christians know and understand that no system of secular government will ultimately help to solve the real problems in this world, nor is any of them “right.” These systems are simply inventions of man throughout history as we are still trying to figure out the “best” and “most effective” way to govern ourselves. The bottom line is that these systems will ultimately fail. At the end of the day, the peace and security promised to us by all of these secular forms of government can and will only be realized in the final consummation of the Kingdom of God.
And it is within this that we find the tension: how much should we critique our government, and how much should we embrace? Christians have to live in this delicate balance of “giving to Caesar’s what is Caesar’s” but also recognizing that any current form of government will eventually pass away to give rise to a new “better” way. So how do we do this? We don’t really know. Some have suggested that we completely move out of politics (Anabaptists), while others seek to actively be involved in the issues (reformed). And maybe the answer lies somewhere in between, but ultimately, it’s important for us to be navigating our way through these kinds of thoughts.
-BP and KFizz
All this political conversation, which as of late we have not been engaging with nearly as much as we have in the past, caused us to consider the notion of politics and the gospel. How might the gospel inform the people of God’s response to the geopolitical situation of our world today?
The modern political situation is complicated, complex, and messy. The war in Iraq, the 15 British sailors being held by the Iranian government, the genocide in Darfur, domestic issues of gang violence, homelessness and poverty, these are but a minute sampling of socio-political issues facing our world today. To navigate politics is difficult enough to do as it is, but then add into the mix Christian convictions in light of the gospel, and things become even more complicated. These issues are much too large to address in the time and space we have. Therefore we still want to narrow our discussion even more and simply suggest a few thoughts on the topic of Christian response to government in America.
One discouraging thing about this whole issue is the fact that government never will be “pure” or “the best.” There is much talk, especially in America, about how democracy is the best form of government, or the Republic is the right way to govern.
Within this discussion, ignorant comments arise such as “communism, in theory, is the purest form of government,” (comments aside as to what this actually means). In spite of all of this, we as Christians know and understand that no system of secular government will ultimately help to solve the real problems in this world, nor is any of them “right.” These systems are simply inventions of man throughout history as we are still trying to figure out the “best” and “most effective” way to govern ourselves. The bottom line is that these systems will ultimately fail. At the end of the day, the peace and security promised to us by all of these secular forms of government can and will only be realized in the final consummation of the Kingdom of God.
And it is within this that we find the tension: how much should we critique our government, and how much should we embrace? Christians have to live in this delicate balance of “giving to Caesar’s what is Caesar’s” but also recognizing that any current form of government will eventually pass away to give rise to a new “better” way. So how do we do this? We don’t really know. Some have suggested that we completely move out of politics (Anabaptists), while others seek to actively be involved in the issues (reformed). And maybe the answer lies somewhere in between, but ultimately, it’s important for us to be navigating our way through these kinds of thoughts.
-BP and KFizz
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)