My head is filled with their faces most nights, when I first lay down and my day rushes through my mind in process form. Their faces are always the first images, mostly her face. She's looking away, eyes down. Then her eyes are fixed on mine, unable to look away, eyelids caught open. Then her head is fallen forward and her eyes are the only thing holding her head up, and she whispers, "I'm sorry." Fear-full. Shame-full.
And I wonder if my guilt is well founded, or if this must be how they learn to follow rules. I attempt to comb through that day's frustrations, that day's angers. Maybe I should yell less. Maybe she should never feel shamed.
I comfort myself with promises of reduction of yelling and shame-inducing looks. And I reach for the echoes of laughter, the seconds pregnant with grace and innocence and abandon. And I usually fall asleep.
Perhaps this is a good definition of original sin - knowing the evil so well that it turns to habit then using the good to deaden the pain.
Mar 17, 2006
Mar 9, 2006
Transcendence
Christian tradition has generally understood transcendence as a movement beyond human borders, either as God coming into the everyday and our somehow experiencing that or as humans reaching beyond themselves to God or as the crossing over into new life after death. This traditional understanding of transcendence, as being “above and independent of the universe,” is epitomized in Pascal’s challenge. He concludes that if there is a God then everything that occurs here on earth occurs according to a logic outside of our knowable reality. If one chooses to believe and trust this God’s non-human logic, one loses nothing. But if one rejects this transcendent God, then one might lose everything. As a youth evangelizing in shopping malls I was taught to unwittingly use Pascal’s challenge.
This understanding of transcendence, however, has been in question for a long time. In Martha Nussbaum’s challenge to traditional transcendence in her book Love’s Knowledge she examines Odysseus’ encounter with Calypso in The Odyssey. When offered a beautiful, goddess companion, the lack of any need, and eternal life, Odysseus refuses and continues his journey home. Nussbaum asks, Why? and why do we identify with that choice? We all say that we want eternal life, without trouble, and we do, but when faced with the problem of what that really means, do we want that life? Nussbaum’s conclusion is that we get “the feeling that the other life would just not be comprehensible as a life for a human being with human virtues and human heroism.” The reason for this is that “[h]uman limits structure the human excellences, and give excellent action its significance.” For example, a great deal of what we consider to be good morals has to do with our response to suffering. In a transcendent world free of suffering, what need would there be for such morals? Ultimately, Nussbaum agrees with Nietzsche’s analysis that humanity’s (particularly religions’) desire for a “true” world different from our own ultimately leads to our non-concern and inaction in the world we have. In answer to Pascal’s challenge, Nussbaum would claim that something very significant is lost if one gives assent to traditional transcendence. Her answer is “a transcending by descent, delving more deeply into oneself and one’s humanity, and becoming deeper and more spacious as a result.”
The ultimate denial of traditional understandings of transcendence came in 1882 when Nietzsche pronounced that God was dead. The nihilism that resulted from this pronouncement reached its literary zenith in the writings of Kafka and Camus. In Camus’ The Stranger, for example, the main character, Meursault, mirrors the choice made by Odysseus. Meursault is convicted of murder and facing a hanging in a couple of days. The priest is sent and gives Meursault Pascal’s challenge, asking him what good it will do him to not accept God. Meursault refuses the priest’s offer, saying that it was of more comfort to him to be sure of his couple of days and of his death than to have the priest’s false security. The priest asks him what he would want heaven to be like, and Meursault responds that it would be a place where he could sit and remember this life. Admitting these things gives him great peace, and he lies on his prison cot more full of life than he has ever been. His transcendence comes through a refusal of the traditional understanding of transcendence. Meursault is the fictional embodiment of Nussbaum’s questioning of the significance of an afterlife.
In Camus’ The Plague, the plague that strikes the city is a metaphor for the absurdity of the human condition. The only hope of transcending the ill effects of the plague comes through choosing solidarity with other humans over and against any benign explanation from another world that is not really our own, such as is offered by the town’s priest. Concerning why the plague exists and why it must be fought, the main character says, “a man can’t cure and know at the same time. So let’s cure as quickly as we can. That’s the more urgent job.” This is again a fictional representation of transcendence through descent into humanity, not a reaching beyond humanity. Camus suggests, in the line of Nussbaum and Nietzsche, that to ask why or to focus at all on any transcendent reasoning necessarily takes away from the work at hand. The world is full of more trouble than we can deal with; all we can do is cure as quickly as we can. Wallace Stegner also portrays this understanding of transcendence in his works where relationships pull people through difficult times, not any transcendent understanding of God’s purposes.
