Radical Preaching

claims against Milbank & Radical Orthodoxy

2010-08-03T19:16:00.000-07:00

Refer to the posts and my comments over at the Cosmos-Liturgy-Sex blog. Feel free to join in if you desire. All of you are much smarter regarding R.O. than I will ever claim to be....

John Milbank: Friend of Catholics or Just Plain Delusional

Red Tories and Eugenics

The Grandeur of Reason: Religion, Tradition and Universalism

2008-03-20T12:21:00.000-07:00

This is the upcoming Centre of Theology and Philosophy conference called The Grandeur of Reason: Religion, Tradition and Universalism.

Also, if you're interested in attending, we are now accepting reservations for the conference as well as paper abstracts for panels. All the information you need is on the site.

Who will best serve the Common Good?

2007-12-28T21:11:00.000-08:00

Guest Commentary by Major David L. Jones
12/28/2007
Catholic Online

For me this election cycle and its many debates and questions concerning how our country should move forward is not something distant or abstract. I am currently preparing to deploy to war...

An Advent Prayer

2007-11-20T07:09:00.000-08:00

"The wicked are estranged from the womb;
they go astray from birth, speaking lies.
They have venom like the venom of a serpent,
like the deaf adder that stops its ear,
so that it does not hear the voice of charmers
or of the cunning enchanter.
O God, break the teeth in their mouths;
tear out the fangs of the young lions, O LORD!" (Ps. 58:3-6)

Advent is upon us. For many of us, Advent is an afterthought, an extended preparation for Christmas. A time for office parties, charitable dinners, and gathering with family and friends. Advent, while it is a time for us to prepare our hearts, homes, and lives for the birth of the Christ child, is also something far more radical. On the Christian calendar, Advent captures Israel's longing for a Savior, a Messiah to set them free from their oppressors. This Messiah will judge the unrighteous and evil, bringing justice to the earth. The prophets and the psalms are full of Israel's cry for salvation and deliverance from her enemies. Constantly, the question is put to God, "How long? How long, O Lord?"

For Christians, Advent also captures our own hopes for the coming of the Messiah. We, too, live in a world filled with injustice, with evil people oppressing, exploiting, and destroying the weak and poor. We long for Christ to return and to bring the fullness of the Kingdom with Him.

Advent reminds us that we live in the time between times; and thus we live in tension and ambiguity. We see the works of love and mercy and the movement of the Holy Spirit. However, we also see the greed of our culture and the death and destruction that it brings.

Advent is in some ways then bad news. In a culture bent on consuming itself into a drunken stupor, Advent causes us to ponder justice and to name those who refuse to respond to God's grace by loving their neighbors as themselves. This week, I read two articles that are worthy of mention in our Advent preparation.

The first article discusses that despite losing $74 billion in equities, Wall street securities firms will pay out $38 billion in bonuses, on average over $200,000 per employee. The $74 billion in losses stems largely from the recent scandals in the subprime mortage market. In short, banks marketed loans to people who could not afford them, developing methods of delaying payments, reduced interest for several years, etc. In return, the banks charged excessive fees.

The second article tells the story of an elderly and her two senior adult daughters, all of whom struggled with poverty and illness. Mortgage brokers from Argent Mortgage Company, purchased this summer by Citigroup, swarmed the mother and her daughters, making hundreds of phone calls. Eventually, the women succumbed and signed a mortgage agreement with the company and began a free fall into debt. In 2005, with their mother in the hospital, mortgage agents convinced the family to refinance again, incurring thousands in steep fees. The mother died, the one daughter was dying, and the third's eyesight was too poor to see what she was signing. She was told this would be the only way she could save her house. Now, her house is in the process of foreclosure. She waits for the letter and the escort out of her home. When asked what she will do for Thanksgiving, she stated, “I’ll be right here... I’ve got some corn flakes and canned vegetables. That’ll be my Thanksgiving.”

On Wall Street, the millionaires who orchestrated this whole process will divide a $38 billion dollar pie, while the poor who lose their homes will eat canned beans and corn flakes. A long time ago, the Psalmist captured the cry of Advent:

"O God, break the teeth in their mouths;
tear out the fangs of the young lions, O LORD...
surely there is a God who judges on earth" (Ps. 58:6, 11b, ESV).

Maranatha, Lord Jesus

Radical Orthodoxy Colloquium

2007-10-30T19:33:00.000-07:00

[Click for larger jpg | Click for Full PDF]

traditio presents:

RADICAL
ORTHODOXY

A C O L L O Q U I U M

Tuesday 13 November
2:30 pm
Ratio Studiorum:
How the Jesuits Invented Modern Higher Education
John F Montag SJ
St. Louis University

Wednesday 14 November
2:30 pm
If Jesus is Fully Human, He Must be God
Patrick Aaron Riches
Centre of Theology and Philosophy
University of Nottingham

Thursday 15 November
2:30 pm
Nihilism, Art, Theology and the Prodigal Son,
Or, There is no Sex outside Marriage
Conor Cunningham
Centre of Theology and Philosophy
University of Nottingham

Thursday 15 November
4:00pm
Panel Discussion on Radical Orthodoxy
with
John F Montag SJ
Patrick Aaron Riches
Conor Cunningham
Peter Candler
Tony Baker
Robert Miner (chair)

Treasure Room
Armstrong Browning Library

Sponsored by:
THE OFFICE OF THE VICE PROVOST FOR RESEARCH
THE HONORS COLLEGE
THE INSTITUTE FOR FAITH AND LEARNING
WM. B. EERDMANS PUBLISHERS
SCM PRESS

Going to the AAR this year?

2007-08-29T11:13:00.000-07:00

Going to the AAR this year? Then please join us!

Singing in the Graveyard: A Sermon on Colossians 1:15-23

2007-07-29T20:47:00.000-07:00

Here is a podcast of my first sermon at Madison Church of the Nazarene on July 22nd. If you get a chance, let me know what you think.

Grace and Peace,
Scott

WTS Paper Proposal: Any Thoughts/Suggestions

2007-06-27T14:20:00.000-07:00

I am preparing my paper submissions for the Wesleyan Theological Society Meeting this coming spring. The deadline is June 30th. What do you think about the following proposal?

Beyond Darwin and Intelligent Design: A Trinitarian Account of Creation
A Paper Proposal for the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Wesleyan Theological Society
Scott Langford
June 27, 2007

In recent years, the issue of evolution and its teaching in U.S. public schools continues to stir controversy and animus. On one side, secular scientists ridicule the fundamentalists’ literal reading of a six-day creation. In response, proponents of “creation science” or “intelligent design” attack evolutionary accounts of creation. In this paper, I will begin by critiquing the theological and philosophical assumptions of both sides, revealing that they share common epistemological assumptions that emerge out of Enlightenment accounts of human reason and knowing. To paraphrase Alasdair MacIntyre, the debates that emanate out of this flawed epistemology are incommensurable. Following this analysis, I will develop an account of creation that emerges out of the Triune God. In Trinitarian theology, creation proceeds ex nihilo from the Father through the Son in the Spirit. Creation is the outworking of God’s own being, a material manifestation of divine love. Further, creation is not reducible to a one time static event but continues in the superabundant love of the Triune God, as revealed in the incarnation. Out of this account of creation, I will move beyond the current incommensurable debates to explore evolution as the function of the ongoing participation of the Triune God in creation.

Coming Home: Becoming a Senior Pastor (Again)

2007-06-22T09:46:00.000-07:00

I hope everyone is doing well. I should soon begin blogging again. On June 11th, I accepted God's call to become the senior pastor of Madison First Church of the Nazarene in Madison, Tennessee. Madison is a transitional urban area just outside downtown Nashville. The church is located in an area with a great deal of diversity, poverty, while at the same time being on the fringe of Nashville's rapid gentrification. I am looking forward to pastoring and leading a congregation into a radical new approach to holiness and envisioning how the reign of God is revealed to us daily on the ground, in our local parish.

I appreciate your prayers.

Grace and Peace,
Scott

Who are the poor?

2007-06-10T16:50:00.000-07:00

Here is a conversation among friends on who are the poor in society or life in general.

Second CoTP book series announced!

2007-03-15T08:58:00.000-07:00

A second book series (the first being Interventions) through the Centre of Theology and Philosophy and SCM Press has been announced:

Veritas

[Click Here to Read the Full Series Description and See the Announced Books]

I had the pleasure of working with Conor Cunningham and Pete Candler again on making these covers. And, they have appeared on Amazon's UK site with release dates, for those that are interested:

Theology, Psychoanalysis and Trauma, by Marcus Pound due out September 28, 2007

Tayloring Reformed Epistemology: Charles Taylor, Alvin Plantinga, and the de jure challenge to Christian belief, by Deane-Peter Baker, due out September 28, 2007

Transcendence and Phenomenology, eds. Conor Cunningham and Peter Candler, due out August 30, 2007. This is a collection of essays from the Center of Theology and Philosophy conference in 2005.

Belief and Metaphysics, eds. Conor Cunningham and Peter Candler, due out August 30, 2007. This is a collection of essays from the Center of Theology and Philosophy conference in 2006 in Granada, Spain, and contains a foreword by Archbishop Javier Martínez.

HOT posts

2007-02-16T11:46:00.000-08:00

Don't miss the new posts by many of our friends (John & Eric among others) below!

"...the liturgy as a deeper formation of how we see the world and how we act in the world."

Godspy interview with William T. Cavanaugh

The appeasement of 'the public square'

new posts on Pastor John Wright's website

Transformed? Protestants and American Culture

Is the Reformation Over? (a collection of posts related to this topic)

Is the Reformation Over? A Conversation Among Friends, a report

2007-01-27T14:35:00.000-08:00

Our friend Eric has did a beautiful job on the below report. Ensure to check it out!

the church and postmodern culture: conversation

Is the Reformation Over?

2007-01-24T01:44:00.000-08:00

Pastor John Wright's opening address

Reflections on the Lindbeck, Burrell, and Hauerwas Dialog

New Worship Community in Nashville

2007-01-04T22:04:00.000-08:00

Sorry the blog has been so dead recently. I just want to share this and hear any feedback or suggestions that you might have.

For several months now, my pastor at West Nashville UMC and I have kicked around the idea of beginning a new worship service at the church. From the first moment, I have felt powerfully called to participate in this service. Over time, we began to realize that even more than just adding another service time, what we were really shooting for was the formation of a community of believers who would help us incarnate Christ into our surrounding community.

To begin this community, I hope to gather several of my friends from Vanderbilt Divinity School, as well as any of you in the NAshville area who wish to participate. I want to gather and begin to think through what it means to be a Eucharistic community. To begin, I want to ask the question, what kind of church/community/people are we called to be if we return to the very foundation of our faith, the Eucharist? How would our lives corporately and individually look if we wrestle seriously with what it means to receive the Lord's body and blood, and in doing so become transformed into part of that body ourselves?

I would be interested in hearing any of your thoughts. Our first meeting will be January 23rd at West Nashville UMC (47th and Charlotte), 6-8 PM.

A couple of new Interventions book covers

2007-01-04T11:26:00.000-08:00

It's been a while since we've posted on this blog, but I thought I'd at the very least share some further developments in the Interventions book series, edited by Conor Cunningham and Peter Candler. I neglected to mention in my previous post, but I actually put most of these covers together, and had quite a bit of fun doing it.

The main update, for now, is that while the von Balthasar cover is going through some revisions, a couple of other book covers have been posted to the site. One is in the 'Critical Introductions' part of the series on Heidegger by Sean McGrath, and the other is on Justice by Daniel M. Bell.

Also, look for another book series through the CoTP called Veritas which will definitely have some sweet cover art as well. I'm definitely looking forward to these books actually being published! (And it looks like this person is, too!)

</shameless-self-plug>

Reformation Then and Now

2006-11-04T14:14:00.000-08:00

Refer to the comments in this post. Thoughts? Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Is the Reformation Over?

2006-10-30T14:29:00.000-08:00

NTS - January 18 – 19, 2007
This will be a conversation moderated by Dr. John Wright and Msngr. Lorenzo Albacete with their friends - George Lindbeck, David Burrell, and Stanley Hauerwas

Too Good Not to Share...

2006-08-27T22:22:00.000-07:00

New Book Series from the CoTP

2006-08-24T09:23:00.000-07:00

Check it out, friends. Really cool covers, if I say so myself!

Pigs in Church

2006-08-14T08:56:00.000-07:00

Just when you think you've seen it all...

One of Nashville's most peculiar charismatic preachers hosted a most unusual service yesterday. The title of the sermon was "Mascots." You can read a full account of the service here.

Cash rewards were given to any student who could catch a chicken or a pig. Evidently, the pigs really made a mess, depositing little loads across the front of the church. Later, cheerleaders tumbled down the aisles and led cheers. Two mascots came out on the platform. The sermon had absolutely nothing to do with the spectacle but was a "hook" to get "nonbelievers" to come to church.

You just can't make things like this up...

Cornerstone Church

Pastor Maury Davis

Poignant Account of the War in Iraq

2006-08-11T07:19:00.000-07:00

Last night, I went to see the new documentary on the Iraq War, The War Tapes. This documentary is unbelievable. I would encourage everyone to see it. To summarize briefly, Filmmaker Deborah Scranton gave video cameras to three national guardsman who were deployed to the Sunni Triangle in 2004. The soldiers tell the story of the war first hand, giving a view into the stress and rage that comes with combat duty. The movie gives the war the human face we have been denied by the Pentagon and the media. We actually see the carnage, the suffering, the griping, and the anger. Below are some questions that the film raised for me.

1) Stanley Hauerwas proves prophetic once again...

The soldiers are united in their disdain for Halliburton and her nebulous array of subsidiary companies. As the soldiers remark, Halliburton runs everything. They daily risk their lives to escort the supply trucks. In Resident Aliens, Hauerwas quips that serving the US is like dying for the phone company. In Iraq, it is not Ma Bell but Halliburton. This raises interesting questions about the effects of global capitalism on the nation-state. In one powerful scene, Michael Moriarty, who is unwavering in his support for the war and for President Bush, is enraged with Halliburton after an IED detonates injuring a driver. He shows another truck, driven by a Third World National. The truck has no windows, no armor, no protective devices. It was issued this way. In short, the third world nationals are expendable, too cheap to warrant protective armor.

2) The need to speak the truth and offer forgiveness and prayer.

Consider this quote:

"Every once in awhile as we’re driving down the road or creeping along a patrol, I have a reoccurring epiphany – this is happening and will have a lasting impact on me for the rest of my life.

A debate we had earlier in the day over the consistency and texture of a severed limbwas not some far off grotesque assumption. It was a genuine argument between the guy who swears it resembles hamburger, ground up but uncooked and the guy who believes it looks more like a raw pot roast. There is no argument, however, that human intestines are pink pork sausage links, if of course you imagine a butcher’s block as the background instead of the screaming then soon quietly moaning casualty."

The young men and women (and their families) will be significantly affected by the war. Even while we continue to speak the truth, call for justice and peace, and avoid idolatry of the nation state, how do we offer the peace and joy of the Eucharist to those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan? Too often, we pat them on the back, thank them for their service, and then move on with our lives, with little patience for their transition back to civilian life. Are we a body capable of taking in those who are deeply wounded by what they have seen and experienced in combat?

3) Can we avoid dehumanization?

In the film, Bazzi makes coments about how soldiers have to dehumanize their enemies. The American soldiers refer to the Iraqis as Hajis. I am sure that the insurgents have a name for Americans. This film provides a human face to the war, and as we are drawn into the stories of teh soldiers, I was caught by how all of these young men are about the same age. Just as the American families mourn the loss of their sons and daughters, husbands and wives, so too do the families of the insurgents. Even in the U.S., there is a powerful tendency to dehumanize one another as liberals or conservatives.

As Christians committed to pacifism as an outworking of Christian discipleship (see Yoder), we must avoid the pitfall of a liberal account of pacifism, whereby we become opposed to the war to the extent that we dehumanize the soldiers and their families.

I am still processing much of this movie, and I really would like to see it again. I would be interested to hear your thoughts and comments.

Prayer and Franz Jägerstätter

2006-08-09T08:56:00.000-07:00

On August 9, 1943, Franz Jägerstätter was beheaded by Nazis for his refusal of military service. As a young man, he was quite wild, but he eventually returned to the Catholic faith. He served his local parish faithfully and received the Eucharist daily. When the NAzi takeover of Austria began, he was deeply opposed to National Socialism. In his local village, he cast the only vote against unification with Germany. When he was called to service, he reported but then refused to serve in the military. He was arrested and later executed for sedition. Prior to his arrest, he would respond to the salute of "Heil Hitler" with "Pfui Hitler!"

I want to close with his closing reflection on prayer, as it seems so appropriate for our day and time:

"Just as the man who thinks only of this world does everything possible to make life here easier and better, so must we, too, who believe in the eternal Kingdom, risk everything in order to receive a great reward there. Just as those who believe in National Socialism tell themselves that their struggle is for survival, so must we, too, convince ourselves that our struggle is for the eternal Kingdom. But with this difference: we need no rifles or pistols for our battle, but instead, spiritual weapons--and the foremost among these is prayer.... Through prayer, we continually implore new grace from God, since without God's help and grace it would be impossible for us to preserve the Faith and be true to His commandments...."

The picture below was taken by his three daughters and sent to him shortly before he was martyred. It reads, "Dear Father, come soon."

the church and postmodern culture: the conversation

2006-08-02T12:07:00.000-07:00

My friends James K. A. Smith and Geoff Holsclaw have put together a site called the church and postmodern culture: conversation. This site is a place where conversation will be geared initially around Jamie Smith's new book series by the same name, but will go beyond this as well. The site is also backed by Baker Academic, which is a pretty slick backing to have.

Initially, Jamie Smith has invited theologians, philosophers, and a whole host of others to comment on his first book in the series. The other books slated in the series are: a book by Merold Westphal on transcendence, community, and interpretation in conversation with Kierkegaard and Levinas; a book by Graham Ward on contextual theology and political discipleship; a book by Bruce Ellis Benson on improvisation as a paradigm for thinking about worship and the arts; and a book by John Caputo that asks, "What would Jesus Deconstruct?" With the release of each of these books, new responses will be posted by folks of myriad theological, philosophical, and political sympathies.

For more on the general mission of the book series, here is the series preface:

Current discussions in the church--from emergent "postmodern" congregations to mainline "missional" congregations--are increasingly grappling with philosophical and theoretical questions related to postmodernity. In fact, it could be argued that developments in postmodern theory (especially questions of "post-foundationalist" epistemologies) have contributed to the breakdown of former barriers between evangelical, mainline, and Catholic faith communities. Postliberalism--a related "effect" of postmodernism--has engendered a new, confessional ecumenism wherein we find non-denominational evangelical congregations, mainline Protest churches, and Catholic parishes all wrestling with the challenges of postmodernism and drawing on the culture of postmodernity as an opportunity for re-thinking the shape of our churches.
This context presents an exciting opportunity for contemporary philosophy and critical theory to “hit the ground,” so to speak, by allowing high-level work in postmodern theory to serve the church’s practice--including all of the kinds of congregations and communions noted above. As such, the goal of this series is to bring together high-profile theorists in continental philosophy and contemporary theology writing for a broader, less-specialist audience that is interested in the impact of postmodern theory for the faith and practice of the church. Each book in the series will, from different angles and with different questions, undertake to answer questions such as: What does postmodern theory have to say about the shape of the church? How should concrete, in-the-pew and on-the-ground religious practices be impacted by postmodernism? What should the church look like in postmodernity? What has Paris to do with Jerusalem?
The series is ecumenical not only with respect to its ecclesial destinations, but also with respect to the facets of continental philosophy and theory that are represented. A wide variety of theoretical commitments will be included, ranging from deconstruction to Radical Orthodoxy, and including voices from Badiou to Žižek and the usual suspects in between (Nietzsche, Heidegger, Levinas, Derrida, Foucault, Irigaray, Rorty, and others). And insofar as postmodernism occasions a retrieval of ancient sources, these contemporary sources will be brought into dialogue with Augustine, Irenaeus, Aquinas, and other resources. Drawing on the wisdom of established scholars in the field, the series will provide accessible introductions to postmodern thought with the specific aim of exploring its impact upon ecclesial practice. The books are offered, we might say, as French lessons for the church.

Needless to say (but I'll say it! -- what's with these weird turns of phrase?), I'm really excited about this book series and especially this website which will act as a logical extension of it. Stay tuned to the site over the next few months for the discussion -- and remember, they want you to chime in. Speaking of, Dale Lature has already been chiming in on Jamie's first book in the series. Those posts are listed here.

Ecclesiology, Identity, and Unity

2006-07-30T16:55:00.000-07:00

Preached at St. David's Episcopal Church; Nashville, TN on July 30, 2006 by your blogging Spidey-friend, Thunder Jones

Texts:

Ephesians 4:1-7,11-16

I, Paul, the prisoner in the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all.

But each of us was given grace according to the measure of Christ's gift. The gifts he gave were that some would be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until all of us come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ. We must no longer be children, tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine, by people's trickery, by their craftiness in deceitful scheming. But speaking the truth in love, we must grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every ligament with which it is equipped, as each part is working properly, promotes the body's growth in building itself up in love.

Mark 6:45-52

Immediately after the feeding of the five thousand, Jesus made his disciples get into the boat and go on ahead to the other side, to Bethsaida, while he dismissed the crowd. After saying farewell to them, he went up on the mountain to pray.

When evening came, the boat was out on the sea, and he was alone on the land. When he saw that they were straining at the oars against an adverse wind, he came towards them early in the morning, walking on the sea. He intended to pass them by. But when they saw him walking on the sea, they thought it was a ghost and cried out; for they all saw him and were terrified. But immediately he spoke to them and said, "Take heart, it is I; do not be afraid." Then he got into the boat with them and the wind ceased. And they were utterly astounded, for they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened.

---------------

Today’s epistle offers an interesting window into the ecclesiology of St. Paul. Ecclesiology is theology concerning the Church. It is also, in my view, one of the most important fields of theological knowledge. I understand it to be important because it is the grounding of our life together. Ecclesiology is a theological articulation of our identity as the unique community known as the Church. Ecclesiology lets us know who we are. We cannot understand the world apart from this grounding. Unless we understand ourselves as part of Christ’s Church, we will be blown about by the mores and whims of our own time, as St. Paul warns in today’s reading.

By grounding ourselves in a robust understanding of Church, we begin to understand our life together and our mission. When I speak of Church, it is important to know that I am not just talking about those of us who call St. David’s our church, but the larger Church catholic; the universal church to which we all belong. As the universal Church, we are a foretaste of the coming Kingdom of God to the world. Our witness to the world is dependant upon our ability to articulate and live out the idea of Church individually, locally, nationally, and globally. This is why all the voices of schism, within the Episcopal Church, the Anglican Communion, and Christianity as a whole are so distressing.

In Ephesians, St. Paul writes, “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all.”

The problem of Protestantism is not one of theological reform. Indeed, the idea of theological reform is crucial to the maintenance of a vibrant and engaged Christian faith. The problem of Protestantism, and really of all Christian schisms dating back to the Great Schism between Rome and the Orthodox East in the 11th century, is that we have the misguided notion that we can somehow disconnect from each other. We seem to believe that by holding right belief, contrasted with the wrong belief of the other, that we can distance ourselves from “them.”

St. Paul refuses to split or divide the faith; such splintering of the Body of Christ would seem contradictory to him. He doesn’t offer us a two-tier system of communion or the idea of a true church and other ecclesial bodies that are somewhat valid. He offers us one hope and one calling. We are called to be Christians. This is our primary vocation, it is the source of our identity, and it is the motive behind our lives.

We are told by St. Paul in the second chapter of Ephesians that we are “citizens with the saints and also members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone.” This citizenship must never be understood to be “fire insurance” or a free pass into the Kingdom of God, rather it is a charge to those of us who take on the name Christian and share in the Eucharistic life of the Church to be formed by the unique practices of the Church. In today’s reading we hear St. Paul beg us to live a life worthy of the calling that we have in Christ Jesus. In next week’s epistle, St. Paul will encourage us to put away the falsehood of our former life. He does this, not to threaten us, but to remind us that we are the forgiven of God and ought to live as imitators of Christ.

While I could certainly say many different things about what is entailed in the notion of the imitation of Christ, this is a topic for another day and another sermon. My point in discussing the larger context of Ephesians is to point towards the holistic understanding of what it means to be Church. Not only does St. Paul tell us that we are members of the household of God, he also encourages us to imitate Christ. The only method available for us to fulfill such a cumbersome charge is to locate ourselves in the “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” that that we find described in this week’s epistle reading.

St. Paul wrote “But speaking the truth in love, we must grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every ligament with which it is equipped, as each part is working properly, promotes the body's growth in building itself up in love.” This charge to build up the body in charitable love must be our task if we are to fulfill the calling that God has given us. We cannot hope to fulfill God’s call alone as individuals, but must do so as a single body made up of diverse gifts.

Sadly, in the midst of our current ecclesial turmoil, we find ourselves doubting that we can find the unity necessary to complete this holy charge. We doubt that we can be the Church that St. Paul writes of in today’s epistle reading. In fact, we wonder if St. Paul had any idea of what Church was like when he was writing this epistle.

I can tell you that St. Paul was very much so aware of the strife we find as we attempt to make life together as the Body of Christ. We see it very clearly in his epistles to the Corinthians. If there ever was a church that was dysfunctional, it was the church of Corinth. But how do we find this life and unity? How can we hope to fulfill the “unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace,” that St. Paul describes?

I would point us back to our Gospel reading for today. When the disciples saw Jesus walking on the water, they were terrified. They thought that a ghost had come to do them some type of harm. In the midst of chaos and fear, Jesus tells his disciples to take heart. Jesus gets into the boat with his disciples and the wind ceases. The disciples are astounded, but the reading ends by telling us that their hearts were hardened. They could not understand what this encounter with Jesus meant for them and we have a hard time understanding what it means for us.

We must be diligent not to let our hearts become hardened. We must welcome the risen Jesus into his Church and allow him to be our Head. If we are to be saved from the wind of dissonance and schism that is currently blowing throughout Christianity, we can only do so by embracing Jesus, who is the Sacrament of God to us.

The Dominican theologian Edward Schillebeeckx teaches us that the Church serves as the “visible realization” of the salvific work of Christ to the world. The Church exists as a community that fulfills the work of God on Earth. In the Church, the “grace of redemption becomes visible” and known in the institutions of the Church and in the gifts of the Church. We show the world what the peace of Christ, the peace of our salvation, looks like through our life together.

The sacramental life of the Church is presided over by Christ, who is the High Priest of the Church. The sacraments are central to Christian life and must be understood to be more than figurative extensions of our faith; they are the mysterious method by which the Lord relates to His Church. The Church cannot visibly see Christ, but through the sacraments, Christ is present in His Church. Likewise, in our sacramental practices, we show the risen Christ to the watching world.

As we share our sacramental life together, as we prepare ourselves for Holy Eucharist, we ought to look for the miracle-working presence of the risen Lord. It is in these practices that we see the peculiar vocation of Christian life at its most vibrant point. If we are to find unity together and fulfill St. Paul’s vision of the Church, it will be done through our sacramental life as we allow ourselves to be shaped by these rites.

We must also remember that our practices are not only limited to our sacramental rites, but also seen in acts of mercy and charity. The weakest among us often suffer the most in our church debates as funding and volunteers disappear for the work that cares for the sick, the poor, and the orphans. Sacramental practices build up the body of Christ, but the work of Christ is done in these acts that imitate our risen Lord.

While vigorous accounts of theological differences are certainly helpful in times of confusion such as these, this kind of discussion cannot replace our Christian practices. We must not harden our hearts towards each other and our divine life together, but must embrace one another and recognize that no matter how much we might desire from time to time, we cannot be separated from our brothers and sisters in Christ. This is our hope and the only way forward. With all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, we must lead a life worthy of the calling to which we have been given.

AMEN

Autonomous Reason & Public Discourse

2006-05-09T14:06:00.000-07:00

First, I want to thank those of you who gave me some recommended reading for pomo/continental philosophy... for starters, I got Smith's "Who's Afraid of Radical Orthodoxy?", and it's been very helpful (I have read his intro to RO, but I might have to re-read parts of it).

What I'd like to discuss here flows from that reading, and the other reading I've done in RO (and elsewhere: e.g. MacIntyre) to this point. If I've understood what I've read, one modern concept which comes under heavy fire is the notion of autonomous reason.

The critiques I've read of this notion are compelling to me, but I'm not yet completely sold. Among other concerns, I'm worried that one consequence of these critiques is that public political discourse among those with differing presuppositions is -- for all intents and purposes -- impossible. And with the highly partisan political atmosphere we already have, the idea that I can't appeal to someone's reason is disconcerting and troubling one. If there is no autonomous reason which acts as arbiter, how can I say, "come, let us reason together"?

