One down - 3 to go
One Comp is done, took it this morning. I feel good about it. It was my easiest comp, though.
Feb 28, 2006
Feb 20, 2006
COMPS
Well, I've been studying like a mad man - cramming really.
I decided to share with you what I wrote for one of the questions (out of 6) for one of my exams (out of 4). So, here it is.
Oh - ignore the references to people and their books; it's just a way of trying to show the prof that I've read some of that stuff.
And - I know the last of my three points needs a little work, but that's a personal issue.
Let me know what you think -
1. What is your method for approaching the study of theology and culture?
For the Christian tradition I grew up in, culture was viewed as a contagious disease, and whoever got close to it would get contaminated. We were not allowed to play cards or go to movies. I attended a senior banquet instead of a prom (where dancing occurs). As I grew older, however, I found that this complete disregard for culture was wrong for at least two reasons. First, it was simply hypocritical. As I began to encounter other Christians’ views of the world sometimes finding them more satisfying, I began to see that often what my tradition taught as doctrine was more culturally influenced than revelatory. The second reason such disregard of culture was wrong is that the philosophy did work to a great degree in separating me from culture, which is the opposite of Christ’s example. The more separated I was from culture, the less able I found myself to relate to anyone who was not a Christian, and the less able I was to bring anyone the good news. It is with the memory of the dangers of separating the two too much that I proceed to consider in what way theology and culture can be studied together.
The interdisciplinary study of theology and culture must be attentive to both theology on its own terms and culture on its own terms; however, as Christians our theology necessarily sets the agenda for our approach to culture. This is not to say that theology overrides our study of culture at every point, which I will get to in the next step. Rather, it is to emphasize that Christ alone is our center and that Christ came to a fallen world full of evil. Any theology that takes the doctrine of original sin seriously, and views our natures as thoroughly corrupt, must be discerning when listening to any cultural voice. Likewise, any theology that takes demonic forces of evil seriously must be careful not to be deceived.
There are two important theological concerns when considering the relation between theology and culture. The first is that our theologies are not perfect due to our inherently fallen nature due to our inherently fallen natures. The constant danger in the study of theology and culture in evangelical circles is to allow our cultural studies to be subsumed under our theological tasks. It is important that we recognize that our theologies are limited as well. and are not equal to God’s work. The original sin that has infected our culture has also infected our theologies, so our theologies do not always see clearly or rightly. This theological limitation opens a door for the priority of culture.
The second theological necessity is a strong understanding of the triune God’s work in the world – in creation, in the Christ event of salvation and in the Holy Spirit’s drawing humanity unto God . Since Christ is sovereign over all and has redeemed all and is at work in all peoples drawing them unto Himself, it is possible that truth can be found outside of our churches and theologies. This is the point where most evangelicals fall short in their analysis of culture. For example, in his book Eyes Wide Open: Looking for God in Popular Culture, William Romanowski insists that it is the perspective that one brings to a subject that makes the subject Christian or not. This view discounts any possibility of God’s work in the artist or in a non-Christian viewer of the art.
Also, since our churches and theologies are necessarily impaired by original sin, it is possible that a truth found outside of our churches can both help guide and rightly critique our understandings of who God is and what God is doing. All those who follow George Lindbeck’s teaching, including Hauerwas and those in what Robert Holland has termed the Yale School in an article entitled “How Do Stories Save Us?,” attempt to protect their theologies against outside corruption. The only way, however, that we can be honest about our own limitations is to open our theologies to the possibility of correction. Wherever closed theologies march into cultural arenas, no revelation will be found; instead, only reflections of truth already possessed can be seen.
Much of current evangelicalism has missed the necessity of these two theological points in discussing theology and culture. Most attempts at discussion have so focused on protecting their theologies that they have not truly been open to cultural insights, though of course some have gone too far in the other direction, such as Sallie McFague’s suggestion that the Christ event is merely a metaphor that will help us be better people. With these theological foundations in mind, we can move on to exactly how we are to allow our theology to interact with our culture. We need a robust theology that 1) understands culture, 2) openly interacts with culture, and 3) stands apart from culture.