Secular philosophers and writers are not the only people who have found transcendence through descent interesting, or necessary. As early as 1975 Sallie McFague began to apply these concepts to her understanding of theology and literature. In her book Speaking in Parables she takes as her model of transcendence something very basic to our human understanding – language, and more specifically metaphor. She writes,
Metaphor is, for human beings, what instinctual groping is for the rest of the universe – the power of getting form here to there. We use what we have, who we are, where we are to grope toward what we dimly feel, think, and envision we might have, who we might be, where we might be. We do this through a process in which imagination is the chief mover, setting the familiar in an unfamiliar context so that new possibilities can be glimpsed.
“The meaning of the gospel is generated through metaphor, through words which we ‘know’ but which are now put into a new context so that we see ‘what is’ in the light of ‘what might be,’ the ordinary emerges shaped by a new context. Thus we move, through metaphor, to meaning; metaphor is a motion from here to there.” Jesus is par excellence the metaphor of God, and so his story is the way to God.
Each of these authors demand to one degree or another a transcendence through descent. They claim that paying attention to the hereafter takes away from what we could be doing in the now. These authors make excellent points and each of them greatly affected my view of what transcendence can be. I grew up in a Pentecostal, fundamentalist sub-culture that concentrated greatly on transcending to the next world, which I believe at times contributed to the detriment of this world. I thus found myself agreeing with much of what Nussbaum wrote and found parabolic theology to be a healing corrective for my personal understanding of God. However, I also see tremendous limitations. For example, my Pentecostal roots were born in social struggle. Pentecostalism flourished in the poor south only a short time after being beaten in the Civil War. It particularly flourished among African-Americans who had learned under the heavy yoke of slavery to long for the world beyond this one, to which the great spirituals are testimony. Today Pentecostalism especially flourishes in third-world countries that know only suffering and have little or no hope in anything they find in this world. What shifting context within this world would give them hope? If you told a mother in Africa whose husband, brothers and half her children have died from aids that she must descend into herself to find the answers to her struggle, or that understanding herself in a new context here and now would save her, from where would she find hope or salvation? The Pentecostal focus on the soon-to-return Christ in power and glory to wipe away God’s enemies and bring about his Kingdom of peace would much more likely be useful to her, especially if physical healing were offered to rid herself and her remaining children of HIV.
McFague’s theory does work well on most of Jesus’ parables, and I appreciate her resistance to over-spiritualization. However, the theory only works when Jesus’ parables are separated from the rest of his life. Christ’s healings were not mere metaphors. His raising of Lazarus from the dead was not a mere metaphor, much less so was God’s raising of Jesus from the dead. Christ’s ascension was not a metaphor, nor was his promise to return, nor his giving of the Spirit to empower his followers. Most of Nussbaum’s critique of religion is very strong, except in one place – when she considers the doctrine of the Incarnation in Christianity. She writes, “Christianity seems to grant that in order to imagine a god who is truly superior, truly worthy of worship, truly and fully just, we must imagine a god who is human as well as divine, a god who has actually lived out the nontranscendent life and understands it in the only way it can be understood, by suffering and death.” She goes on to note, “the universal compassion for human suffering that one associates with Christianity is difficult to imagine apart from the paradigm of human suffering and sacrifice exemplified in Christ.” It is God’s transcendence through descent, the incarnation, that most appeals to her.
I think we need a dual understanding of transcendence. Transcendence by descent is by no means sufficient for our understanding of who God is; however, it is helpful in reminding us to focus on this life, in reminding us that God is concerned with this life.
Christian tradition has generally understood transcendence as a movement beyond human borders, either as God coming into the everyday and our somehow experiencing that or as humans reaching beyond themselves to God or as the crossing over into new life after death. This traditional understanding of transcendence, as being “above and independent of the universe,” is epitomized in Pascal’s challenge. He concludes that if there is a God then everything that occurs here on earth occurs according to a logic outside of our knowable reality. If one chooses to believe and trust this God’s non-human logic, one loses nothing. But if one rejects this transcendent God, then one might lose everything. As a youth evangelizing in shopping malls I was taught to unwittingly use Pascal’s challenge.