What am I missing?

Intelligent Housing

2006-05-08T19:33:00.000-07:00

Sometimes you can't imagine what will happen to you. We closed on our house today, and wound up on the local news. Kiplinger rated Nashville first among U.S. cities today, so the local news station interviewed us about why we moved. It was very cheesy, the whole video production process. Here is the link. Feel free to ridicule me over it.

Peace,
Scott

How Is The World To Be Judged

2006-04-26T09:16:00.000-07:00

Earlier, I posted about trying to teach theology with my youth. I do a weekly newsletter. Here is my reflection on the lectionary reading: Acts 3:12-26. What are your thoughts?

How Is The World To Be Judged?
Acts 3:12-26

Do you remember a time when you thought your parents were absolutely going to kill you? Have you ever had that sick feeling in the pit of your stomach that you have just made a dreadful mistake that will hurt someone else severely? How did you feel as you faced your parents or the person you wronged? Do you remember those tense moments as you waited for them to respond?
One of the biggest words thrown around in Christian conversation is judgment. As our denomination argues over issues such as the war in Iraq, homosexuality, who can receive communion, and how we should worship, there is always a powerful tendency to draw lines in the sand and pronounce God’s judgment on those deemed outside the boundary lines. Liberals and conservatives are both quick to pronounce God’s judgment on the other. In doing so, they miss out on how God actually judges the world. As an Easter people, we must remember that our understanding of judgment begins with Jesus’ death on the Cross. As the soldiers were nailing him to the cross, Jesus did not condemn them but instead declared, “Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34). After his resurrection, he sent for Peter, who denied him three times, and for the disciples who largely abandoned him (Mark 16:7). In Christ’s resurrection, God pronounces judgment on sin, death, and evil. His judgment is forgiveness!

Forgiveness, though, is the scariest form of judgment imaginable. We expect punishment, wrath, and anger when we hurt someone. It is always easier to receive forgiveness with conditions. That way, we feel as though we earn our forgiveness. What do we do when it is given to us as a gift? Think about what Peter reveals to the crowd gathered after the lame man is healed. He states, “You denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead” (Acts 3:14-15). At this point, you would expect Peter to call down the wrath of God on the evil ones who killed Jesus. Instead, he urges them to “repent...[to] turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord...”(Acts 3:19-20)! In response to his crucifixion, Jesus offers forgiveness to those who conspired to crucify him. There are no conditions, save for one. All we must do is turn again and live in the constant refreshment and blessings of God. The only requirement for us is to return to God and live in his superabundant blessings, grace, and love! This is God’s judgment. In the face of sin, even the murder of his Son, God pronounces forgiveness. Thus, the way of Christian judgment is the way of forgiveness.

Think about how this would radically change our lives together. Imagine a church where we forgave our enemies. Here is the scariest part, though. Imagine how this would change your life. What if you realized that having been forgiven of your sins, you were called to forgive actively the sins of others? What if you began to realize that rather than judging others harshly and condemning them for what they had done to you or your friends, you were called to judge them with love and forgiveness? Imagine what it must be like to be an Easter person in an Easter church living to see the entire world receive and enjoy the wonderful blessings of a God who judges not with hate and condemnation, but with love!

The System, or just Sin?

2006-04-25T12:09:00.000-07:00

Back in November I noted some comments by Thomas of Endlessly Rocking regarding the genealogical method insofar as its used in theology and/or philosophy (Scott had some helpful thoughts in the comments of that post).

In the February issue of First Things, Fr. Neuhaus quoted from an article by Christopher Insole, in which the latter takes issue with the RO critique of political liberalism. In his own comments, Fr. Neuhaus states,

There is among ideologues, including Christian ideologues, a propensity for attributing to a disfavored “system” the failings and frustrations of the human condition. For Marx it was capitalism, for conservatives of a libertarian bent it is socialism. In this country, Stanley Hauerwas and his disciples, who are usually on what is perceived to be the left, share with Theonomists, usually on the right, a passionate animus against the liberal democratic order. Theonomists—a.k.a. Dominionists or Reconstructionists—share with the late R.J. Rushdoony a belief that our constitutional order is fundamentally misbegotten and the nation should be reconstituted on the basis of “Bible law.” (See my article “Why Wait for the Kingdom? The Theonomist Temptation,” May 1990.) While proposing very different alternatives to our putatively misbegotten political order, the anti-liberals of the left and right are both lacking in an Augustinian sense of our creaturely limits within a fallen creation that is far short of the historical realization of the promised Kingdom.

I'm wondering what those more versed in RO than I think about these comments. Between these comments and Thomas' post referred to above, I've been prompted to wonder whether or not the problems which I've attributed to modernity/liberalism are more appropriately attributed to our fallen condition, i.e. to sin. I don't like this idea (and I can't quite put my figure on why), but I need to be honest with myself and ponder whether or not it is the case.

Thoughts?

Not a Happy Musical

2006-04-23T20:56:00.001-07:00

This weekend, I went to see a play that one of my teens was in, Urinetown. The strange name aside, this play is very interesting in light of many of our conversations here. To summarize briefly, Urinetown is a Tony-award winning play about the effects of overconsumption of resources. In the play, the city has suffered a 20 year drought that forces the Urine Good Company to take over public restrooms. Money, power, and monopoly contribute to twist UGC into a corrupt company bent on exploiting the poor, who can afford only one of the town's public restrooms. The government acts to enforce the interests of the company by banning public urination (No pee for free). The threat that lies behind the law is banishment to Urinetown, which is a euphemism for death. To be sentenced to Urinetown is to be sentenced to death.

However, the musical itself is a parody of other musicals, deconstructing itself as it pokes fun at other popular musicals like West Side Story and Le Mis. In the apparent end, Hope, the good daughter of the evil tyrant, appears to lead the people to victory and reform. She proclaims, "Now you can do whatever you want, whenever you want, with whomever you want, wherever you want." This is the beginning of an era of joy and justice. However, the play does not end but then very quickly shifts to its darker ending:

"Of course, it wasn't long before the water became silty, brackish, and then dried up all together. Cruel as Caldwell B. Cladwell was, his measures effectively regulated water consumption, sparing the town the same fate as the phantom Urinetown. Hope, however, chose to ignore the warning signs, choosing instead to bask in the people's love as long as it lasted... Hope eventually joined her father in a manner not quite so gentle. As for the people of this town? Well, they did the best they could. But they were prepared for the world they inherited, weaned as they were on the legend born of their founding father's scare tactics. For when the water dried up, they recognized their town for the first time for what it really was. What it was always waiting to be...
This is Urinetown!
Always it's been Urinetown!
This place it's called Urinetown!"

In dramatic fashion, the play ends with all the characters paying homage to Thomas Malthus, proclaiming, "Hail Malthus!"

Thus, hidden behind the satire, comedy, and rousing musical numbers is a deep commitment to a nihilism that declares that death can only be staved off and will eventually come for us. No matter what we do we always live in the shadow of the Abyss. Every town will eventually become Urinetown.

The end of the play thus becomes a tribute to death. Or, in the words of Officer Lockstock, "This is not a very happy play." Sadly, this appears to reflect the viewpoint of much of pop culture.

Thoughts?

Evidence of Easter

2006-04-21T10:41:00.000-07:00

"But Peter got up and ran to the tomb; stooping and looking in, he saw
the linen cloths by themselves; then he went home, amazed atwhat had
happened" (Luke 24:12, NRSV).

One of my favorite shows is CSI. I love to watch how they take miniscule pieces of evidence and then determine how a crime was committed and who the probable offender was. We live in an age where we believe science can and will solve our problems. We believe in an age where seeing is believing, and, as shows like CSI reveal, we can see into even the most minute aspects of human life. At the same time, our ability to see has not aroused in us a deep sense of awe and wonder at the world God has created. We are not moved to tears as we watch an unborn child yawn in her mother's womb. Instead, we are strangely preoccupied with death. The ongoing high ratings of shows like CSI and Law and Order reveal that we are a culture that finds death much more interesting than life. PArt of the reason is that the evidence of death is everywhere. It is not hard to understand the "natural" process of birth, maturity, decay, and death. We see it in the seasons, in animals and insects, even in our own bodies. In an empirical era, it is a slam dunk case. There is no need for DNA testing.

The disciples in today's reading also understand death. When the women return, out of breath and in a state of shock, telling a wild story about an empty tomb, bolts of lightning, and angelic visitors, the disciples dismiss it as an "idle tale" (NSRV) or "nonsense" (NIV). No one survives crucifixion. The women must be hysterical and just made this tale up. They did not believe the women. However, Peter leaves on a dead run, hurrying to the tomb to see exactly what has happened. He bends down, peers in, and sees that the linen clothes are there by themselves, empty with no body. Then, Peter does something interesting. After an unimaginably crazy week, after a week of scurrying, hiding, denying, and running around, Peter goes home. Yes he is amazed, but his response to the evidence of Easter is just to go home.

I wonder how similar we are to Peter. The church gathers together on Easter Sunday, having finished a Lenten fast and rehearsed Jesus' Last SUpper and crucifixion. We enter on Easter SUnday and find all the evidence of Easter given to us by the tradition- a white cloth on the cross, lillies, hallelujahs, reports that Christ has risen, hymns that announce the revelation of a new world. All the evidence is there, and then we all too often go home, amazed but largely unchanged. The good news of this story is that Peter did not stay at home. He continued the journey of Eastertide and found himself dramatically transformed by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Having seen the evidence of Easter, will we go home- back to lives lived under the dominion of death, habituated by the practices of surviving another day, or will we be caught up in the life of Easter, a strange journey for a peculiar people that announces that the empty linens are all the evidence that we need that death, sin, and evil have been defeated and that God has delivered salvation to his creation?

Grace and PEace,
Scott

New Discussion Forum for the Theology & Philsophy Centre

2006-04-10T09:59:00.000-07:00

The Centre of Theology & Philsophy now has a blog/discussion forum! What does that mean? Well, it means that this is the forum/blog for Dr.'s John Milbank, Conor Cunningham, Philip Goodchild, Karen Kilby, and potentially even those listed as fellows on their site. I'll be sending them their logins shortly so that they can begin posting (hopefully -- we'll see!).

In the meantime, I've created the first post to get things going. Feel free to drop your thoughts, questions, or whatever over there.

Without further ado, here's the forum I designed for all those cats:

(cross-posted to ericisrad.com)

Please Be In Prayer

2006-04-07T18:22:00.000-07:00

Please be in prayer for Middle Tennessee, especially the Gallatin, Hendersonville, and Goodlettsville areas as an F4 tornado swept through the area killing a number of people and destroying a number of homes. The area most devastated is where I grew up. All of my family is safe, but a number of them were just a little ways from the devastation. By the grace of God, the tornado did not hit any of the school buildings, but almost hit three.

I would appreciate your prayers for this area.

Thanks,
Scott

Youth Ministry & Radical Preaching

2006-04-05T22:29:00.000-07:00

Wow, the past two months have been a blur! Sorry I have been absent from all conversation over this time period.

I am now a youth pastor, and I no longer preach every week. Since I began my new ministry, I have read a number of youth ministry related books and articles. Interestingly, many youth pastors are searching for practices that will ground their youth in the Christian faith and help to move beyond a youth "program" centered on entertainment for a vision of the youth as a vibrant part of the life of the church.

What I do see missing is a Trinitarian theology that will give meaning and direction to the very good practices being introduced and cultivated in youth ministry today.

What I am proposing is a series of posts that could potentially turn into a book proposal where we seek to explain Trinitarian theology in such a way that our youth workers, leaders, and youth themselves can understand and begin to embody. I guess what I am imagining is a chapter on the Triune God and the superabundant economy of Triune love. What is the place of the Church in the Triune God? What is our place in the Church? Then, I would like to see a chapter on how worship (specifically the Eucharist) is the grammar of the church. Then, I would like to explore how the very specific practices of the faith emanate from this Trinitarian logic. In all of these discussions, I would like to keep things very specific to avoid the flight into the obscure that Trinitarian theology often staggers into.

Is anyone interested in such a conversation/project?

Peace,
Scott

Performing the Faith

2006-04-05T11:57:00.000-07:00

From Alastair comes this excellent post called "How Gutenberg Took the Bible from Us: Some thoughts on the Ontology of the Scriptures." A choice snippet:

The ubiquity of the printed text makes it very difficult for us to recover a more Christian engagement with the Scripture. Even within the gathered worship of the people of God, people are incessantly reading their printed Bibles. This is akin to someone attending a production of Hamlet and paying little attention to what is taking place on the stage because he is too busy reading along in the text.

Here's the rest, which is highly recommended.

For more on this topic by Alastair:

The Authority of Scripture: From Priests to Prophets

The Authority of Scripture: The Authorizing Text

For more on this topic by others:

At ReformedCatholicism on January 2, 2006: I wonder what history you have been reading…

Another at ReformedCatholicism on March 21, 2006: On Inerrancy

And yet again ReformedCatholicism on March 23, 2006: Outside the Three-Ringed Circus

At Gower Street on November 15, 2005: Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon

At The Phaith of St. Phransus on October 25, 2005: Thoughts on Scripture pt1 - "Our Family Story"

Joel Garver at Sacra Doctrina on November 23, 2004: the bible in the middle ages

(Hat tip for the original post, if I wore hats: Reformed Catholicism. Also, apologies to Stanley Hauerwas for the name of this post -- it just seemed to fit so well :)

Landed in Tennessee

2006-03-22T06:17:00.000-08:00

I hope to be back blogging in the near future. I started as Youth Pastor for Blakemore and West Nashville United Methodist Churches in Nashville on Sunday. Last week was insane. In addition to moving, I finished my comprehensive exams, while we were moving. I am beginning to catch up on my sleep!

I have missed blogging, and I hope to be posting again soon. I hope everyone is well.

Grace and Peace,
Scott

Call for papers

2006-03-06T15:37:00.000-08:00

If you all are interested, Conor Cunningham, author within the 'Radical Orthodoxy' series, has asked me to spread the word about the Call-for-papers at this year's event. Details are below:

‘Belief and Metaphysics’

The Centre of Theology and Philosophy, in partnership with the Instituto de Filosofía Edith Stein de Granada (www.if-edithstein.org), will hold its annual conference, over four days, in Granada, Spain, doing so under the invitation of Archbishop Javier Martinez.

September 15th-18th, 2006, Granada, Spain:

Belief and Metaphysics

(Conference Details)

'Could it turn out that nobody has ever believed anything?' (Paul Churchland)

Speakers include: Oliva Blanchette, Louis Dupré, Mark D Jordan, Merold Westphal, David Cooper, John Cottingham, E.J Lowe, Rudi te Velde, David Bentley Hart, Ludger Honnefelder, David Burrell, Hent de Vries, Simon Conway-Morris, Charles Taliaferro, Michael Rea, and John Milbank

Call-for-Papers: We are interested in papers discussing any topic at the interface of belief and metaphysics, especially questions concerning the relation between belief and realism, especially in light of ontological naturalism, and scientistic reductionism, on the one hand, and cultural relativism and Postmodernism, on the other.

Details on contacting Conor Cunningham can be found here.

Peace,

Eric

Radical Preaching

2006-02-20T19:32:00.001-08:00

Personal Relationship?

Hello -
The church in which I am serving has a university student who is the youth director. I supervise him by meeting weekly to discuss the youth worship service and his weekly message among other things. He is what I would consider a postmodern fundamentalist. I that I mean that he believes in a sort of hyper-solo scriptura with no respect or desire for the guidance of tradition or doctrines and no concept of ecclesiology. In the 6 months I haved supervised him it has been a constant push by me for him to think about theology and worship in a new light. With this said...His conception of salvation as completely internal and personal has forced me to defend my own position in his language. Because of this I have been rethinking my own understanding on this issue.

I am Wesleyan in most senses and I remember times when my "heart was strangely warmed" as a youth being called back to the faith. It is clear in the emotionalism of contemporary worship that "feeling" is the end. But hasn't our faith been unfairly romanticized in the past couple of hundred years because of American revivalism and a culture that glorifies sentimentality? Any Christian can give examples of persons (perhaps themselves) that have claimed to have experienced a personal relationship that didn't last. The language of "personal" faith is rampant in my generation and I wonder if the entire notion is wrong. I am not implying that emotions are not present in our salvation. I believe that some people are knocked off their feet by the Gospel. And my own faith is woven into every part of my being. I feel more strongly about it than anything.

But I believe that it is practices that help form us as Christ's body; As we participate in the means of grace we are "being saved."
In most ideal senses, becoming a Christian is socialization. This is one of the arguments for infant baptism. Maybe it's simply learning to live in a different culture.

There is an element of individual belief to our faith: "If you confess with your mouth and believe in your heart..."
But is the language of a "personal relationship" somewhat of a western construct emerging from, among other things, an individualistic economy and democracy? How "personal" if at all is it? What is the balance?

I am sure the question is raised here without expounding further.

Peace -
Nathan

I Haven't Fallen Off the Earth...

2006-02-17T09:21:00.001-08:00

Sorry everyone that I have taken over a month off from blogging. I just wanted to update everyone as to what is going on in my life.

First, my comprehensive examinations are due on March 15th, and I have a tremendous amount of work to do for them.

Second, I am presenting a paper at the Wesleyan Theological Society on March 2-4. You can find that paper here. It is on recovering an Augustinian notion of friendship in a postmodern world.

Third, I have been applying to Divinity Schools. I hope to begin an M.Div. degree program at Vanderbilt in the fall of 2006.

Fourth, I received a call (and accepted on Monday) to be the Youth Director at Blakemore United Methodist Church and West Nashville UMC. The youth group, Blakeville, is combined, and they are a wonderful group of kids. I am looking forward to serving the church and guiding them. I am following Jonathan Norman (St. Phransus on our many blogs), who was there before me. I am hoping to receive special permission from the district to go "on loan" to the Methodists.

This time is one of great joy as I will be closer to my parents. My father has a number of health problems, and my mother's health has recently also become a problem. It is frightening to be 8 hours away from home when your parents need help. At the same time, it is a time of great sadness. The Waycross Church has been such a blessing. Here, in SE Georgia, I have a congregation that welcomes weekly communion, fairly radical preaching, and has a deep desire to serve the Lord incarnationally in our community. Each person in the congregation is like a member of my family. My daughter has a best friend that is like a twin to her. I would appreciate your prayers during this time. We will be moving to Tennessee on March 16th, and my first Sunday at Blakeville is on March 19th.

Grace and Peace,
Scott

Popes Lenten Message Focuses on Jesus' Gaze

2006-02-01T13:22:00.000-08:00

ZENIT - Says It "Embraces Individuals and Multitudes"

Asianews.it - Pope: the development of all of man and all men in his Message for Lent

Benedict XVI's Full Message for Lent 2006 - "Jesus, at the Sight of the Crowds, Was Moved With Pity"

DEUS CARITAS EST

2006-01-25T08:42:00.001-08:00

Pope B16's First Encyclical (with hyper-links)

Being Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction...

A Week with Paul McPartlan

2006-01-16T06:25:00.001-08:00

David sent me an email just after the new year asking some excellent questions about how Protestants view theology and the Church. Also, over the Christmas holiday, I received an excellent book, Sacrament of Salvation: An Introduction to Eucharistic Ecclesiology by Paul McPartlan. I hope to work through McPartlan's book and to try to draw out where my own denomination stands. I hope others can contribute with regard to their own denomination/tradition.

Chapter 1: The Eucharist Makes the Church: Calvary Cross & Heavenly Banquet

Chapter 2: Preparation of the Children of Abraham: The Messiah Foretold by the Prophets

Chapter 3: The Story of the New People of God: Two Thousand Years in Three Steps

Chapter 4: A Modern Father of the Church: The Trials and Triumphs of Henri de Lubac

Chapter 5: The Church, Sacrament of Salvation: Liturgy, Structure and Mission

Chapter 6: The Holy Spirit and Unity: The Eucharist in Ecumenical Dialogue

Chapter 7: This Is the Cup of My Blood: The Chalice and the Renewal of Baptism

Chapter 8: The Universe Attains Its Destiny Through Us: Christ and the Church: Priest of Creation

I hope to begin soon. Here is a quote from then Cardinal Ratzinger:

"The Church is the celebration of the Eucharist; the Eucharist is the Church; they do not simply stand side by side; they are one and the same; it is from there that everything else radiates" (xiv).

New Years Day Sermon

2006-01-12T18:12:00.000-08:00

Radical Preaching - My 63 year old Sr. Pastor is still a pretty sharp preacher -
“TOO GOOD FOR VIDEO!”
Matthew 2:1-12
FUMC Gainesville, FL – January 1, 2006
Rev. Earl Parker
It’s too bad that videos were not being made when this story of the astrologers, or the wise men, if you will, first found its way into Matthew’s Gospel. The material is all there: adventure, intrigue, courage, and even “good guys” who outfox the “bad guy”.
But all these ingredients make up only the backdrop or the framework for the real story; the kind of story that lies beyond the scope of most videos. In fact, this story is too good for video. It doesn’t belong on a tape or disc. It belongs in our hearts.
Why? Because it’s a story concerning something quite marvelous about our God and about the marvel this God has put within us. It’s a story that holds the key to many of the relational problems we face on the international scene, in the groups of which we are a part, and in our own personal lives. We can’t afford to relegate such a story to a video that is used for entertainment and put on a shelf to be taken off in a year or so, or even taped over with another story.
If this isn’t a story about three nice astrologers and a bad king, what is it about? For starters, it’s a story about the God of Jesus. This isn’t just any old God, but a very unique God in the history of religions.
Some years ago, Vincent Donovan, an American missionary, was working with the Masai people in East Africa. In a subsequent book entitled Christianity Rediscovered, Donovan recounts an initial discussion he had with some of the Masai people. He had begun by inviting them to tell him about their god. They described a god they knew as Engai. This was a god who loved some people, but not others.
Engai loved rich people but not poor people. This was a god who loved good people but not bad people. It was a god who loved the healthy but not the sick. The god of the Masai was a god who sided with their tribe against all other tribes. Indeed, theirs was a god who drew lines as to who mattered and who didn’t matter.
Father Donovan listened and then he began to tell the Masai about a most high God who loved everybody. This was the God of Abraham. The Masai, in turn, asked Donovan if this God of Abraham, a God who loves everybody, had spoken to Donovan’s tribe, meaning us, you and me.
The missionary was both embarrassed and saddened because he realized that the answer to their question was “no”. He thought about the so-called Christian God who is called upon for victory by both sides in a typical war. In the 1940’s, Christians in Berlin prayed for Hitler and the cause of Nazism while the Christians in the United States prayed with equal fervor for the destruction of that same cause. Each thought that God was on their side.
As it is, we have the Black people’s god and the white people’s god. In the minds of some, god is all for straight people and totally non-accepting of gay people. Indeed, our God is all too often no less tribal, no less discriminating, as Donovan puts it, than the god Diana of the Ephesians or the god Engai of the Masai.
None of this has anything to do with the God of Jesus, the God implied in today’s familiar Bible story. Here is a God who invited everyone into the brotherhood of Jesus. When we reflect on this story, it may be well to place it in the larger landscape of the other stories we have reflected upon in the Advent/Christmas Season.
What begins to emerge is an all-inclusive God who doesn’t fit the image projected by so many of the tribes of history, including our own. Indeed, would this God be welcome in many of the very churches that celebrate this epiphany? Inclusiveness seldom sits well among people who worship a tribal god.
Listen to where it all began. The announcement of the coming was made to a young woman. That God would approach a woman wasn’t in keeping with the thought of the times. You may have seen the movie “YENTL” in which the lead character, played by Barbara Streisand, had to masquerade as a young man in order to be allowed to study the Torah.
And who was the forerunner of Jesus? He was a cousin who hardly fit the mold of the socially acceptable. And then the Son of God becomes incarnate! God enters the realm of the human and where does he choose to do so but in the unrespected town of Bethlehem, a place for the uncouth. A stable that was hardly the Mariott Inn of its day becomes both the birthing room and the nursery.
Even the invitees tell the story of God’s inclusiveness: unschooled shepherds from the fields, and, as we hear today, the very well schooled from the Middle East. These astrologers were certainly outside the tribe of accepted religionists.
Might God be trying to tell us something by having three astrologers, considered to be infidels by the local tribe, as special guests at the centerpiece of God’s involvement in the human condition? Who else other than the God of Jesus would have made sure that three infidels would be at the birth scene of his Son?
How about today? If we were to make up the guest list, whom would we invite? Who would be scratch off the list and whom would we simply not think about inviting? Would the people who don’t believe our way be on the list? What about the Muslim people? What about the Buddhists and the Hindus? What of the agnostics or even the professed atheists? Would any of those people come to mind, and if so, would it be as equals of in some condescending way?
What of the socio-economic status? Would we think to invite the have-nots, the homeless, or the people we call “bums”, on the same level as the corporate CEO’s or the religious leaders? In fact, would we put any one group ahead of the other?
Would life style make a difference? Would the young couple living together be invited in without accusing eyes? Would those who are homosexual be as welcome as those who are heterosexual? Would race make a difference, at least in regard to whom we want to sit next to us?
Unless we can become inclusive ourselves, it’s difficult to conceive of a God who is inclusive. The marvel, of course, is that this God even includes those who ARE NOT themselves inclusive!
These kings have a lot to teach us. Their wisdom wasn’t the result of having found the Christ Child. Rather it was their wisdom that prompted them to search for him in the first place. A truly wise person knows that God is far too encompassing and far too wonderful to be fully understood or appreciated at any given moment in one’s life.
Many of us learned of God early in life. We learned Bible stories, perhaps even memorized a verse or two. We were told things about God and became familiar with the rituals, precepts, and traditions of our religion. But all too often this became equated with an adequate understanding of God. It’s as if we had captured God on video and there was nothing else to learn.
Think about that! If any one culture or religion, let alone any one person, could capture an understanding of God, what would that say about God? It would seem that such a God isn’t at all limitless. Such a God would, by definition, be rather narrow. Certainly, an all wise, all marvelous, all loving God is beyond the limited wisdom, the limited goodness, and the limited love that any of us can muster at any one time in our lives.
This is precisely why God gives us more time. If we are still alive, at this moment in time, there is something else our God wants us to learn. Life, in fact, is a learning assignment given by a Creator about whom there is always something else to discover.
Which of us can say that we have a truly life-giving relationship with a person about whom we stopped learning more a year or many years ago? People are simply too complex to be totally understood by another at any one point in time.
Anyone who has been married for any length of time knows that. Any parent who has watched the growth of a child knows that. If our human relationships can’t survive only on the knowledge we had of each other from some moment in the past, then what of our relationship with God?
If our friends, our spouses, and our children area constantly offering something else for us to discover about them, that we might grow in that relationship, then what of God? “How incomprehensible are His ways?”
Do we, perhaps, have a tendency to make our God too small by pretending that we have already learned all there is for us to know about that God, or are we wise in the way of the there travelers in the Gospel story today who were wise enough to search for more? To believe that there is nothing else of benefit to discover, when indeed there is, is to have missed wisdom altogether.
The God of today’s story is a God who is not only big enough to accept everyone, even the people we reject or look down our noses at, but this God is also big enough that only those who are willing to leave where they are and search where they have not yet looked can truly be called wise.
The star that led the three wise men to Bethlehem can still lead anyone who is open enough to look for it.

Hauerwas on Sin

2006-01-05T20:31:00.000-08:00

Here is an interesting post on Isaac's blog reflecting on a Hauerwas quote on sin.

Peace,
Scott

an amazing book

2006-01-04T10:57:00.000-08:00

Very few books hold me attentive as this one has in these days. It really is an amazing work. In this one work, he deals with not only non-violence in a positive way (what we are for not just against), but also the meaning of narrative, beauty, virtue & friendship.

This is a book within a book when one considers the footnotes alone. He not only references, but talks about more than 20 of his own books, in addition to 25+ other authors. For most of those authors, he references at least a couple of their books, but for some like Bonhoeffer and Yoder he references 10+ books of each, which is not surprising concerning the topic of the book. For someone to synthesize their own thought, let alone others (Bonhoeffer, Milbank, Yoder, Stout, etc.) in this manner is simply amazing. The man is brilliant and a real gift to all of us.

This book will challenge anyone who reads it. It is a conversion process to do so.