1) One of the scriptures that the Christianity I grew up with based their view of interaction with culture on was the scripture that says God’s word will not return void (Isa 55:11). Our theology was a proclamation theology, not looking for any response from culture, except repentance. However, I now believe that the proclamationist theology is based upon a reversed eschatology. We have not been called to extract people from culture and rescue them unto heaven. Rather, we should follow Christ in announcing (and carrying) God’s future kingdom into the present. Our model of evangelization should be the incarnation, not Left Behind. A reversed eschatology and proclamationist theology make no attempt to understand culture and are often blinded by the ways the culture they dislike has influenced them negatively – such as the religious right’s too often blind acceptance of the ills of capitalism and/or of the sufferings of peoples around the world who do not agree with what is in U.S.’s interest as a nation.
The fact is that we are all cultural beings, and Christ’s presence in the lives of Christians is not meant to drive out culture, and make the Christian spirit-only, but to redeem the culture within a person. Don Browning notes in A Fundamental Practical Theology that all theology must begin with descriptive theology – describing the current state of things, of ourselves, of our culture. It is important to note that Browning does not see culture as something separate from theology. Rather, describing our culture is part of the theological task. The reason for this can be explained by looking at the way Jesus evangelized (if we can redeem that word).
Jesus did not give the same answer to questions from different people. He contextualized his answer (often in a story) for each different person. He knew each one’s particular need and knew that the gospel was good news to them personally, in their moment. This model of evangelization is a matter of understanding felt needs and then showing how God can meet each need. This method necessarily involves listening, understanding, and wisdom before proclaiming. It is also a sophisticated understanding of what good news is, for Jesus’ good news is not a universal statement that can be applied to anyone at anytime and that either glorifies them unto heaven or condemns them to hell according to their immediate response. The gospel’s power does not lie in its being a perfect word from heaven that overpowers its listeners. Memorizing Jesus words in the original Greek or Aramaic and then standing on a street corner and shouting them out would do no good. The gospel must be contextualized, and it is contextualized through our cultural selves into our culture. In order to contextualize the gospel, we must understand our culture.
2). We cannot, however, stop with understanding culture as a means to evangelizing culture (as Briner does in Roaring Lambs). We need instead a theology that interacts with culture. The beginning place for this is the theological foundation of God’s sovereignty over all creation, as James Barr argues in his book Biblical Faith and Natural Theology. Alternative world views can bring new understandings (new visions) of what justice could look like, and these alternative world views do not always come through theological exploration (especially when theology is concerned with keeping itself correct). Artist, musicians and writers often envision for us new ways of being. Madeline L’Engle has noted that art opens up new parts of ourselves with which to be Christian. Our theologies must be open to these visions, must be ready to embrace them, must find the good in them and proclaim them as news. But if we are theologically closed-off to the possibility that God can speak through culture, that God is sovereign over all the earth, that Jesus’ redemption was for everyone and everything, then we will not be able to see God’s work. It is possible for items in culture to be used by God for spiritual matters; as Robert Johnston notes in his introduction to Reel Spirituality, it was in a movie that he felt God’s call for his life. The lines between what is religious in our lives and what is cultural need to be blurred, for God is at work in both. I do not mean to imply, however, that interaction is a one way street from culture toward our theology. Interaction with culture also involves bringing to bear our long Christian histories and traditions upon culture. Christians should impact culture positively as well, producing art, literature, scholasticism, bread – everything cultural. This is a large part of spreading God’s kingdom.
3) Finally, we need a theology that is able to take a stance against culture, when necessary. I put this step last because it is dependant upon the first two. We cannot stand against culture before having understood and interacted with culture. Without understanding, we may stand against something that is actually good. Without interaction, our stance will gain no respect from non-Christians. When making a stance against culture, it is important to remember that Christ did not come into the world to condemn the world, but to redeem the world. Our stance against culture should never be one of condemnation. Rather, we should always be proactive in attempting to change culture through love. Jesus showed us that the only way to true change is through love. If we remain enemies with culture, we will only end up killing each other. Through love, however, we can impact the world for the sake of the kingdom of God.