This understanding of transcendence, however, has been in question for a long time. In Martha Nussbaum’s challenge to traditional transcendence in her book Love’s Knowledge she examines Odysseus’ encounter with Calypso in The Odyssey. When offered a beautiful, goddess companion, the lack of any need, and eternal life, Odysseus refuses and continues his journey home. Nussbaum asks, Why? and why do we identify with that choice? We all say that we want eternal life, without trouble, and we do, but when faced with the problem of what that really means, do we want that life? Nussbaum’s conclusion is that we get “the feeling that the other life would just not be comprehensible as a life for a human being with human virtues and human heroism.” The reason for this is that “[h]uman limits structure the human excellences, and give excellent action its significance.” For example, a great deal of what we consider to be good morals has to do with our response to suffering. In a transcendent world free of suffering, what need would there be for such morals? Ultimately, Nussbaum agrees with Nietzsche’s analysis that humanity’s (particularly religions’) desire for a “true” world different from our own ultimately leads to our non-concern and inaction in the world we have. In answer to Pascal’s challenge, Nussbaum would claim that something very significant is lost if one gives assent to traditional transcendence. Her answer is “a transcending by descent, delving more deeply into oneself and one’s humanity, and becoming deeper and more spacious as a result.”
The ultimate denial of traditional understandings of transcendence came in 1882 when Nietzsche pronounced that God was dead. The nihilism that resulted from this pronouncement reached its literary zenith in the writings of Kafka and Camus. In Camus’ The Stranger, for example, the main character, Meursault, mirrors the choice made by Odysseus. Meursault is convicted of murder and facing a hanging in a couple of days. The priest is sent and gives Meursault Pascal’s challenge, asking him what good it will do him to not accept God. Meursault refuses the priest’s offer, saying that it was of more comfort to him to be sure of his couple of days and of his death than to have the priest’s false security. The priest asks him what he would want heaven to be like, and Meursault responds that it would be a place where he could sit and remember this life. Admitting these things gives him great peace, and he lies on his prison cot more full of life than he has ever been. His transcendence comes through a refusal of the traditional understanding of transcendence. Meursault is the fictional embodiment of Nussbaum’s questioning of the significance of an afterlife.
In Camus’ The Plague, the plague that strikes the city is a metaphor for the absurdity of the human condition. The only hope of transcending the ill effects of the plague comes through choosing solidarity with other humans over and against any benign explanation from another world that is not really our own, such as is offered by the town’s priest. Concerning why the plague exists and why it must be fought, the main character says, “a man can’t cure and know at the same time. So let’s cure as quickly as we can. That’s the more urgent job.” This is again a fictional representation of transcendence through descent into humanity, not a reaching beyond humanity. Camus suggests, in the line of Nussbaum and Nietzsche, that to ask why or to focus at all on any transcendent reasoning necessarily takes away from the work at hand. The world is full of more trouble than we can deal with; all we can do is cure as quickly as we can. Wallace Stegner also portrays this understanding of transcendence in his works where relationships pull people through difficult times, not any transcendent understanding of God’s purposes.
Secular philosophers and writers are not the only people who have found transcendence through descent interesting, or necessary. As early as 1975 Sallie McFague began to apply these concepts to her understanding of theology and literature. In her book Speaking in Parables she takes as her model of transcendence something very basic to our human understanding – language, and more specifically metaphor. She writes,
Metaphor is, for human beings, what instinctual groping is for the rest of the universe – the power of getting form here to there. We use what we have, who we are, where we are to grope toward what we dimly feel, think, and envision we might have, who we might be, where we might be. We do this through a process in which imagination is the chief mover, setting the familiar in an unfamiliar context so that new possibilities can be glimpsed.
“The meaning of the gospel is generated through metaphor, through words which we ‘know’ but which are now put into a new context so that we see ‘what is’ in the light of ‘what might be,’ the ordinary emerges shaped by a new context. Thus we move, through metaphor, to meaning; metaphor is a motion from here to there.” Jesus is par excellence the metaphor of God, and so his story is the way to God.