Crossposted on la nouvelle theologie

When Radical Orthodoxy Is Neither, by Pastor John Wright

2005-12-31T01:51:00.000-08:00

This essay from my pastor, John Wright, definitely deserves some attention:

When Radical Orthodoxy Is Neither
by John W. Wright
Professor of Theology and Christian Scriptures
Point Loma Nazarene University

John works from some theological categories developed by Hans Frei with his students and draws some really interesting conclusions about the theology of the three main editors of the Radical Orthodoxy books series: John Milbank, Catherine Pickstock, and Graham Ward. He notes that within the Radical Orthodoxy series, there are in fact some very big theological differences that are most often overlooked. Jamie Smith names this difference well in his book Speech and Theology: Language and the Logic of Incarnation (as he's the main dude differing!), and Pastor John helps clarify a bit by really bringing it down to what is important about Christianity: the focus first upon Jesus, or the "event of Christ" which is also referred to as the Incarnation. In the middle of all the intellectual gymnastics, this was somehow lost by some of us.

One of the key graphs:

Yet the (non)foundation for this account of the Transcendent found in the particular differs radically depending on whether one (un)grounds this in the philosophical concepts of a type of Platonism or in the unique, unsubstitutable body of Jesus. [Jamie] Smith writes “in contrast to Augustine (and yet, in the name of Augustine), who saw the logic of the Incarnation as that which distinguished Christianity from Platonism, these proponents of Radical Orthodoxy (particularly Milbank and Pickstock) wish to see this as the site of their communion” (p. 170). The incarnation of transcendence is seen in the particular of all materiality, including the materiality of Jesus, for these thinkers through a creative repetition of Augustine’s neo-Platonism. Smith recognizes that the “proposal for a ‘sacramental’ and ‘doxological’ account of language – by which the transcendent is ‘revealed’ in immanence – bears deep structural affinities with what I have been describing as an incarnational logic” (p. 175). Yet subtly and ironically, incarnation itself here becomes an abstraction, a concept separated from the body of Jesus. Jesus represents what is found philosophically elsewhere. For such supposed “Radically Orthodox” thinkers, the Word made flesh in Jesus represents the incarnational logic that one finds throughout creation by positing that Jesus (and Christ’s presence in the Eucharist) exemplify the materiality of the form found in the Transcendent throughout creation.

Another way of putting this is that ultimately some of the 'Radical Orthodoxy' writers (the editors, mainly, who are 'high-church Anglo-Catholics' in the tradition of 'theurgic platonism') affirm Jesus because he fulfills in the best and truest ways the Platonic trancendental forms of the Good, the True, and the Beautiful. Jesus becomes not the particular Messiah who reveals God by the Holy Spirit, but a pathway to fully realize the platonic forms.

One of the main problems with this logic is that, according to John 1:1-5, all comes from Jesus. So, even Plato's trancendentals, which we actually can affirm, only exist because all comes from Jesus and not the other way around.

[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
[2] He was in the beginning with God.
[3] All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being
[4]in him was life, and the life was the light of all people.
[5]The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.

This is where the logic of the Incarnation begins, does it not?

Please give Pastor John's essay the attention it deserves and read the full thing. This difference within the RO series is often overlooked, but I (as well as John, obviously) think it has some huge implications for our lives together as Christians. I outline some of my poorly-worded reservations in the comments section of his post.

And of course, your comments, constructive criticism, and help in discerning these matters are greatly encouraged.

Merry Christmas from Chesterton

2005-12-24T22:14:00.000-08:00

Christmas Poem
by G. K.Chesterton

There fared a mother driven forth
Out of an inn to roam;
In the place where she was homeless
All men are at home.
The crazy stable close at hand,
With shaking timber and shifting sand,
Grew a stronger thing to abide and stand
Than the square stones of Rome.

For men are homesick in their homes,
And strangers under the sun,
And they lay their heads in a foreign land
Whenever the day is done.

Here we have battle and blazing eyes,
And chance and honour and high surprise,
But our homes are under miraculous skies
Where the yule tale was begun.

A child in a foul stable,
Where the beasts feed and foam;
Only where He was homeless
Are you and I at home;
We have hands that fashion and heads that know,
But our hearts we lost---how long ago!
In a place no chart nor ship can show
Under the sky's dome.

This world is wild as an old wife's tale,
And strange the plain things are,
The earth is enough and the air is enough
For our wonder and our war;
But our rest is as far as the fire-drake swings
And our peace is put in impossible things
Where clashed and thundered unthinkable wings
Round an incredible star.

To an open house in the evening
Home shall all men come,
To an older place than Eden
And a taller town than Rome.
To the end of the way of the wandering star,
To the things that cannot be and that are,
To the place where God was homeless
And all men are at home.

John Wright on the Feast of the Nativity and Capitalism

2005-12-22T17:28:00.000-08:00

Pastor John has an excellent post on the Feast of the Nativity and Capitalism. Please check it out.

Bell, Day 7: Forgiveness and Eschatology

2005-12-17T05:45:00.000-08:00

I just finished an article about the Christian Peacemaker Teams in Iraq. The article asks a question posed over a year ago by one of the kidnapped team members: Am I willing to risk as much for peace as our soldiers risk for war? To me, this question captures well how Dan Bell completes his treatment of forgiveness.

Bell states,

"The risk of forgiveness is that it only disempowers the Church of the poor and prolongs their suffering by depriving them of recourse to what is due. The risk of forgiveness is that it is not able to fund resistance to the capitalist order. The risk is that the refusal to cease suffering that is forgiveness is only a refusal to cease suffering" (193-194).

Forgiveness is risky because it opens up a new possibility. Violence, even in the guise of capitalist economics, is easy to understand and predict because it so shapes the narratives of the fallen world. We see and experience violence every day. The Confederate cavalryman, Nathan Bedford Forrest, reduced his understanding of military strategy to one simple axiom, "The first with the most." This is the axiom of our age: the first person/group with the most power wins. The ensemble of technologies that is forgiveness opens up a new hope, a move towards a non-violent future that requires a new way of thinking creatively about how to respond to violence and evil. It is risky because it requires us to journey somewhat blindly into the night with nothing more than faith that Jesus is who he claims to be and that his Spirit continues to be at work in the world. Along these lines, Bell states,

"Ultimately, the refusal to cease suffering that is Christian forgiveness is an act of hope... The risk of forgiveness must be borne in patient hope that mercy will indeed triumph over sin and death. The truth of the therapy of forgiveness as a form of resistance to capitalism, to echo Foucault, is in the future. It is in a future where the tears are wiped away, where those who are hungry now are filled, where those who build homes inhabit them and those who plant vineyards partake of their fruit... The truthfulness of forgiveness... is contingent upon the consummation of redemption, when suffering will indeed cease" (194).

Forgiveness, then, is a wager on God. We are bothered because we are so enamored with techniques that work instantly, even if the "work" is temporary and incomplete. The fullness of forgiveness reaching even reconciliation is much deeper, much more problematic, and thus increases our vulnerability dramatically. Forgiveness is a gift offered even to the perpetrators of grave violence. It is a gift that must be both received and participated in. This increases the wager of the Church to accept that perpetrators of violence might reject the gift and do harm to the Body. Along these lines, Bell states,

"While reconciliation is the goal of forgiveness, at times it may not prove very effective at attaining that goal and bringing suffering to an end... [I]t may only intensify the suffering as it provokes a hostile response that leads to persecution and martyrdom. At such times, the true politics that is the gift of forgiveness may amount to little more than surviving, maintaining the presence of grace that is the offer of the gift of forgiveness. Forgiveness, therefore, is best characterized as a matter of how Christians live in the absence of reconciliation" (194).

Earlier, I made mention of the Christian Peacemaker Teams that journey to areas of intense hostility and stand in between warring factions, receive the Eucharist, and pray for Christ's peace to end the violence of war and the suffering it inflicts on countless thousands. One of the kidnapped team members asked, "Am I willing to risk as much for peace as soldiers risk for war?" This is the question asked by forgiveness. It is both eschatological and apocalyptic. It is eschatological because the answer cannot be offered deterministically. Forgiveness is a hopeful wager on how God will act towards his children, that he will hear our cries and will redeem the crucified people: the last, the least, the broken, the tortured. It is apocalyptic because true forgiveness refuses the sword and accepts the Cross. In Waiting for Godot in Sarajevo, David Toole draws upon John Howard Yoder to remind us that the Church's ultimate hope is that God will remember us and will fight for us.

In an early critique of Radical Orthodoxy, Frederic Bauerschmidt wrote an article where he asked whether Milbank rendered the Word strange or simply speculative. As Bell truthfully recounts, there is a speculative aspect to Christian witness that sometimes culminates in martyrdom. Yes, forgiveness may render the Word speculative, but it also renders the Word present, and boldly longs for the Word made victorious. In the meantime, forgiveness is the Word rendered and embodied hopefully in the Church shouldering Jesus' Cross, limping toward Golgotha, the Tomb, and the Resurrection, even if the path takes to Abu Ghraib, Darfur, Liberia, Chile, or even into our own bedrooms and communities.

To close, Bell concludes,

"When history's losers, the crucified people, follow in the steps of Jesus and forgive their enemies, they are wagering on God. They are wagering that God is who the Gospel proclaims God to be, the one who defeats sin and wipes away every tear, not with the sword of a justice that upholds rights but with the gift of forgiveness in Christ... Although the tomb is empty, the Lamb who was slain has yet to return in final victory. In the meantime, the crucified people, awaiting his return and the consummation of the judgment of grace, refuse to cease suffering" (195).

As the Church, are we willing to wager on peace in the same way that statesmen wager on war?

Bell, Day 6: Forgiveness and Atonement

2005-12-15T08:03:00.000-08:00

I am excerpting some components of a paper I just finished in a class on forgiveness to help highlight some of the book's claims on forigveness and the atonement. If you would like a copy of the paper, please email me at rlangfo@yahoo.com, and I would be glad to send you a copy.

A saintly woman at my church asked if I could come by for a visit. When I arrived, she told me about the brutal murder of her grandson and that her son was unable to forgive the man, indeed refused to even mention the possibility of forgiveness. She asked me what she could do. I told her, "Pray and worship, together with the body, and trust the Lord." On one hand, this is the perfect pastoral response, but on the other hand it sounds a little too preachy, a little too Sunday School. The question she asked really proposes three questions:

1) Is forgiveness mandatory?
2) How can I forgive someone who has robbed me of my grandson?
3) What is my role in helping others (my son) to forgive?

To answer these questions, we must be disciplined to postpone an immediate answer, lest we fall into the temptation of offering a grab bag of techniques to "cope" which in reality does nothing more than anesthetize the pain. There is no forgetting the pain of a murdered grandson. Time alone will not make the ache of loss pass away.

Instead, as Christians we must be disciplined enough to begin with our understanding of God. Who is God? Christisn faith pronounces that God is Triune: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Even more importantly, the Triune God is revealed most clearly in the Incarnation of the Son. The Incarnation is much more than just Christ's birth. Indeed, it reaches its greatest intensity during Holy Week, the Last Supper, the Trial, the Crucifixion, the Death, the Resurrection. These events make up Christ's atonement, and the Lord's atonement makes human forgiveness possible.

In Liberation Theology After the End of History, Dan Bell states,

"The claim advanced for forgiveness here rests upon a certain reading of God's activity in Christ... God has given the gift of forgiveness. God has refused to render to humanity what is due sin, but instead graciously endures humanity's rejection and extends redemption and reconciliation in Christ. Justice in the classic sense of suum cuique would refuse to have suffered the injustice of sin and the cross; instead, God in Christ shouldered the cross and refused to cease suffering, defeating sin and injustice by forgiving it, by bearing it in order to bear it away. Accordingly, the atoning grace of God in Christ displaces such justice as the modality of God's overcoming of sin and sets in its place forgiveness. God confronts sin... with the gift of forgiveness" (146).

Interestingly, Bell draws on David Bentley Hart's reading of Anselm (see The Beauty of the Infinite, pp. 360-372). There is a commonplace reading of Anselm that credits him with the development of the satisfaction theory of the atonement, whereby Christ "had" to be sacrificed in order to satisfy divine justice. Instead, Bell argues that Anselm falls within the vision of the early church whereby "God in Christ is understood to be acting on humanity's behalf in order to redeem us from the powers to which we have delivered ourselves" (147). Bell states further,

"The work of atonement is God in Christ bearing human rejection and extending the offer of grace again, thereby opening a path for humanity to return to the Father. In this sense, the atonement is identified not with a propitiatory sacrifice in the name of justice, but with the seelf-giving of the Son to the Father as an act of recapitulation that provides humanity with a positive means of return to its Creator... The atonement is not about meeting the demands of an implacable justice before which even God must bow, but the forgiveness that enables desire to return to its source. It is about humanity's being taken up into the divine life of the Trinity through participation in Christ, in Christ's body, the Church" (147).

There is sacrifice and even substitution, but these do not belong to an economy of credit and exchange but instead to the "aneconomic order of divine forgiveness" (148). In the Atonement, God in Christ opens the path of forgiveness. Forgiveness "names the way God in Christ defeats sin, it also characterizes the way Christians are called to meet sin" (148). In forgiveness, a new way of being is made possible. Bell states,

"Desire is healed insofar as it receives the gift of forgiveness, which it does by participating in Christ, and being in Christ, desire participates in Christ's work, which is the gift of forgiveness. Hence the gift of forgiveness is the gift of the capacity to forgive and the return of the gift is a sign of the gift's reception. Where it is not given, it has not been received... Conversely, where it has been received, the gift of forgiveness that is love is returned. And love's return to its source is the end of forgiveness, reconciliation" (148).

In other words, only the atonement of Christ for our sins makes forgiveness possible; however, this forgiveness must be received and participated in. Such participation reaches fullness when the gift that has been given is extended and offered to others. It is in this way that desire returns to God, and it is in this way that we begin to grasp the Triune economy of superabundant love. However, another temptation we face is to separate forgiveness from the Church, instead limiting it to the interaction of rational, autonomous individuals. Forgiveness can best be understood as an ensemble of technologies, or in MacIntyrean terms, a politics, a collection of practices guided towards a certain telos, in this case reconciliation. As such, it is only embodied in community, and specifically the body called together and forged by the Holy Spirit. Dan Bell states,

"The gift of forgiveness is the communally instantiated capacity to forgive. Being in Christ is to participate in Christ's body, the Church. Hence, we learn to receive and return the gift in the Church, and the task of the Church is nothing other than the reception and transmission of this gift" (148).

Thus, it is in worship that we receive and practice forgiveness, where we are infused with the Spirit, where our lives are narrated into the economy of divine forgiveness, and where we learn the grammar that will train us in the craft of forgiveness. Thus, I am reminded of Yoder's bold declaration that pacifism cannot be detached from faithful Christian discipleship. So also, forgiveness is not a skill set or technique that can be detached from Christian worship. Instead, only by participating in Christian worship, and especially the Eucharist, do we learn forgiveness in a way that moves beyond forgetting and denying.

Thus, when someone is wronged, the first step is not to demand forgiveness from victims for their offenders. Instead, victims must worship the Triune God, where divine forgiveness is mediated to them by the Spirit as the Gospel is preached and enfleshed. Likewise, offenders must also be told that they too must worship regularly and be confronted with the grammar of Christian worship that calls us to face God, to remember him, to remember who we are, to confess, to lament, to pray for forgiveness, to pray for victims, to pass the peace, to receive the Eucharist, and to hope for the Eschaton, when the Lord will return and sorrows and pain will be melted away.

Tomorrow, we will look at eschatology and the finality of forgiveness.

Dan Bell's Response to Our Reflections

2005-12-15T08:00:00.000-08:00

Since you have graciously invited other comments, I will offer my two cents worth.

I think you have read Foucault and my work well, regarding the ubiquity of power, but have drawn perhaps the wrong conclusions from that reading.

It is a common criticism of Foucault that his account of the ubiquity of power forecloses the possibility of resistance and escape. This, however, is a critique that misses the mark for at least two reasons.

First, to argue that power is not always already present across the social field is tantamount to allowing all power to be contained and controlled by dominant social formations such as the nation state or corporation or market. The result is that those who do not share in that space and that power are truly powerless, and therefore hopeless.

To deny Foucault on the ubiquity of power is far more pessimistic, fatalistic than to affirm him.

Second, Foucault understood -- rightly I believe -- that the pervasive character of power was a source of hope and a marker for the constant potential of resistance. The ubiquity of power is good news. It means that no matter how hard Sam Walton or Bill Gates or [name your own icon of capital] try, they cannot triumph. Their dominion is always unstable, uncertain, partial. Power can [and does] always escape them.

[The very possibility of this conversation is a tiny proof of that.]

That power is ubiquitous means that no mere social formation can acquire and maintain definitively a monopoly on power. Power is more like a herd of cats or sand, or to pick up on Deleuze, a fog, than it is like a brick or a weapon that can be captured and safely contained.

Which means that at any moment and in any place resistance, alternatives, can irrupt.

It means that the front on which the battle can be waged is much larger than we thought and therefore capital has a lot more to defend, which is where Foucault's notion of governmentality is so helpful-- his account of how we can be formed economically even in the midst of what appear to be non-economic practices.

The reverse of this is that capitalism can be undermined in a multitude of ways, even ways that do not appear to be directly economic. For example, teaching the youth the virtues of truthfulness and charity in vacation Bible school can be devistating for capital.... as can be caring for the elderly or the dying at home.... or practicing the spiritual disciplines such as prayer and fasting.

Granted such formation cannot stand alone -- in the sense that if the youth are only taught truthfulness and charity for a week or so during VBS, there is little chance of their standing against capitalist deformation.

Now, of course, Foucault lacked the theological resources to account for this irruption and so finally his vision is deficient. But, in friendly disagreement with one response, I do not begin with a secular accout of power. The basis of the account of power I offer is finally an ontology of desire drawn from the Christian tradition. On page 2, I believe, I state that the account of desire and hence power that I propose is but a gloss on the long theological tradition that is so memorably captured in Augustine's famous statement in his Confessions -- our hearts are restless until they find their rest in thee.

How does this make a difference? Whereas Foucault finally cannot give a cogent account of the possibility of resistance and liberation, we Christians have this pesky thing called the Holy Spirit, who "blows where it will." Hence, that power is ubiquitous does not comfort and console capitalism, but rather terrifies it.

(I am reminded of the fear that contemporary terrorism arouses -- in part because its threat is ubiquitous, not finally containable to a clearly defined battlefront or some country over there that is far from here.)

At any moment and in any place -- a board room, the oval office, wall street, a homeless shelter, an assembly line, even a seminary classroom -- desire can escape the bonds of capital.

Romero was mentioned in a reflection. Who can forget the powerful scene in the movie when shortly after his elevation to archbishop two of the bad guys comment that he is a "safe choice" who will not rock the boat. Of course, they had no reason to think otherwise. There was little in Romero's life that foreshadowed his transformation. Well, little besides the Holy Spirit and the Gospel read and proclaimed, and the Eucharist and holy friends like R Grande.

All of which leads me to argue that Foucault can help us remember that finally the struggle is not between power and powerlessness, between powerful capital and powerless opponents.

Rather, the struggle is over the shaping of the constitute human power that is our desire for God. Capitalism deforms that God-given and sustained power (after all, all power is from God, capitalism is but a distortion or corruption of that original good, creative power) whereas resistance and liberation (salvation in more classical theological terms) is about power shaped in a different manner --say, the power of love, charity, faith, hope, joy, etc.

Hence, the struggle is not between power and powerlessness, but between vicious and virtuous power. Between capitalist deformations and corruptions of power and the cruciform power of God. "My power is made perfect in weakness..." The power of weakness. The power of the cross --here I find Yoder helpful. See especially the difficult chapter in Politics of Jesus on Revolutionary Subordination. It took me several years of reading and teaching that before I began to get it (yes, I am slow). The subordination of the cross, and the Christian life, is NOT powerlessness, but the divine power of weakness.(I discuss this cruciform power near the end of the book.) Another book that helped me get a bit of a handle on this -- in terms of my own deformation such that I can only think of power in "ramboesque" ways was Sharon Welch's A FEMINIST ETHIC OF RISK. For the many difficulties I have with that book, she does a wonderful job in my opinion of helping me see how my social location has corrupted how I understand the power to effect change.

Never forget that power, the ability to resist, etc, does not depend finally on what capital etc controls or lets escape, but on God's faithful giving to God's people. This is but another way of stating the hopefulness attendent upon the ubiquity of power. Because capital, sin in any of its forms, cannot possibly capture all power, because it finally cannot capture God even as it tries to by marketing God and faith and spirituality, there is always already present the [divinely given] power of resistance that may appear anywhere anytime -- what Yoder refers to as the brushfire reading of history.

Our power to live the Christian life does not depend on what the state or corporation will permit. It depends solely on God's fidelity and our willingness to trust God. As Yoder wrote, all the state, etc. can do is make discipleship more costly. Capital finally does not provide or deny the conditions of possibility for faithfulness.

Which leads to my last point. There is some question about "where is this church?" and comments on radical orthodoxy's inability to be concrete. I have no interest in defending or attacking "radical orthodoxy" (As Bill Cavanaugh likes to remind folks -- its only a book series after all), and I think that some of the question in this regard is born of observing many of the authors' in the series penchant for delving into ontology.

I will speak mostly for myself in this regard. Cavanaugh's book does engage a concrete ecclesial community and practice -- the Catholic Church in Chile and the eucharist. Likewise, I learn from a concrete community and practice -- the Latin American church of the poor and the practice of forgiveness (which, by the way, I think has some interesting correlations with the discussion of lament insofar as confession is part and parcel of the practice of forgiveness).

But even more importantly, I would argue that this church about which we speak and pray and confess is all around us. Although I think in general the North American church is in pretty lousy shape, I have yet to be in a church where the divine gifts that God graciously sets in our midst are not active santifying lives.

Where is this church, concretely, empirically? Where the Word is proclaimed and the sacraments duly administered. This church is right in our midst, right in front of us, all around us. The liberating gifts of God are all around us.

To put it even more bluntly. Where is this church? Look in the mirror. Look at your own life. How did you get to where you are in your Christian walk? There is the church. Think about all the saints you know -- local and otherwise.... a campus minister I know, a Sunday school teacher, a business exec, Dorothy Day, Gustavo Gutierrez, etc. How did God get ahold of them? You want to know where this church is, then follow the saints.

Note that this is no argument for purity. The practice I lift up in the book is confession/forgiveness. The church is not necessarily where we have it all figured out, where we have already completely escaped capital, etc, but it is where we are on the way of salvation. (Barth has a wonderful quote to this effect.)

The question is not finally where is this church, but why don't we see it? Why don't we avail ourselves of it? Why do we forego our birthright for the pap that so often passes for preaching and teaching, what MLKJr called "pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities"? How have we managed to make God so boring, uninteresting? (I am reminded of Annie Dillard's comment about church goers should wear crash helmets and protective gear when they go to worship the living God...) Spiritual blindness and deafness is a persistent theme in much of the NT, especially the gospels.

In this regard, the question "where is the church?" is more theological than sociological (Not that the two can finally be divorced).

The question, "where is this church?" seems to me to come down to a question of eschatology or even providence. Do we believe that God is acting in history now to overcome the forces of sin, death and the devil or not? If so, then the question cannot be "where is this church?" but can only be "why don't we see it?"

If we do not believe that God is actively overcoming even capital now, then the interesting question is not "where is this church?" but rather "Is such a non-involved god worth following?"

I for one do not believe that such a non-involved god bears even a family resemblance to the God whose story is told in Scripture. In this regard, I am always reminded of Jesus' response to the followers of JOhn when they confront him with the question of whether he is the one. His response is, "What do you see?" The messiah is one who makes a holy difference in this world.

Granted, in this time between the times the fullness of that difference is not yet present, but it has already begun to be present.

FYI, I have an essay that argues this eschatological point more thoroughly with regard to capitalism, and it can be found on the web at THE OTHER JOURNAL.

Well, I have rambled for way too long and no doubt taken gross advantage of your conversational hospitality. So I will close.

Grace and peace,

Dan Bell

Conservative Liberals and Traditional Conservatives

2005-12-08T08:21:00.000-08:00

(I think this post is relevant to the mission of RP, but if not, feel free to let me know...)

In her contribution to the Radical Orthodoxy series -- Culture and the Thomist Tradition: After Vatican II -- Tracey Rowland turns to Alasdair MacIntyre for her critique of liberalism. At one point, she refers to MacIntyre's assertion that the dominant political perspectives of our time are all liberal, whether radically liberal, liberally liberal, or conservatively liberal. From the other reading in RO that I've done to this point, that seems to be a perspective whole-heartedly agreed upon by virtually everyone "in" or associated with RO.

More recently, I had occasion to read Mark Henrie's essay "Understanding Traditionalist Conservatism" in the New Pantagruel, which distinguishes much of what passes for "conservatism" today from the conservatism of, for example, Russell Kirk.

Which leads me to my question for other posters and commenters here at RP: how compatible is Henrie & Kirk's conservatism with the RO project? Or: would it be correct to say that H&K's conservatism is not conservative liberalism as described by MacIntyre et al.?

I'm also very curious about the socialism which at least some RO proponents (e.g. JKA Smith) say is part of the overall project, but that'll have to wait for another post. :-)

The Megachurch (Grinch) Who Stole Christmas

2005-12-07T05:32:00.000-08:00

Sorry the posts have been slow. I will post days 6-7 probably in the next week. I have a major paper due this week along with a hectic church calendar and sick little girls and wife.

Anyway, I found this article on Yahoo News, and it so well reflects how the evangelical megachurch has succumbed to capitalist discipline.

Evidently, a number of evangelical megachurches will not hold Sunday services on Christmas Day since it is a "family day." Northpoint in Atlanta will not hold Sunday services on either Christmas day or New Years day the follwoing Sunday.

Here is the rub, and what I believe to be the capitalist discipline to which they have succumbed. When asked why they would not hold Christmas services,

Cally Parkinson, a spokeswoman for Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, Ill., said church leaders decided that organizing services on a Christmas Sunday would not be the most effective use of staff and volunteer resources. The last time Christmas fell on a Sunday was 1994, and only a small number of people showed up to pray, she said."

"If our target and our mission is to reach the unchurched, basically the people who don't go to church, how likely is it that they'll be going to church on Christmas morning?" she said.

Others added,

"If we weren't having services at all, I would probably tend to feel that we were too accommodating to the secular viewpoint, but we're having multiple services on Saturday and an additional service Friday night," Willison said. "We believe that you worship every day of the week, not just on a weekend, and you don't have to be in a church building to worship."

Troy Page, a spokesman for Fellowship Church, said the congregation was hardly shirking its religious obligations. Fellowship will hold 21 services in four locations in the days leading up to the holiday. Last year, more than 30,000 worshippers participated. "Doing them early allows you to reach people who may be leaving town Friday," Page said.

Here are some of the problems as I see them:

1) Christmas as "family day."
2) Making decisions about worship based on attendance.
3) Reducing worship to a form of evangelism aimed at a "target audience."
4) Reducing worship to individual expression and emotive experience.
5) Believing that worship can take place apart from the body of Christ.

What do you think?

Abortion and Capitalist Discipline

2005-11-30T05:29:00.000-08:00

I appreciate Isaac's recent comments in yesterday's post about Bell's conception of forgiveness overcoming capitalist discipline. I believe that Bell provides a way forward, and that he is absolutely correct about forgiveness. However, I'm not sure we fully grasp how deeply capitalism has plumbed our souls. I read this article in the LA Times about an abortion doctor in Arkansas that has performed over 20,000 abortions in his career. What is most chilling to me is how abortion is reduced to an economic decision: the mother determines the value of the baby and weighs it against the cost of delivering and caring for the baby. Pope John Paul II referred to our culture as one of death. In A Community of Character, Stanley Hauerwas refers to abortion being the inevitable outcome of a society that cannot receive children.

It is articles such as these that let us know just what is at stake and should also call us to realize that our theology is not just a series of logic games. At stake is the life of the world.

LA Times Article

Bell, Day 5: Forgiveness and Desire

2005-11-29T07:30:00.000-08:00

In a response to my sermon for the first Sunday of Advent, Isaac provided a link to his sermon. I think that in that sermon, he raises the issues that are at stake in Advent and also in the last chapter of Bell's book. Today's post will be short, and I am hoping to begin a conversation about forgiveness. I suggest you read Isaac's sermon and then read the Bell excerpts below.

In chapter 4, "The Refusal to Cease Suffering: Forgiveness and the Liberation of Desire," Dan Bell moves beyond his deconstruction of capitalism and the faulty ecclesiology of liberation theology. He begins a positive move to construct an account of Christianity that can overcome capitalist discipline. The move is constructed around forgiveness. His account of forgiveness moves beyond the notion of forgiveness as an idea, a technique or a strategy. For Bell, forgiveness is

"The therapy of desire that Christianity enacts to counter capitalist discipline, that forgiveness is the name of the ensemble of technologies that God has graciously made available to humanity in Christian communities for the sake of healing desire of the madness that is capitalism. Said a little differently, it is God's gift of forgiveness in Christ, and not the relentless pursuit of justice understood in the classic sense of rendering 'what is due,' that liberates desire and gives birth to communities capable of resisting capitalism. Through the reception and return of God's gift of forgiveness- receiving and giving it- communities are formed where desire is liberated from capitalist discipline" (144-145).