Well, I've been studying like a mad man - cramming really.
I decided to share with you what I wrote for one of the questions (out of 6) for one of my exams (out of 4). So, here it is.
Oh - ignore the references to people and their books; it's just a way of trying to show the prof that I've read some of that stuff.
And - I know the last of my three points needs a little work, but that's a personal issue.
Let me know what you think -
1. What is your method for approaching the study of theology and culture?
For the Christian tradition I grew up in, culture was viewed as a contagious disease, and whoever got close to it would get contaminated. We were not allowed to play cards or go to movies. I attended a senior banquet instead of a prom (where dancing occurs). As I grew older, however, I found that this complete disregard for culture was wrong for at least two reasons. First, it was simply hypocritical. As I began to encounter other Christians’ views of the world sometimes finding them more satisfying, I began to see that often what my tradition taught as doctrine was more culturally influenced than revelatory. The second reason such disregard of culture was wrong is that the philosophy did work to a great degree in separating me from culture, which is the opposite of Christ’s example. The more separated I was from culture, the less able I found myself to relate to anyone who was not a Christian, and the less able I was to bring anyone the good news. It is with the memory of the dangers of separating the two too much that I proceed to consider in what way theology and culture can be studied together.
The interdisciplinary study of theology and culture must be attentive to both theology on its own terms and culture on its own terms; however, as Christians our theology necessarily sets the agenda for our approach to culture. This is not to say that theology overrides our study of culture at every point, which I will get to in the next step. Rather, it is to emphasize that Christ alone is our center and that Christ came to a fallen world full of evil. Any theology that takes the doctrine of original sin seriously, and views our natures as thoroughly corrupt, must be discerning when listening to any cultural voice. Likewise, any theology that takes demonic forces of evil seriously must be careful not to be deceived.
There are two important theological concerns when considering the relation between theology and culture. The first is that our theologies are not perfect due to our inherently fallen nature due to our inherently fallen natures. The constant danger in the study of theology and culture in evangelical circles is to allow our cultural studies to be subsumed under our theological tasks. It is important that we recognize that our theologies are limited as well. and are not equal to God’s work. The original sin that has infected our culture has also infected our theologies, so our theologies do not always see clearly or rightly. This theological limitation opens a door for the priority of culture.
The second theological necessity is a strong understanding of the triune God’s work in the world – in creation, in the Christ event of salvation and in the Holy Spirit’s drawing humanity unto God . Since Christ is sovereign over all and has redeemed all and is at work in all peoples drawing them unto Himself, it is possible that truth can be found outside of our churches and theologies. This is the point where most evangelicals fall short in their analysis of culture. For example, in his book Eyes Wide Open: Looking for God in Popular Culture, William Romanowski insists that it is the perspective that one brings to a subject that makes the subject Christian or not. This view discounts any possibility of God’s work in the artist or in a non-Christian viewer of the art.
Also, since our churches and theologies are necessarily impaired by original sin, it is possible that a truth found outside of our churches can both help guide and rightly critique our understandings of who God is and what God is doing. All those who follow George Lindbeck’s teaching, including Hauerwas and those in what Robert Holland has termed the Yale School in an article entitled “How Do Stories Save Us?,” attempt to protect their theologies against outside corruption. The only way, however, that we can be honest about our own limitations is to open our theologies to the possibility of correction. Wherever closed theologies march into cultural arenas, no revelation will be found; instead, only reflections of truth already possessed can be seen.
Much of current evangelicalism has missed the necessity of these two theological points in discussing theology and culture. Most attempts at discussion have so focused on protecting their theologies that they have not truly been open to cultural insights, though of course some have gone too far in the other direction, such as Sallie McFague’s suggestion that the Christ event is merely a metaphor that will help us be better people. With these theological foundations in mind, we can move on to exactly how we are to allow our theology to interact with our culture. We need a robust theology that 1) understands culture, 2) openly interacts with culture, and 3) stands apart from culture.