Each of these authors demand to one degree or another a transcendence through descent. They claim that paying attention to the hereafter takes away from what we could be doing in the now. These authors make excellent points and each of them greatly affected my view of what transcendence can be. I grew up in a Pentecostal, fundamentalist sub-culture that concentrated greatly on transcending to the next world, which I believe at times contributed to the detriment of this world. I thus found myself agreeing with much of what Nussbaum wrote and found parabolic theology to be a healing corrective for my personal understanding of God. However, I also see tremendous limitations. For example, my Pentecostal roots were born in social struggle. Pentecostalism flourished in the poor south only a short time after being beaten in the Civil War. It particularly flourished among African-Americans who had learned under the heavy yoke of slavery to long for the world beyond this one, to which the great spirituals are testimony. Today Pentecostalism especially flourishes in third-world countries that know only suffering and have little or no hope in anything they find in this world. What shifting context within this world would give them hope? If you told a mother in Africa whose husband, brothers and half her children have died from aids that she must descend into herself to find the answers to her struggle, or that understanding herself in a new context here and now would save her, from where would she find hope or salvation? The Pentecostal focus on the soon-to-return Christ in power and glory to wipe away God’s enemies and bring about his Kingdom of peace would much more likely be useful to her, especially if physical healing were offered to rid herself and her remaining children of HIV.
McFague’s theory does work well on most of Jesus’ parables, and I appreciate her resistance to over-spiritualization. However, the theory only works when Jesus’ parables are separated from the rest of his life. Christ’s healings were not mere metaphors. His raising of Lazarus from the dead was not a mere metaphor, much less so was God’s raising of Jesus from the dead. Christ’s ascension was not a metaphor, nor was his promise to return, nor his giving of the Spirit to empower his followers. Most of Nussbaum’s critique of religion is very strong, except in one place – when she considers the doctrine of the Incarnation in Christianity. She writes, “Christianity seems to grant that in order to imagine a god who is truly superior, truly worthy of worship, truly and fully just, we must imagine a god who is human as well as divine, a god who has actually lived out the nontranscendent life and understands it in the only way it can be understood, by suffering and death.” She goes on to note, “the universal compassion for human suffering that one associates with Christianity is difficult to imagine apart from the paradigm of human suffering and sacrifice exemplified in Christ.” It is God’s transcendence through descent, the incarnation, that most appeals to her.
I think we need a dual understanding of transcendence. Transcendence by descent is by no means sufficient for our understanding of who God is; however, it is helpful in reminding us to focus on this life, in reminding us that God is concerned with this life.
Mar 8, 2006
Responding to my post on theology and culture, a friend replied that there is "another side to this story." I thought he made some good points, and I think it is an imortant discussion, so I decided to post his thoughts and my reply to him here.
Tim,
There is another side to this story. I understand your feelings as it regards this kind of "run for the hills" sort of sanctification from the world..."circling the wagons," so to speak.
At the same time, there is a very real danger in all of this "cultural engagement" talk running through various veins of the church today - at least in the way it is being adopted.
James tells us that, "Friendship with the world is hatred toward God." In another place we are told that, "Religion God accepts [includes] keeping oneself from being polluted by the world."
From what I can tell, this sector of Christians who choose to "engage the culture" are not really engaging it at all. Rather, using a lot of empty philosophy and jargon, they are actually doing nothing more than justifying their desire to have all this world has to offer without losing out on the Kingdom of God in the process.
We cannot be "friends of the world." We were called out of the wolrd and we are no longer "of" it. At the same time, you are correct in this: the culture cannot be allowed to languish in this hopeless estate because Christians were scared to look it in the eye.There is a balance and like all things of great and monumental import, we have a wonderful Scriptural example of that balance.
In the book of Acts we have the account of Paul engaging the Greeks. The first thing we notice is that Paul went to them. The second thing we notice is that Paul reasoned with them by relating the Gospel to the world in which they lived.
But we also notice something else. Paul did not BECOME one of them. He didn't put on a toga and drink wine in the temple of pagan gods. What we actually see is quite the opposite. Within a relatively short time, Paul was able to make a clear distinction between what he believed and who he was as a Christian vs. what they believed and who they were as Greek philosophers and pagans.
The result was that a number were moved to stay and hear him further, while the others wrote him off and moved on.
Our job is not to integrate with the culture, to salvage it, or to save it. Our job is to bring Christ to it and our interest is in those who PEOPLE "want to hear us further" - not "culture" as an organism or an entity.
Blessings!
Jason
Jason –
I don’t have time for a full response at the moment, but let me make a few brief statements.
I was bothered by these two sentences in your response: "From what I can tell, this sector of Christians who choose to "engage the culture" are not really engaging it at all. Rather, using a lot of empty philosophy and jargon, they are actually doing nothing more than justifying their desire to have all this world has to offer without losing out on the Kingdom of God in the process." I was bothered by them because what I wrote calls for an engagement with culture, so these words are directed at me. However, it seems you are imposing an outside philosophical dichotomy upon what I wrote instead of engaging with the specifics of what I wrote.