Forgiveness then is the grammar that structures Christian life. It is a grammar that structures our lives in such a way that our desire is freed from the bondage of sin and then disciplined in such a way that it might flow freely in doxological return to God. The community built on justice as "rendering what is due" will never fully participate in this grammar. At best, it can redistribute income, punish egregious offenses, but will always in the end be a reactionary movement that will culminate in continuing adversarial relationships where victims and victimizers are continuously made, cast down, and made again. Bell proposes that forgiveness makes possible the economy of charity (See Augustine's "furnace of charity" in De Trinitate), which comes via Christ's life, death, and resurrection, and our gracious participation in it.

Tomorrow, I will address forgiveness and the atonement. On Thursday, I hope to look at forgiveness and eschatology.

Here is a question I would like to pose to everyone. What makes up the ensemble of technologies of desire that is Christianity? What specific technologies would you place within the grammar of forgiveness?

For example, I would place lament in this list. Prior to my theological training, I was trained as a political scientist and historian. In previous American wars, even the secular state was able to lament publicly her wounded and dead. The state organized public meetings where the names of the dead were read aloud, and the entire town mourned collectively. Granted, this was not inherently Christian, but the point is that today, there is no attempt to lament the dead. They are swept under the rug. Their lives are minimized with the logic that "we've only lost two thousand soldiers." I am afraid that the Church is guilty of doing the same thing. Being influenced by politics and talk radio, there is little room for lament in a church. Everything must be positive, affirming, warm. To lament is to run the risk of driving away the "consumers" you are trying to reach and convert (Think Purpose Driven Church language here). I would think that the ability to lament together as the body of Christ is essential to any ensemble of technologies called forgiveness.

What would you include?

Preparing to Receive a Most Unexpected Gift

2005-11-27T05:16:00.000-08:00

Isaiah 64:1-12 (ESV)
Note: I will be preaching to the children at the front of the congregation, so this will be a little different than my other sermons.

A baby is always a most unexpected gift. It is one of the few things in our world today that despite all of our efforts we have little control over. Sure, Tom Cruise can by his own sonogram machine, so he can watch his baby develop. Sure, technology lets us identify gender and see little photographs along the way. But ultimately, there are many unanswered questions about a baby. When will he come? Was the ultrasound right? How big will he be? Will he be healthy? Will he look like me? What will his personality look like? Will he have colic? What color will his eyes be? What color will his hair be? Babies remain one of the few unexpected gifts in life, because there are so many questions that we cannot answer before their arrival. All we can do is prepare for their coming.

As a church, we will be celebrating the arrival of Baby Timothy sometime in the next few weeks. Already, his parents have begun their preparations: a new room for big sister, cleaning out the nursery, buying a crib, purchasing infant clothes, diapers, wipes, cleaning everything... There is a tremendous amount of preparation in order to welcome a new baby into the world.

The same is true as we prepare for Christmas, our celebration of the birth of Christ. Advent means "a coming," "an arrival." Just as with Baby Timothy, preparing to receive the birth of the Lord requires a great deal of preparation. We have already prepared our sanctuary. Many of us have begun preparing our homes. However, most importantly, we must prepare ourselves to receive the gift of Baby Jesus. What does it mean to prepare ourselves to receive the Christ Child? It means that we must prepare ourselves to receive God's most unexpected gift.

1) We must truthfully confess our current situation.
Walmart does not like Advent. They tried to start Christmas in September. Even before they removed the Halloween candy and masks, they had dancing Santas, singing reindeer, and candy canes out in the store. They want to commercialize Christmas, removing any religious significance. For them, Christmas is just a good time to sell people a whole bunch of merchandise. The only preparation to be done is to line the shelves with cut-rate merchandise and prepare to fill the pockets of their investors with healthy profits. Notice how as Christmas has been so heavily commercialized, there begins to be a move to sheer Christmas of any mention of Christ, to have holiday trees and sing holiday songs. We can blame the ACLU all we want, but as a nation, we have already done this in most of our lives.

To prepare to receive God's most unexpected gift, we must begin by truthfully confessing that this nation is hostile to the Gospel, unopen to the reception of a baby King. We must realize that the world is not a Hallmark card with a warm fire and friendly songs of good will. The world is perfectly bent on destroying itself. In short, we must begin by confessing that the world without Christ is perfectly lost. To understand this better, let us look at the Isaiah reading for today.

2) We must confess our complicity (vv. 6-7).
The talk radio climate of America today drives me absolutely crazy. There is never any confession about how together we have done these things and made certain mistakes. Instead, there is always an effort to place blame on the other group, the other person. To prepare our hearts for God's most unexpected gift, we must begin by confessing our complicity in the current mess. In Isaiah's words, "We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment" (v.6). Advent is a time for confession. It is a time for us, as the Church, to reckon with our complicity in a world gone mad. How do we contribute to all the evils and ills we see regularly? How are we subject to those powers and principalities that tempt us and others to worship something other than God? We prepare our hearts by truthfully confessing and opening ourselves ever deeper to the penetrating light of the Gospel that casts out darkness. It is in our confession that we begin to become a holiness people.

3) We must believe that our salvation comes in God alone (vv. 1-4, 8-11).
In verse 1, Isaiah cries out on behalf of his people: "O that you would tear open the heavens and come down!" After being completely broken by the Babylonians and subjected again to slavery, after witnessing the destruction of the Temple and the city walls, Israel finally gets that her salvation does not come from playing power politics, building a strong military, balancing power in the region, building a strong economy. Isaiah cries out that their salvation will come only if God decides to come again, to rip open the heavens and to descend to the earth. They realize that no matter how hard they strive, salvation belongs to the Lord and to those who wait upon his arrival. After we confess our situation and our complicity, can we celebrate Advent by waiting on God to save us? Or wil lwe instead continue to rely upon the military, the police, the banks, the credit card companies, Hollywood to save us. Can we believe that God is the source of of our salvation, and that he will remake us, just like a potter, into his divine image?

4) We must prepare to receive God's arrival as it comes, not as we desire it (v. 12).
In verse 12, Isaiah asks God, "Will you restrain yourself at these things, O Lord? Will you keep silent, and afflict us so terribly?" The answer is no. God will act and act decisively. At the right time, God sends his son, Jesus. It was a most unexpected gift, so unexpected that even the heavens must have held their breath. Imagine that the King of Kings and Lord of Lords comes not by ripping the skies apart and demonstrating through acts of power his divine strength. Imagine instead that the fullness of God, the hope of humanity's salvation is entrusted to the womb of a young peasant girl. Imagine the King born into abject poverty. If we are truthful, this is a hard story to accept, as it was for Israel during Jesus' life. According to Matthew's Gospel, Jesus still comes to us in the face of those least welcomed in our society. In the parable of the sheep and goats, all ask Jesus, "Lord, Lord, when did we receive you?" Jesus replies, "when you did this to the least of these my brethren, you did it also unto me." We must fight the powerful temptation to force Jesus into a mold of our own making, an idol that meets our every need without any cost or expectation.

To celebrate Advent is to prepare to receive God's gift as it is given. To celebrate Advent is to prepare to rejoice in God's gift in just the way it comes. To celebrate Advent is actually to believe that God acted decisively in that manger and on that cross and in that empty tomb. It is to believe that God is still coming to us today, and that he will come again to us in final glory. To celebrate Advent is to journey into a world gone mad with the good news that there is a king who has come and brought the fullness of God's salvation with him. It is to announce that this good news is free to all who will receive it. It is to announce that the King will come again soon, and all who believe will become a part of his glorious kingdom forever.

Are we prepared to receive this most unexpected gift?

Bell, Days 5-7

2005-11-26T09:06:00.000-08:00

The next few installments will begin on Monday. I have to get ready for Church tomorrow.

Peace,

Scott

Bell, Day 4: The Church and Desire

2005-11-25T07:46:00.000-08:00

To summarize briefly, Bell sees a serious flaw in liberationist ecclesiology, which prevents liberation theology from resisting capitalist discipline. He states,

"While the liberationists are busy building a bridge over the chasm between the theological and the political by means of a socio-analytic mediation, the capitalist order has effectively filled in the chasm and is sending its minions (fed on fast food, dressed in some retro pastiche, brandishing corporate logos) swarming across a divide that is no more and never was. In other words, for all that is praiseworthy in their ecclesiological efforts, liberationists continue to define the Church within the limits of the secular order. Even as they insist that the theological and the political be correlated, they maintain the division between the realms: the Church is not an immediately political option. At best the Church inspires or motivates Christians under the force of the value of love or the preferential option for the poor to move into the real world of social conflict" (71-72).

Rather, for Bell, "where capitalism constitutes a veritable way of life that exercises dominion by capturing and distorting desire, resistance must take the form of an alternative way of life that counters capitalism by liberating and healing desire" (72). This alternative way of life is the Church. To paraphrase Stanley Hauerwas, the church does not have a social ethic, it is a social ethic. This more substantive ecclesiology must collapse those things modernity and capitalism place in dialectical tension: theological and social, religion and politics, physical and spiritual. Bell adds,

"This ecclesiology ... will begin by conceiving of Christianity not as the apolitical custodian of moral values... but... as a social, political, economic formation (an ensemble of technologies of desire) vying with other formations (technologies of desire) on a single field of lived experience. It will start with the recognition that the Christian mythos finds its political correlate, not in the state ...but in the Church as the exemplary form of human community" (72).

The Church as a community is not just one other community in a sea of communities, nor is it an interest group or lobbying agent; instead, it is that community that is formed and ordered by worship of the Triune God. As a result, Bell states,

"The Church's politics is not defined by the secular order. Thus, it finds no home in civil society. The Church's politics culminates not in the centralized rule of the state and its civil society but in the Kingdom of God. The politics of the Kingdom, in turn, amounts to nothing less than participation in the divine life of the Trinity, a life that ... is characterized... by a perichoretic dance that celebrates difference. Thus the Church embodies a de-centralized , participatory politics that defies the discipline of the state and its civil society" (73).

As a result, the Church moves beyond social chaplaincy and is reclaimed as a

"fully material or embodied reality (the Word became flesh), whose practices- such as baptism, catechesis, Eucharist, discipline, prayer, and discipleship- do not merely 'mediate' and 'values' but rather transform the material circumstances of Christian... existence" (86).

Thus, it is in the corporate embodiment of these historic practices of the faith that Christianity becomes a therapy of desire. For Bell (following Augustine), humanity is human only in that it desires God. Capitalism is sin because it corrupts desire and disciplines that corruption into a way of life called idolatry. To go to Milbank briefly, in Theology and Social Theory, he declares that the purpose of this ecclesiology is to "tell again the Christian mythos, pronounce again the Christian logos,and call again for Christian praxis in a manner that restores their freshness and originality" (Milbank, 381). The Church, through this process, begins to heal the wound of sin and to return human desire to its source, the Triune God. Thus, the practices listed above by Bell provide the grammar for a more robust ecclesiology. It is to these that we now turn.

Bell talks at great length about liturgy and confession. I am discussing the others he mentions based on other readings and thought within the RO movement.

1) Liturgy
For Bell, the liturgy first and foremost makes the body. To borrow from de Lubac, the Eucharist makes the Church. The Eucharist, which we will discuss in a moment, must again be the center of all Christian worship. On liturgy, Bell states that the liturgy is "a technology of desire through the assembly of memory" (93). Quoting Talal Asad discussing Cistercian life,
Bell states,

"Through the rich language and imagery of the liturgy... the monks were given a new vocabulary that enabled them to 'redescribe, and therefore in effect reconstruct, their memories in relation to the demands of a new way of life'"(93).

Liturgy, for Bell, is much more than just a linguistic performance. Instead, the reading of Scripture, the proclamation of the Gospel, the singing of hymns "are embedded in an ensemble of technologies that act on and shape material bodies in particular ways" (94). The particular ways that Bell mentions are those ways in which are bodies are renewed and restored which allows our desire to return to the Father in doxological praise.

2) Confession
Moving away from Foucault, Bell states,

"Confession is not concerned with the social control and repression of a primordial desire. On the contrary, it is part of a process of recognizing that desire has already been captured and controlled, that desire's present orientation or direction in the world is not an ontological given" (95).

Instead of a societal means of control and repression, confession functions to uncover "those technologies of knowledge, power, and the self that had assembled desire in a particular way" (96). It is in the confession of sin, that it can begin to be re-narrated and overcome in worship and practice.

3) Eucharist
To return to de Lubac's point, it is the Eucharist that makes the Church. In much of Protestantism, we have succumbed to a very Zwinglian view of the Eucharist, reducing it to a memory of Christ's sacrifice on our behalf. Often, the celebration of the Lord's Supper is almost equivalent to a visit to a statue of a dead hero. Instead, we must return to some view of "real presence." In Bell's account, one is immediately confronted by the economics of the Eucharist. The Lord offers up His body for our salvation, giving us His own flesh and blood to sustain us. Immediately, the economics of scarcity, which is the core of capitalist thought, unravels. To say that there is scarcity in the world is to deny the superabundance of love revealed to us in the Eucharist. We give and receive; we share; we confess; we offer up; we remember; we participate in Christ's death and resurrection and confess an eschatological hope in His return. William Cavanaugh has an outstanding article entitled, The World in a Wafer, that helps here.

4) Baptism
Earlier, we talked about how capitalism de-territorializes human societies but then re-territorializes them in ways that make production and consumption more effective and efficient. The end result is the creation of economic classes. I am reminded almost of Huxley's Brave New World where humanity genetically engineers itself for different tasks, from the enlightened leaders to the coal miners. Baptism resists this capitalistic re-territorialization. To be baptized is to be a part of the Body of Christ, the Church. This identity transcends all others. In teh West, that we have lost our baptismal identities helps to explain why we cannot even muster the energy to examine how capitalism disciplines desire in our society.

5) Prayer
Lex orandi, lex credendi. This statement would seem to best summarize the role of prayer in Christian ecclesiology. It is telling that prayer is often of little significance in Christian life. Often, capitalism so subvert our desire for God, that our prayers are little more than consumeristic lists of what "I" desire. True Christian prayer opens us up to God's indwelling presence in the Spirit, connects us to each other in the Body, as well as to the entire communion of saints.

6) Discipline
Much like confession, discipline is often seen as a tool of social control rather than as a technology of desire. Christian discipline is always redemptive, seeking to restore the sinful party to full communion with God and the Church. Often, church discipline is carried out as the will to power. Instead, Christian discipline is the bodily practice of brothers and sisters being bound together in love. It is charitable to speak the truth to one another, to help one another, to support one another. Ultimately, excommunication must always remain a possibility; however, even then, the hope is that the person will realize her sin and the sting of separation from the Body, then repent and return to life within the community.

There is obviously much more that can be said here. As a pastor of a Protestant church, I see everyday the perversion of desire brought about by sin. I also see the limits on ecclesiology that Protestants must confront, or our crisis will only deepen. Bell is critical of the Latin American liberationists for their mistaken ecclesiology. In the U.S., we struggle even to identify capitalism as not Christian, so deep is its subversion. Can we begin again to develop such a radical ecclesiology with the hope that desire can be healed and that again we might worship God in Spirit and in truth?

Bell, Day 3: A Crisis of Ecclesiology

2005-11-23T07:05:00.000-08:00

In Chapter 2, "The Church of the Poor in the Wake of Capitalism's Triumph," Dan Bell wrestles specifically with the self-identified crisis faced by liberation theology in Latin America. On one hand, the liberationists have bravely and fiercely opposed the excesses of savage capitalism in Latin America. However, Bell argues that their vision is not sufficiently radical to escape capitalist discipline, but instead has been subverted and circumscribed by it. The end result has been a "deficient" social theory, usually a hybrid of capitalism (democratic capitalism) or a variant of Marxism. Bell sees both the cause and the solution to the crisis in the liberationist understanding of the church. Today, I will focus on the cause- faulty ecclesiology and a dependence on statecraft.

1) The origins of a New Christendom ecclesiology in Latin America
Beginning in the 19th century, the liberal revolutions in Latin America witnessed a gradual decline in the power and authority of the Church. Often, the new liberal states were hostile to the Church. This trend changed in 1922 with the election of Pope Pius XI. The Pope lost confidence in conservative political parties to represent the church, and so he shifted the Church's emphasis to social witness. The Church shifted its role in politics towards an indirect influence. The Church would focus her energies on an active laity that were formed "in the principles and values of which the Church is the custodian" (45). The development of Catholic Action groups spread throughout Latin America in the 1920s and 1930s and produced a new generation of Catholic reformers and progessives. Jacques Maritain became the influential voice of New Christendom. The New Christendom that emerged during this time viewed the Church as "a moral and spiritual force that works at the level of the human heart, not at the level of politics... a sort of leaven of the temporal realm" (48). Thus, a New Christendom ecclesiology favored "a withdrawal of the Church from the temporal realm of politics" (48). With regards to this shift, Bell states,

"At the heart of this vision was the desire to sever the ties between the Church and the status quo by withdrawing the Church from direct involvement in the political realm. As a consequence of the Church's evacuation of the temporal realm in favor of an indirect, moral influence, the state was left as the uncontested overseer of the political realm. Politics was a matter of statecraft" (51).

2) The Liberationists Partial Rejection of New Christendom.
Following World War II, capitalism mutated dramatically, and the reform movements supported by New Christendom floundered. The Latin American states also went through a dramatic shift in the 1960s as new, more authoritarian regimes rose to power. These new regimes had little time or desire to effect reform, but were instead concerned with warfare and national security. Violence replaced reform in many Latin American countries. At the same time, many Catholic students and priests became very concerned with the plight of the poorest of the poor in Latin America. As this group of priests and students witnessed the horrors of poverty, they began to challenge New Christendom's withdrawal from politics and called for a much more radical Christian commitment to the poor. Out of this movement, liberation theology was born. Gustavo Gutierrez develops the idea of the Gospel's preferential option for the poor and for the Church of the poor.

Bell critiques liberation theology for not pushing far enough. The liberationists recognized clearly that the Gospels quite clearly have political and social implications; however, liberation theology never fully breaks from the moorings of New Christendom ecclesiology. Indeed, Bell states,

"The liberationists' break with New Christendom did not include a rejection of New Christendom's vision of an apolitical (indirectly political) Church and politics as statecraft" (65).

Instead, the liberationists' hope is to create a Church that recognizes the plight of the poor and calls upon the State to work for justice for her poorest citizens. "The state remains the great hope countering the depredations of the capitalist order" (70). The ultimate failure of liberation theology is its failure to realize that capitalism is "not simply an economic system that has escaped its proper domain and can be reined back in by the state" (44). In making this mistake, the liberationists continue to "define the church within the limits of the secular order" (72).

I will close this section with an outstanding quote from Bell and with an apology because there are many intricacies and details that I am glossing over. Here is the quote:

"Liberationists fail to appreciate how savage capitalism, through the neoliberal art of governmentality, renders even the 'free space' of civil society a form of discipline and control. In this era of global capitalism, when Coca-Cola and Nike find their way into every nook and cranny of the earth well ahead of clean water, roads, and life-sustaining diets, far from furthering the cause of liberation and life, civil society can only be a means of discipline, an instrument in of the regnant capitalist order for overcoming resistance and forming desire in its own image. Indeed, by opting for civil society, Latin American liberationists reflect a commitment to the same insufficiently radical vision that led them to the point of crisis at the 'end of history' in the first place, namely, a vision of a Church that traffics in abstract values and apolitical options while the state is granted sovereignty over the social, political, and economic field" (70).

3) What does this mean for us today?
As I read Bell's arguments about the failures of liberationist ecclesiology, I cannot help but see our own ecclesial context in the same light, if not worse. At least the liberationists called for social justice, an end to poverty, and worked to feed the poor. In most Western countries today, Bell's critique (at least for protestants) would sound strange. Why would the church involve itself in "secular" politics? How could the Church do anything else but form the private morality of the state's citizens?

Bell calls for a radically different ecclesiology. He states that "the Church is a public that, short of emasculation, cannot inhabit the private, apolitical space assigned to it as a prison cell by modernity" (73). He argues, "that refusing politics as statecraft and reclaiming the Church as a fully social, political, economic reality in its own right may establish it as a genuine site of resistance to capitalist discipline" (43). Tomorrow we will begin to examine the scope of this ecclesial vision put forward by Bell.

The Struggles of Liberalism as the End of History

2005-11-23T07:00:00.000-08:00

Many thanks to David at La Nouvelle Theologie who found this editorial by Francis Fukuyama, who wrote the article about liberalism being the end of history. The editorial linked below highlights the struggles of the Dutch to deal with Islamic fundamentalism. It appears that the liberal paradigm is struggling with problems of its own creation- multiculturalism. To me, multiculturalism is an attempt to have catholicity without baptism and creeds. It is interesting that Fukuyama pits tolerance, multiculturalism, and political correctness over against national identity. It seems that Europe has been down this path before...

Here is the link.

Bell on Capitalism And Desire

2005-11-22T08:05:00.000-08:00

Chapter One of Liberation Theology after the End of History is entitled "The Infinite Undulations of the Snake: Capitalism, Desires, and the State-Form." In this chapter, Bell begins with the critique of capitalism made by Gilles Deleuze coupled with Michel Foucault's work on governmentality. Deleuze argues,

"Capitalism ... extends its dominion over humanity not merely through the extraction of labor and production of wealth, but by capturing and distorting the constitutive human power, desire" (9).

Bell, via Foucault, also connects Deleuze's account with the modern bureaucratic state. He states that contemporary capitalism is

"a discipline of desire... showing that the state-form encompasses much more than that ensemble of institutions called 'the state,' ... it encompasses a whole host of 'technologies of desire': technologies present in the social, cultural, and religious as well as political and economic registers that shape and form desire in particular ways" (9).

Following Augustine, Bell understands humans as constituted by their desire for God. However, sin corrupts this desire and reorients humanity towards other ends. Capitalism is a sin because it "captures and distorts human desire in accord with the golden rule of production in the market" (2). Turning again to Deleuze's critique, Bell declares,

"Capitalism disciplines desire ... by means of a pincer movement. The capitalist machine deterritorializes desire: it overruns all previous social formations and releases the flows of desire that these formations had organized and regulated. The capitalist machine also reterritorializes desire: it subjects desire to the axiomatic of production for the market. In the process capitalism relies on the state-form to prepare desire for participation in the capitalist order" (19).

Thus, capitalism, once spawned, moves quickly to explode any territorial boundaries that might hope to contain it. In recent years, this deterritorialization has become evident. Bell states,

"Capital assumes the form of the transnational corporation, the division of labor is internationalized, flexible manufacturing systems are advanced, a standardized market/global culture and consumption patterns expand, the informal sector of the economy grows, complex systems of credit and exchange are introduced, and so forth" (17).

Capitalism is not constrained but is indeed very flexible, "whatever it takes to ensure production for the market" (18). As capitalism's "victory" unfolds, individual nations begin to resemble neighborhoods. There is no need for homogeneity, capitalism can deal with difference to a point: as long as all people and nations agree that production is the end of life. However, capitalism commodifies difference, removes it from its tradition and narrative, and sells it to the highest bidder, thus destroying its very particularity.

It is at this point that the nation-state becomes necessary again to capitalism. The nation-states serve capitalism by "reterritorializing the flows of desire that capitalism unleashes" (19). Since teleological institutions stand in opposition to capitalism's market telos, these must be destroyed or co-opted. Once destroyed, the desire freely flows; however, this can be problematic, witness the longing in the U.S. for meaningful community life, for public morality, and for the good old days to return again. It is at this point the state is most necessary. Deleuze declares that the state is far from an "emancipatory agent" but is instead a "repressive instrument of the capitalist order" (19).

The remainder of the chapter richly plays out and critiques Foucault and Deleuze's critique of capitalism and the nation-state. I will turn to one aspect of the chapter that captures the heart of Bell's project. According to Foucault, the crisis of capitalism led to a shift from a strictly disciplinary society to one of control. Bell writes,

"Neoliberal government aggressively encourages and advocates the extension of economic reason into every fiber and cell of human life. Economic or market rationale controls all conduct. Capitalism has enveloped society, absorbing all the conditions of production and reproduction" (31).

According to Foucault, capitalism seizes control of all things: our games, our children, our churches, our schools. However, this control is exercised in a much different way. In the past, control was won via enclosures. The body was disciplined and made docile by being pushed through a series of enclosures that formed that body: schools, hospitals, factories, armies, prisons. It was modeled into a certain societal norm (31). However, these enclosures are deteriorating today, and are being replaced by a new norm of control. Bell states,

"In societies of control (capitalistic societies), the body is rendered pliable not by careful containment and conformity to a norm, but by a flexible, variable, modulation that is ubiquitous... The human being is no longer enclosed but in debt and unlike the enclosure, debt goes everywhere, all the time. The credit card has surpassed the time card as the dominant mechanism of insertion into the economy" (32).

Capitalism, then, completely restructures the world according to commodification, production, and consumption. It develops a grammar that powerfully structures life. Out of this grammar, a language emerges that supports and trains people to live in the capitalistic rendering of the world. The grave danger of the victory of capitalism is that it is anarchic, chaotic, even schizophrenic. There is a constant cycle of deterritorialization followed by reterritorialization. While global capitalism hints at catholicity, ultimately it is a cruel parody. The catholicity of capitalism is the constant state or threat of war. Bell states,

"Capitalist discipline distorts desire into a competitive force: competing for resources, for market share, for a living wage, for the time for friendship and family, for inclusion in the market, and so forth" (35).

By granting scarcity ontological purchase and forming societies governed by the logic of capitalism, the end of capitalism makes the end of history one of constant struggle and conflict. This will play out not just on the battlefield but on our streets, in our families, in our homes. The other becomes a potential threat. Augustine's "furnace of charity" is replaced by the furnace of distrust.

What does this mean for the church?
1) Realizing that capitalism is not Christian.
2) Realizing just how deeply capitalism has structured our bodies and eveen our church bodies.
3) Realizing that capitalism is an anti-liturgy, even an anti-Eucharist.
4) Confessing our complicity in the victory of capitalism.
5) Lamenting the effects of capitalist discipline.
6) Submitting to Christian grammar and discipline.
7) Learning Christian language.
8) Believing again that worship and prayer of the Triune God is the center and end of all living things.

Re-Enchanting The Liturgy

2005-11-21T13:23:00.000-08:00

Father Kimel at Pontifications has an interesting post regarding the liturgy and the Eucharist. What struck me as interesting is his description of the fear that Catholics are moving towards a more Protestant understanding of the Eucharist as a symbol. At the same time, many of us who have discovered RO are moving towards real presence in our understanding of the Eucharist.

If you have a moment read the post. As I read, I was reminded of an essay written by Catherine Pickstock in The Postmodern God entitled, "Asyndeton: Syntax and Insanity. A Study of the Revision of the Nicene Creed. In this article, she describes how the liturgical "innovations" actually affected Anglican undertanding of God, space, and time. While this essay is not an easy read, her thorough reading of the changes made to the creed clearly delineates the problems with recent "reforms" of the liturgy.

Day One with Dan Bell

2005-11-21T07:25:00.000-08:00

The title of Bell's work is drawn from an influential article written by Frances Fukuyama in 1989. With the destruction of the Berlin Wall, and the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe, Fukuyama claimed,

"The unabashed victory of economic and political liberalism on the stage of world history, the triumph of consumerist Western culture, the total exhaustion of viable systematic alternatives to Western liberalism" (1).

Indeed, Fukuyama claimed that history was moving inexorably towards a "universally homogenous state characterized by liberal democracy in the political sphere combined with easy access to VCRs and stereos in the economic" (1). The collapse of the Soviet Union and the movement of China towards a communist variant of state-sponsored capitalism would seem to bolster Fukuyama's case even further. Citizens in the Western powers are called upon to celebrate that "we are all capitalist now!" For Fukuyama, the end of history has come, and only those who refuse to realize this fact will remain bound up in history.

Dan Bell, on the other hand, declares,

"The end of history has not been brought near by the boardrooms of New York and Tokyo or the staterooms of Washington DC and Mexico City, nor does human desire find its satisfactions in the capitalist market. Rather, history finds its end far from the boardrooms and away from the marketplace, on a hill where a poor person, uttering the words, 'forgive them,' was crucified" (1).