1) One of the scriptures that the Christianity I grew up with based their view of interaction with culture on was the scripture that says God’s word will not return void (Isa 55:11). Our theology was a proclamation theology, not looking for any response from culture, except repentance. However, I now believe that the proclamationist theology is based upon a reversed eschatology. We have not been called to extract people from culture and rescue them unto heaven. Rather, we should follow Christ in announcing (and carrying) God’s future kingdom into the present. Our model of evangelization should be the incarnation, not Left Behind. A reversed eschatology and proclamationist theology make no attempt to understand culture and are often blinded by the ways the culture they dislike has influenced them negatively – such as the religious right’s too often blind acceptance of the ills of capitalism and/or of the sufferings of peoples around the world who do not agree with what is in U.S.’s interest as a nation.
The fact is that we are all cultural beings, and Christ’s presence in the lives of Christians is not meant to drive out culture, and make the Christian spirit-only, but to redeem the culture within a person. Don Browning notes in A Fundamental Practical Theology that all theology must begin with descriptive theology – describing the current state of things, of ourselves, of our culture. It is important to note that Browning does not see culture as something separate from theology. Rather, describing our culture is part of the theological task. The reason for this can be explained by looking at the way Jesus evangelized (if we can redeem that word).
Jesus did not give the same answer to questions from different people. He contextualized his answer (often in a story) for each different person. He knew each one’s particular need and knew that the gospel was good news to them personally, in their moment. This model of evangelization is a matter of understanding felt needs and then showing how God can meet each need. This method necessarily involves listening, understanding, and wisdom before proclaiming. It is also a sophisticated understanding of what good news is, for Jesus’ good news is not a universal statement that can be applied to anyone at anytime and that either glorifies them unto heaven or condemns them to hell according to their immediate response. The gospel’s power does not lie in its being a perfect word from heaven that overpowers its listeners. Memorizing Jesus words in the original Greek or Aramaic and then standing on a street corner and shouting them out would do no good. The gospel must be contextualized, and it is contextualized through our cultural selves into our culture. In order to contextualize the gospel, we must understand our culture.
2). We cannot, however, stop with understanding culture as a means to evangelizing culture (as Briner does in Roaring Lambs). We need instead a theology that interacts with culture. The beginning place for this is the theological foundation of God’s sovereignty over all creation, as James Barr argues in his book Biblical Faith and Natural Theology. Alternative world views can bring new understandings (new visions) of what justice could look like, and these alternative world views do not always come through theological exploration (especially when theology is concerned with keeping itself correct). Artist, musicians and writers often envision for us new ways of being. Madeline L’Engle has noted that art opens up new parts of ourselves with which to be Christian. Our theologies must be open to these visions, must be ready to embrace them, must find the good in them and proclaim them as news. But if we are theologically closed-off to the possibility that God can speak through culture, that God is sovereign over all the earth, that Jesus’ redemption was for everyone and everything, then we will not be able to see God’s work. It is possible for items in culture to be used by God for spiritual matters; as Robert Johnston notes in his introduction to Reel Spirituality, it was in a movie that he felt God’s call for his life. The lines between what is religious in our lives and what is cultural need to be blurred, for God is at work in both. I do not mean to imply, however, that interaction is a one way street from culture toward our theology. Interaction with culture also involves bringing to bear our long Christian histories and traditions upon culture. Christians should impact culture positively as well, producing art, literature, scholasticism, bread – everything cultural. This is a large part of spreading God’s kingdom.
3) Finally, we need a theology that is able to take a stance against culture, when necessary. I put this step last because it is dependant upon the first two. We cannot stand against culture before having understood and interacted with culture. Without understanding, we may stand against something that is actually good. Without interaction, our stance will gain no respect from non-Christians. When making a stance against culture, it is important to remember that Christ did not come into the world to condemn the world, but to redeem the world. Our stance against culture should never be one of condemnation. Rather, we should always be proactive in attempting to change culture through love. Jesus showed us that the only way to true change is through love. If we remain enemies with culture, we will only end up killing each other. Through love, however, we can impact the world for the sake of the kingdom of God.
Feb 11, 2006
After breaking up . . .
You and I
You and I
We speak in ideals,
In lofty terms of how things ought to be.