You are right in that I do want all that this world has to offer, because when God created the world God said, “It is good,” and I want what is good. Drunkenness, however, is not what God meant when God said, “It is good.” Rather, drunkenness is part of our sinful ways of being, which I don’t consider to be much of an offering from this world in any good sense. It is certainly not an offering I have any desire to receive.
I like the reference you made to Paul at Mars Hill, because when Paul goes to the Greeks, he does not impose some outside understanding of who God is and then expect them to either accept that or reject it. Rather, Paul begins with an altar they already have there in their culture. He then quotes to them their own poets and engages in dialogue with them, attempting to explain who Jesus is in relation to these cultural items. These cultural items are even used to shed light on who God is. That is the type of dialogue I am talking about in this post, not an engagement "in all this world has to offer” in some negative sense.
I think you have a reversed eschatology that sees Christ’s salvation as calling us away from this world into another realm, which I believe is the opposite of the purpose of the incarnation and Christ’s teachings concerning the Kingdom of God. I believe Christ brought God’s Kingdom into this world, and that Christ’s death and resurrection was meant for the restoration of this world unto relationship with the Father. Eschatology is the study of end things, and I believe Jesus brought the end things (such as peace, love, and transforming power) into the current world in which we live, and to be Christian means to follow Christ in doing exactly that – taking God’s light into the dark places of this world so that all may see Christ and be reconciled with God so that their lives may be affected here and now. I do not believe that Christ came just to draw us out of this messed up world. Rather, Christ wants us to engage this world and redeem it.
I appreciate your dialogue on this matter.
Tim,
There is another side to this story. I understand your feelings as it regards this kind of "run for the hills" sort of sanctification from the world..."circling the wagons," so to speak.
At the same time, there is a very real danger in all of this "cultural engagement" talk running through various veins of the church today - at least in the way it is being adopted.
James tells us that, "Friendship with the world is hatred toward God." In another place we are told that, "Religion God accepts [includes] keeping oneself from being polluted by the world."
From what I can tell, this sector of Christians who choose to "engage the culture" are not really engaging it at all. Rather, using a lot of empty philosophy and jargon, they are actually doing nothing more than justifying their desire to have all this world has to offer without losing out on the Kingdom of God in the process.
We cannot be "friends of the world." We were called out of the wolrd and we are no longer "of" it. At the same time, you are correct in this: the culture cannot be allowed to languish in this hopeless estate because Christians were scared to look it in the eye.There is a balance and like all things of great and monumental import, we have a wonderful Scriptural example of that balance.
In the book of Acts we have the account of Paul engaging the Greeks. The first thing we notice is that Paul went to them. The second thing we notice is that Paul reasoned with them by relating the Gospel to the world in which they lived.
But we also notice something else. Paul did not BECOME one of them. He didn't put on a toga and drink wine in the temple of pagan gods. What we actually see is quite the opposite. Within a relatively short time, Paul was able to make a clear distinction between what he believed and who he was as a Christian vs. what they believed and who they were as Greek philosophers and pagans.
The result was that a number were moved to stay and hear him further, while the others wrote him off and moved on.
Our job is not to integrate with the culture, to salvage it, or to save it. Our job is to bring Christ to it and our interest is in those who PEOPLE "want to hear us further" - not "culture" as an organism or an entity.
Blessings!
Jason
Jason –
I don’t have time for a full response at the moment, but let me make a few brief statements.
I was bothered by these two sentences in your response: "From what I can tell, this sector of Christians who choose to "engage the culture" are not really engaging it at all. Rather, using a lot of empty philosophy and jargon, they are actually doing nothing more than justifying their desire to have all this world has to offer without losing out on the Kingdom of God in the process." I was bothered by them because what I wrote calls for an engagement with culture, so these words are directed at me. However, it seems you are imposing an outside philosophical dichotomy upon what I wrote instead of engaging with the specifics of what I wrote.
You are right in that I do want all that this world has to offer, because when God created the world God said, “It is good,” and I want what is good. Drunkenness, however, is not what God meant when God said, “It is good.” Rather, drunkenness is part of our sinful ways of being, which I don’t consider to be much of an offering from this world in any good sense. It is certainly not an offering I have any desire to receive.