Thus, Bell reveals that both capitalism and the Church proclaim the end of history. Capitalism proclaims the market and the supportive governmental and cultural institutional structures as the end of history and ultimately as humankind's hope for salvation. Bell, on the other hand, sees the end of history in Jesus' crucifixion and "what comes next" (1-2). The "next" for Bell ultimately is the Church working out the ramifications of the end of history, revealed in Jesus' death and resurrection, in her ecclesial life.

Bell highlights that more is at stake than just mere consumerism. How often do we reduce Christian critique to a simple critique of the excesses of American materialism?!? Instead, capitalism and Christianity operate with a radically different vision of God, culture, government, and daily living. To critique capitalism, Bell seeks to oppose it as a metanarrative that structures the world in a certain way. It is an ensemble of technologies that disciplines desire to deliver it to the market (This will be discussed in depth tomorrow). Consequently, the Church must again be able to pronounce and embody a way of life that offers an alternative to capitalist discipline, a language that exceeds the economic language of capitalism, and an account of history that does not end on Madison Avenue and Wall Street.

A Week with Dan Bell

2005-11-21T06:50:00.000-08:00

In a class I am currently taking on forgiveness, we are reading Liberation Theology after the End of History: The Refusal to Cease Suffering by Dan Bell. This is really a fantastic book on a number of different points. This week, I will look at some of Bell's claims and the theological implications of those claims. Here is a rough schedule of how I will approach this task:

Day One: The End of History
Day Two: Capitalism as an Ensemble of Technologies that Shape Desire
Day Three: The Crisis of Ecclesiology in Liberation Theology (and our own)
Day Four: Christianity as an Ensemble of Technologies that Shape Desire
Day Five: Forgiveness: The Liberation of Desire
Day Six: The Implications of Forgiveness: Atonement
Day Seven: Forgiveness and Eschatology

Advent 2005

2005-11-20T20:22:00.000-08:00

Below are listed the weeks of Advent and the specific preaching themes I will be following for Advent. In terms of Radical Orthodoxy, I am focusing heavily on the idea of gift- the gift that is Christ, the very unexpected nature of this gift as an infant and as a returning Messiah, the way the gift is received, participated in, and shared, etc. I will be interested to hear your thoughts and comments.

Sunday, November 27, 2005- The First Sunday of Advent
Gospel Reading: Mark 13:24-37
Sermon: Preparing Our Hearts to Receive the Gift

Sunday, December 4, 2005- The Second Sunday of Advent
Scripture: Psalm 85:1-2, 8-13
Sermon: Receive the Gift

Sunday, December 11, 2005- The Third Sunday of Advent
This Sunday, we will celebrate a modified version of lessons and carols. All groups in the church will share gifts in some way, via reading, singing, prayer, etc.

Theme: The Most Unexpected Gift

Sunday, December 18, 2005- The Fourth Sunday of Advent
Scripture: Luke 1:26-38, 47-55
Sermon: Pregnant with the Word!

Sunday, December 25, 2005- Christmas Day
Scripture: Hebrews 1:1-4; Luke 2:1-20
Sermon: Open the Gift!

Hauerwas & Yoder Book Suggestions

2005-11-17T22:02:00.000-08:00

In a Scott's post below on Veteran's Day, David Jones asked me what I would suggest for a Stanley Hauerwas & John Howard Yoder reading list, urging everybody to chime in. So, I thought I would dedicate a full post in short response to provide better visibility for all.

I asked David if he had yet read Yoder's The Politics of Jesus. This was his response and inquiry:

To directly answer your question - no. It's on my book-list to purchase, but I debating if I should buy Yoder's books before Haerwas' books. What say you?

Both giants have written many books and slowly but surely Yoder's books are becoming available. Which books are mandatory reading for both? For example, Hauerwas says The Politics of Jesus and the Preface to Theology are the two most important of Yoder's books.

Yes, Yoder's Politics of Jesus is required (even though I still haven't read it yet, hah).

Most people usually begin reading Hauerwas with his Resident Aliens. I just finished reading his Unleashing the Scripture, but I don't think a Roman Catholic reader would have much use for it because the thrust of the book is arguing against sola scriptura, which seems to be a distinctly Protestant phenomenon as far as I can tell.

So, with that out of the way, and keeping in mind that I haven't read all that I'm going to recommend, here is a short reading list:

Resident Aliens

Where Resident Aliens Live (a follow-up to the above)

The Peaceable Kingdom

Against the Nations

Cross-shattered Christ: Meditations On The Seven Last Words

etc.

Yoder:

The Politics of Jesus

What Would You Do? - a specific answering of the often-brought-up question that goes something like "What would you do if a bloodthirsty, half-crazed, machine gun weidling terrorist was going to lill your wife and kids, kick your dog, drown your cat and burn your house down if you did not attack and kill him?" (this version of this question comes from Halden Doerge, one amazing reviewer of books on Amazon.com) -- this question is used to pigeon-hole a forced answer to justify mortal violence on the small scale and then a logical leap is made to justify violence on a large scale (war).

For the Nations

The Priestly Kingdom: Social Ethics as Gospel

As you can see, there are plenty of other Hauerwas books, so it really depends upon what topic you want to read about. Some of his books are just collections of essays with a particular bent, but he covers a lot of the same recurring themes: liberalism, capitalism, war, suffering, aging, etc.

Pertaining to Yoder, I actually have only read his small "What Would You Do" essay (contained in the small volume above), so those suggestions above are only guesses.

To answer your question about who should be read first, I don't think it matters a whole lot, but I think it probably would have served me well to read Yoder's seminal work before digging into Hauerwas. Hauerwas doesn't engage Yoder's works directly too often, but what Hauerwas does do often is emphasize that much of the New Testament, and especially the sermon on the mount, is unintelligible unless we Christians are a non-violent community of people, and he attributes this wisdom to Yoder.

In Hauerwas' Unleashing the Scripture, the latter part of the book is a collection of sermons that tie into the thesis in the beginning of the book that "no 'text' can be substituted for the people of God" (28). The following is an excerpt from the sermon titled "A Sermon on the Sermon on the Mount" which I hope will clarify my comment above about needing to be non-violent Christians:

The Sermon [on the Mount]'s ecclesial presuppositions are nowhere more clearly confirmed than in the Beatitudes. There we see that the gospel is the proclamation of a new set of relations made possible by a people being drawn into a new movement. The temptation is to read the Beatitudes as a list of virtues that good people ought to have or as deeds they ought to do. We thus think we ought to try to be meek, or poor, or hungry, or merciful, or peacemakers, or persecuted. Yet we know that it is hard to try to be meek-- either you are meek or you are not. Even more difficult is it to have all the characteristics of the Beatitudes at once!

Yet that is not what it means to be blessed. Rather the Beatitudes assume that there are already people in the community who find themselves in these postures. To be blessed does not mean "if you are this way you will be rewarded," but that "happy are they who find they are so constituted within the community." Moreover, the Beatitudes assume that we are part of a community with diversity of gifts--a diversity that creates not envy but cooperation and love.

It is only against a background like this that we can begin to understand the illegitimacy of questions such as, Does the Sermon on the Mount require me to be a pacifist? The Christians who remembered the Sermon did not know they were pacifists. Rather, they knew as a community they were part of a new way of resolving disputes--through confrontation, forgiveness, and reconciliation. Peacemaking is not an abstract principle but rather the practice of a community made possible by the life, death, and ressurection of Jesus (pp. 70-71).

It is here where I think Hauerwas would say that it was John Howard Yoder that showed him how essential non-violence is to the Gospels. It was Yoder that revealed to him that it is from this perspective of a community already constituted by nonviolence (or meekness, etc.) that the Sermon on the Mount finally makes sense to us.

I'm sure others would be better equipped to offer some Hauerwas and Yoder suggestions, but these are my own from what I know of their work thus far. So if anybody else would like to chime in with revisions or additions to what I have listed above, feel free!

P.S. Stay tuned to my blog in the next couple weeks. I'm going to be making a couple of longer-form posts on Hauerwas in his defense. He's usually very misunderstood. The answers as to why that is are varied, but I will try to do my best to represent his work with what little resources and time I have.

Living in the Real World (1 Thessalonians 5:1-11)

2005-11-13T07:30:00.000-08:00

Every Friday afternoon in the fall was more or less the same for me. A 2:00 meeting to walk through our assignments and our roles for that evening. Then, a half hour of drilling myself to make sure I knew my responsibilities as well as the other members of my team. Then, it was time to put on the game face. I was not naturally mean, so I had to prepare for what was ahead. I would drink a lot of caffeine, listen to Guns and Roses Welcome to the Jungle, take a handful of Advil, and think about what had to be done. Then, it was time to tighten the straps on my shoulder pads, pump up my helmet, tape up my ankles and shoes. By 7:00, we were bouncing off the walls. There are few things like that experience, to walk out of a steaming hot locker room, and feel the cool air, hear the eruption of the crowd and the sounds of the band. It is like going to battle. Much of football is mental, convincing your opponent that you are bigger, stronger, smarter, and faster than him, so you never let your guard down, you never let fear show on your face. I thought it was the most real experience of my life.

We are obsessed today with reality. We are obsessed with being "real." The most popular shows on television are "reality" shows; however, at root, none of these examples are real. For instance, prior to any football game, there is a great deal of fear. There is a good bit of nervousness about how you will play, whether you will let your team down, whether you will fail. The majority of your time is spent appearing to not be nervous and afraid, when inside your guts toss and turn. It becomes necessary oftentimes to be "real" by presenting an image of someone that you are not, to help you avoid feeling and being revealed as weak and vulnerable. It becomes important to attempt to delude ourselves into believing that the images that we construct are real, even if the consequences are disastrous.

As a fifth grader, we had our own little version of a fight club. Every morning when we were dismissed to the bathroom, all the the fifth grade boys would bunch up, and inevitably the fights would begin. There is a bizarre ritual involved in boy fights, a strange grammar for how these fights are resolved. You see, at heart, both boys are scared to death. They might lose. They might get beaten up. They might be called all kinds of names. Their popularity rides on their performance. Thus, the fight begins with each boy talking and insulting the other one. As the dance continues, it progresses to pushes and increased insults and taunts. Finally, one boy will start the fight by throwing a punch, and then it is on. If both boys were asked separately, most would confess that they had no real desire to fight, but did so just to save face and to maintain a certain image of what it means to be a man. Reality means being willing to throw punches to satisfy an image and not look weak.

In counseling people having marital problems, I have discovered the same problem. To "keep it real" means to always point out the other's faults, to not expose one's own, and to keep the other on the defensive: to not talk, to not share emotions, to not express love in meaningful ways. Often, the more insecure the man, the more often this becomes verbally and physically abusive, as he seeks to overcome his doubts and fears by confirming the image of the strong man and the weak, submissive woman. Reality becomes doing anything to anyone so as not to appear vulnerable.

Nations also do the same thing. There are always deep-seeded fears amongst nations. There is the fear that someone will attack your nation and take what is yours. There is the fear that you will be seen as being weak. To be seen as weak is to become vulnerable to attack or exploitation. Therefore, it is imperative to be strong. The image of strength drives nation's to do almost anything to keep up the illusion of safety and security. The reality of the nations is the desperate quest to appear stronger than all her neighbors, and to do anything to maintain this appearance.

It is exactly to this point that Paul turns in his letter to the church in Thessalonica. The church there is a beachhead community, a mustard seed of faith in a sea of emperor worship. God's gracious love has invaded Thessalonica, and Paul has come to reveal what is truly real and what is truly false. In Chapter 4, Paul draws on the language of a visit by a king (a parousia) to tell the church in Thessalonica about what will happen when King Jesus comes- the dead will be raised, the living wioll be caught up in the air, and all God's faithful children will come to be with Him for all eternity. This is reality. This is the real world, the real kingdom. In today's lesson, Paul reminds the Thessalonian church of this reality as it applies to them as citizens of Christ's kingdom. Facing stiff persecution and tremendous suffering for their faith, the Thessalonian church must have been sorely tempted to turn towards the false reality of the peace that Caesar offered. All it took was a public confession that Caesar was Lord, and one could worship anything privately. The reality of the world would say go ahead and make this confession, and then go to church and worship in peace. However, for Paul, this is not the real world revealed by Christ Jesus, and this will not be the world that will survive in the next world.

Paul tells the Thessalonians, "For you yourselves are fully aware that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. While people are saying, 'There is peace and security,' then sudden destruction will come upon them as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape." Empires always invest heavily in propaganda. Their chief tool is to flatten the whole world into their realm of control. There are no answers, no questions, no risks, no dangers that the Empire cannot address. She is the guarantee of peace and security. Thus, we must give her our unquestioning allegiance since she is reality, and outside her there is nothing but chaos and danger. Worship me, she says, because only I can deliver peace, safety, security, and prosperity. Paul tells the Thessalonian church that when Jesus comes, His judgment will fall upon this vision of reality like a thief in the night. They will roam the streets proclaiming peace and security, but they will not escape the judgment to come. The reality that there is a God outside YHWH, a peace outside the shalom of Christ will come crashing down. For Paul this is not an opinion, it is reality.

However, there is another reality at work in this passage. Yes, judgment and death will fall upon those who worship the false gods of the nations and adopt their false reality. At the same time, those who belong to Christ belong to a different reality. We are children of the light, children of the day, and our destination is not death and destruction. Contrary to much of what sells in bookstores, the day of the Lord will not fall upon us unawares. We know it is coming and should prepare ourselves for the eventual awesome and awe-filled Day of the Lord, that apocalyptic day when evil, injustice, and unrighteousness are judged and destroyed. Paul tells us that since we know this is the case to not be deceived and fall back into the darkness. Instead, we are called to live as children of the light who are awake and sober.

To be awake means to view the world through the eyes of Christ. In baptism, we put on Christ Jesus. We surrender our lives to take on his life. His reality becomes our own, and Paul calls on us to be awake. To be awake, to keep our eyes open, is a call to active faith. On one hand, as the baptismal covenant suggests, it is to reject Satan and all of his evil works. It is also the call to be like Christ, to see the world through his eyes. Paul tells us that the children of the light put on the breastplate of faith and love, the helmet of the hope of salvation. To be awake means to realize the reality does not come by the false projection of an image of yourself that hides your weaknesses and vulnerabilities. After all, the armor worn by a centurion was a way to encase the weakest parts of the human body and to project an aura of invincibility. The ways of darkness teach us to encase our lives in armor, to wrap ourselves up in chains, fences, and seclusion in order to be safe. Security comes via alienation, fear, and doubt. Not so for the children of the light. Paul tells us that to stay awake means to allow the light to shine upon our vulnerabilities and weaknesses: to show the world just how weak we are, daring even to walk into battle with only the protection of love, faith, and the hope of salvation.

Paul also tells us to remain sober. It takes a certain sobriety to walk into battle secured only by faith, love, and hope. The powerful temptation is to turn away from the reality made visible in Christ Jesus, and to drink again the wine of the Empire. When the fiery darts of the evil one begin to strike, it is very east to be seduced by the lies of false reality and security promised by Caesar. In training to be a Roman soldier, the first thing one had to learn was to remain in the ranks when the fighting began. When enemies were charging, the most natural thing to do is to run away, but to do so meant certain death for you and your neighbor. Instead, soldiers had to be disciplined to stand firm, to tighten their ranks, and to rely upon the man standing to the right and to the left, to the soldier to his front and to his rear. He had to learn to listen for the sounds of the trumpets and drums, and the voice of his commander. He had to believe that this was the the reality that would deliver him to salvation. In the midst of the battle, to be sober meant to take very seriously one's training and to not be seduced into the drunkenness of fear that will allow to do incredibly stupid and risky things.

Paul calls upon the children of light to likewise be sober. It is not enough to be awake. The church must also be actively sober. We must train ourselves through the practices of our faith to not become drunk on the false promises of salvation offered by the empire. Instead, we must learn that true reality is to walk into life's battles together, covered in the breastplate of faith and love, and wearing the helmet of the hope of salvation. It is to realize that our lives are bound up together, that we must build one another up, rely on one another, and trust one another. As armies train to know how to withstand the battle, so too must the church train together. The early church declared, "The rule of faith is the rule of prayer." In other words, to be awake and remain sober means to pray, to worship, to love others as ourselves, to build up the body, to show compassion to the weak and downtrodden, to extend hospitality to all people. Strange is the army that goes into battle without the appearance of invulnerability, without the glint of steel and the bright shining armor reflecting the noonday sun. Even stranger is an army that will receive even the weakest and sickest into her ranks. Imagine an army of prostitutes and accountants, of thieves and fishermen, of old women and foolish men. The reality of Caesar is that this is nothing. The reality of Christ is that this is His body.

During the Bolshevik years of the Soviet Union, there was an active attempt to destroy Christianity. Stalin sought to replace the imagery of baby Jesus with baby Lenin, and the image of the powerful God of the Old Testament with his own image as Father Joseph. Churches were dynamited. Priests were killed. Yet never could the Soviets for all their power and willingness to kill and destroy able to prevent the grandmothers from coming to church to pray. They would meet anywhere. Many went even to Siberia's brutal gulags. Here was an army of elderly women who knew reality. Here was an army that was awake and sober, clothed in the breastplate of faith and love, and the helmet of salvation.

The question for us today is to hear what is at the heart of what Paul is saying. In an age when the church has been seduced to believe that our salvation is protected by the military, by power politics, by blind faith in the nation-state, can we realize that right now we are doing the one "real" thing in all the world? Can we realize that our strength will not save us, but that worship, prayer, and faithful living will form us into a mighty army of God? Do we believe that salvation could possibly come not on the tip of a 30,000 lb. daisy cutter bomb, but in a manger in a barn in Bethlehem, and on a cross on a hill outside Jerusalem? Can we believe that by continuing to do what we already do- faithfully and over time- that we will help God bring salvation to the world. That reality is frightening and awesome. It is also the reality of Christ Jesus.

my sermon for sunday nov. 13, my last sunday at blakemore/west nashville umc

2005-11-12T19:57:00.000-08:00

1 Thessalonians 5
1I don't think, friends, that I need to deal with the question of when all this is going to happen. 2You know as well as I that the day of the Master's coming can't be posted on our calendars. He won't call ahead and make an appointment any more than a burglar would. 3About the time everybody's walking around complacently, congratulating each other--"We've sure got it
made! Now we can take it easy!"-suddenly everything will fall apart. It's going to come as suddenly and inescapably as birth pangs to a pregnant woman. 4But friends, you're not in the dark, so how could you be taken off guard by any of this? 5You're sons of Light, daughters of Day. We live under wide open skies and know where we stand. 6So let's not sleepwalk through life like those others. Let's keep our eyes open and be smart. 7People sleep at night and get drunk at night. 8But not us! Since we're creatures of Day, let's act like it. Walk out into the daylight sober, dressed up in faith, love, and the hope of salvation. 9God didn't set us up for an angry rejection but for salvation by our Master, Jesus Christ. 10He died for us, a death
that triggered life. Whether we're awake with the living or asleep with the dead, we're alive with him! 11So speak encouraging words to one another. Build up hope so you'll all be together in this, no one left out, no one left behind. I know you're already doing this; just keep on doing it.

__________________________________________________
(around the altar have tall chicken wire fence encasing it with a sign on the front of fence that reads, "KEEP OUT")

"KEEP OUT"

There was a little girl who lived in a small town not a lot unlike where we live. Next door there was a neighbor girl about the same age. They enjoyed playing together almost every day after school and in the summers. One day the little girl's grandfather began building her a tree house. He cut the wood and began building. Pretty soon she had a little treehouse in her back yard that was just her size. She had furniture and posters, a table with a tea set and her favorite toys in the tree house.

One day the little girl next door noticed the treehouse and yelled up into it to the little girl, "hey, can i come up and play?"

A voice from inside the treehouse yelled back, "No, this is my treehouse, keep out!!!"

The neighbor girl went away sad while the little girl continued to play with her favorite toys in her new treehouse. A few days later at the neighbor's house, hammering could be heard. The little girl looked in the yard next door and to her suprise, right next to where her tree house was, another treehouse was being built by the neighbor girl's dad.

In a couple of days,there stood next to one another TWO TREEHOUSES. And on both treehouses there were signs on the doors- MY TREEHOUSE- KEEP OUT!!

Early one morning both girls were outside playing in their treehouses- one having a tea party the other cooking breakfast for all her favorite dolls. The little girl realized that she and "her friends" were pretty hungry. Tea was good but it didn't satisfy their hungry bellies. "Oh man", she said.

"What's wrong" came a small voice from inside the other treehouse. "I have just had tea but now I'm hungry and I don't have anything to eat or to feed my friends."

"That's funny", said the neighbor girl, "I just fed my friends breakfast and now we're thirsty and we don't have anything to drink."

The little girl thought for a moment, "do you want to come over and have some tea?"

"I can't", said the neighbor, "you have a "keep out" sign on your treehouse."

"Oh", said the little girl. "Well I could change it. I could change it to "WELCOME".

The neighbor thought for a moment and said,"I could bring over the leftovers from breakfast and you and your friends could share it."

So that day the little girl took down the sign that was on the door of her treehouse that said "KEEP OUT" and replaced it with another sign- one that read, "WELCOME". And on that day, two little girls enjoyed tea and breakfast together and after they were finished, they asked the dad and the grandfather to help them build a bridge that would connect their treehouses so
that they could always visit each other when they wanted to.

__________________________________________________
"THINGS I'D LIKE TO SAY..."

There's a lot that I want to say to you as a congregation- as friends and family. I want to say things like- for the last 5 years I have felt less like a staff person and more like a friend and family member to a beautiful church and beautiful people.

I want to say something like- I have been part of a youth group that has made it easy for me to feel like I've suceeded because my youth have taught me and given to me as much if not more than I feel that I have given to them. The youth of this church and West Nashville have embodied the kind of community that we all dream about- one that says "Welcome" and not "keep out". I have seen kids from all walks of life show up through the doors to the youth room and not get turned away but embraced with open arms and listened to.

Where did these kids learn that remarkable ability to say "WELCOME" instead of "KEEP OUT"? Well, from those who model it- THIS CONGREGATION.

__________________________________________________
"THE WHO'S IN/WHO'S OUT GAME"

We are living in a time when it is very easy to get caught up in playing the game of who gets to be in and who gets to be
left out. Our political leaders play that game, decision makers play the game all the time. And yes, even in the church, our UM church- we play that game- way too easily sometimes.

And as I look at recent events- some events even made by within our own denomination, I wonder why fear has to be such a motivator to build walls and exlcude.

It's real easy to say he or she doesn't talk like we do, look like we do, dress like we do, have the same skin color as we do, so I'm not sure this would be the right place for them to be. And in very subtle ways we create invisible fences around the "table", around our church and in God's eyes, we've just denied someone grace, the chance to experience and receive God's grace.

__________________________________________________
"THE GIFT OF BLAKEMORE AND WEST NASHVILLE"

It's funny but one of the things that I'll take with me from Blakemore and West Nashville is the memory of two pastors with very different preaching styles but two very similar messages, who standing at the table with bread and cup in hand look out at us and one says- "IN THE UNITED METHODIST TRADITION THIS IS NOT OUR TABLE- THIS IS GOD'S TABLE- AND SO ALL ARE WELCOME" and then I think of the other pastor who says, "THIS IS AN OPEN TABLE, YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE A BAPTIZED CHRISTIAN TO PARTAKE- IF YOU ARE SEEKING A RECONCILING RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD AND NEIGHBOR THEN THIS IS FOR YOU."

You may hear about leaders and decisions in our denomination who try and put fences around the table, around the doors. We as a congregation, youth group, sunday school class, etc... may even from time to time struggle with or be tempted to put up a fence and hang a sign that says "keep out".

But today the gift and story that I take with me is of a church, a youth group, a group of frends, a family who strives to make sure that the fences are never put up and the sign that hangs out front always says, "WELCOME" not to our house, but God's house.

__________________________________________________
"THIS IS WHO WE ARE...THANKS"

(facing the altar with fence around it; take the KEEP OUT sign down)

I think I'll take this down- this isn't us... does anyone think that this is us?

(youth come up and take the fence away; turn sign around and it says "WELCOME"; and place sign on altar.

Thank you for 5 wonderful years of ministry, partnerships, and frienships. Jen and I will be leaving our membership here cause we know where home is.

And as I travel on down the road let me leave you with words that Paul left with the thessalonian church , "speak encouraging words to one another. Build up hope so you'll all be together in this, no one left out, no one left behind. I know you're already doing this; just keep on doing it."

In other words- you've got a great treehouse here, invite everyone over for tea and breakfast.
amen.

Jonathon Norman

SERMON OUTLINE

1. "KEEP OUT"
2. "THINGS I'D LIKE TO SAY (read)
3. "THE GIFT OF BLAKEMORE AND WEST NASHVILLE"
4. "THIS IS WHO WE ARE... THANKS"

also found at my blog

What Happened to Veterans Day?

2005-11-10T14:32:00.000-08:00

Ed. Note: I know this sermon starts strangely for me, a Christian pacifist, but bear with me. It makes sense in the end.

What has happened to Veteran's Day? It seems to me that the holiday has morphed into something else and has lost its way, just as has all of American culture. It seems that as the Greatest Generation passes away, so too will the celebration of Veteran's Day. I remember the old time Veteran's Day celebrations where all of the WWII veterans put on some portion of their uniform and gathered in the town square for a parade, a meal, speeches, and a time for a community to remember. I don't think it is any great shock that these celebrations largely revolved around World War II and the veterans of this war. These celebrations were almost liturgical in effect, as an entire community remembered her personal sacrifices for "the boys overseas" and for her boys who lost their lives in the War. Literally, the war touched everyone, economically, culturally, and socially. World War II literally remade the fabric of American life. Veteran's Day made possible a celebration of victory over the Nazi's evil reign and the militaristic Japanese domination of Asia. There was an evil enemy that was overcome heroically by the sons of small town America supported by the sacrifices of those same small towns. Veterans Day was a time to remember.

Today, the celebrations are attended by just a few. The parades have just about ceased. Now, the schools offer the JROTC kids a half day out of school to carry the flags. The rapidly disappearing Greatest Generation still attends, but the celebrations are no longer times of community remembrance. I see yellow ribbons on cars. I see patriotic worship services at church. I see flags on houses. But I do not see a community remembrance of her sons and daughters that she sacrifices for the protection of the nation. I do not see a community that together seeks to sacrifice alongside her sons and daughters "over there." The reason is that there is no longer much of a community. There are increasingly only individuals and the state.

The lack of community is even more apparent with regards to those killed in the war on terror. In American wars prior to Vietnam, the entire community gathered publicly, in prayer vigils and other community spaces to see the lists of those killed in battle. The community gathered and mourned together and similarly supported one another. Today, the media does not show the return of the bodies of the nation's sons and daughters killed in battle. There names are not read aloud. In fact, to talk about the dead is considered an act of defiance against the nation. There is no communal lament.

This is warfare in the Twenty First Century, and it is a strange beast. In an age of politics when the only community is virtual, warfare must also become virtual. It must be fought in a way that does not inconvenience anyone, does not appear too costly, and is appealing for a consumeristic population. "Shock and Awe," with embedded reporters, satellite phones, and real-time pictures from the back of an M1 Abrams tank, exemplify this phenomenon.

In place of community remembrances, Veteran's Day is replaced with sheer sentimentality and contrived performance. We cannot address the tougher issues of wounded and disabled veterans, of mentally ill veterans, of widows and children who have lost parents. We cannot allow these faces to be seen publicly because the reality that war requires a tremendous sacrifice from the entire community would become too real to bear. In a nation where community is illusory and virtual, there can be only virtual, disembodied, ahistorical heroes. To seriously remember would prove too great a challenge.

What happened to Veteran's Day? My sermon this week centers on 1 Thessalonians 5:1-11. There, I want to explore the apocalyptic nature in which Paul confronts the Roman Empire. In my reading of this passage, Paul is doing what Augustine does later in The City of God. He attacks the worship of Caesar in Thessalonica by calling together an ekklesia in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, who will worship, wait, and persevere until his coming (parousia). At that time, destruction will come upon the worshipers of Caesar, who cling to "Peace and Security," like a thief in the night. However, the ekklesia will stand as those veterans of many campaigns wrapped in the breastplate of faith and love and in the helmet of the hope of salvation. The veterans of this campaign will be remembered as they remember the One who called them. You see, this celebration is marked by the remembrance of death- Christ's and ours and all the saints. It is marked by remembrance of resurrection- Christ's and the hope of our own. It is marked by remembrance of Christ's return- when all the saints will receive eternal salvation!

More to come later. I'd appreciate any comments.