That is why
We could never work
But I miss someone bringing out that part of me.
For we missed each other’s faults
And ignored each other’s wrongs,
We looked too much at what was right
And listened to each other’s lies too long.
Though most cover there faults only a little time
We mastered the art of disguise
So that reality never disturbed our lake
As we lay and painted our blue skies.
You and I
We spoke in ideals,
In lofty terms of how things should have been
That is why
We never worked
But sometimes I miss forgetting my sin.
You and I
You and I
We speak in ideals,
In lofty terms of how things ought to be.
That is why
We could never work
But I miss someone bringing out that part of me.
For we missed each other’s faults
And ignored each other’s wrongs,
We looked too much at what was right
And listened to each other’s lies too long.
Though most cover there faults only a little time
We mastered the art of disguise
So that reality never disturbed our lake
As we lay and painted our blue skies.
You and I
We spoke in ideals,
In lofty terms of how things should have been
That is why
We never worked
But sometimes I miss forgetting my sin.
Human After All
I grew
I flew,
My dreams
Envisioned
By others.
I lost
It cost,
My life
Forgotten
And smothered.
It all came down to me
Because they were what I am:
Looking for someone to believe in.
And I thought I could be
What they needed from me,
But now myself I can't believe in.
With dissipated dreams
And gusto-less life,
I guess I’m just human after all.
I grew
I flew,
My dreams
Envisioned
By others.
I lost
It cost,
My life
Forgotten
And smothered.
It all came down to me
Because they were what I am:
Looking for someone to believe in.
And I thought I could be
What they needed from me,
But now myself I can't believe in.
With dissipated dreams
And gusto-less life,
I guess I’m just human after all.
Feb 3, 2006
Bono and the National Prayer Breakfast
The National Prayer Breakfast was yesterday. It is a breakfast that the President, many congresspeople and many heavy hitters from religions in America attend. Bono was the special guest. I'm providing a link to a transcript of his speech for anyone who has not already read it.
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=sojomail.display&issue=060203#3
It's good. It's important.
The National Prayer Breakfast was yesterday. It is a breakfast that the President, many congresspeople and many heavy hitters from religions in America attend. Bono was the special guest. I'm providing a link to a transcript of his speech for anyone who has not already read it.
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=sojomail.display&issue=060203#3
It's good. It's important.
Feb 2, 2006
Freedom of Speech?
"Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan received an apology when Capitol Police dropped charges against her of unlawful conduct due to her controversial t-shirt that created quite a buzz at Tuesday night's State of the Union address.
The peace activist was arrested minutes before the President's speech for wearing a shirt protesting the war; she had a ticket to attend the speech.
Capitol police now say it was all a mistake. They say she was arrested because of an old, vague law against protesting inside the Capitol Building, but they say just wearing a t-shirt is not unlawful. Police plan to work to clarify the law."
http://www.kvbc.com/Global/story.asp?S=4448298&nav=15MV
Sheehan's shirt read: "2245 Dead. How many more?"
"Late Wednesday, Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer issued a statement of apology to the two women, and said the charge against Sheehan may be dropped.
"The officers made a good-faith but mistaken effort to enforce an old unwritten interpretation of the prohibitions about demonstrating in the Capitol," he wrote.
"The failure to adequately prepare the officers is mine."
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/02/02/tshirt-arrest060202.html
An old, unwritten interpretation of a prohibition? An interpretation, an unwritten interpretation? And do we really believe that anyone would be removed from the State of the Union Address (which you have to have an invitation in order to attend) without the officers first checking with their superiors? They misinterpreted an unwritten interpretation and acted on their own and removed and hand-cuffed and jailed a guest of a congressperson? Seriously?
"Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan received an apology when Capitol Police dropped charges against her of unlawful conduct due to her controversial t-shirt that created quite a buzz at Tuesday night's State of the Union address.
The peace activist was arrested minutes before the President's speech for wearing a shirt protesting the war; she had a ticket to attend the speech.