I like the reference you made to Paul at Mars Hill, because when Paul goes to the Greeks, he does not impose some outside understanding of who God is and then expect them to either accept that or reject it. Rather, Paul begins with an altar they already have there in their culture. He then quotes to them their own poets and engages in dialogue with them, attempting to explain who Jesus is in relation to these cultural items. These cultural items are even used to shed light on who God is. That is the type of dialogue I am talking about in this post, not an engagement "in all this world has to offer” in some negative sense.
I think you have a reversed eschatology that sees Christ’s salvation as calling us away from this world into another realm, which I believe is the opposite of the purpose of the incarnation and Christ’s teachings concerning the Kingdom of God. I believe Christ brought God’s Kingdom into this world, and that Christ’s death and resurrection was meant for the restoration of this world unto relationship with the Father. Eschatology is the study of end things, and I believe Jesus brought the end things (such as peace, love, and transforming power) into the current world in which we live, and to be Christian means to follow Christ in doing exactly that – taking God’s light into the dark places of this world so that all may see Christ and be reconciled with God so that their lives may be affected here and now. I do not believe that Christ came just to draw us out of this messed up world. Rather, Christ wants us to engage this world and redeem it.
I appreciate your dialogue on this matter.
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.
Jan 20, 2006
I won't be blogging much in the next month, because it is crunch time for studying for comps.
I'm starting to feel better about them. I'm pretty sure I'll be ok on 3 comps, but I'm still worried about one of them. I'm setting a definite date so as to force myself to be ready.
If you want to know when I post, but don't want to have to keep checking and finding nothing - then just enter your email address on the right and you'll be sent an email when I post.
I'm starting to feel better about them. I'm pretty sure I'll be ok on 3 comps, but I'm still worried about one of them. I'm setting a definite date so as to force myself to be ready.
If you want to know when I post, but don't want to have to keep checking and finding nothing - then just enter your email address on the right and you'll be sent an email when I post.
Jan 16, 2006
I had a good weekend, but two things have depressed me this morning.
First, I looked unsuccessfully on the net this morning for any kind of celebration honoring Martin Luther King Jr in my area. I wanted to take my family to something where we could learn about and remember this man's life and teaching. I could not find anything. I then looked around at the large and very nice library where I am studying. I couldn't even find a mention of the fact that today is Martin Luther King Jr. Day. They are showing a film this morning - Cinderella Man; seems like it would not have been that difficult to find a movie that deals with King, or at least issues of race. The church should be leading the way in remembering this great man, but I've found no honoring of his life at any church anywhere close to where I live. He gave so much to the church. He used love to help us see the evils of segregation and racism. Love. Not hate. Not power. Love. The same way Jesus taught us.
Second, I read this article on LaHaye and Falwell. It tells the story of the rise of the religious right and the evangelical obsession with the end times and the evangelicals' affect on the peace process in Palestine/Israel. I am sad that the theology of "a renegade Irish Anglican preacher named John Nelson Darby" can have so poorly affected such a large portion of the church that injustices (to Palestinians) are once again deemed part of God's plan and thus fought for vehemently with evangelical time, money, prayers and lives. I am also sad that such theology has so separated the church from the world in which and to which God has called it.
First, I looked unsuccessfully on the net this morning for any kind of celebration honoring Martin Luther King Jr in my area. I wanted to take my family to something where we could learn about and remember this man's life and teaching. I could not find anything. I then looked around at the large and very nice library where I am studying. I couldn't even find a mention of the fact that today is Martin Luther King Jr. Day. They are showing a film this morning - Cinderella Man; seems like it would not have been that difficult to find a movie that deals with King, or at least issues of race. The church should be leading the way in remembering this great man, but I've found no honoring of his life at any church anywhere close to where I live. He gave so much to the church. He used love to help us see the evils of segregation and racism. Love. Not hate. Not power. Love. The same way Jesus taught us.
Second, I read this article on LaHaye and Falwell. It tells the story of the rise of the religious right and the evangelical obsession with the end times and the evangelicals' affect on the peace process in Palestine/Israel. I am sad that the theology of "a renegade Irish Anglican preacher named John Nelson Darby" can have so poorly affected such a large portion of the church that injustices (to Palestinians) are once again deemed part of God's plan and thus fought for vehemently with evangelical time, money, prayers and lives. I am also sad that such theology has so separated the church from the world in which and to which God has called it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)