American Liberalism

2005-11-08T18:42:00.000-08:00

The discussion of liberalism is popping up everywhere on our blogs. Jonathan Norman makes reference to the presence of fundamentalisms of the left and right in American political discourse. He asked me to write a statement about these fundamentalisms, and I wanted to post it here to draw feedback from everyone. It is overly simplistic and reductionistic, but I tried to write in such a way that people not versed in the theology we've all been reading and discussing could easily grasp some of what we critique as the effects of liberalism in American culture. Does this capture and describe the phenomenon?

Fundamentalism of the Left
Steeped in the vision and language of modernity, the rational autonomous individual is the chief moral actor. Institutions and culture are of secondary importance. As a result, the language of liberal fundamentalists is connected very much to the issue of defining fundamental rights. These rights usually center on the individual's freedom to associate, to speak, and to choose what to do with one's own body. The government should remove itself from personal decisions regarding bodily practices, but should be able to intervene in economic situations to redistribute wealth more equitably. Liberal fundamentalism is highly deterministic in that the purpose of the government and the end of life is connected to a certain vision of liberty- a liberty that seeks to overcome the traditionally empowered by effecting a shift to the traditionally disenfranchised (i.e. protecting the presentation of Buddhism or Islam while absolutely prohibiting Christianity from the public square).

There is little room for meaningful dialogue because all the decisions and outcomes are prescribed ahead of time.

Fundamentalism of the Right
Also steeped in the language and vision of modernity, so also is the rational autonomous individual the chief moral agent. Institutions and culture are of secondary importance. Again, the language of rights also dominates here, although usually spoken in the language of "values." The fundamentalism of the right is centered on the right of the individual to compete unencumbered in the market, to freely use money that is inherently hers, and to be left alone by the government except in the arena of the body where "public morals" must be protected. Thus, a conservative fundamentalism is also highly deterministic. It also paints a picture of the way the world should operates and ahead of time determines how conversations and dialogue should end.

Flip Sides of the Same Coin
Truthfully, there is little difference theologically between the two sides. They just pick different sides of the same liberal coin. This is dangerous for Christianity immediately because lost in the ideological battles is really any need for Christ. As Milbank so beautifully spells out in "Can Morality Be Christian," in neither case is Christ necessary to the system. You can be a good moral liberal or a good moral conservative simply by being right on the proper set of issues. There is no need to confess Christ and Him crucified. Instead, there is a vicious cycle of violent attempts on both sides to narrate humanity's destiny via humanistic self-improvement. Since both narratives are not grounded in participation in God's Triune life, they ultimately and inevitably become nihilistic. They both become ways of death, ehich Jonathan reflects in his post. As Alasdair McIntyre points out in After Virtue, the debates become incommensurable. Take abortion. The Left musters an argument about a woman's right to choose, which if you accept their paradigm is rational. Similarly, the Right presents an argument regarding the sanctity of life, which if you subscribe to their argument is also rational. The two sides use similar terms but possess a radically different grammar; however, in all cases, the government becomes the primary vehicle to seek action. For Christians, this should be problematic because the Church should be the institution that forms and guides our lives. Our actions should be embodied as the Body of Christ, not in the pursuit of domestic political agendas (that by definition must be ideological). Fundamentalisms of the Left and Right reduce Christianity to nothing more than an ideology, and render Christian faith unnecessary.

Consequently, it will only be by learning the grammar embodied in good Christian liturgy that we can begin again to embody an ecclessiology that will enable us to live as a people who understand our lives to be nothing more than to be made into the image of Christ and faithfully witness to His power and grace. The way beyond neoconservatism and current strands of liberalism is to see them for what they are, name them, and move beyond them by participating again as the Kingdom of God.

Grace and Peace,
Scott

Remembering Duns Scotus

2005-11-08T04:06:00.000-08:00

On his blog, Jonathan Norman today remembers Duns Scotus.

Since we have people contributing the blog who are medieval scholars from the Catholic tradition, I thought it would be interesting to see how he is received outside RO, where he is viewed as almost villainous.

In RO, he is considered the one who begins to destroy the Augustinian conception of the Triune God. RO traces the rise of secular reason back to the theological moves made by Duns Scotus. Specifically, they charge that he reduced God to sheer will, and a potentially arbitrary and cpricious will at that. He, in effect, flattens the world via his understanding of the univocity of being. As a result, the participatory structure of Augustine's Trinitarian theology is "flattened" or "unhooked" into a purely immanent realm. Again, RO does not charge Scotus with all of the moves made towards secular reason, but certainly see him, along with Henry of Ghent and William of Ockham, as the Medieval theologians who began the move towards Cartesian subjectivity, onto-theology, and the rise of secularism in the West.

Are their other readings of Scotus?

Pontifications on Preaching

2005-11-07T13:09:00.000-08:00

Father Alvin Kimel (who is a collaborator here at Radical Preaching) has an excellent post on recovering preaching within the Catholic tradition. I think it is a very interesting topic for conversation, since roughly half of the people contributing to this blog are Catholic and half are evangelical Protestants (though not the run of the mill type). Please click on the link above, read the article and then let's discuss the role of preaching in worship and in Christian life.

Lectionary Readings for This Week

2005-11-07T12:42:00.000-08:00

The lectionary readings for this week are as follows:

Judges 4:1-7
Psalm 123
1 Thessalonians 5:1-11
Matthew 25:14-30

Sorry for the lack of posts last week. I had to shift over to a paper I am writing on forgiveness for a class I am taking at Trevecca. I hope to share some RO insights from that paper when I complete it. I hope you all are doing well.

Grace and Peace,
Scott

A Week with Stephen Long

2005-11-07T05:58:00.000-08:00

Jonathan Norman is beginning another of his very interesting "A Week with..." series. This week, he will be featuring Stephen Long, who is a Methodist theologian who has written a book in the Radical Orthodoxy series. This book, Divine Economy, is a Christian critique of capitalism.

Please visit Jonathan's blog as I think it will be an interesting and rewarding read.

Grace and Peace,
Scott

Remembering & Re-Membering: The Glory of All Saints Day

2005-11-01T04:12:00.000-08:00

Last night, I was flipping around channels late and found the movie, Final Destinations 2. The first Final Destination movie begins with a character's premonition that a horrible accident is about to occur. He convinces his friends not to fly to France because he dreamed that the plane would crash. They don't go, and sure enough, the plane crashes, killing everyone on board. However, in this movie, Death will not be cheated. So, the remainder of the movie pits the friends' attempts to outwit, outlast, and outplay Death itself, usually losing. The message of the film brilliantly portrays the end of secular reason, a valiant struggle to conquer and overcome that final and most mysterious of adversaries, Death. In a recent talk at Baylor University, Stanley Hauerwas remarked, "In the Middle Ages, the prayer books indicate that people prayed that death would not come quickly upon them that they might have time to repent properly. In modernity, we pray that death will come quickly, that we will not tarry and be a burden to others. You see, in the Middle Ages, they believed in God. In modernity, we believe in death. In a chapter entitled, "Asyndeton" in The Postmodern God, Catherine Pickstock states, "The unspoken objective of modernity is to relinquish death by means of death, which is to say, to abolish time" (297). In abolishing time, modernity reveals not only its ahistoricity, but also its inability to accept saints. You see, to abolish time is to abolish saints.

Today is All Saints' Day, a most holy day, and a day for us to remember why it is that we reject secular reason. For the world exemplified in Final Destination, to live is to live in a "heroic" struggle against death, an adversary who remains one step ahead, having already charted the place and time for everyone's demise. To cheat death is only to delay the inevitable. The best that one can hope for is a "noble" death; however, this is impossible for modernity because in an effort to overcome death, modernity attempts to abolish time, to make life both ahistorical and atemporal. Thus, modernity cannot remember saints, because to remember saints means to allow time to pass, to realize that death cannot be succesfully managed, nor can it be overcome by will or power. To remember saints requires the remembrance of Christ, His death, His resurrection, and His glorification. Finally, to remember the saints requires the acknowledgement that the salvation offered by the nation-state is a parody of the salvation offered in Christ Jesus.

In the Eucharist, we remember not to forget the story of Jesus. First, we remember that He died in a very specific way at a very specific time. We remember that when accused and reviled by evil men, He went like a lamb led before the slaughter, uttering not a word in His own defense. Jesus does not attempt to overcome death through the technologies at His disposal. Remember the Elders taunt, "He saved others, let him save himself!" Jesus allows Himself to be handed over to death; however, this handing over is not an easing into the peaceful slumber of thanatosis. Jesus surrenders himself to death by fully trusting God to raise Him from the dead. Jesus' death on the cross is the ultimate note of his faith, trusting God even unto death instead of surrendering to the powerful temptation to seek an alternative path, an alternative form of salvation.

Second, we remember that Christ was raised from the Dead, having descended into Hell. We remember that Death does not have the last word. He has been defeated as have sin and evil. In faith, Christ surrenders to death, and faithfully, God raises Him from the dead.

Third, the Eucharist reminds us that Christ will come again, in all majesty and glory, to create the new heavens and the new earth, and to reign with His saints forever. At long last, the sting of death will be removed. The veil that shrouds the holy mountain and clouds the holy feast will be cast off, and Christ will remove our sorrows and sufferings, washing us clean, and inviting us to the feast of all feasts, in His glorious and eternal kingdom. Death, evil, and sin will be no more!

All Saints' Day helps us to remember not to "modernize" the Eucharist, to make it function as a promise of a far off day in the sweet bye and bye. Instead, All Saints' Day reminds us to remember that in the reception of the Body and the Blood, we become that which we eat. We become a part of His Body, in all of our temporality. In our local communities, we are charged to be His saints. All Saints' Day helps us to remember our identity by remembering the stories of those who have gone before us, who have faithfully embodied Christ's presence to the world. Modernity cannot tolerate the memory of saints in the Church because it cannot control and manage those memories. In Pinochet's Chile, the state went to great lengths to destroy the Church's ability to form saints (See Torture and Eucharist by William Cavanaugh to this point). The modern nation-state offers us an alternative form of salvation that is a parody of Christian salvation, just as the nation-state is a parody of the Church. This alternative form of salvation ushers us into a Final Destination world, where we must devote our lives to learning how to escape and outwit death. Our lives must be filled with the constant tension that if we let down our guard, allow ourselves to grow weak, fall asleep, even, that death will creep in and rob us of our life. We fail so often to see that this is not life, but a series of compromises with death that ends in our worship of death. William Stringfellow states, "Death in his ultimate cruelty entices us to believe that only he can offer salvation" (paraphrase). Our strength and smarts will not deliver us from death, but only worship in the Triune God. In remembering the saints, we remember those who refused death, exposed death, and now enjoy the fruit of resurrection, gathered in the bosom of our Lord!

14"These are the ones coming out of the great tribulation. They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

¹⁵"Therefore they are before the throne of God,
and serve him day and night in his temple;
and he who sits on the throne will shelter them with his presence.
¹⁶They shall hunger no more, neither thirst anymore;
the sun shall not strike them,
nor any scorching heat.
¹⁷For the Lamb in the midst of the throne will be their shepherd,
and he will guide them to springs of living water,
and God will wipe away every tear from their eyes" (Revelation 7:14b-17, ESV).

some recent R.O. posts

2005-10-31T07:33:00.000-08:00

evangelicals out of the box

Calvinism and Chosenness

Radical Orthodoxy and OT Theology

2005-10-29T21:08:00.000-07:00

Fellow bloggers,
I am currently in my just second OT class in Trevecca's masters program so I am really wading throught some OT issues. In short, I am attempting to grasp what a Radical Orthodoxy reading of the OT is. Admittedly, I am beginning my struggle through RO and in light of reading von Rad, Eichrodt, and others in OT theology, I am wondering what, outside of the emphasis upon creation ex-nihilo, RO has to say about OT theology on a larger scale. Of course, I am not asking for an RO view of OT theology, but rather how does it dialogue with the lack of the body/soul dichotomy in that appears later? Is there any connection between the Hebrew mindset (if there is one to be known) in the OT and what RO is attempting to do? I am sure this could have been worded a little clearer, but I know their is some continuity between current OT theologizing and RO. Any thoughts?

Peace,

Nathan

Staring in the Mirror

2005-10-29T20:28:00.000-07:00

When I attended West Point, there were many arrogant people, but there was one who took the cake. His name was Pete, and Pete was convinced just how smart and beautiful he was. Every story featured him as the great hero who slayed dragons, saved wenches, and restored good and justice to the world. He was a classic “topper.” You tell a story, and he tops it. He loved to look at himself in the mirror. Anytime he passed a mirror, he just could not help himself. He had to stop and take a look. He had to gaze at his hair and remind himself just how handsome he was.

Have you ever heard the story of Narcissus? Narcissus was a similar man, celebrated in Greek mythology for his great beauty. He was so handsome that the nymphs all fell in love with him, but he rejected all of their efforts. As a curse, Narcissus was made to fall in love with his own image. Narcissus fell so deeply in love with himself, that he sat by the riverbank and gazed at his own reflection longingly. Many came and begged him to leave, begged him to eat and to drink, to remember all the good things of life, but Narcissus sat there and stared at his reflection until he died. Psychologists tell us that narcissism is a condition where we fall in love with our own beauty until we are paralyzed gazing in the mirror at ourselves.

In our Gospel reading today, Jesus accuses the Pharisees of a narcissism of sorts. If you remember last week, I told you how the Pharisees sought, above all else, to protect their identity as Jews, to remain faithful in a world gone mad. They desperately sought to form a people who would live by the Law in every aspect of their life. To some degree, they were successful. Their piety and hard work allowed them a certain degree of financial security. Their devotion to the faith won them prestige in local communities. If not powerful, they were at least respected. As time passed, they began to lose sight of their purpose. They began to fall in love with their own works. Their goal began to be the maintenance of the structures they built and keeping up the traditions they began. They lost sight of their true end: the worship of God. Instead, they fell in love with the creation of their own hands. They began to look in the mirror and admire their own reflection.

Jesus, of course, comes to town and smashes their mirror to little pieces. After they fail in their attempts to trap him, they withdraw to conspire how best to kill him. As they leave, Jesus begins to speak to his disciples and to the gathered crowd. He says, “The scribes and Pharisees sit on the seat of Moses, so practice and observe whatever they tell you—but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice” (Mt. 23:2-3, ESV). He goes on to describe that the Pharisees love to lay burdens on people’s shoulders, but move not even one finger to help lift the burden. They love to dress the part, making their phylacteries broad and their fringes long. However, they do not attend to the meatier aspects of the Law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. Not only do they love to be seen, they also love to be exalted- in the synagogues and at the feasts. They love to be exalted by others, to be called “Master” and “Teacher.” In this sermon, Jesus excoriates them for losing sight of the end of the Law, for falling in love with their own works. He condemns them for their narcissism and calls for his followers and the crowd to turn away from the mirror and to look at the world differently.

The question I have today is whether we are significantly different from the Pharisees. Clearly, we Nazarenes believe ourselves to be different. We have cut loose from dead rituals and symbols such as phylacteries and fringes. We deny the place of any sort of salvation from mere appearance. But I wonder if we are not gazing at the other side of the same mirror. I wonder if we peeked around the corner, if we might find that the Pharisee who stares back reflects us. As I prepared for this sermon, I was shocked to find that most of the commentaries and sermons that I read reproduced the very thing that Jesus condemns in this passage. Jesus tells his disciples and the crowd to obey the teachings of the Pharisees and Scribes because they sit on the seat of Moses. They are the rightful proclaimers of the Law. He tells them only not to do as the Pharisees do because they do not practice what they preach. He then lays this out with specific charges: They bind up people with heavy burdens but do not help to lift that burden; they love to dress the part of a holiness people but do not perform justice, mercy, and faithfulness in their daily lives; they love to be exalted in the synagogues and at feasts but have lost all sight of humbly coming before God. Most sermons and commentaries read Jesus as placing binding up sin in opposition to loosing the burdens of sin, as placing the appearance of holiness in opposition to the performance of holiness, as placing exaltation in opposition to humility. This reading causes them to read Jesus’ judgment on the Pharisees and scribes back the other way. Jesus does not place these in tension and opposition with each other. He does not call for an either/or but a both/and. He calls for his disciples to both bind and loose, to appear and perform holiness, to be both humble and exalted. To miss this point is to run the great risk of standing on one side of the mirror or the other, and finding some type of Pharisee on either side.

In order to avoid this powerful temptation, we must really hear what it is that Jesus calls for us to be and do.

First, we must remember the work that has been given us to do. We are created in Christ’s image, and we are given good work to do. We are called to participate in God’s work of saving and restoring fallen creation. In Matthew’s Gospel, this is known as the ministry of the keys. In Matthew 16, Jesus gives the keys to the kingdom to Peter and tells him that he has the authority to both bind and loose. The church is to go forth and to bind up the world in its sins, to live and proclaim faithfully that to not worship the God revealed in Jesus Christ is to sin and will lead to all forms of death and despair. However, to proclaim judgment is not enough. We are also called, as Christ’s body, to loose sinners from the burden of sin. The key works both ways, not only to bind up in chains, but also to loose us from our sins.

Second, we must remember out baptism. Jesus calls for us to have the same appearance of holiness portrayed by the Pharisees and scribes with their broad phylacteries and long fringes. He also calls for us to attend to the meat of the Gospel: justice, mercy, and faithfulness. As Jeremiah tells us, we are to have the law written on our hearts and not on stone. As Paul tells us, we are to put on Christ. In baptism, we die to self to be raised in the glorious beauty of Jesus Christ. We literally put on his image and bear it to the world. Thus, our phylacteries and fringe appear as we remember that in baptism all men and women are our brothers and sisters, that in baptism there is no slave or free, Jew or Gentile, male or female, but that we are all one in Christ Jesus.

When I began teaching, my mentor teacher told me one day when she discovered I was a preacher also that she was glad she took her children to Sunday School every week. I told her I thought that was great, to which she responded, “Yes, everyone should go to church as kids because it teaches them basic morality for their lives.” We so often forget that the church is more than a place for moral formation, an add-on to our lives. The church is the baptized community, a people who have put on Christ and now carry Christ to a sin-sickened and dying world.

Third, we must remember the Eucharist. Jesus condemns the Pharisees for their desire to be exalted, to sit in the best seats and to be called Master in public. In the Eucharist, we remember that Christ was exalted in his humility. He, who is the King of all Glory, gave up his throne to come to earth. In the Eucharistic feast, we remember that Christ was humble in his life and practices and in the way that he faced death on the Cross. However, he was exalted in his humility. In the Eucharistic feast, we remember that we are not humble for humility’s sake. We are not called to be masochists. Instead, we are called to be His Body, the Church. To remember our identity in Him and to give thanks, rejoicing in what is to come when the last will be first and the first will be last.

We live in a day and age when the individual is celebrated, elevated, and exalted. We live in age of cultural narcissism. It is very easy to fall into this sin, to gaze at ourselves in the mirror. We live in dangerous times, and it is much easier to build fences and put up walls than it is to go out into the world and risk everything. It is much easier to ignore what is going on “out there” and remain in the comfort of the world we create for ourselves. However, baptism reminds us that our life is not our own; we have now put on Christ. The Eucharist reminds us that God is remaking the world, and invites us as his body to participate in that glorious work. The ministry of the keys reminds us that there is good and risky work to do in the world. We must go out and name sin, bind up sinners by speaking the truth in love, and then set them free in the name of Jesus Christ.

The powerful temptation we face today is to be narcissistic, to believe that we are pretty and perfect, just as we are. When we do this, we seek only to glorify ourselves. We begin to believe that we are the center of the world. We will build all kinds of things: programs, buildings, and ministries. But these will all be to celebrate our own power and glory.

During the Civil War, George McClellan took a faltering Union Army and built it into the most powerful army in the world. He painstakingly trained and disciplined his army until it worked like a machine. In his mind it was both perfect and beautiful. In his worship of his creation, he forgot that armies are created for one purpose: to fight wars. Finally, Abraham Lincoln, exasperated by McClellan’s delays wrote the general and asked him, “General McClellan, if you are not doing anything, may I borrow your army, I have a war to fight.”

All around us today, the world is mired in the depths and despair of sin and evil. All around us people are perishing outside the saving love of our Lord. Will we be a people that remember that the Church has one end: to be the Body of Christ, His flesh and blood presence in a world gone mad. Can we begin to move out and tear down the walls and gates that we have erected in a vain attempt to protect ourselves? Will we journey out, in His name, to do the glorious work he has given us?

Reading Radical Orthodoxy

2005-10-28T10:12:00.000-07:00

In an earlier post, David asked for reading recommendations for Radical Orthodoxy. I thought I would provide sort of a rough reading list, and then others could contribute to fill in the gaps (As I am writing this, I see that Eric has already offered up an excellent list in the comments section). I will begin with introductory books/articles, and then offer up other books. I have read about ten of the RO series, so this is hardly complete. I know there are some excellent books that I have not gotten to. I will list them below, also.

Introduction to Radical Orthodoxy
1) James K. A. Smith, Introducing Radical Orthodoxy
I think Smith does a fantastic job providing an overview and introduction to RO. I confess that I skimmed the sections about the Dutch Reformed church.

2) John Milbank, "Postmodern Critical Augustinianism: A Short Summa..."
Modern Theology, 7:3 (April 1991), 225-237. This article is also contained in Graham Ward's, The Postmodern God. In this book, Catherine Pickstock also has a very good article about how modern liturgical reforms (asyndeton) altered the way we understand God, worship, and faith.

In this relatively short article, Milbank provides an overview of his theological project. I find this to be a very helpful introduction.

3) John Milbank, Catherine Pickstock, & Graham Ward. Radical Orthodoxy.
As Eric highlighted, Cavanaugh's chapter, "The City: Beyond Secular Parodies," is outstanding. Iwould also read the introduction, chapter 1 by Milbank, chapter 5 by Michael Hanby, Chapter 8 by Graham Ward, and Chapter 12 by Catherine Pickstock.

After the Introduction
John Milbank, Theology and Social Theory
This is Milbank's extraordinary critique of secular reason. It is unbelievable in its scope. Hauerwas declared that in this one book Milbank was able to "gore everyone's ox." This one will take some time to read, but he absolutely takes apart secular reason. The last chapter calls for a Trinitarian ontology and reveals how he is seeking to reappropriate Augustine.

Catherine Pickstock, After Writing: The Liturgical Consummation of Philosophy
This book supposedly won Dr. Pickstock an audience with Pope Benedict XVI when he was a Cardinal. In this book, she first takes on Derrida's reading of Plato, and then discusses how the Medieval liturgy is the culmination of philosophy, language, and art. This book is not an easy read, but a very fruitful one. I am still working my way through this one, but I love what she is doing.

John Milbank, The Word Made Strange
In the last chapter of Theology and Social Theory, Milbank begins his constructive theological project. In this book, he begins to expand on his Christology, pneumatology, and ecclesiology. There are some fantastic essays in this book. As I wrestle with this book more, I like it much more than on the first reading.

John Milbank and Catherine Pickstock, Truth in Aquinas
I must confess that I have only skimmed this book. My mentor and friend who is a church history professor at Trevecca believes that they read Aquinas correctly and dangerously so. This is by far probably the most controversial of the RO series since Thomists of all stripes have attacked it. I noticed this topic coming up quite frequently on your blog, and so I bumped it up the list. This is definitely an RO reading of Thomas. I would be interested in your thoughts.

Dan Bell, Liberation Theology after the End of History
This book is an excellent analysis of the Catholic liberation theology movement in Latin America. Bell sees that liberation theology lacked an ecclesiology capable of resisting capitalism. He provides an excellent analysis of capitalism, as well, focusing on how capitalism disciplines our desire making us into docile subjects. This is an outstanding work.

Conor Cunningham, Genealogy of Nihilism
Like Eric, I find this book to be profound. I am still working my way through it, but I see Cunningham addressing some of the frequent criticisms made of Milbank's work. I find his reading of nihilism to be fascinating.

Michael Hanby, Augustine and Modernity
I am shocked that this book does not get more attention. I read this book deeply as I read it in a directed reading I was taking on Augustine, and again in a class I took on Radical Orthodoxy. He takes apart the traditional modern claim that Augustine stands in direct line between Plato and Descartes in terms of the creation of the autonomous self. He also works through Augustine's Trinitarian theology and soteriology. Hanby articulates the idea of a doxological selfhood. This is a RO reading of Augustine.

Related to RO
William Cavanaugh, Torture and Eucharist
This is not in the RO series, but Cavanaugh has written an exceptional essay mentioned above. This book, though, provides an ecclesial example of how the core elements of RO look on the ground in resistance to the Pinochet regime. Words cannot express how excellent I find this book to be.

Stephen Long, The Goodness of God
Eric recommended Long's Divine Economy, which is published in the RO series. That is also an excellent book. However, this is my absolute favorite book of Long's (though I haven't read his most recent which I hear is also quite good).

Bell, Long and Cavanaugh are students of Hauerwas, to whom I am deeply indebted to for forming me as a Christian and a pastor. I confess that I am more Hauerwasian than RO, and that bias is probably represented in this list.

Critiques of RO
David Toole, Waiting for Godot in Sarajevo
I checked this book out on interlibrary loan, so I only had it for two weeks. It attempts to critique RO from the perspective of John Howard Yoder. Toole claims that ultimately Milbank is unable to outnarrate nihilism, because he lack an apocalyptic understanding of the world. I wish I had more time with this book because I think he raises some serious issues that RO has yet to address with regards to pacifism.

I hope this helps. There are several other books in the series as well as other related books that are coming out. I believe this is a good start.

Grace and Peace,
Scott

A Testimony to Ecumenism

2005-10-27T09:55:00.000-07:00

On the Feast Day of William Temple

Today’s lectionary reading in the daily cycle brings us this passage from the Gospel of Matthew:

Matthew 13:18-23 (NRSV)

18 "Hear then the parable of the sower. 19 When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what is sown in the heart; this is what was sown on the path. 20 As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; 21 yet such a person has no root, but endures only for a while, and when trouble or persecution arises on account of the word, that person immediately falls away. 22 As for what was sown among thorns, this is the one who hears the word, but the cares of the world and the lure of wealth choke the word, and it yields nothing. 23 But as for what was sown on good soil, this is the one who hears the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit and yields, in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty."

One of the great oddities of contemporary American Christianity is its insistence on division as a means of holiness. It lacks either the creativity or comprehension of a faith that is vibrant enough to engage the world that surrounds it as an exile in the model of Jeremiah and diaspora Judaism. As a result, it attempts to manipulate the state into a means of spreading Christian dogma through legal means, consider it an Evangelical version of Franco’s Spain. Domination of the other seems to be one of its primary goals and it considers this goal as a means of converting the unbelievers.

Unlike this approach, Jesus offers us the parable of the sower and the seed. The seed is sown, God waters it, and it will grow depending on where it lands. This landing should probably not be understood in predestination terms (a la Calvin), rather it should be understood as the place we are when we hear it. The point is that the seed cannot be coerced into growing. The models of the Inquisition and of Franco are contrary to the gospel Jesus gives us.

Rather, in light of the testimony of William Temple, let us examine the beauty of the Elizabethan compromise. While this claim was certainly a political move, it also codified the via media. The idea that “all may, some should, none must" is at the heart of the Anglican via media. It presupposes the dignity of the human person and grants the freedom to make decisions free of coercion. It understands that the seed cannot be forced to grow; rather, the seed is best left sown and allowed to grow as it may. If it snatched away, it must be resown. If it is shallow, it will soon wither. If it is entangled in the cares of the world or the lure of wealth, it will not thrive. If it lands in good soil, it will blossom.

William Temple was renowned for his ecumenism. Ecumenism requires that Christians of varied traditions allow others to interpret specific passages and dogmas differently, yet understands that the resurrection of our Lord is at the center of Christian identity. It understands that we are the Body of Christ and dependant upon each other in order to truly reflect our Lord to the watching world. To use Milbank as an interlocutor, it understands that an ontology of peace allows for difference that creates harmony rather than chaos. We do not need homogeneity, we need to be the Body of Christ without schism or division in order to reflect the unity of our God. Holiness is certainly part of who God is, but separation need not be monastic or exclusionary. As Jesus sat with those that the holy called sinners, he reflected the Kingdom come.

On the feast day of William Temple, one of the doctors of the Anglican Church, let us celebrate the Church catholic. Let us hope for a day when we see more similarity with our brothers and sisters in the faith rather than our differences. As we work together for that day, let us be encouraged by the life and thought of William Temple and allow the seed to bear fruit a hundredfold.

Enough Is Enough: A Devotion in Honor of Rosa Parks

2005-10-25T05:12:00.000-07:00

Enough is Enough:
A Devotion in Honor of Rosa Parks
Acts 16:16-40

¹⁶As we were going to the place of prayer, we were met by a slave girl who had a spirit of divination and brought her owners much gain by fortune-telling. ¹⁷She followed Paul and us, crying out, "These men are servants of the Most High God, who proclaim to you the way of salvation." ¹⁸And this she kept doing for many days. Paul, having become greatly annoyed, turned and said to the spirit, "I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her." And it came out that very hour.