Capitol police now say it was all a mistake. They say she was arrested because of an old, vague law against protesting inside the Capitol Building, but they say just wearing a t-shirt is not unlawful. Police plan to work to clarify the law."
http://www.kvbc.com/Global/story.asp?S=4448298&nav=15MV
Sheehan's shirt read: "2245 Dead. How many more?"
"Late Wednesday, Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer issued a statement of apology to the two women, and said the charge against Sheehan may be dropped.
"The officers made a good-faith but mistaken effort to enforce an old unwritten interpretation of the prohibitions about demonstrating in the Capitol," he wrote.
"The failure to adequately prepare the officers is mine."
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/02/02/tshirt-arrest060202.html
An old, unwritten interpretation of a prohibition? An interpretation, an unwritten interpretation? And do we really believe that anyone would be removed from the State of the Union Address (which you have to have an invitation in order to attend) without the officers first checking with their superiors? They misinterpreted an unwritten interpretation and acted on their own and removed and hand-cuffed and jailed a guest of a congressperson? Seriously?
Feb 1, 2006
Exxon/Mobil and Halliburton:
In case you didn't know, the free-market does not regulate itself:
"ExxonMobil Reports Record $36 Billion privately giant ExxonMobil reported Monday it made a record $36 billion last year - a sum larger than the economies of 125 countries. Exxon became the first company to ever make more than $10 billion in a financial quarter. During the last three months of 2005 the oil giant made over $1,300 every second or nearly $5 million every hour. . . . Officials from the country's major oil companies, however, are refusing to testify this week at a Senate hearing looking into whether oil industry mergers in recent years have made gasoline more expensive at the pump. While it is making record profits, Exxon Mobil is also trying to avoid paying damages from the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill. On Friday the corporation asked a federal appeals court to erase an order for Exxon to pay out five billion dollars in damages ordered by an Alaskan jury. "
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/31/1532240
Oil shortage made prices go up? and we're all paying more for gas than ever? and Exxon/Mobil is posting record gains? How does this make sense? Yet despite these gains, they are fighting a court-ordered settlement to pay for the clean-up of a spill of their oil that caused enormous damage to the environment? The more I learn about these enormous companies, the more I worry that not even the courts have the power to help regulate them.
"In other business news, Halliburton has reported it made a company-record $2.4 billion last year - making 2005 the company's most profitable year in its 86 year history. The company - which was once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney - has seen its stock value double over the past year. Last week Halliburton subsidiary KBR won a $385 million contract to build and operate new detention facilities in case of a "emergency influx of immigrants" into the country."
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/30/157208
Hmmm... I'm not pointing fingers, just pausing to take notice. I think it's important that we at least take notice.
In case you didn't know, the free-market does not regulate itself:
"ExxonMobil Reports Record $36 Billion privately giant ExxonMobil reported Monday it made a record $36 billion last year - a sum larger than the economies of 125 countries. Exxon became the first company to ever make more than $10 billion in a financial quarter. During the last three months of 2005 the oil giant made over $1,300 every second or nearly $5 million every hour. . . . Officials from the country's major oil companies, however, are refusing to testify this week at a Senate hearing looking into whether oil industry mergers in recent years have made gasoline more expensive at the pump. While it is making record profits, Exxon Mobil is also trying to avoid paying damages from the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill. On Friday the corporation asked a federal appeals court to erase an order for Exxon to pay out five billion dollars in damages ordered by an Alaskan jury. "
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/31/1532240
Oil shortage made prices go up? and we're all paying more for gas than ever? and Exxon/Mobil is posting record gains? How does this make sense? Yet despite these gains, they are fighting a court-ordered settlement to pay for the clean-up of a spill of their oil that caused enormous damage to the environment? The more I learn about these enormous companies, the more I worry that not even the courts have the power to help regulate them.
"In other business news, Halliburton has reported it made a company-record $2.4 billion last year - making 2005 the company's most profitable year in its 86 year history. The company - which was once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney - has seen its stock value double over the past year. Last week Halliburton subsidiary KBR won a $385 million contract to build and operate new detention facilities in case of a "emergency influx of immigrants" into the country."
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/30/157208
Hmmm... I'm not pointing fingers, just pausing to take notice. I think it's important that we at least take notice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)