In the telling of the stories of the saints, we most often seek to narrate their lives through the stories given to us in the Holy Scriptures. This devotion is no exception. As I reflect on the life of Rosa Parks, immediately this narrative of Paul in Philippi came to mind. Paul is called to "help" in Macedonia, a place devoted to the cause of the Empire and the worship of Caesar. In other words, Macedonia was enemy territory, a land enslaved by the prinicipalities and powers. Of course, as the Book of Acts reveals time and again, slavery and imprisonment are not defined by chains and bars. Paul and Silas are followed daily by a slave girl who made her owners a great profit through fortune telling. Every day, she follows Paul and Silas and announces their identity to the crowds. One particular day, Paul decides that enough is enough and speaks, "I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her." And the demon came out that very hour.

So who is Rosa Parks in this story? On one hand, it would be easy to compare her to the servant girl, forced by sheer power to serve unjust people to make them a profit. Certainly, the Jim Crow South established both legal and social structures to force African Americans to live in conditions little different than while slavery existed. Certainly, Mrs. Parks was set free by Christ to live free of the principalities and powers in a bold way. However, that is not the comparison I want to make this morning.

For me, Rosa Parks much more closely resembles the Apostle Paul. She was a woman of deep faith, and also a woman who worked hard. One day, on the bus ride home after a long day at work, a white man approached her and demanded that she give up her seat. That was the law after all. When asked, black people were expected to move to the back of the bus, without comment and without complaint. To do so would warrant arrest or far worse. On this particular day, Rosa Parks was probably not only tired but also irritated. She looked at the man, in the eye, and said, "No." She refused to give up her seat! Her act of public defiance of segregation was the first salvo in a battle to liberate the United States from the spirit of racism and exploitation that so thoroughly possess it. This shot heard round the world would not result in the instantaneous expulsion of the evil spirit, but it did begin the process of exorcism.

She was arrested, booked, and placed in jail. The principalities and powers probably imagined that the prospects of jail would frighten a woman into ending her defiance and do anything to escape imprisonment. However, bars do not a prison make. Far from being intimidated, Parks' arrest led her young pastor to stand up and join her in jail. Her announcement that enough is enough sounded a call to a generation of young students who were also both irritated and fearless. Within ten years, they would storm the bastions and redoubts most heavily devoted to the service of the spirit of racism. They conquered this spirit in a most unique way. You see, when Paul and Silas were locked in the deepest belly of the Philippian jail, chained and bound, they sang hymns and prayed to God. And then came a holy earthquake that shook the very moorings of the prison and of Roman society itself. I am sure that Rosa Parks and her young pastor prayed and sang because a great earthquake soon began to shake the moorings of a racist and exploitative social structure known as Jim Crow.

Casting out the evil spirits that possess not only individuals but also social structures is both an instantaneous and progressive movement. On that day in Philippi, the demon was cast out of the girl, and later that evening, the jailer was released from his imprisonment. It would take another three hundred years for Paul's command to be heard throughout the Roman Empire. On that day when Rosa Parks said no, the thralldom of the South to the spirit of racism began to wane; however, the collapse of principalities and powers takes time, is costly, and they do not go quietly into the night.

In remembering Rosa Parks, we must remember her call. Just as the Macedonian man spoke to Paul, asking for help, so too does the voice of Rosa Parks also speak to us some fifty years later. Enough is enough. The time has come for us to begin again to imagine the beloved community. The time has come for us to be willing to challenge the principalities and powers on their home turf, where they are most entrenched. It is time for the church to rise up together, sing our hymns, chant our Psalms, receive Christ's body and blood and be made into that body ourselves. For too long, when confronted by the evil spirits that have captured our age, we have stood and moved to the back of the bus. Rosa Parks was an ordinary woman, yet her actions emboldened a young pastor to step forward and be what his church demanded, a prophet leader who would stand firm and sound the call of justice and judgment, of peace and healing, of tearing apart and building up again.

Are we capable of hearing the wonderful testimony of Rosa Parks?

The Eucharist Makes the Church

2005-10-24T10:39:00.000-07:00

The recent discussions on other blogs referrring to de Lubac and Ressourcement led me to call one of my dearest friends and mentors to ask him about this movement. He said that after he moved through Will Willimon, Hauerwas and the Duke school, he came to de Lubac and Ressourcement. He recommended the book, The Sacrament of Salvation: An Introduction to Eucharistic Ecclesiology, by Paul McPartlan. For those more familiar with Ressourcement, where does McPartlan fit in Catholic theology.

I am reading a two part interview with Father McPartlan conducted by Zenit. It is very interesting and quotes de Lubac that in the first millenium the Eucharist made the church, but in the second millenium switched to the church makes the Eucharist. I just wanted to post these two interviews and see what issues/thoughts come to mind.

Everything about Radical Orthodoxy pushes us towards the Eucharist as the center of our lives, and yet we all raise questions about the embodiment of just such a theology. I love the quote that begins the second interview:

"The Eucharist contains riches to feed and forgive us, to strengthen and unite us, and to guide and protect us on our pilgrim way."

What are your thoughts?

Part 1 of the Interview Part 2 of the Interview

Lectionary Readings for This Week

2005-10-23T20:48:00.000-07:00

Joshua 3:7-17
Psalm 107:1-7, 33-37
1 Thessalonians 2:9-13
Matthew 23:1-12

Here are the readings for the week. What are your thoughts? What are your insights? What is at stake theologically in these readings?

David Bentley Hart on Robert Jenson

2005-10-22T15:03:00.000-07:00

First Things has an interesting article by David Bentley Hart, who wrote The Beauty of the Infinite, on the "neglected" theology of Robert Jenson. Hart discusses how Jenson may be the best American systematic theologian, and yet few American seminaries and religion programs address his Systematic Theology, vol. 1 and vol. 2. My understanding of the Trinity has been deeply shaped by Jenson's theology, and I always find his thought challenging, interesting, and truthful.

I'm just wondering, since we are a fairly diverse group, how much exposure do you have to Robert Jenson? What are your thoughts about his systematic theology?

Here is an outstanding article of his that was in First Things back in 1993.

Grace and Peace,
Scott

Dangerous Times Call for Drastic Measures

2005-10-21T05:43:00.000-07:00

I still remember the first time I discovered that the world was a dangerous place.

Aunt Sally and Lib lived up on the hill in front of my house. Aunt Sally was a retired school teacher, and Lib was her mentally challenged younger sister. By the time I was born, they both seemed ancient. Their lives revolved around snooping (reading our mail), gossiping about family and neighbors, cleaning our little Methodist church, teaching Sunday School, and raising chickens. Their house was not one of my favorite destinations: I thought it smelled funny, and they liked my brother better, anyway. I did, however, really like the chickens. When new chicks were born, I spent many hours chasing them and getting flogged by the mother hen. Finally, one day at the age of 7, I achieved my life-long goal and actually found a chick that had been abandoned by her mother. I took this chick with me and nursed her, fed her, and carried her everywhere I went. For a few days, this chick was the center of my every waking moment. After school one day, my brother, who was 2, and I were in the yard playing with the chick. When my bird tried to run away, I yelled to my brother, "Stop it." He thought I yelled, "Stomp it." And the rest of course is history. I discovered on that day that the world was a violent and dangerous place.

After the funeral procession and burial, I waited the appropriate three days, and dug my chick up to see if she had come back from the dead (A boy can always hope). The chick was still dead, and eventually my mother made me stop digging her up. I then began to devise a system so that in the future, we could prevent such tragedies. I was determined to create a world where abandoned chicks would be safe. Since my mother would not let me take the instant option of giving my brother away, I developed rules (No brothers allowed around any future chicks), I fixed a box on my bookshelf that was beyond my brother's reach (I had to go to school), I worked on my brother's enunciation (stop and stomp mean different things), and tried to think through how I could make a dangerous world safe for chickens. Dangerous times call for drastic measures.

There is a powerful temptation for us to try to make the world safe. Over the past few weeks in Waycross, we have experienced the death of a teenager in a tragic car accident, a double murder at a convenience store committed by a 17 year old, and the conviction of a high school teacher to 35 years in prison for molesting a 15 year old student. Earthquakes in Pakistan, hurricanes in Louisiana, and roadside bombs in Iraq remind us just how dangerous the world is, and our inclination is to take any steps necessary to make the world safe for ourselves and for our children. Dangerous times call for drastic measures.

Israel discovered very early in her history just how dangerous the world is. From the beginning, she was surrounded by powerful neighbors, superpowers who constantly were at war with each other and with their neighbors. By the time Jesus was born, Israel felt daily the boot of Roman oppression: foreign occupation, high taxes, and the powerful temptation to abandon the Jewish faith for the faith of the Empire. All around them, the peoples of the world began to embrace the ways of the Romans: names, customs, even practices that were odious to Jews. Faithful Jewish parents feared what would happen to their children in such a dangerous world. The Pharisees were one of the groups that emerged in an effort to make the world safe for Jews.

They knew that their survival depended on keeping their identity. That in a world gone mad, they must remember who they were and who their God was. They established a way of life based on radical adherence to the Law, attempting to integrate the Law into every facet of their daily lives so that they could be a people who were completely faithful to God. They gave their lives to learning the 613 laws of the Torah and then working out how these laws should be carried out in their daily living. The Pharisees were far from evil; they were faithful people seeking to survive in a dangerous world.

Of course, when you live in a dangerous world, you have to make difficult decisions. When your survival depends on your morality, you cannot be weak-minded or overly tolerant. You must sacrifice the individual for the good of the whole community. Thus, sinners had to be excluded. The disabled had to be excluded. The weak had to be excluded. The system put in place to make the world safer had to be carried out with zeal, or all could be lost.

To say that Jesus threatened the security of the Pharisaical system is an understatement. When he rolled into town, he performed miracles that worked to restore the excluded back into the life of the community. He cast out demons; he healed the sick; he opened the eyes of the blind, and unstopped the ears of the deaf; he touched lepers and restored them to good health; he raised the dead. He ventured into the situations and places where they could not and would not go. Even more frightening, he taught with authority, and what he taught threatened to unravel the whole system. They erected a "wall" to protect the faithful from the evil of the unfaithful, and he threatened to disassemble the wall. He did this claiming to be speaking with the authority of God. He was dangerous. In a dangerous world, he threatened to destroy the very walls that protected them, their way of life, and the future lives of their children. In dangerous times, sometimes you have to take drastic measures.

Thus, when Jesus comes to Jerusalem and enters into the Temple, the Pharisees see this as their opportunity to test him and put him in his place. They are foiled with the Herodians in an attempt to trap Jesus with a question about Caesar. They retreat, and after Jesus silences the Sadducees, they return with a new question. They bring forward their best lawyer with their best question. "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" Whatever answer he gives will open him up to criticism. He will be put in his place.

Jesus' answer stuns them. He states that the greatest commandment is, of course, the first commandment: "You shall love the Lord with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." He adds, "And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself." And there it is. Jesus quotes to them the bedrock of Jewish faith, to which no faithful Jew could ever disagree. Jesus places himself squarely in the middle of Jewish tradition. He even connects himself to an issue dear to the Pharisees, stating, "On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets." Jesus not only places himself within orthodox Jewish faith, his answers sound like answers a Pharisee would give! However, through his actions and teachings they know he has radicalized the idea of "neighbor." Jesus' conception of love and neighbor threaten to re-narrate the entire Jewish tradition as they stretch beyond the comfortable (and safe) walls erected by the Pharisees. To follow Jesus means to enter again into a dangerous world where people get hurt and everything might be lost. To follow Jesus is to realize that life is not in our immediate control. To follow Jesus would redefine what it means to love God with heart, soul, mind, and strength. In short, to follow Jesus would mean to tear down the walls and gates and risk everything to belief in God.

Jesus compounds their dilemma by asking them a question. "What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?" They answer, "The son of David." Jesus responds by quoting from Psalm 110, where David refers to the Messiah as "my Lord." Jesus asks, "If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?" The Pharisees imagine the Messiah as one in the line of David who will rule them with strength and authority as David did, restoring their place in the world and defeating their enemies. Then, through the strength of his right arm, the world will be safe again. Jesus escalates the tension by proposing that the Messiah is more than a son of David, that he is also Lord of David, meaning, of course, that the Messiah is divine. While Jesus does not declare himself to be that Messiah, the move towards this conclusion is rapidly approaching for the Pharisees and for the entire Jewish religious hierarchy. He has thwarted each of their challenges and tests. He has now raised the stakes. The authority with which he teaches is not just being spoken on behalf of God. His authority stems from his speaking as God, as the Lord of David. At this point, Matthew tells us, "And no one was able to answer him a word, nor from that day did anyone dare to ask him anymore questions." The time for talk is over. The Pharisees withdraw to plan for what comes next. Dangerous times call for drastic measures. Jesus threatens the entire system, all of Jerusalem. Caiaphas will prophetically state, "It is better for one man to die than for the entire nation to perish" (John 11:49-50).

We also live in dangerous times. We live in the post-9/11 era, where as a society we have stopped asking questions. Being threatened, we simply withdraw to construct a safe place free from danger. We buy big cars that insulate us from the noise of driving through the poor sections and mobile home parks. We buy alarm systems to protect our homes. We move to the suburbs. We build more prisons, hire more police, get bigger guns. Yet crime goes up, and our feeling of safety becomes nothing more than an illusion. As a nation, we do not ask questions about what is going on. We are willing to do anything to give us the illusion of safety. In the name of safety, we are even willing to sacrifice our sons and daughters in foreign lands to give us the illusion that the world is safer. The reality is the world is a dangerous place, despite all of our efforts to make it "safer."

As the church, we also realize that the world is dangerous, and we realize that we also must take drastic measures. But what actions do we take? What do we do?

1) We can go with the Pharisees downwards on the path of the Law.
We can continue to try to build a safe world of our own making in our own image. It will appear safe on the surface, but will remain so only by herculean effort, smoke and mirrors, and mass deception. Ultimately, death and danger will stay away only as long as we continue to sacrifice our children to death. The cost of building walls, identifying enemies and destroying them is overwhelming. Safety comes at an ever-increasing cost and will ultimately fail. As St. Paul reveals, "The end of the Law is death."

2) We can go with Christ upwards on the path of Love.
We can confess that the world is dangerous, and that we will probably lose everything, including our lives. The path of love is risky and costly. Rather than building walls to keep out thosee we fear, the path of love journeys straight into the homes of our enemies, and it is a two way street. Instead of division, there is an invitation to fellowship. Instead of the sounds of unending war, there is the sound of people singing sweetly. Instead of a road littered with broken dreams and broken lives, there is a glorious parade headed up to the cross, where we can lay down our lives, not in the worship of the illusion of safety, but with the hope of resurrection and entrance into the kingdom of God.

During the early years of slavery in North America, slave masters often sought to convert their slaves to Christianity. However, as conversions grew rapidly amongst the slaves (more rapidly than in the white community), these conversions were ordered to end. In South Carolina slaves outnumbered plantation owners by a margin of over 9:1. Church services were frequently banned, unless they could be carefully controlled. We wouldn't want slaves reading about Moses, would we? Dangerous times call for drastic measures. There is one chilling story about a group of slaves who held worship services in a barn over a wash basin filled with water. In this context, they could sing, pray, and cry out to God without fear of being heard and beaten. One day, the overseeer discovered their worship service, and with a whip violently broke up the service. Everyone ran for cover except for one man, who continued to pray while the overseer whipped him. His prayer was "Father, forgive him for he knows not what he does!"

Dangerous times call for drastic measures. Instead of being a people known for wielding the whip without questions, can we be a people able to feel the bite of the lash and still forgive our enemies? Could our drastic measures be becoming a people who trust so much in the Lord that we are willing to believe that our salvation comes from worshiping God with all of our heart, soul, and mind? Would we be a people willing to love our neighbor as ourself even if our neighbor hates us?

On a dangerous morning in a dangerous land, will you take the drastic step of coming to His table? Know that this is a dangerous journey and a dangerous meal. It is a table where questions are asked and truthful answers are given. Prejudice and hatred are present, but they are being washed away in baptism. Sin is not ignored, but it is confessed. Death is not denied, but it is defeated. As you eat from this table, a miraculous transformation will take place, our bodies together will become His body. Our drastic measure is nothing more than to be His body broken for the world and His blood spilled for the salvation of the world. To eat this meal is an invitation out of the violence of the world and into the peace of God's kingdom. Will you come this morning?

CYRIL ON MATTHEW 22: 34-46

2005-10-20T11:24:00.000-07:00

"To love God with the whole heart is the cause of every other good."

(Cyril of Alexandria)

Beyond Morality: The Five Notes of the Gospel

2005-10-19T13:58:00.000-07:00

Milbank identifies "Gift, End of Sacrifice, Resurrection, Plenitude, and Confidence" as the five "notes" of the Gospel. Contrary to the marks of morality, he is intentionally drawing on the Augustinian notion of a harmonious and musical Trinitarian ontology. In the following comment, I will briefly examine each of these notes and then begin to connect them to the Matthew reading for this week.

Gift
Milbank states, "In the beginning there was only gift: no demon or chaos to be defeated, but a divine creative act..." (228). Thus, Christianity is not reactive to some prior chaos or evil. Christianity does not require an enemy or a battle to elicit virtue. Instead, Christian faith participates in the Triune economy of superabundant love marked by doxological exchange between the Father and Son in the Spirit. To exist is to receive, to share, to give. This is deification, the doxological return of creation to God, the healing of the ruptured relationship, and the renewal of creation's participation in the Triune love. Milbank states,
"I exist in receiving; because I receive I joyfully give, and one can add to Luther a more Catholic stress that one can only receive God who is charity, by sharing in the giving of this charity- faith is (against Luther) from the outset a habitus and from the outset the work of charity, our work only insofar as it is God's" (228).
In postmodern circles, as well as in much modern theology, the question of the motives of the giver are often brought into question. Hence, Derrida's question, "Can a gift be given?" Indeed, Victorian theology asked a similar question and attempted to connect God's love with the Cross, that God's love originated on the Cross. Against this view, Milbank declares that Victorian efforts to see "God's love as taking its origin from the sacrifice on the cross, or else as only guaranteed by the cross" (228) are misguided. Milbank argues,
"Under the dispensation of death indeed, we only see gift via sacrifice, but the genuine sacrifice, supremely that of the cross, is only recognized as such insofar as it is the sustaining of joyful, non-reactive giving, by a hastening of death as the only way of continuing to give despite the cancellation of gift by death" (228).
Christ, who knows the love of the Father in the Spirit, does not cease to love when faced by death, but will instead continue to "go on loving by fearlessly embracing death" and is thus able to do good (229). It is in the participation in the Triune economy that death is revealed as "an absolute harm, a mere nihil, a nonsense" (229). Jesus embraces death fearlessly and ferociously not in order to sacrifice himself for the greater good, but because he has received the gift of the Father's love and now trusts the Father to give the gift (His own life). In short, Jesus trusts the Father to be a God of plentitude and not of scarcity.
Plenitude
Milbank's conception of plenitude emanates from his belief in creation ex nihilo. God is a God of abundant love not scarcity. This is evident with regards to how Christianity views death. Milbank declares,
"It is, of course, quite simply impossible to be a Christian and to suppose that death and suffering belong to God's original plan, or that the struggle of natural selection ... is how creation as creation rather than thwarted creation genuinely comes about... To believe in plenitude is to believe in the already commenced and yet-to-come restoration of Creation as Creation" (229).
Creation has a telos, the return to life in the Creator and full restoration as creation. This journey is made possible by God's love which is both plenitudinous and inexhaustible. In this economy of superabundant grace, Christ trusts the Father to be a God of the living and not of the dead, simply because he understands the Father's true nature. Moral action, then, is not the heroic overcoming of some adversary at the risk of one's life, but is instead life lived in doxological exchange and the reorienting of one's life towards participation in the life of the Triune God.
Resurrection
God's plenitude is revealed most fully in Christ's resurrection. In swallowing up death by the death of the Son, the resurrection reveals that death, sin, and evil lack any being. They are nothing. The love of God flows so excessively that even death is overcome. The ramifications extend not just to the Christ but to his entire body, the Church. Thus Milbank states,
"As resurrection cancels death, and appears to render murder non-serious, it restores no moral order but absolutely ruins the possibility of any moral order whatsoever. That is to say, any reactive moral order, which presupposes the the absoluteness of death. For the Christian, murder is wrong... because it repeats the Satanic founding act of instituting death, or the very possibility of irreplaceability, and absolute loss. But in the resurrected order there need be no law even against such Satanism, because it is so manifestly senseless, because the possibility occurs to no one, because here the only law is that of nature, that of life, but specifically human life which consciously partakes of the creativity of God" (229).
On the cross, the wisdom of humanity is judged and found lacking. In the resurrection, God justifies Jesus as the Christ, and as his body, the church is to begin to be a resurrected order, whereby "the occasion for the exercise of death-presupposing virtue ... drops away, and only charity- gift and counter-gift - remain" (229).
End of Sacrifice
Resurrection transforms sacrifice from the conception of the mark of sacrifice present in morality. For Milbank, morality requires the willingness of one to sacrifice herself as a mark of virtue. Again, this sacrifice to death makes moralistic accounts of virtue complicit with death. In the resurrected order, it becomes fully "moral" to "give ourselves sacrificially" because we
"now have confidence that this does not cancel out our own existence. Christ goes to his death blindly, but yet in absolute trust of the father; we can give ourselves non-suicidally unto death, since we know that in this dying we also live" (229-230).
Resurrection, according to Milbank, is not simply the negation of death but instead "reinstates a fully human and natural death, namely the offering of ourselves back to God" (230). Under the sacrificial systems of morality, the "parts are given up for the whole, passions for the intellect, and heroes for the city" (230). In the ending of sacrifice in the cross, Christian sacrifice is marked by "the person and the city together- [being]... absurdly given up, not for any higher gain, but for or as the receiving back of themselves as a gift from God which is same-yet-different" (230). Sacrifice is ended and transformed into the participation of both the self and city in the love of God. This leads to a completely different conception of Christian life that exceeds accounts of morality.
Confidence
I will close with the last two paragraphs of the essay, as I think they summarize things beautifully and paint a very different conception of our Christian life together:

"The confident man, believing in plenitude, does not steal, and does not need to tell lies to protect himself. The confident man, trusting in God, is like the good husband who never needs to impress his wifewith an exceptional work nor needs a manual of instruction for marriage, but out of his confidence improvises exactly good and always non-identical good works all the time... The Christian good man is simply for Luther an artist in being, trusting the perfect maker of all things. Essentially his message is that of Augustine: without the virtue of worship there can be no other virtue, for worship gives everything back up to God, hangs onto nothing and so disallows any finite accumulation which will always engender conflict. Confident worship also knows that in offering it receives back, so the temporal world is not denied, but its temporality is restored as gift and thereby rendered eternal. Only the vision and hope of heaven makes us socially and politically just on earth- and how is it, one wonders, that we have ever come to think otherwise?

So no, the Christian man is not a moral man, not a man of good conscience, who acts with what he knows of death, scarcity and duty to totalities. He has a bad conscience, but a good confidence: for he acts with what he does not know but has faith in. In absolute trust he gives up trying to be good, to sustain a right order of government in himself... Instead to be good as first receiving from the all-sufficiency of God, and acting excessively out of this excess" (231).

More to come later on the connections between this and the Gospel reading...

Thinking About This Blog

2005-10-19T12:12:00.000-07:00

When I began this blog, I did so as kind of an intellectual exercise to be very intentional about my theological conversion to a strange mix of Radical Orthodoxy with a certain anabaptist flair (Hauerwasian/Yoderian account of Christian pacifism vs. Milbank's heavily qualified just war position). As a senior pastor, I realized that my theological work did not always come through in my preaching. Instead, I realized how much of Protestant preaching is formed by some variant of fundamentalism or biblical positivism (both of which are strongly related). What I was initially seeking was to begin to think about how preaching should be reconfigured given the theological insights of Radical Orthodoxy. For those of us who seek an escape from the church growth methodologies and incommensurability of comfortable left and right moralities (that essentially say the same thing), is there a way forward that preaching might again make the Word strange, the Word holy, and the Word catholic?

Over the past few weeks, I have been impressed by the number of people out there who are struggling to take theology seriously and look beyond the pitfalls and travails of modernity. On this blog, we have assembled a very diverse theological group (Catholics, Protestants, Anglicans) from across the United States and the world. This is truly an opportunity to practice the Triune practice of a peaceful harmony in the midst of great difference. I look forward to wrestling with theology and life together in our current context. I do want to take a moment to try to cast some vision for the blog (Please feel free to comment on this).

Focusing solely on preaching probably limits the scope of who can participate as not everyone signed on as a contributor preaches every week or at all. At the same time, I want to keep the focus on the connection between the Scriptures (as given by the Revised Common Lectionary) and theology of the RO persuasion (broadly expanded, I think, to include the theologians of the Ekklesia Project and La Nouvelle Theologie). So, what I propose is a theological conversation where we examine the lectionary readings, identify what is at stake theologically, and begin to examine the connections from our different theological perspectives. Towards the end of each week, I hope to offer my sermon for each respective Sunday, as well as focus us on the seasons of the Christian calendar.

I encourage everyone to visit the blogs of our contributors as there are many interesting things going on. I appreciate all of your hard-work and devotion to the Church.

Grace and Peace,
Scott

Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, aka My Main Man

2005-10-19T11:11:00.000-07:00

From The Episcopal News Service:

“Congress and the President must come together and focus on poverty that exists across the nation, and not exacerbate poverty [by passing] a budget that further impoverishes one group of poor people in order to help those impoverished or further impoverished by the hurricanes,” said Griswold. “Nothing could be clearer in the Gospel than Jesus’ identification with the poor. ‘When I was hungry you gave me food. When I was naked you clothed me, sick you cared for me, truly I tell you, what you did for the least of these, you did [it] for me.’ And so for a nation to declare itself under God and neglect the poor in its midst is tantamount in my mind to blasphemy.”

Can Morality Be Christian: The Five Marks of Morality

2005-10-18T18:33:00.000-07:00

In The Word Made Strange, John Milbank crafts what I believe is my favorite RO essay. The title is "Can Morality Be Christian?" He responds by stating,

"Let me tell you the answer straightaway. It is no. Not 'no' there cannot be a specifically Christian morality. But no, morality cannot be Christian... Christian morality is a thing so strange, that it must be declared immoral or amoral according to all other human norms and codes of morality" (219).

This is a bold statement since so much of the language of Christian praxis is nothing more than the language of some moralism of the left or of the right. In the Church of the Nazarene, our doctrine of entire sanctification is quickly being replaced by the cheap grace of the church growth movement appended with the comfortable morality of the neocons. In other words, it is increasingly easier to be considered holy simply by being "right" on abortion and "right" on homosexuality. Many mainline denominations today are equally paralyzed by a leftist morality that deems righteousness along the same philosophical lines, though with different answers to the above issues. Alasdair MacIntyre describes these approaches to virtue as incommensurable, since only extended arguments without any connection to tradition, to narrative, or to standards of excellence. The end is a religious morality consisting solely of values (what "I" value and believe to be true). It is this type of morality that Milbank declares is antithetical to the Christian gospel. In the essay, he identifies the five marks of morality and the five notes of the Gospel. In this post, I will address his critique of morality in light of this week's reading from the Gospel of St. Matthew. Tomorrow, I will address his vision of the five notes of the Gospel. The five marks of morality are Reaction, Sacrifice, Complicity with Death, Scarcity, and Generality.

The First Mark: Reaction
For Milbank, morality fails to be Christian because it is reactive. Morality assumes that the world is agonistic and adopts an ontology of violence. As a result, morality can only be reactive. He states,

"Virtue... always secretly celebrates as its occasion a prior evil, liv[ing] out of what it opposes... Here, at the beginning of every virtue, lies a failure to turn the other cheek" (221).

Morality is thus onto-theological in that it assumes some being before the gift of God. Creation ex nihilo is replaced with the notion that order was imposed upon some primordial chaos. Virtue, then, is possible only if there is a war to fight or an enemy to overcome. Virtue comes solely in reacting to the events that threaten death.

The Second Mark: Sacrifice
As a solely reactive process, a person must sacrifice. Specifically, an individual's sacrifice begins simply by making any moral judgment. Immediately, an inner sacrifice takes place as the "cruel foregoing of something" (222). This is the offering up of an alternative position that one secretly desired to hold. At the same time, there is also an outer sacrifice. Virtue comes about in the resistance of some evil or in the fighting of some war. In resisting this external threat, there is the risk of one's life, and one must be prepared to sacrifice one's own life. As a result, Milbank concludes,

"In morality, there is no love for the other nor opening to the other, but always and everywhere a principle of self-government, whether of the soul or of the city. In order that the totality may be, and be the site of a principle, it must rule itself, divide itself from itself, sacrifice itself to itself. Thereby it repels the intruder predefined as evil" (223).

Morality presupposes a sacrificial economy that is the result of reactive ethics and is ultimately complicit with death, the third mark of morality.

The Third Mark: Complicity with Death
Milbank states,

"If Reaction requires Sacrifice, then both concern death: in fact a threat of death repelled by a willingness to die... Death for death to secure life against death: this is 'morality', this is 'ethics'.. So ethics must covertly celebrate death, for only our fragility elicits our virtue" (223).

Morality's presupposing of reaction and sacrifice require death for there to be any conception of the good. If there is no death, there is no threat adequate to compel one to be good. Death must be a potential outcome, or there will be no desire for one to be good. Thus, morality secretly celebrates death as the underlying premise of moral virtue. The mover of morality is not the Triune God and the end is not charity. Instead, the principle mover is death, and the end of life is nothin more than the avoidance of death by being good. To which Milbank states,

"Yet all these triumphs [overcoming death through sacrifice and reaction] are enabled by the continuation of death which is the only factual form that sin can take, its one mode of actuality, although it is always in reality the termination of the actual, since every isolatable being is already at an end, already is not, is 'known as dead.' And to hold death back, to perpetuate life for a while, is also to perpetuate a life which must in the end die all the more..." (224).

Thus, morality's complicity of death makes life "scarce", which is the fourth mark of morality.

The Fourth Mark: Scarcity
Milbank states,

"Because life is in short supply, because it might run out on us, sooner or later, we must invest, we must insure" (224-225).

Morality becomes a method for us to stave off death that we might maximize our enjoyment of life. Thus, in an economy of sacrifice and scarcity,

"Ethics is not written philosophy, it is banks, it is sexual jealousy, it is the sacrifice of self-realization for the sake of others, it is insurance companies, mortgages, and the stock exchange. For in fearing that there will not be world enough or time, we insist on our own identity, our truth, our space, denying that of others" (225).

The fear of not having enough is really nothing more than a lack of trust in the plentitude of God to provide for his creation. Milbank turns to Luther, who surmises that stealing comes as a result of "the fear there will not be enough for us" (225). Milbank further declares,

"Do not steal means, for the Gospel, positively 'be generous', and as Luther says, 'faith is the master workman and the motivating factor behind the good work of generosity' . Generosity or true not stealing acts out of the assumption of plentitude, our confidence in God's power" (225).

Morality, then, can offer again only a view of life as a scarce commodity. Thus, it very quickly shifts away from participation in the life of the Triune God, to the vain attempt to grab enough of God's grace and power to insure survival. Thus, rather than "pure" faith that emanates from a plentitude of charity, the moral person falls prey to the temptation to secure "enough" to guarantee survival.

The Fifth Mark: Generality
Generality is the Kantian requirement that any moral act should be one that is universal. In other words, if it is the moral thing to do, one is bound to perform this duty regardless of the cost. Generality becomes necessary to morality in order to sustain unity, albeit in an abstract form such as law. Milbank states,

"And it is precisely because of this abstract character of the law that, as Paul realized, the law is a letter that can never be fulfilled. Not in the sense that love can never be fulfilled, since this follows from the inherently excessive, self-exceeding character of love, but in a sense which follows from law's presumption that something is lacking, and that something will resist it. The abstractness of law ensures that we will never have sufficiently accorded to its demand which can always be more perfectly embodied" (227).

As with the other marks, there is a sense of attempting to enclose morality, to define laws so as to "secure a finite, spatial catalogue of virtue, an exhaustive list" (227). Morality is an attempt to insure against the idea of a bad infinity. Thus, generality, expressed in the form of moral laws, seeks to close the loop of the moral universe and to end the uncertainty brought about by faith. Trusting in God is much more difficult than by not adhering to a law that demands us to stop stealing, and then abstracts the definition of stealing to a much lower level than Luther, for instance, considered in a previous example.

The Five Marks of Morality and the Debate between Jesus and the Pharisees
After silencing the Saducees, the Pharisees come forward in an attempt to "put Jesus to the test." They send forward a lawyer who attempts to trap Jesus with a question, "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jewish scholars identy 613 separate commands from the law of Moses. 613 laws to govern the faithfulness of daily living, and to trap Jesus into identifying which was the most important. Jesus, though, gives an interesting answer. He quotes the Shema, "Love the Lord your God, with all your heart, soul, and mind. He then adds to it, "And love your neighbor as yourself." He adds that the entire Law and Prophets rest on these two commandments. Jesus refuses to reduce the faith passed on by the saints to be reduced to moralisms and morality. Instead, he reveals that the purpose of the law is love- love of God, love of neighbor, love of self. The Pharisees, who view themselves as the caretakers of the Law, have sundered their relationship with God, instead wielding the Law as a weapon against God, their neighbor, and ultiamtely even themselves. Once doxology ceases, the Law is easily used to draw lines, creating insiders and outsiders, the holy and the profane.

Once the Law is severed from love, it becomes just another form of morality. The question posed by the Pharisee's lawyer is indicative of what has happened. The Law has been reduced to the level of "values." If Jesus singles out one particular commandment as the greatest, that will leave room for much criticism as to why he chose that one and not this one. Ultimately, that debate would prove incommensurable, as it would revolve solely around what each person/group valued most at that given time. Indeed, the Pharisees obviously reconstruct a different image of God to support their reading of the Law.

There is much more I want to say about this, but I want to stop for now and wait until I work through Milbank's five notes of the Gospel, because I think it will be more complete at that point.

Grace and Peace,
Scott

LET'S PUT EM' TO THE TEST?

2005-10-18T16:52:00.000-07:00

Matthew 22:34-46 (The Message)
The Most Important Command
34When the Pharisees heard how he had bested the Sadducees, they gathered their forces for an assault. 35One of their religion scholars spoke for them, posing a question they hoped would show him up: 36"Teacher, which command in God's Law is the most important?"
37Jesus said, ""Love the Lord your God with all your passion and prayer and intelligence.' 38This is the most important, the first on any list. 39But there is a second to set alongside it: "Love others as well as you love yourself.' 40These two commands are pegs; everything in God's Law and the Prophets hangs from them."

David's Son and Master 41As the Pharisees were regrouping, Jesus caught them off balance with his own test question: 42"What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?" They said, "David's son."
43Jesus replied, "Well, if the Christ is David's son, how do you explain that David, under inspiration, named Christ his "Master'?

44God said to my Master,
"Sit here at my right hand
until I make your enemies your footstool."

45"Now if David calls him "Master,' how can he at the same time be his son?"
46That stumped them, literalists that they were. Unwilling to risk losing face again in one of these public verbal exchanges, they quit asking questions for good.

It looks as though though the religious leaders are finally going to achieve what they have so desperately wanted to accomplish- to trap Jesus with words and send him down the road packing.

They confront Jesus with yet another litmus test to see where Jesus stands. But being rhetorical master that he is, Jesus skillfully dodges the religious leaders and even manages to rhetort with amazing words of truth.

This story makes me think of the litmus tests that some of our religious leaders in the church like to have in place to judge who is in and who is out. The arguments and rhetoric that comes from the religious right and left is nothing more than devisive and destructive to God's plans for an expansive Kingdom of Love. Don't get me wrong, there is a place for healthy discussion and conversation about the issues that we struggle around, but at the end of the day we still all come to the same table and receive eucharist from The Host.

So where does this leave us as a community divided by theology, doctrine, hot button faith issues?

3God tested us thoroughly to make sure we were qualified to be trusted with this Message. 4Be assured that when we speak to you we're not after crowd approval--only God approval. Since we've been put through that battery of tests, you're guaranteed that both we and the Message are free of error, mixed motives, or hidden agendas. 5We never used words to butter you up. No one knows that better than you. And God knows we never used words as a smoke screen to take advantage of you.
6Even though we had some standing as Christ's apostles, we never threw our weight around or tried to come across as important, with you or anyone else. 7We weren't aloof with you. We took you just as you were. We were never patronizing, never condescending, but we cared for you the way a mother cares for her children. 8We loved you dearly. Not content to just pass on the Message, we wanted to give you our hearts. And we did. 1 Thessalonians 2: 3-8

Paul writes that the good news of God is free of error and hidden agendas (that includes our liberal/conservative agendas that we tend to read into scripture) Words of scripture are never to be used as a weapon or litmus test but as a spirit breathed living document that guides the people of God. And we live together in a community that cares for one another in the same way that a mother cares for her children. What a practice for the children of God to take on.

shalom,
jonathon

Preparing for Advent

2005-10-17T23:02:00.000-07:00

Advent is coming soon, and I wanted us to begin to wrestle with what are the connections between Advent and RO. Here are a list of some issues I identified in reading the lectionary passages and considering the season of Advent:

The Second Coming of Christ
Eschatology
Incarnation
Forgiveness

There are many others that could potentially come up. I will close this post with some quotes to try to get our minds going.

"How can you cope with the end of a world and the beginning of another one? How can you put an earthquake into a test-tube, or the sea into a bottle? How can you live with the terrifying thought that the hurricane has become human, that fire has become flesh, that life itself came to life and walked in our midst? Christianity either means that or it means nothing. It is either the most devastating disclosure of the deepest reality in the world, or it's a sham, a nonsense, a bit of deceitful play-acting. Most of us, unable to cope with saying either of those things, condemn ourselves to live in the shallow world in between. We may not be content there, but we don't know how to escape" (N.T. Wright, For All God's Worth: True Worship & the Calling of the Church, 1).

"Christmas is a beauty that is the beginning of terror: the Burning Babe, who has come to cast fire upon the earth. Before His presence, the idols fall and shatter... The Advent tension is a way of learning again that God is God: that between our deepest and holiest longing and the reality of God is a gap which only grace can cross: otherwise we are alone again, incommunicando, our signals and symbols bounced back to us off the glassy walls of the universe... Our hunger is met, we are talked and touched into new and everlasting life, our desire is answered- but only insofar as we have lived in an Advent of the religious imagination, struggling to let God be God, casting our idols of silver and gold to the moles and bats, 'for fear of the Lord and for the glory of his majesty,' longing simply for our God to show himself as God in the 'total and presuppositionless love of his incarnate speech to us" (Rowan Williams, A Ray of Darkness: Sermons and Reflections, 2-8).

Lectionary Readings for This Week

2005-10-17T22:17:00.000-07:00

Sorry for the delay. My office floor was about to cave in, and we had to tear out the subfloor this morning...

Here are the lectionary readings for this week:

Deuteronomy 34:1-12; Psalm 90:1-6, 13-17; 1 Thessalonians 2:1-8; Matthew 22:34-46

The Effects of Nihilism

2005-10-15T04:42:00.000-07:00

"This leads me to define the logic of nihilism as a sundering of the something, rendering it nothing, and then having the nothing be after all as something" (Conor Cunningham, Genealogy of Nihilism, xiii).

"An important word for this book is provide... This word is employed in relation to nihilism so as to bring out the logic of the nothing as something. It performs this task because it can be made to suggest that nihilism 'provides' what it does not itself have- namely being... Discourses, such as Biology, appear now to be dealing with cadavers. This is the nothing as something" (xiv-xv).

"The subject begins to be negated or negates itself only as it mistakenly assumes itself substantially to suffice as its own end, whereas it is only as it participates in the ever-arriving gift of its doxological- which is to say, teleological- existence... For in positing itself, which apart from its gifted, participated existence ultimately is nothing, the will effectively performs a perverse desire for nothing as a positive object. In contrast, the ecstatic openness with which the doxological subject is ontologically configured rules out the idea that every reception is an a priori incursion, because the subject is always receiving itself as a gift, and indeed through confession being recapitulated truly as itself, from out of the future. Thus on Augustine's terms, nihilism can arise only when doxology fails, and all that is not doxology is nihilism" (Michael Hanby, Radical Orthodoxy: A New Theology, 115-116).

According to Milbank, nihilism is largely a negation, a deconstruction, a violence. Indeed, it is the refusal to receive oneself as gift; it is a refusal to participate in the charity of the Triune God. The result of this failure to participate is a negation of being. In other words, for much of Radical Orthodoxy, to fail to worship means to cease to be.

Conor Cunningham offers a nuanced approach to Milbank. Of course, nihilism deals with negation, but it is not solely deconstructive. Instead, Cunningham finds a logic of nihilism that is able to sunder the something (participation in the Triune God), render it as nothing (collapsing everything into the immanent plane, no transcendence), and then, after all, having the nothing to be something (a human making "outside" the co-operant work with the Holy Spirit). In essence, nihilism engages in creation ex nihilo, just as we believe the Triune God creates out of nothing. But, the nihilistic creation is not able to create out of plentitudinous love, but instead out of lack. Thus, nihilistic creation leads only to death and a morbid fascination with death. Thus, a culture/society/subject formed out of the nihilistic account of creation is not doxological but instead practices necrophilia. Thus, everything becomes an exercise in death: biology becomes the discourse of cadavers.

This plays out clearly in the Exodus passage this week. Prior to this week's reading, Moses ascends the mountain, and while he is gone, the people come to Aaron and demand that he give them a god "to go before us." Aaron takes their gold and crafts a golden calf that they begin to worship. Aaron's work represents the projection of the people seeking to be without YHWH (taking something and rendering it as nothing). As they worship this calf, they take nothing in a vain attempt to make it to be something (a transcendent god who will protect them and guide them). Immediately, the feast for the golden calf falls into debauchery. It then leads to death, first by Moses' hand, and then by the plague sent by God. This week's reading is Moses' attempt to restore relationship with God.

Moses seeks God to be present amongst them. He states, "Is it not in your going with us, so that we are distinct, I and your people, from every other people on the face of the earth?" (v. 15b). The Israelites have being only by the presence (and their faithful participation in that presence) of God. To not live in this presence, is to have their lives rendered as nothing. Moses, thus, beseeches God to turn away from his anger over the calf and to return to dwell amongt his children.

In the Gospel reading, the same dynamic is at work. Here, we immediately see that the community living in doxological praise of God has been set aside in order to deal with a "threat." Jesus has invaded the Temple and continues to pronounce judgment on the Temple practices and authorities. Now, within the Temple itself, an unimaginable alliance of Pharisees and Herodians attempt to trap Jesus. What previously might have been construed as a reasonable questioning of Jesus' authority to pronounce judgment is now revealed as just an attempt to destroy a challenger. Again, they have severed their relationship with YHWH, rendering it nothing, and instead seek to protect the Law and the Temple, as ends in themselves. They embody the very judgment that Jesus is pronouncing. As the Temple and Law become ends in and of themselves, they cease to be iconic. Instead, they become idols. The Pharisees and Herodians have invested heavily in these images and will defend them murderously. Hell hath no fury like an idol scorned!

What is at stake in this argument is the First Commandment. The Pharisees and Herodians have taken a god other than YHWH, a god constructed by their own hands and given the same name as the one true and living God. They attempt to trap Jesus by forcing him to take a stand on the taxation issue. For 25 long years, Rome has forced Israel to pay taxes for their occupation. The people chafed, and while most were bitter, there had been a number of revolts over the tax that led to crucifixions and other reprisals by the Romans. Consequently, the Pharisees and Herodians lay a carefully constructed trap, even baiting it with the sweet words of flattery, praising Jesus for his wisdom and objectivity. They ask whether or not Jews should pay the tax to Caesar. If Jesus says no, he will be deemed an agitator and removed by the Romans. If he says yes, the people will see him as a sell out to the Romans. Either way, the problem will take care of itself for the Pharisees and Herodians. Jesus, however, springs a trap of his own. In response to their question, he asks for a denarius. Out of their purses, they fetch a denarius, and he asks them, "Whose image and inscription is there on the coin?" They answer, "Caesar's." It is at this point that they realize they have been had. Jesus exposes the true idolaters. Those who believed themselves to be the Keepers of the Faith have brought the image of a pagan emperor, whose inscription titles him Son of God and High Priest, into the Temple of the Lord. In short order, they have revealed themselves not as faithful Israel, worshiping God through holy living and constant doxological praise, but as worshipers of nothing save pure power politics. They have rendered the something as nothing, and are now trying to reconstitute it as something. That the something is the one true and living God, and His gift of the Temple and the Law, heightens the degree of shame brought upon the Pharisees and Herodians. They withdraw, amazed by Jesus' teachings. He tells them to render unto God what is God's and unto Caesar what is Caesar's. In the logic of the Scriptures, everything belongs to God. Thus, he gives the radical answer they were hoping he would give, but in doing so, unveils them as the parody they have become, albeit a tragic parody. They have traded their birthright for a mess of pottage, and life for death.

Virtual Relationships

2005-10-12T20:28:00.000-07:00

In response to my sermon for last week, et al asked a question regarding what I meant when I was critical of "virtual" relationships. Was I speaking of the blogosphere specifically? Or, was I speaking of the ways in which our entire culture is formed around "virtual" relationships? I hadn't really thought that deeply about it. Indeed, it was probably me just engaging in a little sermon rhetoric (That is what is great about preaching, what others hear and glean that you didn't really even think about). Again, I think I would start by referring to Ellul, and his noticing how technology, rather than just making our life easier begins to dominate our lives. In his day, it was the factory and the assembly line. In our day, it is a myriad of communication devices that places a virtual world at our fingertips. It opens up wonderful conversations across great distances that otherwise could not take place. At the same time, it allows us to potentially live in an almost disembodied, at least distended, state. In Bowling Alone, Robert Putnam discusses how he is more likely to talk to a friend halfway around the world than he is to go talk meaningfully with his next door neighbor.

I think one of the problems is the difference between technology and practices. A practice is bound up in a narrative and a tradition and contains standards of excellence (See Alasdair MacIntyre for the full definition). Technologies, on the other hand, are simply techniques that allow one to gain control over nature. In our current time, technology far outweighs any semblance of virtue or practice. Thus, these "technologies" begin to dominate our lives (Dan Bell's book Liberation Theology after the End of History: The Refusal to Cease Suffering contains an excellent account of how these technologies discipline us to make us docile subjects re: Foucault). They even invade areas we would not expect: men whose lives are dominated by pornography, women's magazines filled with 10 new sexual techniques to "make him never want to leave you," children's guides to prepare them for a high score on the SAT, eating habits to make you develop abs of steel... The list is almost endless. In a culture that has lost any semblance of a telos (except for maybe progress), there is almost no end to the brokenness that will ensue.

I think there are wonderful aspects of the internet and blogs that we are taking advantage of now. At the same time, I believe so strongly in Triune theology and high ecclesiology centered on Eucharistic practice that I cannot help but see problems that lie at the core of moving away from embodied relationships within local contexts. They are messy, painful, often disappointing, and yet also the instance for the revelation of God's power and love. At the same time, it could very well be that it is the virtual world of internet technology and real-time communications that will break the stranglehold of power held by the nation-state currently. It could be that the virtual world will bring about some sort of catholicity, if not at least radically localizing every global context.

All that stated, I think I will just quote Graham Ward to begin our reflection on the nature of virtual relationships. As we are all part of a generation that thrives on internet technology, I thought this quote would help us begin to consider the connection between the virtual world and the embodied world. This excerpt is taken from The Postmodern God: A Theological Reader.

"Surfing the net is the ultimate postmodern experience. Facing your SGVA [It was written in 1997] display- low radiation/anti-static- poised over the multimedia controls, you launch into new forms of spatiality created by flows of electronic information. In Disneyland colours you download texts, pictures, video clips, voices from anywhere in the world, regardless of time zones. Electric libraries in Sao Paolo, chat-lines in Florida, info sites in Sydney, data banks in Vancouver, on-line shopping in Paris, audiovisual tours with 3D graphics of the Vatican, the White House, the Kremlin, the Taj Mahal- all are available at your fingertips, twenty four hours a day. Time and space as conceived by empiricists collapse into omnipresence and multilocality. And the ride is continuous, for the electronic tide maintains you on the crest of impending satisfaction, far above any ocean floor, fast forwarding toward endless pleasures yet to be located and book-marked. Time disappears, boredom is deflated. The drug of the ever new, instant access to a vast sea of endless desire which circulates globally; browsing through hours without commitment on any theme imaginable; dwelling voyeuristically in one location until the pull of other possibilities reasserts the essentially nomadic lifestyle of the net-surfer: these are the characteristic experiences of living in cyberspace. Cyberspace is an undefined spatiality, like the contours of a perfume, and you are an adventurer, a navigator in uncharted waters, discovering the hero inside yourself. You act anonymously, simply as the unnamed, unidentifiable viewpoint of so many interactive network games, and where an identity is needed, you can construct one. Reality is soft, malleable, permeable, and available only through the constant discharge of electronic energy signaling across the cosmos. Discourse is energized, sexualized... In this land of fantasy and ceaseless journeying, the experience of tasting, sampling, and passing on, truth, knowledge, and facts are all only dots of light on a screen, evanescent, consumable. This is the ultimate in the secularization of the divine, for here is a God who sees and knows all things, existing in pure activity and realized presence, in perpetuity. Divinization as the dissolution of subjectivity within the immanent, amniotic satisfaction, is the final goal and object of postmodernity. Cyberspace is the realization of a metaphor used repeatedly by Derrida, Irigaray, and Kristeva- the Khora, the plenitudinous womb, dark, motile, and unformed, from which all things issue" (xv-xvi).

Christ and Nothing

2005-10-12T14:00:00.000-07:00

In the Matthew reading, we find Jesus being set up by an uneasy alliance of Pharisees and Herodians. From the beginning, there is a conspiracy afoot, and so the entire episode is their attempt to trap Jesus in words that they can use against him.

They ask him about taxes. If he declares that Jews should not pay tribute to Caesar, then he is a revolutionary, and they can exploit that with the Romans. If he declares that tribute should be paid, then he appears to be a sell out to the Romans. It is a no win situation. Jesus, however, turns the question back on his opponents by asking them for a denarius. He does not have one, but the questioners produce one. He asks them, "Whose likeness and inscription is on the coin?" When they respond with Caesar, Jesus declares, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's."

More than an outstanding use of rabbinical rhetoric, Jesus accomplishes something else. He unveils the Pharisees and Herodians as already complicit in the Roman system. They are there to play the games of the world, conspiring to destroy a fellow Jew through trickery. They are complicit in Caesar's economy. They play Caesar's game some for their own benefit, others in hope that it will protect Israel.

Jesus exposes their breaking of the first commandment. In facing Caesar, even part of the way, they have begun to turn their faces on another who claims to be God. In our day, our faces are
turned, not towards the leaders depicted on the coins, but upon choice itself. In radically reconstruing the world around the individual will, God becomes replaced by an autonomous and arbitrary will that chooses but is never made to obey.

I refer now to David Bentley Hart's excellent article in First Things, "Jesus and Nothing," who explains things much
better than I can.

"Facing" God and the World

2005-10-11T20:30:00.000-07:00

Similar to Jonathan's experience last week with the word, "remember," the word, "face," continues to leap out at me as I read the lectionary passages.

In the Exodus passage, the discussion regards God's presence with Israel. Moses asks to know God's ways that they might please God and be a "distinct" people, a people who both are known by God and who please God. Ultimately, Moses asks to see the fullness of God's glory, which God interprets as seeing his face. It appears that God's ways and God's very being are inseparable. Thus, to see God's face is to see the fullness of God's will and activity. According to Moses', it is inthis facing that Israel becomes a distinct people.

In the Matthew passage, when the Pharisees and Herodians are setting Jesus up by praising him, their literal words are "for you do not look at people's faces." Later, when Jesus escapes the set up, he asks them, "Whose likeness [image] and inscription is this?" Thus, this Jesus, whom they claim does not look at people's faces, but instead speaks and judges truthfully, counters their trick question by asking them whose face is on the coins they obviously carry in their pockets. The question then becomes, "Whose face do you look upon? Mine or Caesar's?" "Whose inscription do you believe? Mine or Tiberius'?"

David Ford has written an interesting book, and although it is not technically Radical Orthodoxy, he does raise interesting questions regarding selfhood and salvation. The book's title is Self and Salvation: Being Transformed. I will close tonight with a quote from this book, and then a few questions I am wrestling with.

Christianity is characterized by the simplicity and complexity of facing: being faced by God, embodied in the face of Christ; turning to face Jesus Christ in faith; being members of a community of the face; seeing the face of God reflected in creation and especially in each human face, with all the faces in our heart related to the presence of the face of Christ; having an ethic of gentleness towards each face; disclaiming any overview of others and being content with massive agnosticism about how God is dealing with them; and having a vision of transformation before the throne of Christ 'from glory to glory' that is cosmic in scope, with endless surprises for both Christians and others" (24-25).

Here are some ideas I am wrestling with:

How does this quote connect with Trinitarian theology, specifically the connection between harmony and difference?
How would this help us to live out the fullness of baptism with regards to racism, sexism, etc.?
Does the conception of the church as a community of the face help us to understand the need for both difference and unity in the church? How do we bring many individual faces together into harmony? How do the different faces make our life together more beautiful?
How does the face of Christ play out in our lives? What does it mean to be faced by Christ? To face Christ? To look upon the face of Christ?
What is the connection between baptism and the community of the face? How does the grammar of baptism play out in our understanding of the personal and communal aspects of facing?
How does one render her face to God, when Caesar seeks with such ingenuity to twist her eyes upon the empire?

Just some thoughts to ponder and comment on.

2005-10-10T06:11:00.000-07:00

Proper 24A/Ordinary 29A/Pentecost +22
Exodus 33:12-23; Psalm 99 ; 1 Thessalonians 1:1-10 ; Matthew 22:15-22

Here are this week's lectionary readings. You can click on each passage above to link to the Scripture directly at Bible Gateway.

Radical Preaching

claims against Milbank & Radical Orthodoxy

The Grandeur of Reason: Religion, Tradition and Universalism

Who will best serve the Common Good?

An Advent Prayer

Radical Orthodoxy Colloquium

Going to the AAR this year?

Singing in the Graveyard: A Sermon on Colossians 1:15-23

WTS Paper Proposal: Any Thoughts/Suggestions

Coming Home: Becoming a Senior Pastor (Again)

Who are the poor?

Second CoTP book series announced!

HOT posts

Is the Reformation Over? A Conversation Among Friends, a report

Is the Reformation Over?

New Worship Community in Nashville

A couple of new Interventions book covers

Reformation Then and Now

Is the Reformation Over?

Too Good Not to Share...

New Book Series from the CoTP

Pigs in Church

Poignant Account of the War in Iraq

Prayer and Franz Jägerstätter

the church and postmodern culture: the conversation

Ecclesiology, Identity, and Unity

Autonomous Reason & Public Discourse

Intelligent Housing

Recommended Reading?

How Is The World To Be Judged

The System, or just Sin?

Not a Happy Musical

Evidence of Easter

New Discussion Forum for the Theology & Philsophy Centre

Please Be In Prayer

Youth Ministry & Radical Preaching

Performing the Faith

Landed in Tennessee

Call for papers

Radical Preaching

I Haven't Fallen Off the Earth...

Popes Lenten Message Focuses on Jesus' Gaze

DEUS CARITAS EST

A Week with Paul McPartlan

New Years Day Sermon

Hauerwas on Sin

an amazing book

When Radical Orthodoxy Is Neither, by Pastor John Wright

Merry Christmas from Chesterton

John Wright on the Feast of the Nativity and Capitalism

Bell, Day 7: Forgiveness and Eschatology

Bell, Day 6: Forgiveness and Atonement

Dan Bell's Response to Our Reflections

Conservative Liberals and Traditional Conservatives

The Megachurch (Grinch) Who Stole Christmas

Abortion and Capitalist Discipline

Bell, Day 5: Forgiveness and Desire

Preparing to Receive a Most Unexpected Gift

Bell, Days 5-7

Bell, Day 4: The Church and Desire

Bell, Day 3: A Crisis of Ecclesiology

The Struggles of Liberalism as the End of History

Bell on Capitalism And Desire

Re-Enchanting The Liturgy

Day One with Dan Bell

A Week with Dan Bell

Advent 2005

Hauerwas & Yoder Book Suggestions

Living in the Real World (1 Thessalonians 5:1-11)

my sermon for sunday nov. 13, my last sunday at blakemore/west nashville umc

What Happened to Veterans Day?

American Liberalism

Remembering Duns Scotus

Pontifications on Preaching

Lectionary Readings for This Week

A Week with Stephen Long

Remembering & Re-Membering: The Glory of All Saints Day

some recent R.O. posts

Radical Orthodoxy and OT Theology

Staring in the Mirror